The Relationship between Proactive Personality and Problem Recognition: The role of Work Engagement, Emotional Exhaustion, and Control Appraisal
18-01-2019
A.J. (Anne) Borst University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Human Resource Management +31 630 634 622
a.j.borst@student.rug.nl
ABSTRACT
Until now, scarce research has been conducted on problem recognition and the factors which influence the first step of the creative problem-solving process. However, nowadays companies have to deal with more complex and ill-structured problems. For these ill-structured problems, problem recognition is important. This study examines whether the relationship between proactive personality and problem recognition will be mediated by work engagement and emotional exhaustion. In addition, this study examines the moderating role of control appraisal on the relation between proactive personality and work engagement versus emotional exhaustion. Our research findings show a relation between proactive personality and problem recognition in terms of opportunities through work engagement. However, we did not find a relation between proactive personality and problem recognition in terms of threats through emotional exhaustion. Besides, we did not find a moderating role of control appraisal on the relation between proactive personality and work engagement versus emotional exhaustion. The theoretical and practical implications of the research findings will be discussed.
Keywords: problem recognition, proactive personality, work engagement, emotional exhaustion,
INTRODUCTION
“The first step in solving a problem is to recognize that it does exist.” – Zig Ziglar (n.d.)
Nowadays, creative problem-solving becomes more important as companies have to deal with more global competition and more complex job environments (Shally, Gilson, & Blum, 2009). The goal of creative problem-solving is to come up with inventive ideas in new and ill-structured problem situations (Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman, 2000). To achieve this goal, a person must go through the stages of the creative problem-solving process, consisting of problem recognition, information search, idea generation, and evaluation (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Although a lot of research has been done on the creative problem-solving process, most researchers have focused on how people generate ideas for problem solutions, whereas problem recognition has mainly been neglected (Henker, Sonnentag, & Unger, 2015). Problem recognition, the very first stage of the creative problem solving process, can be defined as the process of discovering or creating a problem (Pretz, Naples, & Sternberg,
2003). Because scarce research has been conducted on problem recognition, vital knowledge is missing about what factors influence this first step of the creative problem solving process.
(Mumford, 2000; Reiter-Palmon & Robinson, 2009). Last, employees may differ in the way they recognize problems. As mentioned above, a problem can be seen as a gap between a current state and an (un)desired state. That is, someone may interpret a problem as a gap between a current state and desired state (opportunity), whereas someone else may interpret the same problem as a gap between a current state and undesired state (threat). Research has suggested that it might depend on an employees’ personality whether they focus on opportunities or threats (Reiter-Palmon & Robinson, 2009). Besides, it is likely that whether an employee interprets a problem as opportunity or threat affects the way an employee solves a problem, given that the way of interpreting is the first step in the creative problem-solving process. Therefore, the way of problem recognition affects the next phases of the creative problem-solving process (e.g., solving a problem). Based on this, we argue that it is crucial to know more about the relationship between personality and problem recognition.
(Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012; Kahn, 1990; Lu, Wang, Lu, Du, & Bakker, 2014). Work engagement is a positive feeling among different dimensions, namely vigor, dedication, and absorption. However, proactive personality does not only have positive consequences. That is, proactive employees may consume too many resources (Bolino, Valcea, & Harvey, 2010; Hobfoll, 1989). This may lead to feelings of emotional exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion can be defined as feeling psychologically and physically drained by one’s work (Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). We propose that work engagement and emotional exhaustion leads proactive employees recognize and interpret different types of problems (e.g., opportunities vs threats).
Based on the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1988), we expect that control appraisal (i.e., low or high control appraisal) plays a role in whether proactive employees experiences work engagement or emotional exhaustion. In other words, proactive employees tend to take on many tasks and feel highly responsible. Control appraisal may influence the motivation of employees to perform extra proactive behavior. Therefore, we propose that low control appraisal will strengthen the relation between proactive personality and emotional exhaustion, whereas high control appraisal will strengthen the relation between proactive personality and work engagement.
Second, this research will contribute to the literature by examining the influence of work engagement and emotional exhaustion on problem recognition. This enables researchers and practitioners to find out whether work engagement and emotional exhaustion leads to problem recognition in terms of opportunities or threats. Last, we gain more knowledge about the role of control appraisal in whether employees experience work engagement or emotional exhaustion. This makes that researchers and practitioners can find out whether high and low control appraisal can lead to more proactive employees. Thereby, we contribute to our limited knowledge on problem recognition.
Besides, this research has several practical contributions. Nowadays, employees are increasingly confronted with complex problems. Therefore, problem recognition becomes more important. When employers know whether proactive personality leads to work engagement or emotional exhaustion and how this is related to problem recognition, they can take this into account in their management approach. For example, in some circumstances it is important to recognize problems in terms of threats, however, organizations have to be careful that employees do not become emotional exhausted. Besides, in other situations it is beneficial to recognize problems in terms of opportunities. In this case, organizations may encourage work engagement (Kong & Li, 2018). By improving our understanding of the mechanisms that influence employee problem recognition, employers might be able to influence the way that employees recognize problems. To examine these relations we conducted a field study (see Figure 1).
