UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECT OF PROACTIVE PERSONALITY ON JOB RELATED OUTCOMES IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE SETTING Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this dissertation is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This dissertation does not include proprietary or classified information. __________________________________________ Veena P. Prabhu Certificate of Approval: _______________________ _______________________ William I. Sauser, Jr. Charlotte D. Sutton, Chair Professor Associate Professor Management Management _______________________ ________________________ Howard R. Clayton George T. Flowers Associate Professor Interim Dean Management Graduate School UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECT OF PROACTIVE PERSONALITY ON JOB RELATED OUTCOMES IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE SETTING Veena P. Prabhu A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama August 4 th , 2007 iii UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECT OF PROACTIVE PERSONALITY ON JOB RELATED OUTCOMES IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE SETTING Veena P. Prabhu Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this dissertation at its discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights. ____________________________________ Signature of Author ____________________________________ Date of Graduation iv DISSERTATION ABSTRACT UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECT OF PROACTIVE PERSONALITY ON JOB RELATED OUTCOMES IN AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE SETTING Veena P. Prabhu Doctor of Philosophy, August 4 th , 2007 (M.S., Auburn University, 2006) (M.B.A., Amravati University, 2001) (L.L.B, Mumbai University, 1999) (B. Sc., Mumbai University, 1996) 133 Typed Pages Directed by Charlotte D. Sutton Individuals vary in their tendency to take action to control their environment. Proactive individuals actively create environmental change, while less proactive people take a more reactive approach toward their jobs. In today?s world where only change seems to be constant, the importance of proactive personality can hardly be overemphasized. Hence in the present study we empirically tested the effect of proactive personality (PAP) on job-related outcomes in a change setting. The purpose of the present study was two-fold. First, a conceptual model was empirically tested which included not only direct effects of PAP on job-related outcomes?job performance, job satisfaction and intent to remain with the organization, v but also mediating effects. Second, four potential moderators were also tested. The results showed that PAP was positively and significantly related to job performance and job satisfaction. Affective commitment to change completely mediated the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. Job satisfaction completely mediated the relationship between PAP/affective commitment to change and PAP/intent to remain with the organization. Career future completely moderated the relationship between PAP/intent to remain with the organization while job satisfaction partially moderated the relationship between PAP/job performance. Implications for organizations and future research are discussed. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I would like to thank my committee, Drs. Charlotte D. Sutton, William I. Sauser and Howard R. Clayton, for their guidance and constant encouragement. It was a real honor to work and learn from each one of them. I also want to thank Jeremy Bernerth and Rynetta Washington, my colleagues, officemates and friends ?who could see potential in me even when I was blind to it and for making these years in the doctoral program such a wonderful experience Sincere thanks are due to my dearest friends Dilbur Arsiwalla and Ashish Palkar?for bearing me when I was devoid of logic and reason. Finally, the people from whom I get true inspiration and motivation to achieve? my family. My heartfelt thanks to my beloved parents, my dad Pundlik Prabhu, my loving mom Laxmi Prabhu and my sisters Gitanjali, Saileta and Vidya. This dissertation is dedicated to my loving parents?my universe. vii Style manual used: Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Fifth Edition Computer software used: Microsoft Word and Excel 2003; Endnote 6.0; SPSS 13.0 for Windows; Amos 7.0. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ..............................................................................................................x LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1 Overview of Proactive Personality??????????????.????.1 PAP and Organizational Change????????????..??????...4 Conceptual Model ?????????????????.??..?????5 Research Purpose.....................................................................................................7 Importance of the Present Study..............................................................................8 Organization of the Study .......................................................................................9 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................11 Model Development and Hypotheses????....................................................11 PAP and Job-related Outcomes in a Change Setting.............................................13 PAP and Affective Commitment to Change..........................................................15 PAP and Job Satisfaction?...................................................................................16 Potential Moderators???..................................................................................17 Perceived Organizational Support ............................................................18 Managerial Communication.......................................................................20 ix Career Future??.....................................................................................21 Job Satisfaction??..................................................................................22 Summary of Research Hypotheses .......................................................................23 CHAPTER 3 METHOD ...................................................................................................28 Research Setting and Participants .........................................................................28 Measures ...............................................................................................................30 Data Analyses .......................................................................................................36 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS....................................................................................................46 Descriptive Statistics ?.........................................................................................46 Model Fit?????????............................................................................48 Hypotheses Testing ...............................................................................................53 Summary ???????...................................................................................68 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION..............................................................................................72 Practical Implications.............................................................................................76 Limitations of the study ........................................................................................78 Future Research.....................................................................................................80 Concluding Thoughts.............................................................................................82 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................83 APPENDIX A Information Letter...................................................................................103 APPENDIX B Survey Instrument...................................................................................106 x LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Summary of Study Hypotheses.............................................................................25 Table 2 Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents??.????..............................29 Table 3 Summary of Measures..........................................................................................35 Table 4 Summary of Study Hypotheses and Statistical Tests............................................41 Table 5 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations ???????????.47 Table 6 Baseline Model Comparison Summary ???????.????..................49 Table 7 Measurement Properties of the Variables Used in the Study ????...??...51 Table 8 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Moderation of the Effect of Proactive Personality on Intent to Remain by Career Future ???????...63 Table 9 Regression Slopes Depicting the Association between Proactive Personality and Intent to Remain at Different Levels of Career Future .........................................65 Table 10 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Moderation of the Effect of Proactive Personality on Job Performance by Job Satisfaction?????.........66 Table 11 Regression Slopes Depicting the Association between Proactive Personality and Job Performance at Different Levels of Job Satisfaction ???..........................68 Table 12 Summary of Hypotheses Tests...........................................................................69 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Simplified Conceptual Model of Proactive Personality in a Change Setting?..7 Figure 2: Detailed Conceptual Model of Proactive Personality in a Change Setting ......13 Figure 3: Hypothesized Model of Proactive Personality in a Change Setting ???.....23 Figure 4: Structural Model of Proactive Personality in a Change Setting ???...........54 Figure 5: Baseline Model with Correlated Error Terms and Standardized Estimates?..55 Figure 6a: Model without Mediating Variable?Affective Commitment to Change in the Relationship between PAP/Intent to Remain with the Organization ???........57 Figure 6b: Model with Mediating Variable?Affective Commitment to Change in the Relationship between PAP/Intent to Remain with the Organization ?????57 Figure 7a: Model without Mediating Variable?Job Satisfaction in the Relationship between PAP/Affective Commitment to Change ????????????.58 Figure 7b: Model with Mediating Variable? Job Satisfaction in the Relationship between PAP/Affective Commitment to Change ????????.????59 Figure 8a: Model without mediating variable? Job Satisfaction in the Relationship between PAP/Intent to Remain with the Organization ?????????.....60 Figure 8b: Model with Mediating Variable? Job Satisfaction in the Relationship between PAP/Intent to Remain with the Organization ????????.?....61 Figure 9: Moderating Role of Career Future in the Relationship between PAP/Intent to Remain with the Organization ..............................................................................64 Figure 10: Moderating Role of Job Satisfaction in the Relationship between PAP/Job Performance ?????????????????......................................67 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Overview of Proactive Personality In today?s competitive world, change seems to be the only constant, competition the norm, and job security a day-dreamer?s fantasy. In such a backdrop being proactive is a necessity rather than a luxury. Covey (2004) aptly asserts the importance of proactive people: Look at the word responsibility??response-ability??the ability to choose your response. Highly proactive people recognize that responsibility. They do not blame circumstances, conditions, or conditioning for their behavior. Their behavior is a product of their own conscious choice, based on values, rather than a product of their conditions, based on feeling. (p.71) Some organizations are treating proactive behaviors as a role requirement, emphasizing its value to employees, and hiring applicants with a proactive orientation (Campbell, 2000). Proactive behavior entails a dynamic approach toward work (Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996; Parker, 2000). Crant (2000) in his exhaustive review 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? (p. 436). Thus proactive behavior seeks to improvise the existing job along with developing personal prerequisites for furthering career success (Seibert, Crant, 2 & Kraimer, 1999) and organizational effectiveness (Bateman & Crant, 1999). It encompasses behaviors such as taking charge (Morrison & Phelps, 1999) and personal initiative (Frese et al., 1996) and is closely associated with flexible role orientations (Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997). Its effect has been studied in varied fields, at individual (micro) levels such as job performance (e.g., Ashford & Northcraft, 1992; Crant, 1995), feedback (e.g., Ashford & Cummings, 1985; VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997), careers (e.g., Bell & Staw, 1989; Claes, & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 1998;), newcomer adaptation (e.g., Chan & Schmitt, 2000), entrepreneurship (e.g., Becherer & Maurer, 1999; Crant, 1996) leadership (e.g., Crant & Bateman, 2000; Deluga, 1998), and even the reputation of American presidents (Deluga, 1998). Proactive behavior has also been studied at macro levels such as work teams (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999) and socialization (e.g., Morrison, 1993a; 1993b). The dispositional approach involves the measurement of personal characteristics and the assumption that such measures can aid in explaining individual attitudes and behavior. Also when traits and predispositions are strong there is a lesser likelihood they will be overridden by situational forces (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Using this approach past research has conceived proactive personality as a relatively stable individual disposition toward proactive behavior (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Additionally, the extant work on proactive behavior advocates the fact that the construct proactive personality explicitly encompasses the varied aspects of proactive behavior and initiative (Crant, 2000). Bateman and Crant (1993) defined the construct proactive personality ?as a dispositional construct that identifies differences among people in the extent to which 3 they take action to influence their environment? (p. 103). They further developed the Proactive Personality Scale (PPS) to measure this construct and provided evidence for the scale?s convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity with results from three studies. Since then, a number of studies have consistently demonstrated the validity of the proactive personality construct, as assessed by the PPS (e.g., Becherer & Maurer, 1999; Bateman & Crant , 1999, Crant, 1995, 1996; Crant & Bateman, 2000; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Parker & Sprigg, 1999). Proactive personality is a unique disposition not captured by other typologies such as the five-factor model; Crant and Bateman (2000) found only moderate correlations with the five-factor model of personality. Furthermore, Crant (1995) found that PAP predicted sales performance above and beyond conscientiousness and extraversion. Additionally, Bateman and Crant (1993) showed that PAP is distinct from self- consciousness, need for achievement, need for dominance, and locus of control. All these studies provide further evidence for the discriminant validity of PAP. Research in understanding this construct has been rapidly increasing. Its effects have been studied in varied fields such as career success (Erdogan & Bauer, 2005; Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999), job performance through a social capital perspective (Thompson, 2005); transformational (Bateman & Crant, 1993) and charismatic leadership (Crant & Bateman, 2000); and job search success (Brown, Cober, Kane, Levy, & Shalhoop, 2006). Chan (2006) has explored the interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive personality on work perceptions and outcomes. Parker and Sprigg (1999) found that proactive personality moderated the interactive effect of job autonomy and demands on employee strain. Their results were consistent 4 with the premise that proactive employees take advantage of high job control to manage more effectively the demands they face, whereas passive employees do not take advantage of greater autonomy to this end. PAP and Organizational Change Organizational change has traditionally been viewed at the organizational level, which involves specific actions taken by the organization to transform internal structure or other characteristics/policies, apparently in response to environmental conditions and the need to survive and progress in a dynamic scenario (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Johnson, 1996). There is, however, a burgeoning interest in how change surges down through the organization, ultimately to be experienced at the individual level (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999). This implies that it is important to understand that a change at the organizational level (such as a restructuring) will often result in having considerably different repercussions at different levels of work groups and for individuals within these groups (Mohrman, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1990). Perception during change is important; therefore one must be aware not only that implications vary at different levels but also that the same organizational change can be viewed quite differently at each of these levels. Top management may view it as a positive and required step towards the overall health and progress of the organization while lower level managers and employees may concern themselves with negative views ranging from threat to their job to minor disruptions of their day-to-day activities (Strebel, 1996). Several researchers have called for a more person-focused approach to the study of organizational change (e.g., Aktouf, 1992; Bray, 1994), especially since we are witnessing immense changes in the world of work with jobs in the 21 st century requiring 5 greater initiative, courtesy of global competition (Cascio, 1995; Frese & Fay, 2001; Howard, 1995). Recent years have therefore seen an escalating interest in studying the complexity of changes in the workplace, their causes, consequences, and strategies for change (for reviews, see Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Porras & Robertson, 1992). This is where the proactive stance plays an important role: as work becomes more dynamic and changeable, proactive personality and initiative become even more critical determinants of organizational success (Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, & Tag, 1997). ?Organizations increasingly expect employees to fix things that they see as wrong, act on the information they have, and react to unusual circumstances by demonstrating proactive behaviors,? say Erdogan and Bauer, (2005, p. 859). The words of Crant (2000) are apt: Proactive people identify opportunities and act on them, show initiative, take action, and persevere until meaningful change occurs. In contrast, people who are not proactive exhibit the opposite patterns: they fail to identify, let alone seize, opportunities to change things. Less proactive individuals are passive and reactive, preferring to adapt to circumstances rather than change them. (p. 439) Although proactive personality has been studied in various fields, surprisingly there is little research which has considered its role in the field of organizational change. The present research aims at filling this gap in the literature by empirically testing the role of proactive personality in an organizational change setting. Conceptual Model Although the bulk of past research has concentrated on the positive implications of PAP, it could have certain potentially negative implications, since the extent to which individuals benefit from their own proactivity depends on the context. Campbell (2000) 6 pointed out the possibility of proactive persons receiving negative reactions from the organization, and raised an important question: ?Are employees? enterprising qualities truly universally desirable, or do particular job and organizational circumstances make them relatively more or less valuable?? (p.57). Likewise, Frese and Fay (2001) proposed that there are limits to personal initiative, this is aptly termed by Campbell (2000) as the ?initiative paradox??where organizations on one hand encourage proactivity but fail to make room for the probable pitfalls such as misguided proaction (Bateman & Crant, 1999). For example, certain misguided behaviors may consequently cost the organization time and money and this would be viewed unforgivably by management. It is, therefore, of vital importance to gain insight into understanding the mechanism by which PAP leads to job-related outcomes. This entails investigating ?how? or ?why? (mediating effect) and ?when? (moderating effect) does PAP lead to positive outcomes (Crant, 2000; Erdogan & Bauer, 2005). Trying to understand these relationships lead to the development of a conceptual model of PAP which included not only direct effects but also certain potential mediating and moderating effects (See Figure 1). 