Personality and Individual Differences 159 (2020) 109865
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
When and why conscientious employees are proactive: A three-wave investigation on employees' conscientiousness and organizational proactive behavior
T
⁎
Yidong Tua, Xinxin Lub, , Shuoli Wanga, Yun Liuc a
Economics and Management School, Wuhan University, Wuhan City, China College of Business Administration, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, United States c MBA School, Henan University of Economics and Law, China b
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Conscientiousness Flourishing Organizational proactive behavior Job meaningfulness Broaden-and-build theory
This study investigates the mediating and moderating processes underlying conscientiousness and organizational proactive behavior from broaden-and-build theory. Using three-wave and multi-source data among 217 Chinese employees, this study found that flourishing mediated the relationship between conscientiousness and organizational proactive behavior. Moreover, job meaningfulness strengthens the relationship between conscientiousness and flourishing, as well as the mediation of flourishing between conscientiousness and organizational proactive behavior. The theoretical and managerial implications are further discussed.
1. Introduction In a volatile environment, employees’ organizational proactive behavior is of great importance to organizational functioning and adaptability (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010; Zhang, Law & Lin, 2016). Accumulating research has shown that organizational proactive behavior is positively related to employees’ job performance and organizational effectiveness (for a review, see Grant & Ashford, 2008). Individual personality traits, such as proactive personality and Big Five, are considered as consistent and salient antecedents of proactive behavior (Grant & Ashford, 2008). In the Big-Five personality model, conscientiousness is recognized as the strongest predictor of individual favorable behaviors and performance consistently across occasions and occupations (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen & Barrick, 1999). Thomas, Whitman and Viswesvaran (2010) argue that conscientiousness has a natural link with proactivity as conscientious people are more willing to go the extra mile to initiate change for the sake of the organization. However, to date, only few studies have attempted to link conscientiousness to organizational proactive behavior (Griffin, Parker & Mason, 2010). It is unknown why and when conscientiousness would fuel organizational proactive behavior. Conscientiousness describes the extent to which a person is achievement-oriented, diligent, dependable, orderly, self-disciplined and goal-oriented (Barrick & Mount, 1991; McCrae & John, 1992). Researchers have found that employees with higher conscientiousness
⁎
generally report more positive experiences, such as positive emotions, resilience, growth, and prosperity in the workplace (Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki & Cortina, 2006). According to the broaden-and-build theory, these positive experiences help people accumulate resources to thrive and achieve prosperity in their work. Flourishing is an emerging positive construct that captures employee “prosperity” (Diener et al., 2010) Researchers emphasized that flourishing is “the combination of feeling good and functioning effectively” (Demerouti, Bakker & Gevers, 2015, p.89). It was found to predict employee productivity, performance, and creativity (Bakker & Sanz-Vergel, 2013; Demerouti et al., 2015) beyond existing positive constructs. In this study, we identify flourishing as the mediating mechanism linking conscientiousness to organizational proactive behavior. Employees’ trait-behavior relationship depends on the relevant situation (Tett & Burett, 2003). Job meaningfulness is a desirable job characteristic to increase eudemonic satisfaction (Colbert, Bono & Purvanova, 2016; Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012). Flourishing involves eudemonic (being functional) and hedonic (feeling good) elements (Delle Fave, Brdar, Freire, Vella-Brodrick & Wissing, 2011; Demerouti et al., 2015; Keyes & Haidt, 2003). Conscientiousness has been found to be closer to psychological well-being (an indicator of eudemonic well-being) than emotional well-being (an indicator of hedonic well-being, Kokko, Tolvanen & Pulkkinen, 2013). Thus, there is a highly situational relevance (Tett & Burett, 2003) of job meaningfulness to activate conscientiousness in inducing employee flourishing at work.
