Sustainable Production and Consumption 25 (2021) 299–311

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Production and Consumption

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/spc

Research article

Positive personality traits and self-leadership in sustainable

organizations: Mediating influence of thriving and moderating role of
proactive personality
Ghulam Abid a,f,∗, Bindu Arya b, Amara Arshad c, Saira Ahmed d, Saira Farooqi e
a
School of Business Administration, National College of Business Administration & Economics, Lahore, Pakistan
b
University of Missouri-St. Louis, One University Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63121-4400, United States
c
National College of Business Administration & Economics, Lahore, Pakistan
d
Institute of Business & Management, University of Engineering & Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
e
Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore, Pakistan
f
Department of Business Studies, Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore, Pakistan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Self-leadership is a self-influence perspective that pertains to one’s own ability to manage, lead and con-
Received 27 March 2020 trol personal behaviors and come up with strategies to achieve desired goals for sustainable competitive
Revised 28 August 2020
advantages. Prior research has found positive associations between self-leadership and a variety of indi-
Accepted 4 September 2020
vidual and organizational outcomes. Yet, very little work has investigated the role of personality traits as
Available online 10 September 2020
possible antecedents of self-leadership. Hence, the primary goal of our study is to investigate several of
Editor: Prof. Adisa Azapagic these antecedents in a non-Western context with the goal of further clarifying this valuable topic. We also
test whether this relationship is mediated by thriving at work and moderated by proactive personality.
Keywords:
Hope Data was collected in two time waves to minimize common method bias from 245 employees working
Optimism in different public and private sector firms by utilizing survey methodology. We tested our hypothesized
Social cognitive theory model with the help of Hayes’ PROCESS macro. We found that hopeful and optimistic employees are
Sustainability more likely to thrive at work through the better experience of learning and vitality. This, in turn, boost
Self-leadership a person’s self confidence that driving to set stretch goals which allow them to develop self-leadership
Thriving at work abilities. It is also found that the positive linkage between the hope and self-leadership is stronger for
Proactive personality employees higher on proactive personality than for employees with lower proactive personality.
© 2020 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction capability to constantly recognizing the factors that influences its

Burgeoning interest in building sustainable organizations has
increased research and managerial attention to the topic of cor-
porate sustainability (Bansal, 2019; Ilyas et al., 2020). Corporate
sustainability as a construct originated in the concept of sustain-
able development defined in United Nations report as “meeting
the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising
the ability to meet those needs in the future (WCED, 1987). Sus-
tainability involves organizational efforts to satisfy a triple bottom
line of economic, environment and human performance (Di Fabio
and Peiró, 2018). Yet, less attention has been focused on the hu-
man dimension of sustainability (Abid et al., 2020; Pfeffer, 2010).
To be sustainable, it is necessarily that organizations improve the
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ghulam.abid@kinnaird.edu.pk (G. Abid), bindua@umsl.edu (B.
Arya), saira.farooqi@kinnaird.edu.pk (S. Farooqi).
long term growth, build skill set and knowledge on how to en-
counter the adverse effects and brings the changes within itself
in effective way (Abid et al., 2020). In effect, research in the so-
cial dimension of sustainable development has experienced robust
growth by taking into consideration key human resource areas like
self-development and resilience of employees (Abid et al., 2020;
Ilyas et al., 2020; Manuti and Giancaspro, 2019) as well as fo-
cusing on their quality of work life balance and work satisfac-
tion (Chams and García-Blandón, 2019). Improving the employ-
ees’ quality of life and their life satisfaction has been greatly ad-
dressed by organizational scholars and policy makers (Abid et al.,
2019; Chen et al., 2019). In order to reap the trickling down ef-
fect of sustainable development, the involvement of all organiza-
tional levels is needed, for which organizations need to change
the belief system of its employees. In order to reach this goal,
Hay (2010) and Abid et al. (2019) contemplated that employees
self-development and their constant learning is required though

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.005
2352-5509/© 2020 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
300 G. Abid, B. Arya and A. Arshad et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 25 (2021) 299–311
incremental in nature. For achieving this purpose, self-leadership
characteristics among organizational members are found to be
helpful in developing socially accepted manners, which enable em-
ployees to achieve learning as well as improved thought patterns
(Furtner et al., 2013). With the extant consideration on multi-
faceted sustainable development dimensions, sustainable leader-
ship is becoming the heart of a debate among policy makers and
academia in the recent literature on human and social sustainabil-
ity (Ilyas et al., 2020). To be able to build sustainable organiza-
tions, leaders must pay attention to continuous self-development
i.e. building and renewing themselves (Sinha, 2017).
Since an important aspect of organizational behavior is the in-
fluence that individuals have over their own selves (Manz, 1986),
self-leadership scholars focus on how individuals lead and man-
age themselves (see Stewart et al., 2011 for a review). The con-
cept of self-leadership suggests that a single individual can act as
both the leader and the follower. Self-leadership is a dominant
and powerful self influence perspective that deals with directing
oneself towards intrinsically motivating tasks, managing one’s atti-
tudes and behaviors to do what needs to be done in order to com-
plete tasks even if they are not naturally motivating (Manz, 1986).
Self-leadership is a set of explicit behavioral and cognitive strate-
gies through which individuals influence, control and lead them-
selves (Neck and Houghton, 2006). Self awareness is the first step
towards self-leadership which leads individuals in the direction
of the management of effective and productive work behaviors
(Manz and Neck, 2004). Being aware of one’s current performance
and behaviors can help individuals in setting more effective future
goals to enhance their performance (Manz, 1986).
Self-leadership has been found to have a positive impact on a
variety of individual level attitudes and outcomes such as absen-
teeism (Frayne and Latham, 1987), career success (Raabe et al.,
2007; Megheirkouni, 2018), employee productivity (Birdi et al.,
2008), adaptive performance (Marques-Quinteiro et al., 2019),
ethical behaviors (VanSandt and Neck, 2003), job satisfac-
tion (Houghton and Jinkerson, 2004; Marques-Quinteiro et al.,
2019), self-efficacy (Megheirkouni, 2018), innovative work behavior
(Kor, 2016), along with team level outcomes such as team man-
agement (Neck et al., 1997), team performance (Stewart and Bar-
rick, 20 0 0), and team sustainability (Houghton et al., 20 03), among
others.
Several reviews of the accumulated body of knowledge on self-
leadership (Stewart et al., 2011; Neck and Houghton, 2006) con-
tinue to note that insights on internal forces that drive self- lead-
ership in different cultural contexts are limited. While some stud-
ies in Western contexts have shown that some stable, personality
traits such as conscientiousness can affect self-leadership through
self-regulation and the self-management process among individu-
als (Stewart et al., 1996), others suggest that state-like (i.e. open
to change) personality characteristics can also influence the self-
leadership capability of individuals (Williams, 1997). Past empirical
studies on self-leadership are mainly focused on the consequences
of self-leadership (Marques-Quinteiro et al., 2019). Yet, “sparse re-
search on potential predictors of self-leadership has thus far been
limited to intervention studies” (Muller and Niessen, 2019, p. 884).
Furthermore, scholars also continue to lament the lack of empirical
studies investigating the role of different personality characteristics
as possible antecedents of self-leadership (Houghton et al., 2004;
Stewart et al., 2011). Moreover, there are very few studies that help
us understand the various antecedents that enable self-leadership
to develop and flourish (Houghton et al., 2004; Stewart et al.,
2011). Thus, this study will investigate several of these antecedents
in a non-Western context with the goal of further clarifying this
valuable topic.
Accordingly, a key objective of our study is to begin to fill this
gap in the literature by drawing on Bandura’s social cognitive the-
ory (SCT) (1986). Neck and associates (Neck et al., 2003; Neck and
Houghton, 2006) note that SCT is a critical conceptual framework
upon which self-leadership is based. SCT conceives individuals as
being goal directed and actively engaged in developing thought
processes and behaviors to meet their goals. It highlights the inter-
action between personal goals, cognition, and contextual factors in
regulating motivated behavior (Bandura, 1991). More importantly,
SCT emphasizes that self-efficacy beliefs are a key mechanism un-
derlying human behavior. We seek to investigate the direct influ-
ence of two positive personality characteristics, namely, hope and
optimism on self-leadership along with assessing the intervening
influence of one type of positive work behavior, namely, thriving
at work, in order to understand the unique affiliations amongst
these variables and their role in the development of self-leadership
abilities among individuals. Empirical finding suggests that opti-
mism and hope differentially predict many outcomes when we
investigate them concurrently (Fischer et al., 2018; Rand, 2009).
For example, optimism is related to the subjective well-being
(Gallagher and Lopez, 2009); whereas, hope is related to the aca-
demic performance of undergraduate students (Rand, 2009). This
is why, there is a need to better understand how, and under what
conditions, optimism and hope are differentially related to variour
outcome (Rand et al., 2020; Shanahan et al., 2020). In this study,
we specifically focus on both the hope and optimism as antecedent
variables because both are native but also trainable. Since it is pos-
sible to train managers to be self-leaders by adopting a positive
outlook, focused training interventions in organizations (in all sec-
tors) aimed at the development of hope and optimism can increase
employee self-leadership capabilities and advance human sustain-
ability. We also examine the moderating role of the stable person-
ality trait i.e., proactive personality on the personality trait and
self-leadership relationship. Fig. 1 summarizes the mediation and
moderation model of our study.
2. Literature review
2.1. An overview of self-leadership
Nearly couple of decades ago, leadership theorists recom-
mended that individuals by setting own standards can manage
their own behaviors, self-administrating consequences and ap-
praising self-performance based on their self-evaluations. Self-
leadership consists of a set of self-influence strategies through
which individuals achieve self-direction and self-motivation nec-
essary to perform tasks (Manz and Neck, 2004). Self-leadership
strategies are largely divided into three categories, consisting of
behavior-focused strategies, natural reward strategies and con-
structive thought pattern strategies (Anderson and Prussia, 1997).
Behavior-focused strategies include self-observation, self-goal set-
ting, self-reward, self-punishment and self-cueing. Self-observation
enhances an individual’s self-awareness that is necessary to change
ineffective behaviors. Self-set challenging goals combined with
self-set rewards have been found to energize individuals to accom-
plish tasks (Manz and Neck, 2004). Self-rewards include intangi-
ble rewards such as congratulating oneself for an accomplishment
or tangible rewards such as a vacation on completion of a diffi-
cult task. Self-punishment or self-correcting behavior allows indi-
viduals to reshape their behaviors. Self-cues such as motivational
notes/posters focus attention on goal achievement. Overall, behav-
ioral strategies tend to foster positive desirable behaviors while re-
ducing ineffective behaviors.
Natural reward strategies focus on building more pleasant and
enjoyable features into activities so that tasks become rewarding
and also consist of shaping an individual’s perception to focus on
the rewarding aspects of the tasks. For example, a nurse might fo-
cus on how tasks related to taking care of the terminally ill pro-
 G. Abid, B. Arya and A. Arshad et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 25 (2021) 299–311
Fig. 1. Theoretical model.
mote patient comfort. Constructive thought-oriented strategies en-
courage mental imagery of future success and positive self-talk.
Table 1 summarizes the self-leadership strategies.
Houghton et al.’s (2004) study provides some preliminary ev-
idence that personality might be an important antecedent of
self-leadership. Stewart et al. (1996) found that conscientiousness
predispose individuals to exercise self-leadership more. Due to
their learning willingness and enduring energy, individuals high
in certain personality characteristics should thrive at work com-
pared with those low in those attributes. Variations in thriving
at work resulting from individual differences in personality can
then be expected to create variations in an individual’s behavior-
focused strategies, reward strategies and constructive thought pat-
tern strategies. Hence, it is important to assess personality charac-
teristics as possible antecedents of self-leadership.
2.2. Impact of positive personality characteristics on thriving at work
and self-leadership
Positive psychology researchers have focused on exploring pos-
itive state-like human psychological resource capacities in individ-
uals, measured by the higher order construct, psychological capi-
tal (PsyCap), which is composed of four dimensions: self-efficacy,
hope, optimism and resilience (Luthans et al., 2007). State-like ca-
pacities such as hope, optimism, resilience, etc. are not as change-
able as moods that represent momentary feelings. Instead, they
are relatively malleable and open to change and development
compared with stable personality traits (e.g. Big Five personality
traits and core self-evaluations) that are hard-wired and difficult
to change. There is a growing recognition that positive psycholog-
ical functioning (i.e. constructs such as optimism and hope) in-
fluences health (Schiavon et al., 2017). Hope and optimism are
two positive psychological constructs which are not easily affected
by momentary alterations (Youssef and Luthans, 2007), and have
been previously studied as components of psychological capital
(Luthans et al., 2005) which has been found to be related to posi-
tive consequences at the individual as well as at the organizational
level. As a higher order construct, psychological capital entails four
301
positive psychological capacities of optimism, hope, resilience, and
efficacy (Luthans et al., 2015). According to Luthans and Youssef-
Morgan (2017, p. 343), this core construct comprises of unique
properties of the above mentioned four sub-constructs but also
shared commonalities with respect to intentionality, sense fo con-
trol and goal pursuit. Bryant and Cvengros (2004) proposed that
hope and optimism can be considered as dual gauges of a sin-
gle global dimension explaining future orientation.Youssef and
Luthans (2007) and Snyder (2000) describe hope as a motivational
state which creates the determination and directed energy in in-
dividuals to achieve valuable personal goals. Hope promotes the
creation and adaptation of alternative pathways to overcome ob-
stacles and accomplish those goals (Snyder et al., 1991). Specifi-
cally, the study by Cheaven et al. (2019) offer additional support
that hope is positively related with goal settings that are impor-
tant, difficult, prosocial, and long-term. Unlike hope, which is pri-
marily cognitive in nature, optimism encompasses cognitive, moti-
vational and emotional components (Peterson, 20 0 0). In addition,
while the primary source of hope is the self, an optimist’s sources
of a favorable view of the future may include the self, others or
external factors (Luthans, 2002). Optimistic individuals tend to at-
tribute positive outcomes to the self and negative outcomes to ex-
ternal factors such as people or circumstances (Seligman, 1998).
Thus, optimism can serve as a source of determination to over-
come obstacles and when coupled with hope it provides individ-
uals with the motivation and energy needed to seek new path-
ways to achieve their goals while preventing them from striving for
unrealistic goals (Snyder, 20 0 0). Positive organizational scholarship
suggests that both hope and optimism combined can help an in-
dividual to effectively cope with increasingly challenging business
environments by allowing them to perceive workplace obstacles as
learning opportunities (Youssef and Luthans, 2007). It is observed
that both optimism and hope are internalized concepts referring to
possible effects of beliefs toward future. Furthermore, these posi-
tive beliefs toward future are related to positive health outcomes
and positive expectations about the future (Sun and Shek, 2012).
Thriving at work is an adaptive psychological state of an indi-
vidual that consists of two components; first, a sense of constant
302 G. Abid, B. Arya and A. Arshad et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 25 (2021) 299–311