7 Direct Effects Potential Mediators Potential Moderators PAP Extrinsic Job-related Outcome Intrinsic Job-related Outcome ?Job Performance ?Intent to remain ?Job Satisfaction PAP Affective Commitment to Org. Change ?Job Performance ?Intent to Remain ?Affective Commitment to change ?Job Performance ?Intent to Remain PAP ?POS* ?Managerial Communication ?Career Future ?Job Satisfaction ?Job Performance ?Intent to Remain ?Affective Commitment to Change PAP Job Satisfaction *Perceived Organizational Support Figure 1: Simplified Conceptual Model of Proactive Personality in a Change Setting Research Purpose The direct effects of proactive personality on job-related outcomes have found support in the literature (cf. the review of Crant, 2000). However, very few have studied the indirect (mediating) effects. Additionally Erdogan and Bauer (2005) have clearly illustrated the need to examine the moderators of proactive personality. Hence, after a careful and exhaustive study of the extant literature of both proactive personality and organizational change, two potential mediating variables (affective commitment to change and job satisfaction) and four potential moderating variables (perceived 8 organizational support, managerial communication, career future and job satisfaction) were chosen for this study. The purpose of the present study was two-fold. First, the study empirically examined a conceptual model which not only included direct effects of PAP on job- related outcomes (job performance, job satisfaction and intent to remain with the organization) but also indirect (mediating) effects. Second, four potential moderators were also tested. Specifically it was hypothesized that in a change setting (1) PAP will increase extrinsic job outcomes such as job performance and intent to remain with the organization and intrinsic job-related outcomes such as job satisfaction; (2) affective commitment to change will mediate the relationship between PAP and job-related outcomes; job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between PAP/affective commitment to change and PAP/extrinsic job-related outcomes (job performance and intent to remain with the organization); and finally testing (3) the moderating roles of two organizational level variables (perceived organizational support and managerial communication) and two individual level variables (career future and job satisfaction) in the relationship between PAP/affective commitment to change, and PAP/extrinsic job- related outcomes. Importance of the Present Study Unfortunately most organizational changes have a common storyline, ?First there were losses, then there was a plan of change, and then there was an implementation, which led to unexpected results? (Czarniawska & Joerges 1996, p. 20). In such a condition organizations will be greatly benefited if they had employees who took charge, a characteristic of proactive personality (Crant, 2000). This study will not only help 9 managers to understand the importance of proactive personality with respect to job outcomes but also these relationships will be tested in the backdrop of a change setting. The goal of the present study was to constribute to the change and personality literature by examining a potential mechanism through which organizations can strengthen the relationship between PAP and job-related outcomes. Organization of the Study The present chapter introduced the construct of PAP and examined the importance of PAP in the field of organizational change. It further elaborated on a conceptual model of PAP consisting of potential mediators in addition to the direct effects of PAP on job-related outcomes. The purpose of the study along with its theoretical and practical significance was also discussed. Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature relevant to PAP and organizational change. The first section provides a brief overview of PAP and organizational change followed by the development of hypotheses. The first set of hypotheses relates to the direct effects of PAP on job-related outcomes. The second and third set of hypotheses discuss the effect of potential mediators (affective commitment to change and job satisfaction) and moderators (perceived organizational support, managerial communication, career future, and job satisfaction) on the relationship of PAP/job outcomes. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology and provides a detailed description of the research setting, data collection process, measures used in the study and data analyses. Chapter 4 provides the results of the study. It first elaborates on the model fit followed by describing the results for each hypothesis. Chapter 5, the final 10 chapter discusses the theoretical and practical implications of this study. Limitations of this study and suggestions for future studies are also provided. 11 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Model Development and Hypotheses An idea that has recently gained much ground is the notion that work design does not simply allow employees to apply knowledge they possess, but it also promotes knowledge creation, or employee learning and development. Research suggests that individual characteristics may be the strongest predictors of engagement in development activity (Maurer & Tarulli, 1994). Evidence is accumulating for this more developmental perspective. Studies have shown a link between the greater use of personal initiative (Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996) and the development of more proactive role orientations (Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997). This learning and developmental perspective is consistent with the German Action Theory (e.g. Hacker, Skell, & Straub, 1968) which is based on the ideology that work is action-oriented. More broadly, Action Theory is substantiated by the premise that: ?the human is seen as an active rather that a passive being who changes the world through work actions?? (Frese & Zapf, 1994; p. 86). People are not always passive recipients of environmental constraints on their behavior; rather, they can intentionally and directly change their current circumstances (e.g., Buss, 1987; Diener, Larsen, & Emmons, 1984). In dynamic circumstances which tend to be less well-defined, it is reasonable to assume that individuals might mold their 12 work characteristics to fit their individual abilities or personalities. People with a proactive personality are relatively unconstrained by situational forces (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Readiness and determination to pursue a course of action are characteristic of proactive people which are also central to models of self-development (Antonacopoulou, 2000). The words of Bateman and Crant (1999) capture the essence of proactive personality. Proaction involves creating change, not merely anticipating it. It does not just involve the important attributes of flexibility and adaptability toward an uncertain future. To be proactive is to take the initiative in improving business. At the other extreme, behavior that is not proactive includes sitting back, letting others make things happen, and passively hoping that externally imposed change ?works out okay.? (p. 63) These attributes of proactive personality along with the characteristics of organizational change led to the development of the conceptual model that was tested in the present study. That model specifically examined the effect of proactive employees on job outcomes in a change setting. (See Figure 2) 13 Intent to remain Proactive Personality Affective Commitment to Org. Change Potential Moderators POS* Managerial Communication Career Future Job Satisfaction Job Satisfaction Job Performance *Perceived Organizational Support Figure 2: Detailed Conceptual Model of Proactive Personality in a Change Setting PAP and Job-related Outcomes in a Change Setting PAP is the degree to which individuals have an active role orientation. Rather than accepting their roles passively, proactive persons challenge the status quo and initiate change (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Thus employees with proactive personalities use initiative, persevere, and attempt to shape their environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993) and tend to have a positive impact on job-related outcomes especially in changeable and more dynamic work environments. 14 The range of job-related outcomes usually considered in work design research has been criticized as being too limited. However, traditional outcomes such as job satisfaction (intrinsic) and job performance (extrinsic) will certainly remain central to the agenda; hence these two outcomes were chosen in this present study. Given that the main purpose of this research was to understand the role played by PAP in a change setting, one more job-related outcome variable was included in the study. That variable, intent to remain with the organization, was included because of its vital importance in organizational change studies. PAP has been related to extrinsic job-related outcomes such as job performance (Crant, 1995; Thompson, 2005), extrinsic career success, or actual advancements in salary and position (Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). In an attempt to examine the criterion validity of the Proactive Personality Scale, Crant (1995) found that proactive personality explained 8% of the variance in objective measures of job performance in the case of real estate agents. Additionally proactive personality has been associated with other objective measures such as salary and promotions (Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999). Proactive personality was also found to be significantly related to subjective evaluations of performance by direct supervisors in diverse backgrounds (Thompson, 2005) as they tend to set high standards, and harness all available resources into achieving those standards (Crant, 1996). Although past research has found PAP to be related to these extrinsic job-related outcomes, its effect on these outcomes has rarely been empirically tested in a change setting. Hence, in the present study it was hypothesized that in a change setting PAP will 15 have a positive impact on job performance. Additionally, it was anticipated that proactive individuals will intend to remain with the organization post-reorganization. PAP has also been related to intrinsic career success, i.e. job and career satisfaction. Intrinsic success is also important because of its relation to life satisfaction (Lounsbury, Park, Sundstrom, Williamson, & Pemberton, 2004) and turnover intentions (Igbaria, 1991). Two measures of well-being?job satisfaction and turnover intentions?are examined in the present study. In the present study job satisfaction was defined as an individual's global feeling about his or her job (Spector, 1997). Instead of measuring turnover intentions a more positive variable was chosen i.e. intent to remain with the organization. The above discussion lead to the first hypothesis. Hypothesis 1: In a change setting PAP will relate significantly and positively to (a) job performance (b) job satisfaction and (c) intent to remain with the organization. PAP and Affective Commitment to Change Commitment, in a broad sense, can be defined as ?a force [mind set] that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more targets? (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Conner and Patterson (1982) noted that ?the most prevalent factor contributing to failed change projects is a lack of commitment by the people? (p. 18). Thus commitment to organizational change is unquestionably one of the most imperative factors involved in employees' support for change projects (Armenakis, Harris, & Feild, 1999; Coetsee, 1999; Conner & Patterson, 1982; Klein & Sorra, 1996). Conner (1992) aptly described commitment to change as ?the glue that provides the vital bond between people and change goals? (p. 147). Meyer and Allen (1991) argued that this force, or 16 mind-set, can take different forms: desire (affective commitment), perceived cost (continuance commitment), or obligation (normative commitment). In the present study the affective form of commitment to change (desire to provide support for the change based on a belief in its inherent benefits) was used. Bateman and Crant (1993) argued that proactive individuals actively create environmental change, while less proactive people take a more reactive approach toward their jobs. Thus, proactive personality refers to the general disposition to make active attempts to effect changes in one's environment, and is crucial in modern organizations characterized by fast changes and reduced supervision. Proactive people identify opportunities and act on them, show initiative, take action, and persevere until meaningful change occurs (Crant, 1996). Given the definition of PAP and the importance of commitment to change, it was predicted that commitment to change will mediate the relationship between PAP and certain important job outcomes. Hypothesis 2: Affective commitment to change will mediate the relationship between (a) PAP/Job performance and (b) PAP/Intent to remain with the organization. PAP and Job Satisfaction Dispositional characteristics incline people to a certain level of satisfaction (see Bowling, Beehr, Wagner, & Libkuman, 2005). In fact two important studies found that genetic factors, which apparently affect disposition, may account for as much as 30% of the variance in job satisfaction (Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham, 1989; Arvey, McCall, Bouchard, Taubman, & Cavanaugh, 1994). Dispositions may have a direct effect on job satisfaction or may influence the way in which employees perceive their 17 jobs, which, consequently affects job satisfaction (Bowling et al., 2005). Proactive personality will probably affect job satisfaction as ?proactive individuals will be more satisfied with their jobs because they will remove obstacles preventing satisfaction? (Erdogan & Bauer, 2005, p. 861) Research linking job performance with satisfaction and other attitudes has been studied since at least 1939, with the Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). Organ (1988) found that the relationship between job performance and job satisfaction follows the social exchange theory; employees? performance is giving back to the organization from which they get their satisfaction. Thus it seems to be a common assumption that employees who are happy with their job should also be more productive at work (Spector, 1997) and therefore should be less inclined to leave the organization. Hence, it was anticipated that job satisfaction will mediate the relationship i.e. it will shed some light into the mechanism by which PAP is related to job outcomes. Hypothesis 3: Job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between (a) PAP/affective commitment to change (b) PAP/job performance and (c) PAP/Intent to remain with the organization. Potential Moderators There is a need to understand as to when PAP leads to positive outcomes (Crant, 2000), and this becomes especially important when an organization is undergoing change. Hence after a review of the extant literature of PAP and organizational change the present study investigated four potential moderators?perceived organizational support, managerial communication, career future and job satisfaction. 18 Perceived Organizational Support Blau (1964) viewed work as a form of social exchange that involved an undefined series of transactions which consequently obligates both parties involved in the social interaction. Thus effort and loyalty are traded for material and social rewards (e.g., Etzioni, 1961; Gould, 1979; Levinson, 1965; March & Simon, 1958; Mowday, Porter, & Steers (1982). Social identity theory proposed that employees ?remain loyal when they feel that their organizations ... value and appreciate them? (Tyler, 1999, p. 235). Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986) suggested that employees' commitment to their organization is partially based on their perception of the organization's commitment to them. They conceptualized employees' perceptions of their organization's commitment as ?perceived organizational support? (POS) and defined it as ?global beliefs about the extent to which the organization cares about their well-being and values their contributions? (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986, p. 501). They further developed a measure for POS?Survey of Perceived Organizational Support. Its validity and reliability have been tested in several studies (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro 1990; Eisenberger et al., 1986; Garstka, 1993; Hutchison & Garstka, 1996; Shore & Tetrick, 1991; Shore & Wayne, 1993). Moreover, Shore and Tetrick (1991) demonstrated that perceived organizational support and organizational commitment are distinct constructs. POS ?may be used by employees as an indicator of the organization's benevolent or malevolent intent in the expression of exchange of employee effort for reward and recognition? (Lynch, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 1999, pp. 469-470). 19 POS has been found to have a positive impact on several job-related perceptions and outcomes. Employees with high levels of POS exhibited less absenteeism and were found to be more conscientious about carrying out their work responsibilities (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990). They showed positive correlations with organizational commitment (Garstka, 1993) and organizational citizenship behaviors (Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998; Randall, Cropanzano, Bormann, & Birjulin, 1999). POS was also found to be related to communication with top management, supervisors and coworkers (Allen, 1992, 1995, 1996). Eisenberger et al.'s (1986) description of POS provides a framework within which employees' affective commitment to their organization develops. Gouldner (1960) suggested that employees have the responsibility to react positively to favorable treatment from their employer. Similarly the exchange models of Etzioni (1961) and Gould (1979) suggest that perceptions of organizational support increase affective attachment to an organization and strengthen expectations that greater effort will be rewarded. Consequently, employees who think their organizations support them put forth more effort thereby increasing employees? job performance. Rhoades and Eisenberger's (2002) meta-analysis revealed that POS is modestly related to job performance. Additionally, Eisenberger and his colleagues (e.g., Armeli, Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Lynch, 1998; Eisenberger et al., 1986) argued that high POS leads to an obligation to repay the organization for its attention to socioemotional needs. This in turn yields increased effort and greater performance (Eisenberger, et al, 1990). Studies have also shown that POS is related to intention to leave (reverse of intention to remain) the organization (Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). The above 20 discussion leads to the hypothesis of the potential moderating role of perceived organizational support. Hypothesis 4: Perceived organizational support will moderate the relationship between (a) PAP/Affective commitment to change; (b) PAP/Job performance; and (c) PAP/Intent to remain with the organization. Managerial Communication Another important factor in employees? support for change which has gained importance in recent years is managerial communication, which is also predominantly important in the entire organizational change process (Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Lewis, 1999). It is generally defined in terms of a process through which companies basically prepare employees for change by stating and clarifying issues related to the change (Lewis, 1999). Communication helps employees to gain a better understanding for the need for change, as well as to have some insights on the personal effects which may be caused by the proposed change (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). The process perspective suggests that when employees receive adequate and suitable communication in a change context (i.e. appropriate justification for, and information about, the change and timely feedback), they will have more favorable attitudes toward the change which, in turn, should result in positive organizational outcomes. Hence the present study predicted the potential moderating effect of managerial communication. Hypothesis 5: Managerial Communication will moderate the relationship between (a) PAP/Affective commitment to change; (b) PAP/Job performance; and (c) PAP/Intent to remain with the organization. 