Modelo CP PDF

Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
475
The
British
Psychological
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2010), 83, 475–498
q 2010 The British Psychological Society
Society
www.bpsjournals.co.uk
Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci

of proactive behaviour: Differential antecedents
and consequences
Frank D. Belschak* and Deanne N. Den Hartog

Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
The paper aims to further knowledge of proactive employee behaviour by exploring

whether pro-organizational, prosocial, and pro-self focused proactive behaviour can be
measured in an empirically distinct manner, and whether these types of proactive
behaviour show differential relationships with other variables. Results of two multi-
source studies using self-rated and peer-rated measures empirically support the
distinctiveness of the different foci of proactive behaviour. Study 1 (N ¼ 117 dyads)
shows that the different foci of proactive behaviour are differentially related to different
foci of affective commitment. Study 2 (N ¼ 126 dyads) builds on these findings and
shows that different foci of proactive behaviour have differential relationships with
transformational leadership, goal orientations, and individual task performance.
As a result of increased pressure for flexibility and innovation and career models that
require greater self-direction, scholars nowadays stress the importance of proactive
employee behaviour (e.g., Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). Organizations need flexible
and responsive employees who approach work proactively by showing initiative
without the constant need for close supervision (Crant, 2000; Frese & Fay, 2001; Parker,
2000). The increasing pressure on employees to be proactive at work is also mentioned
in other areas of research. For example, career researchers argue that individuals should
rely less on their organizations and instead take initiative themselves when it comes to
their personal and career development (e.g., Morrison, 2002; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant,
2001). Research on employees’ proactive behaviour is, therefore, of both theoretical
and practical importance.
Proactive behaviours are characterized as anticipatory, future or change-oriented,
active, self-starting, and persistent work behaviours and have been studied under
different labels, including proactive behaviour (e.g., Parker, 2000), taking charge
(e.g., Morrison & Phelps, 1999), and personal initiative (e.g., Frese & Fay, 2001).
Specific behaviours falling under these headings include suggesting ideas for
future improvements, self-started problem-solving, taking change initiatives, social
* Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Frank D. Belschak, University of Amsterdam Business School, Department of
HRM-OB, Plantage Muidergracht 12, 1018 TV Amsterdam, The Netherlands (e-mail: f.d.belschak@uva.nl).
DOI:10.1348/096317909X439208
476 Frank D. Belschak and Deanne N. Den Hartog
network-building, feedback seeking, and issue selling (see Grant & Ashford, 2008).
However, research to date tends to focus either on combined measures of general
proactive behaviour or on one specific form of proactive behaviour rather than
including different types of proactive behaviour in a single study (exceptions are Griffin,
Neal, & Parker, 2007; Parker & Collins, 2010). Here, we take a different approach.
Although proactive behaviour is typically seen as goal-driven, authors note that
research has not yet sufficiently focused on the different targets that proactive behaviour
might be directed at, in other words, on different foci of proactive behaviour (e.g., Grant
& Ashford, 2008). Such a distinction is particularly relevant if different types of proactive
behaviour could be empirically distinguished and would also have partly different
causes and consequences. Indeed, we expect that proactive behaviours may aim to
further different goals or in other words have different foci, and that correlates
(including several potential drivers and consequences) of such proactive behaviours
aiming at different foci will partially differ. As suggested by Grant and Ashford (2008),
we focus on three different foci of proactive behaviour in particular, that is, pro-
organizational (directed at the organization), prosocial (directed at the work-
group/colleagues), and pro-self proactive behaviours (directed at facilitating the
achievement of one’s personal or career goals).
The research presented here has two main objectives. The first is to improve
knowledge of proactive behaviour by exploring whether the three mentioned foci of
proactive behaviour can be empirically distinguished. The second aim is to start building
the nomological net of these different foci of proactive behaviour by testing the
relationships with potential attitudinal, personality, and environmental antecedents
(specifically commitment, goal orientations, and leadership) and consequences (task
performance). To test our hypotheses, we conducted two multi-source studies among
different samples of matched employee-co-worker dyads.
Different foci of proactive behaviour

Crant (2000, p. 436) defines proactive behaviour as ‘taking initiative in improving
current circumstances or creating new ones; it involves challenging the status quo
rather than passively adapting to present conditions’. Previous work takes two
approaches. One is a trait approach measuring proactivity as a relatively stable
individual disposition labelled proactive personality (e.g., Bateman & Crant, 1993). The
other is a behavioural approach showing intra-individual variability in employees’
proactive behaviour over time (Sonnentag, 2003) and showing that proactive
behaviours are related to workplace factors and organizational variables (e.g., Fay &
Sonnentag, 2002; Parker et al., 2006). Here, we follow the latter approach.
Proactive behaviours are to some extent related to organizational citizenship
behaviour (OCB) as both are discretionary employee behaviours. Some proactive
behaviours such as taking charge or initiative are also sometimes labelled as forms of
OCB (e.g., Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Morrison & Phelps, 1999). However, proactive
behaviour is also clearly different from OCB (see Grant & Ashford, 2008). For example,
OCB are not necessarily proactive, anticipatory, future-oriented, or self-starting but
rather can also be more reactive in nature, such as following rules or being loyal. In this
sense, proactive behaviours relate only to a subset of OCB. Yet, proactive behaviours
also include a broader set of behaviours than OCB as proactive behaviours can also have
a rebellious nature (Frese & Fay, 2001). In extreme cases, proactive behaviour could
even be negative for the organization.
Foci of proactive behaviour 477
Proactive behaviours refer to anticipatory actions that employees take to affect or

change themselves or their work environments. So far, prominent conceptualizations
and measures of proactive behaviour, such as personal initiative (e.g., Frese, Kring,
Soose, & Zempel, 1996) mostly focus on pro-organizational behaviour, while still
excluding behaviours focusing on benefiting only the self or even harming the
organization. Lately, therefore, scholars call for a more comprehensive approach in
conceptualizing proactive behaviour (Grant & Ashford, 2008). In line with this,
Griffin et al. (2007) argue that employees’ behaviour may aim to affect different
organizational levels. They suggest that work behaviour of employees depends on the
social embeddedness of their work-role. Employees will take action in favour of a
larger social entity such as their work-group or their organization to the extent that
they feel part of that entity. Griffin et al. (2007) make an important contribution by
showing that proactive behaviour can be aimed at objectives aligned with different
organizational levels. Their model includes organization, team, and individual focused
behaviour.
The forms of proactive behaviour that Griffin and colleagues distinguish are all
prosocial and organizational, in other words other-focused. They do not include self-
focused proactive behaviour, such as proactive behaviour aimed to further personal, or
career goals at work. Yet, an individual’s career is an important driver for employees that
has received attention in studies on commitment (e.g., Ellemers, de Gilder, & van den
Heuvel, 1998) as well as in studies on proactive personality in relation to careers (e.g.,
Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). Here, we build on
these lines of work and distinguish between pro-organizational, prosocial, and pro-self
focused proactive behaviour at work, that is, proactive behaviour may focus on
enhancing personal career goals (e.g., Raabe, Frese, & Beehr, 2007; Seibert et al., 2001),
the organization’s goals (e.g., Ashford, Blatt, & Van de Walle, 2003), or goals related to
co-workers (e.g., Ashford & Tsui, 1993). These three targets were also proposed by
Grant and Ashford (2008). To our knowledge, research has not yet systematically
investigated the existence of as well as similarities and differences between these
different foci of proactive behaviour.
Commitment and different foci of proactive behaviour

