The double-edged sword effect of employee personal initiative behavior on coworker relationships: The moderating role of the employee warmth trait

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.02013

Abstract

Abstract:

Personal initiative behavior contributes to organizational success and helps employees navigate workplace uncertainty, and is therefore an essential research topic. However, most studies have focused on the influence of personal initiative behavior on leaders rather than coworkers. Moreover, the findings regarding the interpersonal effects of such behavior on coworkers are inconsistent. To address these issues, we take a contingency perspective that shifts the focus from a binary “good or bad for coworkers” logic to an understanding of the interpersonal benefits and risks of personal initiative behavior. Drawing on research stereotype traits, in this study we examine the moderating effect of employee warmth trait and explore the differential emotional and behavioral responses of coworkers toward employees with high or low warmth traits. We apply the approach-avoidance systems theory and hypothesize that warm and initiative-taking employees generate relational energy, leading to active facilitation behavior, whereas initiative-taking but non-warm employees may experience interpersonal disliking and subsequent ostracism behavior from coworkers.

We conducted two studies to test our hypotheses. Study 1 involved a multi-source round-robin survey to test the proposed model. Each survey wave was separated by a three-week interval. At Time 1, team leaders assessed each team member’s personal initiative behavior and demographics. The team members then rated their own warmth trait and demographics. Three weeks later at Time 2, the team members evaluated relational energy and interpersonal disliking through a round-robin design. Finally, three weeks later at Time 3, they rated their active facilitation behavior and interpersonal ostracism behavior using a round-robin design. The dataset comprised 1,164 dyads of 305 members in 65 teams. In Study 2, to enhance causal inference, a scenario-based experiment with a 2 (employee personal initiative behavior: high vs. low) × 2 (employee warmth trait: high vs. low) factorial design was conducted. The participants (280 full-time workers) were recruited from an online survey platform (Credamo) and randomly assigned to one of four scenarios. They reported their demographics, read the scenario, and provided responses to manipulation checks and questions regarding relational energy, interpersonal disliking, active facilitation behavior, and interpersonal ostracism behavior.

In terms of data analysis, we considered the complex nested structure of the round-robin data in Study 1 and utilized a multilevel social relations modeling approach to test the research model. The means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables are reported in Table 1. Tables 2-4 demonstrate the social relations model results for hypotheses testing. In Study 2, we used ANOVA and regression analyses to examine the causal relationships in our theoretical model. The means, standard deviations, and correlations among studied variables are presented in Table 5. Tables 6-7 show the ANOVA and regression analyses results. The empirical results supported our hypotheses, indicating that initiative-taking and warm employees were more likely to stimulate coworkers’ relational energy and increase their active facilitation behavior. Conversely, initiative-taking but non-warm employees were more likely to trigger interpersonal disliking among coworkers, subsequently leading to increased interpersonal ostracism behavior.

This study has several theoretical implications. First, unlike studies that focus on singular effects, we explored the dual nature of the effects of personal initiative behavior on coworkers, thus providing a deeper understanding and a more comprehensive perspective. Second, by building on the literature on stereotype traits, we identified the employee warmth trait as a critical boundary that distinguishes the interpersonal benefits and risks of personal initiative behavior toward coworkers, thus reconciling other contradictory findings. Finally, by drawing on approach-avoidance systems theory, we revealed that relational energy and interpersonal disliking explain how and why coworkers have differential behavioral responses toward the personal initiative behavior exhibited by employees with high or low warmth traits.

Key words: personal initiative behavior, approach-avoidance systems theory, warmth trait, relational energy, interpersonal disliking

