Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2010), .docx

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2010),
83, 301-324 n ^ H V ^ ç •
©2010 The British Psychological Society wlß^^ Society
301
The
British
Psychological
www.bpsjournals.co.uk
Proactively performing teams: The role of work
design, transformational leadership, and team
composition
Helen M. Williams'* Sharon K. Parker^ and Nick Turner^
'Swansea University, UK
^The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
This study investigated the determinants of team proactive
performance amongst 43
shift teams from a UK chemical processing plant. Using
external ratings of team
proactive performance, the study found that the most proactive
teams were those
v^ith higher levels of self-management, transformational team
leaders, and a higher-
than-average level of proactive personality. The relationship
between transformational
leadership and team proactive performance was mediated by

favourable interpersonal
norms. In addition, lower diversity of proactive personality
amongst team members had
an indirect association with team proactive performance via its
negative effect on
favourable interpersonal norms.
'Teams are remarkably passive and accepting even when given
work that is inappropriate
for performance by a team, when the design of the team's task is
flawed, or when
contextual supports for teamwork are unavailable or inadequate
. . . "
Oldham and Hackman (2010, p. 474)
As suggested in the above quote, some work teams can be
overly passive and adaptive
when a more appropriate response might be to take charge and
proactively change the
situation. Yet, despite considerable research on individual-level
proactivity (Bateman &
Crant, 1993; Frese & Fay, 2001; Parker, Williams, & Turner,
2006), few studies have
focused on what drives this behaviour at the team level. As
Oldham and Hackman (2010,
p. 474) concluded little is known about the roots of this
passivity or what it would
take to foster greater team proactivity about such matters. It
would be good to know
more'. In this study, we focus on the determinants of team
proactive performance
and the processes through which team proactive performance is
achieved. We
consider four types of ambient stimuli that could influence the
proactivity of the team

* Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Helen M.
Williams, School of Business and Economics, Swansea
University,
Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK (e-mail: [email protected]).
DOI: 10.1348/096317910X502494
302 Helert M. Williams et al.
(work design, leadership, norms, team composition), and the
possible mediating role of
favourable interpersonal norms. Our study suggests unique
insights into factors that lead
teams to take charge and initiate change in their environment or
the team.
Team proactive performance
Most research and theory has considered the concept of
proactivity at the individual
level. Individual-level proactive behaviour refers to self-
starting, future-focused action in
which the individual alms to change the external situation, such
as improving work
methods, or to change some aspect of his/her self, such as
improving one's performance
by actively seeking feedback from a supervisor (Parker et al.,
2006). Such behaviour is
more active, change oriented, and future focused than either
core task performance or
adaptive performance, and, as such, is particularly important in
uncertain contexts in
which there is a lack of predictability in the inputs, processes,
or outputs of work
systems (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007). When uncertainty is

high, work-roles cannot be
formalized precisely; they must emerge dynamically in response
to changing conditions
and demands. Proficient compliance with specifications is not
sufficient; nor is it
enough just to adapt and respond to these dynamic changes.
Individuals need to
take charge of situations, anticipate problems before they arise,
and initiate change in the
work system and work-roles. Researchers have shown the
importance for individual and
organizational outcomes of such individual-level proactivity
(Fuller & Marier, 2009).
Our focus in the current paper is on proactive teams rather than
proactive
individuals. We propose that team proactive performance is a
team-level concept that
has theoretical similarity with individual-level proactive
performance and thus define
proactive team performance as the extent to which a team
engages in self-starting,
future-focused action that aims to change the external situation
or the team itself.
Examples of proactive team behaviours include the team
introducing new work
methods, the team preventing problems rather than only reacting
to them, or the team
scanning the environment to identify potential opportunities.
Such team proactivity is
collective in emphasis: it is about the way the team behaves as a
group, that is, as an
interdependent and goal-directed combination of individuals
(Morgeson & Hofmann,
1999). As such, proactive team performance is not the same as
the sum of individual

team member proactive performances, such as multiple
individual team members acting
proactively to contribute to individual or team goals (Strauss,
Griffin, & Rafferty, 2009).
Individuals within a team tnight behave proactively, such as by
introducing new
methods, but unless this effort is coordinated, the team Itself
might not be proactive.
Team proactive performance is an emergent property of teams
that reflects and
shapes team interactions. When a team carries out its tasks,
team members interact w îth
each other to plan how they wUl meet their goals, monitor goal
achievement, monitor
external conditions, and coordinate interdependent activities
(Marks, Mathieu, &
Zaccaro, 2001). Through these interactions, team members
develop shared and enduring
ways of responding to challenges in the environment, which
then become the team's
behavioural patterns. For some teams, these interactions lead to
the team trying to meet
their goals in proactive ways, such as by platming ahead to
prevent future problems.
Other teams collectively develop routines for managing these
processes of goal setting,
monitoring, and performing in more passive ways. Team
proactive performance, whilst
distinct from individual-level proactive performance in
structure (because it is composed
of the interactions of team members rather than individual
behaviour), is thus similar to
individual-level proactive performance in function (Morgeson &
Hofmann, 1999).

Team proactive performance 303
There are relatively few studies of team proactive behaviour,
but those that do exist
suggest that proactive teams achieve positive outcomes. Hyatt
and Reddy (1997) found
that proactive behaviour of maintenance work groups was
positively related to the
response time of teams. Kirkman and Rosen (1999) found that
team proactive behaviour
was positively linked to team-level customer service and
productivity. Similarly, Tesluk
and Mathieu (1999) found that road crews who used highly self-
starting strategies to
manage performance barriers (e.g., taking advantage of low-
workload times to improve
methods) were most effective. Finally, Druskat and Kayes
(2000) found that team
proactivity in problem solving (defined as anticipating and
heading off problems
through proactive investigation, assessment, and action)
predicted team learning and
team performance in short-term student project teams.
Determinants of team proactive performance
Understanding the determinants of team proactive performance
is important because
one cannot simply assume homology across levels. As Chen,
Bliese, and Mathieu (2005)
argued: 'if researchers find that relationships are homogolous
across levels of analysis, it
adds to the parsimony and breadth of theories. In contrast,
should relationships not
prove to be homogolous across levels, it signals a boundary

condition and a need to
refine theories and to better understand how the processes
operate at each distinct
level' (p. 376). Moreover, team proactive performance is
distinct from other team-level
performance concepts that have had more attention, such as
team adaptability. Kirkman
and Rosen (1999) identified team empowerment (i.e., the team's
collective feelings of
meaning and control) as a determinant of team proactive
performance, and
empowerment in turn was predicted by external team leader
behaviours,
production/service responsibilities, team-based HR policies, and
social structure.
Likewise, Tesluk and Mathieu (1999) found that proactive crew
management strategies
were predicted by self-management, leadership, and teamwork
processes. However, the
mediating links between the variables of work design,
leadership, and team processes
were not considered in these studies, and team composition was
not examined as a
determinant.
Our study seeks to expand understanding of the determinants of
team proactive
performance by considering a broader range of team-level
variables than considered
thus far (see Figure 1 for model). To identify predictors, we
draw on Chen and Kanfer's
(2006) categorization of factors that influence team motivation
and behaviour. These
scholars proposed a reorganization of person and situation
factors according to their
stimulus characteristics, not their impact. They identified