--- Insert Figure 1 about here ---
THEORY
Proactive Personality, Work Engagement, Emotional Exhaustion and Problem Recognition
have to make to achieve their goals (Bindl & Parker, 2009). Before employees start with planning, they go through the phase of envisioning. Envisioning consists of observing a problem or opportunity and addressing it (Grant & Ashford, 2008). In other words, it consists of anticipating and thinking ahead so problem recognition can take place (Frese & Fay, 2001; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010). In the literature, especially the positive sides of proactive personality are highlighted (Crant, 1995; Crant, 2000; Crant & Bateman, 2000), however, there are certainly negative effects as well (Jawahar, Kisamore, Stone, & Rahn, 2012). In the next paragraphs, the positive and the negative sides of proactive personality will be discussed respectively. By discussing these oppositions we aim to find an answer to the following question: When does proactive personality lead to problem recognition in terms of opportunities and when in terms of threats? To answer this question we draw on the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1988).
engagement (Hakanen et al., 2008). Proactive employees who experience work engagement are seen as people who are unconstrained by environmental forces and who put situational change in motion (Bateman & Crant, 1993). They are motivated to scan the environment for opportunities and actually identify more opportunities (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999). Previous research found a link between work engagement and perceiving opportunities (van Wingerden & Poell, 2017). Therefore, engaged employees might have a greater tendency to focus on opportunity cues (Chen et al., 2015).
experience emotional exhaustion experience less job dedication and have a progressive decrease in resources (Hobfoll, 1988; Lee & Ashforth, 1996; Wright & Cropanzano, 1998). As a result they are afraid to lose even more resources which may lead to employees focus on negative cues. Likely, they interpret the negative cues as threat (Hobfoll, 1989). Since, employees who score high on proactive personality take on many job responsibilities and consume many resources (e.g., energetic resources) they may become emotional exhausted. When these employees lose resources they experience stress and become fully committed to prevent more resource losses (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Hobfoll, 1989). As a result, they might be more focused on potential threats to inhibit future resource loss (Hobfoll, 1989; Van der Elst, Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, & De Witte, 2014).
As stated above we argue that proactive personality can lead to work engagement or emotional exhaustion. We expect these two concepts both have a different influence on problem recognition. Problem recognition, the very first stage of the creative problem solving process, can be defined as the process of discovering or creating a problem (Pretz et al., 2003). A
people strive for. These states lead to positive feelings and exist when a gap provides opportunities for improvement (e.g., better circumstances; Basadur et al., 1994). Undesired states are seen as threats which people want to avoid. These states lead to negative feelings and exist when a gap provides threats for deterioration (e.g., decrease in performance; Basadur et al., 1994).
As mentioned above, employees who have proactive personality show self-initiated-, goal-oriented-, and change-focused behavior to turn situations to their advantages (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Parker et al., 2006). Thereby, they may increase their job resources. More resources may give proactive employees the space and motivation to get even more gains. To get these resource gains, proactive employees may work harder. This might be associated with being absorbed in your work, in other words the feeling of work engagement is stimulated (Bakker et al., 2012; Demerouti et al., 2001; Hakanen et al., 2008). Since, work engaged employees become focused on getting more resources, they rather focus on the positive cues in the environment and might be motivated to interpret these cues as opportunities (Basadur et al., 1994) to achieve their goal of obtaining more resources. Therefore, we propose that these employees recognize problems in terms of opportunities. Based on the above mentioned literature we formulated the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1:The positive relation between employees’ proactive personality and problem
recognition in terms of opportunities will be mediated by work engagement.
since resource depletion may lead to even more resource loss (i.e., loss spiral; Chen et al., 2015). As a consequence, they become afraid to lose more resources and will act to prevent further losses. Therefore they may rather focus on the negative cues in the environment and might be motivated to interpret these cues as threats (Hobfoll, 1989). Therefore, we propose that these employees recognize problems in terms of threats. Based on the above mentioned literature we formulated the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: The positive relation between employees’ proactive personality and problem
recognition in terms of threats will be mediated by emotional exhaustion.
Control Appraisal as a Moderator of the Relationship between Proactive Personality and Work Engagement versus Emotional Exhaustion
Besides the influence of work engagement and emotional exhaustion, we also expect that control appraisal plays a role in proactive personality. Control appraisal can be defined as an employees’ perception about his or her ability to change the work situation (Greenberger & Strasser, 1986). This involves an employees’ feeling of control over work circumstances and performance. It is about an employees’ idea to which extent they have physical, psychological, social, and material resources so they can deal with threatened circumstances (Van der Elst et al., 2014). According to Lazarus (1984), the cognitive appraisal theory states that employees cognitively assess situations by looking at the impact. This means that a situation evokes a form of stress or challenge. On the basis of these assessments employees will react (Spell & Arnold, 2007). There are two kind of appraisals: primary and secondary (Spell & Arnold, 2007). Primary appraisal is about the meaning of a situation for employees. When employees experience harm in a situation they go into a secondary appraisal (Greenberg, 2004). Secondary appraisal is about the extent that an employee is able to deal with the consequences of a situation. For example, to what extent the employee can meet the demands of a situation (Lazarus, DeLongis, Folkman, & Gruen, 1985).There are two different types of stress: eustress and distress. Eustress is seen by employees as challenging and positive (Selye, 1956). That is, the feeling of eustress can arise when an employee judges a situation as favorable (Nelson & Simmons, 2003). Distress is seen by employees as threatening and negative (Selye, 1956). Distress can be caused by work-related stressors such as work overload, time pressures, and change (Walinga, 2008). It varies per employee whether they perceive a stressor as eustress or distress.