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses:
[email protected] (Y. Tu),
[email protected] (X. Lu).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109865 Received 30 March 2018; Received in revised form 21 January 2020; Accepted 24 January 2020 0191-8869/ © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Personality and Individual Differences 159 (2020) 109865
Y. Tu, et al.
behavior domain, flourishing was conceptualized as a combination of hedonic and eudemonic well-being indicating that people both feel good and function effectively at work (Demerouti et al., 2015). It captures the tenet of psychological prosperity (Diener et al., 2010) and reflects “a state of positive mental health, a state in which the individual functions well psychologically and socially” (Keyes & Haidt, 2003, p. 4). It is a top symbol of mental well-being and health, indicating that flourishing people usually maintain healthy mental and physical states (Huppert & So, 2013). Prior research has shown that flourishing is positively related to employee productivity, performance, and creativity (Bakker & Sanz-Vergel, 2013; Demerouti et al., 2015). This study proposes that employees with higher conscientiousness experience more flourishing. First, conscientiousness is positively associated with high performance and self-efficacy (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Researchers have supported that positive resources and mastery experiences fuel people to function effectively (Bakker & SanzVergel, 2013). Second, conscientiousness is positively related to highquality relationships with leaders and coworkers (Judge et al., 1999). From the favorable relationships, employees with high conscientiousness acquire resources to accomplish tasks and socio-emotional resources to satisfy psychological needs (Colbert et al., 2016). Third, conscientiousness indicates high achievement and accomplishments. Longitudinal studies have shown that conscientiousness is positively related to individual career success, salary, and life satisfaction over the lifespan (Judge et al., 1999). Taken together, through developing selfefficacy, building favorable relationships, and achieving career and life accomplishments, people with high conscientiousness not only function effectively but also feel good at work, giving rise to flourishing. According to the broaden-and-build theory, flourishing is supposed to be positively related to employees’ organizational proactive behavior. Flourishing broadens employees’ thought-action repertoires, so they can go beyond their own formal requirements and have sufficiently broad repertoires of thought and action to take initiative, as well as a broader scope to focus on others’ and the collective interests (Fredrickson, 2001). Flourishing employees are passionate about actively and productively interacting with others (Keyes & Haidt, 2003). Thus, flourishing broadens the thought-action repertoires available for organizational proactive behavior. Moreover, flourishing builds physical, intellectual, social, and psychological resources for exerting organizational proactive behavior (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). For instance, compared to languishing people who live in emptiness, stagnancy, and despair, flourishing people have better health and life expectancy (Huppert & So, 2013), cognitive processing (Demerouti et al., 2015), social relationships (Bakker & SanzVergel, 2013; Diener et al., 2010), and psychological strengths (Diener et al., 2010). Thus, they are resourceful enough to engage in organizational proactive behavior. Taking these arguments together, this study proposes that conscientiousness induces employees’ flourishing, resulting in organizational proactive behavior. Hypothesis 1: Flourishing mediates the relationship between conscientiousness and organizational proactive behavior.
We argue that job meaningfulness strengthens the relationship between conscientiousness and flourishing, as well as the indirect effect of conscientiousness on organizational proactive behavior via flourishing. This study intends to make threefold contribution. First, using threewave and multi-source data, this study aims to explore why and when conscientiousness affects organizational proactive behavior. We attempt to expand the trait-proactivity research beyond proactive personality and to shed light on the role conscientiousness plays in promoting employee proactivity. Second, based on broaden-and-build theory, this study will examine the mediation of employee flourishing between conscientiousness and organizational proactive behavior. Third, this study will further delineate the boundary conditions of the hypothesized relationship by examining the moderation of job meaningfulness. 2. Theory and hypotheses 2.1. Broaden-and-build theory Broaden-and-build theory is an overarching framework to understand how positive experiences would facilitate favorable outcomes (Fredrickson, 2001). The tenet of the theory is that positive experiences, such as positive emotions and states, widen individuals’ scope of attention and cognition, and build resources for actions (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). Broadened attention and cognition scopes increase individual cognitive flexibility and make them alert to a larger scope of information (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). The broadened thought–action repertories, in turn, helps individuals to build up lasting personal (e.g., physical, intellectual, social, and psychological) resources to develop the long-term adaptive values and advantages (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005). The theory has received a plethora of support from the ensuing studies among multiple disciplines (for a review, see Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). Although positive emotions were the focus of broaden-and-build theory in early studies (Fredrickson, 2001), recently, the theory has been expanded to understand the role of the positive state and psychological resources in individual performance, adaption, and well-being (Li, Li, Tu & Liu, 2018). In this study, as flourishing is identified as a positive state at work, broaden-and-build theory is applicable to explain the mediation of flourishing in the relationship between conscientiousness and organizational proactive behavior. Fredrickson and Losada's (2005) review provides theoretical support for the application of broaden-and-build theory in human flourishing. 