Antecedents of proactive behaviour include work characteristics, such as job autonomy,
job complexity, and control (Frese et al., 1996; Parker et al., 2006), environmental
characteristics, such as management support (Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Ohly,
Sonnentag, & Pluntke, 2006), and individual variables, such as (role-breadth) self-
efficacy (Parker, 1998; Speier & Frese, 1997) and proactive personality (Bateman &
Crant, 1993). Research also shows a link with affective commitment (Den Hartog &
Belschak, 2007). Here, we build on this research and test the link between affective
commitment to the organization, team, and career and the three foci of proactive
behaviour proposed above.
Mathieu and Zajac (1990) conclude from their meta-analysis that as compared to
other bases of commitment, affective commitment is most relevant as a behavioural
predictor. Exploring the link between affective commitment and personal initiative at
work, Den Hartog and Belschak (2007) found that different foci of affective commitment
were differentially related to self- and peer-ratings of personal initiative. Commitment
seems suitable for an initial test of whether differential relationships are found for the
different foci of proactive behaviour included in this study as the literature on
commitment has distinguished between similar targets (e.g., Becker, 1992; Ellemers
et al., 1998). In this sense, work on commitment offers fine-grained distinctions that may
facilitate the exploration of differential relationships with proactive behaviour. For
instance, we expect that proactive behaviour aimed at specific foci may be most
strongly related to corresponding foci of commitment.
Affective commitment to different targets at work may enhance proactive
behaviour towards such targets. Den Hartog and Belschak (2007) suggest several
explanations for the positive link between affective commitment and proactive
behaviour. First, the affective element involved leads to activation that energizes
employees to engage in behaviours, thereby facilitating positive action and proactive
behaviour (e.g., Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1999). In line with this, Sonnentag
(2003) demonstrates a positive link between proactive behaviour and work
engagement (defined as a positive affective motivational state of fulfilment). Second,
affective commitment directs employees’ behaviours towards a specific goal, namely
the thriving of the entity that is the focus of commitment (Den Hartog & Belschak,
2007). Consistently, research shows that different foci of commitment have
differential relationships with attitudes and behaviours such as satisfaction, turnover
intentions, OCB, and initiative (e.g., Becker, 1992; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007;
Ellemers et al., 1998).
Commitment to a specific target implies that individuals value that target’s well-
being, and, as expectancy theory argues (cf. Vroom, 1964; Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996),
individuals are motivated to engage in behaviours that they perceive to be instrumental
for protecting and promoting the well-being of the target they value. In line with this, we
expect that employees who are committed to the organization are likely to engage
mostly in proactive pro-organizational behaviours, employees who are committed to
their team to mostly engage in proactive interpersonal behaviour, and employees who
are committed to their career to engage mostly in proactive activities that will further
their career. This expectation is in line with social categorization theory, which argues
that commitment to a specific group leads to increases in behaviours aimed at and
furthering the success of the corresponding group.
One reason for this is that group members are motivated to promote a group’s
success as this increases feelings of pride and respect (e.g., Tyler & Blader, 2000). For
instance, research shows that the relationship between different foci of OCB and
different antecedents depends on the correspondence between the antecedent and the
target of the OCB. OCB on behalf of a person’s immediate colleague (OCB-I) shows
higher positive relationships with team commitment, whereas OCB aiming directly at
the welfare of the organization as a whole (OCB-O) is linked more to organizational
commitment (Riketta & Van Dick, 2005). Here, we argue that affective organizational
commitment is most strongly positively related to organization focused proactive
behaviour, team commitment to interpersonal proactive behaviour, and career-oriented
commitment to personal proactive behaviours (cf. Ellemers et al., 1998). Thus, we
specify the general expectation that affective commitment is positively related to
proactive behaviour (cf. Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007):
Hypothesis 1a: Organizational proactive behaviour is most strongly related to organizational

commitment.
Hypothesis 1b: Interpersonal proactive behaviour is most strongly related to team commitment.
Hypothesis 1c: Personal proactive behaviour is most strongly related to career commitment.
Initial nomological net of foci of proactive behaviour

The extant literature shows that employees’ proactive behaviour at work is affected by
person variables (e.g., commitment, proactive personality) as well as environmental
variables (e.g., job autonomy; see Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008). As a first step in
investigating the nomological net of different foci of proactive behaviour, we therefore,
explore the relationships of both an environmental (leadership) and a person variable
(goal orientations) as potential antecedents of the foci of proactivity and elaborate
on expected similar and differential links with different foci of proactive behaviour.
The choice of these variables was particularly driven by the existence of research
indicating that these variables are linked to proactive behaviour in general (e.g., Parker
& Collins, 2010; Porath & Bateman, 2006; Strauss, Griffin, & Rafferty, 2009) and
theoretical or empirical indications that these variables may be differentially linked to
different foci of proactivity (e.g., Strauss et al., 2009).
Leadership and foci of proactive behaviour

Among potential environmental antecedents, leader behaviour seems a prominent
variable for organizations to focus on to foster proactive behaviour. Yet, research
addressing leadership as a potential antecedent of proactive behaviour is scarce and has
mostly focused on the role of supervisory support (e.g., Ohly et al., 2006; Parker et al.,
2006) rather than investigating more general leadership styles. A noteworthy exception
is Strauss et al. (2009) who show that transformational leadership increases employees’
self-ratings of proactive behaviour. Supervisors’ transformational leadership behaviours
also seem of relevance for proactive behaviour as they have been demonstrated to affect
constructs that are clearly related to proactive behaviour such as OCB (e.g., Den Hartog,
De Hoogh, & Keegan, 2007; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996), creativity (e.g.,
Shin & Zhou, 2003), and innovation (e.g., Howell & Avolio, 1993). Elaborating on this
existing research, we therefore, offer a further test of the relationship between
transformational leadership and proactive behaviour; more specifically, we propose that
transformational leadership has differential relationships with different foci of proactive
behaviour as such leadership aims to focus employees on collective goals rather than
self-interest (cf. Bass, 1985); therefore, we expect employees to be more proactive on
behalf of the collective than on behalf of their personal (career) goals.
Theory suggests that transformational leadership is likely to enhance employees’
proactive behaviour. First, transformational leaders take a proactive approach
themselves in trying to create a better work environment and attain a more desirable
future (Crant & Bateman, 2000). Based on a social learning perspective, scholars argue
that role modelling is an essential part of leader behaviours (e.g., Bass, 1985), and the
idealized influence dimension of transformational leadership describes how these
leaders act as role models whose behaviours are imitated by employees (Avolio, Bass, &
Jung, 1999). Second, transformational leaders encourage employees to rethink of old
ways of doing things (i.e., intellectual stimulation) while also providing a safe
environment for experimentation through individualized consideration and support
(Bass, 1985). They empower employees, for instance, by encouraging them to engage in
self-goal setting or self-evaluation hence, increasing their autonomy, which is also linked
to proactive behaviour (e.g., Frese et al., 1996).
Strauss et al. (2009) note that the observed positive effects of transformational
leaders on organizational performance may partially be a result of their impact
on proactive behaviours and show links of transformational leadership with
organizationally and team focused proactive employee behaviour. However, their

results were based only on self-reports and did not include self-focused proactive
behaviour. Here, we replicate their study using other-ratings of proactive behaviour
and expand it by adding pro-self focused proactive behaviour.
Through articulating an attractive vision of the future and behaving in ways that
reinforce the values inherent in that vision, transformational leaders reframe the
situation and provide followers with attractive collective goals to strive for. They infuse
work with meaning, and inspire followers to transcend their self-interest for the sake of
the collective. Followers tend to become highly committed to these collective goals
(e.g., Bass, 1985; Den Hartog et al., 2007; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). We therefore,
expect that such leadership specifically stimulates proactive behaviour targeting goals
beyond self-interest (i.e., the goals of collectives such as the organization and/or the
team/colleagues). In line with this, earlier research shows that transformational
leadership increases employees’ attachment to their social group (i.e., work-group,
organization; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003). For personal (career) proactive behaviour it
is more difficult to predict the sort of link with transformational leadership. As described
above, transformational leaders stimulate employees’ proactivity in general (i.e., positive
link with all foci of proactive behaviour) while at the same time they inspire followers to
not focus on self-interest (i.e., negative relationship with proactive self-oriented or
selfish behaviour). Thus, theoretical arguments do not allow for developing a clear
hypothesis on the relationship between transformational leadership and personal
proactive behaviour. We hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2: Employees’ perception of their supervisor’s transformational leadership

behaviour is positively related to organizational and interpersonal proactive behaviour.
Goal orientation and foci of proactive behaviour

