An examination of configural effects of employees’ proactive behavior: A process perspective

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00792

Abstract

Abstract:

Employees’ proactive behavior refers to future-oriented, self-initiated behaviors taken by employees to bring about change for organization or for their own (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker et al., 2010). Prior research has found that employees' proactive behavior can have a series of positive effects on employees and organizations, such as improving employees' job performance (e.g., Thomas et al., 2010), increasing employees’ organizational identity and job satisfaction (e.g., Seibert et al., 2001). However, an increasing body of evidence suggests that proactive behavior is not consistently effective (Li & Huang, 2021; Parker et al., 2019). A summary of previous research conducted by Parker et al. (2019) on the effectiveness of proactive behavior reveals that it has been examined from four perspectives: the forms of proactive behavior, aspects of the proactive person, aspects of the situation, and the person-situation interaction. For example, if an individual's supervisor exhibits high levels of openness, the individual's proactive behavior is more likely to be accepted and produce desirable outcomes (Tucker & Turner, 2015).

Previous research has contributed to a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of proactive behavior, however, significant research gaps remain. Among these prior studies, researchers have primarily focused on the impact of overt behavioral element on various individual and organizational outcomes, while neglecting the influence of covert behavioral elements and the synergistic effect of all elements in a proactive process. Proactive behavior is, in fact, a self-regulatory process including both overt behavioral element (i.e., enacting) and covert behavioral elements (i.e., envisioning, planning, and reflecting) (e.g., Bindl et al., 2012). This narrow focus leads to an incomplete understanding of proactive behavior. To address this problem, we adopt a process perspective and utilize a configural approach and action regulation theory (Frese & Zapf, 1994; Zacher & Frese, 2018) to investigate: 1) the configural effects of all behavioral elements (i.e., envisioning, planning, enacting, and reflecting) in a proactive process on employees’ job performance and emotional exhaustion; 2) the impact of task context (i.e., environmental uncertainty) and social context (i.e., felt trust) on the configural effects of all behavioral elements; and 3) incremental effect of configuration membership on employees’ outcomes after controlling for the unique effects of each element and individual difference (i.e., proactive personality and neuroticism).

By using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) and regression analysis, we conducted a longitudinal study to test our hypotheses and examine research questions. We examined the configural effects of all four elements on employees’ job performance and emotional exhaustion, and then examined the impacts of task and social context and the incremental effect of these configurations. 426 full-time employees and their direct supervisors from an education and training company in China participated in a questionnaire survey and reported data at two time points two weeks apart. Supervisors reported their subordinates’ job performance at time 2. The final sample size was 383.

The descriptive statistics and correlations of all variables are presented in Table 1. In accordance with the requirements of fsQCA, the raw data for each condition was calibrated to membership scores ranging from 0 to 1, with the calibration anchors reported in Table 2. The subsequent analysis included both necessity and sufficiency analysis, which were performed by constructing truth tables. The results of the fsQCA are shown in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 shows the configural effect of proactive process on employees’ job performance and emotional exhaustion, revealing four configurations that were sufficient for high or low outcomes. Specifically, configuration 1a (high envisioning, high planning, high enacting, and high reflecting) is sufficient for high job performance. Configuration 1b (low envisioning, low planning, low enacting, and low reflecting) is sufficient for low job performance. Configuration 1c (low envisioning, low planning, high enacting, and low reflecting) is sufficient for high emotional exhaustion. Configuration 1d (high envisioning, high planning, low enacting, and high reflecting) is sufficient for low emotional exhaustion. Table 4 presents the configural effect of proactive process and contextual factors on employees’ job performance and emotional exhaustion, revealing five configurations that were sufficient for high or low outcomes. Specifically, configuration 2a (high envisioning, high planning, high enacting, and high reflecting) and 2b (high envisioning, high planning, high enacting, and high environmental uncertainty) are sufficient for high job performance. Configuration 2c (low envisioning, low planning, low enacting, and low reflecting) is sufficient for low job performance. Configuration 2d (low envisioning, low planning, high enacting, and low reflecting) is sufficient for high emotional exhaustion. Configuration 2e (high envisioning, high planning, high reflecting, and high felt trust) is sufficient for low emotional exhaustion.