21 Career Future Arthur, Hall, and Lawrence (1989) defined career as ?the evolving sequence of a person?s work experiences over time? and pointed out that the true essence of career lies in the actuality??Everyone who works has a career? (p. 9). They appropriately illustrated the point that career is basically the relationship between the individual and the organization and how this relationship fluctuates over time. Thus the study of careers is the study of both individual and organizational change (Van Maanen, 1977). Careers have changed dramatically with advances in technology (Coovert, 1995; Freeman, Soete, & Efendioglu, 1995; Howard, 1995; Van der Spiegel, 1995) and with increased global competition (Rosenthal 1995). Thus today?s borderless world is characterized by technological advances and companies are competing for survival. The assumption that an organization would provide lifetime employment has undoubtedly become a myth??both parties know that the [employment] relationship is unlikely to last forever? (Cappelli, 1999, p. 3). Add to this the element of change and one has the perfect recipe to a chaotic and uncertain environment which in turn demands that employees start charting and navigating their own careers. Thus, there is renewed interest among individuals to take responsibility for their careers and among researchers to investigate the effect of organizational change on those careers (e.g., Sullivan, Carden, & Martin, 1998). Several authors have noted that understanding the strategies and behaviors applied by individuals to achieve career success is of vital importance (Bell & Staw, 1989; Judge & Bretz, 1994). In an interesting study by Seibert, Crant, and Kraimer (1999), PAP was associated with career success even after accounting for predictors, such as 22 demographics, human capital, motivation, type of organization, and type of industry. In another longitudinal study they also found PAP to be positively related to career initiative, which consequently has a positive impact on career progression and career satisfaction (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). In today?s competitive world where there has been an increasing emphasis on protean careers, boundaryless careers, and career self-management (Hall, 1996a, 1996b; Jackson, 1996; King, 2004) proactive personality perfectly fits the bill. This becomes especially important when in a quest for a career future within an organization which is undergoing change as change is characterized by dynamism, uncertainty, job insecurity, and unpredictability?in such a backdrop it is logical for a proactive person to be more bothered about his or her career future. Hence it was hypothesized that proactive personality will interact with career future and affect job outcomes in backdrop of a change setting. Hypothesis 6: Career future will moderate the relationship between (a) PAP/Affective commitment to change; (b) PAP/Job performance; and (c) PAP/Intent to remain with the organization. Job Satisfaction Past researchers have theorized about the conditions under which proactivity would be more positively related to outcomes (Bateman & Crant, 1999; Campbell, 2000; Frese & Fay, 2001). PAP as seen earlier has been positively linked with job outcomes such as job performance. In this study it was hypothesized that when proactive people are satisfied with their job, they will tend to perform better on the job. Especially in a change setting it was predicted that the interaction between PAP and job satisfaction will 23 not only affect the degree of job performance but also an employee?s affective commitment to change and his/her intention to remain with the organization (See Figure 3). Hypothesis 7: Job satisfaction will moderate the relationship between (a) PAP/Affective commitment to change; (b) PAP/Job performance; and (c) PAP/Intent to remain with the organization. Proactive Personality Affective Commitment to Org. Change Job Satisfaction Job Performance H2a-b* H1a H6a H4a H6b H1c H4c H6c H5a Intent to remain Perceived Organizational Support Managerial Communication Career Future H4b H5b H5c H1b H3a-c** *Mediational hypotheses?Affective commitment to change is the mediator **Mediational hypotheses?Job Satisfaction is the mediator H7c H7b H7a Moderation hypothesis Figure 3: Hypothesized Model of Proactive Personality in a Change Setting Summary of Research Hypotheses A summary of the hypotheses for this study is presented in Table 1. Hypotheses 1a-c aim at testing the effect of PAP on job-related outcomes?job performance job satisfaction, and intent to remain with the organization in a change setting. The mediating 24 role of affective commitment to change and job satisfaction is predicted in Hypotheses 2a-b and 3a-c respectively. Hypotheses 4a-c, 5a-c, 6a-c and 7a-c involve testing the moderating role of perceived organizational support, managerial communication, and career future and job satisfaction. 25 Table 1 Summary of Study Hypotheses Hypotheses Hypothesis 1a: In a change setting PAP will relate significantly and positively with job performance. Hypothesis 1b: In a change setting PAP will relate significantly and positively with job satisfaction. Hypothesis 1c: In a change setting PAP will relate significantly and positively with intent to remain with the organization. Hypothesis 2a: Affective commitment to organizational change will mediate the relationship between PAP and job performance. Hypothesis 2b: Affective commitment to organizational change will mediate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. Hypothesis 3a: Job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between PAP and affective commitment to the organization. Hypothesis 3b: Job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between PAP and job performance. Hypothesis 3c: Job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. Hypothesis 4a: Perceived organizational support will moderate the relationship between PAP and affective commitment to organizational change. 26 Table 1 Continued Summary of Study Hypotheses Hypotheses Hypothesis 4b: Perceived organizational support will moderate the relationship between PAP and job performance. Hypothesis 4c: Perceived organizational support will moderate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. Hypothesis 5a: Managerial communication will moderate the relationship between PAP and affective commitment to organizational change. Hypothesis 5b: Managerial communication will moderate the relationship between PAP and job performance. Hypothesis 5c: Managerial communication will moderate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. Hypothesis 6a: Career future will moderate the relationship between PAP and affective commitment to organizational change. Hypothesis 6b: Career future will moderate the relationship between PAP and job performance. Hypothesis 6c: Career future will moderate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. Hypothesis 7a: Job satisfaction will moderate the relationship between PAP and affective commitment to organizational change. 27 Table 1 Continued Summary of Study Hypotheses Hypotheses Hypothesis 7b: Job satisfaction will moderate the relationship between PAP and job performance. Hypothesis 7c: Job satisfaction will moderate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. 28 CHAPTER 3 METHOD Research Setting and Participants Data for this study were collected from a non-profit organization located in the southeastern United States, having approximately 900 employees working in offices spread statewide. This organization was chosen because it had recently experienced a major restructuring. Data were collected via a self-report online survey. The survey administration process began by sending an email to all the employees with the consent of management, inviting them to participate in the survey. The email clearly stated that participation in the survey was voluntary and that the survey responses would be completely anonymous (refer to Appendix A for a copy of the information letter) and that no member of the management would have access to the data. One day prior to sending the email the on- line survey was posted on the company?s intranet?thereby preventing the chance of a non-employee filling out the survey. At the organization?s request several open-ended questions not included in this study were added with the sole aim of getting constructive feedback from its employees with respect to the restructuring. A copy of the survey instrument is included in Appendix B. After three weeks a reminder email was sent to the employees. The on-line survey resulted in 275 usable questionnaires, which gave a response rate of 31.3%. Almost half 29 of the respondents (42.6%) used in this analyses were over 50 years old, and 60.6 % of the respondents were women. More than half (63.5%) were Caucasian while 26.6% were African Americans (See Table 2). Table 2 Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents Variable N % Gender Males Females 104 171 37.8 62.2 Race Caucasian African American Hispanic Native American Asian Other 177 75 1 2 1 4 64.4 27.3 .4 .7 .4 1.5 Age 20 ? 29 years 30 ? 39 years 40 ? 49 years > 50 years 13 38 100 118 4.7 13.8 36.4 42.9 Tenure (Organization) < 1 year 1 ? 5 years 6 ? 10 years 11 ? 20 years > 20 years 11 47 53 88 72 4 17.1 19.3 32 26.2 Tenure (Job position) < 1 year 1 ? 5 years 6 ? 10 years 11 ? 20 years > 20 years 20 125 49 53 20 7.3 45.5 17.8 19.3 7.3 Note: N = 275 30 Measures Proactive Personality PAP was measured by using the shortened version of Bateman and Crant's (1993) 17-item Proactive Personality Scale (PPS) created by Seibert, Crant, and Kraimer, (1999). The shortened version consists of ten items. These items were selected as they had the highest average factor loadings across the three studies reported by Bateman and Crant (1993). These three studies presented evidence for the scale?s reliability (Cronbach?s alpha across three samples ranged from .87 to .89, and the test-retest reliability coefficient was .72 over a three month period). The studies also provided convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity. Seibert et al. (1999) mentioned that the deletion of seven items did not result in a major effect on the reliability of the scale (17- item ? = .88; 10-item ? = .86). These items were summed to arrive at a proactive personality score. Responses were indicated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 7 ("strongly agree"), with items such as "I excel at identifying opportunities" and "No matter what the odds, if I believe in something I will make it happen." Internal consistency (coefficient alpha) obtained in the current study was .89, in line with that reported by Bateman and Crant (1993). Job Performance Job performance was measured by using two self-report measures completed by the employees. The first self-report measure included 7 items which was a subset of the 20-item scale prepared by Williams and Anderson (1991). The Williams and Anderson (1991) scale was originally validated on 127 employees working in varied organizations. 31 Factor analysis resulted in three distinct behavior factors?job performance being one of them. Example questions include ?fulfills responsibilities specified in the job description? and ?meets formal performance requirements of the job.? Items were summed to yield a total performance score for each employee. Reliability of the scale was within the acceptable range, i.e. higher than .70 (Cronbach?s alpha = .77). The second self-report scale consisted of a two single items. The first item was coined by Ferris, Witt, and Hochwarter (2001) and measured the overall job performance of the employee aimed at serving as a self-appraisal. It read as follows: ?Please circle the number besides the adjective which best describes your job performance in your opinion: 1 (weak or bottom 10%), 2 (fair or next 20%), 3 (good or next 40%), 4 (very good or next 20%), or 5 (best or top 10%).? Since a single-item measure cannot yield estimates of internal consistency reliability, nor can a single-item measure be used in structural equation models one more similar item was used which also measured the overall job performance. The item was based on a 6-point Likert scale in which employees rated themselves and were asked the following: ?Please circle the number besides the adjective which best describes your job performance in your opinion: 1 = Unacceptable, 2 = Very poor, 3 = Poor, 4 = Good, 5 = Very Good, 6 = Outstanding.? The likelihood that any particular cognition will be retrieved as an input to some decision or behavior decreases with an increase in the amount of time since its most recent activation (Wyer & Srull, 1986) and the amount of material in the same content domain encountered during that temporary period (Keller, 1987). This suggests that intervening items between two similar items will increase the likelihood of the respondent to either compute a new response or engage in an effortful search of long- 32 term memory. Hence in the survey instrument the two overall job performance items were separated by several items as well as open ended questions. Reliability of this scale was within acceptable range (Cronbach?s alpha = .78). Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction was measured by using four sub-scales of the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS; Spector, 1997). JSS measures ?outcome? satisfaction facets such as pay, benefits, promotions, supervision, work itself, co-workers, and working conditions (Spector, 1997). Four sub-scales of the JSS (benefits, rewards, co-workers and work itself) were used in this study with each subscale consisting of four items. Respondents indicated the extent of their agreement with each item on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly agree, 7 = strongly disagree). Cronbach?s alpha measured for the four sub- scales were benefit satisfaction (? = .79), reward satisfaction (? = .84), co-worker satisfaction (? = .72) and work itself satisfaction (? =.83). Intent to Remain Employee?s intent to remain with the organization was measured using a scale from Robinson (1996). This four-item scale asked employees to respond to three Likert- type questions about how long the employee intends to remain with the employer, the extent to which he/she would prefer to work for a different employer, the extent to which he/she has thought about changing companies, and one binary question (?If you had your way, would you be working for this employer three years from now??). This scale had a modest reliability with Cronbach?s alpha measuring .68. 33 Affective Commitment to Change This variable was measured using a sub-scale of the scale developed by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) to measure commitment to change. The scale consisted of 22 items of which seven items assessed affective commitment (e.g., ?I believe in the value of this change?) which was used in this study. Responses were made using a 7- point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). This scale exhibited strong reliability with Cronbach?s alpha measuring .95. Managerial Communication Managerial communication was measured by using a subscale of the Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) (Downs & Hazen, 1977). The CSQ is a 40-item instrument that has demonstrated a high degree of validity and reliability across a number of organizations, and in multiple contexts (Clampitt & Downs, 2004). Although several factors are identified by Downs and Hazen (1977) as indicators of overall communication satisfaction in the workplace, the focus of the present study was specifically related to the dimension that assesses employees? satisfaction with communication with their immediate supervisor or manager. Specifically this dimension is identified as personal feedback in the original instrument. It assesses how satisfied employees are with information they receive about their job, recognition of their efforts, and how well supervisors understand problems faced by employees. A 7-point Likert response format (ranging from 1 = very dissatisfied to 7 = very satisfied) was used to measure employees? satisfaction to the five items. Previous studies that have assessed the internal consistency of the individual dimensions of the CSQ have reported coefficient alphas of .80 (Pincus, 1986) and .84 (Crino & White, 1981) for the personal feedback 34 dimension. A more recent study examining the psychometric properties of the CSQ (Gray & Laidlaw, 2004) reported a coefficient alpha of .86 for the personal feedback dimension. The reliability found in the present study was in tune with these studies as Cronbach?s alpha was .90. Perceived Organizational Support Perception of organizational support was measured using the nine-item short version of the Survey of Perceptions of Organizational Support (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990). Items (e.g., ?My organization really cares about my well- being?) were presented on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores reflect more favorable perceptions of support. The scale had high reliability as Cronbach?s alpha = .91. Career Future Career future was measured by using a part of the Index of Organizational Reactions (IOR) scale developed by Dunham and Smith (1979). The IOR assesses satisfaction with supervision, financial rewards, kind of work, physical conditions, amount of work, company identification, co-workers, and career future. Five items related to career future was used which were obtained from Cook, Hepworth, Wall, and Warr (1981, pp. 42-45). Several studies have used this scale reporting coefficient alpha values which ranged from .82 to .83 (Lee & Johnson, 1991; McLain, 1995; Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll, 1995). The present study reported a Cronbach?s alpha of .84. Table 3 gives a summary of the measures used in this study. 35 Table 3 Summary of Measures Measure Source N of Items Proactive Personality Seibert, Crant, and Kraimer (1999) 10 Affective Commitment to Organizational Change Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) 6 Job Performance Self-report Williams and Anderson (1991) 7 Self-report Ferris, Witt, and Hochwarter (2001). 2 Job Satisfaction Benefits Satisfaction Spector (1997) 4 Rewards Satisfaction Spector (1997) 4 Co-workers satisfaction Spector (1997) 4 Work itself Spector (1997) 4 Intent to remain Robinson (1996) 4 Perceived Organizational Support Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, and Lynch (1997) 8 Managerial Communication Downs and Hazen (1977). 5 Career Future Dunham and Smith (1979) 5 Demographic Variables N/A 6 Item Total 69 36 Data Analyses Data for this study were collected anonymously. Anonymity provided benefits by potentially reducing the method bias (see Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Data were analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) implemented in AMOS (Arbuckle, 2006a; 2006b) and moderated regression analyses (See, Barron & Kenny, 1986). First the model fit was tested using several confirmatory factor analyses and comparing the goodness of fit indices. SEM was used to validate the conceptual model and to test the hypotheses relating to direct effects (Hypotheses 1a-c) and the mediating effects (Hypotheses 2a & b, 3a-c). Finally moderated regression analyses were conducted to test the moderating hypotheses (Hypotheses 4a-c, 5a-c, 6a-c, & 7a-c) (See Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003; Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004; Holmbeck, 1997). Tests for Model Fit The first step in the data analysis process involved running several confirmatory factor analyses and observing the fit of the data by checking whether all the goodness-of- fit indices met the respective criteria. The goodness of fit of the models was evaluated by using absolute and relative indices. The absolute goodness-of-fit indices which were calculated are (cf. J?reskog & S?rbom, 1993) (a) the chi-square goodness-of-fit statistic and (b) the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA). Although the chi-square likelihood ratio is considered the most fundamental measure of absolute model fit, it is sensitive to sample size and thus, with larger sample sizes (more than 200), can result in significant values even when small differences exist between the model and the data (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Hair, 37 Anderson, Tattham, & Black, 1998). The ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom (? 