2.2. Mediation of flourishing between conscientiousness and proactive behavior Conscientiousness is among the most studied dimensions of the fivefactor model of personality (Barrick & Mount, 1991). People high on conscientiousness are generally diligent, dutiful, and purposeful (McCrae & John, 1992). Organizational proactive behavior refers to initiating change or displaying proactivity for the interest of the organization (Zhang et al., 2016). According to the multi-foci (self-, social-, and organization-focused) typology of proactive behavior (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010), organizational proactive behavior targets at improving organizational welfare and the collective interest. Previous research shows that organizational proactive behavior is correlated to, but distinct from, organizational citizenship behavior directed at the organization (Grant & Ashford, 2008). As proposed earlier, conscientiousness may have a positive impact on organizational proactive behavior by promoting employees flourishing at work. Flourishing has been conceptualized as the experience of feeling good (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005), and, in a broader scope, it refers to living “within an optimal range of human functioning, one that connotes goodness, generativity, growth, and resilience” (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005, p.678). When introduced into the organizational
2.3. Moderation of job meaningfulness on the relationship between conscientiousness and flourishing Job meaningfulness refers to “an individual subjective experience of existential significance or purpose of work” (Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012, p. 657). It reflects the extent to which a specific job is meaningful for a person and fits with their abilities, values, and beliefs (Spreitzer, 1995). Although meaningfulness could be a structural job characteristic, it could also be the subjective perception of work purpose that varies across persons (Rosso, Dekas & Wrzesniewski, 2010). Perceived job meaningfulness reflects individual needs for impact and intrinsic interest in their job. People who perceive job meaning strive to find personal value in their job and pursue purpose in their profession (Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012). 2
Personality and Individual Differences 159 (2020) 109865
Y. Tu, et al.
department, we randomly selected employees from administrative and professional functions, as they are mostly knowledge-workers with relatively meaningful jobs. The researchers communicated with the employees to explain the research purpose and confidentiality policy and sought their consent of participation. Each participant received a sealable envelope including a cover letter, a questionnaire, and a gift (about $1). Initially, at Time-point 1 (T1), 330 employees received the questionnaire with questions regarding their conscientiousness, job meaningfulness, and demographics. In total, 296 questionnaires were returned, and 278 were valid. At T2 (about one month after T1), employees who finished the first-round survey received a second-round questionnaire and rated their flourishing. In this round, 260 questionnaires were returned and 243 were valid. At T3 (approximately one month after T2), the immediate supervisors of those who completed the previous two waves of the survey were invited to rate their subordinates’ organizational proactive behavior. Finally, 232 employee surveys were collected, and 217 were valid. Of the 217 employees, 141 (65%) were male and 76 (35%) were female. The percentage of male employees was disproportionately high in this study because automobile manufacturers usually employ significantly more males than females. Of the sample, the average age is 30.44 (S.D.= 6.85), the average education is 15.78 years (S.D.= 1.45), and the average tenure is 5.38 years (S.D.= 6.91).
People live in a social environment, and the relationship between personality and behavioral outcomes depends on the relevant situation (Tett & Burett, 2003). Therefore, the relationship between personality and job performance may be activated or suppressed by environmental factors. In our study, job meaningfulness (eudemonic experience) shows situational relevance to activating conscientiousness in inducing employee flourishing. First, perceived job meaningfulness infuses employees with the personal purpose that directs their energy, motivation, and effort toward valued goals (Colbert et al., 2016; Spreitzer, 1995). Amounting research has shown that employees with higher conscientiousness often display a higher level of functional effectiveness in the form of job performance and career success (Barrick & Mount, 1991). When their job is highly meaningful, employees with high conscientiousness feel that they are not merely performing a job, but also making a difference to others. This sense of purpose, passion, and happiness motivates them to leverage their functional capacities to achieve prosperity at work (Delle Fave et al., 2011; Huppert & So, 2013). Second, perceived job meaningfulness stimulates individual intrinsic motivation that drives them to find joy and interest in their work (Tims, Derks & Bakker, 2016). Previous research has suggested that job meaningfulness generates the perception of challenge, interest, significance (Tims et al., 2016), and person-job fit (Spreitzer, 1995), which leads to high intrinsic motivation. Employees with high conscientiousness are characterized by high achievement orientation and a desire for excellent performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Intrinsic motivation derived from job meaningfulness inspires them to pursue interest and development. In this situation, conscientiousness is more likely to achieve functional effectiveness at work. We propose that job meaningfulness strengthens the link between conscientiousness and flourishing. Hypothesis 2: Job meaningfulness positively moderates the relationship between conscientiousness and flourishing, such that the relationship is stronger when job meaningfulness is higher than lower.
