Dynamic effects of personal initiative on engagement and exhaustion: The role of mood, autonomy, and support

• Author: Nerina L. Jimmieson,Antje Schmitt,Cort W. Rudolph,Hannes Zacher
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2277
• Published date: 01 January 2019
• Date: 01 January 2019

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Dynamic effects of personal initiative on engagement and

exhaustion: The role of mood, autonomy, and support

Hannes Zacher

1

|Antje Schmitt

2

|Nerina L. Jimmieson

3

|Cort W. Rudolph

4

1

Institute of Psychology, Leipzig University,

Leipzig, Germany

2

Department of Psychology, University of

Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

3

School of Management, Queensland

University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD,

Australia

4

Department of Psychology, Saint Louis

University, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.

Correspondence

Hannes Zacher, Institute of Psychology,

Leipzig University, Neumarkt 9‐19, 04109

Leipzig, Germany.

Email: hannes.zacher@uni‐leipzig.de

Summary

Researchers have neglected dynamic effects of proactive behavior on occupational well‐being.

We investigated effects of change in personal initiative over 6 months on changes in emotional

engagement and exhaustion over the following 6 months. On the basis of the control‐process

theory on affect, we hypothesized that changes in positive and negative moods mediate these

effects conditional upon employees' level of perceived organizational support. On the basis of

action regulation theory, we assumed that change in job autonomy also acts as a mediator. Data

came from 297 employees who responded to 3 surveys separated by 6‐month intervals. Results

of latent change score modeling showed that change in personal initiative negatively predicted

change in positive mood and, when perceived organizational support was low, positively pre-

dicted change in negative mood. In addition, change in personal initiative positively predicted

change in job autonomy. Change in personal initiative had negative indirect effects on change

in emotional engagement, and positive indirect effects on change in emotional exhaustion

through changes in positive and negative moods (but not through change in job autonomy). A

reverse causal model did not yield significant indirect effects. Overall, these findings suggest that

an increase in proactive behavior can have detrimental effects on occupational well‐being.

KEYWORDS

engagement, exhaustion, latent change score, personalinitiative, proactivity

1|INTRODUCTION

Proactivebehavior involvesemployees' self‐initiatedand future‐oriented

effortsto change their work environmentor themselves in positive ways

(Bindl & Parker, 2011; Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker &

Collins, 2010). In the context of increasingly complex and uncertain

workplaces and careers, research on proactive behavior and its conse-

quences for employees and organizations has substantially grown over

the past two decades (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007; Parker & Bindl,

2017). For instance, two meta‐analytic reviews showed that proactive

behavior is positively related tojob performance, even after controlling

for the Big Five personality traits (Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran,

2010; Tornau& Frese, 2013).

Although associations between proactive behavior and perfor-

mance‐related outcomes are now well established, organizational

scholars have so far largely neglected potential effects of proactive

behavior on occupational well‐being outcomes (for two recent excep-

tions, see Fay & Hüttges, 2017; Strauss, Parker, & O'Shea, 2017).

Furthermore, the potential mechanisms and boundary conditions of

effects of proactivebehavior on occupationalwell‐being outcomeshave

not received muchresearch attention (Cangiano & Parker, 2016). Most

previous studies have used cross‐sectional between‐person designs,

and, therefore,our knowledge of how within‐person changein proactive

behaviorimpacts within‐personchange in occupationalwell‐being is lim-

ited (see Eschleman & LaHuis, 2014).Bolino, Valcea, and Harvey (2010)

argued that longitudinal studies on proactive behavior are needed,

because proactive behavior might have negative consequences for

employees' well‐being over time (e.g., several months). The few existing

longitudinal studies (i.e., with three or more measurement waves;

Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010) on proactive behavior did not examine

indicatorsof occupationalwell‐being as predictorsor outcomes of proac-

tive behavior(Fay & Sonnentag, 2002;Frese, Garst, & Fay, 2007;Griffin,

Parker, & Mason,2010; Li, Fay, Frese, Harms, & Gao, 2014). Moreover,

previous studieshave focused on the extent to which between‐person

differences in proactive behavior are associated with between‐person

differencesin outcomes, and not on how within‐person changein proac-

tive behavior predicts subsequent within‐person changes in outcomes.

Whereas the former approach can lead to a better understanding of

Received: 22 November 2016 Revised: 12 February 2018 Accepted: 20 February 2018

DOI: 10.1002/job.2277

38 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J Organ Behav. 2019;40:38–58.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job

how and why proactive employees differ from their less proactive

colleagues, the latter approach allows firmer conclusions regarding

causality, because it investigates how change in proactive behavior

impacts changesin other variables, such as occupationalwell‐being (see

Hamaker, 2012;Molenaar, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2017).