Table 1
Self-leadership strategies.

Behavior-focused Natural reward Constructive thought pattern

Behavior-focused strategies comprise of
self-reward (rewards to oneself as a mean to
encourage or discourage behaviors),
self-observation (i.e., employee monitoring their
own behavior and analyzing that their behaviors
are efficient or require further transformation),
self-punishment (employees’ own assessment and
improvement of themselves. It includes
self-criticism and self-evaluation with the aim to
correct himself in the conditions of poor
performance, failure and inefficacy while
performing tasks), self-goal setting (i.e.,
employees adaptation of their personal and
professional goals), and self-cueing (using notes
and images to recall the things that must be
accomplished). With he help of self-observation,
employees intentionally observe and evaluate
own performance to see whether their
performance is up to the desired standards.
Furthermore, it helps to collect systematic
information about the behaviors emotions and
thoughts. Self-goal setting comprises the ability
of setting goals that employees desire to achieve
in near future. The capability to self-goal setting
plays a significant role in shaping the priorities,
increasing self-motivation for accomplishing the
duties. Self-reward is associated with individual
reward and offers the motivation to successfully
reach the desired goals (Bryant & Kazan 2012).
Self-cueing comprises of considering the role
models as examples decided by any person in the
way of recognizing and completing the tasks.
Thus, it is expressed as a catalyst that help
employees to put thorough emphasis on the work
related goals (Bryant & Kazan 2012). The use of
self-goal setting and self-observation is
complemented by using self-cueing and
self-reward. Self-cueing aids employees to
remember the work related tasks that must be
accomplished and the rewards linked with them,
whereas, self-reward is valuable in promoting
self-motivation towards the accomplishment of
goals (Marques-Quinteiro & Curral, 2012).
Natural reward strategies are about the search of
enjoyable and pleasing feelings that enhance
intrinsic motivation during goal-striving actions.
According to Marques- Quinteito and Curral
(2012), these strategies have been proven to
increase the use of behavior-focused strategies.
Naturally rewarding activities has three primary
functions: to help one feel self-controlling, more
competent, and offer a sense of purpose (Neck,
Manz, & Houghton, 2019).
Natural reward strategies are grounded on the
method that feature the positive facets of the
tasks to be completed in the near futures. By
using these strategies, employees challenge the
problems through making motivating conditions
instead of ignoring those problems (Amundsen &
Martinsen, 2015). According to Neck and
Houghton (2006, p. 272), natural reward
strategies entails two approaches that help in
enhancing the efficacy of self-leadership. Firstly,
individual’s action in making the work
environment and task more pleasurable and
emphasizing on pleasant aspects of the job.
Secondly, shaping perceptions of individuals by
concentrating attentions away from the
undesirable facets of the job.
To summarize, natural reward strategies influence
employee’s enthusiasm and capability to work
effectively and may support to increase their
self-motivation.
Constructive thought pattern strategies include
the advancement of fresh thinking methods (such
as being hopeful or optimistic) and develop
habits that significantly boost employee’s
performance (Neck and Houghton 2006). These
types of strategies contain self-talk, visualizing
positive performance, and appraising assumptions
and opinions. Self-talk refers to the silent talk of
an employee with him/herself and it contains
mental self-evaluations (Neck and Houghton
2006). Visualizing positive performance enhances
the likelihood of achieving the task efficiently
because of the mental preparation before the
work assignment. Appraising assumptions and
opinions contain the assessment of thought
patterns and habits developed by an employee.
These assumptions and opinion concerns
“examining one’s thoughts, especially
self-defeating thoughts that detract from
successful task performance” (Ho & Nesbit, 2009.
p 454). These are very useful to eradicate the
dysfunctional and undesirable habits. Accordingly,
it is promising, that in these types of strategies
employees use their past experiences and positive
thoughts and establish the preferred actions.