2 /df) has been suggested as an alternative, with values of 2.0 or less indicative of acceptable fit (Kline, 2005). The RMSEA is a measure of model discrepancy and takes into account the error of approximation in the population (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The relative goodness-of-fit indices which were computed are (cf. Marsh, Balla, & Hau, 1996) (a) the normed fit index (NFI) (b) the comparative fit index (CFI), and (c) the incremental fit index (IFI). The CFI is a measure of fit derived from the comparison of the hypothesized model to the independence model and adjusts for sample size. CFI values of 0.90 or greater are indicative of acceptable models (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Hypothesis Testing: Direct, Mediating and Moderating Effects Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a flexible multivariate analytic technique that allows researchers to test global hypotheses about competing theories as well as simultaneous testing multiple specific hypotheses such as those usually tested with ANOVA and regression. Two important strengths of SEM are that the effects of measurement error are disattenuated and it tests indirect and total effects in addition to simple direct effects. These strengths represent important advances over traditional general linear model approaches and have important implications in testing hypotheses involving mediation and moderation. Hence the data was analyzed by using SEM methods, implemented in AMOS 7 (Arbuckle, 2006a; 2006b). Maximum-likelihood estimation method was used, and for the input for each analysis the covariance matrix of the items was used. 38 Direct Effects Hypotheses 1a-c, related to the direct effects of proactive personality on job- related outcomes, were tested by examining the significance of the path coefficients between the variables. Mediation Effects This study included only two latent variables?job performance and job satisfaction. Job performance had two indicators while job satisfaction was measured by four indicators. According to Baron and Kenny (1986) and Judd and Kenny (1981), when a mediational model involves latent constructs, SEM provides the basic data analyses strategy. Thus to analyze the mediational hypotheses 2a-b and 3a-c, related to the mediational role of affective commitment to change and job satisfaction respectively, the analyses were conducted using SEM in accordance to the procedure mentioned by Hoyle and Smith (1994). They suggested comparing the predictor to outcome path in models with and without the mediator. If the predictor to outcome path is zero with the mediator in the model, there is evidence of complete mediation, while if this path declines but remains significant or clearly non-zero, then the model purports partial mediation. However, it must be noted that in the model with the mediator variable, the mediator must have significant relationships with both the predictor and the outcome variable (Barron & Kenny, 1986). Moderation Effects Additionally the study consisted of moderating hypotheses 4a-c, 5a-c, 6a-c and 7a-c, related to the moderating effect of perceived organizational support, managerial communication, career future and job satisfaction respectively in the relationship. For 39 each set of hypotheses the moderators were tested for three relationships: proactive personality/affective commitment to change, proactive personality/job performance and proactive personality/intent to remain with the organization. All the variables in the study were continuous variables. Multiple regression or SEM can be used to test moderation, as the rationale of the analyses is the same in both methods (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). Additionally, Frazier, Tix, and Barron, (2004) state that the use of SEM techniques for testing interaction between continuous variables is complex (Holmbeck, 1997), and there is barely any agreement amongst researchers as to which of the several approaches is the best. Hence in the present study moderated multiple regression was used to test the moderation hypotheses. The analysis requires creating the interaction term?simply multiply the predictor and moderator variable. However, this may cause multicollinearity (i.e. high correlations) because predictor and moderator variables generally are highly correlated with the interaction term. Centering (putting the scores into deviation score form by subtracting the sample mean from all the individuals? scores on the variable, thus producing a revised sample mean of zero) the variables reduces the multicollinearity problem (see Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). The predictor and the moderator main effects are entered into the regression equation first which can be done in a hierarchical fashion (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). This is followed by entering the interaction term (Holmbeck, 1997). If, the interaction term is non-significant, one can conclude that there is no moderating effect. However, if a significant moderator effect exists then one should compute predicted values of the 40 dependent variable for representative groups, at the mean and 1 standard deviation above and below the mean on the predictor and moderator variables (Aiken & West, 1991; Holmbeck, 1997). These values are used to generate a figure summarizing the form of the moderator effect (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). Finally, one should test the statistical significance of the slopes of the simple regression lines between the predictor and the dependent variable for specific values of the moderator variable (Aiken & West, 1991). (See Table 4 for a summary of hypotheses and statistical tests). 41 Table 4 Summary of Study Hypotheses and Statistical Tests Hypotheses IV DV MeV MoV Statistical Test/Path Hypothesis 1a: In a change setting PAP will relate significantly and positively with job performance. PAP JP SEM Path 1a: PAP ? JP (+) Hypothesis 1b: In a change setting PAP will relate significantly and positively with job satisfaction PAP JS SEM Path 1c: PAP ? JS (+) Hypothesis 1c: In a change setting PAP will relate significantly and positively with intent to remain with the organization. PAP IR SEM Path 1b: PAP ? IR (+) Hypothesis 2a: Affective commitment to organizational change will mediate the relationship between PAP and job performance. PAP JP ACC Test for Mediation (SEM). Comparison of models with and without ACC included as a mediator variable. Path 2a: PAP ? ACC ? JP Hypothesis 2b: Affective commitment to organizational change will mediate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. PAP IR ACC Test for Mediation (SEM). Comparison of models with and without ACC included as a mediator variable. Path 2B: PAP ? ACC ? IR Note: ACC = Affective commitment to change; CF = Career future; IR = Intent to remain; JP = Job performance; JS = Job satisfaction; MC = Managerial communication; PAP = Proactive personality; POS = Perceived organizational support; MeV = Mediator variable; MoV = Moderator variable. 42 Table 4 Continued Summary of Study Hypotheses and Statistical Tests Hypotheses IV DV MeV MoV Statistical Test/Path Hypothesis 3a: Job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between PAP and affective commitment to change. PAP ACC JS Test for Mediation (SEM). Comparison of models with and without JS included as a mediator variable. Path 3a: PAP ? JS ? ACC Hypothesis 3b: Job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between PAP and job performance. PAP JP JS Test for Mediation (SEM). Comparison of models with and without JS included as a mediator variable. Path 3a: PAP ? JS ? JP Hypothesis 3c: Job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. PAP IR JS Test for Mediation (SEM). Comparison of models with and without JS included as a mediator variable. Path 3a: PAP ? JS ? IR Hypothesis 4a: Perceived organizational support will moderate the relationship between PAP and affective commitment to organizational change. PAP ACC POS Moderated Regression Analysis. Test for significance of interaction term. Path 4a: PAP ? PAP X POS ? ACC Note: ACC = Affective commitment to change; CF = Career future; IR = Intent to remain; JP = Job performance; JS = Job satisfaction; MC = Managerial communication; PAP = Proactive personality; POS = Perceived organizational support; MeV = Mediator variable; MoV = Moderator variable. 43 Table 4 Continued Summary of Study Hypotheses and Statistical Tests Hypotheses IV DV MeV MoV Statistical Test/Path Hypothesis 4b: Perceived organizational support will moderate the relationship between PAP and job performance. PAP JP POS Moderated Regression Analysis. Test for significance of interaction term. Path 4b: PAP ? PAP X POS ? JP Hypothesis 4c: Perceived organizational support will moderate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. PAP IR POS Moderated Regression Analysis. Test for significance of interaction term. Path 4c: PAP ? PAP X POS ? IR Hypothesis 5a: Managerial communication will moderate the relationship between PAP and affective commitment to organizational change. PAP ACC MC Moderated Regression Analysis. Test for significance of interaction term. Path 4c: PAP ? PAP X MC ? ACC Hypothesis 5b: Managerial communication will moderate the relationship between PAP and job performance. PAP JP MC Moderated Regression Analysis. Test for significance of interaction term. Path 4c: PAP ? PAP X MC ? JP Hypothesis 5c: Managerial communication will moderate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. PAP IR MC Moderated Regression Analysis. Test for significance of interaction term. Path 4c: PAP ? PAP X MC ? IR Note: ACC = Affective commitment to change; CF = Career future; IR = Intent to remain; JP = Job performance; JS = Job satisfaction; MC = Managerial communication; PAP = Proactive personality; POS = Perceived organizational support; MeV = Mediator variable; MoV = Moderator variable. 44 Table 4 Continued Summary of Study Hypotheses and Statistical Tests Hypotheses IV DV MeV MoV Statistical Test/Path Hypothesis 6a: Career satisfaction will moderate the relationship between PAP and affective commitment to organizational change. PAP ACC CF Moderated Regression Analysis. Test for significance of interaction term. Path 4c: PAP ? PAP X CF ? ACC Hypothesis 6b: Career satisfaction will moderate the relationship between PAP and job performance. PAP JP CF Moderated Regression Analysis. Test for significance of interaction term. Path 4c: PAP ? PAP X CF ? JP Hypothesis 6c: Career satisfaction will moderate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. PAP IR CF Moderated Regression Analysis. Test for significance of interaction term. Path 4c: PAP ? PAP X CF ? IR Hypothesis 7a: Job satisfaction will moderate the relationship between PAP and affective commitment to organizational change. PAP ACC JS Moderated Regression Analysis. Test for significance of interaction term. Path 4a: PAP ? PAP X JS ? ACC Hypothesis 7b: Job satisfaction will moderate the relationship between PAP and job performance. PAP JP JS Moderated Regression Analysis. Test for significance of interaction term. Path 4b: PAP ? PAP X JS ? JP Note: ACC = Affective commitment to change; CF = Career future; IR = Intent to remain; JP = Job performance; JS = Job satisfaction; MC = Managerial communication; PAP = Proactive personality; POS = Perceived organizational support; MeV = Mediator variable; MoV = Moderator variable. 45 Table 4 Continued Summary of Study Hypotheses and Statistical Tests Hypotheses IV DV MeV MoV Statistical Test/Path Hypothesis 7c: Job satisfaction will moderate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. PAP IR JS Moderated Regression Analysis. Test for significance of interaction term. Path 4c: PAP ? PAP X JS ? IR Note: ACC = Affective commitment to change; CF = Career future; IR = Intent to remain; JP = Job performance; JS = Job satisfaction; MC = Managerial communication; PAP = Proactive personality; POS = Perceived organizational support; MeV = Mediator variable; MoV = Moderator variable. 46 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Descriptive Statistics After the data were collected, the first step was to evaluate the data according to the guidelines suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (2001, pp. 56-110) as data cleaning is very important in multiple regression (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, p. 139). An examination of the data revealed that the data met the assumptions of normality, and there was no evidence of unacceptable levels of kurtosis or skewness or variables with substantial outliers. Table 5 displays means, standard deviations and correlations among all the variables. Correlations among the independent and mediator/moderator variables had a median value of .07 and a maximum value of .47, with a maximum variance- inflation factor less than 2; hence, multicollinearity was not a severe problem that would preclude interpretation of the moderated regression analyses (Neter, Wasserman, & Kutner, 1983). As seen from Table 5 PAP was significantly correlated with all the variables except perceived organizational support (job satisfaction r = .14; job performance r = .37; intent to remain r = .13; affective commitment to change r = .18; managerial communication r = .19; and career future r = .22). Given the proposed mediational 47 Table 5 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 JS1 5.52 1.12 - 2 JS2 4.82 1.2 .21** - 3 JS3 4.39 1.34 .44** .45** - 4 JS4 5.93 .91 .38** .32** .40** - 5 Job Satisfaction 5 .87 .67** .66** .83** .66** - 6 JP1 6.37 .57 .14* .06 .07 .23** .16** - 7 JP2 .01 .95 .05 .05 .06 .26** .13* .37** - 8 Job Performance 3.18 .65 .1 .07 .08 .30** .17** .72** .87** - 9 Proactive Personality 5.48 .81 -.02 .08 .08 .22** .14* .30** .32** .37** - 10 Mean Intent to remain 5.39 1.25 .34** .15* .32** .50** .43** .24** .20** .25** .13* - 11 ACC 5.01 1.4 .17** .27** .37** .31** .46** .07 .09 .08 .18** .17** - 12 Perceived organizational support 4.66 1.26 .43** .40** .69** .46** .73** .01 .03 .03 .12 .38** .48** - 13 Managerial Communication 4.28 1.25 .38** .47** .70** .43** .74** .07 .05 .06 .19** .31** .43** .65** - 14 Career future 3.62 .81 .32** .36** .57** .51** .64** .14* .19** .22** .22** .39** .40** .61** .65** Note. ACC = Affective Commitment to Change; N=275. * p < .05. ** p < .01. 48 framework, affective commitment was significantly correlated with intent to remain (r = .17). However it was not significantly correlated with job performance. Also, in keeping with the mediation hypotheses, job satisfaction was significantly correlated with affective commitment to change (r = .46), job performance (r = .17) and intent to remain with the organization (r = .43) Model Fit The overall fit of the measurement model was assessed following the guideline suggested by Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998, pp. 610-612). Separate confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) (implemented in AMOS 7; Arbuckle, 2006a; 2006b) were conducted to assess the psychometric properties of the constructs and to establish a baseline model. Prior to performing the analysis, all negatively worded items in the scales of all the variables were reverse scored. For all the scales in this study the loading of one indicator was set for each factor to a fixed value of 1.0. The goodness of fit indices for the baseline model were very close to a poor fit. The chi-square test was statistically significant, ? 2 (20, N = 275) = 62.88, p < .001, the chi-square degrees of freedom ratio was barely favorable (? 2 / df = 3.14). The other fit indices also gave evidence of a poor fit (RMSEA = .09; CFI = .90). On the basis of the modification indices, the fit of the model could be slightly improved by allowing three pairs of errors to correlate from the job satisfaction scale: the error terms of the manifest variables co-worker satisfaction, work itself, and benefit satisfaction was correlated with reward satisfaction. MacCallum and Tucker (1991) noted that when using indicators related to an employee?s work environment, it is not unreasonable to expect some same- 49 source correlated measurement error. Table 6 Baseline Model Comparison Summary Model ? 2 df p-value ? 2 /df RMSEA CFI TLI NFI Model 1 62.88 20 .000 3.14 .09 .90 .82 .87 Model 2 29.11 17 .033 1.70 .05 .97 .94 .94 Note: Model 1 and Model 2 denote models without and with the correlation between the error terms. The baseline model with the correlated error terms exhibited a good fit. Although the chi-square test was statistically significant, ? 2 (17, N = 275) = 29.11, p < .05, the chi- square degrees of freedom ratio was favorable (? 2 / df = 1.71). RMSEA improved considerably with a value of .05 and the CFI = .97. The other fit indices gave further evidence of a good fit (NFI = .94; & TLI = .94). Refer to Table 6 for the goodness of fit statistics for the baseline model with and without the correlated error terms. Convergent Validity Convergent validity represents how well the items load on their respective constructs, thereby giving evidence for the construct validity. It is evaluated by examining the statistical significance as expressed by the t-value associated with each loading (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Table 7 provides the standardized loadings and t- values. The result indicate all items loaded reliably on their predicted factors with item to factor loadings ranging from .26 to .95, and t-values ranging from 3.80 to 30.21 (p < .001), thus, providing support for convergent validity for the constructs. 50 Reliability Tests for internal consistency were also conducted to assess the reliability of the responses across items for each measure. Cronbach?s alpha co-efficient reliability index was calculated for each factor. As shown in Table 7, the results indicate that except for one factor, all of the factors had consistent reliability with values greater than the recommended minimum threshold of .70 (Nunnally, 1978). Intent to remain exhibited a marginal reliability (? = .68). As seen above the base-line model fit the data very well. The reliability and the validity gave further support to the hypothesized model. (See Figure 5 for the correlated error terms). 51 Table 7 Measurement Properties of the Variables Used in the Study Construct and Indicators Standardized Loading* Critical Ratio Cronbach?s Alpha Proactive Personality PAP1 PAP2 PAP3 PAP4 PAP5 PAP6 PAP7 PAP8 PAP9 PAP10 .53 .63 .67 .67 .78 .65 .72 .62 .73 .75 -- 7.76 7.98 7.99 8.68 7.85 8.36 7.68 8.44 8.52 .89 Affective Commitment to Change ACC1 ACC2 ACC3 ACC4 ACC5 ACC6 .93 .95 .90 .85 .81 .77 -- 30.21 25.13 21.44 19.34 17.51 .95 Job Performance Job Performance 1 JP1_1 JP1_2 JP1_3 JP1_4 JP1_5 JP1_6 JP1_7 Job Performance 2 JP2_1 JP2_2 .85 .85 .85 .73 .26 52 47 -- 17.09 17.02 13.67 4.16 8.92 7.95 .77 .78 Job Satisfaction Co-worker Satisfaction JSCS1 JSCS2 JSCS3 JSCS4 .91 .37 .81 .55 -- 5.74 11.79 8.71 .72 Note: * All loadings significant a p < .05 52 Table 7 (Continued) Measurement Properties of the Variables Used in the Study Construct and Indicators Standardized Loading* Critical Ratio Cronbach?s Alpha Job Satisfaction Benefit Satisfaction JSBS1 JSBS2 JSBS3 JSBS4 Reward Satisfaction JSRS1 JSRS2 JSRS3 JSRS4 Work Itself JSW1 JSW2 JSW3 JSW4 .71 .87 .79 .47 .66 .69 .74 .91 .55 .80 .86 .94 -- 11.65 11.35 7.07 -- 9.91 10.45 11.50 -- 9.34 9.64 9.92 .79 .84 .83 Intent to Remain IR1 IR2 IR3 IR4 .41 .27 .83 .95 -- 3.80 6.78 6.37 .68 Perceived Organizational Change POS1 POS2 POS3 POS4 POS5 POS6 POS7 POS8 .86 .95 .95 .71 .62 .64 .64 .56 -- 23.35 23.10 13.76 11.39 12.01 11.97 10.04 .91 Managerial Communication MC1 MC2 MC3 MC4 MC5 .76 .85 .85 .82 .75 -- 14.32 14.24 13.68 12.45 .90 Note: * All loadings significant a p < .05 53 Table 7 (Continued) Measurement Properties of the Variables Used in the Study Construct and Indicators Standardized Loading* Critical Ratio Cronbach?s Alpha Career Future CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 CF5 .86 .71 .65 .64 .71 -- 12.20 10.95 10.75 12.19 .84 Note: * All loadings significant a p < .05 Hypothesis Testing SEM, using AMOS 7 (Arbuckle, 2006a; 2006b) was employed to test the study hypotheses. The hypotheses related to the moderating effects were tested by using moderated regression analyses. Figure 4 shows the theoretical structural model used to test the study hypotheses with the paths associated with each of the direct hypotheses tests. The tests of overall model fit, shown in Table 6, indicated a very good fit. Although the chi-square test was statistically significant, ? 