Next, we investigate the effects of personality on proactive work behaviour. Apart from
proactive personality (Bateman & Crant, 1993), only few empirical studies to date have
linked proactive behaviours to traits (see Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008). In this
regard, the studies by Porath and Bateman (2006) and Parker and Collins (2010) linking
proactive behaviour to different goal orientations are important exceptions. As the literature
on goal orientations distinguishes between different goals (see below), goal orientations
may be more suitable to explore similarities and differences in antecedents of different foci
of proactive behaviour than more homogeneous person variables such as proactive
personality (which is likely to be similarly related to all foci of proactive behaviour).
Three goal orientations are distinguished in the literature: learning, performance-
prove, and performance-avoid (e.g., VandeWalle, 1997; VandeWalle, Cron, & Slocum,
2001). Individuals high on learning goal orientation aim primarily at acquiring new skills
and knowledge from work tasks. Individuals high on the performance-prove orientation
focus on attaining high performance and demonstrating their competence to others.
Finally, individuals high on the performance-avoid orientation focus on avoiding negative
outcomes and the related negative judgments from others. Previous research links
learning goal orientation to willingness to work hard and the belief that greater effort
leads to success, and it shows individuals high on learning orientation are proactive in
enhancing self-development (Porath & Bateman, 2006). People high on learning
orientation are expected to perceive engaging in proactive behaviour as a worthwhile
potential opportunity for learning (cf. Farr, Hoffmann, & Ringenbach, 1993).
Consistently, learning goal orientation was positively related to general proactive

behaviour measures (Parker & Collins, 2010; Porath & Bateman, 2006).
The performance-prove goal orientation has also been linked to effort, persistence,
and self-efficacy (e.g., VandeWalle et al., 2001). As the attainment of high performance
in general is facilitated by engaging in self-starting, persistent behaviours, we expect that
individuals high on the performance-prove orientation engage more in proactive
behaviours to attain a competitive advantage (Porath & Bateman, 2006).
In contrast, employees high on performance-avoid goal orientation will likely shy back
from showing proactive behaviours as such behaviours are more risky than reactive
behaviours. If proactive behaviours do not result in positive outcomes, employees might
be criticized for spending time and effort on self-chosen change-oriented behaviours
rather than working as instructed (cf. Parker & Collins, 2010). We expect that a
performance-avoid goal orientation is particularly negatively related to organizational
proactive behaviour as this type of behaviour is likely to be most visible to supervisors and
failure could result in negative outcomes for employees, such as negative performance
appraisals. Similarly, Parker and Collins (2010) find a negative relationship with proactive
behaviours aiming to change the internal organizational environment. In addition, openly
showing personal proactive behaviour may also present a relatively high risk for
employees. Career focused behaviours include ones that would imply leaving the team or
organization, and avoidant individuals may fear that if such behaviours are detected by
their supervisor, they may be interpreted as a signal of low commitment and result in
negative appraisals. Interpersonal proactive behaviours are often either less visible or
have less severe consequences in case of failure. We predict:
Hypothesis 3a: Employees’ learning goal orientation is positively related to all three foci of
proactive behaviour.
Hypothesis 3b: Employees’ performance-prove goal orientation is positively related to all three
foci of proactive behaviour.
Hypothesis 3c: Employees’ performance-avoid goal orientation is negatively related to
organizational and personal proactive behaviour.
Consequences of different foci of proactive behaviour

Research links proactive behaviours to positive consequences such as individual, team,
and organizational performance as well as career success (cf. Grant & Ashford, 2008).
Having argued that different foci of proactive behaviour are at least in part driven by
different antecedents, we further argue that different foci of proactive behaviour may
also result in different consequences. As proactive behaviours directed at different
targets are likely to further particularly the success of these targets, we posit that
employees’ task performance is positively related to organizational and personal
proactive behaviours. First, research suggests that proactive behaviour aiming mainly at
improving the organization (such as voice or personal initiative) is positively related to
individual performance (see Frese & Fay, 2001). Employees’ performance and
productivity may profit from the implementation of their own suggestions and
providing good input may boost employees’ performance ratings. Second, proactive
forms of career management (e.g., network building) have been linked to individual task
performance (e.g., Thompson, 2005) as employees’ careers largely depend on their
individual performance at work, and employees, therefore, are likely to take initiative to
attain a high level of performance to foster their career.
Expectations about the relationship between interpersonal proactive behaviour and

task performance are not clear. On the one hand, interpersonal proactive behaviour is
more prosocial in nature and focuses more on colleagues than on achieving task
performance goals. It may, therefore, be more closely linked to contextual performance
and distract from task performance (Bergeron, 2007). This would imply no or negative
relationships. On the other hand, research shows that helping colleagues may be
significantly related to task performance as colleagues may reciprocate helping and
thereby over time increase employees’ task performance (e.g., Tsai, Chen, & Liu, 2007).
In sum, the relationship between interpersonal proactive behaviour and task
performance is not clear theoretically, and does not allow for formulating an
unambiguous hypothesis. We thus hypothesize:
Hypothesis 4: Employees’ organizational and personal proactive behaviour is positively related

to their individual task performance.
In line with Porath and Bateman (2006), we expect that employees’ goal orientations
are positively related to task performance, and proactive behaviours explain unique
variance in task performance over and above the one explained by goal orientations.
Proactive behaviours are likely to mediate the relationship between goal orientations and
performance. As learning and performance-prove goal orientations focus on potential
positive outcomes (task mastery and normative competence), they may stimulate cognitive
and affective processes (e.g., immersion in the work task) that facilitate task performance.
Performance-avoid goal orientation focuses on avoiding negative outcomes. The
interferences with protective processes (e.g., anxiety-based self-presentation behaviours)
involved in this may inhibit task performance (see Porath & Bateman, 2006). Yet, goal
orientations are also linked to proactive behaviour (see Hypothesis 3), that is, engaging in
proactive behaviour is likely to facilitate both learning and achievement of high
performance, and learning and performance-prove goal orientations are, therefore, likely to
be related to all three foci of proactive behaviour (Porath & Bateman, 2006; Parker &
Collins, 2010). Performance-avoid goal orientation may be negatively linked to
organizational and personal proactive behaviour as a consequence of the increased risk
of negative consequences in case of failure (see Parker & Collins, 2010). Further,
organizational and personal proactive behaviour have been argued to facilitate individual
performance as high performance is instrumental for achieving organizational as well
as personal (career) goals (see Frese & Fay, 2001; Thompson, 2005; Hypothesis 4). In sum,
goal orientations are likely to affect proactive behaviours and these, in turn, to influence
performance. We thus, qualify the findings by Porath and Bateman (2006):
Hypothesis 5: The relationship between employees’ goal orientations and individual task
performance is mediated by organizational and personal proactive behaviour.
Method
To test our hypotheses, we conducted two studies. While Study 1 focused on the
empirical distinctiveness of pro-organizational, prosocial, and pro-self proactive
behaviour and the relationship of these with different foci of commitment
(Hypothesis 1), Study 2 focused on the commonalities and differences of other
potential antecedents of the three proactive behaviours and the relationship with task
performance (Hypotheses 2 through 5).
Sample and procedure