improvement and learning at work, and the second, a feeling of be- their learning capabilities, making them feel vital in their work-
ing alive and energized with a perspective of growth and a brighter place. Based on our reasoning above, we hypothesize the follow-
future (Spreitzer et al., 2005). Hope and optimism are likely to ing:
have an important role to play in determining high or low levels of
employee thriving at work since these positive personality charac- Hypothesis 1a: An individual’s ability to hope is positively re-
teristics can determine whether or not individuals will view work- lated with thriving at work.
place challenges positively, and proactively learn and grow through Hypothesis 1b: An individual’s ability to be optimistic is posi-
conquering these challenges. A recent meta-analysis on thriving at tively related with thriving at work.
work highlights that perservance during goal pursuit (hope) and
In discussions of positive personality characteristics, hope is de-
positive attributions about success (optimism) are critical predic-
scribed as an individual’s capability to derive new pathways to-
tors of thriving (Kleine et al., 2019). It indicates that optimal hu-
wards a desired goal and to motivate oneself to achieve those
man functioning may be manifested in psychological well-being
goals (Snyder, 2002). Hope is one’s abilities to achieve goals (i.e.,
and subjective health. As indicated by Spreitzer et al. (2012) for
“I meet the goals that I set for myself”; Snyder et al., 1991) in
human sustainability, thriving is very critical for enabling engaged
conditions where he/she realize more control over a preferred re-
and healthy workforce.
sult (i.e., “I will successfully run a mile”). Hope can also contribute
Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) implies that learning
to an individual’s career development and personal engagement in
capabilities depend upon an individual’s personality characteris-
work related activities (Juntunen and Wettersten 2006). A study by
tics (Lent et al., 2017; Stewart et al., 1996). The ability to learn
Warber et al. (2011) found that hope is negatively associated to de-
from experience has been linked to a positive outlook on life
pression and stress. Savickas and Porfeli (2012) note that hope is a
(McCauley et al., 1998). Drawing on social cognitive theory logic,
positive psychological state which is closely related to career con-
hopeful and optimistic individuals with a positive outlook on life
cern, confidence and control. Higher level of hope are positively
should actively pursue important, difficult and long-term goals
associated with better life quality (Hawro et al., 2014) and satis-
(Cheavens et al., 2006). Moreover, being hopeful can be expected
faction. Since hope is conceptualized as the perceived capability
to increase their ability to persevere in the face of difficulties by
to persevere, motivate and direct oneself to obtain desired targets
thinking through and adopting alternative pathways that boost
(Snyder 2002), it is viewed as an affective construct which influ-
 G. Abid, B. Arya and A. Arshad et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 25 (2021) 299–311
ences behaviors and thoughts. Hirschi et al. (2015) were able to
see an important association among hope and career exploration
Hope promotes positive feelings that allow individuals to confront
hardships and accomplish crucial goals. Santillie et al. (2014) note
that hopeful individuals tend to see themselves as being able to
cope with career related transitions, complex work situations, and
effectively construct their future career intentions. It is evident
that hopeful individuals are worried for the well-being of oth-
ers at large (Cheavens et al., 2019). Rand et al. (2020) found that
hope (beliefs about one’s ability to achieve one’s goal) is a strong
predictor of academic performance through mediating mechanism
of grade expectancy as compared with the general belief. Hope
has also been found to be positively associated with successful
goal attainment (Cheavens et al. 2019), career related self-efficacy
(Hirschi et al., 2015). Existing studies of optimistic insurance agents
(Seligman and Schulman, 1986), college students (Prussia et al.,
1998) and Fortune 500 managers (Manz et al., 1988) all find that
individual cognition, especially, positive thought patterns enable
increased self-efficacy perceptions and a greater sense of personal
control. This, in turn, supports the self-leadership development
process among individuals (Stewart et al., 2011).
Optimism is another positive personality characteristic which
has been found to be related to the positive strategies of ac-
tive planning, seeking support (Scheier et al., 1994) and proac-
tive coping amongst individuals (Aspinwall and Taylor, 1997). It is
a stable, general individual difference factor that is included atti-
tude, positive mood and/or opinion about upcoming events. Op-
timism is anchored in beliefs more general and it may be more
influential where the behaviors of the self are less relevant than
the self (Gallagher and Lopez, 2009). For example, greater opti-
mism may facilitate the belief that things will work out for the
best even when the circumstances are uncontrollable (e.g., “This
traffic jam will clear up soon”). Optimism also requires devel-
opment of a positive outlook about one’s own future achieve-
ments (Carver and Scheier 2005). Optimism can be elaborated as a
forthcoming expectation regarding future based positive outcomes
(Bryant and Cvengros, 2004) and reflection of positive appraisal
(Karademas et al., 2007). Optimism forecasts career planning and
exploration in addition to career goals (Patton et al., 2004), and ca-
reer adaptability (Rottinghaus et al., 2005). The inclination to view
work related events and situations in an optimistic manner is a
strength that can positively influence self leadership (Sheldon and
King, 2001). It is established that optimism and hope differentially
influenced certain facets of psychological well-being (Gallagher and
Lopez, 2009). Optimism was highly and significantly linked with
the aspects of hedonic well-being (e.g., negative. On the other
hand, hope was highly and significantly linked with facets of eu-
daimonic well-being (e.g., life satisfaction and self growth) (Rand
et al., 2020). In another study by Kardas et al. (2019), hope was
found to be the second most importanct predictior (explaining 10%
variance) of psychological well-being after gratitude. Whereas, op-
timism contributed only 3% variance in the well-being. It is evi-
dent from the study of Marques-Quinteiro et al. (2019) that self-
leadership can be learned and practice by employees at work and
it can be change over time. Taking into the consideration the agen-
tic perspective of Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1986), hopeful
and optimistic individuals who possess the ability to control their
behavior tend to set the goals for themselves. Consequently, they
lead themselves to achieve those goals through specific behavior
pattern and strategies (Neck and Houghton, 2006) which probably
serve as a source for the development of self-leadership qualities
i.e., self-observation and re-inforcement.
Taking into the consideration the agentic perspective of Ban-
dura’s social cognitive theory (1986), hopeful and optimistic in-
dividuals who possess the ability to control their behavior tend
to set the goals for themselves. Consequently, they lead them-
303
selves to achieve those goals through specific behavior pattern and
strategies (Neck and Houghton, 2006) which probably serve as a
source for the development of self-leadership qualities i.e., self-
observation and re-inforcement. Based on our reasoning above, we
hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2a: An individual’s ability to hope is positively re-
lated with self-leadership.
Hypothesis 2b: An individual’s ability to be optimistic is posi-
tively related with self-leadership.
2.3. Impact of thriving at work on self- leadership
Thriving at work is considered as a source of personal growth,
enhanced self effectiveness and knowledge (Abid et al., 2019;
Spreitzer et al., 2005). Thriving reflects a motivation in individu-
als to become more than what they are, besides seeking to con-
tinually grow their knowledge and skills (Ryff, 1989). When em-
ployees are thriving, they act in proactive ways to co-create their
job environment in ways to enable more thriving (Spreitzer et al.,
2012, p.161) and self-development. Thriving also helps individuals
to understand and analyze how well they are doing, which pro-
motes involvement in a process of self-regulation (Spreitzer et al.,
2005). This process of self-regulation leads them to engage in self-
reflection (Spreitzer et al., 2012).
According to social cognitive theory, the self regulation pro-
cess can drive individuals to set stretch goals that guide their
efforts while creating incentives to sustain engagement in com-
plex tasks. In addition, having achieved success in a particular do-
main can positively influence an individual’s self-concepts and self-
assessment of the capabilities necessary to perform tasks. Higher
levels of task-specific self-efficacy perceptions are not only likely
to promote greater effort and persistence in the pursuit of goals
but should also lead to a greater preference to learn in other situ-
ations (Bandura et al., 2001).
Given that individuals’ self-perceptions are a reflection of their
actions (Bandura, 1982), individuals sensing a greater feeling of
thriving at work should develop more positive self-perceptions
which could push them to acquire more skills and set new stretch
goals for themselves. Individuals who thrive at work tend to focus
on more pleasant task aspects and seek out activities that are en-
joyable which supports the development of self leadership skills.
As such, self-leadership is the ability to control self-behaviors, set
goals for one selves and lead oneself towards the achievement
of those goals through specific behavior patterns and strategies
(Neck and Houghton, 2006). When individuals thrive at work, then
they display higher levels of the two self-leadership qualities i.e.
self-observation and re-inforcement. Accordingly, we argue that
Hypothesis 3: Thriving at work is positively related with self-
leadership.
2.4. Mediating role of thriving at work on the positive personality
and self-leadership relationship
Research in the positive organizational behavior literature in-
dicates that personality attributes may be related to thriving at
work (Paterson et al., 2013). The positive personality characteristics
of hope and optimism are considered as positive state-like human
psychological resource capacities that support self-directed motiva-
tional mechanisms within individuals (Youssef and Luthans, 2007).
While hope represents the motivational energy to achieve desired
goals through different possible pathways (Snyder, 20 0 0), opti-
mism helps an individual to expect a positive future and actively
seek out new opportunities (Schneider, 2001), which ultimately
leads to greater learning and vitality at work.
304 G. Abid, B. Arya and A. Arshad et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 25 (2021) 299–311
The combined experience of learning and vitality is described
as thriving, which helps employees create favorable contextual
conditions for their personal growth (Spreitzer et al., 2004). Thriv-
ing enables individuals to feel competent and worthy which en-
hances their self confidence. Rising self-confidence is likely to help
them in setting new goals, taking risks and exploring new direc-
tions for self growth. In other words, employees who thrive tend to
take corrective actions to bolster their learning and vitality which
can contribute to the development of self-leadership qualities.
According to Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1986), positive
self perceptions with regard to their capabilities and greater learn-
ing efficacy are likely to help individual’s set more ambitious goals
and higher performance standards (Bandura, 1982). To achieve
those goals, individuals with positive personality characteristics
will engage in self-directed behaviors which help in the develop-
ment of self-leadership (Ross, 2014). Drawing on these arguments,
we expect that thriving at work will mediate the relationship be-
tween positive personality characteristics and self-leadership.
Hypothesis 4a: Thriving at work mediates the relationship be-
tween hope and self-leadership.
Hypothesis 4b: Thriving at work mediates the relationship be-
tween optimism and self-leadership.
2.5. Moderating effect of proactive personality on the positive
personality traits and self-leadership relationship
Proactive personality is a comparatively stable personality trait
that encompasses an individual’s proclivity to take personal ini-
tiative to improve current circumstances or create new ones
(Bateman and Crant, 1993). Proactive personality is an especially
important construct related to one’s career development, since it
