Journal of Applied Psychology

When Does Transformational Leadership Enhance Employee Proactive Behavior? The Role of Autonomy and Role Breadth Self-Efficacy
Deanne N. Den Hartog and Frank D. Belschak Online First Publication, August 15, 2011. doi: 10.1037/a0024903

CITATION Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2011, August 15). When Does Transformational Leadership Enhance Employee Proactive Behavior? The Role of Autonomy and Role Breadth Self-Efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0024903

Journal of Applied Psychology 2011, Vol. , No. , 000 000

2011 American Psychological Association 0021-9010/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0024903

RESEARCH REPORT

When Does Transformational Leadership Enhance Employee Proactive Behavior? The Role of Autonomy and Role Breadth Self-Efficacy
Deanne N. Den Hartog and Frank D. Belschak
University of Amsterdam
Two multisource studies address the interactive effects of personal and contextual variables on employees proactive behavior. In line with previous work, we find positive main effects of transformational leadership, role breadth self-efficacy, and job autonomy on employee proactive behavior (personal initiative in Study 1 and prosocial proactive behavior in Study 2). As expected, a 3-way interaction qualifies these main effects: In situations of high autonomy, transformational leadership relates positively to proactive behavior for individuals high (but not low) on self-efficacy. Vice versa, in situations low on job autonomy, transformational leadership relates positively to proactive behavior for individuals low (but not high) on self-efficacy. This pattern is found both for self-ratings and peer-ratings of employees proactive behavior in Study 1 and for supervisor ratings of such behavior in Study 2. Keywords: proactive behavior, personal initiative, transformational leadership, substitutes for leadership, autonomy

Organizations are shifting responsibility downward and require proactive employees who are willing to go beyond narrow task requirements and take initiative (e.g., Crant, 2000; Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). Researchers thus increasingly view employees as active agents who plan and take action intending to shape tasks, skills, social relationships, and working conditions. The idea that individuals do not only react to cues but also proactively shape jobs, skills, and work environments is now found in different literatures, including job design (e.g., Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997), careers (e.g., Raabe, Frese, & Beehr, 2007; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001), and performance (e.g., Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007). Research shows that different individual and workplace variables enhance such proactive behaviors (see, e.g., Fay & Frese, 2001; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker & Collins, 2010). Here, we study three such variables in combination, namely transformational leadership, job autonomy, and role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE). Transformational leaders articulate an attractive future vision, infuse work with meaning, and inspire followers (e.g., Bass, 1985). Previous work suggests that transformational leadership relates positively to employees proactive behavior (e.g., Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010; Griffin, Parker, & Mason, 2010; Strauss, Griffin, & Rafferty, 2009). However, in earlier work, scholars argued that employees belief that they possess the ability needed to perform a task successfully reduces the effects of leaders on follower behaviors

Deanne N. Den Hartog and Frank D. Belschak, Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Deanne N. Den Hartog, Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam, Plantage Muidergracht 12, 1018 TV Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: d.n.denhartog@uva.nl 1

and thus forms a substitute for leadership (e.g., Kerr & Jermier, 1978; Manz & Sims, 1980). Here, we argue that follower self-efficacy forms a substitute for leadership with respect to proactive behavior. The work on substitutes as moderators of leader behavior has not always shown consistent results (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996), which we propose may be due to the substituting effects themselves being contingent. Thus, extending the literature on substitutes for leadership, we propose a contingency model in which employee job autonomy affects whether their self-efficacy forms a substitute for transformational leadership behavior. We argue that when job autonomy is low, transformational leadership has a stronger relationship with proactive behavior for individuals low rather than high on RBSE. When autonomy is low, the situation provides sufficient guidance, and what needs to be done to be successful tends to be prescribed by the context. The latitude to make decisions and choose ways to have an impact is low, and people high on efficacy likely feel able and competent to be proactive and will not need added encouragement of leaders to take action. Thus, in this context, employee efficacy acts as a substitute for leadership (e.g., Manz & Sims, 1980), and transformational leadership will not further enhance proactive behaviors of high-efficacy individuals. Those low on efficacy are expected to benefit more from transformational leaders in this more prescribed context, as such leaders are able to inspire them to try new things and to energize them to become proactive. In contrast, when autonomy is high and many behavioral options exist, we argue that low-efficacy individuals might feel too insecure to choose or view the situation as too risky to show proactive behavior. Yet, transformational leadership may arouse and encourage individuals high on efficacy to appreciate the challenge and opportunity in the autonomous situation and become more proactive. Thus, our main aim is to expand existing literatures on proactivity and (transformational and substitutes for) leadership by testing the inter-

DEN HARTOG AND BELSCHAK

active effects of leadership, efficacy, and autonomy on proactive behavior in two studies.

