From Passive to Proactive Motivation: The Importance of Flexible Role Orientations and Role Breadth Self‐efficacy

By Sharon K. Parker. 2000

323 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/240eed93b0ad41375da48abc65c6c6268b95ddd5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Gender Studies

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Human Resource Flexibility as a Mediating Variable Between High Performance Work Systems and Performance (2008, background): “Employees with extended roles in the firm assume that key competences at work are multiple, and they feel responsible for a broader range of problems, which leads to their willingness to be flexible (Parker, 2000).”
Refining individualized consideration: Distinguishing developmental leadership and supportive leadership (2006, background): “Examples of proactive tasks include solving long-term problems, designing improved procedures, setting goals and resolving conflicts (Parker, 1998, 2000).”
Leader perceptions and motivation as outcomes of followership role orientation and behavior (2018, background): “Role orientation is defined as an individual’s beliefs about the responsibilities inherent in a particular role, and the way that role should be successfully executed (Parker, 2000, 2007; Parker et al., 1997).”
A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behaviour (2008, background): “It appears that both factors are related since challenging and enriched jobs, in which employees can draw upon many resources, generate high levels of intrinsic motivation, which in turn spurs proactive work behaviour (Parker 2000).”
Perceived external prestige and internal respect: New insights into the organizational identification process (2006, background): “The positive relationship between organizational identification and voice behavior is important because voice behavior has become increasingly important as competitive advantage and organizational success are thought to be increasingly dependent upon personal initiative and constructive change-orien”
Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. (2006, methodology): “In a similar vein, Parker (2000) proposed that individuals who define their role broadly so that they feel responsibility for longer term goals (i.e., have a “flexible role orientation”) will be more motivated to engage in proactive behaviors that help to achieve longer term goals than individuals…”
Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the interface between nonwork and work. (2003, background): “Proactive behavior implies an active approach toward work (Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996; Parker, 2000) and aims at improving given work methods and procedures as well as developing personal prerequisites for meeting future work demands.”
Work engagement among employees facing emotional demands: The role of personal resources. (2013, background): “Employees low in self-efficacy are less proactive, when it comes to the emotionally demanding aspects of their job (Parker, 2000), and are therefore more likely to be affected by their adverse impact.”
Development and validation of the job crafting scale (2012, background): “…Bakker (2010) revealed that there is no valid measure of job crafting yet whereas more and more researchers report about the necessity of proactive employee behaviors for employee well-being (Berg et al., 2008; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) and organizational performance (Crant, 2000; Parker, 2000).”
Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing (2006, methodology): “…have shown its reliability and uniqueness (Parker, 1998) and its usefulness in understanding the effects of proactive personalities (Parker and Sprigg, 1999); job enrichment, task control, and decision-making influence (Parker, 1998); and job autonomy and change receptiveness (Parker, 2000).”