Further, we combined fsQCA and regression analysis to explore the incremental effect of configuration membership on employees’ outcomes after controlling for the unique effects of each element and individual difference. The regression analysis results are shown in Table 5 and 6. Model 1-4 in Table 5 show that enacting (model 1: B = 0.13, p = 0.016) and reflecting (mode 1: B = 0.15, p = 0.013) are both positively related to job performance. When considering the effect of the four elements of proactive process, proactive personality, and configuration 1a on employees’ job performance, proactive personality is positively related to employees’ job performance (model 3: B = 0.20, p = 0.005); configuration 1a is positively related to employees’ job performance (model 3: B = 0.42, p = 0.007), and the relationship between enacting and employees’ job performance is no longer significant. Similarly, when considering the effect of the four elements of proactive process, proactive personality, and configuration 1b on employees’ job performance, proactive personality is positively related to employees’ job performance (model 4: B = 0.23, p = 0.001); configuration 1b is negatively related to employees’ job performance (model 4: B = -0.66, p < 0.001); enacting is still positively related to employees’ job performance (model 4: B = 0.10, p = 0.046); the relationship between reflecting and employees’ job performance is no longer significant. These results suggest that the proactive process configuration can better predict employees’ job performance than the individual elements of proactive process. Besides, the proactive process configuration can predict employees’ job performance after controlling for proactive personality.

Model 5-8 in Table 5 show that, when considering the effect of the four elements of proactive process, neuroticism, and proactive process configuration on emotional exhaustion, neuroticism is positively related to employees’ emotional exhaustion (model 7: B = 0.32, p < 0.001; model 8: B = 0.32, p < 0.001). However, the individual elements of proactive process and proactive process configuration cannot significantly impact employees’ emotional exhaustion.

Model 3-5 in Table 6 reveal the effect of the four elements of proactive process, environmental uncertainty, proactive personality, and proactive process configuration on employees’ job performance. The results indicate that the individual elements and environmental uncertainty cannot be significantly related to employees’ job performance. However, proactive personality is positively related to employees’ job performance (model 3: B = 0.21, p = 0.003; model 4: B = 0.20, p = 0.004; model 5: B = 0.30, p = 0.001). Additionally, configuration 2a (model 3: B = 0.42, p = 0.007) and configuration 3b (model 4: B = 0.43, p = 0.003) are both positively related to employees’ job performance. Conversely, configuration 2c is negatively related to employees’ job performance (model 5: B = -0.38, p < 0.001).

Model 8-9 in Table 6 present the effect of the four elements in proactive process, felt trust, neuroticism, and proactive process configuration on employees’ emotional exhaustion. The results indicate that the individual elements of proactive process cannot be significantly related to employees’ emotional exhaustion. However, felt trust is negatively related to employees’ emotional exhaustion (model 8: B = -0.27, p < 0.001; model 9: B = -0.20, p < 0.001). Additionally, neuroticism is positively related to employees’ emotional exhaustion (model 8: B = 0.30, p < 0.001; model 9: B = 0.29, p < 0.001). Besides, configuration 2a is negatively related to employees’ emotional exhaustion after controlling for other variables (model 9: B = -0.43, p = 0.043).

The findings reveal that: 1) a configuration with high level of enacting alone is not sufficient for generating high job performance; 2) a configuration with low (high) levels on all four elements is sufficient for producing low (high) job performance regardless of the level of environmental uncertainty; 3) when environmental uncertainty is high, a configuration with high level of envisioning, planning, and reflecting is sufficient for producing high job performance regardless of the level of enacting; 4) a configuration with high level of enacting and low level of envisioning, planning, and reflecting is sufficient for generating high emotional exhaustion; 5) when felt trust is high, a configuration with high level of envisioning, planning, and reflecting is sufficient for producing low emotional exhaustion regardless of the level of enacting; 6) in general, after controlling for the unique effects of each element and individual difference, the configuration membership can still predict employees' job performance and emotional exhaustion whereas elements in a proactive process cannot.