Proactive Behavior at Work

Employee proactive behavior is a form of motivated and change-oriented behavior at work (Bateman & Crant, 1993). In line with this, Grant and Ashford (2008) have defined proactive behavior in terms of anticipatory action that employees take to impact themselves and/or their environment. They have argued that proactive behavior differs from more general motivated behavior and reactive behavior in two important ways. The first is acting in advance. Proactive behavior is agentic, mindful, and anticipatory. The second is intended impact. Employees plan and act with the intention to change things and have discernable effects. When employees choose to behave proactively, they attempt to explicitly and meaningfully alter the self, others, or context (Grant & Ashford, 2008). Rather than limiting proactivity to a specific set of actions such as feedback-seeking, Grant and Ashford see it more generally as a process that can be applied to any set of actions through anticipating, planning, and striving to have an impact. Proactive behavior includes behaviors such as anticipating and solving problems and searching for ways to change work situations (e.g., Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996; Parker & Collins, 2010; Parker et al., 2006).

et al., 2009). Also, transformational leaders are more changeoriented and proactive themselves (Crant & Bateman, 2000) and may thus act as role-models of proactive behavior (cf. Shamir & Howell, 1999). Leaders can also indirectly enhance proactive behavior, for example, by stimulating positive emotions. These energize employees and broaden their thoughtaction repertoire. Research shows that transformational leaders enhance positive affect (e.g., Bono, Foldes, Vinson, & Muros, 2007) and affective commitment (Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995). Both affect and commitment relate positively to proactive behavior (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007). Hypothesis 1: Job autonomy, RBSE, and transformational leadership are positively related to employees proactive behavior.

Interactive Effects on Proactive Behavior

The literature on substitutes for leadership argues that employee task knowledge may act as a substitute for leadership, that is, the relationship between leadership and follower behavior reduces if followers are aware that they possess all skills and knowledge needed to successfully accomplish a task (e.g., Kerr & Jermier, 1978; Manz & Sims, 1980; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Ahearne, & Bommer, 1995). Translated to RBSE and proactive behavior, this would thus suggest an interaction between transformational leadership and RBSE in relation to proactive behavior, such that proactivity of employees high on RBSE is not (or less strongly) affected by leadership than that of employees low on RBSE. In line with this, Speier and Frese (1997) found that high-efficacy employees did not need strong encouragement to show initiative and were less sensitive to situational cues than those low on efficacy. Also, Rank, Nelson, Allen, and Xu (2009) found a significant interaction of transformational leadership and self-esteem (generalized self-efficacy) on individual innovation. Such leadership related more strongly to innovation for employees low on selfesteem than for those high on self-esteem. However, in contrast, Griffin et al. (2010) found that leader vision related positively to proactivity for individuals high on RBSE. This conflicts with the findings above and the idea of RBSE as a substitute for leadership and suggests that the role of RBSE is contingent on other factors. Additional moderators may thus determine whether and when variables such as RBSE form substitutes for leadership. Recent research suggests that the relationship between transformational leadership and follower outcomes is often stronger in more dynamic, uncertain, or challenging situations (e.g., De Hoogh, Den Hartog, Koopman, Thierry, et al., 2004; Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001). Such challenging contexts may offer more room for leaders to have an impact as followers may be more open to someone providing a sense of direction and meaning (e.g., Shamir & Howell, 1999). High-autonomy situations may form such a challenging context for employees. High autonomy implies a less-prescribed environment with fewer cues, in which employees are expected to figure more out for themselves. Yet, this also allows them more discretion to turn the leaders vision into reality. Here, we propose that RBSE acts as a substitute for leadership, but only in low-autonomy contexts. When autonomy is low, transformational leadership should have a stronger relationship with

Leadership, Self-Efficacy, and Autonomy

Research shows that job autonomy is an important contextual antecedent of proactive behavior (see Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008). Autonomy provides employees with room for selfdetermination. They can choose alternative ways to approach tasks, experience more ownership, and have a more direct impact on outcomes. This is likely to stimulate their willingness to take responsibility and to persist despite obstacles. Research indeed confirms employees are generally more proactive when they have more autonomy (e.g., Frese et al., 1996). Yet, this might not go for everyone. Individual differences are also important, and research shows that efficacy enhances proactive behavior (e.g., Speier & Frese, 1997). Employees who do not believe themselves able to have impact are less likely to be proactive. Efficacy increases willingness to take action (e.g., Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). RBSE is particularly important for proactive behavior (Parker et al., 2006). RBSE describes a persons self-perceived ability to perform proactive behaviors successfully (e.g., Parker, 1998, 2000) and has been shown to predict several different proactive behaviors (e.g., Parker & Collins, 2010). In addition, recent research adds the role of leaders for employee proactive behavior. Transformational leadership seems particularly important. Transformational leaders articulate an attractive and challenging vision of the future and have high performance expectations. They infuse work with meaning, stimulate followers intellectually, and inspire them to transcend self-interests. Followers become motivated and committed (e.g., Bass, 1985; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993; Shamir & Howell, 1999). Transformational leaders can directly stimulate proactive behavior by developing and empowering employees and by stimulating them intellectually (e.g., asking followers to question the status quo or to find new ways to work rethinking of old ways of doing things; Strauss