To increase the representativeness of the studies, we aimed for diverse samples of
employees from different industries and professional backgrounds. Using a database of
company names, we randomly selected and contacted companies in The Netherlands
from a variety of industries ranging from insurance companies to retailers, and from
consultancies to governmental organizations, asking them to participate in a university
study on proactive behaviours. A total of 18 companies agreed to participate in Study 1
and provided us with contact details of several of their employees (between 10 and 15
per company, N ¼ 220 employees). For Study 2, 55 companies agreed to participate and
provided us up to eight employees filling in the surveys (N ¼ 132 employees).
For both studies, we sent employees questionnaires with stamped return envelopes
and a letter explaining the study and the confidential and voluntary nature of
participation. Besides, filling out a questionnaire themselves, we asked participants to
give a questionnaire with a separate stamped return envelope and letter to one of their
colleagues who would be able to evaluate their work behaviour. In this questionnaire,
we asked the colleague to rate the focal employee’s proactive behaviour. Confidentiality
was stressed. Responses were sent directly to the researchers, who were available to
answer questions. Only questionnaires for which a matching colleague evaluation was
obtained and that were completely filled out were included in the analyses. One
hundred and seventeen matched employees and colleagues (i.e., the sample consisted
of 117 complete employee-colleague dyads) returned the questionnaires in Study 1; in
Study 2, the sample consisted of 126 complete dyads. All respondents participated
voluntarily and anonymously and they did not receive anything in return for
participation. Respondents (focal employees) in both studies worked in a wide range of
jobs including lawyers, salespersons, account managers, customer service employees,
and consultants. In Study 1, 59% of the focal respondents were men; 33% were up to
30 years old, 47% between 30 and 40, 12% between 41 and 50, and 8% were older than
50. On average, they had worked for their current employer for 9.8 years ðSD ¼ 8:4Þ.
In Study 2, 40% of the respondents (focal employees) were men; 53% were up to 30
years old, 20% between 30 and 40, 15% between 41 and 50, and 12% were older than 50.
On average, they had worked for their current employer for 10.6 years ðSD ¼ 10:9Þ.
Measures
In both studies, all items were administered in Dutch; responses for all items were given
on a seven-point scale (1 ¼ ‘completelydisagree’ to 7 ¼ ‘completelyagree’). In Study 1,
the survey covered measures of the three foci of proactive behaviour and the three foci
of commitment. In Study 2, we measured the three foci of proactive behaviour,
transformational leadership behaviours, goal orientations, and task performance.
In both studies, the three different foci of proactive behaviour were measured with
12 items. Four items each measured organizational, interpersonal, and personal
proactive behaviours. In Study 1, all proactive behaviour items were rated by employees
themselves (self-ratings) as well as by colleagues (peer-ratings). In Study 2 only peer
ratings were collected. The development of both the organization and colleague-focused
items was based on the measures used by Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, and Tag (1997) and
Griffin et al. (2007). In addition, we formulated items covering proactive behaviours
aiming at helping colleagues based on the interpersonal OCB literature (see Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000), rephrasing them to stress proactive content. We
also added proactive behaviours aiming at career-management as mentioned in the
review by Crant (2000). One-item of the organizational proactive behaviours was

dropped due to substantial cross-loadings on the measure of interpersonal proactive
behaviours in both the self-report as well as the colleague-rated version. All items are
listed in the appendix.
We also administered the often-used measure of personal initiative as provided by
Frese et al. (1997) to both employees and colleagues as a validation check in Study 1. As
personal initiative is defined in a broader and more general way, and the behaviours
described in these items can be applied to different targets, we expected initiative
would correlate relatively highly with all three foci of proactive behaviour. The measure
consists of seven items (e.g., ‘I take initiative immediately, even when others don’t’). In
Study 2, we administered the proactive personality measure of Bateman and Crant
(1993) to employees as a validation check. As proactive personality is defined as a global
personality trait, and the behaviours in the items can be applied to different targets, we
expected significant positive correlations with all foci of proactive behaviour. The
measure consists of five items (e.g., ‘I love to challenge the status quo’ and ‘I enjoy
facing and overcoming obstacles to my ideas’).
In Study 1, affective organizational commitment was measured with five items
taken from Ellemers et al. (1998) (e.g., ‘I feel emotionally attached to this organization’).
Affective team commitment and affective career commitment were measured by six
items each from Ellemers et al. (1998). Sample items are ‘This team lies close to my
heart’ and ‘My career is one of the most important things in my life’.
In Study 2, respondents’ perceptions of their supervisor’s transformational
leadership was measured by 11 items taken from a validated Dutch leadership
questionnaire (Charismatic Leadership in Organizations (CLIO); De Hoogh, Den Hartog,
& Koopman, 2004); the scale covers different aspects of transformational leadership
such as charisma, presenting an attractive vision, individualized consideration, and
intellectual stimulation (e.g., ‘My leader projects a convincing, powerful, and dynamic
presence in his/her actions at work’). In Study 2, goal orientation was measured with
15 items. Five items each for learning orientation (e.g., ‘I feel most successful in my job
when I acquire new knowledge or master a new skill by trying hard’) and performance-
prove orientation (e.g., ‘I feel most successful in my job when I can clearly demonstrate
that I am the best qualified person’) were taken from Van Yperen and Janssen (2002),
and five items for measuring performance-avoid goal orientation (e.g., ‘I am concerned
about taking on a task at work if my performance would reveal that I had low ability’)
were adopted from VandeWalle (1997). Finally, as we had individuals performing many
different tasks, individual job (task) performance was measured by one overall item as
a peer-evaluation (‘How would you evaluate the task performance of your colleague
as compared to the task performance of other employees in a similar function?’;
1 ¼ ‘wayworse’ to 7 ¼ ‘waybetter’). The reliabilities for all measures were satisfactory
and can be found in Tables 1 (Study 1) and 2 (Study 2).
Results
The descriptives and correlations between the foci of commitment, proactive
behaviours, and personal initiative from Study 1 are presented in Table 1. Peer-rated
and self-rated proactive behaviours were moderately correlated. Personal initiative was
highly correlated with all foci of proactive behaviour for the self- as well as peer-rated
variables supporting the validity of our scales for measuring different foci of proactive
Table 1. Correlations, means, and SDs of variables in study 1 (Cronbach’s alphas on diagonal; N ¼ 117)
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Self-rated organization proactive behaviour 5.33 1.16 (.87)

2. Self-rated interpersonal proactive behaviour 5.43 0.99 .42** (.74)
3. Self-rated personal proactive behaviour 5.11 1.19 .52** .49** (.87)
4. Self-rated personal initiative 5.52 0.86 .60** .61** .60** (.87)
5. Peer-rated organizational proactive behaviour 5.29 1.22 .30** .23* .06 .27** (.88)
6. Peer-rated interpersonal proactive behaviour 5.29 1.06 .26** .24* .14 .31** .54** (.80)
7. Peer-rated personal proactive behaviour 5.26 1.01 .29** .24* .37** .39** .41** .47** (.78)
8. Peer-rated personal initiative 5.46 1.01 .31** .16 .15 .31** .62** .73** .54** (.91)
9. Organizational commitment 4.47 1.36 .47** .27** .24** .22* .18* .21* .12 .17 (.91)
10. Team commitment 5.33 0.91 .56** .52** .41** .53** .28** .35** .23** .25** .55** (.79)
11. Career commitment 4.18 1.45 .34** .38** .68** .49** .12 .03 .27** .08 .19* .32** (.90)
*p , :05; **p , :01.