In this study, we address the limitations of previous research by

integrating affect‐based, motivational, and resource‐based perspec-

tives on the consequences of proactive behavior (Cangiano, Bindl, &

Parker, 2017; Cangiano & Parker, 2016; Frese et al., 2007). Specifically,

we draw on propositions of the control‐process theory on affect (Car-

ver & Scheier, 1990) and action regulation theory (Frese & Zapf, 1994)

to explain potential indirect effects of change in personal initiative

over 6 months on changes in emotional engagement and emotional

exhaustion over the following 6 months. Personal initiative is a broad

form of proactive work behavior that is self‐starting, future oriented,

and overcomes barriers to achieve goals (Frese & Fay, 2001). For

example, employees show high personal initiative when they seek

opportunities to improve their work environment and are persistent

in the face of barriers and setbacks that may occur while implementing

changes (Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, & Tag, 1997).

High emotional engagement and low emotional exhaustion are

two important indicators of occupational well‐being (Bakker, Albrecht,

& Leiter, 2011) that have been shown to be associated with high

performance, reduced turnover, and general well‐being (Bakker &

Bal, 2010; Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998).

Emotional engagement involves the investment of affective energies

into the work role (Kahn, 1990; Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010).

Emotionally engaged employees are enthusiastic and energetic intheir

job (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008). Emotional exhaustion is a

key dimension of the job burnout construct and entails feelings of

being emotionally depleted, fatigued, and overextended by one's work

(Maslach & Jackson, 1981; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001).

Emotional engagement and emotional exhaustion are moderately to

strongly negatively related, but distinct concepts (Bakker et al., 2011;

Cole, Walter, Bedeian, & O'Boyle, 2012). By including these two out-

comes, we adopt a balanced approach that focuses on both positive

and negative aspects of occupational well‐being (Hakanen, Bakker, &

Schaufeli, 2006).

To advance research on the well‐being consequences of proactive

behavior, Cangiano and Parker (2016) proposed that proactive behav-

ior can influence occupational well‐being outcomes via a resource

generation pathway and a resource‐depletion pathway, and that the

strength of these effects depends on contextual (e.g., support) and

individual (e.g., intrinsic motivation) factors (see also Cangiano, 2017).

Research based on the job demands–resources model (Demerouti,

Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001) similarly suggests a motiva-

tional process that results in work engagement and well‐being, and

an energetical process that leads to burnout and ill health (Hakanen

et al., 2006). Furthermore, Cangiano et al. (2017) suggested that

proactive behavior is not only influenced by affective experiences

(e.g., Bindl, Parker, Totterdell, & Hagger‐Johnson, 2012) but that pro-

active behavior also can have important consequences for affective

experiences. Consistent with Cangiano and Parker's research, we

hypothesize that change in personal initiative has indirect effects on

subsequent changes in emotional engagement and exhaustion. Specif-

ically, we expect that these effects are mediated by changes in positive

and negative moods and job autonomy, and that the effects of change

in personal initiative on changes in positive and negative moods are

moderated by perceived organizational support (POS).

Our conceptual model is shown in Figure 1. We do not hypothe-

size overall positive or negative effects of change in personal initiative

on changes in emotional engagement and exhaustion. The reason for

this is that the different positive and negative indirect pathways are

likely to cancel each other out and lead to weak overall effects of

change in personal initiative on changes in occupational well‐being

(Cangiano & Parker, 2016). However, we outline boundary conditions

under which the positive indirect pathway might outweigh the nega-

tive indirect pathway or vice versa, such that a change in personal ini-

tiative has positive or negative overall effects on changes in

occupational well‐being outcomes.

Positive and negative moods, two of the mediators in our model,

entail relatively enduring experiences of pleasant (e.g., excited)

and unpleasant (e.g ., distressed) affective stat es, respectively (Warr,

Barter, & Brownbridge, 1983; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).

Although emotions ar e short lived and intense react ions to specific

events, moods typica lly have a longer duration (e .g., several days,

weeks, or months), are l ess intense, and are more generali zed in

focus (Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Brief & Weiss, 2002). Moods fur-

ther have to be distinguished from even more stable interindividual

differences in trait affectivity, or the dispositional tendency to

experience positive o r negative emotions (Barsade & Gibson,

2007; Cangiano et al., 2017).

FIGURE 1 Conceptual model. Δ= change in; T = time. Dashed lines indicate conditional (i.e., moderator) effects

ZACHER ET AL.39