ambient and discretionary
inputs to teams. Ambient stimuli refer to team-oriented stimuli
that pervade the team as
a whole, such as socio-technical aspects of work like work
design, whereas
discretionary stimuli are those that are directed at or presented
to specific team
members, such as personalized feedback to individual team
members or rewards at an
individual level. In the current study, we focus on ambient
stimuli because these have
stronger and more direct effects on team-level motivation and
performance than
discretionary stimuli (Chen & Kanfer, 2006). Of the four
categories of ambient inputs
identified by Chen and Kanfer (2006), we include three
categories for which there are
clear theoretical reasons to expect associations with proactive
performance: work
design (i.e., team self-management), leadership (i.e., the
transformational leadership of
the team leader), and norms (i.e., the extent to which there are
norms within the team). We expected these stimuli to operate
similarly to how they
304 Helen M. Williams et al.
Mean level of proactive
personality
Transformational
leadership

Proactive personality
diversity
Self-management
H3
Favorable
interpersonal
norms
Team
proactive
performance
H8
H7
Figure I. Hypothesized model.
operate at the individual level of analysis. We did not include
team feedback, the fourth
category of ambient stimuli identified by Chen and Katifer,
because we expected
feedback to be more important for fostering core, proficient
performance rather than
proactive performance.
In addition to work design, leadership, and norms, we included
team composition as
a determinant. Specifically, we considered both the mean level
of individual proactive
personality and the diversity of proactive personality within the

team. Although past
research has investigated how the proactive personality of
individuals affects individual-
level proactivity (e.g., Parker et al., 2006), research has not
investigated how team
member personality characteristics combine to affect team-level
proactivity. Team
composition has been found to be a key factor in predicting
team effectiveness (e.g., see
Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; Williams & Allen,
2008, for reviews) and, as
we elaborate shortly, there are compelling reasons to consider
this attribute of teams in
relation to team proactive performance. The inclusion of team
composition means we
test a hybrid theory of homology (Chen et al., 2005) that
identifies certain homologous
predictors across levels (e.g., leadership, self-management), but
also some predictors
that are only meaningful at the group level (team composition).
Work design: Team self-mar)agemer)t
In terms of work design, our focus is on team self-management.
Self-managing teams are
interdependent groups of individuals who assume collective
responsibility for the day-
to-day operations of the team (Goodman, Devadas, & Griffith-
Hughson, 1988; Parker &
Wall, 1998). Members of self-managing teams typically
experience greater variety,
feedback, task significance, and task identity as a result of the
self-managing design, but
the most important feature is the greater collective autonomy
that individuals have over
their activities. For example, self-managing production teams

typically allocate tasks
amongst themselves, decide on the timing of their methods, and
take responsibility for
aspects such as quality and machine maintenance. In essence,
team self-management is a
form of shared leadership focused around decision-making, with
shared leadership
defined as 'an emergent team property that results from the
distribution of leadership
influence across multiple team members' (Carson, Tesiuk, &
Marrone, 2007, p. 1218).
At the individual level of analysis, job autonomy has been
identified as one of the
most consistent determinants of proactive behaviours, such as
proactive problem
solving and idea implementation (Parker et al., 2006), personal
initiative (Frese, Kring,
Soose, & Zempel, 1996), voice (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998), and
suggesting
improvements (Axtell et al., 2000). We suggest the same
positive effects of autonomy
operate at the team level. Self-managing teams allow team
members the control and
opportunity to manage their demands (variances) more actively.
In essence, team
autonomy 'allows' the team to be more proactive. Self-
management also increases the
team's motivation to be proactive. Thus self-managing teams,
through greater task
control and engagement in challenging tasks, develop a shared

sense of collective
efficacy that they can shape their environment in a proactive
way. Prior research shows
that self-management enhances collective efficacy which in turn
drives performance
(Chen & Katifer, 2006). Team self-management could also
etihance team proactive
performance through a cross-level process in which team self-
management, because of
the greater autonomy it affords individuals as well as teams,
results in greater individual
proactive motivation which in turn drives individual proactive
behaviour. Although we
do not test this cross-level process, it provides a further
explanation as to why team self-
management might affect team proactive performance. In sum,
there is good reason to
expect that team self-management will be associated with team
proactive performance,
as indeed shown by two team-level studies (Kirkman, Rosen,
Tesiuk, & Gibson, 2004;
Tesiuk & Mathieu, 1999). We aimed to replicate these findings.
Our hypothesis is:
Hypothesis I: Team self-management will be positively related
to team proactive performance.
Group norms: Favourable interpersonal norms
Norms are informal 'rules' present in a group that regulate the
behaviour of members
belonging to the group and establish a common code of conduct
(Feldman, 1984). Chen
and Klimoski (2003) argued that interdependent contexts
amplify the importance of
group norms and climate. Here we focus on interpersonal

norms, or the code of
conduct by which team members typically treat each other.
Favourable interpersonal
norms are especially important for proactivity because engaging
in proactive behaviour
can be interpersonally 'risky' (Parker etal., 2006). At the
individual level, it is theorized
that individuals weigh up the likely benefits and risks before
deciding whether to take
charge at work (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Perceived risks are
enhanced when
individuals fear they might be put down or not respected by
colleagues. According to
Dutton, Ashford, Lawrence, and Miner-Rubino (2002), when
deciding whether to
engage in discretionary behaviour, individuals engage in
contextual sensemaking
assessing 'whether or not the context is favorable for taking
some type of action'
(p. 355). In support of this, relationship quality between the
individual and the people
with whom they were to sell was important in predicting issue
selling (Ashford,
Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998), a proactive behaviour in
which individuals try to
itifluence the organizational agenda by 'selling' issues to
leaders. Further, Parker et al.
(2006) found team members' trust in co-workers to be positively
related to engaging in
individual-level proactive work behaviour.
We propose the importance of a favourable interpersonal
context at the team level.
In deciding whether to suggest ideas or start discussions with
other team members

regarding how an anticipated problem can be overcome, team
members will assess the
way they work together and decide whether the within-team
environment is supportive
(or favourable) for taking such action. If the norms include team
members' supporting
and respecting each other, they will more likely take the risk of
being proactive.
Moreover, when there are favourable interpersonal norms, one
team member putting
forward suggestions will start positive discussions amongst
team members, thus
encouraging more ideas to be put forward by the team. Some
support for this idea
comes from Tesluk and Mathieu (1999), who found that team
work processes of
coordination, potency, and familiarity were positively related to
problem-management
actions and strategies. Likewise, Zárraga and Bonache (2005)
found a 'high care'
atmosphere (incorporating issues such as respect within the
team) facilitated the
transfer and creation of knowledge in self-managed teams.
Similarly, team psychological
safety has been found to be important to team learning
behaviour (Edmondson, 1999),
and team norms supporting itinovation predict team innovation
(Anderson & West,
1998). We therefore suggest that, for the team to be proactive, it
requires members to
appraise the interpersonal norms as favourable so that they are
willing to speak out and