Foci of proactive behaviour

485
Table 2. Correlations, means, and SDs of variables in study 2 (Cronbach’s alphas on diagonal; N ¼ 126)
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Peer-rated organizational proactive behaviour 5.23 1.19 (.86)

2. Peer-rated interpersonal proactive behaviour 5.44 1.04 .67** (.83)
3. Peer-rated personal proactive behaviour 5.08 1.16 .65** .67** (.89)

4. Goal-orientation: performance-prove 4.21 1.47 .15 .35** .35** (.92)
5. Goal-orientation: learning 5.79 0.92 .30** .30** .22* .23* (.90)
6. Goal-orientation: performance-avoid 3.09 1.22 2 .30** 2 .04 2.08 .24* 2 .12 (.85)
7. Proactive personality 5.21 0.89 .26* .23* .24* .26* .44** 2 .35** (.83)
8. Transformational leadership 5.15 0.94 .32** .29** .20* 2.03 .44** 2 .18 .25** (.88)
9. Task performance 5.11 1.26 .53** .44** .53** .15 .36** 2 .18 .41** .21*
*p , :05; **p , :01.

behaviour. The correlations between different foci of proactive behaviour were all lower
than .54 (for both self-rated and peer-rated); the correlations between different foci of
commitment ranged from .19 to .55.
The descriptives and correlations between proactive behaviours, leadership, goal
orientation, and proactive personality from Study 2 are presented in Table 2. Similar to
Study 1, the three foci of proactive behaviour were correlated with each other; proactive
personality was significantly correlated with all foci of proactive behaviour as expected,
thus, further supporting the validity of our new developed scales.
Measurement model
To test whether the three foci of proactive behaviour are factorially distinct, we
conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and compared the proposed three-factor
model (Model 1) with two theoretically meaningful alternative models in both Study 1
and 2 (see Table 3). Model 2 tested a two-factor solution that integrates proactive
behaviour aiming at the organization with interpersonal proactive behaviour. Such a
two-factor model corresponds to the fundamental motivational distinction of pro-self
versus pro-other motivation. Finally, we tested also a one-factor solution with all items
measuring different foci of proactive behaviour loading only on a single factor. These
three solutions were computed for the self-reported as well as the peer-rated proactive
behaviours.
As Table 3 shows, the three-factor solution had a significantly better fit than the other
models for both self-report and peer-rated proactive behaviours; a three-factor model
also provided the best fit for a comparison of models for the three foci of commitment.
Finally, all three-factor solutions show a satisfactory model fit and only moderate factor-
intercorrelations. The factor loadings for the proactive behaviours are presented in the
Appendix.
Next, we conducted a CFA in which both self-rated and peer-rated proactive
behaviours and commitment were included simultaneously. A nine-factor solution (i.e.,
three foci of self-rated proactive behaviour, three foci of peer-rated proactive behaviour,
and three foci of commitment) shows satisfactory fit with the data: x2 ð650Þ ¼ 1032:76
(p , :01); CFI ¼ :90, IFI ¼ :90, TLI ¼ :88, RMSEA ¼ :07. The nine-factor solution
provides a significantly better fit than a six-factor solution in which self-rated and peer-
rated items of the foci of proactive behaviours load on the same factors and the three
targets of commitment are modelled as separate constructs: Dx2 ð21Þ ¼ 485:97
(p , :01). This suggests that measures of self-rated and peer-rated proactive behaviour
may measure different, though significantly correlated constructs.
Finally, to further investigate convergent and discriminant validity of the proactive
behaviour measure, we computed a multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) matrix including
self- and peer-ratings of proactive behaviour (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). All MTMM
correlations were large and significantly different from zero (ranging from .30 to .41,
p , :01) showing that convergent validity is achieved. Also, the proportion of trait
variance (30% on average) exceeded the proportion of method variance (25% on
average). Yet, same trait constructs measured with different methods were not
consistently more strongly correlated with each other than different traits measured
with the same method (monotrait-heteromethod: correlations range from .30 to .41,
heterotrait-monomethod: correlations range from .53 to .60 for self-ratings and from .46
to .63 for peer-ratings). Discriminant validity was therefore achieved in separate CFAs for
self- and peer-ratings, but not in a MTMM design.
Table 3. Results of CFA of multi foci variables
Three-factor solution (M1) Two-factor solution (M2) One-factor solution (M3)
Self-rated proactive behaviours x2 ð41Þ ¼ 80:07, p , :01; CFI ¼ :94; x2 ð43Þ ¼ 142:92, p , :01; CFI ¼ :85; x2 ð44Þ ¼ 251:08, p , :01; CFI ¼ :69;
(Study 1) IFI ¼ :94; TLI ¼ :92; RMSEA ¼ :08; IFI ¼ :85; TLI ¼ :81; RMSEA ¼ :14; IFI ¼ :69; TLI ¼ :61; RMSEA ¼ :20;
Factor correlations: .54–.59 M2–M1: Dx2 ð2Þ ¼ 62:85, p , :01 M3–M1: Dx2 ð3Þ ¼ 170:01, p , :01
Peer-rated proactive behaviours x2 ð41Þ ¼ 54:43, ns; CFI ¼ :98; x2 ð43Þ ¼ 143:52, p , :01; CFI ¼ :83; x2 ð44Þ ¼ 223:73, p , :01; CFI ¼ :69;
(Study1) IFI ¼ :98; TLI ¼ :97; RMSEA ¼ :05; IFI ¼ :83; TLI ¼ :78; RMSEA ¼ :14; IFI ¼ :70; TLI ¼ :62; RMSEA ¼ :19;
Affective commitment (Study 1) x2 ð101Þ ¼ 187:19, p , :01; CFI ¼ :92; x2 ð103Þ ¼ 308:78, p , :01; CFI ¼ :82; X2 ð104Þ ¼ 581:99, p , :01; CFI ¼ :57;
IFI ¼ :92; TLI ¼ :91; RMSEA ¼ :08; IFI ¼ :82; TLI ¼ :79; RMSEA ¼ :13; IFI ¼ :58; TLI ¼ :51; RMSEA ¼ :20;
Proactive behaviours (Study 2) x2 ð41Þ ¼ 104:37, p , :01; CFI ¼ :91; x2 ð43Þ ¼ 126:54, p , :01; CFI ¼ :88; x2 ð44Þ ¼ 183:54, p , :01; CFI ¼ :81;
IFI ¼ :92; TLI ¼ :89; RMSEA ¼ :08; IFI ¼ :89; TLI ¼ :85; RMSEA ¼ :13; IFI ¼ :81; TLI ¼ :76; RMSEA ¼ :17;
Note. CFI, comparative fit index; IFI, incremental fit index; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation.
Commitment and proactive behaviour

To test our hypotheses on commitment and proactive behaviours (Study 1), we
conducted a series of regression analyses using the structural equation modelling (SEM)
software AMOS. Using SEM to model regressions provides the advantage of combining
both measurement and structural relationships and, as a consequence, corrects for
measurement error. As structural model, we regressed the different foci of proactive
behaviour on the different foci of commitment. In line with earlier research on proactive
behaviour and on commitment (e.g., Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007; Ellemers et al.,
1998; Ohly et al., 2006; Sonnentag, 2003), we included two demographic variables (age
and gender) that might have a confounding effect as control variables. The results of the
analyses are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Foci of commitment and proactive behaviours (Study 1)
Organizational Interpersonal Personal

proactive behaviour proactive behaviour proactive behaviour
Self-rated proactive behaviour