SONG Qi, REN Qiqi, CHEN Yang, REN Yingwei. (2023). The double-edged sword effect of employee personal initiative behavior on coworker relationships: The moderating role of the employee warmth trait. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(12), 2013-2034.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1. Team size (team level)	−−
2. Team age (team level)	0.41^**	−−
3. A’s age (individual level)	0.00	0.17^**	−−
4. A’s gender (individual level)	0.08^**	−0.07^*	0.08^**	−−
5. A’s education (individual level)	−0.04	−0.07^*	−0.21^**	0.12^**	−−
6. A’s job tenure (individual level)	−0.11^**	−0.14^**	0.49^**	0.03	−0.05	−−
7. A’s team tenure (individual level)	−0.02	−0.13^**	0.47^**	0.16^**	−0.06^*	0.73^**	−−
8. B’s age (individual level)	0.00	0.16^**	0.56^**	0.02	−0.13^**	0.23^**	0.28^**	−−
9. B’s gender (individual level)	0.08^**	−0.07^*	0.02	0.22^**	0.09^**	0.04	0.10^**	0.09^**	−−
10. B’s education (individual level)	−0.04	−0.07^*	−0.13^**	0.09^**	0.20^**	0.04	−0.03	−0.21^**	0.12^**	−−
11. B’s job tenure (individual level)	−0.12^**	−0.14^**	0.23^**	0.04	0.04	0.45^**	0.39^**	0.49^**	0.03	−0.05	−−
12. B’s team tenure (individual level)	−0.02	−0.13^**	0.28^**	0.10^**	−0.03	0.39^**	0.56^**	0.47^**	0.16^**	−0.06^*	0.73^**	−−
13. A’s personal initiative behavior (individual level)	0.10^**	−0.11^**	−0.12^**	0.09^**	0.07^*	0.03	0.04	−0.09^**	0.04	−0.07^*	0.02	0.06^*	(0.85)
14. A’s warmth trait (individual level)	0.11^**	−0.07^*	−0.04	0.09^**	0.09^**	0.12^**	0.09^**	−0.07^*	0.05	0.08^**	0.07^*	0.09^**	0.37^**	(0.78)
15. B’s relational energy from A (dyadic level)	0.07^*	−0.03	−0.16^**	0.00	0.01	−0.24^**	−0.15^**	−0.12^**	0.10^**	0.06^*	−0.16^**	−0.11^**	0.14^**	0.09^**	(0.88)
16. B’s interpersonal disliking toward A (dyadic level)	0.00	0.07^*	0.13^**	−0.04	−0.04	0.09^**	0.02	0.14^**	−0.15^**	−0.07^*	0.10^**	−0.02	−0.15^**	−0.14^**	−0.65^**	(0.79)
17. B’s active facilitation behavior toward A (dyadic level)	0.03	−0.02	−0.19^**	0.01	0.04	−0.05	−0.02	−0.19^**	0.03	0.06^*	−0.06^*	−0.02	0.20^**	0.21^**	0.39^**	−0.47^**	(0.78)
18. B’s interpersonal ostracism behavior toward A (dyadic level)	0.02	0.04	0.13^**	0.03	0.00	0.08^**	0.05	0.10^**	0.00	−0.02	0.03	0.03	−0.25^**	−0.15^**	−0.20^**	0.22^**	−0.28^**	−−
Individual and team level
M	10.23	12.19	31.42	0.57	3.38	3.66	2.91	31.42	0.58	3.38	3.66	2.91	3.83	4.06	3.87	1.95	4.03	2.11
SD	4.16	4.56	6.21	0.50	0.51	2.28	1.40	5.12	0.33	0.33	1.78	1.17	0.62	0.45	0.55	0.42	0.47	0.60
Dyadic level
M	10.36	12.24	31.33	0.58	3.40	3.73	2.93	31.33	0.58	3.39	3.73	2.93	3.83	4.08	3.87	1.96	4.03	2.10
SD	4.13	4.42	5.94	0.49	0.51	2.35	1.41	5.94	0.49	0.51	2.35	1.41	0.63	0.45	0.74	0.61	0.66	0.81