3.2. Measurement All the surveys were administered in Chinese. Two experts were invited to complete the translation and back-translation under the double-blind principle. All measures used a five-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) ‘‘Strongly disagree’’ to (5) ‘‘Strongly agree’’. Conscientiousness was assessed using eight items from Saucier (1994). Sample items include ‘‘I am generally organized/efficient/systematic/practical’’. Shao, Yao, Li and Huang (2013) reported reliability of 0.73 in a Chinese sample. The reliability of this scale in the current study was 0.85. Job meaningfulness was measured using three items from Spreitzer (1995). A sample item was: ‘‘my job activities are personally meaningful to me’’. This measure reported a reliability of 0.88 in the Chinese context (Wang & Xu, 2019). The reliability of the scale in this study was 0.89. Flourishing was evaluated using eight items from Diener et al. (2010)). A sample item was: “I am engaged and interested in my daily activities”. Duan and Xie (2019) supported the generalizability of flourishing in the Chinese context (α=0.83). The reliability of the scale in this study was 0.92. Organizational proactive behavior was measured using three items from Belschak and Den Hartog (2010). A sample item was ‘‘(This employee) suggests ideas for solutions for company problems’’. The psychometric validity of this measure (α=0.84) has been supported in the Chinese context (Zhang et al., 2016). The reliability of this scale in the current study was 0.86. Control variables: Previous research suggests that demographics are significantly related to organizational proactive behaviors (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010), so this study also controlled for employee gender, age, education, and tenure. Gender was dummy coded, with 1 representing male and 0 for female. Age, education, and tenure were coded as numbers indicating how old the rater was, how many years he/she had been in education, and how many years he/she had worked in the company, respectively. Moreover, we controlled for core selfevaluation (CSE). Judge, Erez, Bono and Thoresen (2003) meta-analysis shows that CSE, consisting of one's self-esteem, locus of control, emotional stability, and generalized self-efficacy, explains extra variance in individual outcomes beyond the Big-Five personality. Judge et al. (2003)) 12-item short-version scale was used to measure CSE. A sample item was “My life is determined by my own actions.” The
2.4. The integrating model of moderated mediation Conscientiousness holds positive potentials for generating employee flourishing, however, the extent to which people can leverage their personal positive potential is contingent on the contextual environment. The effect of conscientiousness could be activated or suppressed by situational factors (Tett & Burett, 2003). Combining Hypothesis 1 and 2, we argue that strengthens the association between conscientiousness and flourishing, and subsequently increases organizational proactive behavior. That is, at a high level of job meaningfulness, employees with higher conscientiousness experience more flourishing at work and consequently are more likely to display proactive behavior targeted at the organization. Therefore, job meaningfulness strengthens the indirect effect of conscientiousness on organizational proactive behavior via flourishing. Hypothesis 3: Job meaningfulness positively moderates the indirect effect of conscientiousness on organizational proactive behavior via flourishing, such that the indirect effect is higher when job meaningfulness is higher than lower. 3. Methodology 3.1. Sample and procedure This study was approved by the ethics committee of the National Natural Science Foundation of China that funded the current research, as well as the ethics committee of the university the authors are affiliated to (IRB number: EM190002). The data were collected in six subsidiary companies of a leading automobile manufacturer from mainland China. To reduce the undermining effects of common method bias and cross-sectional data, this study collected data from multiple sources and across three waves. With the help of the human resources 3
Personality and Individual Differences 159 (2020) 109865
Y. Tu, et al.
reliability was 0.75 in the current research.
Table 2 Mediation of flourishing between conscientiousness and proactive behavior.