Age .10 .13 2.02
Gender .01 2 .03 2.03
Organizational commitment .22* 2 .03 .05
Team commitment .50** .56** .29**
Career commitment .32** .40** .71**
R2 .41 .49 .59
Peer-rated proactive behaviour
Age 2 .06 2 .02 2.14
Gender .07 .06 2.07
Organizational commitment 2 .05 .01 2.06
Team commitment .40** .45** .31**
Career commitment .02 2 .08 .20*
R2 .17 .21 .16
*p , :05; **p , :01.
Combined, control variables and commitment explained between 41 and 59% of the
variance in the different proactive behaviours. All three commitment foci were
significantly positively related to organizational proactive behaviour (organizational
commitment: b ¼ 0:22, p , :05; team commitment: b ¼ 0:50, p , :01; career
commitment: b ¼ 0:32, p , :01). A (two-tailed) significance test (see Cohen &
Cohen, 1983) showed that the coefficient of team commitment was significantly
stronger than that of organizational (t ¼ 22:07, p , :01) and career commitment
(t ¼ 1:29, p , :10). Interpersonal proactive behaviour was significantly linked to team
(b ¼ 0:56, p , :01) and career commitment (b ¼ 0:40, p , :01). The coefficient of
organizational commitment was significantly lower than that of team (t ¼ 24:72,
p , :01) and career commitment (t ¼ 22:93, p , :01); the coefficients of team and
career commitment did not differ significantly from each other (t ¼ 1:15, ns). Personal
proactive behaviour was significantly related to team (b ¼ 0:29, p , :01) and career
commitment (b ¼ 0:71, p , :01). The coefficient of career commitment was
significantly higher than both the coefficients of team (t ¼ 23:36, p , :01) and of
organizational commitment (t ¼ 25:04, p , :01).
The self-report results thus, partially support Hypothesis 1b (both team and career
commitment were equally strongly related to interpersonal proactive behaviour) and
Hypothesis 1c (career commitment explains most variance in personal proactive
behaviour), but not Hypothesis 1a (organizational commitment did not explain most
variance in organizational proactive behaviour). In comparison, self-rated general
personal initiative was significantly and similarly strongly related to team (b ¼ 0:45,
p , :01) and career commitment (b ¼ 0:37, p , :01), but not to organizational
commitment.
For peer-ratings of proactive behaviours, controls and commitment explained
between 16 and 21% of the variance. Peer-rated organizational and interpersonal
proactive behaviours were both only significantly related to team commitment
(b ¼ 0:40, p , :01, and b ¼ 0:45, p , :01, respectively). Coefficients for team
commitment were significantly stronger than those for organizational commitment
(t ¼ 22:5, p , :01, for both organizational and interpersonal proactive behaviour) and
for career commitment (t ¼ 2:20, p , :01, for organizational proactive behaviour, and
t ¼ 3:14, p , :01, for interpersonal proactive behaviour). Peer-rated personal proactive
behaviour was significantly linked to both team commitment (b ¼ 0:31, p , :01) and
career commitment (b ¼ 0:20, p , :05). These coefficients were both significantly
higher than that for organizational commitment (t ¼ 22:5, p , :01, and t ¼ 1:65,
p , :05, respectively) but did not significantly differ from each other (t ¼ :63, ns).
These findings support Hypothesis 1b and partially 1c. Hypothesis 1a is not supported
as team commitment explains most variance in peer-rated organizational proactive
behaviour as well. Finally, peer-rated personal initiative was only significantly related to
team commitment (b ¼ 0:23, p , :05).
Transformational leadership, goal orientations, and proactive behaviour

To test Hypotheses 2 through 5 (Study 2), we conducted again a series of hier-
archical regression analyses using SEM. First, we regressed proactive behaviours
on goal orientations and transformational leadership. Second, we regressed job
performance on goal orientation, transformational leadership, and proactive
behaviours. Again, we included age and gender as control variables. The results are
shown in Table 5.
Combined, these variables explained between 24% and 32% of the variance in the
different proactive behaviours. Only organizational (b ¼ 0:29, p , :01) and inter-
personal proactive behaviour (b ¼ 0:32, p , :01) were significantly related to
transformational leadership; personal proactive behaviour was not (b ¼ 0:17, ns).
The results thus support Hypothesis 2. Supporting Hypothesis 3a, performance-prove
goal orientation was significantly positively related to all foci of proactive behaviour
(organizational: b ¼ 0:31, p , :01; interpersonal: b ¼ 0:36, p , :01; personal:
b ¼ 0:36, p , :01). However, not in line with Hypothesis 3b, learning goal orientation
was only significantly related to organizational proactive behaviour (b ¼ 0:23, p , :05).
Finally, the negative relationships between the three foci of proactive behaviour and
performance-avoid goal orientation were all significant (organizational: b ¼ 20:41,
p , :01; interpersonal: b ¼ 20:22, p , :05; personal: b ¼ 20:27, p , :05), thus,
supporting Hypothesis 3c. Yet, the relationship between interpersonal proactive
behaviour and a performance-avoid goal orientation dropped to non-significant level
when controlling for transformational leadership (see Table 5).
Table 5. Goal orientation, transformational leadership, and proactive behaviour (Study 2)
Organizational Interpersonal Personal

proactive proactive proactive
behaviour behaviour behaviour Performance
Step 1
Age .09 .13 .12 .19*
Gender .02 .08 2.06 .05
Goal prove .31** .36** .36** .18*
Goal learning .23* .11 .15 .19*
Goal avoid 2.41** 2.22* 2.27* 2 .30**
R2 .32 .21 .25 .20
Step 2
Age .09 .13 .11 .12
Gender .04 .10 2.05 .06
Goal prove .31** .37** .37** 2 .09
Goal learning .11 2.03 .07 .08
Goal avoid 2.34** 2.16 2.22* 2 .06
Transformational leadership .29** .32** .17 2 .04
Organizational proactive behaviour .39**
Interpersonal proactive behaviour .05
Personal proactive behaviour .32**
R2 .32 .29 .24 .36
*p , :05; **p , :01.
Performance and proactive behaviour

Goal orientation, transformational leadership, and the foci of proactive behaviour
explained 36% of the variance in individual task performance. Performance was
significantly related to organizational proactive behaviour (b ¼ 0:39, p , :01) and
personal proactive behaviour (b ¼ 0:32, p , :01). These results support Hypothesis 4.
Finally, to test whether proactive behaviour mediates the relationship between goal
orientations and performance, we conducted a series of regression analyses (cf. Baron &
Kenny, 1986). First, goal orientations (independent variables) were significantly related
to the dependent variable, performance (see Table 5). Next, all goal orientations were
significantly linked to organizational proactive behaviour. Performance-prove and
performance-avoid orientation were related to all proactive behaviours (see Table 5).
Third, organizational and personal proactive behaviours (mediators) were significantly
related to performance (b ¼ 0:31, p , :01, and b ¼ 0:31, p , :01, respectively). Finally,
when regressing performance on goal orientations and proactive behaviours
simultaneously, performance was significantly linked to organizational and personal
proactive behaviour and the size of the coefficients for goal orientations dropped as
compared to the regression including only goal orientations. Sobel tests were conducted
to test the significance of this drop. Using the revised critical values recommended by
MacKinnon et al. (2002), the analyses confirm significant indirect effects. The
relationship of performance-prove orientation with performance was fully mediated by
organizational (z ¼ 2:21, p , :01) and personal proactive behaviour (z ¼ 2:73,
p , :01); the relationship of performance-avoid goal orientation with performance
was fully mediated by organizational (z ¼ 22:37, p , :01) and personal proactive
behaviour (z ¼ 21:20, p , :01); the relationship between learning goal orientation and
performance was mediated by organizational proactive behaviour (z ¼ 3.03, p , .01).