challenge the status quo, and are prepared to put forward
suggestions and ideas for
improvement. We hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 2: Favourable interpersonal norms within the team
will be positively related to team
proactive performance.
Leadership: Transformational team leader
According to Chen and Kanfer (2006), leadership arguably
represents the most
important of all contextual factors which might affect individual
and team motivation'
(p. 40). A key type of ambient leadership, directed towards the
team as a whole, is
transformational leadership. Transformational leaders motivate
teams by transforming
the values and priorities of team members and inspiring them to
perform beyond
expectations (Bass, 1985). Bass's (1985) four components of
transformational leadership
(idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized
consideration) collectively inspire followers to achieve more
than was thought possible.
Importantly for proactivity, transformational leaders encourage
followers to question
assumptions and think about ne^v ways of doing tasks.
Consistent w îth these ideas,
transformational leadership has been show n̂ to lead to positive
individual and
organizational outcomes (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Judge & Bono,
2000). At the team level,
research from military units in America (Bass, Avolio, Jung, &
Berson, 2003) and

Singapore (Um & Ployhart, 2004) has found that unit
commanders' transformational
leadership predicts unit performance in operational training
exercises. Like'wise, Keller
(1992) found that transformational leadership in research and
development teams
predicted superior technical quality of products produced by
these teams.
In the current study, v̂ e focus on team leaders who are 'hands-
on' within the team.
We suggest that one reason transformational leadership affects
team proactivity is
because transformational leaders encourage team self-
management. Transformational
leaders support individual development (Avolio & Gibbson,
1988) and inspire
individuals to want to engage in more challenging tasks, and
thereby promote greater
collective self-management. In accordance with these
arguments, at the organizational
level, CEO's transformational leadership has been found to be
positively related to
empowerment (Jung, Choŵ , & Wu, 2003). Another reason
tnight affect team proactive performance is via its effect on
interpersonal norms. At the
individual level, managers can have a significant impact on the
climate for innovation
and proactivity (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Transformational
team leaders also affect

team performance through infiuencing a shared vision and
increased team reflexivity
(Schippers, Den Hartog, Koopman, & van Knippenberg, 2008).
Leadership (including
individual consideration) has also been found to be related to a
positive group
atmosphere (e.g., active, open, friendly; Bierhoff & Müller,
2005) and team leaders
actively involved in teams facilitate a 'high care' atmosphere
within-teams (Zárraga &
Bonache, 2005).
In sum, we hypothesize that transformational leadership of the
team leader will
facilitate both self-management and favourable interpersonal
norms, and thus in turn
affect team proactive performance. Our hypothesis allows us to
test whether
individual-level findings of a positive link between
transformational leadership and
proactive behaviour (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010; Rank,
Nelson, Allen, & Xu, 1999;
Strauss et al., 2009) apply to teams. Moreover, we test
mechanisms through
which transformational leadership might affect team proactive
performance. Our
hypotheses are:
Hypothesis 3: Transformational leadership will be positively
related to team proactive
performance.
Hypothesis 4a: The effect of transformational leadership on
team proactive performance will be
mediated by the self-management of the team.

Hypothesis 4b: The effect of transformational leadership on
team proactive performance will be
mediated by favourable interpersonal norms.
Team compositior): Proactive personality mean and diversity
As Morgeson and Hofmann (1999) stated, the composition of a
unit can have 'a
pronounced influence on collective behaviour and systems of
interaction, thereby
infiuencing the phenomena that ultimately emerge' (p. 258). Of
particular importance
are underlying psychological characteristics (often referred to
as deep-level composition
variables) such as personality factors, values, and attitudes
(Bell, 2007). For example, a
meta-analysis by Bell (2007) concluded that mean levels of
conscientiousness, openness
to experience, and coUectiveness were strong predictors of team
performance. In regard
to predicting team proactivity, whilst other personality factors
might be important, we
focus on team members' proactive personality, a behavioural
tendency involving
showing initiative, identifying opportunities, taking action, and
persevering in attempts
to enact change (Bateman & Crant, 1993). At the individual
level, proactive personality
has been found to predict proactive problem solving (Parker et
al., 2006), individual
innovation (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001), entrepreneurship
(Crant, 1996), as well as
proactive work behaviour (Parker & Collins, 2010).
Investigating whether the impact of
proactive personality extends to the team level is an important
first step in understanding

how team composition relates to team proactive performance.
Team members with a proactive personality are inclined to put
forward ideas and
make suggestions as to how to improve the way work is done, as
well as to spot
potential problems and think of ways to get around them.
Consequently, the greater the
number of team members with proactive personalities the more
suggestions and ideas
the team will consider. Moreover, interaction amongst team
members with proactive
personalities is likely to stimulate team discussions resulting in
the team anticipating
problems and/or generating collective ideas about improving
things. We therefore
propose that the mean level of proactive personality in the team
will be positively
related to team proactive performance. In addition, we suggest
that a mechanism
through which this will manifest is self-management.
Individuals with a proactive
personality are more likely to engage in self-managed activities
(Parker & Sprigg, 1999),
which in turn will lead to increased team proactive
performance. For example, if the
team contains several members with a proactive personality,
these team members will
likely make the most of the opportunity to be more self-
managing, and will take on more
responsibility for activities such as task allocation. Through

processes such as role
modelling, others in the team will see their peers being self-
managing and will be more
likely to take up responsibility themselves.
Hypothesis 5: The mean level of proactive personality in the
team will be positively related to
team proactive performance.
Hypothesis 6: The effect of the mean level of proactive
personality in the team on team
proactive performance v^ill be mediated by self-management.
Another aspect of team composition likely to be important is
diversity in proactive
personality. Muchinsky and Monahan's (1987) distinction
between supplementary
and complementary models of person-organization fit is helpful
in this regard.
A supplementary model suggests that for some types of
personality, job performance
will be facilitated by homogeneity in personality (i.e., low
diversity) as team members
will be more compatible ^ t h those with a similar personality
(Neuman, Wagner, &
Christiansen, 1999). In contrast, a complementary model
suggests that the team
performance can be improved by diversity when 'each member
adds unique attributes
that are necessary for the team to be successful' (Neuman et al.,
1999, p. 31).
We base our hypotheses about proactive personality diversity on
a supplementary
model. Having passive team members (i.e., those law in
proactive personality) is

