Proactivity Permission: Why Are Some Employees Allowed to Act Proactively While Others Are Not?
Genre
Thesis/DissertationDate
2022Author
Akben, Mustafa
Advisor
Vogel, RyanCommittee member
Andersson, Lynne MaryKudesia, Ravi S.
Ruane, Regina
Department
Business Administration/Human Resource ManagementSubject
Organizational behaviorNormative regulations
Permission
Proactive work behaviors
Proactivity
Proactivity permission
Supervisor endorsement
Permanent link to this record
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12613/8031Metadata
Show full item recordDOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.34944/dspace/8003Abstract
Proactive behaviors are defined as employees’ future-oriented, agentic behaviors that aim to improve workplace conditions. Recent research alludes that employee perceptions of whether they have permission to act proactively may influence their actions. With these ideas in mind, this dissertation introduces the concept of proactivity permission, which is defined as the perception of the extent to which an employee is allowed to perform proactive actions at work. Using a multilevel research design with 501 employees from 112 work groups, I examined the effects of employee and supervisor personality characteristics, relational factors, and contextual factors on proactivity permission. Findings indicate that employee personality characteristics (i.e., psychological entitlement and psychological reactance) positively influence employee proactivity permission beliefs, whereas supervisor personality characteristics (i.e., social dominance orientation and rule-based reasoning) negatively influence proactivity permission judgments of supervisors. The quality of relationships (LMX) between a focal employee and his/her supervisor positively affects both employee proactivity permission and supervisor proactivity permission judgments, while workplace contextual factors (e.g., organizational rule formalization, rule consistency, and normative tightness) are relatively distal to, and play a minor role in, proactivity permission. Additionally, this dissertation finds that employees who believe they have permission to act proactively engage in proactive behaviors to a greater extent, and that supervisors are more supportive toward the proactive behaviors of those employees who they perceive to have greater permission to act proactively. In all, this dissertation offers important contributions to theory and research on employee proactivity and suggests several practical recommendations for managers and organizations who are interested in fostering greater proactivity in the workplace.ADA compliance
For Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact scholarshare@temple.eduCollections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
CHARACTERIZING AND VALIDATING PROACTIVE AND REACTIVE AGGRESSION CLASSES IN A PROSPECTIVE SAMPLEResearch investigating aggressive behavior among youth is plentiful; however, the field contains mixed findings in terms of risk factors, correlates, sequelae, and treatment response, suggesting that individuals who exhibit aggressive behaviors are heterogeneous. The current project utilized a person-centered perspective to characterize youth who differ in frequency and quality of aggressive behaviors and a variable-centered approach to validate these classes. Specifically, the aims of the current study were (a) to use latent class analysis (LCA) to identify classes of youth that are characterized by qualitatively and quantitatively different types of aggressive behaviors, and (b) to examine the external validity of the identified aggression classes in a large, prospective sample. Participants included 648 children (M = 11.42 + .92 years; 76% Caucasian) assessed at five time points between the ages of 10 and 25 as part of a longitudinal project conducted through the Center for Education and Drug Abuse Research at the University of Pittsburgh. Analyses suggest five distinct aggression profiles in the sample; individuals exhibiting (1) primarily reactive aggression, (2) primarily proactive aggression (3) mixed reactive and proactive aggression, (4) loss of control (endorsement of a subset of reactive aggression items), and (5) low reactive and proactive aggression. Classes differed in their levels of executive functioning, peer processes, lack of guilt, internalizing symptoms, and provocation to aggression. Specifically, individuals who engaged in primarily proactive, primarily reactive, or mixed aggression exhibited significantly lower ECF than individuals in the low aggression class. Individuals who engaged in mixed aggression experienced greater peer rejection, associations with deviant peers, internalizing symptoms, and lack of guilt than individuals who exhibited low aggression at specific time points. Of note, individuals who engaged in primarily proactive aggression were more likely to experience internalizing symptoms than individuals who engaged in reactive or low aggression in late childhood and early adolescence and were more likely to report lack of guilt after misbehaving than members of other aggression classes across late childhood and early adulthood. Differences among classes in terms of these variables better characterize and validate the subgroups of aggressive youth identified in the latent class analysis. The study fills gaps in the literature by identifying concurrent and prospective correlates of aggression classes and decreasing the heterogeneity found in aggression-related research by considering the qualitative and quantitative ways in which individuals differ on aggression using a dimensional approach. These findings enhance understanding of risk processes related to aggression and inform interventions that focus specifically on ameliorating deficits displayed by youth with different aggression profiles.
-
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHYSIOLOGICAL REACTIVITY TO PROVOCATION AND EMOTION DYSREGULATION WITH PROACTIVE AND AFFECTIVE AGGRESSIONBiological theory proposes that autonomic nervous system (ANS) hypo-reactivity may be more specific to proactive aggression, while ANS hyper-reactivity may be specific to affective aggression. However, the literature finds mixed support, which may be because no study to date has concurrently examined emotion dysregulation, a highly related variable, as a potential moderator. The present study examined these relationships in 76 undergraduate participants (29 men, mean age = 21.49) who identified as Caucasian (51%), African-American (23%), Asian (21%), or Other (5%). Participants completed questionnaires, a resting state task, and a provocation task. Results found that blunted overall ANS reactivity was associated with proactive aggression. Emotion dysregulation moderated the relationship between parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) and sympathetic nervous system (SNS) reactivity with both proactive (at a trending level for SNS reactivity) and affective aggression. Specifically, among those slightly above average and high on emotion dysregulation, PNS augmentation and blunted SNS reactivity were associated with proactive and affective aggression, respectively. In contrast, among those low on emotion dysregulation, PNS augmentation was associated with decreased affective aggression. Thus, among those elevated on emotion dysregulation, it may be beneficial to teach counter-regulatory strategies to reduce the impact of ANS hypo-reactivity on aggression (across function).
-
A Proactive Approach to Train ControlThe main objective in optimizing train control is to eliminate the waste associated with classical design where train separation is determined through the use of "worst case" assumptions to calculate Safe Braking Distances that are invariant to the system. In fact, the worst case approach has been in place since the beginning of train control systems. Worst case takes the most conservative approach to the determination of train stopping distance, which is the basis for design and capacity of all train control systems. This leads to stopping distances that could be far more than actually required under the circumstances at the time the train is attempting to brake. A new train control system is proposed that utilizes information about the train and the conditions ahead to optimize and minimize the Safe Braking Distance. Two methods are proposed to reduce safe braking distance while maintaining an appropriate level of safety for the system. The first introduces a statistical method that quantifies a braking distance with various hazards levels and picks a level that meets the safety criteria of the system. The second method uses train mounted sensors to determine the adhesion level of the wheel and rail to determine the appropriate braking rate for the train under known circumstances. Combining these methods provides significant decreases in Safe Braking Distances for trains. A new train control system is utilized to take advantage of these features to increase overall system capacity.