This supports Hypothesis 5 proposing that proactive behaviours mediate the
relationship between goal orientations and performance.
Discussion
Combined, the results of these two studies show that different foci of proactive
behaviour can be distinguished in a theoretically and empirically meaningful way. Our
research provides a direct test of the arguments offered by Grant and Ashford (2008),
who proposed that the self, other people (colleagues), and the organization are different
targets on which employees’ proactive behaviour can focus. To our knowledge, this
proposition has not been tested to date. While research on OCB, for instance, has a
tradition in differentiating between different foci of OCB (e.g., OCB-I versus OCB-O;
altruistically motivated OCB versus OCB motivated by impression management) studies
on proactive behaviour have not yet explored different foci empirically. Recently, Parker
and Collins (2010) investigated different categories of proactive behaviours. Specifically,
they assessed whether proactive work behaviour (e.g., voice), proactive person-
environment fit behaviour (e.g., feedback seeking), and proactive strategic behaviour
(e.g., issue selling) are distinct from each other and to what extent they share similar
antecedents. Parker and Collins (2010) thus, pursued a similar research question as we
did, however, with the focus on the content of the proactive behaviours rather than on
the targets.
The results of Study 1 suggest that different attitudes may stimulate different forms of
proactive behaviour. While prosocial forms of proactive behaviour (i.e., organizational
and interpersonal) were most strongly linked to team commitment, self-focused, or
personal career-oriented proactive behaviour was mainly related to career commitment.
This is in line with the literature on commitment, which argues that attachment to a
specific target enhances behaviours focusing on furthering the goals and success of that
target (Ellemers et al., 1998). The finding that team commitment is more strongly linked
to proactive behaviours (even organization focused ones) than organizational
commitment seems in line with research on commitment showing that attachment to
a more proximal, lower order focus, such as the work-group, may be more salient to the
employee than attachment to a more distal, higher order one, such as the organization
(e.g., Riketta & van Dick, 2005).
Interestingly, we found higher explained variance and coefficients for self-ratings
than for peer-ratings of proactive behaviour, and the results of the CFA and the MTMM
matrix indicated that self- and peer-ratings may measure somewhat different though
correlated constructs. This is in line with earlier research on proactive behaviours using
both self- and other-ratings. For instance, Den Hartog and Belschak (2007) noted that the
relationship of commitment with personal initiative as rated by managers differed
somewhat from that with self-rated initiative. Such differences are not unusual. Across
various constructs (e.g., leader behaviours, work performance) research shows that self-
perceived and other-perceived measures of the same construct often only show
moderate congruence. For instance, literature on multi-source performance-ratings
shows that individuals evaluate their own performance differently than their supervisors
or peers (e.g., Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988; Viswesvaran, Ones, & Schmidt, 1996). In
line with this, Frese et al. (1997) found that self-ratings and spouse-ratings of personal
initiative were only moderately correlated (.35, p , :01). The interpretation of these
results is not clear though: self-reports and other-reports of proactive behaviour may
either assess different constructs, or focal employees and raters may be observing
different behaviours and forming their judgments accordingly (see Den Hartog &
Belschak, 2007). Future research should explore which source provides ratings with the
highest validity. Yet, despite of this limited overlap between self- and other-ratings, we
found a similar pattern of relationships between the foci of commitment and of
Similar to Study 1, the results of Study 2, substantiate the distinction between the
three proposed foci of proactive behaviour: different foci of proactive behaviour are
related to different antecedents (leader behaviour and goal orientations) and are
differentially related to task performance. While a performance-prove and a
performance-avoid goal orientation was related to all three proactive behaviours
distinguished here, learning goal orientation was only linked to organizational proactive
behaviour. These findings qualify the results of the study by Porath and Bateman (2006).
Learning goal orientation may only stimulate specific types of proactive behaviour, such
as those targeting the organization. Also, performance-avoid goal orientation seems to
be another important variable which is significantly linked to proactive behaviour.
Similarly, and in line with research on leadership arguing that transformational
leadership encourages employee behaviour going beyond self-interest (see Den Hartog
et al., 2007), transformational leadership seems to encourage only certain foci of
proactive behaviour, that is, other directed (i.e., organizational and interpersonal)
Finally, we found that the three foci of proactive behaviour explained unique
variance in employees’ task performance over and above transformational leadership
and goal orientations. This finding is in line with Porath and Bateman (2006) who found
that, besides goal orientations, proactive behaviour acted as predictor of individual job
performance. Yet, we further specify their findings by showing that the relationship
between goal orientations and performance is mediated only by organizational and
personal proactive behaviour.
In sum, the findings of both studies stress the importance of distinguishing between
different foci of proactive behaviour. Depending on the variables investigated, the three
foci of proactive behaviour do or do not share the same antecedents and consequences.
Future research should further explore which variables are similarly and differentially
related to the foci of proactive behaviour. For instance, over time personal proactive
behaviour may be more strongly related to career success than interpersonal or
organizational proactive behaviour.
Limitations and practical implications