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR

proactive behavior for individuals low rather than high on RBSE. As the latitude to personally make decisions and choose alternative ways of action on the job is much lower in low-autonomy situations, people high on RBSE should feel able to perform and even to be proactive. They will not need, or be very sensitive to, the added encouragement of their leaders, as they already feel confident to show proactive behavior, especially when the situation provides sufficient mastery cues. Thus, even though they may still appreciate leaders acting in a transformational manner, for highly efficacious subordinates, such leader behavior is not likely to translate into them showing increased proactive behavior in this prescribed context. We expect those low on RBSE who feel far less confident of their abilities to benefit more from the encouragement of transformational leaders in a low-autonomy context. Insecure individuals are more likely to react positively in terms of willingness to take risks, try new things, and be proactive when both the leader is transformational and discretion and autonomy are low, leaving little room for misinterpretation. In contrast, in high-autonomy situations, high RBSE is more likely to interact and enhance (i.e., reinforce) the effects of transformational leadership. Transformational leadership relates to follower empowerment and autonomy, as such leaders challenge subordinates to find their own ways to do things (e.g., Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bahtia, 2004). Transformational leaders have high expectations of others, communicate an ambitious vision, and set difficult performance standards (cf. Shamir et al., 1993). They do not spell out how to do things and challenge followers to come up with ideas (Avolio et al., 2004). Those low on RBSE may not respond well to this in a less prescribed situation. High-autonomy contexts do not provide low-efficacy individuals sufficient mastery cues or guidance on how to contribute or on what form of proactive behavior is called for. The pressure to live up to the leaders expectations and strive for exceptional accomplishments without sufficient situational mastery cues may be harder to cope with for those low on RBSE and may make them perceive high-autonomy situations as too challenging to be proactive (cf. De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009). However, transformational leadership may enhance proactive behavior of those high on RBSE when job autonomy is high. They are less overwhelmed by the less prescribed nature of the context, lack of cues, or high demands. Transformational leaders encouragement and emotional arousal likely energize and further motivate employees who are sufficiently confident to experiment and help them view the autonomous situation as a positive challenge in which they may be able to excel through showing initiative, and in which they have sufficient discretion to turn the leaders vision into reality. Having transformational leaders may thus enhance the willingness of those high on RBSE to take risks and to be proactive in this context. In sum, this line of argumentation suggests a contingency model where RBSE substitutes for leadership in one context and enhances it in another. We propose that RBSE is a substitute for transformational leadership when autonomy is low, as in this context, those high on RBSE will not need leadership to be proactive. In a high-autonomy context offering fewer cues, we expect RBSE to enhance transformational leadership, as stimulation of such leaders will help stimulate sufficiently confident employees to experiment and be proactive. We hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between transformational leadership and proactive behavior is moderated by RBSE and job autonomy. Specifically, when autonomy is low, transformational leadership relates more strongly to proactive behavior for individuals low on RBSE than for those high on RBSE; when job autonomy is high, transformational leadership relates more strongly to proactive behavior for individuals high on RBSE than for those low on RBSE.

Study 1 and Study 2 Method

Sample and procedure. To increase the representativeness, we aimed for diverse samples of employees from different industries and professional backgrounds. Using a database of company names in the Netherlands, we randomly selected and contacted organizations (Study 1: 100, Study 2: 80) from industries such as retail, government, finance, and consultancy, asking contacts to voluntarily participate in a university study. A total of 69 companies in Study 1 and 59 in Study 2 agreed to participate and provided us with contact details of several employees (between one and five per firm) and also of employees supervisors in Study 2. For Study 1, we sent 280 questionnaires with stamped return envelopes to employees. Besides filling this out, we asked them to give another questionnaire with a separate letter and return envelope to a colleague who would be able to evaluate their work behavior. We instructed focal employees to think about all colleagues they worked with regularly and list the three who could best evaluate their work behavior. Of these, we then asked them to give the questionnaire to the one that they saw first. In this questionnaire, we asked the colleague to think of and rate recent work behavior of the focal employee. In Study 2, we sent 240 questionnaires with return envelopes to employees, and we separately sent a questionnaire and return envelope to their supervisors. We asked the supervisor to rate the recent work behavior of the employee. In both studies, the voluntary nature of participation and confidentiality was stressed in the accompanying letter for each respondent. Responses were sent directly to the researchers, who were available to answer questions. Only questionnaires that were completely filled out and for which a matching evaluation form was obtained were included in the analyses. The final sample consisted of 150 complete employee colleague dyads (a 54% response rate for complete dyads) in Study 1 and 158 employeesupervisor dyads (a 66% complete dyad response rate) in Study 2. Respondents participated voluntarily and anonymously and did not receive anything in return for participation. Focal employees worked in a range of jobs including lawyers, salespersons, account managers, customer service, and consultants. In Study 1, 51% were men; 43% were up to 30 years of age, 23% were between 30 and 40 years of age, 18% were between 41 and 50 years of age, and 16% were more than 50 years of age. Average tenure was 13.3 years (SD 12.2). In Study 2, 54% were men; 53% were up to 30 years of age, 29% were between 30 and 40 years of age, 7% were between 41 and 50 years of age, and 11% were more than 50 years of age. Average tenure was 5.5 years (SD 7.6). Measures. In both studies, transformational leader behavior, job autonomy, and RBSE were collected as perceptions of focal