Our research contributes to the literature on proactive behavior. First, our research introduces a novel perspective on the process of proactive behavior. Prior studies on the effectiveness of proactive behavior have focused solely on the overt behavioral element of proactive behavior without considering the impact of covert behavioral elements and the synergistic effect of all elements in a proactive process. The process perspective of proactive behavior provides a fresh window onto why the consequences of proactive behaviors vary between employees and studies. Second, our research advances the understanding of proactive behavior by revealing the configural effects of four elements in a proactive process on employees’ outcomes, and further develops the theory about proactive process by incorporating contextual factors. The configural perspective emphasizes the holistic nature, and scholars have always emphasized that individuals interact with their environment (e.g., Bandura, 2001; Frese & Zapf, 1994; Zacher & Frese, 2018). Our findings highlight the significance of considering contextual factors, such as environmental uncertainty and felt trust, in the theoretical framework of proactive process and demonstrate their impact on the configural effects of the proactive process. Lastly, our research demonstrates the value of a configural approach in studying process-related issues in proactive behavior research and lays the foundation for future research on proactive process. This approach provides a more comprehensive understanding of proactive behavior and its outcomes.

Key words: proactive behavior, configuration, fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), process perspective, job performance, emotional exhaustion

LI Liyuan, GAO Xiangyu, ZHENG Xiaoming. (2023). An examination of configural effects of employees’ proactive behavior: A process perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(5), 792-811.

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1. Proactive personality	5.24	0.84	(0.84)
2. Neuroticism	3.23	1.10	-0.25^**	(0.65)
3. Envisioning	5.53	1.06	0.63^**	-0.21^**	(0.89)
4. Planning	5.44	1.00	0.65^**	-0.22^**	0.76^**	(0.89)
5. Enacting	4.70	1.19	0.59^**	-0.14^**	0.64^**	0.68^**	(0.93)
6. Reflecting	5.27	1.09	0.55^**	-0.19^**	0.68^**	0.72^**	0.63^**	(0.92)
7. Felt trust	4.89	0.99	0.50^**	-0.17^**	0.45^**	0.46^**	0.38^**	0.44^**	(0.88)
8. Environmental uncertainty	5.34	1.12	0.48^**	-0.09	0.50^**	0.44^**	0.43^**	0.43^**	0.36^**	(0.88)
9. Job performance	5.86	0.97	0.46^**	-0.13^*	0.45^**	0.45^**	0.43^**	0.45^**	0.36^**	0.27^**	(0.94)
10. Emotional exhaustion	2.79	1.33	-0.16^**	0.34^**	-0.22^**	-0.21^**	-0.12^*	-0.21^**	-0.27^**	-0.15^**	-0.13^*	(0.97)
11. Configuration 1a (2a): high envisioning, high planning, high enacting, high reflecting	0.26	0.44	0.50^***	-0.18^***	0.58^**	0.60^**	0.72^**	0.62^**	0.32^**	0.36^**	0.43^**	-0.16^**
12. Configuration 1b (2c): low envisioning, low planning, low enacting, low reflecting	0.30	0.46	-0.42^**	0.19^**	-0.68^**	-0.62^**	-0.48^**	-0.60^**	-0.30^**	-0.35^**	-0.44^**	0.21^**	-0.38^**
13. Configuration1c (2d): low envisioning, low planning, high enacting, low reflecting	0.05	0.21	-0.03	0.09	-0.09	-0.11^*	0.07	-0.10	-0.04	-0.05	0.12^*	0.00	-0.13^*	-0.14^**
14. Configuration 1d: high envisioning, high planning, low enacting, high reflecting	0.08	0.27	0.13^*	-0.07	0.21^**	0.23^**	-0.11*	0.22^**	0.12^*	0.09	0.02	-0.12^*	-0.17^**	-0.18^**	-0.06
15. Configuration 2b: high envisioning, high planning, high reflecting, high environmental uncertainty	0.26	0.44	0.48^**	-0.16^**	0.53^**	0.55^**	0.56^**	0.58^**	0.34^**	0.54^**	0.40^**	-0.15^**	0.74^**	-0.37^**	-0.13^*	0.23^**
16. Configuration 2e: high envisioning, high planning, high reflecting, high felt trust	0.27	0.45	0.52^**	-0.25^**	0.58^**	0.61^**	0.51^**	0.60^**	0.59^**	0.36^**	0.37^**	-0.31^**	0.71^**	-0.39^**	-0.13^**	0.35^**	0.73^**