(Karasek & Theorell, 1990). Employees who experience high control appraisals take responsibilities, are persistent, scan the environment for opportunities, and are more success oriented (Frese & Fay, 2001). When employees have feelings of control they appraise situations as manageable (Greenberg, 2004; Spell & Arnold, 2007). Employees’ appraisal of control is influenced by their resources (Van der Elst et al., 2014). Namely, increases of resources may lead to a higher feeling of control (Van der Elst et al., 2014). When employees experience high control appraisal, they have a higher well-being (Friedland, Keinan, & Regev, 1992) and more space to take on more task responsibilities because they have the feeling they can manage these responsibilities (Greenberg, 2004; Spell & Arnold, 2007). In other words, these employees have more space to be proactive. As explained before, a proactive personality leads in turn to a greater sense of work engagement. Thus, from the above mentioned literature it follows that the beneficial characteristics of proactive personality (e.g., self-initiated behavior, change-focused behavior, goal-oriented behavior) are more stimulated in employees who experience high rather than low control appraisals. In other words, we propose that high control appraisals will strengthen the relationship between proactive personality and work engagement. Based on the above-mentioned literature we expect to find the following:
Hypothesis 3: The positive relation between proactive personality and work engagement will be strengthened under high rather than low levels of control appraisal.
spiral; Chen et al., 2015). The loss spiral may cause that employees become more proactive to identify possible threats for further resource loss. In this way they want to prevent extra resource loss. As mentioned before, proactive employees consume resources (e.g., energy and time) and they can reach a point where they do not have enough resources so they become emotional exhausted. Thus, from the above mentioned literature it follows that the adverse characteristics of proactive personality (e.g., resource depletion) are more stimulated in employees who experience low control appraisals instead of high control appraisals. Therefore, we propose that the relationship between proactive personality and emotional exhaustion will be strengthened by low control appraisal. Based on the above-mentioned literature we formulated the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: The positive relation between proactive personality and emotional exhaustion will be strengthened under low rather than high levels of control appraisal.
In brief, we proposed that proactive personality will lead to problem recognition in terms of opportunities through work engagement and that proactive personality will lead to problem recognition in terms of threats through emotional exhaustion. In addition, we proposed that high levels of control appraisal strengthen the relation between proactive personality and work engagement and low levels of control appraisal strengthen the relation between proactive personality and emotional exhaustion. Based on these propositions we formulated the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 6: The positive relation between proactive personality and problem recognition in terms of threats is mediated by emotional exhaustion and moderated by low control appraisal for the path from proactive personality and emotional exhaustion.
METHODOLOGY Participants and Procedure
In order to test the hypotheses, a field study was conducted. In this field study, a survey was conducted among employees and their leaders from different types of organizations. The teams consisted of a maximum of ten members with a clearly assigned leader. 302 employees1
(137 male, 165 female) participated in the study who all were personally approached. The participants were between 19 and 65 years old (Mage = 40.00, SDage = 12.12).
For collecting data, we collaborated with three other students. The data collection took place from October 29th, 2018 until November 18th, 2018. First, the leaders received a cover letter in which the research was described. Thereafter, the leaders could decide whether they would participate. If they decided to participate, they were asked to select a maximum of ten employees who also, besides the leader, participated in the study. By mid-October the e-mail addresses of all leaders and employees were collected. Second, the participants received an online questionnaire (see Appendix A), which had to be completed within three weeks. The
1 Before we analyzed the data we checked for outliers. Research showed that the 2.2
leaders and employees both received a different questionnaire, which started with an informed consent describing the purpose of the survey. After the participants signed the informed consent they were asked to complete a number of questionnaires, including a questionnaire about proactive personality, problem recognition, work engagement, emotional exhaustion, and control appraisals. Completing the questionnaire took about 20-30 minutes, and the participants could choose if they wanted to conduct the survey in English, German, or Dutch. Hereby, we ensured that all participants fully understood the questions. Participation in the research was on a voluntary basis, which means they could stop the survey at any time. At last, anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed.
Measures
Proactive personality. To measure employee proactive personality, the shortened version
of the Proactive Personality Scale was used (PPS; Bateman & Crant, 1993). We used the four most loaded items (Parker et al., 2006). Respondents had to rate four statements on a five-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree). Example items are: “If I see something I
don’t like, I fix it” and “If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from making it
happen” (α = .64).2
Problem recognition. To measure problem recognition, a scale was developed for this
study purposes. The Problem Recognition Scale measured how often the participants recognize opportunities or threats. The scale can be divided into two parts: opportunities and threats. Participants were asked to rate 14 items on a five-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree to 5 =
2 The reliability is below the value of .70. The reason for the low reliability can be the number
of items. Therefore, we checked the mean inter-item correlation value. The mean inter-item correlation had a value of .31. This value is between the range of .20 and .40 such as
totally agree). An example item of the opportunity scale is “I create possibilities for improvement and advancement: by envisioning things in my mind that as such do not (yet) exist.”
