The Relationship between Proactive Behaviors, Leader’s Attitude and Performance
- 주제(키워드) Human resources management
- 발행기관 아주대학교
- 지도교수 Yung-Ho Cho
- 발행년도 2019
- 학위수여년월 2019. 2
- 학위명 석사
- 학과 및 전공 일반대학원 경영학과
- 실제URI http://www.dcollection.net/handler/ajou/000000028906
- 본문언어 영어
- 저작권 아주대학교 논문은 저작권에 의해 보호받습니다.
초록/요약
Adequate levels of follower’s active behavior is needed to create an organizational capability to create the future. Follower’s active behavior leads to products or services innovation, change of business model and organizational alteration. Research findings show that active employee behavior leads to individual outcomes such as increase innovation(Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001), better job performance (Fuller Jr & Marler, 2009), and leadership effectiveness(Bateman & Crant, 1993), which in turn leads to improve organizational performance (Batistič, Černe, Kaše, & Zupic, 2016) Parker and his colleagues (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010) stated that Proactive behavior at organization include self-initiating change, or ‘making things happen, in order to build a better future. Crant (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” (Brown, Cober, Kane, Levy, & Shalhoop). Proactive behavior implies an efficient approach toward task (Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996) and goals at improving determined work procedure and ways as well as expanding individual prerequisites for meeting future work requests. Proactive behavior has been indicated to have positive personal and organizational consequences (B. Fuller, Marler, Hester, & Otondo, 2015). For example, successful work achievement (Brown et al., 2006) individual innovation (Seibert et al., 2001), entrepreneurial behaviors (Becherer & Maurer, 1999), job performance (Crant, 2000), stress coping (Parker & Sprigg, 1999), and leadership behaviors (Crant & Bateman, 2000) have all been linked to proactive behaviors. In today’s dynamic and competitive proactive behavior is one of the significant of organizational attainments (Frese, Garst, & Fay, 2007; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker & Collins, 2010). Most of research indicated that proactive behaviors are increasingly influenced on the organizational factors (Fay & Frese, 2001). One of the organizational factors influenced by the employee’s active behaviors is the leaders’ reaction to it. Leaders can react to employee’s active behaviors through positive attitude (B. Fuller et al., 2015). Despite the advantages that organizations and employees may attain from proactive behavior, researchers caution that this type of acting may also lead to negative consequences (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Elizabeth W Morrison, 2011). For example, leaders do not often respond positively to employee proactive behavior. Because follower’s proactive behavior challenges the status quo, it may be viewed as a critique of the method the leader manages his or her responsibilities (Burris, 2012). That is, even though proactive followers make worth share to the organization, leaders may not give those followers credibility for engaging in behaviors that advantage the organization (Grant, Parker, & Collins, 2009). If leaders sense threatened by employee’s active behavior, they may react to lower employee positive attitude or punitive policies such as lack of training opportunities or lack of promotion (Chan, 2006; Grant & Ashford, 2008). Leader responds to employee’s proactive behavior have significant implications for useful shift and organizations innovation and then performance (Bolino, Valcea, & Harvey, 2010). Therefore, it is critical to attain a better understanding of the specifications of leaders that affect their responds to follower’s proactive behavior if organizations are planning their organizations to support proactivity (J. B. Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2012; Grant et al., 2009). In this study, we emphasized on the relationship between proactive behavior and performance. In general, it is idea that follower’s proactive behavior had a positive effect performance because if increases the innovations and creativity in organization (B. Fuller et al., 2015; J. B. Fuller et al., 2012; Grant et al., 2009). The present study will increase our understanding of follower’s proactive behavior in organization. It will also test the causal links between follower’s proactive behavior, performance and leader’s attitude for constructive change and will seek to improve our knowledge of the association of these variables.
more목차
Contents
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 6
1-1 Research background 6
1-2 Research purpose 8
CHAPTER TWO: 9
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESES 9
2-1 Employee’s proactive behaviors 9
2-2 Leader’s attitude for change 12
2-3 Individual performance 13
2-4 Research hypotheses 14
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 16
3-1 Measurement and questionnaire 16
3-2 Data collection 17
3-3 Reliability of measurement 19
3-4 Validity of measurement 20
3-5 Data analysis 22
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 24
4-1 Descriptive results 24
4-2 Inferential statistics 25
4-3 Testing research hypotheses 26
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION 30
5-1 Discussion 30
5-2 Limitations of study and Recommendations 33
5-3 Conclusion and practical implication 34
References 36
Appendix 41
The Questionnaire 41