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1. Proactive personality	5.24	0.84	(0.84)
2. Neuroticism	3.23	1.10	-0.25^**	(0.65)
3. Envisioning	5.53	1.06	0.63^**	-0.21^**	(0.89)
4. Planning	5.44	1.00	0.65^**	-0.22^**	0.76^**	(0.89)
5. Enacting	4.70	1.19	0.59^**	-0.14^**	0.64^**	0.68^**	(0.93)
6. Reflecting	5.27	1.09	0.55^**	-0.19^**	0.68^**	0.72^**	0.63^**	(0.92)
7. Felt trust	4.89	0.99	0.50^**	-0.17^**	0.45^**	0.46^**	0.38^**	0.44^**	(0.88)
8. Environmental uncertainty	5.34	1.12	0.48^**	-0.09	0.50^**	0.44^**	0.43^**	0.43^**	0.36^**	(0.88)
9. Job performance	5.86	0.97	0.46^**	-0.13^*	0.45^**	0.45^**	0.43^**	0.45^**	0.36^**	0.27^**	(0.94)
10. Emotional exhaustion	2.79	1.33	-0.16^**	0.34^**	-0.22^**	-0.21^**	-0.12^*	-0.21^**	-0.27^**	-0.15^**	-0.13^*	(0.97)
11. Configuration 1a (2a): high envisioning, high planning, high enacting, high reflecting	0.26	0.44	0.50^***	-0.18^***	0.58^**	0.60^**	0.72^**	0.62^**	0.32^**	0.36^**	0.43^**	-0.16^**
12. Configuration 1b (2c): low envisioning, low planning, low enacting, low reflecting	0.30	0.46	-0.42^**	0.19^**	-0.68^**	-0.62^**	-0.48^**	-0.60^**	-0.30^**	-0.35^**	-0.44^**	0.21^**	-0.38^**
13. Configuration1c (2d): low envisioning, low planning, high enacting, low reflecting	0.05	0.21	-0.03	0.09	-0.09	-0.11^*	0.07	-0.10	-0.04	-0.05	0.12^*	0.00	-0.13^*	-0.14^**
14. Configuration 1d: high envisioning, high planning, low enacting, high reflecting	0.08	0.27	0.13^*	-0.07	0.21^**	0.23^**	-0.11*	0.22^**	0.12^*	0.09	0.02	-0.12^*	-0.17^**	-0.18^**	-0.06
15. Configuration 2b: high envisioning, high planning, high reflecting, high environmental uncertainty	0.26	0.44	0.48^**	-0.16^**	0.53^**	0.55^**	0.56^**	0.58^**	0.34^**	0.54^**	0.40^**	-0.15^**	0.74^**	-0.37^**	-0.13^*	0.23^**
16. Configuration 2e: high envisioning, high planning, high reflecting, high felt trust	0.27	0.45	0.52^**	-0.25^**	0.58^**	0.61^**	0.51^**	0.60^**	0.59^**	0.36^**	0.37^**	-0.31^**	0.71^**	-0.39^**	-0.13^**	0.35^**	0.73^**

Conditions	Anchors
Conditions	Full membership	Crossover point	Nonmembership
Envisioning	6.58	5.53	4.47
Planning	6.45	5.44	4.44
Enacting	5.88	4.70	3.51
Reflecting	6.37	5.27	4.18
Job performance	6.83	5.86	4.89
Emotional exhaustion	4.12	2.79	1.46
Environmental uncertainty	6.46	5.34	4.21
Felt trust	5.88	4.89	3.90

Conditions	Anchors
Conditions	Full membership	Crossover point	Nonmembership
Envisioning	6.58	5.53	4.47
Planning	6.45	5.44	4.44
Enacting	5.88	4.70	3.51
Reflecting	6.37	5.27	4.18
Job performance	6.83	5.86	4.89
Emotional exhaustion	4.12	2.79	1.46
Environmental uncertainty	6.46	5.34	4.21
Felt trust	5.88	4.89	3.90

