Goal Setting & Proactive Behaviour - week 4 Flashcards
To what extent is goal setting theory backed up by the literature?
Substantial support for 3 of the basic elements (specific goals, difficult goals, feedback), mixed evidence for goal acceptance (depends on how it’s defined & level of involvement). Seems to be more effective for simple tasks, benefits may be hard to sustain in the long term.
What is control theory?
Looks at how individuals control their behaviour & performance in line with their future goal. Theorises that there’s a negative feedback loop to reduce discrepancy between current state and ideal state.
According to self-regulation theory, what are the three elements of self-regulation subject to failure?
Standards (goals & ideal states) - risks related to unclear and conflicting goals.
Monitoring (process of relating the current state to the ideal state) - risk of not judging the current state or how to get to the ideal state correctly.
Self-regulatory strength (willpower) - risk of not being able to control one’s behaviour to overcome obstacles.
According to self-regulation theory, how can one compensate for reduced self-regulatory strength?
Reduced self-regulatory strength (due to competing motivations) can be compensated for by motivation - can cause the person to conserve self-regulatory effort and expend more of it when needed.
What are the key themes across definitions of proactivity?
Key themes are reactivity, action, change, and future orientation
Who categorised concepts within proactive behaviour, and what did they find?
Parker & Collins 2010
(1) Proactive person-enviroment fit - setting proactive goals to achieve greater congruence between personal attributes and attributes of internal working environment, e.g. job crafting, feedback seeking, career & personal initiative, negotiating personalised work arrangements
(2) Proactive work behaviours - behaviours intending to improve the internal org environment, e.g. speaking up, taking charge, proactive problem solving, innovative behaviour, safety proactivity
(3) Proactive strategic behaviours - aimed at initiating change to improve org strategy, e.g. issue-selling, strategic scanning
What was Parker’s model of proactive motivation?
Parker et al’s (2010) model of proactive motivation was based on the idea of proactivity as both a goal setting process and a goal striving process.
Proactive goals that people may pursue tend to fall within two dimensions: desire to bring about change, or target for change (changing oneself or one’s situation)
Motivational states that allow for this proactive motivation (may fuel one another): ‘can do’ (arises from perception of self-efficacy, control and low perceived cost to the individual – maps nicely onto expectancy theory, also draw on self-regulation theory), ‘reason to’ (may include intrinsic motivators, may be integrated [like a calling], may be identified [associated with a future self, future identify, aspiration] - utility judgements, so again fits with SDT), ‘energized to’ (activating positive affect, prompts the goal process, e.g. enthusiasm can prompt creative thinking around a problem).
Moderators – can influence the model of private, proactive motivation, e.g. work context (e.g. degree of control), procedural justice perceptions (extent to which procedural justice allows them to take control, leads to feeling of psychological safety, which encourages us to use our voice and take proactive steps)
What are the negative outcomes of proactive behaviour at work?
Evidence for:
- Neg performance-related outcomes when proactivity is perceived negatively by supervisors
- Work-related stress when proactivity is externally motivated
- Work-family conflict when proactive employees negotiate i-deals & feel obliged to increase performance
- Co-worker conflict when proactive employees access more opportunities, results in co-worker envy
How can contextual factors influence outcomes of proactive behaviour?
- Social orientation and early career - value placed on proactive behaviour by supervisors can influence the activation of it in early career (Fay & Sonnentag 2010)
- Leadership traits -> high extraversion + high team level proactivity -> reduced team performance
- Externally regulated proactivity leads to emotional and cognitive strain
- Energy-generating pathway whereby proactive behaviour boosts end of workday vitality relies on supportive managers and supervisors
- Positive effect of recovery/end of day recuperation on proactive behaviour
What are the limitations of proactivity?
- Only a narrow set of outcomes have been studied
- Double-edged nature - positive and negative consequences of proactive behaviour on wellbeing (resource depleting vs resource building effects)
- Team level or org level research is scant
- Cultural context - most of the research has been conducted in US, UK and Germany, there may be differences between individualistic & collectivist cultures
- Life-span perspective - values & motives may change over time.
- Episodic approach - recognising proactivity may be applied in some situations and not others.
What is proactive personality?
Bateman & Crant 1993 - a person who is “relatively unconstrained by situational forces, and who effects environmental change”
Correlated with need for achievement, need for dominance & change orientation - Crant et al 2016
Functionally equivalent to Personal Initiative - Tornau & Frese, 2013
Related to higher order personality construct core self-evaluations (CSE), made up of self-efficacy, self-esteem, locus of control & emotional stability (Judge et al 2003).