(α = .79) . An example item of the threat scale is “I discover threats and risks of deterioration:
through picking up existing signals and trends that point these out” (α = .80).
Work engagement. Work engagement was measured by the shortened version of the Utrechtse Bevlogenheid Schaal (UBES; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). This scale measured the
three parts of work engagement: vigor, dedication, and absorption. The shortened scale existed of nine items ranged on a five-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree). Examples of items are: “At my work, I feel bursting with energy” and “My job inspires me” (α = .84).
Emotional exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion was measured by the Maslach-Burnout
Inventory General Survey (GS; Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, & Jackson, 1996). The MBI-GS exist of three dimensions. For this survey only the emotional exhaustion dimension was used. The emotional exhaustion dimension exists of nine items. The items were measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree). Example items are: “I feel emotionally
drained from my work” and “I feel burned out from my work” (α = .87).
Control appraisal. Control appraisals were measured by four items (Parker et al., 2006).
The scale was about employees’ perceived control at work. The items were measured on a five-point Likert Scale (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree) 3. Example of items are: “In my job,
most of the problems that I experience are completely “out of my hands”” and “The same
problems keep happening again and again, regardless of what I do” (α = .76).
Control variables. For the data analysis, we took age and gender as control variables. In
addition, researchers showed that individuals’ education plays a role in the creative
solving process (Puccio, Miller, & Acar, 2018). For this reason, we took also employees’ education level into account.
RESULTS Descriptive Analyses
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the relevant variables of this study. Proactive personality was positively and significantly correlated with problem recognition in terms of opportunities (r = .43, p < .01) and threats (r = .27, p < .01), and with work engagement (r = .37, p < .01). Furthermore, work engagement was positively and significantly correlated with gender (r = .17, p < .01), problem recognition in terms of opportunities (r = .33, p < .01), and threats (r = .25, p < .01). Emotional exhaustion was positively and significantly correlated with education level (r = .12, p < .05). Whereas emotional exhaustion was negatively and significantly correlated with work engagement (r = -.39, p < .01). In addition, problem recognition in terms of opportunities was positively and significantly correlated with education level (r = .20, p < .01) and was negatively and significantly correlated with gender (r = -.12, p < .05). Problem recognition in terms of threats was negatively and significantly correlated with age (r = -.17, p < .01). Furthermore, control appraisal was positively and significantly correlated with work engagement (r = .38, p < .01) and problem recognition in terms of opportunities (r = .13, p < .05). On the contrary, control appraisal was negatively and significantly correlated with emotional exhaustion (r = -.50, p < .01).
Hypotheses Testing
To test the hypotheses we made use of the PROCESS macro analysis by Hayes (2013). We took a significance level of p < .05. To test the first and second hypothesis the PROCESS macro mediation analysis was performed, specifically model 4 (Hayes, 2013). Based on the correlation table we decided to include the variables age, gender, and education level as control variables.
Proactive personality, work engagement, and problem recognition. Hypothesis 1 stated that, the positive relation between employees’ proactive personality and problem recognition in terms of opportunities will be mediated by work engagement. First, proactive personality was significantly and positively related to problem recognition in terms of opportunities, b = .70,
t(295) = 8.45, p < .01. Second, proactive personality was also significantly and positively related
to work engagement, b = .75, t(295) = 7.08, p < .01. Third, work engagement and problem recognition in terms of opportunities were significantly and positively related, b = .19, t(294) = 4.28, p < .01. Last, the direct effect of proactive personality on problem recognition in terms of opportunities was positive and significant, b = .56, t(294) = 6.40, p < .01. We did find a significant mediation effect of work engagement in the model with problem recognition in term of opportunities as outcome variable (effect work engagement = .14, CI = [.07; .23]). Therefore, evidence was found for Hypothesis 1.
Proactive personality, emotional exhaustion, and problem recognition. For Hypothesis 2, the positive relation between employees’ proactive personality and problem recognition in terms of threats will be mediated by emotional exhaustion, we found a positive and significant relation between proactive personality and problem recognition in terms of threats, b = .43,
t(296) = 4.51, p < .01. However, we found a negative and nonsignificant relation between
on problem recognition in terms of threats was positive and significant, b = .42, t(295) = 4.45, p < .01. We did not find a significant mediation effect of emotional exhaustion in the model with problem recognition in terms of threats as outcome variable (effect emotional exhaustion = .01,
CI = [-.01; .03]). Therefore, no evidence was found for Hypothesis 2.
Control appraisal as moderator. For Hypothesis 3 and 4 we made use of model 7 of the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013). Again, we included the variables age, gender, and education as control variables. Hypothesis 3stated that, the positive relation between proactive personality and work engagement will be strengthened under high rather than low levels of control appraisal. The interaction effect of proactive personality and job control was not significant for work engagement, b = -.04, t(6, 292) = -.1.22, p > .05. Therefore, we found no evidence for Hypothesis 3. For Hypothesis 4, the positive relation between proactive personality and emotional exhaustion will be strengthened under low rather than high levels of control appraisal, we found no significant interaction effect between proactive personality and job control for emotional exhaustion, b = .07, t(6, 293) = 1.65, p > .05. This means, we found no evidence for Hypothesis 4.