Variables	Job performance								Emotional exhaustion
	Model1		Model2		Model3		Model4		Model5		Model6		Model7		Model8
	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE	B	SE
Control variables
Envisioning	0.12⁺	0.07	0.08	0.07	0.07	0.07	-0.05	0.07	-0.22^*	0.10	-0.18⁺	0.10	-0.18⁺	0.10	-0.17⁺	0.10
Planning	0.09	0.08	0.04	0.08	0.03	0.08	-0.02	0.08	-0.13	0.11	-0.06	0.11	-0.08	0.11	-0.05	0.11
Enacting	0.13^*	0.05	0.10⁺	0.05	0.02	0.06	0.10^*	0.05	0.11	0.08	0.10	0.08	0.12	0.08	0.07	0.08
Reflecting	0.15^*	0.06	0.15^*	0.06	0.11⁺	0.06	0.08	0.06	-0.15⁺	0.09	-0.13	0.09	-0.14	0.09	-0.12	0.09
Proactive personality			0.21^**	0.07	0.20^**	0.07	0.23^**	0.07
Neuroticism											0.32^***	0.06	0.32^***	0.06	0.32^***	0.06
Configuration membership
Configuration 1a: high envisioning, high planning, high enacting, high reflecting					0.42^**	0.15
Configuration 1b: low envisioning, low planning, low enacting, low reflecting							-0.66^***	0.14
Configuration1c: low envisioning, low planning, high enacting, low reflecting													-0.39	0.31
Configuration 1d: high envisioning, high planning, low enacting, high reflecting															-0.17	0.27
R²	0.22		0.23		0.25		0.28		0.07		0.14		0.14		0.13
?R²			0.01^**		0.03^**a		0.05^***b				0.07		0.00^c		-0.01^d

An examination of configural effects of employees’ proactive behavior: A process perspective

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 6

References

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	LI Xin, LIU Pei, LI Aimei, WANG Xiaotian, ZHANG Junwei. A multipath model of leader after-hours electronic communication expectations and employee job performance [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2022, 54(8): 964-978.
[2]	ZHANG Ying, DUAN Jinyun, WANG Fuxi, QU Jinzhao, PENG Xiongliang. “Attraction of the like”: How does coworkers’ proactive behavior stimulate employees’ motivation and job performance? [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2022, 54(5): 516-528.
[3]	SONG Qi, CHEN Yang. The impact of the fit between needed and received empowering leadership on followers’ job-related outcomes: The mediating role of emotional ex-haustion [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2021, 53(8): 890-903.
[4]	LI Qiaoling, ZHAO Junzhe, QIAO Shiqi, GUO Tengfei, WANG Minghui, ZHAO Guoxiang. Mechanisms of different purposes of social media usage on employees’ job performance [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2021, 53(11): 1260-1270.
[5]	Wei WEI,Yanran FANG,Jiannan LI,Junqi SHI,Shenjiang MO. The impact of conflict on performance: The moderating effects of individual and team agreeableness [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(3): 345-356.
[6]	Yushang HUANG, Liren CAO. Effect of spatial position based configuration on visual working memory performance [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(11): 1222-1234.
[7]	LU Xinxin; SUN Jiaqing. When leader-member exchange increases emotional exhaustion? The role of belief in reciprocity and power distance orientation [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(5): 566-577.
[8]	LIU Xiaoyu; LIU Jun; HUI Chun; WU Rongrong. The Effect of Workplace Ostracism on Proactive Behavior: The Self-Verification Theory Perspective [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(6): 826-836.
[9]	TIAN Xiaoming; LI Rui. Can Self-Sacrificial Leadership Promote Employee Proactive Behavior? The Mediating Effect of Felt Obligation and Its Boundary Conditions [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(12): 1472-1485.
[10]	LI Rui; TIAN Xiaoming. Supervisor Authoritarian Leadership and Subordinate Proactive Behavior: Test of A Mediated-Moderation Model [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(11): 1719-1733.
[11]	YU Haibo;ZHENG Xiaoming. The Impact of Employee Career Adaptability: Multilevel Analysis [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(6): 680-693.
[12]	YAO Ruosong;CHEN Huaijin;MIAO Qunying. An Empirical Analysis of Influences of Personality Traits on Job Performance for Frontline Staff in Public Transportation Industry: With Work Attitude Acting as a Moderator [J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(10): 1163-1178.
[13]	KE Jiang-Lin,SUN Jian-Min,LI Yong-Rui. Psychological Capital: Chinese Indigenous Scale’s Development and Its Validity Comparison with the Western Scale [J]. , 2009, 41(09): 875-888.
[14]	WANG Deng-Feng,CUI Hong. Predicting Job Performance of Chinese Local Government Executives with QZPS and NEO PI-R [J]. , 2008, 40(07): 828-838.
[15]	FENG Dong-Dong,LU Chang-Qin,SIU Oi-Ling. Job Insecurity, Well-Being, and Job Performance: The Role of General Self-Efficacy [J]. , 2008, 40(04): 448-455.