Dynamic effects of personal initiative on engagement and exhaustion: The role of mood, autonomy, and support

Abstract

Researchers have neglected dynamic effects of proactive behavior on occupational well-being.We investigated effects of change in personal initiative over 6 months on changes in emotional engagement and exhaustion over the following 6 months. On the basis of the control-process theory on affect, we hypothesized that changes in positive and negative moods mediate these effects conditional upon employees' level of perceived organizational support. On the basis of action regulation theory, we assumed that change in job autonomy also acts as a mediator. Data came from 297 employees who responded to 3 surveys separated by 6-month intervals. Results of latent change score modeling showed that change in personal initiative negatively predicted change in positive mood and, when perceived organizational support was low, positively predicted change in negative mood. In addition, change in personal initiative positively predicted change in job autonomy. Change in personal initiative had negative indirect effects on change in emotional engagement, and positive indirect effects on change in emotional exhaustion through changes in positive and negative moods (but not through change in job autonomy). A reverse causal model did not yield significant indirect effects. Overall, these findings suggest that an increase in proactive behavior can have detrimental effects on occupational well-being.

A resources perspective on when and how proactive work behaviour leads to employee withdrawal

“…Given that withdrawal from work allows individuals to replenish their resource pool and to deal with negative emotions, it might also provide them with resources for further proactivity. In other words, we suggest that proactive work behaviours can be sustained over time (e.g., r = 66, over 1 year; Zacher et al ., ; r = .60, over 4 years; Frese, Garst, & Fay, ) in part because employees apply strategies, such as withdrawal, to actively manage their resources.…”

“…() found that personal initiative led to improved working conditions 4 years later. Other long‐term benefits of proactivity relate to reduction in workplace stressors, gains in supervisor support (Li, Fay, Frese, Harms, & Gao, ), increased autonomy, and emotional engagement (Zacher et al ., ). We encourage scholars to study the benefits and costs of proactivity simultaneously and over different periods of time to broaden our understanding of the temporal dynamics of the proactivity–well‐being relationship.…”

“…Our second contribution relates to the nature of strain. Previous research on well‐being outcomes of proactivity has largely focused on a limited number of well‐being indicators (e.g., affect‐related: Strauss et al ., ; Zacher et al ., ; physiological indicators of strain: Fay & Hüttges, ; or ego depletion: Lin & Johnson, ). The present study continues this stream of research by including irritability as an indicator of affect‐related strain.…”

“…Zacher et al . () found that changes in proactivity negatively affected employees’ occupational well‐being (i.e., emotional engagement and emotional exhaustion) through changes in positive and negative affect.…”

Time pressure and proactive work behaviour: A week‐level study on intraindividual fluctuations and reciprocal relationships

“…It has been argued that PWB can be associated with experiencing higher levels of stressors and strain, such as impaired well‐being (Bolino, Valcea, & Harvey, ; Cangiano & Parker, ). The results of few empirical studies on this potential ‘dark side’ of PWB support that PWB is related to elevated levels of strain and exhaustion (Fay & Hüttges, ; Pingel, Fay, & Urbach, ; Strauss, Parker, & O'Shea, ; Zacher, Schmitt, Jimmieson, & Rudolph, ).…”