The current research has some limitations. Although a strength is that results are based
on two multi-source studies, both are cross-sectional survey studies. Thus, we are not
able to draw conclusions about causality. For instance, our results suggest commitment
to a specific focus leads to proactive behaviour with the same focus. We have assumed
this direction of causality, which is in line with theoretical suggestions in the work on
commitment (e.g., Ellemers et al., 1998) and initiative (e.g., Den Hartog & Belschak,
2007). Yet, it may also be possible that engaging in proactive behaviour aiming at a
specific target and, in doing so, furthering the goal-attainment and success of that target,
enhances an individual’s commitment towards this focus. This would be in line with
some of the social psychological literature, specifically with cognitive dissonance theory
(e.g., Festinger, 1957), self-perception theory (Bem, 1972), and work on sensemaking
(Weick, 1979) which argue that people infer their attitudes through observing their own
behaviours. Employees seeing themselves engage in proactive behaviour directed at a
specific target may infer that they are more committed to this target. Experimental or
longitudinal research is needed to clarify the direction of causality.
Also, we asked colleagues to rate task performance of employees, and we used only a
single item to measure performance. To ensure that colleagues had ample knowledge of
employees’ task performance, we emphasized in the instructions to the employees that
they should hand the evaluation survey only to a colleague that they were sure had good
insight into their work behaviours and performance. Colleagues knew the employee
they rated for 4 years on average; the inclusion of this variable as an additional control
variable in the analysis did not change the results substantially: the size of the
coefficients changed less than .02 and all significance levels remained unchanged.
Finally, the items for the different foci of proactive behaviour may also vary in terms
of content of proactive behaviour. To some extent, we have tried to control for content
of proactive behaviour by using behaviours that are mostly symmetric in content but
differ in target (e.g., knowledge acquisition is part of all three foci of proactive behaviour;
similarly, furthering/realizing goals and taking over tasks is included as proactive
behaviour in different foci). Yet, such symmetry in content was not achieved for all
items and future research could include additional items to ensure further symmetry.
At a practical level, one can conclude that different foci of proactive behaviour can
be differentially stimulated: managers may specifically target a particular focus. Engaging
in transformational leadership behaviour or taking measures that increase an employee’s
team commitment strongly enhances proactive behaviour in relation to organizationally
desirable foci, that is, interpersonal and organizational proactive behaviour.
Distinguishing between different foci of proactive behaviour also has implications for
personnel development activities. Even if employees show proactive behaviour aimed at
a specific target (e.g., their career), this does not imply that they will also be willing or
able to show proactive behaviour aimed at other targets (e.g., the organization). In this
respect, taking measures for further developing antecedents that foster several types of
proactive behaviour may help, for instance, by trying to enhance employees’
performance-prove orientation. Finally, companies could include an assessment of
proactive personality in selection as this trait facilitates proactive behaviours directed at
all three different foci, helping employees to show proactive behaviour in different
situations, and thus, likely facilitating the attainment of career related as well as
company goals.
References
Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & Van de Walle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of
research on feedback-seeking behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management, 29,
769–799.
Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1993). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active
feedback seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 251–280.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational
and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462. doi:10.1348/096317999166789
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behaviour.
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 14, 103–118.
Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy
of Management Journal, 35, 232–244.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology, (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). New York: Academic Press.
Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behaviour: Good
citizens at what cost? Academy of Management Review, 32, 1078–1095.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behaviour: The
relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family
conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740–748.
Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect system has parallel and
integrative processing components: Form follows function. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 839–855.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-
multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behaviour at work. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462.
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of
proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 21, 63–75.
Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2007). Personal initiative, commitment and affect at work.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 601–622. doi:10.1348/
096317906X171442
Den Hartog, D. N., De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Keegan, A. E. (2007). The interactive effects of
belongingness and charisma on helping and compliance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
1131–1139.
De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. (2004). De ontwikkeling van de CLIO: Een
vragenlijst voor charismatisch leiderschap in organisaties [The development of the CLIO: A
questionnaire for measuring charismatic leadership in organizations]. Gedrag en Organisatie,
17, 354–382.
Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & van den Heuvel, H. (1998). Career-oriented versus team-oriented
commitment and behaviour at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 717–730.
Farr, J. L., Hoffmann, D. A., & Ringenbach, K. L. (1993). Goal orientation and action control theory:
Implications for industrial and organizational psychology. International Review of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 8, 193–232.
Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (2002). Rethinking the effects of stressors: A longitudinal study on
personal initiative. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 221–234.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st
century. In B. M. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behaviour, 23,
133–187.
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative:
Operationalization, reliability, and validity in two German samples. Journal of Organizational
and Occupational Psychology, 70, 139–161.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences
between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 37–63.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. In B. M. Staw &
R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behaviour, 28, 3–34.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. (2007). Positive behaviour in uncertain and interdependent
contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347.
Harris, J. W., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-
supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62.
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of
control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of business unit performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 891–902.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:
Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246–255.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison
of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7,
83–104.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.
Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during
socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1149–1160.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extra-role efforts to initiate
workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–419.
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics and their
relationships with creative and proactive behaviours. Journal of Organizational Behaviour,
27, 257–279.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other
organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835–852.
Parker, S. K. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role
orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49,
447–469.
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple
proactive behaviours. Journal of Management, 36, 633–662.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive
behaviour at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviours
and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust,
and organizational citizenship behaviours. Journal of Management, 22, 259–298.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship
behaviours: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for
future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.
Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: From goal orientation to job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 185–192.
Raabe, B., Frese, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2007). Action regulation theory and career self-management.
Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 70, 297–311.
Riketta, M., & van Dick, R. (2005). Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analytic comparison
of strength and correlates of workgroup versus organizational identification and commitment.
Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 67, 490–510.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success.
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, 845–874.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational aspects of charismatic leadership:
A self-concept theory. Organization Science, 4, 1–17.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence
from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–714.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behaviour: A new look at the
interface between non-work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518–528.
Speier, C., & Frese, M. (1997). Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator and moderator between
control and complexity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinal study in East Germany.
Human Performance, 10, 171–192.
Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., Rafferty, A. E. (2009). Proactivity directed toward the team and
organization: The role of leadership, commitment and role-breadth self-efficacy. British
Journal of Management, 20, 279–291.
Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective.
Tsai, W. C., Chen, C. C., & Liu, H. L. (2007). Test of a model linking employee positive moods and
task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1570–1583.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Van Eerde, W., & Thierry, H. (1996). Vroom’s expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 575–586.
VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 8, 995–1015.
VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. (2001). The role of goal orientation following
performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 629–640.
Van Yperen, N. W., & Janssen, O. (2002). Fatigued and dissatisfied or fatigued but satisfied? Goal
orientations and responses to high job demands. Academy of Management Journal, 45,
1161–1171.
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job
performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557–574.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Received 10 June 2008; revised version received 10 March 2009

Appendix
Items for measuring different foci of proactive behaviours and their factor loadings
(results for peer-ratings in parenthesis)
At work, your colleague personally takes the initiative to: : :

[organizational]
: : : suggest ideas for solutions for company problems .78 (.80)
: : : acquire new knowledge that will help the company .86 (.92)
: : : optimize the organization of work to further organizational goals .85 (.83)
[interpersonal]
: : : share knowledge with colleagues. .50 (.60)
: : : take over colleagues’ tasks when needed even though s/he is not obliged to .68 (.82)
: : : help orient new colleagues .70 (.80)
: : : help colleagues with developing or implementing new ideas .75 (.70)
[personal]
: : : find new approaches to execute his/her tasks so that s/he can be more successful .81 (.70)
: : : acquire new knowledge that will help his/her career .92 (.83)
: : : realize his/her personal goals at work .92 (.71)
: : : take on tasks that will further his/her career .57 (.58)

Modelo CP PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modelo CP PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright © The British Psychological Society

Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci

Frank D. Belschak* and Deanne N. Den Hartog

The paper aims to further knowledge of proactive employee behaviour by exploring

476 Frank D. Belschak and Deanne N. Den Hartog

Different foci of proactive behaviour

Foci of proactive behaviour 477

Proactive behaviours refer to anticipatory actions that employees take to affect or

Commitment and different foci of proactive behaviour

478 Frank D. Belschak and Deanne N. Den Hartog

Hypothesis 1a: Organizational proactive behaviour is most strongly related to organizational

Foci of proactive behaviour 479

Initial nomological net of foci of proactive behaviour

Leadership and foci of proactive behaviour

480 Frank D. Belschak and Deanne N. Den Hartog

organizationally and team focused proactive employee behaviour. However, their

Hypothesis 2: Employees’ perception of their supervisor’s transformational leadership

Goal orientation and foci of proactive behaviour

Foci of proactive behaviour 481

Consistently, learning goal orientation was positively related to general proactive

Consequences of different foci of proactive behaviour

482 Frank D. Belschak and Deanne N. Den Hartog

Expectations about the relationship between interpersonal proactive behaviour and

Hypothesis 4: Employees’ organizational and personal proactive behaviour is positively related

Foci of proactive behaviour 483

Sample and procedure

484 Frank D. Belschak and Deanne N. Den Hartog

review by Crant (2000). One-item of the organizational proactive behaviours was

1. Self-rated organization proactive behaviour 5.33 1.16 (.87)

*p , :05; **p , :01.

Foci of proactive behaviour

1. Peer-rated organizational proactive behaviour 5.23 1.19 (.86)

3. Peer-rated personal proactive behaviour 5.08 1.16 .65** .67** (.89)

*p , :05; **p , :01.

Foci of proactive behaviour 487

Three-factor solution (M1) Two-factor solution (M2) One-factor solution (M3)

Foci of proactive behaviour 489

Commitment and proactive behaviour

Table 4. Foci of commitment and proactive behaviours (Study 1)

Organizational Interpersonal Personal

Self-rated proactive behaviour

*p , :05; **p , :01.

490 Frank D. Belschak and Deanne N. Den Hartog

Transformational leadership, goal orientations, and proactive behaviour

Foci of proactive behaviour 491

Table 5. Goal orientation, transformational leadership, and proactive behaviour (Study 2)

Organizational Interpersonal Personal

*p , :05; **p , :01.

Performance and proactive behaviour

492 Frank D. Belschak and Deanne N. Den Hartog

performance was mediated by organizational proactive behaviour (z ¼ 3.03, p , .01).

Foci of proactive behaviour 493

Limitations and practical implications

494 Frank D. Belschak and Deanne N. Den Hartog

Foci of proactive behaviour 495

496 Frank D. Belschak and Deanne N. Den Hartog

Foci of proactive behaviour 497

Received 10 June 2008; revised version received 10 March 2009

498 Frank D. Belschak and Deanne N. Den Hartog

At work, your colleague personally takes the initiative to: : :

You might also like

3. Peer-rated personal proactive behaviour 5.08 1.16 .65 .67 (.89)