provides the intrinsic motivation to initiate and strive for a dif-
ferent and better future. Siebert, Crant and Kraimer (2001) note
that individuals with a proactive personality are effective at select-
ing, creating and influencing work situations. They scan opportu-
nities and plan a different future (Crant, 20 0 0), besides taking the
initiative to articulate their ideas to bring about change and take
charge by acting upon their ideas (Fuller and Marler, 2009). They
possess qualities to lead themselves to this better future by taking
advantage of opportunities, while people with a lower proactive
personality tend to adapt to a given situation rather than initiating
change (Bateman and Crant, 1993).
People who possess a proactive personality are also much bet-
ter at estimating and creating situations to achieve their goals
and improve career success, in comparison with people with a
lower proactive personality (Crant, 1995). They quickly understand
the importance of building high quality relationships with their
supervisors and other individuals who control critical resources
(Li et al., 2010). Networking behavior allows them to seek out
organizational information and political knowledge that facilitates
adaptation to new work environments (Chan and Schmitt, 20 0 0).
Li et al. (2014) found that higher proactive personality results in a
higher learning orientation. Other researchers note that proactive
personality leads people to explore growth opportunities which
act as a fuel for skill development while promoting learning
(Parker et al., 2010). Frese and Fay (2001) note that individuals
with a proactive personality are continually future directed. Be-
sides, they are more motivated to learn new things by engaging in
action-oriented behaviors since they feel responsible for improving
their work environment and circumstances (Parker et al., 2010).
Central to Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory is the idea
that self-efficacy beliefs affect the cognitive mechanisms that drive
behavior. Given that self-efficacy perceptions have been found
to influence aspirations, effort, persistence and thought patterns
(Neck and Houghton, 2006), boosting self-efficacy becomes very
important since it allows individuals to persevere in the face of
difficulties.
Drawing on the agentic perspective of Bandura’s social cognitive
theory (1986), hopeful and optimistic individuals with a proactive
personality who engage in effortful goal achievement by seeking
out alternative approaches to task performance are more likely to
have greater self-efficacy beliefs compared with those with a lower
proactive personality. Greater task focus, experimentation and at-
tention to building quality social relationships should also allow
hopeful and optimistic individuals with a higher proactive person-
ality to place themselves in situations where they are motivated
to work hard to achieve their goals while engaging in problem-
solving and improvement-related activities that help them to ef-
fectively adjust and adapt to change (Fuller and Marler, 2009;
Grant and Ashford, 2008). Moreover, their active and self-starting
approach to work should lead hopeful and optimistic individuals
with a higher proactive personality to strive for new goals and
make decisions that can serve them in the future (Lepine et al.,
20 0 0). Hence, individual differences in proactive personality can
be expected to create variations in the ability of an hopeful and
optimistic individual to be a self-leader. Therefore, we predict the
following:
Hypothesis 5a: Proactive personality moderates the relation-
ship between hope and self-leadership such that the re-
lationship is stronger when proactive personality is high
rather than low.
Hypothesis 5b: Proactive personality moderates the relation-
ship between optimism and self-leadership such that the
relationship is stronger when proactive personality is high
rather than low.
3. Methods
3.1. Sample & procedure
This study was conducted on a heterogeneous sample of 480
employees working in different public and private sector firms lo-
cated in South Asia. Employees working at different levels in both
the manufacturing and service sectors were requested to partici-
pate in this research to test the study hypotheses. Since respon-
dents should be able to read, understand and respond to survey
questions in a meaningful way, employees with at least twelve
years of education were approached for this study so that they
could easily understand the survey questionnaire. Study partici-
pants were provided a letter from the first author’s educational
institute with details of the study to assure them that their re-
sponses were only for study purposes and would be kept confiden-
tial. All participants were approached by the first author, who re-
quested the participants respond to the survey in both time waves.
The questionnaire for this study was administered in two time
waves in order to avoid common method bias (Podsakoff et al.,
2003). Data for positive personality traits of hope and optimism,
and proactive personality was collected in the first wave (T1),
while responses for thriving at work and self-leadership were col-
lected in the second wave (T2). A gap of two weeks was kept be-
tween both waves to minimize the number of dropped respon-
dents in the second wave. Respondent names were collected at
Time 1 in order to approach them in the second wave of data col-
lection. Respondents were informed that their participation in this
study was completely voluntary and they could withdraw at any
time without any negative consequences.
Respondents participated in our study in their free time such
as during breaks so that they could complete the survey question-
naire with a relaxed mind. 438 responses were obtained in the
first time wave while only 256 of those participants were avail-
 G. Abid, B. Arya and A. Arshad et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 25 (2021) 299–311
able to participate in the second wave which was conducted over
two weeks. Our final sample consisted of 245 employees who re-
sponded to both waves after excluding the incomplete responses.
Collecting data in two time waves led to a decrease in the final
sample of this study, but it helps in minimizing common method
bias. Respondents who participated in this study were teachers, ac-
countants, engineers, administrative staff, auditors, managers and
middle-level employees working in different public and private
sector service and manufacturing firms. The advantage of our sam-
ple is that it included respondents with diverse backgrounds in
terms of qualifications, the nature of work, and their work envi-
ronment, etc.
Out of the 245 study respondents, 52.7% were male, while 47.3%
were females. The respondents’ age ranges between 21 and 52
years with an average age of 33 years old. About 58 (23.7%) par-
ticipants were 35 years, 36 (14.7%) were 36 years, and 32 (13.1%)
were 40 years old. 134 (54.7%) participants were married and 110
(44.9%) were single. Furthermore, 124 (50.6%) participants had a
minimum 16 years of education, 69 (28.2%) had 18 years of edu-
cation and 42 (17.1%) participants had 14 years of education. The
average tenure of employees was about 5 years.
3.2. Measures
Respondents utilized a five-point Likert type scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for all the study vari-
ables. All scales were adopted for their established psychometric
properties: validity and reliability (see supplementary information:
The survey used in the study).
3.2.1. Positive personality characteristics
Positive personality characteristics of hope and optimism were
measured using well established scales. Since our study aimed to
measure hope and optimism as an individual’s personality charac-
teristics in general rather than their workplace attitudes, we used
appropriate measurement scales with significant empirical support
(Youssef and Luthans, 2007). Accordingly, to measure hope the 6
item scale developed by Snyder et al. (1996), and for optimism the
12 item scale developed by Scheier and Carver (1985) was used. A
sample item from the hope scale was ‘If I should find myself in a
jam, I could think of many ways to get out of it’ and for optimism
was ‘I’m always optimistic about my future’.
3.2.2. Proactive personality
A 5 item scale by Janssen et al. (2017) was used to measure
the extent to which respondents possess a proactive personality.
One sample item from the scale was ‘I am always looking for bet-
ter ways to do things’. This scale in entirety was adopted for its
established validity and reliability in previous empirical studies by
Ullah et al. (2020) and Maan et al. (2020) with alpha reliability
reaching 0.74 and 0.76 respectively.
3.2.3. Thriving at work
Thriving of individuals was measured using the 10 item scale
developed by Porath et al. (2012). A sample item from the scale
was ‘I see myself continually improving’. Porath’s scale in entirety
was adopted for its established validity and reliability in previous
empirical studies by Abid et al. (2019; 2020a); with alpha reliabil-
ity reaching 0.85 and 0.88 respectively.
3.2.4. Self-leadership
The self-leadership construct was measured using the 20 item
scale developed by Prussia et al. (1998). A sample item from the
scale was ‘I keep a record of progress in my tasks’. Prussia et al.’s
(1998) scale in entirety was adopted for its established psychome-
tric properties, validity and reliability.
305
Controls: Prior studies have reported a significant correlation
between age and self-leadership (D’Intino et al., 2007; Kazan and
Earnest, 20 0 0). Hence, we control for several socio-demographic
variables, including age, gender and education since they might
have an impact on an individual’s thriving and self-leadership abil-
ities.
3.3. Analytical strategy
The hypothesized model was examined in two stages. First, con-
firmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using IBM AMOS
(maximum likelihood) software version 24 to test the factorial
structure and the adequacy of our hypothesized measurement
model. We tested and compared the measurement model with
alternative models using traditional good fit indices: χ 2 = chi-
square, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), incremen-
tal fit index (IFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), comparative fit in-
dex (CFI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA),
(Hoyle, 1995; Hu and Bentler, 1999). The acceptable values are
<0.08 for SRMR and RMSEA, and >0.90 for all other indices.
In the second step, we tested the hypothesized model with
the help of bootstrap-based Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2012)
which is a well-established ‘statistical resampling technique that
estimates the parameters of the model and their standard errors
strictly from the sample. This technique calculates precise and cor-
rect confidence intervals of indirect effects compared with the
causal step’s strategy of Baron and Kenny (1986).
4. Results
The five factor measurement model was examined utilizing all
five study variables. The proposed five factor measurement model
provided a good fit to the data (χ 2(615) = 1052.82, RMR = 0.05,
IFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.05), which is better
than the other alternate four models. Fit statistics are presented in
Table 2.
4.1. Convergent and discriminant validity
Convergent validity is the degree to which the measurement of
any construct is positively associated to the other measurements
within the same constructs (Hair et al., 2010). To establish the con-
vergent validity, an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and com-
posite reliability of the constructs investigated (Fornell and Lar-
cker, 1981). It is suggested that the reliability coefficients must be
higher than 0.70 and all the constructs met this criterion by de-
picting the value greater than 0.82. Discriminant validity is known
as a divergent validity: To what extent a construct is different from
the others? It can usually be assessed with the square root of the
AVE of the constructs being used and it should be higher than the
correlations of other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The
square root of the AVE of thriving at work, self-leadership, hope,
optimism, and proactive personality are greater than the correla-
tions of other construct (0.71, 1.24, 0.70, 0.81, and 0.69).
4.2. Common method bias (CMB)
As the data was collected through self-reported questionnaires,
the possibility of common method bias cannot be ruled out
(Podsakoffet al., 2003). During the data collection stage, respon-
dents were assured confidentiality and anonymity was ensured to
obtain unbiased responses. At the data analysis stage, Harman’s
single factor test (Harman, 1976) was applied using SPSS by con-
ducting an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on all items of study
variables. Harman’s single factor indicates common method bias if
the major percentage of the variance is explained by a single factor.
306 G. Abid, B. Arya and A. Arshad et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 25 (2021) 299–311