As we stated above, we did not found a moderation effect for control appraisal on the relation between proactive personality and work engagement versus emotional exhaustion. This also implies that we were not able to support the overall moderation mediation model. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 and Hypothesis 6 were not supported.
--- Insert Table 2 about here ---
relation between proactive personality and problem recognition in terms of threats b = .43, t(296) = 4.51, p < .01. Furthermore, there was a positive and significant relation between proactive personality and work engagement b = .77, t(296) = 7.09, p < .01. Besides, there was a positive and significant relation between work engagement and problem recognition in terms of threats
b = .16, t(295) = 3.22, p < .01. Last, the direct effect of proactive personality on problem
recognition in terms of threats was positive and significant, b = .30, t(295) = 3.01, p < .01. We did find a significant mediation effect of work engagement in the model with problem recognition in terms of threats as outcome variable (effect work engagement = .12, CI = [.05; .22]).
DISCUSSION
This research examined the relation between proactive personality and problem recognition in terms of opportunities and threats by collecting field data among leaders and their employees. To be more specific, we proposed that proactive personality is related to problem recognition in terms of opportunities through work engagement. Since proactive personality leads to work engagement we expect that proactive employees focus on opportunity cues. In contrast, we proposed that proactive personality is related to problem recognition in terms of threats through emotional exhaustion. Since proactive personality leads to emotional exhaustion we expect proactive employees focus on threat cues. Furthermore, we proposed that the relation between proactive personality and work engagement versus emotional exhaustion is strengthened by control appraisal because control appraisal can stimulate extra proactivity. In line with our expectations, proactive personality was related to problem recognition in terms of opportunities through work engagement. Thereby, we found support for Hypothesis 1.
Furthermore, we did not find evidence for Hypothesis 3. Thus, control appraisal did not moderate the relation between proactive personality and work engagement. A possible explanation is that employees who score high on control appraisal in combination with many task responsibilities do not want to lose their control by taking even more task responsibilities. As a consequence they will not become more proactive to be certain they will not lose control when they take extra responsibilities. If they do not show extra proactive behavior, they will probably not experience more work engagement. This might explain why we did not find evidence for the proposition that high control appraisal strengthens the relation between proactive personality and work engagement. However, we found a positive relation between control appraisal and work engagement. A possible explanation for this finding is that more control is related to more resources (Van der Elst et al., 2014). More resources may motivate employees to get even more resources which stimulate employees to work harder what might lead to work engagement.
enough resources to deal with threatened circumstances (Van der Elst et al., 2014). The negative relation, which we found between control appraisal and emotional exhaustion, might mean that employees who experience low control appraisal become emotional exhausted because they are no longer able to deal with situations which are threatened.
Theoretical Implications
Through this research we gained more knowledge about how employees recognize problems and which factors influence this first step of the creative problem-solving process. Therefore, we contributed to the literature on proactive personality, work engagement, emotional exhaustion, problem recognition, and control appraisal in the following ways.
proposed and found that proactive personality influences the way employees recognize problems through work engagement.
Second, Reiter-Palmon & Robinson (2009) indicate that little research has been conducted on the influence of personality on the first phase of the creative problem solving process. With our research we answered the call to more research on the relation between personality and problem recognition. This research showed that proactive personality influenced the way employees recognize problems in terms of opportunities and threats. Our research distinguishes two different paths. The path of work engagement and the path of emotional exhaustion. By distinguishing the two paths, we know that proactive personality leads to work engagement which again leads to problem recognition in terms of opportunities. On the other hand, proactive personality did not lead to emotional exhaustion and emotional exhaustion did not lead to problem recognition in terms of threats. This finding might indicate that employees who have a proactive personality mainly experience the benefits of a proactive personality (e.g., increase in job resources and work engagement) instead of disadvantages (e.g., decrease in job resources and emotional exhaustion). Besides, our supplementary analysis showed that proactive personality is related to problem recognition in terms of threats through work engagement. This means that an employees’ feeling of work engagement does not necessarily lead to one way of problem recognition (opportunities or treats).
developed that measured whether employees recognize problems in terms of opportunities or threats. In other words, the scale measured whether employees are mainly focused on environmental cues which signals opportunities or threats. The scale was reliable and therewith a new measurement-instrument has been developed.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
factors on problem recognition. In our supplementary analyses we found already evidence for the positive relation between openness to experience and problem recognition in terms of opportunities through work engagement. However, we propose more research should be done on the influence of different personality factors on problem recognition (Reiter-Palmon & Robinson, 2009). In addition, future research can focus on which concepts determine whether proactive employees experiences work engagement or emotional exhaustion. For example, Huhtala, Tolvanen, Mauno, and Feldt (2015) found in their study a relation between ethical organizational cultures and higher levels of work engagement and lower levels of burn out. Follow-up studies may examine whether high ethical organizational cultures may strengthen the relation between proactive personality and work engagement. In addition, follow-up studies can look at the influence of ethical organizational cultures on emotional exhaustion and problem recognition.