DEN HARTOG AND BELSCHAK

employees. Proactive behavior was collected from several different sources, namely self- and peer-ratings in Study 1 and supervisor-ratings in Study 2. All items were administered in Dutch, and responses for all items were given on a 7-point scale (1 completely disagree to 7 completely agree). In Study 1, proactive behavior was measured with a seven-item scale from Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, and Tag (1997) that rated personal initiative (PI). This measure was also used in other studies (e.g., Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007; Ohly, Sonnentag, & Pluntke, 2006; Sonnentag, 2003) and was shown to be strongly related to other measures of proactive work behavior (e.g., Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010). Both self- and peer-ratings of initiative were collected (e.g., I take/My colleague takes initiative immediately, even when others dont). In Study 2, we administered a different measure of proactive behavior and collected this from a different source to test the robustness and generalizability of our findings. Specifically, supervisors rated employees prosocial proactive behavior on seven items developed by Belschak and Den Hartog (2010). Items include proactive behaviors targeted at the organization or colleagues and are highly correlated with PI (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010). Sample items are At work, this employee takes the initiative to acquire new knowledge that will help the company or At work, this employee takes the initiative to share knowledge with colleagues. The following measures were administered both in Studies 1 and 2. Employees perceptions of their supervisors transformational leader behavior were measured using 11 items from the Dutch Charismatic Leadership in Organizations questionnaire by De Hoogh, Den Hartog, and Koopman (2004) (e.g., My leader has a clear vision and an image of the future, stimulates subordinates to think independently, and encourages subordinates to develop their full potential). This Dutch measure is validated and has been used in several leadership studies in the Netherlands (e.g., De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009; De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2004, 2005). It covers content similar to other measures of transformational leadership (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1990; House, 1998; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). For measuring RBSE, following Parker et al. (2006), we used the seven highest loading items of the measure developed by Parker (1998; e.g., I feel confident designing new procedures for Table 1 Descriptives and Correlations Between the Variables
Variable M SD

my work area). We used a four-item job autonomy measure based on Hackman and Oldhams (1980) Job Diagnostic Survey (e.g., I can act independently of my supervisor when performing my job). As the perceptions of leadership, autonomy, and RBSE were all rated by the focal employee, common method bias may play a role. Such bias may inflate or deflate observed relationships between constructs (e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Lee, 2003). To test for bias, we computed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for autonomy, RBSE, and leadership with and without a samesource first-order factor added. This factor was defined as having indicators of all self-report items, and this controls for the portion of variance attributable to obtaining all measures from a single source (see Podsakoff et al., 2003). If common method variance played a role, factor loadings or intercorrelations should differ substantially for CFAs including or not including this factor. In Study 1, results of a CFA not including this factor show good fit for a three-factor structure, 2(206) 413.91, comparative fit index (CFI) .90, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) .08. Factor loadings ranged from .62 to .92 (autonomy), .60 to .78 (RBSE), and .61 to .84 (leadership). Interfactor correlations ranged from .20 to .43. Factor loadings after correction were similar, ranging from .52 to .89 (autonomy), .65 to .77 (RBSE), and .60 to .84 (leadership). Interfactor correlations were almost identical, ranging from .19 to .44. In Study 2, results of a CFA not including this factor show good fit, 2(206) 415.56, CFI .90, RMSEA .08. Factor loadings ranged from .75 to .84 (autonomy), .62 to .84 (RBSE), and .54 to .80 (leadership). Interfactor correlations ranged from .27 to .56. Factor loadings after correction were similar, ranging from .72 to .81 (autonomy), .65 to .84 (RBSE), and .56 to .81 (leadership). Interfactor correlations were almost identical (.27 to .58).

Results
Descriptives and intercorrelations of the scales for both studies are presented in Table 1. In Study 1, self- and peer-rated PI correlate significantly (r .50, p .01), and both self- and peer-rated PI are positively and significantly related to transformational leadership, RBSE, and job autonomy. In Study 2,

1 Study 1 (.86) .21 .28 .51 .24 Study 2 (.90) .24 .41 .43 158.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Self-efficacy Transformational leadership Job autonomy Self-rated initiative Peer-rated initiative

5.04 4.71 5.46 5.36 5.33

0.94 1.19 1.14 0.78 0.93

(.93) .40 .36 .37

(.86) .38 .37

(.85) .50

(.90)

1. 2. 3. 4.

