The effects of work engagement and self-effi cacy on personal initiative and performance

  1. Ana Lisbona 1
  2. Francisco Palaci 1
  3. Marisa Salanova 2
  4. Michael Frese 3
  1. 1 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info
    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

    Geographic location of the organization Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
  2. 2 Universitat Jaume I
    info
    Universitat Jaume I

    Castelló de la Plana, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02ws1xc11

    Geographic location of the organization Universitat Jaume I
  3. 3 National University of Singapore
    info
    National University of Singapore

    Singapur, Singapur

    ROR https://ror.org/01tgyzw49

    Geographic location of the organization National University of Singapore
Show affiliations +
Journal:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Year of publication: 2018

Volume: 30

Issue: 1

Pages: 89-96

Type: Article

DOI: 10.7334/PSICOTHEMA2016.245 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Psicothema

Abstract

Background: Two popular concepts, work engagement and personal initiative, are different but related constructs. This study is based on and extends the Frese and Fay (2001) model of personal initiative (PI) by including work engagement (WE) and self-effi cacy as antecedents of PI, and performance as a consequence. Method: Two studies (study 1, with a cross-sectional design using N = 396 participants from 22 organizations, and study 2, with a longitudinal design conducted in two waves with N = 118 participants from 15 organizations) test the hypotheses. Results: Structural equation modeling and the PROCESS SPSS Macro were used to test the hypothesized mediating role of personal initiative in work engagement and performance, and the results show the indirect effect of WE on performance through PI. Conclusions: The results of these two studies confi rmed our hypotheses: WE and self-effi cacy lead to higher PI, which, in turn, leads to higher performance. In addition to considering WE as an antecedent of PI, the results lead to considering PI as an antecedent of performance.

Bibliographic References

  • Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317-332. Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative an psychological safety, process innovations an firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 45-68.
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
  • Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 197, 238-246.
  • Binnewies, C., & Gromer, M. (2012). Creatividad e innovación laboral: el rol de las características del trabajo y la iniciativa personal [Creativity and innovation at work: The role of work characteristics and personal initiative]. Psicothema, 24(1), 100-105.
  • Bledow, R., & Frese, M. (2009). A situational Judgment Test of Personal Initiative and its Relationship to Performance. Personal Psychology, 62, 229-258.
  • Bledow, R., Schmitt, A., Frese, M., & Kühnel, J. (2011). The affective shift model of work engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 12461257.
  • Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Longs (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Carlos, V. S., & Rodrigues, R. G. (2016). Development and validation of a self-reported measure of job performance. Social Indicators Research, 126(1), 279-307.
  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: HarperCollins.
  • Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2000). Self-starting behavior at work: Toward a theory of personal initiative. In J. Heckhausen (Ed.), Motivational psychology of human development: Developing motivation and motivating development (pp. 307-337). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Frese, M. (2000). The changing nature of work. In N. Chmiel (Ed.), Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology (pp. 424-439). Oxford, England: Blackwell
  • Frese, M. (2008). The word is out: We need an active performance concept for modern workplaces. Commentary on focal article by Macey & Schneider: The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 67-69.
  • Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. In B. M. Staw & R. Sutton: Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187.
  • Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburguer, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 70, 139-161.
  • Frese, M., Garst, G., & Fay, D. (2007). Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships between work characteristics and personal initiative (PI) in a fourwave longitudinal structural equation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1084-1102.
  • Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 37-63.
  • Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327-347.
  • Hakanen, J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 78-91.
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Hoyle, R.H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-effi cacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Managment Journal, 29(2), 262-279.
  • Koop, S., de Reu, T., & Frese, M. (2000). Socio-demographic factors, entrepreneurial orientation, personal initiative, and environmental problems in Uganda. In M. Frese (Ed.), Success and failure of microbusiness owners in Africa: A psychological approach (pp. 5576). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
  • Lisbona, A., & Palací, F. J. (2014). How to assess performance: Subjective performance Scale. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  • Lisbona, A., Palaci, F. J., & Gómez-Bernabeu, A. (2008). Escala de Clima para la Iniciativa y para la Seguridad Psicológica: adaptación al castellano y su relación con el desempeño organizacional [Spanish adaptation of the scale of organizational climate focused on the support of initiative and psychological safety: Its relation with organizational performance]. Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 24, 153-157
  • Llorens, S., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). Testing the robustness of the Job Demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 378-391.
  • Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2007). Does a positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in Human Behaviour, 23, 825-841.
  • Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3-30.
  • Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indexes: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In G. A. Marcoulides& R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling techniques (pp. 315-353). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal Applied of Psychology, 88, 879-903.
  • Pransky, G., Finkelstein, S., Berndt, E., Kyle, M., Mackell, J., & Tortorice, D. (2006). Objective and self-report work performance measures: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Productivity And Performance Management, 55(5), 390-399.
  • Salanova, M., Bresó, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005). Hacia un modelo espiral de las creencias de eficacia en el estudio del burnout y del engagement [Towards a spiral model of efficacy beliefs in the study of burnout and engagement]. Ansiedad y Estrés, 11, 215-231.
  • Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martínez, I., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Group Research, 34, 43-73.
  • Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008).A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour: The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 116-131.
  • Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). El engagement en el trabajo. Cuando el trabajo se convierte en pasión [Work engagement. When work turns into passion]. Madrid: Alianza.
  • Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The measurement of burnout and engagement: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
  • Solís, M. (2015). The dilemma of combining positive and negative items in scales. Psicothema, 27(2), 192-199.
  • Speier, C., & Frese, M. (1997). Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator and moderator between control and complexity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinal field study in East Germany. Human Performance, 10, 171-192.
  • Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119.
  • Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 183-200.
  • Zacher, H., Heusner, S., Schmitz, M., Zwierzanska, M. M., & Frese, M. (2010). Focus on opportunities as a mediator of the relationships between age, job complexity, and work performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 374-386.
  • Zacher, H., Robinson, A. J., & Rosing, K. (2016). Ambidextrous leadership and employees’ self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(1), 24-46.
Data source: Dialnet