Table 2
Fit statistics for measurement model comparison.

Models χ2 df χ2 /df SRMR IFI TLI CFI RMSEA

5 Factor Measurement Model 1052.82 615 1.71 0.05 0.92 0.91 0.92 0.05
4 Factor Model a 1771.58 623 2.84 0.09 0.78 0.76 0.77 0.09
3 Factor Model b 2002.71 626 3.20 0.09 0.73 0.711 0.73 0.10
2 Factor Model c 2119.98 628 3.38 0.09 0.71 0.69 0.71 0.10
1 Factor Model d 3089.21 629 4.91 0.12 0.52 0.49 0.52 0.13

Notes: n = 245, All models were compared with the five-factor measurement model.
Modela: Hope and optimism combined into one factor.
Modelb: Hope and optimism combined into one factor and thriving and proactive personality into another fac-
tor.
Modelc : Thriving, proactive personality, and self-leadership combined into one factor and hope and optimism
into another factor.
Modeld: All constructs combined into one factor.

Table 3
Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Gender 1.53 0.50 1

2. Marital Status 1.56 0.53 0.06 1
3. Education 8.75 6.47 −0.43∗∗ −0.16∗ 1
4. Age 14.02 14.27 −0.44∗∗ −0.03 0.93∗∗ 1
5. Tenure 5.47 4.88 −0.11 0.47∗∗ 0.02 0.34∗∗ 1
6. Hope 3.81 0.75 0.05 −0.03 −0.23∗∗ −0.20∗∗ 0.04 (0.84)
7. Optimism 3.80 0.74 −0.03 −0.13∗ −0.13∗ −0.17∗∗ −0.01 0.20∗∗ (0.95)
8. Proactive Personality 3.92 0.59 0.05 −0.16∗ −0.11 −0.11 −0.16 0.17∗∗ 0.09 (0.76)
9. Thriving at Work 4.06 0.66 0.13 −0.09 −0.30∗∗ −0.34∗∗ −0.18∗ 0.27∗∗ 0.26∗∗ 0.21∗∗ (0.90)
10. Self-Leadership 3.72 0.42 0.12 −0.05 −0.20∗∗ −0.22∗∗ −0.13 0.19∗∗ 0.06 0.14∗ 0.18∗∗ (0.78)

Note: n = 245. ∗∗ p < 0.01 (two-tailed). ∗ p < 0.05 (two-tailed).

Our results indicate that multiple factors emerge instead of a sin- Table 4
Regression results for simple mediation (hope as a predictor).
gle factor and the first factor explains only 18.75% variance which
is below the 50% level. Also aggregate variance explained by all re- Predictor B SE T p
tained factors was 65.86%, which suggests that common method Thriving at Work (M)
bias may not be an issue in this study. Constant 3.15 0.21 14.78 0.00
Table 3 provides a means, SD and correlation analysis results. Hope (X) 0.24 0.05 4.35 0.00
These suggest that positive personality trait of hope is positively Self-Leadership (Y)
Constant 3.02 0.19 15.97 0.00
related with optimism (r = 0.20), proactive personality (r = 0.17),
Hope (X) 0.09 0.04 2.36 0.02
thriving at work (r = 0.27), and self-leadership (r = 0.19). More- Thriving at Work (M) 0.09 0.04 2.21 0.03
over, positive personality trait of optimism is positively related Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
with thriving at work (r = 0.26). Our results also indicate that self- Indirect effect of Hope (X) on Self Leadership (Y)
Thriving at Work (M) 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04
leadership is positively related to proactive personality and thriv-
ing at work (r = 0.14, 0.18 respectively). These values provide some Note: n = 245; Bootstrap sample size = 50 0 0; β = Unstandardized regression co-
initial support for a positive relationship between the study vari- efficients; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; CI = confidence interval; X = Pre-
dictor; M = Mediator; Y = Criterion.
ables. The correlation matrix shows that respondent age was neg-
atively related with self-leadership. Gender and education did not
have a relationship with other variables. Reliability values are pro- Table 5
Regression results for simple mediation (optimism as a predictor).
vided in parentheses on diagonals in the table and indicate good
reliability for study measures. Predictor B SE T p

Thriving at Work (M)

4.3. Hypotheses testing Constant 3.18 0.21 14.81 0.00
Optimism (X) 0.23 0.06 4.19 0.00
We tested the hypothesized model with the help of Hayes’ PRO- Self-Leadership (Y)
CESS macro (Hayes, 2012), with bootstrapping of 50 0 0 which is Constant 3.23 0.19 16.80 0.00
Optimism (X) 0.01 0.04 0.16 0.87
recommended for small samples. Our test for simple mediation
Thriving at Work (M) 0.12 0.04 2.78 0.01
and moderation effects are provided in Tables 4–6. Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Table 4 illustrates that the positive personality trait, hope posi- Indirect effect of Optimism (X) on Self Leadership (Y)
tively impacts thriving at work (β = 0.24, t = 4.35, p = 0.00) and Thriving at Work (M) 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.05
self-leadership (β = 0.09, t = 2.36, p = 0.02), hence providing sup- Note: n = 245; Bootstrap sample size = 50 0 0; β = Unstandardized regression co-
port for H1a and H2a, respectively. Besides, thriving at work pos- efficients; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; CI = confidence Interval; X = Pre-
itively impact self-leadership (β = 0.09, t = 2.21, p = 0.03). This dictor; M = Mediator; Y = Criterion; W = Moderator.
result provides support for H3. The indirect effect of the positive
personality trait, hope on self-leadership is significant and posi-
tive since the resulting confidence interval of bootstrapping does Table 5 illustrates that the positive personality trait, optimism
not include zero [90% CI (0.01, 0.04)], which indicates that thriv- has a positively impact on thriving at work (β = 0.23, t = 4.19,
ing positively mediates the relationship between hope and self- p = 0.00). This provides support for H1b. Optimism does not
leadership. This provides support for H4a. have a significant impact on self-leadership (β = 0.01, t = 0.16,
 G. Abid, B. Arya and A. Arshad et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 25 (2021) 299–311 307

Table 6
Regression results for the indirect effect of Hope (X) on Self-Leadership (Y).

Predictor B SE T p

Self-Leadership (Y)
Constant 4.74 0.66 7.22 0.00
Proactive Personality (W) −0.47 0.18 −2.64 0.01
Hope (X) × Proactiv Personality (W) 0.15 0.05 3.08 0.00
Conditional effects of the focal predictorat the value of the moderator
Proactive Personality B SE T p
3.40 0.03 0.04 0.86 0.39
4.00 0.12 0.04 3.14 0.00
4.40 0.18 0.05 3.17 0.00
Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Indirect effect of Hope (X) on Self Leadership (Y)
Thriving at Work (M) 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.05

Note: n = 245; Bootstrap sample size = 50 0 0; β = Unstandardized regression coefficients;

LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit; CI = confidence interval; X = Predictor; M = Mediator;
Y = Criterion; W = Moderator.

Table 7
Regression results for the indirect effect of Optimism (X) on Self-Leadership (Y).

Predictor B SE T p

Self-Leadership (Y)
Constant 3.61 0.65 5.58 0.00
Proactive Personality (W) −0.09 0.17 −0.54 0.59
Optimism (X) × Proactiv Personality (W) 0.05 0.05 1.01 0.31
Conditional effects of the focal predictor at the value of the moderator
Proactive Personality B SE t p
3.40 −0.02 0.04 −0.38 0.71
4.00 0.01 0.04 0.31 0.76
4.40 0.03 0.05 0.66 0.51
Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Indirect effect of Optimism (X) on Self Leadership (Y)
Thriving at Work (M) 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.05

Note: n = 245; Bootstrap sample size = 50 0 0; β = Unstandardized regression coefficients; LL = lower

limit; UL = upper limit; CI = confidence interval; X = Predictor; M = Mediator; Y = Criterion;
W = Moderator.

p = 0.87). Hence, we do find support for H2b. The indirect effect

of positive personality trait, optimism on self-leadership is signif-
icant and positive since the resulting confidence interval of boot-
strapping does not include zero [90% CI (0.01, 0.05)]. This indicates
that thriving positively mediates the relationship between opti-
mism and self-leadership. Hence, we find support for H4b.

