Using a sample of U.K. wire makers (N = 282), the authors tested a model in which personality and work environment antecedents affect proactive work behavior via cognitive-motivational mechanisms. Self-reported proactive work behaviors (proactive idea implementation and proactive problem solving) were validated against rater assessments for a subsample (n = 60) of wire makers. With the exception of supportive supervision, each antecedent was important, albeit through different processes. Proactive personality was significantly associated with proactive work behavior via role breadth self-efficacy and flexible role orientation, job autonomy was also linked to proactive behavior via these processes, as well as directly; and coworker trust was associated with proactive behavior via flexible role orientation. In further support of the model, the cognitive-motivational processes for proactive work behavior differed from those for the more passive outcome of generalized compliance.

This study investigated the determinants of team proactive performance amongst 43 shift teams from a UK chemical processing plant. Using external ratings of team proactive performance, the study found that the most proactive teams were those with higher levels of self-management, transformational team leaders, and a higherthan-average level of proactive personality. The relationship between transformational leadership and team proactive performance was mediated by favourable interpersonal norms. In addition, lower diversity of proactive personality amongst team members had an indirect association with team proactive performance via its negative effect on favourable interpersonal norms.'Teams are remarkably passive and accepting even when given work that is inappropriate for performance by a team, when the design of the team's task is flawed, or when contextual supports for teamwork are unavailable or inadequate … ' Oldham and Hackman (2010, p. 474) As suggested in the above quote, some work teams can be overly passive and adaptive when a more appropriate response might be to take charge and proactively change the situation. Yet, despite considerable research on individual-level proactivity (Bateman &

The authors investigate the relationship between employee perceptions of surface-and deep-level dissimilarity and within-team perspective taking. Results suggest that the more dissimilar employees perceive themselves to be from their fellow team members in terms of their work style, the less their perspective taking (i.e., lower positive attributions and empathy). In addition, the authors found that perceived work-style dissimilarity interacted with a contextually salient surface-level attribute (perceived age dissimilarity) such that when perceived work-style dissimilarity was low, perceived age dissimilarity had a stronger negative effect on within-team perspective taking. This study demonstrates the importance of considering perspective taking in their understanding of the effects of dissimilarity within teams and furthers theoretical understanding of the effects of relational demography by testing competing theories undergirding relational demography research.

Research examining relations between work group diversity and outcome measures often relies on diversity scores that are calculated on the basis of individual responses to organizational surveys. When employees fail to respond to a survey, however, the resultant diversity score representing their group will be somewhat distorted. The authors conducted a series of computer simulations to examine the extent to which correlations between group diversity scores (derived from continuous or categorical variables) and outcome variables were attenuated by various forms of random and systematic participant nonresponse. Results indicate that random nonresponse, and many forms of systematic nonresponse, substantially attenuate mean observed correlations.

No abstract