Impulsores de la ‘nueva burbuja’ y sus consecuencias sociales

Proactivity generally refers to two phenomena. At times, academics have used ‘proactivity’ to mean proactive personality- a trait or attitude. Proactive personality has its origins in the Psychology literature. According to Bateman and Crant (1993, p. 105) an individual with a proactive personality, "is relatively unconstrained by

situational forces, and who effects environmental change." Proactive personality has been well-researched in the applied Psychology literature, where its relevance to personnel management, workplace design and motivation has been well-established. Other times, proactivity has referred to proactive behaviour- observable and measurable actions. Many studies on proactive behaviour have been published in the Organizational Behaviour/ Human Resources (OB/HR) and Management literatures. In this study, 'proactivity' refers to proactive behaviour, specifically in a work or organizational context. Table 2.1 shows the various ways proactive behaviour has been defined in the literature.

Bateman and Crant (1993) describe proactive behaviour as a tendency and disposition, words more associated with internal mechanisms than outward behaviour. This description does little to distinguish proactive personality from proactive behaviour despite the intentions of the authors,"Our focus in this study is on the measurement and correlates of proactive behaviour as a personal disposition- that is a relatively stable behavioural tendency" (Bateman and Crant, 1993, p. 104).

It is likely that as proactivity became more and more adopted in OB/HR and Management research, there was a need to conceptualise proactivity as a more observable phenomenon or action. In the decade that began in 2000, definitions of proactivity began to stress action as opposed to disposition or tendency. The definitions also dropped any notion of stability, as stressed in Bateman and Crant (1993). Although proactive personality is thought to be a stable trait, it does not presuppose that individuals with this trait will act proactively all the time in all situations. However, Green et al. (2018) have evidence to suggest that individuals that

are consistent in agreeableness and conscientiousness are more likely to display proactive behaviours more consistently, but only in similar and relevant situations.

Like Bateman and Crant (1993), researchers used theories from an interactionist perspective, and the definitions reflect a key premise of this perspective- the possibility for individuals to shape their environments. The Strauss and Parker (2018) definition differs partially from the rest because it was developed to mirror the cybernetic control perspective, where self-regulated behaviour helps individuals to meet set goals by effecting behaviour that closes the gap between a planned outcome and the status quo when there are discrepancies between the two values. In other words, a feedback mechanism ensures these individuals remain on track to reach their goals.

Table 2.1: Definitions of Proactivity

Article Definition

Bateman and Crant (1993)

The relatively stable tendency to effect environmental change. Crant (2000) Taking initiative in improving current circumstances or creating new

ones; it involves challenging the status quo rather than passively adapting to present conditions.

Griffin et al. (2007)

The extent to which individuals engage in self-starting, future-oriented behaviour to change their individual work situations, their individual work roles, or themselves.

Grant and Ashford (2008)

Anticipatory action that employees take to impact themselves and/or their environments.

Parker et al. (2010)

Being proactive is about making things happen, anticipating and preventing problems, and seizing opportunities. It involves self- initiated efforts to bring about change in the work environment and/or oneself to achieve a different future.

Strauss and Parker (2018)

A way to reduce discrepancies between the current situation and a reference value.

The two most common aspects of the definitions in Table 2.1 are change- directed actions, and their corresponding intent on improving future outcomes. The change-directed actions involve taking initiative, anticipating, problem prevention, and taking advantage of opportunities. The definitions in Table 2.1 also assume that these future outcomes are positive, or at least advantageous to the proactive individual.

Another quality implicit in the definitions is that proactive behaviour may result in actions that are not expected of the employee, i.e. extra-role or discretionary. However, since proactive behaviours may also be expected of employees, some conceptualisations of proactive behaviours have de-stressed this quality such as that of organizational citizenship behaviour (Podsakoff et al., 2014). If these actions are not necessarily part of the job description, does the employee engage in them for the good of the company or for 'selfish' purposes? The expected future outcomes in the definitions are not specified and may be for the good of oneself or the organization, despite initial conceptualisations of proactivity which assume that the employee engages in such behaviour for the benefit of the organization.

Overall, the majority of studies in proactivity insist that the intent of the employee’s proactive behaviour is to create positive change in the workplace. For example, although Li et al. (2016) admit that taking charge- a proactive behaviour- has aspects of personal interest, the authors equally maintain that it does not change its conceptualisation as being largely prosocial or altruistic. On the other hand, Chiaburu et al. (2013) understand proactive behaviours, such as change-oriented citizenship behaviour, to be supportive of meeting organizational goals, and

necessarily prioritize the organization's goals over the individual's even where there is a misalignment of interests.

However, the literature has many examples contrary to an altruistic view of proactivity. For example, Nechanska et al. (2018) argue that voice is not necessarily geared towards advancing organizational goals. Griffin et al. (2007), Grant and Ashford (2008), and Parker et al. (2010) all recognise that proactive behaviour may be motivated by a need for self-improvement. Similarly, Hwang et al. (2015) included pro-self proactive behaviour, actions aimed at improving personal and career goals at work, as one of three dimensions in conceptualizing proactive behaviour. An example of this pro-self proactive behaviour was exhibited in a study by Hui et al (2000; cited in Grant et al, 2009, p. 35) where employees’ helping behaviour increased temporarily when they anticipated a promotion, and then dipped after the promotion. The Griffin et al. (2007) definition in Table 2.1 is especially self-centred, focusing first on benefits to the individual, which may then spill over to the organization. Interestingly, many composite scales for measuring proactivity are drawn or adapted from Griffin et al (2007). Even Frese et al. (1997) recognize that although they conceptualise personal initiative, a proactive behaviour, as pro-company action, it may well be directed against the company.