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1. Team size (team level)	−−
2. Team age (team level)	0.41^**	−−
3. A’s age (individual level)	0.00	0.17^**	−−
4. A’s gender (individual level)	0.08^**	−0.07^*	0.08^**	−−
5. A’s education (individual level)	−0.04	−0.07^*	−0.21^**	0.12^**	−−
6. A’s job tenure (individual level)	−0.11^**	−0.14^**	0.49^**	0.03	−0.05	−−
7. A’s team tenure (individual level)	−0.02	−0.13^**	0.47^**	0.16^**	−0.06^*	0.73^**	−−
8. B’s age (individual level)	0.00	0.16^**	0.56^**	0.02	−0.13^**	0.23^**	0.28^**	−−
9. B’s gender (individual level)	0.08^**	−0.07^*	0.02	0.22^**	0.09^**	0.04	0.10^**	0.09^**	−−
10. B’s education (individual level)	−0.04	−0.07^*	−0.13^**	0.09^**	0.20^**	0.04	−0.03	−0.21^**	0.12^**	−−
11. B’s job tenure (individual level)	−0.12^**	−0.14^**	0.23^**	0.04	0.04	0.45^**	0.39^**	0.49^**	0.03	−0.05	−−
12. B’s team tenure (individual level)	−0.02	−0.13^**	0.28^**	0.10^**	−0.03	0.39^**	0.56^**	0.47^**	0.16^**	−0.06^*	0.73^**	−−
13. A’s personal initiative behavior (individual level)	0.10^**	−0.11^**	−0.12^**	0.09^**	0.07^*	0.03	0.04	−0.09^**	0.04	−0.07^*	0.02	0.06^*	(0.85)
14. A’s warmth trait (individual level)	0.11^**	−0.07^*	−0.04	0.09^**	0.09^**	0.12^**	0.09^**	−0.07^*	0.05	0.08^**	0.07^*	0.09^**	0.37^**	(0.78)
15. B’s relational energy from A (dyadic level)	0.07^*	−0.03	−0.16^**	0.00	0.01	−0.24^**	−0.15^**	−0.12^**	0.10^**	0.06^*	−0.16^**	−0.11^**	0.14^**	0.09^**	(0.88)
16. B’s interpersonal disliking toward A (dyadic level)	0.00	0.07^*	0.13^**	−0.04	−0.04	0.09^**	0.02	0.14^**	−0.15^**	−0.07^*	0.10^**	−0.02	−0.15^**	−0.14^**	−0.65^**	(0.79)
17. B’s active facilitation behavior toward A (dyadic level)	0.03	−0.02	−0.19^**	0.01	0.04	−0.05	−0.02	−0.19^**	0.03	0.06^*	−0.06^*	−0.02	0.20^**	0.21^**	0.39^**	−0.47^**	(0.78)
18. B’s interpersonal ostracism behavior toward A (dyadic level)	0.02	0.04	0.13^**	0.03	0.00	0.08^**	0.05	0.10^**	0.00	−0.02	0.03	0.03	−0.25^**	−0.15^**	−0.20^**	0.22^**	−0.28^**	−−
Individual and team level
M	10.23	12.19	31.42	0.57	3.38	3.66	2.91	31.42	0.58	3.38	3.66	2.91	3.83	4.06	3.87	1.95	4.03	2.11
SD	4.16	4.56	6.21	0.50	0.51	2.28	1.40	5.12	0.33	0.33	1.78	1.17	0.62	0.45	0.55	0.42	0.47	0.60
Dyadic level
M	10.36	12.24	31.33	0.58	3.40	3.73	2.93	31.33	0.58	3.39	3.73	2.93	3.83	4.08	3.87	1.96	4.03	2.10
SD	4.13	4.42	5.94	0.49	0.51	2.35	1.41	5.94	0.49	0.51	2.35	1.41	0.63	0.45	0.74	0.61	0.66	0.81

Variables	B’s relational energy from A
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Control variables
Team size (team level)	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.02
Team age (team level)	−0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.02
A’s age (individual level)	−0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00
A’s gender (individual level)	−0.04	0.03	−0.04	0.04	−0.04	0.04	−0.04	0.03
A’s education (individual level)	−0.03	0.03	−0.03	0.03	−0.03	0.03	−0.03	0.03
A’s job tenure (individual level)	−0.01	0.01	−0.01	0.01	−0.01	0.01	−0.02	0.01
A’s team tenure (individual level)	−0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.02	−0.00	0.02
B’s age (individual level)	−0.00	0.01	−0.00	0.01	−0.00	0.01	−0.00	0.01
B’s gender (individual level)	0.13	0.06	0.13	0.06	0.13	0.06	0.13	0.06
B’s education (individual level)	0.09	0.06	0.09	0.06	0.09	0.06	0.09	0.06
B’s job tenure (individual level)	0.03	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.03	0.02
B’s team tenure (individual level)	−0.03	0.04	−0.03	0.04	−0.03	0.04	−0.03	0.04
Main predictor/moderator
A’s personal initiative behavior (individual level)			0.00	0.03	0.00	0.03	0.01	0.03
A’s warmth trait (individual level)					−0.02	0.04	−0.03	0.04
Interaction
A’s personal initiative behavior × A’s warmth trait							0.18^*	0.07