4.4. Tests of moderation

Table 6 and 7 depict the results of our hypothesized modera-

tion paths. With regard to Hypotheses 5a, we anticipated that the
positive linkage between the positive personality trait, hope and
self-leadership would be stronger for employees higher on proac-
tive personality than for employees with lower proactive personal-
ity. Our results demonstrate that the interaction effect of hope and
proactive personality on self-leadership is positive and significant
(β = 0.15, t = 3.08, 90% CI = 0.07 to 0.22, p = 0.00) (see Table 6). Fig. 2. Moderation of proactive personality.
The simple slopes for the interaction effect (moderating) are dis-
played in Fig. 2.
With regard to Hypothesis 5b, we anticipated that the posi- 5. Discussion
tive linkage between positive personality trait, optimism and self-
leadership would be stronger for employees higher on proactive The primary purpose of our study was to examine whether in-
personality than for employees with lower proactive personality. dividuals possessing specific personality characteristics have bet-
Our results demonstrate that the interaction effect of optimism and ter chances of excelling and thriving at work, making them more
proactive personality on self-leadership is positive, but insignifi- likely to possess higher levels of self-leadership abilities. Build-
cant (β = 0.05, t = 1.01, p = 0.31) (see Table 7). Hence, this does ing on Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1986), we theorized
not provide support for Hypothesis 5b. that personality characteristics provide intrinsic motivation for
The next section includes a discussion of our findings. This is learning and vitality by acting as a source of positive energy
followed by a section on the implications and limitations of our among individuals making them more self reliant. Consistent with
study. Klein et al. (2019) and Bryant and Cvengros (2004), we found that
308 G. Abid, B. Arya and A. Arshad et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 25 (2021) 299–311
hopeful and optimistic individuals are more energetic, career con-
cerned and future oriented and have positive expectations about
the future. Our findings contribute to the thriving at work litera-
ture by highlighting the important role that individual personality
characteristics can play in stimulating motivational processes such
as thriving (Youssef and Luthans, 2007).
Furthermore, although some preliminary evidence in the litera-
ture suggests that individual-level personality factors might be an
important antecedent of self-leadership (Houghton et al., 2004),
limited studies have empirically investigated how personality influ-
ences self-leadership. In addition, our study suggests that proactive
personality can be a boundary condition (Maan et al., 2020) that
impacts the relationship between the positive personality trait,
hope and self-leadership. We find that the positive personality
trait, hope demonstrates positive effects on self-leadership among
individuals with higher levels of proactive personality. This result
supports the viewpoint by Porath et al. (2012) that proactive per-
sonality involves internal constructive and positive changes which
ignite learning. Continual learning in the workplace implies a con-
tinued orientation towards developing one’s career (Jiang, 2017)
and self-development (i.e. self-leadership). In addition, we found
that the moderating influence of proactive personality on the rela-
tionship between optimism and self-leadership was not significant.
Our study also suggests that hope increases the level of
self-leadership through individual psychological state (thriving at
work). We argue that variations in thriving at work resulting from
individual differences in personality characteristics create varia-
tions in an individual’s behavior-focused strategies, reward strate-
gies and constructive thought pattern strategies. Our results sug-
gest that thriving at work may play a significant role in linking
personality characteristics and self-leadership. Our findings are sig-
nificant because they suggest that thriving is an important moti-
vational state which makes employees more self aware, self con-
fident and active in setting goals, which drives them to become
their own leaders. Thriving enables the process of self-regulation,
self-assessment and adaptability. In other words, enhanced thriv-
ing will boost a person’s self confidence driving them to set stretch
goals which allow them to develop self-leadership abilities.
Several reviews of the accumulated body of knowledge on self-
leadership (Stewart et al., 2011; Neck and Houghton, 2006) con-
tinue to note that insights on internal forces that drive self lead-
ership in different cultural contexts are limited. While some stud-
ies in Western contexts have shown that some stable, personality
traits such as conscientiousness can affect self-leadership through
self-regulation and the self-management process among individ-
uals (Stewart et al., 1996), our study finds that state-like (i.e.
open to change) personality characteristics can influence the self-
leadership capability of individuals (Williams, 1997).
5.1. Theoretical implications
Our study has the following theoretical implications. First,
this study enriches the positive psychology literature by exam-
ining the association between hope, optimism and thriving at
work. Our study lends support to Nawaz et al.’s (2018) and
Peterson et al.’s (2013) work which investigated the impact of hope
and optimism as elements of psychological capital on thriving. Our
study also argues for and finds support linking thriving at work
with self-leadership development among individuals which is a
very important construct related to individual growth and devel-
opment.
Second, our study contributes to the self-leadership literature
by providing an enhanced understanding of how personality char-
acteristics might be associated with one’s ability to be a bet-
ter self leader. Similar to prior medical studies found that hope
and optimism help people to cope with their medical condi-
tions (Scheier et al., 1994; Aspinwall and Taylor, 1997; Lopes and
Cunha, 2008), employees possessing hope and optimism may per-
severe in the face of difficulties by thinking through and adopt-
ing alternative pathways that boost their learning at work, help-
ing them to develop self-leadership abilities. Furthermore, since
individuals with a proactive personality are more future focused,
change oriented and easily adapt to a variety of circumstances
(Grant and Ashford, 2008; Wahat, 2009) they have a strong predis-
position toward learning that supports the self development pro-
cess. Our study enhances understanding of self-leadership devel-
opment by investigating the influence of two less studied positive
personality characteristics (hope and optimism) and the stable per-
sonality trait, proactive personality on self-leadership. Empirical re-
sults of our study provide support for Spreitzer et al.’s (2005) ob-
servation that thriving engages people in the process of self-
regulation and self-assessment which drives the development of
self-leadership (Stewart et al., 1996).
5.2. Practical implications
Our findings have several practical implications. To breed a cul-
ture that fosters human sustainability, organizations should con-
sider making significant investments in training. Since hope and
optimism are both malleable, it is possible to train managers to
be self-leaders by adopting a positive outlook. This suggests that
focused training interventions aimed at the development of hope
and optimism can increase employee self-leadership capabilities by
providing them with self direction, motivation and the persistence
they need to overcome obstacles to advancing human sustainabil-
ity. Facilitating positive self-talks can promote the development of
self-leaders. By developing self-leaders, such interventions can en-
sure that more innovative and flexible approaches to human sus-
tainability happen everywhere in the organization, not just at the
top management level.
Employees with high levels of self-leadership are likely to better
adapt and adjust in organizations that are directing greater atten-
tion to human sustainability issues by working to identify innova-
tive solutions. Self-leadership can also be contagious i.e. other em-
ployees who witness the efforts of self-leaders may be motivated
to behave in the same way (Spreitzer et al., 2012). Furthermore, in-
creased employee involvement and continuous learning opportuni-
ties that improve self-efficacy can make employees thrive at work
and promote constructive cognition, which can be particularly ad-
vantageous for the long-term sustainability of organizations. Our
study also highlights the importance of hiring wisely. Recruitment,
selection, and assessment processes can be designed to screen for
positivity so that organizations select employees with the positive
personality traits of hope and optimism.
5.3. Limitations and directions for future research
Our study has limitations that provide several opportunities for
future research. First, this study uses a cross sectional design. Al-
though data was collected in two time waves, responses for each
variable were taken at a single point of time. This makes it more
difficult to assert directions of causality. Future studies adopting
longitudinal designs in order to understand causal relationships
among study variables might be beneficial. Second, although this
study follows a time lagged structure to avoid common method
bias as data was collected in two time waves, responses for pos-
itive personality traits and proactive personality were taken at
Time 1 and for thriving and self-leadership at Time 2. Future work
might consider adopting multi-sourcing in addition to the time
lagged structure (Abid and Butt, 2017). Third, future studies uti-
lizing larger sample sizes to investigate these relationships in dif-
ferent contexts are necessary to provide further support for the re-
 G. Abid, B. Arya and A. Arshad et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 25 (2021) 299–311
sults of this study. Fourth, the current study investigated hope and
optimism as these are more stable state-like personality character-
istics and one stable personality trait, proactive personality. Future
research might test core self-evaluations as another possible an-
tecedent of self-leadership. Fifth, future work needs to explore the
influence of culture on this association. Sixth, studies might con-
duct additional analyses of the association of our control variables
(gender, marital status, education, age and tenure) with employee
thriving at work. Sixth, since the type of industry matters in that
people who are in a customer service facing or healthcare industry
report different levels of self-leadership than people in the finance
industry, future research needs to examine the impact of positive
psychological resource capacities in different industry settings. Fi-
nally, we investigated the thriving at work as predictor of self-
leadership. It may be worthwhile to explore the individuals high in
self-leadership capabilities are most probably thrive at workplace.
6. Conclusion
This study utilized social cognitive theory (SCT) to examine how
individuals possessing positive personality characteristics promote
the positive psychological state of thriving at work and become
self-leaders. Our results suggest that hopeful and optimistic em-
ployees are more likely to thrive at work through the augmented
experience of learning and vitality. This, in turn, can initiate a pro-