Practical Implications
Our research findings show that proactive personality can lead to different types of problem recognition (i.e., opportunities and threats) through work engagement and emotional exhaustion. Where previous studies have mainly focused on the last phases of the creative problem solving-process, this study has focused on the influence of personality on the very first phase of the creative problem solving-process.
resources, employers can stimulate employees to invest in resources. Thus, employers can create a work environment in which resource gains are encouraged. However, when organizations want to stimulate problem recognition in terms of threats, organizations may hire proactive employees too. In our research we found a relation between proactive personality and problem recognition in terms of threats. In addition, our supplementary analysis show that proactive personality is related to problem recognition in terms of threats through work engagement. Therefore, our findings might suggest that resource investment also has to be stimulated in situations where problem recognition in terms of threats are seen as important.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and Creativity at Work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 367–403.
https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD–R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 1, 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235
Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65(10), 1359-1378.
doi:10.1177/0018726712453471
Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2013). Creativity and charisma among female leaders: The role of resources and work engagement. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 24(14), 2760–2779.
https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1080/09585192.2012.751438
Basadur, M., Ellspermann, S., & Evans, G. (1994). A new methodology for formulating ill-structured problems. Omega, 22(6), 627–645.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118.
doi:10.1002/job.4030140202
Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. 2009. Investigating self-regulatory elements of proactivity at
work. Working paper, Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield,
UK.
Binnewies, C., & Wörnlein, S. C. (2011). What makes a creative day? A diary study on the interplay between affect, job stressors, and job control. Journal of Organizational
Bolino, M., Valcea, S., & Harvey, J. (2010). Employee, manage thyself: The potentially negative implications of expecting employees to behave proactively. Journal Of
Occupational And Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 325-345.
doi:10.1348/096317910X493134
Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54(1), 106–148. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x
Chen, S., Westman, M., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2015). The commerce and crossover of resources: Resource conservation in the service of resilience. Stress and Health: Journal of the
International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 31(2), 95–105.
https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1002/smi.2574
Crant, J. M. (1995). The Proactive Personality Scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 532–537. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.532
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal Of Management, 26(3), 435-462. doi:10.1177/014920630002600304
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(1), 63–75. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200002)21:1<63::AID-JOB8>3.0.CO;2-J Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretive systems.
Academy of Management Review, 9, 284-295.
Van der Elst, T., Van den Broeck, A., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2014). On the reciprocal relationship between job insecurity and employee well‐being: Mediation by perceived control? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(4), 671–693. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1111/joop.12068
Fay, D., & Hüttges, A. (2017). Drawbacks of proactivity: Effects of daily proactivity on daily salivary cortisol and subjective well-being. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 22(4), 429–442. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1037/ocp0000042.supp
(Supplemental)
Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (2010). A look back to move ahead: New directions for research on proactive performance and other discretionary work behaviours. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 59(1), 1–20.
https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2009.00413.x
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
Frese, M., & Fay, D. 2001. Personal initiative (PI): An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (Vol. 23): 133-187. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology., Vol. 4, 2nd ed. (pp. 271–340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press. Retrieved from
Friedland, N., Keinan, G., & Regev, Y. (1992). Controlling the uncontrollable: Effects of stress on illusory perceptions of controllability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
63(6), 923–931. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.923
Gardner, D. G. (1990). Task complexity effects on non-task-related movements: A test of activation theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45(2), 209– 231. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1016/0749-5978(90)90012-X
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(4), 687–697. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.687
Glaser, W., & Hecht, T. D. (2013). Work-family conflicts, threat-appraisal, self-efficacy and emotional exhaustion. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(2), 164–182.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941311300685
Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The Conservation Of Resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 350–370. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1006/jvbe.1998.1666
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. 2008. The dynamics of proactivity at work: Lessons from feedback-seeking and organizational citizenship behavior research. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 28): 3-34. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Greenberg, J. (2004). Stress Fairness to Fare No Stress: Managing Workplace Stress by Promoting Organizational Justice. Organizational Dynamics, 33(4), 352–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.09.003
Greenberger, D. B., & Strasser, S. (1986). Development and application of a model of personal control in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 164–177.
Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit
innovativeness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(1), 78–91. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.003
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis.
Model Templates for PROCESS for SPSS and SAS. Geraadpleegd van
http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxb14/M554/specreg/templates.pdf
Henker, N., Sonnentag, S., & Unger, D. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity: The mediating role of promotion focus and creative process
engagement. Journal Of Business And Psychology, 30(2), 235-247. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9348-7
Hoaglin, D. C., & Iglewicz, B. (1987). Fine tuning some resistant rules for outlier labeling.