Variables	B’s relational energy from A
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Control variables
Team size (team level)	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.02
Team age (team level)	−0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.02
A’s age (individual level)	−0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00	−0.00	0.00
A’s gender (individual level)	−0.04	0.03	−0.04	0.04	−0.04	0.04	−0.04	0.03
A’s education (individual level)	−0.03	0.03	−0.03	0.03	−0.03	0.03	−0.03	0.03
A’s job tenure (individual level)	−0.01	0.01	−0.01	0.01	−0.01	0.01	−0.02	0.01
A’s team tenure (individual level)	−0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.02	−0.01	0.02	−0.00	0.02
B’s age (individual level)	−0.00	0.01	−0.00	0.01	−0.00	0.01	−0.00	0.01
B’s gender (individual level)	0.13	0.06	0.13	0.06	0.13	0.06	0.13	0.06
B’s education (individual level)	0.09	0.06	0.09	0.06	0.09	0.06	0.09	0.06
B’s job tenure (individual level)	0.03	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.03	0.02
B’s team tenure (individual level)	−0.03	0.04	−0.03	0.04	−0.03	0.04	−0.03	0.04
Main predictor/moderator
A’s personal initiative behavior (individual level)			0.00	0.03	0.00	0.03	0.01	0.03
A’s warmth trait (individual level)					−0.02	0.04	−0.03	0.04
Interaction
A’s personal initiative behavior × A’s warmth trait							0.18^*	0.07

Variables	B’s interpersonal disliking toward A
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Control variables
Team size (team level)	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01
Team age (team level)	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01
A’s age (individual level)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
A’s gender (individual level)	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.03
A’s education (individual level)	−0.04	0.03	−0.04	0.03	−0.04	0.03	−0.04	0.03
A’s job tenure (individual level)	−0.00	0.01	−0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.01
A’s team tenure (individual level)	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.01	0.02
B’s age (individual level)	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01
B’s gender (individual level)	−0.13^*	0.06	−0.13^*	0.06	−0.13^*	0.06	−0.13^*	0.06
B’s education (individual level)	−0.07	0.05	−0.07	0.05	−0.07	0.05	−0.07	0.05
B’s job tenure (individual level)	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02
B’s team tenure (individual level)	−0.06	0.03	−0.06	0.03	−0.06	0.03	−0.06	0.03
Main predictor/moderator
A’s personal initiative behavior (individual level)			0.00	0.03	0.01	0.03	0.00	0.03
A’s warmth trait (individual level)					−0.05	0.04	−0.05	0.04
Interaction
A’s personal initiative behavior × A’s warmth trait							−0.14^*	0.06

The double-edged sword effect of employee personal initiative behavior on coworker relationships: The moderating role of the employee warmth trait

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 7

References

Related Articles 0

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Coworker age	29.12	4.09	—
2. Coworker gender	0.30	0.46	0.19^**	—
3. Coworker education	4.04	0.55	−0.02	−0.04	—
4. Coworker job tenure	4.34	3.50	0.75^**	0.20^**	−0.06	—
5. Employee personal initiative behavior manipulation	0.50	0.50	0.08	0.02	−0.03	0.13^*	—
6. Employee warmth trait manipulation	0.50	0.50	0.05	−0.03	0.05	0.05	−0.01	—
7. Coworker relational energy	2.77	1.10	0.08	0.01	0.01	0.14^*	0.63^**	0.44^**	(0.95)
8. Coworker interpersonal disliking	2.73	0.87	−0.03	0.11	−0.01	−0.06	−0.21^**	−0.67^**	−0.66^**	(0.89)
9. Coworker active facilitation behavior	3.23	0.86	0.02	−0.03	0.04	0.08	0.31^**	0.53^**	0.69^**	−0.67^**	(0.81)
10. Coworker interpersonal ostracism behavior	2.19	0.81	0.08	0.11	0.03	0.01	−0.05	−0.50^**	−0.41^**	0.66^**	−0.49^**	(0.83)