Self-efficacy Transformational leadership Job autonomy Prosocial proactivity

5.13 5.32 5.42 5.13

1.00 0.91 1.12 1.03

(.91) .50 .42

(.85) .53

(.90)

Note. Cronbachs alphas are on the diagonal. Study 1: N p .05. p .01.

150; Study 2: N

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR

supervisor-rated prosocial proactive behavior is significantly and positively related to transformational leadership, RBSE, and autonomy, supporting Hypothesis 1. To test the hypothesized interaction, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses. Predictors were centered around their respective means, and interaction terms were based on the mean-centered scores (Aiken & West, 1991). In the analyses presented in Table 2, we entered leadership, autonomy, and RBSE in Step 1. In Step 2, all two-way interaction terms were entered (Leadership RBSE, Leadership Autonomy, and Autonomy RBSE), and in Step 3, we entered the three-way interaction (Leadership Autonomy RBSE). Table 2 shows the regression results for peerand self-ratings of PI (Study 1) as well as for supervisor-ratings of proactive behavior (Study 2). The table shows that a substantial amount of variance is explained in self-rated PI (43%), peer-rated PI (29%), and supervisor-rated proactivity (38%). For both selfand peer-rated PI (Study 1), autonomy and leadership have significant unique main effects in Step 1. RBSE is significantly related to self- but not peer-rated PI when controlling for leadership and autonomy. In Study 2, all three predictors have significant main effects in Step 1. Table 2 also shows significant interactions for all ratings of proactivity. The two-way interactions in Step 2 are qualified by a three-way interaction in Step 3 and thus are not interpreted. The three-way interaction term adds significantly to the explained variance in self-rated PI ( R2 .05), peer-rated PI ( R2 .03), and supervisor-rated proactivity ( R2 .02) with a positive weight ( .31, p .01; .25, p .01; and .17, p .05). For peer-rated PI, the nature of the interaction between leadership and RBSE for low autonomy is depicted in Figure 1A and for high

autonomy in Figure 1B; for self-rated PI, this is depicted in Figures 2A and 2B; and for supervisor-rated proactivity, this is depicted in Figures 3A and 3B. As recommended by Cohen and Cohen (1983), high and low regression lines ( 1 and 1 SD from the mean) were plotted. In line with Hypothesis 2, in both studies and for all ratings, the relationship between leadership and proactive behavior is stronger for those high on RBSE when autonomy is high. Also, the relationship between transformational leadership and proactive behavior is stronger for those low on RBSE when autonomy is low (except for supervisor-rated behavior where it is equally strong for those high and low on RBSE). Results of slope difference tests (as recommended by Dawson & Richter, 2006) indicated that the slopes of the regression lines in Figures 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, and 3B were significantly different; only the slope difference for the plot depicted in Figure 3A was not significant. To check for common method problems, we recomputed all analyses in path models that included a common method factor. No significance levels changed, and coefficients did not change by more than .02 in either study. Combined with the results from the CFAs with and without method factors, this suggests that the extent of common method bias in both studies is limited.

Discussion
We examined the interactive effects of transformational leadership, autonomy, and RBSE on proactive behavior in two multisource field studies with different operationalizations of proactive behavior (Study 1: PI; Study 2: prosocial proactive behavior) and different rater sources to provide these ratings (Study 1: self and peers; Study 2: supervisors). In line with previous research (e.g.,

Table 2 Regressions for Self-Efficacy, Transformational Leadership, Autonomy, and Proactive Behavior
Study 1 Step Step 1 Transformational leadership Autonomy Self-efficacy R2 Step 2 Transformational leadership Autonomy Self-efficacy Transformational Leadership Transformational Leadership Self-Efficacy Autonomy R2 (F-change) Step 3 Transformational leadership Autonomy Self-efficacy Transformational Leadership Transformational Leadership Self-Efficacy Autonomy Transformational Leadership R2 (F-change)

Study 2 Self-rated initiative .20 .19 .42 .36 .20 .22 .39 .09 .14 .02 .38 (1.58) .13 .23 .31 .07 .20 .09 .31 .43 (14.42 ) Manager-rated proactivity .19 .35 .24 .36 .16 .35 .27 .03 .03 .06 .36 (0.30) .11 .36 .22 .13 .04 .05 .17 .38 (3.76 )

Peer-rated initiative .25 .23 .12 .21 .25 .20 .09 .14 .12 .05 .26 (3.01 ) .20 .20 .02 .12 .08 .04 .25 .29 (7.25 )

Self-Efficacy Autonomy

Self-Efficacy Autonomy Self-Efficacy Autonomy

Note. Standardized regression coefficients are presented. p .10. p .05. p .01.

DEN HARTOG AND BELSCHAK

A
personal initiative

low autonomy
5.9 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.5 transformational leadership high self-efficacy low self-efficacy

B
personal initiative

high autonomy
5.90 5.80 5.70 5.60 5.50 5.40 5.30 transformational leadership high self-efficacy low self-efficacy

Figure 1. Plot of the three-way interaction for peer-rated personal initiative in (A) low-autonomy situations and (B) high-autonomy situations.

Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010; Strauss et al., 2009), we found a positive relationship between transformational leadership and proactive behavior. Also, in line with previous work, employees were more proactive when they experienced higher job autonomy (e.g., Morrison, 2006; Parker et al., 2006). Finally, RBSE was significantly related to proactive behavior. When controlling for autonomy and leadership, the relationship dropped to a nonsignificant level for peer-rated PI (Study 1), though it remained significant for self-rated PI (Study 1) and supervisor-rated proactive behavior (Study 2). The results reaffirm the importance of transformational leadership, job autonomy, and RBSE for proactive employee behavior. Our studies mainly add to three streams of research. First, we contribute to the literature on proactive behavior by developing a more fine-grained interaction model. Extending previous work on leadership and proactive behavior (e.g., Strauss et al., 2009), we hypothesized and found support for an interaction of transformational leadership, RBSE, and autonomy in relation to proactive behavior. In a high-autonomy situation, transformational leadership had a stronger relationship with proactive behavior for employees high on RBSE, whereas in situations of low autonomy, transformational leadership had a stronger relationship with proactive behavior for employees low on RBSE. Thus, the relationship of a work place variable such as autonomy with proactive behavior is not the same for everyone, which supports the theoretical idea that the relationship of autonomy with proactive behavior depends on individual differences (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker & Sprigg, 1999). We further specify this argument to include leadership and suggest that employees may react differently to the challenge and encouragement offered by transforma-

tional leaders depending on the levels of RBSE and autonomy they experience. Second, the findings add to the literature on substitutes for leadership by showing that RBSE can act as a substitute for leadership in relation to proactive behavior. This is in line with earlier research on the moderating role of efficacy and self-esteem in relation to proactive behaviors (Rank et al., 2009; Speier & Frese, 1997). However, as proposed, RBSE only acted as a substitute for leadership under a certain condition, namely when autonomy was low. Such contingencies of substitutes for leadership may help explain the divergent findings in this stream of research (e.g., Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986; Podsakoff et al., 1996). They may also help to explain contradictory findings on moderators in the area of proactivity. As indicated, whereas Speier and Frese (1997) found that the relationship between situational cues (such as leadership) and proactive behavior was less strong for high-efficacy employees, Griffin et al. (2010) found proactive behavior to be more strongly related to such cues for high-efficacy employees. Our findings suggest that differing degrees of autonomy may help explain such differing results. Third, the finding that the relationship between leadership and proactive behavior depends on a combination of context and follower characteristics contributes to the developing literature on moderators of the effects of transformational leadership (e.g., Den Hartog, De Hoogh, & Keegan, 2007; Howell & Shamir, 2005; Waldman et al., 2001). Although transformational leaders encourage followers, they also communicate an ambitious vision, challenge followers, have high expectations, take risks, and set difficult standards of performance. These are elements of leadership that individuals low on RBSE might not respond well to, especially when the context does not offer many cues of what kinds of

A
personal initiative

low autonomy
5.7 5.5 5.3 5.1 4.9 4.7 4.5 transformational leadership high self-efficacy low self-efficacy

B
personal initiative

high autonomy
6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 transformational leadership high self-efficacy low self-efficacy

Figure 2. Plot of the three-way interaction for self-rated personal initiative in (A) low-autonomy situations and (B) high-autonomy situations.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR

A
prosocial proactivity

low autonomy
6 5.75 5.5 5.25 5 4.75 4.5 transformational leadership high self-efficacy low self-efficacy

B
prosocial proactivity

6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5

high autonomy

high self-efficacy low self-efficacy

transformational leadership

Figure 3. Plot of the three-way interaction for supervisor-rated proactive behavior in (A) low-autonomy situations and (B) high-autonomy situations.

behaviors are appropriate. Thus, when autonomy is high, transformational leadership may be too challenging for those low on RBSE. Combining a high discretion context with the pressure of high leader expectations can make them feel too insecure or anxious to try out new things and show proactive behavior (cf. Conger, 1999; De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009). On the other hand, in more prescribed low-autonomy environments that do provide guidance and mastery cues, the encouragement of transformational leaders may help motivate those low on RBSE to overcome fears, try new things, and become proactive. In contrast, a more autonomous context allows those high on RBSE more room to act, experiment, and contribute than a low-autonomy context, and our results suggest that in this context, transformational leaders encouragement and arousal may energize them to be even more proactive. Future work could explicitly test the role of differential perceptions of risk, challenge, and stress in these contexts. We found similar results for self- and peer-ratings in Study 1, and the consistent results for supervisor ratings in Study 2 provide additional evidence for the generalizability of our findings. The results for high autonomy are very similar across the two studies and different raters and measures. The plots all show similar slopes for high RBSE individuals in the high-autonomy context. In situations of low autonomy, the plots of the interactions converge, but only for those low on RBSE. For those high on RBSE, the plots reveal a few differences between different rater sources and forms of proactive behavior. In Study 1, in low-autonomy situations, peer-rated initiative of high RBSE individuals was not related to transformational leadership, whereas self-rated initiative even seems to be lower with more such leadership. Similarly, with low autonomy, peer-rated PI in Study 1 stayed stable for those high on