unlikely to be beneficial to the team in terms of team proactive
performance. Passive
team members are less likely to put forward suggestions.
Moreover, team members with
proactive personalities will be more likely to support others'
attempts to be proactive
because they themselves Uke to take charge and shape the
environment. They will
probably better understand the effort involved in being
proactive than passive team
members, and so actively endorse this effort. Equally, they
might experience frustration
towards colleagues who prefer to react or adapt to change,
rather than initiate it, and
who are different from themselves. They may also feel that they
are contributing more to
the team effort than other team members who have less
proactive personalities. All this
will reduce the likelihood that proactive ideas become
implemented within a team.
Having a team composed of both proactive and passive members
will also likely
affect the interpersonal norms. Diversity in job satisfaction of
team members has been
found to be associated with reduced cohesion (Harrison, Price,
& Bell, 1998) and less
social integration (Van der Vegt, 2002), while diversity in
values has been found to
be related to increased conflict (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale,
1999). Although at the
individual level and focusing on perceived rather than actual
dissimilarity, WiUiams,
Parker, and Turner (2007) found perspective taking is lower
amongst team members
who perceive themselves to be dissimilar from their fellow team

members in terms of
work style. Thus, differences amongst team members approach
to work can be
important to within-team relationships. Differences in the levels
of proactive personality
of team members may therefore negatively affect the
interpersonal atmosphere within
the team, for example, through reduced perspective taking
amongst team members,
increased arguments and disagreements within the team, lower
cohesion, and social
integration. We therefore propose that diversity in proactive
personality within the team
will decrease team proactive performance, and we expect that
this negative effect will
be due in part to the detrimental effect that diversity will have
on favourable
interpersonal norms.
Hypothesis 7: Proactive personality diversity will be negatively
related to team proactive
performance.
Hypoútesis 8: The effect of proactive personality diversity on
team proactive performance will
be mediated by favourable interpersonal norms.
Method
Procedure and sample
The study was conducted within a petrochemical processing

plant based in the UK.
The teams studied were shift teams consisting of production
technicians carrying out
day-to-day plant operations such as distillation, steam and
energy generation, and
ensuring pump reliability. At the time of the study, the process
of moving from
traditionally managed to self-managing teams had occurred with
varying degrees of
success across different areas of the plant. The change process
involved removing a shift
supervisor and broadening the roles of the production
technicians. Within each team,
one production technician was appointed the lead technician
(i.e., team leader). These
lead technicians were 'hands-on' members of the team who acted
as the central link
between the team and upper management. The average team size
was 7.16 members
CSD = 3.75).
The independent variables were measured via a questionnaire
that researchers
administered to all teams within the plant during work time. The
survey response rate
was 66% (N = 289) with an average within-team response rate
of 79%. When aggregated
to the team level, this produced usable survey data on 55 teams.
As the lead technicians
were integral members of the team, their scores were used along
with the other team
members for all the measures except transformational
leadership, for which they were
excluded as they were the specific focus of that measure.
To avoid common method variance, external ratings were used

to measure team
proactive performance. Plant engineers were asked to rate teams
with whom they had
regular contact on a daily basis. The self-managing teams
reported to the plant engineers
once the shift supervisors were removed from the hierarchy. In
total, 38 engineers
returned ratings, resulting in 47 teams being rated by between 2
and 5 engineers (average
number of ratings per team = 3.22). The final sample in this
study was 43 teams.
Measures
Proactive persoriality corvposWon
Individual-level proactive personality (a = .85) was assessed
using four of the
highest loading items from Bateman and Crant's (1993)
proactive personality scale.
This measure has proven reliability and validity (e.g., Bateman
& Crant, 1993) and the
same abbreviated scale has been used elsewhere (e.g., Parker &
Sprigg, 1999). Example
items include: 'If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent
me from making it
happen' and 'I am excellent at identifying opportunities'.
Responses ranged from 1 (not
true at all) to 5 (very true). The mean level of proactive
personality was the individual
proactive personality measure aggregated to the team level.

diversity was operationalized as the standard deviation in
proactive personality within
the team, which is the most appropriate measure of diversity for
interval variables
(Harrison & Klein, 2007).
Team self-management
Team self-management was assessed using a measure developed
specifically for this
study. Focus groups were conducted with 10 engineers and one
senior manager who
had been involved in the planning and implementation of self-
managed teams at the
chemical plant. The goal of the focus groups was to identify
activities that the team
would have been doing prior to the introduction of self-
managing teams, as well as all
the activities that self-managed teams should be doing once the
shift supervisors had
been removed. The resulting list comprised 19 activities.
Production technicians on the
teams were then asked to rate the extent to which they were
involved in each activity on
a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal). To identify items
reflecting self-
management, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted
using maximum-likelihood
extraction method and oblimin rotation. This analysis indicated
that the items loaded
onto three factors which, as expected, varied in their degree of
self-management.
Example items from the 10-item self-managing factor are: 'help
to monitor the team's
overall performance', 'help to set long-term training goals for

the team', and 'help to
select new team members'. These are all examples of activities
traditionally carried out
by supervisors, but which are carried out by team members as
self-managing teams. The
other two factors that reflected more traditional team tasks
included items such as 'carry
out housekeeping' and 'carry out own first-fix maintenance', w
ĥich are about the
breadth of tasks rather than the degree of self-management, and
are therefore not
considered further in the study.
Aggregation analyses showed there to be significant inter-rater
reliability,
ICC(l) = .101, F(6i) = 1.75, p < .01, and the mean r^g for the
measure as a whole
ŵ as .68. Although the r^g ̂ vas slightly lower than is desirable,
we considered it acceptable
because our measure of team self-management is what
Kozlowski and Klein (2000) refer
to as a cotifigural construct, which are constructs that 'emerge
from individuals but do not
coalesce as shared properties do' (p. 34). Although many self-
managing teams will have
higher than average levels of team members involved in self-
managing activities, it is not
necessary (nor perhaps appropriate) for team members to be
equally involved self-
managing activities. Consequently, it is not unsurprising that
consensus amongst
members of the team was lower for this measure than for other
measures in our study.
Indeed, some even argue it is not necessary to demonstrate
within-team agreement for
cotifigural constructs (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). In terms of

between-group variance, the
ICC(2) was .43. The nature of our measure might partly explain
why this is lower than the
.70 value which is typically considered acceptable. Another
factor is that the team sizes
within our sample were small, which lowers ICC(2) (see Bliese,
2000). Schippers et al.
(2008) argued that w ĥen this is the case researchers should rely
on r^g and ICC(l) when
considering the appropriateness of aggregation. We therefore
concluded there was
sufficient support for the aggregation of our measure to the
team level.
Team proactive performartce 31 I
Based on the focus group and interviews with plant managers,
we identified two
distinct areas within the plant. One area was regarded by our
contacts to be taking to self-
managed team working well and the other area was struggling.
A sigtiificant difference in
the expected direction was found in our measurement of team
self-management in these
areas, i(33) = i.OO,p < .01, thus helping to support the validity
of our measure.
Favourable interpersonal norms
Favourable interpersonal norms (a = .72) was assessed via three
highest-loading items
from an adaptation of Donovan, Dragow, and Munson's (1998)
measure of co-workers'
fair interpersonal treatment, which was demonstrated by

