|عنوان مقاله||WHEN DOES PROACTIVITY HAVE A COST? MOTIVATION AT WORK MODERATES THE EFFECTS OF PROACTIVE WORK BEHAVIOR ON EMPLOYEE JOB STRAIN|
|ترجمه عنوان مقاله||چه زمانی فعالیت هزینه دارد؟ انگیزه در کار، تاثیر رفتارهای پیشگیرانه را بر فشار کاری کارکنان تعدیل می کند|
|تعداد صفحات مقاله||۴۷ صفحه|
|رشته های مرتبط||مدیریت|
|مجله||مجله رفتار حرفه ای – Journal of Vocational Behavior|
|دانشگاه||دانشکده کسب و کار، فرانسه|
|کلمات کلیدی||رفتارهای پیشگیرانه؛ انگیزه؛ فشار کاری؛ نظریه خودمختاری|
|تعداد کلمات||۸۱۸۴ کلمه|
|لینک مقاله در سایت مرجع||لینک این مقاله در سایت الزویر (ساینس دایرکت) Sciencedirect – Elsevier|
|وضعیت ترجمه مقاله||ترجمه آماده این مقاله موجود نمیباشد. میتوانید از طریق دکمه پایین سفارش دهید.|
|دانلود رایگان مقاله||دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی|
|سفارش ترجمه این مقاله||سفارش ترجمه این مقاله|
|بخشی از متن مقاله:|
Proactive behavior at work involves self-initiating change, or ‘making things happen’, in order to achieve a different future (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010). For example, Crant (2000) defined proactive behavior as: “taking initiative in improving current circumstances or creating new ones; it involves challenging the status quo rather than passively adapting to present conditions” (p. 436). Such behavior is argued to be especially important in uncertain and unpredictable environments where it is not possible to anticipate all contingencies and therefore to pre-specify role requirements (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007).
To date a great deal of research has focused on the positive organizationally-oriented outcomes of proactive behavior, and has provided a strong theoretical foundation, as well as supporting evidence, for its benefits. The breadth of research in the area is reflected in the production of several meta-analyses. For example, in an analysis of four types of proactivity studied in 103 independent samples, J. P. Thomas, Whitman, and Viswesvaran (2010) showed that proactive personality, personal initiative, voice, and taking change were each positiveliy related to job performance, affective organizational commitment, and social networking. Likewise Tornau & Frese (2013) showed in a meta-analysis of proactive concepts that they were positively related to job performance. Collectively, therefore, there is a solid understanding as to how proactive behavior shapes organizationally-focused outcomes such as job performance.
However, there is a limited understanding as to what cost, if any, might be entailed for individuals’ well-being when engaging in proactive behavior. Some theorizing has occurred, but there is little empirical research to back this up. For example, Cooper-Thomas and Burke (2012) suggested that proactive behavior might be maladaptive for organizational newcomers as it may create additional strain because of the risks of being proactive in a relatively unknown environment. Likewise, Bolino, Valcea, and Harvey (2010) speculated that there could be significant costs to being proactive because it consumes time and mental energy, and Grant, Nurmohamed, Ashford, and Dekas (2011) argued that being proactive has the potential to deplete individuals’ resources. In one of the few studies that have focused on this issue, Fay and Hüttges (in press) showed that daily proactive behavior is associated with daily cortisol output (with cortisol being seen as an indicator of strain). Yet these authors also found no link with well-being. Thus, while there is much speculation suggesting that proactive behavior may have a cost for well-being, the empirical research base is exceptionally thin.