RBSE, whereas supervisor-rated prosocial proactive behavior in Study 2 was somewhat higher with more transformational leadership. Such differences are not unusual, as research across various constructs (e.g., leader behaviors, performance) shows that selfand other-perceived measures of constructs often only show moderate congruence (e.g., Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988). Previous research on proactive behavior similarly notes that different raters may see a persons proactive behavior differently (e.g., Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010). For example, in rating whether they often realize ideas (see Frese et al., 1996), employees may take a broader view than peers. Another reason for the divergent results for high RBSE individuals in the low-autonomy situation might be found in contextual differences in the meaning and effects of job autonomy. An indication for a difference between the two samples in this respect is the finding that the correlation between transformational leadership and perceived autonomy is lower in Study 1 than in Study 2. In Study 1, the sample included a larger proportion of firms in the governmental sector (jobs with higher rule density and bureaucracy and more contextual pressure for uniformity), and in Study 2, more were in consultancy and finance (jobs with higher decision latitude). In more bureaucratic contexts, the strong mismatch between the strict situational constraints and stimulating transformational leaders may frustrate those high on RBSE. They may feel that the leaders empowering and stimulating actions are misleading when subsequently the rule-based context does not allow them any discretion. Thus, future research on the meaning of job autonomy in different contexts and how different individuals react to this seems warranted. Our findings have implications for organizations choice of Human Resources activities to increase employee proactivity. First, although we find that in certain situations (i.e., low autonomy) individuals low on RBSE show more proactivity when experiencing more transformational leadership than those high on RBSE, the plots reveal that overall, those high on RBSE are more proactive than those low on RBSE (except for very low autonomy with very high transformational leadership). To stimulate proactive behavior, it therefore seems advisable to focus on enhancing employee RBSE by investing in training and coaching (e.g., Axtell & Parker, 2003; Parker, 1998). Second, our results have implications for job (re-)design. Although extant research suggests that increasing job autonomy helps increase proactive behavior (e.g., Parker et al., 2006), our study suggests a contingency approach. On the one hand, high RBSE individuals show more proactivity than those low on RBSE when job autonomy and transformational leadership are high. On the other hand, having a low-autonomy work environment and positive encouragement of leaders comes with the highest levels of proactivity for those low on RBSE. These results suggest that organizations wanting more proactive behavior from employees could benefit from paying attention to employees levels of RBSE before deciding whether to increase autonomy. Generally, increasing autonomy is likely more effective when combined with efforts to enhance transformational leadership and RBSE. Strengths of the present research include that it involves two field studies using different rater sources. We find similar patterns of interactions for different rater sources and for different measures of proactive behavior. Given the known difficulty in replicating such interactions, this consistency suggests the interaction effect may be relatively robust. The antecedents (leadership, au-

DEN HARTOG AND BELSCHAK emotions: The role of supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 13571367. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1357 Busemeyer, J. R., & Jones, L. E. (1983). Analysis of multiplicative combination rules when the causal variables are measured with error. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 549 562. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.93.3.549 Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessments of Basss conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 468 478. doi:10.1037/00219010.80.4.468 Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insiders perspective on these developing streams of research. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145179. doi:10.1016/S10489843(99)00012-0 Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435 462. doi:10.1177/014920630002600304 Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 6375. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200002) 21:1 63::AID-JOB8 3.0.CO;2-J Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regressions: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917926. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.917 De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Neuroticism and locus of control as moderators of the relationships of charismatic and autocratic leadership with burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1058 1067. doi:10.1037/a0016253 De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2004). De ontwikkeling van de CLIO: Een vragenlijst voor charismatisch leiderschap in organisaties [The development of the CLIO: A questionnaire for measuring charismatic leadership in organizations]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 17, 354 382. De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2005). Linking the Big Five-Factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership; perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 839 865. doi:10.1002/job.344 De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., Thierry, H., Van den Berg, P. T., Van der Weide, J. G., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2004). Charismatic leadership, environmental dynamism, and performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 447 471. doi:10.1080/13594320444000164 Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2007). Personal initiative, commitment and affect at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 601 622. doi:10.1348/096317906X171442 Den Hartog, D. N., De Hoogh, A. H. B., & Keegan, A. E. (2007). The interactive effects of belongingness and charisma on helping and compliance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 11311139. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.92.4.1131 Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2001). The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity studies. Human Performance, 14, 97124. doi: 10.1207/S15327043HUP1401_06 Fischer, R., & Smith, P. B. (2004). Values and organizational justice: Performance- and seniority-based allocation criteria in the United Kingdom and Germany. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 669 688. doi:10.1177/0022022104270110 Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability, and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139 161. 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. doi:10.2307/256630