Donovan et al. to be both
reliable and valid. The items are: 'my team-mates put each other
down', 'my team-mates
argue with one another', 'my team-mates treat each other with
respect'. FoUow îng
Donovan et al., a three-point response scale was used such that
negatively keyed items
were coded: 1 (yes), 2 (cannot decide), and 3 (no).
Consequently, a high score
represents favourable interpersonal norms. Donovan et al.'s
original scale was at the
individual level, but our analyses indicated adequate within-
group agreement (mean
ŵg = -72) and, given the team sizes within the sample sufficient
inter-rater reliability
(̂ •(63) = 2.04, p < .001; ICC(l) = .14, ICC(2) = .51), justifying
aggregation of the
measure. Finally, in support of the validity of this measure, we
found that the teams'
ratings of favourable interpersonal norms was significantly
correlated to engineers'
ratings of the cohesion of the teams (r = .51, p < .01), which
although a narrower
construct than favourable interpersonal norms, is a construct
that would be expected to
correlate with the survey measure.
Transformatíonal leadership
Transformational leadership (a = .92) was measured using 10
items from Bass and
Avolio's (1997) Multifactor Leadership Questiormaire 5-X,
which they demonstrated to
be both a reliable and valid measure. Items tapped each of the
four components of

transformational leadership and the relative factor loadings
obtained in Bass and Avolio's
analyses, as well as their relevance to our study context, were
considered in item
selection. Example items include (how often does your team
leader): 'do things that
build my respect for him/her?', 'talk enthusiastically about what
needs to be done?', 'get
us to look at problems from many different angles?', 'treat each
team member as an
individual with unique needs and abilities?'. The response scale
ranged from 1 (never) to
5 (always). Team members (excluding the lead technician) were
asked to rate their lead
technician, and these ratings were aggregated to produce the
team-level transforma-
tional leadership score. Aggregation was demonstrated to be
appropriate due to
adequate within-group agreement (mean rwg = .95) and, given
the team sizes within the
sample, sufficient inter-rater reliability (F(65)= 5.06, p < .001;
ICC(l) = .24,
ICC(2) = .67).
Team proactive performance
Team proactive performance (a = .78). The measurement model
we apply is the
aggregate model (Chan, 1998) or global composition model
(Kozlowski & Klein, 2000)
in which the referent is the team, and the aggregate is based on
an aggregate-level
measure (in this case, an external rating for the team).
Engineers were asked to rate
teams in terms of their 'use of initiative to make the most of
opportunities and being

proactive in the way it deals with problems' and the extent to
which the team 'comes up
with novel ideas and solutions to problems'. Both items tap the
self-starting, change-
oriented behaviours that characterize proactivity. The response
scale ranged between
1 (very low) and 5 (very high). The mean r^^ across the teams
was .84, ICC(l) was
.22 (^60) = 2.94, p< .001), and ICC(2) was .66. We therefore
concluded that there
was sufficient within-team agreement amongst raters to average
the engineers' ratings
for each team.
Confirmatory factor analysis of predictors
Cotifirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8.3 Göreskog &
Sörbom, 1999) with
covariance matrix as input was conducted to assess the factorial
validity of each of the
team-report measures. As our sample was small given
recommendations for parameter-
to-sample ratios w îthin structural equation modelling (Bentler
& Chou, 1987), we
created item parcels (Landis, Beal, & Tesluk, 2000). For
transformational leadership, we
created an item parcel for each of the four components of
transformational leadership;
for self-management, v/e randomly assigned four items to one
parcel and three items to
each of the other two parcels; for proactive personality, we

randomly assigned two items
to each of the two parcels; and for favourable interpersonal
norms, we randomly
assigned two of the three items to one parcel, and the remaining
item refiected the
second parcel.
We used maximum-likelihood estimation, and in addition to chi-
squared values, we
also report the root mean squared error of approximation
(RMSEA; Steiger, 1990), for
which values of less than .10 are desired (Kelloway, 1998).
These measures can, however,
be affected by sample size. We therefore also report the
comparative fit index (CFI;
Bentler, 1990) which Hu and Bentler (1998) suggested to be
most appropriate for small
sample sizes (< 250 cases). CFI values lower than .90 are
considered to indicate a poor fit.
Although the hypothesized four-factor model provides only a
modestly good fit to
the data [x^(38) = 149.81,^ < .01; RMSEA = .11; CFI = .91], an
alternative one-factor
model was a poor fit [x^(44) = 654.49, p < .001; RMSEA = .24;
CFI = .45], and was
significantly poorer than the four-factor model (Ax^(3) =
504.68, p < .05). The four-
factor model ŵ as also a significantly better fit than various
three-factor models that
combined measures for those scales most closely
intercorrelated. For example, the
model in w ĥich transformational leadership and favourable
interpersonal norms w êre
combined into a single factor was a significantly poorer fit than
the four-factor model

[X^(4l) == 238.45, p<.OV, RMSEA = .11; CFI = .79; Ax^(3) =
88.64, j5 < .001].
Moreover, all model parameters in the four-factor hypothesized
model were significant
and loaded highly onto their intended factor (see Appendix).
This provides support for
the discritninant validity of our measures; a conclusion
supported by the fact that the
highest correlation between the latent constructs was .30 which
indicates the
constructs are sufficiently distinct from one another to be
considered separately.
We also tested the convergent and discriminant validity of the
constructs using the
approach advocated by Fornell and Larcker (1981). The average
variance extracted
for each of the underlying constructs of interest was .67, .51,
.80, and .73 for
transformational leadership, self-management, proactive
personality and favourable
interpersonal norms, respectively. As the average variance
extracted for each latent
constructs exceeds .50, we can conclude that the variance
captured by the construct is
larger than the variance due to measurement error (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981), thus
demonstrating convergent validity. In addition, the average
variance extracted was
greater than the squared correlations between constructs, thus
demonstrating

discriminant validity (Fomell & Larcker, 1981).
Results
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and zero-order
correlations among study
variables, conducted at the team level. Overall, the zero-order
correlations support our
model, although a notable exception to this is that
transformational leadership and self-
management are not significantly correlated (r = .11, ns).
However, to investigate the
hypothesized relationships whilst taking into account the other
study variables; we
tested our model using observed variable path analysis
(Kelloway, 1998). The analyses
discussed below were conducted controlling for team size, and
an inspection of
modification indices did not indicate the need to specify any
specific pathways. It is
important to note that, because the analyses were conducted at
the team level (N = 43),
it was not appropriate to compute a full structural model.
Table I . Descriptive statistics and correlations among study
variables
1. Team size
2. Mean level of team proactive
personality
3. Team proactive personality
diversity
4. Transformational leadership
5. Favourable interpersonal norms
6. Self-management

7. Team proactive performance
M
7.26
2.29
0.70
3.47
2.57
2.36
3.06
SD
3.75
0.43
0.30
0.54
0.38
0.52
0.57
1
_
- . 4 8 * *
.00
- . 0 2
.06