2 (17, N = 275) = 29.11, p < .05, the chi-square degrees of freedom ratio was favorable (? 2 / df = 1.71). RMSEA improved considerably with a value of .05 and the CFI= .97. The other fit indices gave further evidence of a good fit (NFI = .94; TLI = .94). Hypotheses 1a to 1c. The first set of hypotheses, 1a to 1c, related to the direct effects of proactive personality on job performance, job satisfaction, and intent to remain with the organization respectively. As expected proactive personality had a positive and significant effect on job performance (? = .46 p < .001) and job satisfaction (? = .22 p 54 < .01). Although there was no significant relationship between proactive personality and intent to remain with the organization in the hypothesized model (? = -.07, ns), the result of a simple regression showed that proactive personality had a significant and positive effect on intent to remain (? = .20 p < .05) thereby giving partial support to hypothesis 1c. Proactive Personality Affective Commitment to change Job Satisfaction Job Performance Intent to remain Path a Path b Path c Figure 4: Structural Model of Proactive Personality in a Change Setting 55 PAP .20 ACC .38 IR .37 Job Performance .36 JP1 e1 .60 .37 JP4 e2 .61 .05 Job Satisfaction .66 JSW e3 .81 .37 JSRS e4 .61 .15 JSBS e5 .39 .23 JSCS e6 .48 .09 .46 -.07 .58 .42 .36 -.10 .17 -.11 e7 e8 e9 -.20 .29 .21 .22 e10 Figure 5: Baseline Model with Correlated Error Terms and Standardized Estimates Note: ACC = Affective commitment to change; CF = Career future; IR = Intent to remain; JSBS = Job Satisfaction Benefit Satisfaction; JSCS = Job Satisfaction Co-worker Satisfaction; JSRS = Job Satisfaction Reward Satisfaction; JSW = Job Satisfaction Work Itself; MC = Managerial communication; PAP = Proactive personality; POS = Perceived organizational support. 56 Hypotheses 2a & b and 3a-c. These hypotheses were the mediational hypotheses. To analyze these mediational hypotheses the analyses were conducted in accordance with the procedure mentioned by Hoyle and Smith (1994). They suggested to compare the predictor?outcome path in models with and without the mediator. If the predictor? outcome path is zero with the mediator in the model, there is evidence of complete mediation, while if this path declines but remains significant or clearly non-zero, then the model purports partial mediation. However, it must be noted that in the model with the mediator variable, the mediator must have significant relationships with both the predictor and the outcome variable (Barron & Kenny, 1986). Finally the Sobel?s test (Preacher & Leonardelli, 2001) was calculated. Formula for the test was drawn from MacKinnon, Warsi, and Dwyer (1995). Hypothesis 2a which referred to the mediator variable affective commitment to change, with job performance as the outcome variable (PAP being the predictor variable) was not supported as there was no significant relationship between affective commitment to change and job performance?a requirement for proving the mediational model (Barron & Kenny, 1986). Hypothesis 2b predicted the mediating effect of affective commitment to change in the relationship between PAP/intent to remain. Figures 6a and 6b respectively show the model without and with the mediator variable?affective commitment to change. As seen in Figure 6a (without the mediator variable), proactive personality was significantly and positively related to intent to remain in the organization (? = .13, p < .05) while it was insignificant in the model with the mediator variable (? = .10, ns). This 57 suggests that affective commitment to change completely mediates the relationship between proactive personality/intent to remain with the organization. PAP .02 IR .13 e1 Figure 6a: Model without Mediating Variable?Affective Commitment to Change in the Relationship between PAP/Intent to Remain with the Organization Note: IR = Intent to remain; PAP = Proactive personality. PAP .03 ACC .18 e1 .04 IR .15 .10 e2 Figure 6b: Model with Mediating Variable?Affective Commitment to Change in the Relationship between PAP/Intent to Remain with the Organization Note: ACC = Affective commitment to change; IR = Intent to remain; PAP = Proactive personality. Hypothesis 3a referred to the mediator variable job satisfaction with affective 58 commitment to change as the outcome variable. Figures 7a and 7b respectively show the model without and with the mediator variable?job satisfaction. PAP .03 ACC .18 e5 Figure 7a: Model without Mediating Variable?Job Satisfaction in the Relationship between PAP/ Affective Commitment to Change Note: ACC = Affective commitment to change; PAP = Proactive personality. As seen in Figure 7a (without the mediator variable), proactive personality was significantly and positively related to affective commitment to change (? = .18, p < .01) while it was insignificant in the model with the mediator variable job satisfaction (? = .11, ns). This suggests that job satisfaction completely mediates the relationship between proactive personality and affective commitment to change. Hypothesis 3b referred to the mediator variable job satisfaction with job performance as the outcome variable. Proactive personality was significantly and positively related to job performance without (? = .52, p < .001) and with (? = .45, p < .001) the mediator variable job satisfaction. This suggests that job satisfaction does not mediate the relationship between proactive personality and job performance. 59 .03 Job Satisfaction .59 JSW e1 .76 .62 JSRS e2 .79 .20 JSBS e3 .44 .22 JSCS e4 .47 PAP .16 .14 -.51 .18 .20 ACC .11 .42 e5 e6 Figure 7b: Model with Mediating Variable?Job Satisfaction in the Relationship between PAP/ Affective Commitment to Change Note: ACC = Affective commitment to change; JSBS = Job Satisfaction Benefit Satisfaction; JSCS = Job Satisfaction Co-worker Satisfaction; JSRS = Job Satisfaction Reward Satisfaction; JSW = Job Satisfaction Work Itself; PAP = Proactive personality. Hypothesis 3c referred to the mediator variable job satisfaction with intent to remain with the organization as the outcome variable. Figures 8a and 8b respectively 60 show the model without and with the mediator variable?job satisfaction. PAP .02 IR e5 .13 Figure 8a: Model without Mediating Variable?Job Satisfaction in the Relationship between PAP/Intent to Remain with the Organization Note: IR = Intent to remain; PAP = Proactive personality. As seen in Figure 8a (without the mediator variable), proactive personality was significantly and positively related to intent to remain with the organization (? = .13, p < .05) while it was insignificant in the model with the mediator variable job satisfaction (? = -.18, ns). This suggests that job satisfaction completely mediates the relationship between proactive personality and intent to remain with the organization. 61 .05 Job Satisfaction .72 JSW e1 .85 .29 JSRS e2 .54 .13 JSBS e3 .36 .22 JSCS e4 .47 PAP .32 .24 -.12 .22 .35 IR e5 e6 -.01 .59 Figure 8b: Model with Mediating Variable?Job Satisfaction in the Relationship between PAP/Intent to Remain with the Organization Note: IR = Intent to remain; JSBS = Job Satisfaction Benefit Satisfaction; JSCS = Job Satisfaction Co-worker Satisfaction; JSRS = Job Satisfaction Reward Satisfaction; JSW = Job Satisfaction Work Itself; PAP = Proactive personality. Hypotheses 4a-c, 5a-c, 6a-c and 7a-c. These hypotheses were the moderational hypotheses which were tested by using moderated multiple regression 62 analysis. The predictor and the moderator main effects were entered into the regression equation first which was done in a hierarchical fashion (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). This was followed by entering the interaction term (Holmbeck, 1997). If the interaction term were non-significant, it would be concluded that there was no moderating effect. No support was found for the moderating effect of perceived organizational support (Hypotheses 4a-c) as the interaction term was insignificant. Similarly there was no support for the moderating effect of managerial communication (Hypotheses 5a-c). Also, no support was found for the moderating role of career future in the relationship between proactive personality/intent to remain with the organization (Hypothesis 6c) but no support for proactive personality/affective commitment to change (Hypothesis 6a) or for proactive personality/job performance (Hypothesis 6b). Table 8 shows that the regression coefficient for the interaction term between proactive personality and career future was significant thereby confirming the moderating role of career future between proactive personality/intent to remain with the organization. Note that in the absence of the interaction term there is no significant relationship between proactive personality and intent to remain with the organization. This suggests that career future completely moderates this relationship. 63 Table 8 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Moderation of the Effect of Proactive Personality on Intent to Remain by Career Future ? ? R 2 Step 1 .16 *** Proactive Personality .07 Career Future .59 *** Step 2 .01 * Proactive Personality .08 Career Future .56 *** Proactive Personality X Career Future .20 * Note. N = 275 *p< .05. *** p< .001. Dependent variable is Intent to Remain As seen in Figure 9 an interaction was observed between proactive personality and career future. 64 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 01234 Proactive Personality In t e n t to R e m a i n High Medium Low Figure 9: Moderating Role of Career Future in the Relationship between PAP/Intent to Remain with the Organization Table 9 indicates that the slopes for career future are significant at only high levels of career future and not at low and medium. This suggests that a relationship between proactive personality and intent to remain with the organization exists only at high levels of career future. 65 Table 9 Regression Slopes Depicting the Association between Proactive Personality and Intent to Remain at Different Levels of Career Future Note. N = 275 * p< .05. The moderating role of job satisfaction was supported in the relationship between proactive personality/job performance (Hypothesis 7b) but was not supported in the relationship between proactive personality/affective commitment to change (Hypothesis 7a) and proactive personality/intent to remain with the organization (Hypothesis 7c). Table 10 shows that the regression coefficient for the interaction term between proactive personality and job satisfaction was significant thereby confirming the moderating role of job satisfaction between proactive personality/intent to remain with the organization. Note that in the absence of the interaction term there is a significant relationship between proactive personality and job performance. This suggests that job satisfaction partially moderates this relationship. Interaction Slopes SE t Proactive Personality X Career Future Low -.08 .11 -.69 Mean .08 .09 .92 High .24* .13 1.91 66 Table 10 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Moderation of the Effect of Proactive Personality on Job Performance by Job Satisfaction ? ? R 2 Step 1 .16*** Proactive Personality .28*** Job Satisfaction .09 * Step 2 .03*** Proactive Personality .28*** Job Satisfaction .12 ** Proactive Personality X Job Satisfaction -.16*** Note. N = 275 *p< .05. ** p< .01. *** p< .001. Dependent variable is Job Performance As seen in Figure 10 an interaction was observed between proactive personality and job satisfaction. Table 11 indicates that the slopes for job satisfaction were significant at all the three levels (high, medium and low) thereby suggesting that proactive personality interacted with job satisfaction such that the positive relationship between job performance and proactive personality was significant at all levels of job satisfaction. 67 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 00.511.522.533.54 Proactive Personality Job P e r f or m ance High Medium Low Figure 10: Moderating Role of Job Satisfaction in the relationship between PAP/Job Performance 68 Table.11 Regression Slopes Depicting the Association between Proactive Personality and Job Performance at Different Levels of Job Satisfaction Note. N = 275 **p< .01. ***p< .001. Summary A summary of the results from all hypothesis tests is provided in Table 12. The findings indicate general support for the hypothesized model. The results showed the strongest support for the mediating role of job satisfaction. The present study did not have much success with the moderating hypotheses?as only two were supported out of 12 hypotheses. Interaction Slopes SE t Proactive Personality X Job Satisfaction Low .41*** .06 7.05 Mean .28*** .04 6.24 High .14** .06 2.41 69 Table 12 Summary of Study Hypothesis Hypotheses Results Hypothesis 1a: In a change setting PAP will relate significantly and positively with job performance. Hypothesis 1b: In a change setting PAP will relate significantly and positively with job satisfaction. Hypothesis 1c: In a change setting PAP will relate significantly and positively with intent to remain with the organization. Hypothesis 2a: Affective commitment to organizational change will mediate the relationship between PAP and job performance. Hypothesis 2b: Affective commitment to organizational change will mediate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. Hypothesis 3a: Job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between PAP and affective commitment to the organization. Hypothesis 3b: Job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between PAP and job performance. Hypothesis 3c: Job satisfaction will mediate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. Supported Supported Partially Supported Not Supported Supported Supported Not Supported Supported 70 Table 12 Continued Summary of Study Hypotheses Hypotheses Results Hypothesis 4a: Perceived organizational support will moderate the relationship between PAP and affective commitment to organizational change. Hypothesis 4b: Perceived organizational support will moderate the relationship between PAP and job performance. Hypothesis 4c: Perceived organizational support will moderate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. Hypothesis 5a: Managerial communication will moderate the relationship between PAP and affective commitment to organizational change. Hypothesis 5b: Managerial communication will moderate the relationship between PAP and job performance. Hypothesis 5c: Managerial communication will moderate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. Hypothesis 6a: Career future will moderate the relationship between PAP and affective commitment to organizational change. Hypothesis 6b: Career future will moderate the relationship between PAP and job performance. Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported 71 Table 12 Continued Summary of Study Hypotheses Hypotheses Results Hypothesis 6c: Career future will moderate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. Hypothesis 7a: Job satisfaction will moderate the relationship between PAP and affective commitment to organizational change. Hypothesis 7b: Job satisfaction will moderate the relationship between PAP and job performance. Hypothesis 7c: Job satisfaction will moderate the relationship between PAP and intent to remain with the organization. Supported Not Supported Supported Not Supported 72 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The present study examined the effect of PAP on job related outcomes in a change setting. The study contributes to both proactive personality and change literature in several ways. First, the study was an initial attempt to empirically test the conceptual model of PAP in a change setting. Second, the potential mediating role of affective commitment to change and job satisfaction was empirically tested. Finally, the study tested the moderating role of perceived organizational support, managerial communication, career future, and job satisfaction. As predicted in the conceptual model, PAP exhibited a robust relationship with job performance, and job satisfaction. The study found that PAP has a positive and robust relationship with job performance even after controlling for affective commitment to change, job satisfaction and intent to remain with the organization. Together with affective commitment to change and job satisfaction, PAP accounted for 37.3% of the variance in job performance. Research has shown that dispositions influence the way in which employees perceive their jobs, which consequently affects their job satisfaction (Bowling, Beehr, Wagner, & Libkuman, 2005). The results in this study supported this reasoning as it was found that PAP has a positive and significant relationship with job satisfaction and 73 accounted for 4.7% of the variance. Additionally, the model revealed that in a change setting proactive personality and job satisfaction accounted for 20.2% of the variance in affective commitment to change. Although a simple regression revealed that PAP had a significant and positive relationship with intent to remain with the organization, it is important to note that contrary to the prediction made in this study, PAP was not related with intent to remain. After controlling for affective commitment to change, job performance, and job satisfaction, PAP did not predict intent to remain with the organization. This may be due to the fact that this model was tested in a change setting. As rightly pointed out by Allen, Weeks, and Moffitt (2005), numerous factors affect the turnover decision such as ??risk (e.g., uncertainty about alternative opportunities), financial costs (e.g., unvested pensions), transaction costs (e.g., moving), and psychological costs (e.g. loss of valued work relationships).? (p. 980). In a change setting, additional factors such as uncertainty, fear of the unknown, and job insecurity impact the turnover decision. This result adds further importance to the fact that indeed there is a need to gain insight on the mechanism by which PAP relates to the job outcomes. More investigation is necessary regarding ?how,? ?why? (mediating effect), and ?when? (moderating effect) PAP leads to positive outcomes (Crant, 2000; Erdogan & Bauer, 2005). In this study no support was found for the direct relationship in the conceptual model between PAP and intent to remain, but support was found for an indirect relationship i.e. for the mediational role of affective commitment to change and the moderating role of career future. Additionally, in line with past research this study found that in an organization 74 characterized by change, job satisfaction was positively and significantly related with intent to remain even after controlling for proactive personality, affective commitment to change, and job performance. Also, the results showed that of the four proposed predictors in the model of intent to remain, only job satisfaction had a significant relationship, thereby, giving further evidence for the robustness of the relationship. In light of this result, it is especially imperative for managers to realize how valuable it is to have satisfied employees as such employees would intend to remain with organization even in a change environment. The study also found that affective commitment to change completely mediated the relationship between PAP/intent to remain. This finding explained why PAP is related with intent to remain. Thus, it can be suggested that affective commitment to change represents an individual difference variable that can explain why proactive employees intend to remain with the organization. This result is particularly important as there was a complete mediation thereby suggesting that in the absence of affective commitment, PAP may not be related with intent to remain. This study also found support for the mediating effect of job satisfaction. It completely mediated the relationship between PAP/affective