tonomy, and RBSE) were measured from the same source. As common source issues might play a role there, we tested whether including a method factor in either the CFAs or in the subsequent analyses testing our hypotheses substantially affected the results, which was not the case for either of these sets of analyses. Also, our main contribution is the three-way interaction; and product terms used in testing interactions are less affected by such bias (e.g., Fischer & Smith, 2004; Wall, Jackson, Mullarkey, & Parker, 1996). Rather than inflating, measurement error in predictor variables reduces the power to detect a significant contribution from product terms (Busemeyer & Jones, 1983). The present study also has limitations. Whereas we measured at one point in time, certain processes may only unfold over time. For instance, through individualized consideration, transformational leaders might increase employee efficacy over time; individuals originally low on RBSE might thus grow confident and over time start to take initiative, even if autonomy is high, if they are exposed to such leadership for a longer period. Longitudinal work could test how these processes unfold. Somewhat related, all ratings from employees were collected at the same point of time, whereas it would have been beneficial to separate the data collection over time and to collect ratings (e.g., autonomy and leadership) at different points of time to further reduce possible response bias. Next, direction of causality where assumed here is inferred from previous work rather than tested, as our cross-sectional design precludes this; experimental research could strengthen conclusions. Also, our data were collected in one specific (Western) culture, and the generalizability of the findings across cultures is not yet clear. In addition, although the sample of jobs is diverse, it is unclear whether focal respondents were always closer or whether they were more distant followers who might at times show different reactions to leaders. Finally, we studied two distinct, but related, forms of proactive behavior. Though both have been used in previous work (e.g., Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010; Frese et al., 1996), extending this research with other, more specific forms of proactive behavior would help further test the generalizability of these findings.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W. C., Koh, W., & Bahtia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951968. doi:10.1002/job.283 Axtell, C. M., & Parker, S. K. (2003). Promoting role breadth self-efficacy through involvement, work redesign and training. Human Relations, 56, 113131. doi:10.1177/0018726703056001452 Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103118. doi:10.1002/job.4030140202 Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, pro-social, and pro-organizational foci of proactive behavior: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 475 498. doi:10.1348/096317909X439208 Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. (2007). Workplace

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 334. 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, 327347. doi:10.5465/ AMJ.2007.24634438 Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. (2010). Leader vision and the development of adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 174 182. doi:10.1037/ a0017263 Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Harris, J. W., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of selfsupervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43 62. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00631.x House, R. J. (1998). Appendix: Measures and assessments for the charismatic leadership approach: Scales, latent constructs, loadings, Cronbachs alphas, and intraclass correlations. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (Vol. 2, pp. 2329). Stamford, CT: JAI press. Howell, J. M., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. (1986). Moderator variables in leadership research. Academy of Management Review, 11, 88 102. Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96 112. doi:10.5465/ AMR.2005.15281435 Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375 403. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5 Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1980). Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5, 361367. Morrison, E. W. (2006). Doing the job well: An investigation of pro-social rule-breaking. Journal of Management, 32, 528. doi:10.1177/ 0149206305277790 Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 257279. doi:10.1002/job.376 Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 835 852. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.835 Parker, S. K. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology, 49, 447 469. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00025 Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 633 662. doi:10.1177/0149206308321554 Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The role of job demands, job control, and proactive personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 925939. doi:10.1037/00219010.84.6.925 Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). Thats not my job: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 899 929. doi:10.2307/256952 Parker, S. K., Williams, H., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636 652. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Ahearne, M., & Bommer, W. H. (1995). Searching for a needle in a haystack: Trying to identify the

illusive moderators of leadership behaviors. Journal of Management, 21, 423 470. doi:10.1016/0149-2063(95)90015-2 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259 298. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107142. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, J. Y. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879 903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 Raabe, B., Frese, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2007). Action regulation theory and career self-management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 297311. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.10.005 Rank, J., Nelson, N. E., Allen, T. D., & Xu, X. (2009). Leadership predictors of innovation and task performance: Subordinates selfesteem and self-presentation as moderators. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 465 489. doi:10.1348/ 096317908X371547 Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845 874. doi:10.1111/j.17446570.2001.tb00234.x Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational aspects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept theory. Organization Science, 4, 577594. doi:10.1287/orsc.4.4.577 Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 257283. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99) 00014-4 Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518 528. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.518 Speier, C., & Frese, M. (1997). Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator and moderator between control and complexity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinal study in East Germany. Human Performance, 10, 171192. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_7 Stajkovic, A., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240 261. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240 Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., & Rafferty, A. E. (2009). Proactivity directed toward the team and the organization: The role of leadership, commitment, and role-breadth self-efficacy. British Journal of Management, 20, 279 291. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00590.x Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leader attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 134 143. doi:10.2307/3069341 Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., Mullarkey, S., & Parker, S. K. (1996). The demands-control model of job strain: A more specific test. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 153166.

Received October 9, 2008 Revision received June 14, 2011 Accepted June 27, 2011