- . 6 2 * *
- . 4 1 * *
2
-
.07
- . 0 2
.14
- . 5 1 * *
.32**
3
-
- . 2 5
- . 4 5 * *
.09
- . 2 1
4
-
.59**
.11
.29^
5 6 7
-

.09
.45** . 3 1 * -
^p < .,*p < .05;**p < .01.
Our findings indicate that a fully mediated version of our
hypothesized model (i.e., no
direct pathways between the independent variables and team
proactive performance)
provides a reasonable fit to the data, x^(9) = 12.88,/? > .05;
RMSEA = .10; CFI = .90.
We compared this model against other theoretically plausible
models as recommended
Kelloway (1998). First, we compared the fully mediated model
to a partially mediated
version. Specifically, we added three direct paths from the mean
level of proactive
personality, proactive personality diversity, and
transformational leadership to team
proactive performance. As shown in Table 2, this model was a
less good fit to the data
(^^(jS) = 12.67, p > .05; RMSEA = .17; CFI = .88).
The second alternative model to which we compared our fully
mediated model
predicted both mediators to be important in the relationship
between each of the
compositional and transformational leadership variables and
team proactive perform-
ance (i.e., we added paths from the mean level of proactive
personality to favourable
interpersonal norms and from proactive personality diversity to
self-management). This
model provided a relatively good fit to the data (x^(7) =
10.47,/> > .05; RMSEA = .11;
CFI = .91); however, tests of comparative fit suggest this

additional mediators model
was not significantly different from the hypothesized model,
(Ax^(2) = 2.4l,p> .05).
We therefore also considered indices of model parsimony using
the parsimonious
normed fit index (PNFI; James, Mulaik, & Brett, 1982). With
this fit index, comparatively
Table 2. Summary of models tested and LISREL fit statistics
Model df RMSEA CFI PNFI
Fully mediated model 12.88 9 .10 .90 .35
Alternative model I (partially mediated version of 12.67 6 .17
.88 .24
fully mediated model)
Alternative model 2 (full mediation with both 10.47 7 .11 .91
.28
mediators related to all independent variables)
Memot/ve mode/3 (partial mediation with both 10.14* 4 .20 .89
.17
mediators related to all independent variables
A/ternot/Ve mode/4 (direct effects version of fully 40.21** 4
.28 .38 .20
mediated model)
Adjusted hypothesized model (fully mediated model 13.54 10

.09 .90 .39
with pathway between transformational leadership
and self-management removed)
*p < .05;**/) < .01.
higher values are considered an indication of more parsimonious
fit, but there are no
common thresholds, so Kelloway (1998) recommends choosing
the model with the
highest value. As the PNFI for the hypothesized model (PFNI =
.35) was greater than for
the partially mediated version (PFNI = .24), we conclude that
the hypothesized model
is a better fit to our data.
A third alternative model was a partially mediated version of
the second alternative
model (i.e., in addition to the added mediation paths, we also
added three direct paths
from the mean level of proactive personality, proactive
personality diversity, and
transformational leadership to team proactive performance).
This model was a poor fit
to the data; x^(4) = 10.14, p < .05; RMSEA = .20; CFI = 0.89.
The final alternative model to which we compared our fully
mediated model was a
direct model whereby self-management and favourable
interpersonal norms were not
mediators (i.e., we removed the paths between mean level of
proactive personality and
self-management, transformational leadership and self-
management, transformational
leadership and favourable interpersonal norms; and proactive
personality diversity

and favourable interpersonal norms). Again, this model was a
poor fit to the data;
^2(10) = 40.21,p < .001; RMSEA = .28; CFI = .38.
Figure 2 shows the significant pathways for the fully mediated
model. Both team
self-management (ß = 0.27, p < .05) and favourable
interpersonal norms (ß = 0.42,
/>< .01) were positively related to team proactive performance,
thus supporting
Hypotheses 1 and 2. In relation to the effects of the independent
variables,
transformational leadership was positively related to favourable
interpersonal
norms (ß = 0.51, p < .01^ but unrelated to self-management (ß =
0.12, ns).
This non-significant finding means that Hypothesis 4a is not
supported by our data.
The mean level of proactive personality was, however,
positively related to self-
management (ß = 0.51, /? < .01) and proactive personality
diversity was negatively
related to favourable interpersonal norms (ß = -0.32, p < .01).
Squared multiple
correlations show the model explains 27, 44, and 27% of the
variance in team proactive
performance, interpersonal norms, and self-management,
respectively.
Apart from Hypothesis 4a, the sigtiificant pathways are in
accordance with our
mediation hypotheses (i.e.. Hypotheses 4b, 6, and 8). However,
it is not sufficient to
demonstrate a relationship between independent variable and
mediator, and mediator

Mean level of proactive
personality
Transformational
leadership
diversity
Self-management
Favorable
interpersonal
norms
Team
proactive
performance
. 4 2 "
-.32
Figure 2. Significant pathways in supported model. Note. *p <
.OS, **p<.Q. Team proactive
performance: R^ = .27; favourable interpersonal norms; R^ =
.44; self-management R^ = .27. Team
size was controlled for in the model; an inspection of the

modification indices did not indicate that any
specific pathways needed to be modelled.
and dependent variable. Rather, there should be a non
significant relationship between
the independent variable and the dependent variable after
controlling for the mediator
(Baron & Kenny, 1986). Alternative model 1 was a test of these
relationships (it specified
direct and indirect pathways) and inspection of the pathways
shows team proactive
performance was not significantly related to mean level
proactivity (ß = 0.18, ns),
proactive personality diversity (ß = -0.08, ns), nor
(ß = 0.06, ns).
A final condition of mediation put forward by Baron and Kenny
(1986) was that there
should be a significant relationship between the independent
variable and dependent
variable when the mediator was not controlled for. To test this,
we tested a model in
which there were otily pathways between the independent
variables and the dependent
variable. As expected, this model was a poor fit (x^(l) = 7.84, p
< .01; RMSEA = .40;
CFI = .77). Inspection of the pathways showed that both the
mean level of proactive
personality (ß = 0.33, p < .01) and transformational leadership
(ß = 0.25, p < .05)
were significantly related to team proactive performance; these
effects support
Hypotheses 3 and 5. Proactive personality diversity was not
significantly related to team

proactive performance (ß = -0.17, ns). However, although this
demonstrates that
proactive personality diversity does not directly affect team
proactive performance
there remains the possibility that the effect of proactive
personality diversity on team
proactive performance is indirect. Moreover, although a direct
effect between the
independent variable and dependent variable was a condition of
Baron and Ketmy's
(1986) test of mediation, it has more recently been suggested
that this condition is not
necessary, especially in small sample sizes (LeBreton, Wu, &
Bing, 2009). Instead,
LeBreton et al. recommend testing indirect effects, estimated as
the product-of-
coefflcients. Using procedures advocated by Preacher and Hayes
(2004) to conduct
Sobel tests, we found significant indirect effects for the
proactive personality diversity to
favourable interpersonal norms to team proactive performance
relationship (Z = 2.04,
p < .05) and the transformational leadership to favourable
interpersonal norms to team
proactive performance relationship (Z = 2.10, p < .03). There
was, however, a non-
significant indirect effect in the mean level of proactive
personality to self-management
to team proactive performance relationship (Z - 1.08, ns). Our
findings therefore show
that favourable within-team context mediates the effect of

