Does daily proactivity affect well‐being? The moderating role of punitive supervision

• Date: 01 January 2019
• Author: Sharon K. Parker,Francesco Cangiano,Gillian B. Yeo
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2321
• Published date: 01 January 2019

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Does daily proactivity affect well‐being? The moderating role

of punitive supervision

Francesco Cangiano

1

|Sharon K. Parker

2

|Gillian B. Yeo

1

1

UWA Business School, The University of

Western Australia, Crawley, Western

Australia, Australia

2

Curtin Business School, Curtin University,

Bentley, Western Australia, Australia

Correspondence

Francesco Cangiano, UWA Business School,

The University of Western Australia, M212,

35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009,

Australia.

Email: francesco.cangiano@research.uwa.edu.

au

Summary

Proactive behavior (self‐initiated and future‐oriented actions to bring about change)

has largely positive consequences for organizationally oriented outcomes such as

job performance. Yet the outcomes of proactivity from a well‐being perspective have

not been clearly considered. Drawing on self‐determination theory and the stressor‐

detachment model, we propose two distinct paths by which proactivity affects

individuals' daily well‐being. The first path is an energy‐generating pathway in which

daily proactive behavior enhances end‐of‐work‐day vitality via perceived compe-

tence. The second is a strain pathway in which daily proactive behavior generates

anxiety at work, which undermines the process of detachment from work. We argue

that these pathways are shaped by the extent to which supervisors are prone to blam-

ing employees for their mistakes (punitive supervision). We tested this model using a

sample of 94 employees who completed surveys three times a day for between 5 and

7 days. Our multilevel analyses provide support for the proposed dual‐pathway model

and suggest differential well‐being outcomes of daily proactive work behavior. Over-

all, when an individual behaves proactively at work, they are more likely to experience

higher levels of daily perceived competence and vitality. However, these positive

effects can exist in parallel with daily negative effects on end‐of‐workday anxiety,

and hence bedtime detachment, but only when the supervisor is perceived to be puni-

tive about mistakes.

KEYWORDS

anxiety, detachment, proactive work behavior, punitive supervision, vitality

1|INTRODUCTION

The concept of proactive work behavior (self‐initiated, anticipatory,

and change oriented) has captivated scholars' attention for a quarter

of a century (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Bindl & Parker, 2011). This is

not surprising given the increasing importance that organizations place

on such behaviors (Crant, 2000; Parker, 2000). This attention has pro-

duced much research on the subject: Researchers have explored the

antecedents of proactivity (e.g., Clegg, Unsworth, Epitropaki, & Parker,

2002; Parker & Collins, 2010; Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006), the

contingencies that influence proactivity pathways (e.g., Grant &

Ashford, 2008; Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010; Tornau &

Frese, 2013), and the consequences for individuals. Regarding

the latter, between‐person studies show that, compared with

nonproactive individuals, proactive employees receive superior

performance ratings, are more likely to be promoted, and have more

successful careers (e.g., Belschak & Hartog, 2010; Blickle, Witzki, &

Schneider, 2009; Crant, 2000; Grant, Parker, & Collins, 2009; Vos,

Clippeleer, & Dewilde, 2009).

To date, there has been little work on the well‐being effects of

proactivity: Most research has focused on the desirable outcomes of

being proactive, such as its positive consequences for entrepreneurial

success (Fay & Frese, 2001), supervisory performance evaluations

(Grant et al., 2009), and career progression (Blickle et al., 2009). In

contrast, the possible consequences (negative in particular) of

proactive work behavior from a well‐being perspective have been

Received: 1 November 2016 Revised: 10 April 2018 Accepted: 3 July 2018

DOI: 10.1002/job.2321

J Organ Behav. 2019;40:59–72. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 59