cess of self-growth among individuals helping them to become
better self-leaders. In other words, enhanced thriving will boost a
person’s self confidence driving them to set stretch goals which
allow them to develop self-leadership abilities. Our study suggests
that proactive personality can be a boundary that impacts the rela-
tionship between the hope and self-leadership. It is found that the
positive linkage between the hope and self-leadership is stronger
for employees higher on proactive personality than for employees
with lower proactive personality. Our findings highlight the impor-
tance of utilizing SCT theory to understand the role of individual-
level personality characteristics as possible antecedents of self-
leadership. We hope that our study motivates additional inquiry
into this increasingly important yet understudied area.
Funding
Authors received no external funding.
Declaration of Competing Interest
We do hereby solemnly affirm that we do not have any conflict
of interest to declare, and that the study was conducted for purely
academic/research purposes.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.09.005.
References
Abid, G., Butt, T.H., 2017. Expressed turnover intention: alternate method for know-
ing turnover intention and eradicating common method bias. Int. Lett. Soc. Hu-
manist. Sci. 78, 18–26. doi:10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.78.18.
Abid, G., Ahmed, S., Elahi, N.S., Ilyas, S., 2020a. Antecedents and mechanism of em-
ployee well-being for social sustainability: a sequential mediation. Sustain. Prod.
Consum. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2020.06.011.
Abid, G., Ahmed, S., Qazi, T.F., Sarwar, K., 2020b. How managerial coaching enables
thriving at work? A sequential mediation. J. Entrep. Manage. Innovat. 16 (2),
131–160. doi:10.7341/20201625.
Abid, G., Contreras, F., Ahmed, S., Qazi, T., 2019. Contextual factors and organiza-
tional commitment: examining the mediating role of thriving at work. Sustain-
ability 11 (17), 4686. doi:10.3390/su11174686.
309
Anderson, J.S., Prussia, G.E., 1997. The self-leadership questionnaire: preliminary as-
sessment of construct validity. J. Leadersh. Stud. 4 (2), 119–143. doi:10.1177/
10717919970 040 0212.
Aspinwall, L.G., Taylor, S.E., 1997. A stitch in time: self regulation and proactive cop-
ing. Psychol. Bull. 121, 417–436. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.417.
Bandura, A., 1982. Self-efficiency mechanism in human agency. Am. Psychol. 37 (2),
122–147.
Bandura, A., 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive
Theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A., 1991. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organ. Behav. Hum. De-
cis. Process. 50, 248–287. doi:10.1016/0749- 5978(91)90022- L.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G.V., Pastorelli, C., 2001. Self-efficacy beliefs
as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Dev. 72 (1),
187–206. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00273.
Bansal, T., 2019. Sustainable development in an age of disruption. Acad. Manage.
Discov. 5 (1), 8–12.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in so-
cial psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51 (6), 11–73.
Bateman, T.S., Crant, J.M., 1993. The proactive component of organizational behav-
ior: a measure and correlates. J. Organ. Behav. 14, 103–118. doi:10.1002/job.
4030140202.
Birdi, K., Clegg, C., Patterson, M., Robinson, A., Stride, C.B., Wall, T.D., Wood, S.J.,
2008. The impact of human resource and operational management practices
on company productivity: a longitudinal study. Pers. Psychol. 61 (3), 467–501.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.20 08.0 0136.x.
Bryant, F.B., Cvengros, J.A., 2004. Distinguishing hope and optimism: two sides of a
coin, or two separate coins? J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 23 (2), 273–302. doi:10.1521/
jscp.23.2.273.31018.
Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.S., 2005. Optimism. In: Snyder, C.R., Lopez, S.J. (Eds.), Hand-
book of Positive Psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 231–243.
Chams, N., García-Blandón, J., 2019. On the importance of sustainable human re-
source management for the adoption of sustainable development goals. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 141, 109–122.
Chan, D., Schmitt, N., 20 0 0. Interindividual differences in intraindividual changes in
proactivity during organizational entry: a latent growth modeling approach to
understanding newcomer adaptation. J. Appl. Psychol. 85 (2), 190. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.85.2.190.
Cheaven, J.S., Heiy, J.E., Feldman, D.B., Benitez, C., Rand, K.L., 2019. Hope, goals, and
pathways: Further validating the hope scale with observer ratings. J. Posit. Psy-
chol. 14 (4), 452–462.
Cheavens, J.S., Feldman, D.B., Gum, A., Michael, S.T., Snyder, C.R., 2006. Hope therapy
in a community sample: a pilot investigation. Soc. Indic. Res. 77, 61–78.
Chen, Y., Chen, H., Liu, J., 2019. Household Split, income, and migrants’ life satisfac-
tion: social problems caused by rapid urbanization in China. Sustainability 11
(12), 3415.
Crant, J.M., 1995. The proactive personality scale and objective job performance
among real estate agents. J. Appl. Psychol. 80 (4), 532–537. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.80.4.532.
Crant, J.M., 20 0 0. Proactive behavior in organizations. J. Manage. 26, 435–462.
doi:10.1177/014920630 0 0260 0304.
Di Fabio, A., Peiró, J.M., 2018. Human capital sustainability leadership to promote
sustainable development and healthy organizations: a new scale. Sustainability
10 (7), 2413.
D’Intino, R.S., Goldsby, M.G., Houghton, J.D., Neck, C.P., 2007. Self-leadership: a
process for entrepreneurial success. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 13 (4), 105–120.
doi:10.1177/10717919070130040101.
Fischer, I.C., Cripe, L.D., Rand, K.L., 2018. Predicting symptoms of anxiety and de-
pression in patients living with advanced cancer: the differential roles of hope
and optimism. Support. Care Cancer 26 (10), 3471–3477.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobserv-
able variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50. doi:10.1177/
0 0222437810180 0104.
Frayne, C.A., Latham, G.P., 1987. Application of social learning theory to employee
self-management of attendance. J. Appl. Psychol. 72 (3), 387–392.
Frese, M., Fay, D., 2001. Personal initiative (PI): a concept for work in the 21st cen-
tury. Res. Organ. Behav. 23, 133–188.
Fuller Jr., B., Marler, L.E., 2009. Change driven by nature: a meta-analytic review
of the proactive personality literature. J. Vocat. Behav. 75 (3), 329–345. doi:10.
1016/j.jvb.20 09.05.0 08.
Furtner, M.R., Baldegger, U., Rauthmann, J.F., 2013. Leading yourself and leading oth-
ers: linking self-leadership to transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire
leadership. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 22 (4), 436–449.
Gallagher, M.W., Lopez, S.J., 2009. Positive expectancies and mental health: identi-
fying the unique contributions of hope and optimism. J. Posit. Psychol. 4 (6),
548–556.
Grant, A.M., Ashford, S.J., 2008. The dynamics of proactivity at work. Res. Organ.
Behav. 28, 3–34. doi:10.1016/j.riob.20 08.04.0 02.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., 2010. Multivariate Data
Analysis: A Global Perspective. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA 2010.
Harman, H.H., 1976. Modern Factor Analysis. University of Chicago Press.
Hawro, T., Maurer, M., Hawro, M., Kaszuba, A., Cierpiałkowska, L., Królikowska, M.,
Zalewska, A., 2014. In psoriasis, levels of hope and quality of life are linked.
Arch. Dermatol. Res. 306 (7), 661–666.
310 G. Abid, B. Arya and A. Arshad et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 25 (2021) 299–311
Hay, R., 2010. The relevance of ecocentrism, personal development and transforma-
tional leadership to sustainability and identity. Sustain. Dev. 18 (3), 163–171.
Hayes, A.F. (2012). PROCESS: a versatile computational tool for observed variable
mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling.
Hirschi, A., Abessolo, M., Froidevaux, A., 2015. Hope as a resource for career ex-
ploration: examining incremental and cross-lagged effects. J. Vocat. Behav. 86,
38–47. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2014.10.006.
Houghton, J.D., Bonham, T.W., Neck, C.P., Singh, K., 2004. The relationship between
self-leadership and personality. J. Manage. Psychol. 19, 427–441.
Houghton, J.D., Jinkerson, D.L., 2004. Constructive thought strategies and job sat-
isfaction: a preliminary examination. Paper presented at the 2004 Western
Academy of Management Conference, Alyeska, AK.
Houghton, J.D., Neck, C.P., Manz, C.C., 2003. We think we can, we think we can, we
think we can: the impact of thinking patterns and self-efficacy on work team
sustainability. Team Perform. Manage. 9, 31–41.
Hoyle, R.H., 1995. Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications.
Sage.
Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6 (1),
1–55.
Ilyas, S., Abid, G., Ashfaq, F., 2020. Ethical leadership in sustainable organizations:
the moderating role of general self-efficacy and the mediating role of organiza-
tional trust. Sustain. Prod. Consump. 22, 195–204.
Janssen, A.B., Schultze, M., Grotsch, A., 2017. Following the ants: development of
short scales for proactive personality and supervisor support by Ant Colony op-
timization. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 33 (6), 409–421.
Jiang, Z., 2017. Proactive personality and career adaptability: the role of thriving at
work. J. Vocat. Behav. 98, 85–97.
Juntunen, C.L., Wettersten, K.B., 2006. Work hope: development and initial valida-
tion of a measure. J. Couns. Psychol. 53 (1), 94–106. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.
1.94.
Karademas, E.C., Karvelis, S., Argyropoulou, K., 2007. Stress-related predictors of op-
timism in breast cancer survivors. Stress Health 23 (3), 161–168. doi:10.1002/
smi.1132.
Kardas, F., Cam, Z., Eskisu, M., Gelibolu, S., 2019. Gratitude, hope, optimism and life
satisfaction as predictors of psychological well-being. Eurasian J. Educ. Res. 82,
81–99.
Kazan, A.L. & Earnest, G.W. (20 0 0). Exploring the concept of self-leadership. Leader-
ship Link, Winter 20 0 0.
Kleine, A., Rudolph, C.W., Zacher, H., 2019. Thriving at work: a meta-analysis. J. Or-
gan. Behav. doi:10.1002/job.2375.
Kör, B., 2016. The mediating effects of self-leadership on perceived entrepreneurial
orientation and innovative work behavior in the banking sector. Springerplus 5
(1), 1–15.
Lent, R.W., Ireland, G.W., Penn, L.T., Morris, T.R., Sappington, R., 2017. Sources of self-
-efficacy and outcome expectations for career exploration and decision-making:
a test of the social cognitive model of career self-management. J. Vocat. Behav.
99, 107–117.
Lepine, J.A., Colquitt, J.A., Erez, A., 20 0 0. Adaptability to changing contexts: effects
of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness and openness to experience. Pers.
Psychol. 53, 563–593. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.20 0 0.tb0 0214.x.
Li, N., Liang, J., Crant, J.M., 2010. The role of proactive personality in job satisfac-
tion and organizational citizenship behavior: a relational perspective. J. Appl.
Psychol. 95 (2), 395. doi:10.1037/a0018079.
Li, W.D., Fay, D., Frese, M., Harms, P.D., Gao, X.Y., 2014. Reciprocal relationship be-
tween proactive personality and work characteristics. A latent change score ap-
proach. J. Appl. Psychol. 99 (5), 948–965.