3.3. Analysis strategy As one supervisor evaluated multiple subordinates in the current study, our data does not meet the non-independence rule. We examined the variance components of organizational proactive behavior. The results revealed that the between-group variance (1.62) was significantly higher (F = 5.03, p<0.001) than within-group variance (0.32). We further calculated the inter-rater agreement of organizational proactive behavior. Results showed that ICC1 was 0.45, ICC2 was 0.80, and average rwg was 0.89, higher than the recommended cutoff values (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). All the results supported the groupnested structure of the data. Therefore, following the recommendations of Preacher, Zyphur and Zhang (2010), we tested all the hypotheses using multilevel structural equational modeling in Mplus 7.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). Moreover, because Mplus cannot perform resamplingbased bootstrapping in multilevel research, we employed R software to calculate the confidence intervals of indirect effect and conditional indirect effect using the Monte Carlo method of parametric bootstrapping (Preacher et al., 2010).
Variable
Flourishing (T2) β (S.E)
OPB (T3) β (S.E)
OPB(T3) β (S.E)
Intercept Gender (T1) Age (T1) Tenure (T1) Education(T1) CSE (T1) Conscientiousness (T1) Flourishing (T2) Individual level variance Pseudo R2 Indirect effect of flourishing
−1.50(2.56) −0.05(0.09) .00(0.01) −0.01(0.01) −0.07(0.03) .29(0.09)** .38(0.07)***
3.67(5.00) −0.10(0.10) −0.01(0.01) .02(0.01) .03(0.04) .04(0.10) −0.09(0.08)
5.50(9.66) −0.09(0.10) −0.01(0.01) .02(0.01) .04(0.04) −0.01(0.10) −0.16(0.08) .19(0.08)* .30 .06
.28 0.31 .18 .03 .07(95%CI [.01,.15])
Note: n = 217. ⁎ p<0.05. ⁎⁎ p<0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p<0.001 (two-tailed). OPB represents organizational proactive behavior, CSE represents core self-evaluation. Table 3 Moderation of job meaningfulness on the relationship between conscientiousness and flourishing.
4. Results 4.1. Scale validation Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) was conducted to test the discriminant validity of the theoretical variables. Given our relatively small sample, we parceled the eight-item conscientiousness and flourishing into three factors, respectively, to achieve a satisfactory sampleitem ratio (Mathieu & Farr, 1991). The results revealed that the fourfactor model with conscientiousness, job meaningfulness, flourishing, and organizational proactive behavior fit neatly into the data (χ2=85.84, df=48, CFI=0.98, GFI=0.94, IFI=0.98, TLI=0.97, RMR=0.04, RMSEA=0.06). However, the fit indices of the alternative models were unacceptable. The results supported the discriminant validity of the measurement model.
Variable
Flourishing (T2) β (S.E)
OPB (T3) β (S.E)
Intercept Gender (T1) Age (T1) Tenure (T1) Education CSE (T1) Conscientiousness (T1) Job meaningfulness (T1) Conscientiousness × Job meaningfulness Flourishing (T2) Individual level variance Pseudo R2 Indirect effect at low level of moderator Indirect effect at high level of moderator Differences of indirect effect
−1.49(2.05) −0.05(0.08) −0.01(0.01) .00(0.01) −0.05(0.03) .25(0.08)** .27(0.07)*** .30(0.06)*** .19(0.07)**
2.46(6.04) −0.10(0.10) −0.01(0.01) .03(0.01) .04(0.04) −0.02(0.10) −0.17(0.08)*
.21(0.08)⁎⁎ .23 .30 .31 .07 0.03(95%CI [−0.01,.08]) 0.09(95%CI [.02,.17]) .06(95%CI [.01,.14])
4.2. Hypotheses tests Note: n=217. ⁎ p<0.05. ⁎⁎ p<0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p<0.001 (two-tailed). OPB represents organizational proactive behavior, CSE represents core self-evaluation.
Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables present in Table 1. Table 2 presents the regression results of the mediating hypothesis. Results in Model 1 showed that conscientiousness was positively related to flourishing (β=0.38, p <0.001). Results in Model 3 showed that flourishing was positively related to organizational proactive behavior (β=0.19, p <0.05) when conscientiousness was present. The Monte Carlo method was used to compute the 95% confidence interval of the indirect effect of flourishing between conscientiousness and
organizational proactive behavior, and it was 0.07 (95%CI [.01,.15]), supporting Hypothesis 2. Table 3 presents the regression results of moderation and moderated mediation. The results in Model 1showed that the interaction term
Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations. Variable
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
.65 30.44 5.38 15.78 3.37 4.06 4.01 3.87 3.40
.48 6.85 6.92 1.45 .46 .64 .75 .66 .76
.09 .06 .01 .14* −0.07 −0.01 −0.01 −0.15*
.86*** −0.28*** .09 −0.04 −0.09 −0.11 .00
−0.34*** .05 −0.07 −0.12 −0.17* −0.01
.08 .13 .09 .05 −0.02
.09 .19** .22** .03
.41*** .46*** .14*
.52*** .05
.25***
Gender(T1) Age (T1) Tenure (T1) Education(T1) CSE(T1) Conscientiousness (T1) Job meaningfulness (T1) Flourishing (T2) OPB (T3)
Note: n = 217 ⁎ p<0.05 ⁎⁎ p<0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p<0.001 (two-tailed). OPB represents organizational proactive behavior, CSE represents core self-evaluation. 4
Personality and Individual Differences 159 (2020) 109865
Y. Tu, et al.
conscientiousness for promoting employee flourishing and proactivity and expands the trait antecedents of organizational proactive behavior. Moreover, we have added to the knowledge of mechanisms underlying conscientiousness and introduced a novel perspective to understand individual personality and positive state at work. Second, the results showed that job meaningfulness strengthened the relationship between conscientiousness and flourishing, as well as the indirect effect of conscientiousness on organizational proactive behavior via flourishing. Drawing from the definition, eudemonic and hedonic experiences is combined to generate flourishing (Delle Fave et al., 2011). Our research shows that job meaningfulness, a source of eudemonic experience (Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012), activates conscientiousness in facilitating individual flourishing at work. In this way, this study provides more nuances about the development of flourishing and reveals the role of individual traits and job characteristics in flourishing and proactive behavior. Moreover, our study further supports the “situation-dependent” characteristic of personality by suggesting that the effect of conscientiousness is contingent on job characteristics (Tett & Burett, 2003). Thereby, we deepen the existing understanding of the boundary condition under which conscientiousness may foster individual positive states and desirable behaviors at work. Finally, the three-wave and multi-source data lent us confidence in the findings. Although the hypotheses were examined at the individual level, multilevel techniques were used to control for the group level variance. The methodological strengths fortify our confidence in the findings by reducing common method bias and alleviating concerns with cross-sectional research design. For example, Thomas et al. (2010)) meta-analysis on the relationship between BigFive personality and employee proactivity shows that about 25% to 40% of proactivity studies used self-reported and cross-sectional data. They cautioned that the flawed research design might inflate the hypothesized relationship and make it impossible to infer causality. In this regard, our multi-source and multi-wave data provide a solid basis for understanding the mediating and moderating mechanisms between conscientiousness and organizational proactive behavior. Our findings also have implications for practitioners. First, the results suggest that employees with high conscientiousness are more likely to experience flourishing and consequently engage in organizational proactive behavior. It indicates that conscientiousness should be an important criterion for recruitment and selection in the organization. Also, given the benefits of flourishing, both organizations and employees should change their mindset from an overemphasis on performance towards showing more concern for employee well-being and psychological health. Second, our findings highlight the indispensable role of job meaningfulness in promoting employee flourishing and proactive behavior. Managers can increase job meaningfulness for employees by broadening or redesigning the job and rotating employees to enrich the job content. On the other hand, given the increasing decentralization and empowerment in organizations, employees should be encouraged and allowed more discretion to craft their job proactively to increase their perceived meaningfulness in the job. Some limitations of the current research should be addressed in future studies. First, this study did not control for the other Big-Five traits and proactive personality. Previous research shows that these personality traits are correlated and may overlap in predicting certain behaviors (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Future studies can control for these personality traits or compare them with conscientiousness in predicting organizational proactive behavior. Second, given our data collected from six subsidiaries of one company in China, the generalizability of the findings might be a concern. Future studies should develop crosscultural research to extend the generalizability of these research findings.
Fig. 1. Research model.
Fig. 2. Moderating effect of job meaningfulness between conscientiousness and flourishing.
(Conscientiousness × Job meaningfulness) was positively related to employee flourishing (β=0.19, p <0.01), supporting Hypothesis 2.Fig. 2 showed that the relationship between conscientiousness and flourishing was strengthened (b = 0.41, p <0.001) and weakened (b = 0.12, n.s.) when job meaningfulness was high and low, respectively. As shown in Table 3, the indirect effect of conscientiousness on organizational proactive behavior via flourishing was 0.09 (95%CI [.02,.17]) and 0.03 (95%CI [−0.01,.08]) when job meaningfulness was high and low, respectively. The difference of the indirect effects between the two conditions was 0.06 (95%CI [.01,.14]). Hypothesis 3 was supported.