Journal of American Statistical Association, 82, 1147-1149.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1988). The ecology of stress. Washington, DC, US: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513 Huhtala, M., Tolvanen, A., Mauno, S., & Feldt, T. (2015). The associations between ethical
organizational culture, burnout, and engagement: A multilevel study. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 30(2), 399–414.
https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1007/s10869-014-9369-2
Isen, A. M., Johnson, M. M., Mertz, E., & Robinson, G. F. (1985). The influence of positive affect on the unusualness of word associations. Journal Of Personality And Social
Psychology, 48(6), 1413-1426. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1413
Jawahar, I. M., Kisamore, J. L., Stone, T. H., & Rahn, D. L. (2012). Differential effect of inter-role conflict on proactive individual’s experience of burnout. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 27(2), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9234-5
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287 Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology., Vol. 3, 2nd ed. (pp. 571– 650). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy- ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1993-97201-010&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction
of working life. New York, NY: Basic Books
Kong, Y., & Li, M. (2018). Proactive personality and innovative behavior: The mediating roles of job-related affect and work engagement. Social Behavior and Personality, 46(3), 431– 446. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy- ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2018-31647-008&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Lazarus, R. S. (1984). Puzzles in the study of daily hassles. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 7(4), 375–389. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1007/BF00845271
Lazarus, R. S., DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., & Gruen, R. (1985). Stress and adaptational outcomes: The problem of confounded measures. American Psychologist, 40(7), 770– 779. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1037/0003-066X.40.7.770
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 123–133. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.123
Li, M., Wang, Z., Gao, J., & You, X. (2017). Proactive personality and job satisfaction: The mediating effects of self-efficacy and work engagement in teachers. Current Psychology:
A Journal For Diverse Perspectives On Diverse Psychological Issues, 36(1), 48-55.
doi:10.1007/s12144-015-9383-1
Li, L., Zhong, J. A., Chen, Y., Xie, Y., & Mao, S. (2014). Moderating effects of proactive personality on factors influencing work engagement based on the job demands-resources model. Social Behavior and Personality, 42(1), 7–16.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.1.7
Lu, C., Wang, H., Lu, J., Du, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Does work engagement increase person-job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 84, 142–152.
McClelland, G. P., Leach, D. J., Clegg, C. W., & McGowan, I. (2014). Collaborative crafting in call centre teams. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(3), 464–486. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1111/joop.12058
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. (1976). The structure of "unstructured" decisions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 246-275.
Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: Strategies and tactics for
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. The Leadership
Quarterly, 11(1), 11-35. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00041-7
Nelson, D. L., & Simmons, B. L. (2003). Health psychology and work stress: A more positive approach. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health
psychology. (pp. 97–119). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1037/10474-005
Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Eby, L. T. (2006). Locus of control at work: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1057–1087. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.416
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835–852. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.835
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–652.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636
Pretz, J. E., Naples, A. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Recognizing, defining, and representing
problems. In J. E. Davidson, R. J. Sternberg, J. E. Davidson, R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The
psychology of problem solving (pp. 3-30). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511615771.002
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Robinson, E. J. (2009). Problem identification and construction: What do we know, what is the future?. Psychology Of Aesthetics, Creativity, And The Arts, 3(1), 43-47. doi:10.1037/a0014629
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1217–1227.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Bevlogenheid: Een begrip gemeten = Work Engagement: The measurement of a concept. Gedrag En Organisatie, 17(2), 89–112. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy- ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2004-14338-001&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., and Jackson, S. E. (1996). ‘Maslach Burnout
Inventory-General Survey’, in C. Maslach, S.E. Jackson and M.P. Leiter (eds.), The
Maslach Burnout Inventory-Test Manual (3rd edn) (Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA).
Schaufeli, W., & van Rhenen, W. (2006). Over de rol van positieve en negatieve emoties bij het welbevinden van managers: Een studie met de Job-related Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS) = About the role of positive and negative emotions in managers’ wellbeing: A study using the Job-related Affective Well-being Scale (JAWS). Gedrag En Organisatie,
19(4), 323–344. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy- ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2006-23558-002&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The
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(4), 845-874. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00234.x
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. New York, NY: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy- ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1992-98227-000&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-b.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1957-08247-000&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Seo, M., Bartunek, J. M., & Barrett, L. F. (2010). The role of affective experience in work motivation: Test of a conceptual model. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 31(7), 951-968.
Shally, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2009). Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy Of
Management Journal, 52(3), 489-505. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.41330806
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here?. Journal Of
Management, 30(6), 933-958. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007
effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 1087–1090. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.015
Singh, J., Goolsby, J. R., & Rhoads, G. K. (1994). Behavioral and psychological consequences of boundary spanning burnout for customer service representatives. Journal Of Marketing
Research, 31(4), 558-569. doi:10.2307/3151883
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39(11), 1005–1016.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678603901104
Spell, C. S., & Arnold, T. (2007). An appraisal perspective of justice, structure, and job control as antecedents of psychological distress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(6), 729– 751. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1002/job.441
Tims, M., & Bakker, A.B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 36(2), 1-9. doi: 10.4102/ sajip.v36i2.841
Walinga, J. (2008). Toward a theory of change readiness: The roles of appraisal, focus, and perceived control. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(3), 315–347. https://doi-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/10.1177/0021886308318967
Van Wingerden, J., & Poell, R. F. (2017). Employees’ perceived opportunities to craft and in-role performance: The mediating in-role of job crafting and work engagement. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01876
Wolfram, M., Bellingrath, S., Feuerhahn, N., & Kudielka, B. M. (2013). Emotional exhaustion and overcommitment to work are differentially associated with hypothalamus–pituitary– adrenal (HPA) axis responses to a low-dose ACTH1–24 (Synacthen) and dexamethasone– CRH test in healthy school teachers. Stress: The International Journal on the Biology of
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 486-493. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.486
Zig Ziglar Quotes. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved January 15, 2019, from
TABLE 1
Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations of Age, Gender, Education Level, Proactive Personality, Problem Recognition, Work Engagement, Emotional Exhaustion and Control Appraisal. Variabele: M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Age 40.00 12.12 - 2. Gender1 0.55 0.50 -.04 - 3. Education level 4.03 0.81 -.17** -.06 - 4. Proactive Personality 14.85 2.32 -.11 -.02 .02 - 5. Recognition of Opportunities 25.18 3.74 -.04 -.12* .20** .43** - 6. Recognition of Threats 23.25 3.97 -.17** -.07 .11 .27** .51** - 7. Work Engagement 33.97 4.74 -.08 .17** -.00 .37** .33** .25** - 8. Emotional Exhaustion 18.04 5.89 -.05 -.08 .12* -.05 -.05 -.05 -.39** - 9. Control Appraisal 14.59 2.92 .00 .08 .01 .04 .13* .09 .38** -.50** -
1Gender, dummy coded 0 = male, 1 = female
TABLE 2
Regression Table.