commitment to change thereby explaining why PAP is related with affective commitment to change. As it was a complete mediational model it suggested that proactive employees who are not satisfied with their job may not exhibit affective commitment to change. Additionally, the study found that job satisfaction completely mediated the relationship between PAP/intent to remain with the organization. This suggested that not only will dissatisfied proactive 75 employees exhibit no affective commitment but they also may not have intentions to remain in the organization. Results relating to job satisfaction were valuable from a practical point of view. PAP employees are initiators and are open to change as compared to the non-proactive employees. Hence they will not only be an asset for the organization but their support for change will be essential for the organization. In light of these results managers must concentrate on whether their employees are satisfied with their jobs especially before implementing a change or they risk not only losing the commitment of these employees to change but also may end up losing this valuable set of employees. Finally, the present study found support for the moderating effects of career future (in the relationship between PAP/intent to remain) and job satisfaction (in the relationship between PAP/job performance). Although past research has found that perceived organizational support and managerial communication play an important role in organizational change, the results of this study did not find any empirical support for their moderating role in the relationship between PAP and job outcomes. This may be due to some of the characteristics of proactive employees. ?Proactive personalities identify opportunities and act on them; they show initiative, take action, and persevere until they bring about meaningful change? (Crant, 1996, p. 43). This implies that proactive employees are self-starters; initiators and hence may seek information on their own accord instead of waiting on their supervisors to give them feedback. Similarly, they may not be greatly dependent on receiving support from the organizations in the form of valuing and appreciating them. 76 Interestingly the study found that career future moderated the relationship between PAP/intent to remain. Also, the slope for this interaction was significant at only high levels of career future and not at low or medium levels. This implied that proactive employees will intend to remain with the organization only when they strongly believed that there is some future for their career in that organization. Failing which proactive employees may be proactive in seeking a new employer. Job satisfaction partially moderated the relationship between PAP/job performance and the slope for this interaction was significant at all three levels?high, medium and low levels of job satisfaction. It should be noted, however, that the significance was comparatively higher for high and medium levels than with low levels. Thus the presence of high and medium levels job satisfaction made the relationship between PAP/job performance stronger as compared to low levels of job satisfaction. Practical implications The results of this study provide evidence for the importance of proactive employees in a change setting. As demonstrated in support of the main hypotheses, PAP clearly exhibits a robust relationship with important job related outcomes such as job performance, job satisfaction, affective commitment to change and intent to remain with the organization. These results have verified the fact that proactive individuals are indeed an asset to the company. The above findings have several practical implications especially from an applied perspective. This type of research is important as it gives more insight on how organizations can recognize and leverage those employees exhibiting proactive 77 personality. For instance, even in the backdrop of an organizational change, proactive employees will tend to be satisfied and perform well on their respective jobs. However, those predisposed to be less proactive may need more organizational support and encouragement. The findings in this study suggest that although proactive personality has a robust relationship with job performance and job satisfaction, it is not very strongly related with intent to remain with the organization. There is hardly any doubt in the fact that proactive people are an asset to the company. However, it is up to the company to make sure that they do not lose such an asset. The results have also shown that proactive individuals will intend to remain with the company only if they are convinced that their career has a future in the company. Also, it is important to note that this study found that PAP had an effect on intent to remain but only at high levels of career future. This implies that if the employers do not want to lose their proactive employees, it is essential that these employees are made exceedingly secure about having career future with the organization. However, the good news for employers is that if proactive employees are satisfied with their job they would still want to remain with the company. Satisfied employees would also be more affectively committed to the organizational change which consequently will make them remain in the company. Thus it is of vital importance that employers should make sure that their proactive employees are satisfied with their job and are assured that they will progress in their career within the organization. 78 Limitations of the Study One limitation of this study is the potential for common method variance since the data were collected from a single source. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) mentioned that one of the most common variables assumed to cause common method variance is the tendency for participants to respond in a socially desirable manner (see Paulhus, 1984; 1988). Podsakoff et al. argue that when anonymity is assured, respondents may have less evaluation apprehension and therefore are less likely to edit their responses to be more socially desirable. In the present study the responses were completely anonymous, thereby, protecting the respondent?s identity. Although this does not completely eradicate the problem of common method bias, it does alleviate it. Anonymity was a particularly important aspect in the present study as organizational change is often characterized by high levels of distrust and uncertainty. This may lead to biased responses if participants believe their identity could be revealed to management. Because the present study is related to organizational change, issues of distrust and uncertainty were concerns in designing the study. Green and Feild (1976) pointed out that even with assurances of complete confidentiality, participants may perceive a personal threat due to their responses to the survey questions. Thus if participants believe that their identity could be revealed to management they may respond in a desirable fashion which would consequently result in a loss of internal validity (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) suggested using ?Temporal, proximal, psychological, or methodological separation of measurement? (p. 887) as one 79 of the techniques for controlling common method biases. As mentioned earlier the survey instrument for the present study had several close- and open-ended questions not used in this study. These questions were interspersed among the items used for the study which served as intervening items thereby aiming at achieving some proximal or methodological separation. Also, Wyer and Srull (1986) theorized that in making a judgment, respondents first search their working memory?the capacity of which is limited and hence if respondents find a sufficient basis for making the judgment, the search terminates. With respect to intervening items, Feldman and Lynch (1988) pointed out that they ?? make it less likely that one's answer to Question i will be in working memory when Question i + n is encountered. Thus, subjects must either compute a new response or engage in effortful search of long-term memory (Feldman & Lynch, 1988, p. 427). Data for this study were collected via self-report measures to assess both the predictors and outcome variables thereby raising concerns about common method variance (Spector, 2006). This poses a problem especially while detecting interactions as inflated correlations between the independent and the dependent variables reduce power to detect such interactions (Evans, 1985; Schmitt, 1994). Analyses in the present study found support for two interactions (PAP x Career Future and PAP x Job Satisfaction) thereby slightly alleviating concerns about common method variance. Further, the measure of intent to remain with the organization had disappointingly low reliability (? =.68) in this study, suggesting that an alternative measure should be used in future research. Finally, the data were collected for a non-profit organization and 80 hence generalizability to for-profit and other organizations may be an issue. Future Research Following are some ideas for future research. There is considerable agreement in the organizational change literature that people are concerned with the amount of impact change will have on themselves, their job, and their work colleagues (e.g., Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Lau & Woodman, 1995; Weber & Manning, 2001). When discussing the impact of change in the workplace, authors have drawn a fundamental distinction between incremental or first-order change and transformational or second-order change (e.g., Bartunek & Moch, 1987; Levy, 1986). As seen from the results PAP has a robust relationship with job outcomes. Proactive personality is indeed a blessing for both transformational and incremental changes. Although the present paper concentrates on transformational change it would be interesting to replicate this study in an organizational setting characterized by incremental change. Also, authors in the field of organizational change have argued that individuals are concerned with the timing of change in the workplace, and whether change occurs very frequently or infrequently (Glick, Huber, Miller, Doty, & Sutcliffe, 1990; Monge, 1995). Future study can observe a proactive employee?s reaction to both frequent and infrequent changes as Glick et al. argued that changes which occur infrequently will help employees to identify a clear beginning and end point of change. On the contrary, when changes are frequent, organizational members will find the change highly unpredictable. The present paper shed light into the mechanism by which PAP affects intent to remain, and it is also evident from the literature on turnover that intentions are one of best 81 predictors of turnover behavior (Armitage & Conner, 2001). However, research has found that intentions do not always result in turnover behavior (Allen, Weeks, & Moffitt, 2005). Hence it would be interesting to replicate this study using turnover behavior as the outcome variable. The effect of organizational change is better captured by longitudinal data. It would be interesting to observe if the present results would differ in a longitudinal study. This study could also be replicated by comparing data across cultures, for example U. S. and Japan as Japanese employees exhibit higher work centrality and give greater importance to job security and stability than do employees in the U.S.(England & Misumi 1986; Lundberg & Peterson 1994). Further it would be interesting to observe how the results of this study vary across demographic variables, especially age. Age plays an important role as seen in the organizational change literature with older workers being more resistant to job changes since they are worried that they may have to start afresh. This is especially so if there is no significant value for their job experience of past working skills (Campbell & Cellini, 1981; Hansson, DeKoekkoek, Neece & Patterson, 1997). Another important demographic variable is workforce diversity as careers have changed with increased workforce diversity (England & Farkas 1986; England, Reid, & Kilbourne 1996; Johnston & Packer 1987); this variable (workforce diversity) should be considered in future research on PAP and change. Finally, a natural extension of this study would be to expand the model and include other dispositions and determine whether they add incremental variance beyond 82 those included in the present study. Future studies could also include intrinsic factors in the model such as motivation and self-efficacy. Concluding Thoughts Proactive behavior is becoming a topic of ever-increasing interest to researchers and managers. Crant (2000) aptly states the importance of PAP which can be rightly applied to organizational change: ?As work becomes more dynamic and decentralized, proactive behavior and initiative become even more critical determinants of organizational success? (p. 435). Unfortunately most organizational changes have a common storyline ?First there were losses, then there was a plan of change, and then there was an implementation, which led to unexpected results? (Czarniawska & Joerges, 1996, 20). The present study was designed to give organizational change a ?happy ending,? although in a small but important way. This study provides an initial attempt to delineate the process/mechanism through which proactive personality affects certain job? related outcomes in the backdrop of a change setting. The ?bottom line? is to prevent organizations from losing one of their most important assets?its proactive employees. 83 REFERENCES Aiken, L. S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Aktouf, O. (1992) Management and theories of organizations in the 1990s: Toward a critical radical humanism? Academy of Management Review, 17, 407-431. Allen, M.W. (1992). Communication and organizational commitment: Perceived organizational support as a mediating factor. Communication Quarterly, 40, 357- 367. Allen, M.W. (1995). Communication concepts related to perceived organizational support. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 326-346. Allen, M.W. (1996). The relationship between communication, affect, job alternatives and voluntary turnover intentions. The Southern Communication Journal, 61, 198-209. Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management, 29, 99-118. Allen, D. G., Weeks, K. P., & Moffitt, K. R. (2005). Turnover intentions and voluntary turnover: The moderating roles of self-monitoring, locus of control, proactive personality, and risk aversion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 980-990. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411- 423. 84 Antonacopoulou, E. (2000). Employee development through self-development in three retail banks. Personnel Review, 29(4), 491-508. Arbuckle, J. L. (2006a). Amos (Version 7.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago: SPSS. Arbuckle, J. L. (2006b). Amos 7.0 User's Guide. Chicago: SPSS. Arthur, M. B., Hall, D. T., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Handbook of career theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Armeli, S., Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Lynch, P. (1998). Perceived organizational support and police performance: The moderating influence of socioemotional needs. Journal of Applied Psychology , 83, 288-297. Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25, 293-315. Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169-183. Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S., & Feild, H. (1999). Making change permanent: A model for institutionalizing change interventions. In W. Passmore & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development Vol. 12). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499. Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 187- 85 192. Arvey, R.D., McCall, B.P., Bouchard, T.J., Jr., Taubman, P., & Cavanaugh, M.A. (1994). Genetic influences on job satisfaction and work values. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 21?33. Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1985). Proactive feedback seeking: The instrumental use of the information environment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 67- 79. Ashford, S.J., & Northcraft, G.B. (1992). Conveying more (or less) than we realize: The role of impression management in feedback-seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 310?334. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator?mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organization development interventions: A cognitive approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23, 483?500. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118. Bateman,T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1999). Proactive behavior: Meanings, impact, and recommendations. Business Horizons, 42 (3), 63?70. Becherer, R.C., & Maurer, J.G. (1999). The proactive personality disposition and entrepreneurial behavior among small company presidents. Journal of Small 86 Business Management, 38 (1), 28?36. Bell, N.E., & Staw, B.M. (1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture: The roles of personality and personal control in organizations. In M.B. Arthur, D.T. Hall, & B.S., Lawrence, (Eds.), The handbook of career theory (pp. 232?251). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., Wagner, S. H., & Libkuman, T. M. (2005). Adaptation- level theory, opponent process theory and dispositions: An integrated approach to the stability of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1044-1053. Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. Bray, D. W. (1994). In A. Howard, (Ed.), Personnel-centered organizational diagnosis (pp. 152-171). New York: Guilford Press. Brown, D. J., Cober, R. T., Kane, K., Levy, P. E., & Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive personality and the successful job search: A field investigation with college graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 717-726. Buono, & Bowditch, J. (1989). The human side of mergers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Buss, D. M. (1987). Selection, evocation and manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1214-1221. Cappelli, P. (1999). The new deal at work: Managing the market-driven workforce. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Campbell, D.J. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 52?66. 87 Campbell, D. T., & Stanley J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Campbell, R. E., & Cellini, J. V. (1981). A diagnostic taxonomy of adult career problems. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 19, 175-190. Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world of work? American Psychologist, 50, 928-939. Chan, D. (2006). Interactive effects of situational judgment effectiveness and proactive personality on work perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 475-481. Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2000). Interindividual differences in intraindividual changes in proactivity during organizational entry: A latent growth modeling approach to understanding newcomer adaptation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 190-210. Claes, R., & Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A. (1998). Influences of early career experiences, occupational group, and national culture on proactive career behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 357?378. Clampitt, P., & Downs, C. (2004). Downs-Hazen communication satisfaction questionnaire. In C. Downs & A. Adrian (Eds.), Assessing organizational communication. New York: The Guilford Press. Coetsee, L. (1999). From resistance to commitment. Public Administration Quarterly, 23, 204-222. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 88 Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003).Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. (3 rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Conner, D. R. (1992). Managing at the speed of change: How resilient managers succeed and prosper where others fail. New York: Villard Books. Conner, D. R., & Patterson, R. W. (1982). Building commitment to organizational change. Training and Development Journal, 36, 18-30. Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work: A compendium of 249 measures and their use. London: Academic Press. Items were taken from 42-45. Coovert, M.D. (1995). Technological changes in office jobs. In A. Howard (Ed.) Changing Nature of Work, (pp. 173-208). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Covey, S. R. (2004). The 7 habits of highly effective people. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Crant, M. J. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532-537. Crant, M. J. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34, 42-49. Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435-462. Crant, M. J., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 63-75. 89 Crino, M. D., & White, M. (1981). Satisfaction in communication: An examination of the Downs-Hazen measure. Psychological Reports, 49, 831-838. Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travels of ideas. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevon (Eds.) Translating organizational change (pp. 13-48). New York: Walter de Gruyter. Deluga, R. (1998). American presidential proactivity, charismatic leadership and rated performance. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 265?291. Diener, E., Larsen, R.J., & Emmons, R.A. (1984). Person ? situation interactions: Choice of situations and congruence response models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 580?592. Downs, C. W., & Hazen, M. (1977). A factor analysis of communication satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 14, 63-74. Dunham, R. B., & Smith, F. J. (1979). Organizational surveys. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51-59. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. England, P., & G. Farkas. (1986). Households, employment and gender. New York: 90 Aldine Publishing Co. England, P., & Misumi, J. (1986). Work centrality in Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 399-416. England, P., Reid, L. L., & Kilbourne, B. S. (1996). The effect of the sex composition of jobs on starting wages in an organization: Findings of the NLSY. Demography 33(4), 511-521. Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2005).Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality: The role of fit with jobs and organizations. Personnel Psychology, 58, 859?891. Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free Press. Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305-323. Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G., Jr. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 421-435. Ferris, G. R., Witt, L. A., & Hochwater, W. A. (2001). Interaction of social skill and general mental ability on job performance and salary. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1075-1082. Frazier, P. A., Tix, A.P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 51(1), 115-134 91 Freeman, C., Soete, L., & Efendioglu, U. (1995). Diffusion and the employment effects of information and communication technology. International Labour Review 134(4/5), 587-603. Frese, M., & Fay D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133?187. Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, T., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity of 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. Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A german approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & J. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 4, 2nd ed., pp. 271-340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Garstka, M.L. (1993). The effects of performance appraisal structure on perceived organizational support and organizational commitment. Unpublished master's thesis. California State University Long Beach, Long Beach, CA. Glick, W. H., Huber, G. P., Miller, C. C., Doty, D. H., & Sutcliffe, K.M. (1990). Studying changes in organizational design and effectiveness. Organization Science, 1, 293-312 Gould, S. (1979). An equity-exchange model of organizational involvement. Academy of 92 Management Review, 4, 53-62. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178. Gray, J., & Laidlaw, H (2004). Improving the measurement of communication satisfaction. Management Communication Quarterly, 17(3), 425-448. Green, S, & Feild, H. (1976). Assessing group change under conditions of anonymity: A problem in personal research. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 49, 155-159. Hacker, W., Skell, W., & Straub, W. (1968). Arbeitspychologie und wissenschaftlich- techische revolution [Work psychology and scientific-technologic revolution]. Berlin, Germany: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hutchison, S., & Garstka, M. (1996). Sources of perceived organizational support: Goal setting and feedback. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1351-1366. Hall, D. (1996a). The career is dead, long live the career. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hall, D. (1996b). Protean careers of the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive. 10, 8?16. Hansson, R. O., DeKoekkoek, P. D., Neece, W. M., & Patterson, D. W. (1997). Successful aging at work: The older worker and transitions to retirement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 202?233. Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474-487. 93 Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599- 610. Hoyle, R. H., & Smith, G. T. (1994). Formulating clinical research hypotheses as structural equation models: A conceptual overview. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 429-440. Howard, A. (Ed.) (1995). The changing nature of work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hu. L. T., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 128-141. Igbaria M. (1991). Job performance of MIS professionals: An examination of the antecedents and consequences. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 8, 141?171. Jackson, C. (1996). Managing and developing a boundaryless career: Lessons from dance and drama. In P. Herriot and R. Strickland (Eds.). The management of careers [Special issue]. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(4), 617?628. Johnson, R. A. (1996). Antecedents and outcomes of corporate refocusing. Journal of Management, 22, 439-483. Johnston, W., & A. E. Packer. (1987). Work force 2000: Work and workers for the 21st century. Indianapolis, IN: The Hudson Institute. 94 J?reskog, K. G., & S?rbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural equations modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602-619. Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1994). Political influence behavior and career success. Journal of Management , 20, 43-66. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107-122. Keller, K. L. (1987). Memory in advertising: The effect of advertising memory cues on brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 316?333. Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1055-1080. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2 nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. King, Z. (2004). Career self-management: Its nature, causes and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 112-133. Kirkman, B.L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal 42, 58? 74. Lau, C., & Woodman, R. W. (1995). Understanding organizational change: A schematic perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 537?554. 95 Lee, T.W., & Johnson, D. R. (1991).The effects of work schedule and employment status on the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of full versus part time employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38, 208-224. Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The relationship between man and organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370-390. Levy, A. (1986). Second-order planned change: Definition and conceptualization. Organizational Dynamics, 15, 5?20. Lewis, L. (1999). Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned organizational change: Implementers? targets, sources, and channels for communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 13(1), 43-77. Lounsbury J. W., Park, S. H., Sundstrom, E, Williamson, J. M, & Pemberton, A. E. (2004). Personality, career satisfaction, and life satisfaction: Test of a directional model. Journal of Career Assessment, 12, 395?406. Lundberg, C. D., & Peterson, M. F. (1994). The meaning of working in the U.S. and Japanese local governments at three different hierarchical levels. Human Relations, 47(12), 1459-1487. Lynch, P., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support: Inferior-versus-superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 467-483. MacCallum, R. C., & Tucker, L. R (1991). Representing sources of error in the common factor model: Implications for theory and practice. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 502-511. 96 MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(1), 41-62. March, J. G., & Simon, H.A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indexes: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling techniques (pp.315-353). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum. Maurer, T. J., & Tarulli, B. A. (1994). Investigation of perceived environment, perceived outcome, and person variables in relationship to voluntary development activity by employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 3?14. McLain, D.L. (1995), Response to health and safety risk in the work environment. Academy of Management Journal, 38(6), 1726-1746. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89. Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326. Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351-357. Mohrman, S. A., Mohrman, A. M, Jr., & Ledford, G. E. (1990). Interventions that change organizations. In A. M. Mohrman, Jr., S. A. Mohrman, G. E. Ledford, Jr., T.G. Cummings, E. E. Lawler, III, & Associates (Eds.), Large-scale organizational 97 change (pp. 145-153). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Monge, P. (1995). Theoretical and analytical issues in studying organizational processes. In G. Huber, & A. Van de Ven (Eds.), Longitudinal field research methods: Studying processes of organization change (pp. 267-298). London: Sage. Morrison, E.W. (1993a). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 36, 557?589. Morrison, E.W. (1993b). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology 78, 173?183. Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403-419. Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages. New York: Academic Press. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1983). Applied linear regression models. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14, 547-557. Parker, S. K. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 447-469. 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 98 Psychology, 84, 925-939. Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). ?That's not my job?: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 899- 929. Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609. Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self- reports: The balanced inventory of desirable responding. Unpublished manual. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Pincus, J. D. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human Communications Research, 12(3), 395-419. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organization development: Theory, practice, and research. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 719?822). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2001). Calculation for the sobel test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests. From http://www.unc.edu/~preacher/sobel/sobel.htm Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational 99 politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 159-174. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714. Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574-599. Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rosenthal, N.H. (1995). The nature of occupational employment growth: 1983-93. Monthly Labor Review 118(6), 45-54. Schmitt, N. (1994). Method bias: The importance of theory and measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 393-398. Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416-427. 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. Shore, L.M., & Tetrick, L. (1991). A construct validity study of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 637-643. Shore, L.M.. & Wayne, S.J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived 100 organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 774-780. Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban Legend? Organizational Research Methods 2006; 9; 221 Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, 74, 86? 92. Sullivan, S. E., Carden, W. A., & Martin, D. F. (1998). Careers in the next millennium: Directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review. 8(2). Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Taylor, M.S., Tracy, K.B., Renard, M.K., Harrison, J.K., & Carroll, S.J. (1995). Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 495-523. Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 201-247). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Van der Spiegel, J. (1995). New information technologies and changes in work. In A. Howard (Ed.), Changing Nature of Work (pp. 97-111). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. 101 Van Maanen, J. (1977). Introduction: The promise of career studies. In J. Van Maanen (ed.), Organizational careers: Some new perspectives (pp. 1-12). New York: Wiley. VandeWalle, D., & Cummings, L.L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 390?400. Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., & Liden, R.C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82-111, Weber, P. S., & Manning, M. R. (2001). Cause maps, sensemaking, and planned organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37, 227?251. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617. Wyer, R. S., Jr., & Srull, T. K. (1986). Human cognition in its social context. Psychological Review, 93, 322?359. 102 APPENDICES 103 APPENDIX A INFORMATION LETTER 104 105 106 APPENDIX B SURVEY INSTRUMENT 107 Alabama Cooperative Extension System 2006 Employee Opinion Survey General Information The survey is being conducted at the request of the ACES administration. The purposes of the survey are: a) To determine how successful the recent ACES reorganization has been in accomplishing what the goals and objectives as set forth in the restructuring plan; b) To give all employees a opportunity to provide input and feedback about the restructuring and to make suggestion about areas that need further attention; and c) To obtain information about how employee?s levels of job satisfaction in the new organizational structure. Your opinion is very valuable to the success of this study. Please note that your responses to the questionnaire will be completely ANONYMOUS and CONFIDENTIAL. Instructions Please read the instructions at the beginning of each section and choose the number next to each statement that most closely matches how you feel. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to email me at prabhvp@auburn.edu Thank you for your help! 108 Section I: Perceptions and Opinions about the restructuring of ACES. A: The following were certain specific objectives of the re-structuring plan for ACES. Please indicate on a scale of 0-7 (where 0 = don?t know; 1 = very unsuccessful to 7 = very successful), whether you feel that ACES has been successful in achieving these objectives. Please feel free to add any other comments you may have about these objectives or in general about the plan. Objectives Don?t Know Very Unsucc essful Unsucce ssful Slightly Unsucce ssful Neither succ e ssful or unsuccessf ul Slightly succ essful Successful Very Succes s f ul 1. To create statewide program planning, implementation, and evaluation teams for each Priority Program Area. These teams would consist of campus-based and field- based staff who would focus in the same Priority Program Areas. These teams would meet frequently to communicate, and they would design and implement meaningful educational programs that are designed solve the real world problems at a grassroots level. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. To facilitate better communication between AU- and AAMU- funded employees who work in the same areas. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. To allocate and, if necessary, redistribute the field staff to adequately cover the entire state, with the understanding that the way we work would have to be different. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. To better serve the needs of commercial agriculture by implementing many of the concepts that were part of the regional agricultural research and Extension center concept. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 109 5. To facilitate more extramural funding by having well-defined Priority Program Areas with statewide teams working in each area. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. To make better use of new and emerging technologies to teach our clientele how to use accurate information to make better decisions. The web is an important part of life and this was reflected in the new structure. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. To allow ACES?s employees to focus in specific areas and to develop more in-depth expertise in those priority areas. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. To create stronger links between research and Extension educational programs at the field level. This new structure would allow for more tangible multi-state work such as training opportunities with the specific Priority Program Teams. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. The final goal of the restructuring model is to create a county funding- staffing model that will reward counties that provide higher levels of funding while ensuring that all Alabama residents have an appropriate base level of service. The new restructured staff plan would allow for even more locally funded Extension positions while ensuring that all county funds are spent in direct support of Extension staff and programs within the county providing the funds. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comments: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ B. Please list and explain any aspects of the restructuring plan that you feel have been the most successful. Also mention the benefits of those aspects. ________________________________________________________________________ 110 C. Please list and explain any aspects of the restructuring plan that you feel have not been successful. Also make any suggestions you may have as to what actions need to be taken to facilitate better success in those aspects. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Section II: Other aspects about the restructuring of ACES. A: In addition to the organization?s mission and vision, there are several other ?guiding principles? upon which the restructuring of ACES was based. Please indicate on a scale of 0-7 (where 0 = don?t know; 1 = very unsuccessful to 7 = very successful), whether ACES has been successful in capitalizing on its strengths as explained in each guiding principal. Guiding Principle Don?t know Very Unsucc essful Unsucce ssful Slightly Unsucce ssful Neither succ e ssful or unsuccessf ul Slightly succ essful Successful Very Succes s f ul 1. One of the most valuable resources for ACES is the network of county offices and the local relationships that exist because of that network. Having an Extension presence in every county is therefore a top priority. ACES is committed in not only maintaining an office in every county but in also ensuring that all local funding is spent in direct support of programs for that county and/or city. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. The thing that makes ACES unique is its direct link to, an interdependency with, research from the land-grant university in AL and nationwide. Hence ACES is committed to maintaining a core-level of continuing Extension-funded Specialists? positions. Additionally, Extension will initiate program funding agreements as needed to address specific program needs. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 111 3. To remain effective and viable, Extension educators must know more about their subject matter than the people they serve. Hence ACES is committed to allow its educators to specialize in specific core areas and to develop and maintain a proven high level of competency in these areas of specialization. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Research has shown that the 4-H and Youth Development Program is the most widely identified of all ACES programs. Hence ACES is committed in developing a network of 4-H Agents and Agent Assistants who will work exclusively in the area of youth development. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. The Alabama Cooperative Extension System must adopt a new structure that allows us to serve the population of Alabama with fewer traditional employees who are funded on continuing appointments using appropriated funds. This new structure will involve a large number of field staff working in specialized areas of expertise in larger multi-county geographic areas. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. ACES is aware that having fewer core-level employees will not doubt create more stress on the reduced number of staff. Hence ACES is committed to ensure that the average salaries for all the categories of employees are equal to or above the average salaries for similar ?peer? positions (based upon degrees and experience) in other southern states. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 112 7. The Alabama Cooperative Extension System will continue to be a large and complex organization with a large budget. The responsibility to manage both the fiscal and human resources of such a large organization is very demanding and requires highly competent and skilled administration. The administration is committed to ensuring that it operates in a manner that is fiscally sound and that serves all of the residents of Alabama within our fiscal limitations. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Any major organizational change causes stress at both organizational and individual level. ACES aims at causing as little disruption as possible in everyone?s personal lives, and to find the best fit in the organization for each person. Hence ACES has surveyed all employees in order to determine which areas both programmatically and geographically, are the most desirable for each person. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. The restructuring of ACES has affected many people, both employees and clientele. Therefore, Extension administration along has tried to make this to be a very open process with plenty of opportunity for all ACES employees to be involved and to provide input. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 113 10. The new structure ACES attempted to address both the employees it currently had and the ones they would need in the future. Hence the restructuring plan had two components?1) the reassignments of existing staff and 2) the hiring of additional staff (primarily REAs) to cover programmatic and geographic holes that would be created by the 2003 reduction in the force. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B. Please suggest if ACES could do anything to further capitalize on its strengths based on the above-mentioned guiding principles. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ C. In your opinion does the organizational structure of ACES and the roles and responsibilities of different positions (e.g. County Extension Coordinators, Regional Extension Agents, Area & State Specialists, etc. and non-continuing appointments) need to be further modified? a. Yes b. No If ?yes? please suggest as to what needs to be modified. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ D. Please suggest if any additional modifications are needed in any aspects of the new organizational structure to allow ACES to better serve the people of Alabama and to best fulfill our mandated mission. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Section III: Personality and Job perceptions A: Listed below are several kinds of information which are often associated with an individual?s personality. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the amount and/or quality of kind of information by selecting the appropriate number to the right of each statement. Choose from the following scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree. 114 Statement Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Neither Agre e nor Disagree Slightly Agre e Agree Strongly Agr ee I am constantly on the lookout for new ways to improve my life. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wherever I have been, I have been a powerful force for constructive change. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nothing is more exciting than seeing my ideas turn into reality. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 If I see something I don?t like, I fix it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No matter what the odds, if I believe in something I will make it happen. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I love being a champion for my ideas, even against others? opposition. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I excel at identifying opportunities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am always looking for better ways to do things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from making it happen. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I can spot a good opportunity long before others can. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I adequately complete assigned duties. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I fulfill responsibilities specified in my job description. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I perform tasks that are expected of me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I meet formal performance requirements of the job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I engage in activities that will directly affect my performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I neglect aspects of the job I am obligated to perform. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I fail to perform essential duties. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I like the people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 115 I find I have to work harder at my job than I should because of the incompetence of people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I enjoy being with my co-workers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 There is too much bickering and fighting at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would rather have another job instead of my present one. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I have rarely thought about quitting my job after I began working for the ACES. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I hope to be still working for this organization 3 years from now. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I intend to remain for a long time with the ACES. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Statement Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Neither Agre e nor Disagree Slightly Agre e Agree Strongly Agr ee If a good friend of mine told me that he/she was interested in working in a job like mine I would strongly recommend it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All in all, I am very satisfied with my current job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Most days I am enthusiastic about my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel fairly satisfied with my present job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Each day at work seems like it will never end. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I find real enjoyment in my work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I consider my job rather unpleasant. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In general, my job measures up to the sort of job I wanted when I took it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Knowing what I know now, if I had to decide all over again whether to take my job, I would. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I believe in the value of the ACES restructuring. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 This restructuring is a good strategy for the ACES. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 116 I think that implementing this restructuring was a mistake. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 This restructuring was necessary and serves an important purpose. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Things would be better without this restructuring. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 This restructuring was not necessary. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Statement Strongly Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Neither Agre e nor Disagree Slightly Agre e Agree Strongly Agr ee The ACES cares about my opinions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The ACES really cares about my well-being. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The ACES strongly considers my goals and values. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Help is available from the ACES when I have a problem. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The ACES would forgive an honest mistake on my part. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 If given the opportunity, the ACES would take advantage of me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The ACES shows very little concern for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The ACES is willing to help me if I need a special favor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am satisfied with the benefits (compensation in addition to my base pay/salary) I receive. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The benefits we receive are as good as most other organization offer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The benefit package we have is equitable (dealing fairly and equally with all concerned). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 There are benefits we do not have which we should have. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 When I do a good job, I receive appropriate recognition for it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 There are just few rewards for those who work here. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 117 I don?t feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I sometimes feel my job is meaningless. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I like doing the things I do at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My job is enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Communications seem good within this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The goals of this organization are clear to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Work assignments are often not fully explained. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B: Listed below are several kinds of information often associated with your job. Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the amount and/or quality of each kind of information by choosing the appropriate number for each statement. Use the following scale: 1 = Very Dissatisfied to 7 = Very satisfied. Statement Very Diss atis fied Dissati s fied Slightly Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissati s fied Slightly Satisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied 1. Information about how my job compares with others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Information about how I am being judged. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Recognition of my efforts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Reports on how problems in my job are being handled. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Extent to which my superiors know and understand the problems faced by subordinates. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 C: Please circle the number besides the adjective which best describes your job performance in your opinion 1 = Unacceptable; 2 = Very Poor; 3 = Poor; 4 = Good; 5 = Very Good; 6 = Outstanding. 118 D. Please read the following 5 questions and choose from the options provided below: 1. How do you feel about your future with this organization? 1 = I am very worried about it, 2 = I am somewhat worried about it, 3 = I have mixed feelings about it, 4 = I feel good about it, 5 = I feel very good about it 2. How do your feelings about your future with the company influence your overall attitude toward your job? 1 = they have a very unfavorable influence, 2 = they have a slightly unfavorable influence, 3 = they have no influence one way or the other, 4 = they have a favorable influence, 5 = they have a very favorable influence 3. The way my future with the company looks to me now: 1 = hardwork seems almost worthless, 2 = hardwork hardly seems worthwhile, 3 = hardwork seems worthwhile, 4 = hardwork seems fairly worthwhile, 5 = hardwork seems very worthwhile 4. Do you feel you are getting ahead in the company? 1 = I?m making no progress, 2 = I?m making very little progress, 3 = I?m not sure, 4 = I?m making some progress, 5 = I?m making a great deal of progress 5. How secure you are in your present job? 1 = I feel very uneasy about it, 2 = I feel fairly uneasy about it, 3 = I feel somewhat uneasy about it, 4 = I feel fairly sure of it, 5 = I feel very sure of it E: Please circle the number besides the adjective which best describes your job performance in your opinion 1 = weak or bottom 10%; 2 = fair or next 20%; 3 = good or next 40%; 4 = very good or next 20%; 5 = best or top 10%. 119 Section IV: Opinions & Suggestions about the restructuring of ACES. A: For each of the following 14 priority program areas please indicate on a scale of 0-7 (where 0 = don?t know; 1 = very unsuccessful to 7 = very successful) how you feel about how well the team is doing in the following areas: (A) Cooperation communication, and teamwork; (B) Defining their goals and objectives; (C) Creating educational programs (Extension Team Projects) Also make any suggestions that you wish to better facilitate the work of the team. NOTE: Only comment on the priority programs areas in which you work or with which you are personally familiar. Priority Program Areas Don?t Know Very Unsucc essful Unsucce ssful Slightly Unsucce ssful Neither succ e ssful or unsuccessf ul Slightly succ essful Successful Very Succes s f ul 1. Agronomic Crops (A) Cooperation, communication, and teamwork 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (B) Defining goals and objectives. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (C) Creating educational programs (Extension Team Projects) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (D) Suggestions to better facilitate the work of the team. 2. Animal Science and Forages (A) Cooperation, communication, and teamwork 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (B) Defining goals and objectives. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (C) Creating educational programs (Extension Team Projects) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (D) Suggestions to better facilitate the work of the team. 3. Aquaculture and Recreational Pond Management (A) Cooperation, communication, and teamwork 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (B) Defining goals and objectives. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (C) Creating educational programs (Extension Team Projects) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 120 (D) Suggestions to better facilitate the work of the team. 4. Family and Child Development (A) Cooperation, communication, and teamwork 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (B) Defining goals and objectives. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (C) Creating educational programs (Extension Team Projects) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (D) Suggestions to better facilitate the work of the team. 5. Community and Resource Development (A) Cooperation, communication, and teamwork 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (B) Defining goals and objectives. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (C) Creating educational programs (Extension Team Projects) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (D) Suggestions to better facilitate the work of the team. 6. Consumer Science and Personal Financial Management (A) Cooperation, communication, and teamwork 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (B) Defining goals and objectives. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (C) Creating educational programs (Extension Team Projects) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (D) Suggestions to better facilitate the work of the team. 7. Farm Management and Agricultural Enterprise Analysis (A) Cooperation, communication, and teamwork 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (B) Defining goals and objectives. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (C) Creating educational programs (Extension Team Projects) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (D) Suggestions to better facilitate the work of the team. 8. Food Safety, Preparation and Preservation (A) Cooperation, communication, and teamwork 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (B) Defining goals and objectives. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (C) Creating educational programs (Extension Team Projects) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 121 (D) Suggestions to better facilitate the work of the team. 9. Forestry, Wildlife and Natural Resource Management (A) Cooperation, communication, and teamwork 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (B) Defining goals and objectives. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (C) Creating educational programs (Extension Team Projects) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (D) Suggestions to better facilitate the work of the team. 10. Commercial Horticulture (A) Cooperation, communication, and teamwork 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (B) Defining goals and objectives. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (C) Creating educational programs (Extension Team Projects) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (D) Suggestions to better facilitate the work of the team. 11. Home Grounds, Gardens and Home Pests (A) Cooperation, communication, and teamwork 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (B) Defining goals and objectives. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (C) Creating educational programs (Extension Team Projects) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (D) Suggestions to better facilitate the work of the team. 12. Human Nutrition, Diet and Health (A) Cooperation, communication, and teamwork 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (B) Defining goals and objectives. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (C) Creating educational programs (Extension Team Projects) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (D) Suggestions to better facilitate the work of the team. 13. 4-H and Youth Development (A) Cooperation, communication, and teamwork 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (B) Defining goals and objectives. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (C) Creating educational programs (Extension Team Projects) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 122 (D) Suggestions to better facilitate the work of the team. 14. Poultry (A) Cooperation, communication, and teamwork 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (B) Defining goals and objectives. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (C) Creating educational programs (Extension Team Projects) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (D) Suggestions to better facilitate the work of the team. Section V: Demographic Information The following is general demographic information that will be used to analyze survey responses at the group level. Please check the appropriate box for each question. 1. What is your gender? Female Male 2. What is your age? under 20 years 20 ?29 years 30 ? 39 years 40 ? 49 years Over 50 years 3. What is your ethnicity? Caucasian African American Hispanic Native American Asian Other 4. How long have you been employed with the Alabama Co- operative Extension System? Less than a year 1 ? 5 years 6 ? 10 years 11- 20 years Over 20 years 5. How long have you been in your current position? Less than a year 1 ? 5 years 6 ? 10 years 11- 20 years over 20 years 6. Please indicate your primary job in the organization. County Extension Coordinator Regional Extension Agent Regional Specialist State Specialist/University Faculty State-wide Administrators Administrative Staff Para-profession (Locally funded Agents & Agent Assistants) Others If ?others? please specify: ______________ Thank you for completing the questionnaire!