Lopes, M.P., Cunha, M.P.E., 2008. Who is more proactive, the optimist or the pes-
simist? Exploring the role of hope as a moderator. J. Posit. Psychol. 3 (2),
100–109.
Luthans, F., 2002. The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. J.
Organ. Behav. 23 (6), 695–706.
Luthans, F., Youssef-Morgan, C.M., 2017. Psychological capital: an evidence-based
positive approach. Ann. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 4 (1),
339–366.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O., Li, W., 2005. The psychological capital of
Chinese workers: exploring the relationship with performance. Manage. Organ.
Rev. 1 (2), 249–271.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M., Avolio, B.J., 2007. Psychological Capital: Developing the
Human Competitive Edge. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 3.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M., Avolio, B.J., 2015. Psychological Capital and Beyond. Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
Maan, A.T., Abid, G., Butt, T.H., Ashfaq, F., Ahmed, S., 2020. Perceived organiza-
tional support and job satisfaction: a moderated mediation model of proactive
personality and psychological empowerment. Future Bus. J. 6, 21. doi:10.1186/
s43093- 020- 0 0 027-8.
Manuti, A., Giancaspro, M.L., 2019. People make the difference: an explorative study
on the relationship between organizational practices, employees’ resources, and
organizational behavior enhancing the psychology of sustainability and sustain-
able development. Sustainability 11 (5), 1499.
Manz, C.C., Adsit, D., Campbell, S., Mathison-Hance, M., 1988. Managerial thought
patterns and performance: a study of perceptual patterns of performance
hindrances for higher and lower performing managers. Hum. Relatsh. 41,
447–465.
Manz, C.C., Neck, C.P., 2004. Mastering Self-Leadership: Empowering Yourself for
Personal Excellence, 3rd ed Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Manz, C.C., 1986. Self-leadership: toward an expanded theory of self-influence pro-
cesses in organizations. Acad. Manage. Rev. 11, 585–600. doi:10.5465/amr.1986.
4306232.
Marques-Quinteiro, P., Vargas, R., Eifler, N., Curral, L., 2019. Employee adaptive per-
formance and job satisfaction during organizational crisis: the role of self-lead-
ership. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 28 (1), 85–100.
McCauley, C., &Moxley, R.S., Van Velsor, E., 1998. Handbook of Leadership Develop-
ment. [Center for Creative Leadership].
Megheirkouni, M., 2018. Self-leadership strategies and career success: insight on
sports organizations. Sport Bus. Manage. 40, 393–409 8.
Müller, T., Niessen, C., 2019. Self-leadership in the context of part-time teleworking.
J. Organ. Behav. 40 (8), 883–898.
Nawaz, M., Abid, G., Arya, B., Bhatti, G.A., Farooqi, S., 2018. Understanding employee
thriving: the role of workplace context, personality and individual resources.
Total Qual. Manage. Bus. Excell. doi:10.1080/14783363.2018.1482209.
Neck, C.P., Houghton, J.D., 2006. Two decades of self-leadership theory and research:
past developments, present trends, and future possibilities. J. Manage. Psychol.
21 (4), 270–295. doi:10.1108/02683940610663097.
Neck, C.P., Nouri, H., Godwin, J.L., 2003. How self-leadership affects the goal-setting
process. Hum. Resour. Manage. Rev. 13, 691–707.
Neck, C.P., Smith, W., Godwin, J., 1997. Thought self-leadership: a self-regulatory ap-
proach to diversity management. J. Manage. Psychol. 12, 190–203. doi:10.1108/
02683949710174810.
Parker, S.K., Collins, C.G., 2010. Taking stock: integrating and differentiating multiple
proactive behaviors. J. Manage. 36 (3), 633–662. doi:10.1177/0149206308321554.
Paterson, T.A., Luthans, F., Jeung, W., 2013. Thriving at work: impact of psychological
capital and supervisor support. J. Organ. Behav. 35 (3), 434–446. doi:10.1002/
job.1907.
Patton, W., Bartrum, D.A., Creed, P.A., 2004. Gender differences for optimism,
self-esteem, expectations and goals in predicting career planning and explo-
ration in adolescents. Int J. Educ. Vocat. Guid. 4 (2–3), 193–209. doi:10.1007/
s10775- 005- 1745- z.
Peterson, C., 20 0 0. The future of optimism. Am. Psychol. 55 (1), 44.
Pfeffer, J., 2010. Building sustainable organizations: the human factor. Acad. Manage.
Perspect. 24 (1), 34–45.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method bi-
ases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879.
Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., Garnett, F.G., 2012. Thriving at work: toward its
measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. J. Organ. Behav.
33 (2), 250–275. doi:10.1002/job.756.
Prussia, G.E., Anderson, J.S., Manz, C.C., 1998. Self-leadership and performance out-
comes: the mediating influence of self-efficacy. J. Organ. Behav. 19 (5), 523–538.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199809)19:5523::AID-JOB8603.0.CO;2-I.
Raabe, B., Frese, M., Beehr, T.A., 2007. Action regulation theory and career self-
management. J. Vocat. Behav. 70 (2), 297–311. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.10.005.
Rand, K.L., 2009. Hope and optimism: latent structures and influences on grade ex-
pectancy and academic performance. J. Pers. 77 (1), 231–260.
Rand, K.L., Shanahan, M.L., Fischer, I.C., Fortney, S.K., 2020. Hope and optimism as
predictors of academic performance and subjective well-being in college stu-
dents. Learn. Individ. Differ. 81, 101906.
Ross, S., 2014. A conceptual model for understanding the process of self-leadership
development and action-steps to promote personal leadership development. J.
Manage. Dev. 33 (4), 299–323. doi:10.1108/JMD- 11- 2012- 0147.
Rottinghaus, P.J., Day, S.X., Borgen, F.H., 2005. The career futures inventory: a mea-
sure of career-related adaptability and optimism. J. Career Assess. 13 (1), 3–24.
doi:10.1177/1069072704270271.
Ryff, C.D., 1989. Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of
psychological well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57, 1069–1081.
Santilli, S., Nota, L., Ginevra, M.C., Soresi, S., 2014. Career adaptability, hope and life
satisfaction in workers with intellectual disability. J. Vocat. Behav. 85 (1), 67–74.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2014.02.011.
Savickas, M.L., Porfeli, E.J., 2012. Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: construction, reliabil-
ity, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. J. Vocat. Behav. 80 (3),
661–673. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.011.
Scheier, M.F., Carver, C.S., 1985. Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and
implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychol. 4, 219–247.
doi:10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219.
Scheier, M.F., Carver, C.S., Bridges, M.W., 1994. Distinguishing optimism from neu-
roticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the
life orientation test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67, 1063–1078.
Schiavon, C.C., Marchetti, E., Gurgel, L.G., Busnello, F.M., Reppold, C.T., 2017. Opti-
mism and hope in chronic disease: a systematic review. Front. Psychol. 7, 2022.
Schneider, S.L., 2001. In search of realistic optimism. Am. Psychol. 56, 250–263.
Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., Crant, J.M., 2001. What do proactive people do? A lon-
gitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Pers. Psychol.
54 (4), 845–874.
Seligman, M.E., 1998. What is the good life. APA Monitor. 29 (10), 2.
Seligman, M., Schulman, P., 1986. Explanatory style as a predictor of productiv-
ity and quitting among life insurance sales agents. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50,
832–838.
Shanahan, M.L., Fischer, I.C., Rand, K.L., 2020. Hope, optimism, and affect as predic-
tors and consequences of expectancies: the potential moderating roles of per-
ceived control and success. J. Res. Pers. 84, 103903.
Sheldon, K.M., King, L., 2001. Why positive psychology is necessary. Am. Psychol. 56
(3), 216.
 G. Abid, B. Arya and A. Arshad et al. / Sustainable Production and Consumption 25 (2021) 299–311
Sinha, S., 2017. Aspire to build an ethical and sustainable organization? Renew. Thy-
self. Strategic Dir. 433 (1), 7–9.
Snyder, C.R., 2002. Hope theory: rainbows in the mind. Psychol. Inq. 13 (4), 249–
275. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1304_01.
Snyder, C.R. (Ed.), 20 0 0. Handbook of Hope: Theory, Measures, and Applications.
Academic Press.
... Snyder, C.R., Harris, C., Anderson, J.R., Holleran, S.A., Irving, L.M., Sigmon, S.T., Har-
ney, P., 1991. The will and the ways: development and validation of an individ-
ual-differences measure of hope. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60 (4), 570.
Snyder, C.R., Sympson, S.C., Ybasco, F.C., Borders, T.F., Babyak, M.A., Higgins, R.L.,
1996. Development and validation of the State Hope Scale. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
70, 321–335. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.321.
Spreitzer, G., Porath, C.L., Gibson, C.B., 2012. Toward human sustainability: how to
enable more thriving at work. Organ. Dyn. 41, 155–162.
Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., Grant, A.M., 2005. A socially
embedded model of thriving at work. Organ. Sci. 16 (5), 537–549. doi:10.1287/
orsc.1050.0153.
Sprietzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Soneshein, S., Grant, A., 2004. Enabling Thriving
at Work: a Process Model of Human Growth in Organizations. Bowling Green
State University, Bowling Green, OH.
Stewart, G.L., Barrick, M.R., 20 0 0. Team structure and performance: assessing the
mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Acad.
Manag. J. 43, 135–149. doi:10.5465/1556372.
Stewart, G.L., Carson, K.P., Cardy, R.L., 1996. The joint effects of conscientiousness
and self-leadership training on employee self-directed behavior in a service set-
ting. Pers. Psychol. 49 (1), 143–164. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01795.x.
311
Stewart, G.L., Courtright, S.H., Manz, C.C., 2011. Self-leadership: a multilevel review.
J. Manage. 37 (1), 185–222. doi:10.1177/0149206310383911.
Sun, R.C., Shek, D.T., 2012. Positive youth development, life satisfaction and problem
behaviour among Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong: a replication. Soc. Indic.
Res. 105, 541–559. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9786-9.
Ullah, I., Elahi, N.S., Abid, G., Butt, M.U., 2020. The impact of perceived organiza-
tional support and proactive personality on affective commitment: mediating
role of prosocial motivation. Bus. Manage. Educ. 18 (2), 183–205. doi:10.3846/
bme.2020.12189.
VanSandt, C.V., Neck, C.P., 2003. Bridging ethics and self-leadership: overcoming
ethical discrepancies between employee and organizational standards. J. Bus.
Ethics 43, 363–387. doi:10.1023/A:1023009728390.
Wahat, A., 2009. The salience of proactive personality in academia settings. Eur. J.
Soc. Sci. 11 (2), 281–288.
... Warber, S.L., Ingerman, S., Moura, V.L., Wunder, J., Northrop, A., Gillespie, B.W.,
Rubenfire, M., 2011. Healing the heart: a randomized pilot study of a spiri-
tual retreat for depression in acute coronary syndrome patients. Explore 7 (4),
222–233.
WCED, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Williams, S., 1997. Personality and self-leadership. Hum. Resour. Manage. Rev. 7 (2),
139–155. doi:10.1016/S1053- 4822(97)90020- 6.
Youssef, C.M., Luthans, F., 2007. Positive organizational behavior in the workplace
the impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. J. Manage. 33 (5), 774–800. doi:10.
1177/0149206307305562.