Mediators	Low employee personal initiative behavior		High employee personal initiative behavior		F (1, 276)
Mediators	Low employee warmth trait	High employee warmth trait	Low employee warmth trait	High employee warmth trait	Employee personal initiative behavior	Employee warmth trait	Interaction
Relational energy	1.87 (0.59)	2.27 (0.63)	2.67 (0.89)	4.24 (0.34)	5.62 (Cohen’s d = 4.74) (η²= 0.85)	2.84 (Cohen’s d = 3.37) (η²= 0.74)	58.14^*** (Cohen’s d = 0.92) (η²= 0.17)
	N = 69	N = 71	N = 70	N = 70
	(Male: 27.5%)	(Male: 31%)	(Male: 35.7%)	(Male: 27.1%)
Interpersonal disliking	3.19 (0.54)	2.64 (0.58)	3.45 (0.66)	1.66 (0.31)	0.35 (Cohen’s d = 1.18) (η²= 0.26)	3.54 (Cohen’s d = 3.77) (η²= 0.78)	93.38^*** (Cohen’s d = 1.16) (η²= 0.25)
	N = 69	N = 71	N = 70	N = 70
	(Male: 27.5%)	(Male: 31%)	(Male: 35.7%)	(Male: 27.1%)

Variables	Coworker active facilitation behavior			Coworker interpersonal ostracism behavior
Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Intercept	2.59^*** (0.08)	1.61^***(0.13)	2.95^***(0.28)	2.52^*** (0.08)	0.50^*** (0.23)	0.66 (0.30)
Main predictors
Employee personal initiative behavior manipulation	0.34^**(0.11)	−0.08 (0.11)	0.10 (0.11)	0.15 (0.12)	−0.01 (0.10)	0.03 (0.12)
Employee warmth trait manipulation	0.73^***(0.11)	0.52^*** (0.10)	0.37^*** (0.10)	−0.56^***(0.12)	−0.21 (0.11)	−0.21 (0.11)
Employee personal initiative behavior manipulation×Employee warmth trait manipulation	0.38^* (0.16)	−0.23 (0.16)	−0.54^**(0.16)	−0.48^** (0.17)	0.30 (0.17)	0.33 (0.17)
Mediators
Coworker relational energy		0.52^*** (0.06)	0.41^*** (0.06)			−0.05 (0.06)
Coworker interpersonal disliking			−0.36^*** (0.07)		0.63^*** (0.07)	0.61^*** (0.07)
R²	0.39	0.54	0.58	0.27	0.45	0.45
∆R²		0.15^***	0.04^***		0.18^***	0.001
F	59.49^***	81.34^***	76.84^***	34.22^***	55.34^***	44.35^***

Variables	Coworker active facilitation behavior			Coworker interpersonal ostracism behavior
Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Intercept	2.59^*** (0.08)	1.61^***(0.13)	2.95^***(0.28)	2.52^*** (0.08)	0.50^*** (0.23)	0.66 (0.30)
Main predictors
Employee personal initiative behavior manipulation	0.34^**(0.11)	−0.08 (0.11)	0.10 (0.11)	0.15 (0.12)	−0.01 (0.10)	0.03 (0.12)
Employee warmth trait manipulation	0.73^***(0.11)	0.52^*** (0.10)	0.37^*** (0.10)	−0.56^***(0.12)	−0.21 (0.11)	−0.21 (0.11)
Employee personal initiative behavior manipulation×Employee warmth trait manipulation	0.38^* (0.16)	−0.23 (0.16)	−0.54^**(0.16)	−0.48^** (0.17)	0.30 (0.17)	0.33 (0.17)
Mediators
Coworker relational energy		0.52^*** (0.06)	0.41^*** (0.06)			−0.05 (0.06)
Coworker interpersonal disliking			−0.36^*** (0.07)		0.63^*** (0.07)	0.61^*** (0.07)
R²	0.39	0.54	0.58	0.27	0.45	0.45
∆R²		0.15^***	0.04^***		0.18^***	0.001
F	59.49^***	81.34^***	76.84^***	34.22^***	55.34^***	44.35^***