IWP Conference 2008, Sheffield
The Nomological Network of Proactivity:
A Meta-Analytic Investigation
Katharina TornauNadine Kunze
University of Giessen, Germany
Paper symposium: New Directions in Proactive Behaviour Research
IWP Conference 2008, Sheffield 19.06.2008
Proactivity research so far…
• … has received considerable interest but appears fragmented and unsystematic (Grant & Ashford, forthcoming).
• Numerous proactivity concepts have been introduced but mostly isolated from similar concepts and research streams.
• Call for more integrative research and the identification of general and common dynamics of proactivity (Grant &
Ashford, forthcoming; Parker & Collins, in press).
IWP Conference 2008, Sheffield 19.06.2008
Objectives of This Study
Empirical integration of research findings by using meta-analysis technique
1. Magnitude of relationships between various proactivity concepts: Personal Initiative, Proactive Personality, Voice, and Taking Charge
2. Nomological network of proactivity concepts:
• Magnitude of relationships
• Pattern of relationships
3. Generalizability of relationships: Moderator analyses
IWP Conference 2008, Sheffield 19.06.2008
1. Relationships between Proactivity Concepts
PI r/rc
PP r/rc
VOI r/rc
TC r/rc
PI
k; n
-
PP
k; n
.34; .96 -
VOI
k; n
.30 .17/.20
3; 614 -
TC
k; n
.29 .28/.30
2; 445
.59/.57
3; 806 -
r=uncorrected mean effect size; rc=sample size weighted mean effect size; k=number of samples; n=total sample size
IWP Conference 2008, Sheffield 19.06.2008
2. Nomological Network (1)
PI r/rc
PP r/rc
VOI r/rc
TC r/rc
Age
k; n
.10/.11
9; 2405
.06/.06
7; 2089
.04/-.02
3; 1088
.07/.05
4; 619
Gender*
k; n
-.11/.06
13; 4002
-.03/.01
7; 1967
-.07/-.10
5; 1319
-.05/-.05
4; 619
Tenure
k; n
.05/.03
8; 2446
.15/.15
6; 1238
.06/.00
6; 1547
.04/-.15
3; 447
Education
k; n
.05/.07
10; 2869
.15/.19
4; 1216
*1=male; 2=female
IWP Conference 2008, Sheffield 19.06.2008
2. Nomological Network (2)
PI r/rc
PP r/rc
VOI r/rc
TC r/rc
Conscient.
k; n
.44/.44
5; 890
.30/.29
6; 934
.17/.18
4; 752
Neuroticism
k; n
-.29/-.32
3; 349 -.16/-.17
5; 754
-.06/-.10
3; 458
Satisfaction
k; n
.23/.17
6; 1350
.18/.19
7; 1582 .10/.17
3; 877
Performance
k; n
.23/.23
18; 2890
.20/.19
14; 2518
.21/.19
6; 1448
.38/.25
4; 519
IWP Conference 2008, Sheffield 19.06.2008
2. Nomological Network (3)
• Personal initiative and…extraversion (.36/.35); agreeableness (.12/.13); positive affect (.42/.39); job autonomy (.33/.30); job control (.28/.27); self-efficacy (.27/.23); GMA (.20/.22); innovativeness (.30/.23); org. commitment (.26/.24)
• Proactive Personality and…extraversion (.28/.28); agreeableness (-.01; -.01); role-breadth self-efficacy (.41/.40); learning GO (.54/.50); performance-prove GO (.35/.28); org. commitment (.23/.23)
• Taking Charge and…felt responsibility for change (.45/.52)
IWP Conference 2008, Sheffield 19.06.2008
3. Generalizability of Effect Sizes
Moderators of the relationships:
• Measurement method (questionnaire vs. interview)
• Source of information (self vs. peers vs. supervisors)
• Nature of correlations (cross-sectional vs. longitudinal)
• Aggregation of similar concepts:• e.g., personal initiative vs. individual Initiative (OCB) vs.
personal growth initiative
• e.g., indicators for performance: supervisory rating vs. objective performance data vs. proxies of performance (e.g., grades, number of employment interviews)
IWP Conference 2008, Sheffield 19.06.2008
Steps to take…
• Identify additional studies for presented relationships
• Consider additional proactivity concepts (e.g., active feedback seeking)
• Include unpublished studies
• Identify and test moderators
• Ultimate goal: Create meta-analytic correlation matrix and test causal model of proactivity process
IWP Conference 2008, Sheffield 19.06.2008
Preliminary Conclusion
• Personal initiative and proactive personality seem to have attracted most research activities; but more studies needed, particularly on voice and taking charge
• Substantial correlations for most proactivity concepts with:• Conscientiousness and self-efficacy
• Org. commitment and job performance
• Different (magnitude of) relationships for different proactivity concepts:
• Agreeableness: PI vs. PP, Gender: PI vs. PP vs. VOI/TC
• Conscientiousness: PI vs. PP vs. VOI
IWP Conference 2008, Sheffield
For further information and for (unpublished) proactivity studies to be included in the meta-analysis:
Katharina Tornau