on team proactive performance, and that proactive personality
diversity has an indirect
negative effect on team proactive performance via its negative
effect on favourable
interpersonal norms. Self-management does not, however,
mediate the relationship
between mean level of proactive personality and team proactive
performance, nor is
there an indirect effect between these variables.
In sum, supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2, our findings show that
team proactive
performance is predicted by both self-management and
favourable interpersonal norms.
There was a direct relationship between transformational
leadership and team proactive
performance, thus supporting Hypothesis 3, and this effect was
found to be mediated
by favourable interpersonal norms, but not self-management.
Therefore, whilst
Hypothesis 4b is supported, the data does not provide support
for Hypothesis 4a.
Supporting Hypothesis 5, we found a direct relationship
between mean level of
proactive personality and team proactive performance, but
contrary to Hypothesis 6
this relationship was not mediated by self-management. Finally,
we found that proactive
personality diversity had an indirect negative effect on team
proactive performance via
favourable interpersonal norms, thus our data supports
Hypothesis 8, but not
Hypothesis 7.
Discussion

This study aimed to extend our understanding of the
determinants of team proactive
performance. Overall, some of our findings are unique to the
team level, such as the
importance of team composition, whereas other findings parallel
those at the individual
level, such as the importance of the ambient team stimuli of
self-management and
leadership for proactivity.
Key findings and their implications
Our study is the first to examine how the composition of the
team relates to its proactive
performance. The findings demonstrate the importance of
considering team members'
proactive personalities. The more proactive members in a team,
the greater its
innovation and taking charge behaviour. From a practical point
of view, this finding
suggests that if teams are working in uncertain environments
where team proactive
behaviour is important, one of the criteria to be used when
selecting team members
should be the extent to which the individual has a proactive
personality.
Some care does, however, need to be taken because, in addition
to finding that the
mean level of proactive personality was positively related to
team proactive behaviour,
our study also shows that diversity of proactive personality is
problematic. Specifically,
proactive personality diversity had a negative effect on
favourable interpersonal norms
which in turn was associated with team proactive performance.

Thus, a team is more
likely to be moderately proactive if it has several moderately
proactive individuals than if
it has some very proactive individuals and some very passive
individuals. Since proactive
behaviour involves challenging the status quo, passive
individuals might feel
uncomfortable in the presence of proactive others, and less
likely to endorse or actively
support their proactive efforts. At the same time, those
individuals who are being
proactive are doing so on their own volition, and when their
proactivity is not welcomed.
this might be demoralizing. More research is needed to test
these possibilities.
Importantly, our results are in accordance with the idea that
proactive personality
diversity operates within a supplementary model of person-
organization fit, such that
team members will be more compatible with those with a
similar level of proactive
personality. Our findings are also congruent with the now
substantial literature
demonstrating that non task-related forms of diversity have
detrimental effects on team
functioning and effectiveness (Mannix & Neale, 2005; Williams
& O'Reilly, 1998).
A further finding of our study is the role of self-management.
Teams who collectively
take on greater responsibility for their day-to-day tasks were

also those who were
identified by external raters as engaging in proactive problem
solving and innovation.
Our results add to the literature that suggests self-management
is related to individual-
level proactivity (Frese & Fay, 2001; Parker et al., 2006) and
team-level proactivity
(Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Tesluk & Mathieu, 1999). From a
practical perspective, the
significance of this finding is high because, despite the
prevalence of teams in
the workplace, the introduction of genuine self-management is
relatively low. The
organization in which we collected data for this study is a case
in point. Whilst it had
officially implemented self managing teams, the reported self-
management of most
teams were, on average, low. Yet, if further studies with
longitudinal designs cotifirm our
findings, self-managing work designs might be a prerequisite
for team proactivity.
Further research is needed to understand exactly how team self-
management relates
to greater team proactive performance. Team self-management
might simply enable
team members to take charge of their environment because
members are in control of
critical variances. It is also likely that team self-management
motivates team members to
be more proactive, both through team-level processes (e.g., by
enhancing the collective
efficacy of the team to set more challenging goals) and through
enhancing individual
motivation (e.g., increasing employees' role breadth self-
efficacy or flexible role

orientation; Parker, 1998). Team self-management might also
have its effects through a
learning mechanism. Members of self- managing teams have
broadened experiences
which can lead to greater knowledge and thus more ideas for
improving performance.
The current study also demonstrated that favourable
interpersonal norms within
teams are associated with team proactive performance. This
finding supports the idea
that engaging in proactivity is a risky behaviour requiring a safe
and constructive
interpersonal environment in which individuals feel comfortable
deciding to take action
and be proactive. From a practical point of view, the finding
suggests it is not enough to
promote self-management; it is also important to ensure that
teams develop norms and
codes of conduct that are positive and supportive. There tnight
be a role for team
buuding or team development activities in developing this type
of team context.
Our study also supports the contention that leadership
influences team proactive
performance (e.g., Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Tesluk & Mathieu,
1999). As existing
evidence of the relationship between transformational
leadership and proactivity has
been at the individual level, our findings extend past research
by showing that
transformational leadership also predicts team proactive
performance. Transformational
leadership is therefore a homologous predictor of proactivity.
More specifically, our

study suggests transformational team leadership results in
norms within the team, rather than affecting the level of team
self-management per se.
This intriguing finding might have reflected the particular
leaders we focused on.
As hands-on team members, team leaders can influence teams to
behave in positive and
constructive ways through their role modelling and coaching.
However, encouraging
the team to be more self-managing might be more difficult
because, as team leaders, they
might feel responsible for taking on the management role
themselves. It is possible that
if we had assessed the transformational leadership style of the
managers external to the
team (i.e., the plant engineers), then there might have been a
stronger link between
leadership and self-management. Practically, these findings
suggest that coaching team
leaders in how they create such norms might be a powerful
intervention.
Limitations and future research
The findings of our study should be interpreted in light of its
limitations. First, our data
was cross-sectional so we cannot be entirely sure of causality.
For example, it is possible
that proactive teams are afforded more self-management by
managers. We think it
unlikely, however, that more proactive teams are allocated more

transformational
leaders or more proactive team members because team
membership was decided early
in the implementation of the team design. Nevertheless, a key
next step for research is
to test the model longitudinally.
A distinct strength of our study was the use of external ratings
of proactive
behaviour. This enabled us to avoid the possibility of same
source bias in many of our
key findings. There does, however, remain a possibility that
common method variance
affects the relationships between our independent and mediating
variables. None-
theless, even amongst variables that were assessed using self-
reports, different sources
were used. In particular, proactive personality diversity was
operationalized as a
standard deviation. Therefore although still self-report data, this
variable is not a
perceptual measure and therefore is a different 'source' than the
other self-report
measures that used means. In addition, as noted above, there is
factor analytic evidence
for the empirical distinctiveness of the self-reported measures.
We are therefore
confident that common method variance is not a major issue of
concern in this sample.
Our sample was, however, relatively small and thus the non-
significant finding
regarding the relationship between transformational leadership
and self-management,
and the non-supported mediation of mean level proactive
personality to self-management