Predictor
1. Control variables
M: Work Engagement M: Emotional Exhaustion
Age Gender1 Education 2. Main effects -.01 (.02) 1.75 (.49)** -.19 (.31) -.02 (.03) -.95 (.68) .80 (.42) Constant Proactive Personality 23.21 (2.37)** .75 (.11)** 18.17 (3.25)** -.14 (.15) Predictor 1. Control variables
DV: Problem Recognition in Terms of Opportunities2 DV: Problem Recognition in terms of threats3 Age Gender1 Education 2. Main effects .01 (.02) -1.06 (.38)** .93 (.23)** -.04 (.02)* -.56 (.44) .40 (.28) Constant Proactive Personality Work Engagement Emotional Exhaustion R2 6.81 (2.06)** .56 (.09)** .19 (.04)** - .28** 18.15 (2.21)** .42 (.09)** - -.04 (04) .10** Predictor 1. Main effects
Work Engagement Emotional Exhaustion
Proactive Personality Control Appraisal 2. Interaction effects .71 (.10)** .60 (.08)** -.05 (.13) -.99 (.10)**
Proactive Personality x Control Appraisal -.04 (.03) .07 (.04)
* Significant at a level of p < .05 (2-sided) ** Significant at a level of p < .01 (2-sided)
1Dummy coded: 0 = male, 1 = female
2 Overall mediation model: R2 = .28, F(5, 294) = 22.87, p < .01
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONS FOR EMPLOYEES Proactive Personality
1. Nothing is more exciting than seeing my ideas turn into reality. 2. If I see something I don’t like, I fix it.
3. I am always looking for better ways to do things.
4. If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from making it happen. Problem Recognition in Terms of Opportunities
1. I create possibilities for improvement and advancement by using my imagination to come up with things that do not yet exist in the current state of reality.
2. I create possibilities for improvement and advancement by envisioning situations that actually do not (yet) exist.
3. I create possibilities for improvement and advancement by envisioning things in my mind that as such do not (yet) exist.
4. I discover possibilities for improvement and advancement through picking up existing signals and trends that point these out.
5. I discover possibilities for improvement and advancement through connecting different pieces of information (‘connecting the dots’).
6. I discover possibilities for improvement and advancement through combining information from different perspectives and domains.
7. How often do you recognize new opportunities and possibilities that may improve the current working state?
Problem Recognition in Terms of Threats
2. I foresee threats and risks for deterioration and decline by envisioning situations that actually do not (yet) exist.
3. I foresee threats and risks for deterioration and decline by envisioning things in my mind that as such do not (yet) exist.
4. I discover threats and risks for deterioration and decline through picking up existing signals and trends that point these out.
5. I discover threats and risks for deterioration and decline through connecting different pieces of information (‘connecting the dots’).
6. I discover threats and risks for deterioration and decline through combining information from different perspectives and domains.
7. How often do you recognize new threats and risks that may worsen the current working state?
Work Engagement
1. At my work, I feel bursting with energy. 2. At my job I feel strong and vigorous
3. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work. 4. I am enthusiastic about my job.
5. My job inspires me.
6. I am proud on the work that I do.
7. I feel happy when I am working intensely. 8. I am immersed in my work.
9. I get carried away when I am working. Emotional Exhaustion
3. I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and have to face another day on the job. 4. I feel burned out from my work.
5. I feel frustrated by my job.
6. I feel I’m working too hard on my job. 7. I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.
8. Working with people all day is really a strain for me. 9. Working with people directly puts too much stress on me. Control Appraisal
1. In my job, most of the problems that I experience are completely “out of my hands”. 2. With many of the problems I experience, it is not worth telling anybody because nothing
will change.
3. I feel powerless to control the outcomes of the process I work on.
4. The same problems keep happening again and again, regardless of what I do. General
1. How old are you? 2. What is your gender?
3. What is your highest achieved education?
4. Which work domain (functional area) best reflects your expertise? 5. How long have you been employed in your organization?
6. How long have you been employed in this team? 7. How long has (your leader) been your supervisor?