Discussion In today's rapidly changing environment, proactivity is crucial for the organization and individuals to achieve higher performance (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Zhang et al., 2016). This study explored why and when conscientiousness facilitates employee organizational proactive behavior. Based on broaden-and-build theory, this study showed that employee flourishing significantly mediated the relationship between conscientiousness and organizational proactive behavior, and job meaningfulness strengthened the relationship between conscientiousness and flourishing and the indirect effect of conscientiousness on organizational proactive behavior via flourishing. This study makes considerable theoretical contributions to extant literature. First, this study confirmed the mediating effect of flourishing between conscientiousness and organizational proactive behavior. Based on the broaden-and-build theory, this study revealed that conscientiousness accumulates personal resources, mastery experience, and achievements at work, leads to experience flourish at work. These findings concur with previous research showing that people with higher conscientiousness are simultaneously more productive and more positive. Also, it further confirms the positive potentials of flourishing as it equips people with broad thought-action repertoires and bountiful resources (e.g., physical, intellectual, social, and psychological resources) to engage in proactive behaviors targeted at the organization. In this sense, our research sheds light on the positive potentials of 5
Personality and Individual Differences 159 (2020) 109865
Y. Tu, et al.
Acknowledgements
837–861. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303–331. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652. Keyes, C. L. M., & Haidt, J. (2003). Flourishing: The positive person and the good life. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kokko, K., Tolvanen, A., & Pulkkinen, L. (2013). Associations between personality traits and psychological well-being across time in middle adulthood. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(6), 748–756. LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852. Li, Y., Li, D., Tu, Y., & Liu, J. (2018). How and when servant leadership enhances life satisfaction. Personnel Review, 47(5), 1077–1093. Lips-Wiersma, M., & Wright, S. (2012). Measuring the meaning of meaningful work development and validation of the comprehensive meaningful work scale (CMWS). Group & Organization Management, 37(5), 655–685. Mathieu, J. E., & Farr, J. L. (1991). Further evidence for the discriminant validity of measures of organizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 127–133. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five‐factor model and its applications. Journal of personality, 60(2), 175–215. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel sem framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological methods, 15(3), 209–233. Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–127. Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of goldberg’s unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(3), 506–516. Shao, Y., Yao, X., Li, Y., & Huang, Z. (2013). Personality and life satisfaction in china: The birth order effect under the influence of national policy. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(4), 536–541. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied psychology, 88(3), 500–517. Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 275–300. Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person–job fit and meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 44–53. Wang, Z., & Xu, H. (2019). When and for whom ethical leadership is more effective in eliciting work meaningfulness and positive attitudes: The moderating roles of core self-evaluation and perceived organizational support. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(4), 919–940. Zhang, M. J., Law, K. S., & Lin, B. (2016). You think you are big fish in a small pond? perceived overqualification, goal orientations, and proactivity at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(1), 61–84.
This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 71872139;71402127), and the Humanity and Social Science Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (18YJC630164). Reference Bakker, A. B., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2013). Weekly work engagement and flourishing: The role of hindrance and challenge job demands. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 397–409. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26. Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of proactive behaviour: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 475–498. Colbert, A. E., Bono, J. E., & Purvanova, R. K. (2016). Flourishing via workplace relationships: Moving beyond instrumental support. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1199–1223. Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Freire, T., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Wissing, M. P. (2011). The eudaimonic and hedonic components of happiness: Qualitative and quantitative findings. Social Indicators Research, 100(2), 185–207. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Gevers, J. M. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: The role of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87–96. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., & Oishi, S. (2010). New wellbeing measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. Duan, W., & Xie, D. (2019). Measuring adolescent flourishing: Psychometric properties of flourishing scale in a sample of chinese adolescents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(1), 131–135. Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., & Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 40–57. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion, 19(3), 313–332. Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678–686. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. (2010). Leader vision and the development of adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 174–182. Huppert, F. A., & So, T. T. (2013). Flourishing across europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social Indicators Research, 110(3),
6