to team proactive performance, might be due to a lack of
statistical power in detecting
effects rather than because they are not substantive. As small
sample sizes can increase
the chances of making a Type II error (Aguinis & Harden,
2009), it might be that we
concluded that there is no relationship between these variables
when one in fact exists.
Moreover, to reduce questionnaire length and hence facilitate
response rate, we used
shortened versions of some measures. Therefore, although we
have provided support
for the reliability and validity of the versions of the measures
we use in this study, the
shortened nature of our measures should be considered in
interpreting our findings.
Future research investigating the generalizability of our model
would therefore be
welcomed. As our teams came from a single context, future
research would also do well
to test our model in other types of teams and across other
industries.
It would also be interesting to investigate the processes by
which ambient and
indeed discretionary stimuli infiuence team self-management,
favourable within-team
context, and team proactive performance. As noted earlier, there
are both team-level
processes and cross-level processes that could be explored. We
also recommend multi-
level explorations of the dynamics through which individual and
team-level proactivity
are related, as well as an investigation of how team proactive
performance relates to the

other aspects of team performance such as team proficiency or
team adaptivity.
Moreover, the exact ways that teams develop shared norms and
behaviours around
proactivity (that is, how the phenomenon of team proactive
performance emerges)
deserves further inquiry. Finally, it would be valuable to
explicitly investigate
homologous models of relationships between determinants and
proactivity at the
individual and team level simultaneously. Our single-level
study was important in
suggesting some sLmüar relationships (e.g., the role of
leadership and self-management),
but expanding this type of work to a full multi-level framework
would be useful.
In sum, whilst causality has not been established in our study
and there are important
areas for future inquiry, our study supports the idea that team
proactive performance in
part arises from situational factors (team self-management,
transformational leadership)
and in part from the individuals that make up the team (team
composition), both of which
infiuence the interpersonal norms of team working. Our study is
one of the first to suggest
that too much diversity in personality might inhibit the
proactivity of a team. It appears
that, because of the nature of proactive behaviour, a
dysfunctional dynamic arises when

there are large discrepancies in team members' proactive
personality. Moreover, our
study suggests that organizations requiring teams who use their
initiative might consider
introducing self-managing work designs led by transformational
team leaders.
References
Aguinis, H., & Harden, E. E. (2009). Sample size rules of
thumb: Evaluating three common
practices. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statisticai
and methodological myths and
urban legends (pp. 267-286). New York: Routledge.
Anderson, N., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for
work group innovation: Development
and validation of the team climate inventory. Joumal of
Organizational Behavior, 19,
235-258.
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. R, Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E.
(1998). Out on a limb: The role of
context and impression management in selling gender-equality
issues. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 43, 23-57. doi:10.2307/2393590
Avolio, B. J., & Gibbson, T. C. (1988). Developing
transformational leaders: A life span approach.
In J. A. Kanungo & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic
leadership: The elusive factor in
organizational effectiveness (pp. 276-308). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L, Wall, T. D.,
Waterson, R E., & Harrington, E. (2000).

Shop floor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and
implementation of ideas. Joumal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 265-285.
doi:10.1348/096317900l67029
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Joumal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
doi:10.1037/0022-35l4.51.6.1173
Bass, B. M. (1985). leadership and performance beyond
expectations. New York: Eree Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership
development: Manual for the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Mindgarden.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y (2003).
Predicting unit performance by assessing
transformational and transactional leadership. Joumal of
Applied Psychology., 88(2),
207-218. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational
leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component
of organizational behavior:
A measure and correlates./owm«/ of Organizational Behavior,
14, 103-118. doi:10.1002/
job.4030l40202
Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as
predictors of team performance: A meta-

analysis./owm«/ of Applied Psychology, 52(3), 595-613.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595
Belschak, E D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self,
prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of
proactive behaviour: Differential antecedents and consequences.
Joumal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 473-498.
doi:10.1348/096317909X439208
Bentier, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural
models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,
238-246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Bentler, P M., & Chou, C.-P (1987). Practical issues in
structural modelling. Sociological Methods
and Research, 16(1), 78-117. doi:10.1177/0049124l870l6001004
Bierhoff, H. W., & Müller, G. F. (2005). Leadership, mood,
atmosphere, and cooperative support in
project ^oups. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(6), 483-
497. doi: 10.1108/026839405
10615433
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-
independence, and reliability: Implications for
data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J.
Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations: Foundations,
extensions, and new directions
(pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carson, J. B., Tesiuk, P E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared
leadership in teams: An investigation
of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(4),
1217-1234.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the
same content domain at different
levels of analysis: A typology of composition models./owm«/ of
Applied Psychology, 83,
234-246. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234
Chen, G., Bliese, P D., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). Conceptual
framework and statistical procedure for
delineating and testing multilevel theories of homology.
Organizational Research Methods,
8(4), 375-409. doi:10.1177/1094428105280056
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a systems theory of
motivated behavior in work teams.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223-267.
doi:10.10l6/S0191-3085(06)27006-0
Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations
on newcomer performance in
teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges,
and empowerment. Academy of
Management Journal, 46, 591-607.
Crant, J. M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a
predictor of entrepreneurial intentions.
Journal of Small Business Management, 34(4), 42-49.
Donovan, M. A., Dragow, R., & Munson, L. J. (1998). The
perceptions of interpersonal fair
treatment scale: Development and validation of a measure of

interpersonal treatment in the
work pUce. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 683-692.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.683
Druskat, V U., & Kayes, D. C. (2000). Learning versus
performance in short-term project teams.
Small Group Research, 3/(3), 328-353.
doi:10.1177/104649640003100304
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., Lawrence, K. A., & Miner-Rubino,
K. (2002). Red light, green light:
Making sense of the organizational context for issue selling.
Organization Science, 13(4),
355-361. doi:10.1287/orsc.l3.4.355.2949
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning
behavior in work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44(2}, 350-383. doi: 10.2307/2666999
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of
group norms. Academy of
Management Review, 9, 41-5^. doi:10.2307/258231
Fornell, C, & Larcker, D. E (1981). Evaluating structural
equation models with unobserved
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18, 39-50.
doi:10.2307/3151312
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active
performance concept for the 21st century.
In B. M. Staw & R. 1. Sutton (Eds.), Research in Organizational
Behavior (Vol. 23,
pp. 133-187). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal

initiative at work: Differences
between East and West Germany. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, Yl-Gb.
doi: 10.2307/256630
Fuller, B., & Marier, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A
meta-analytic review of the proactive
personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(i),
329-345. doi:10.10l6/
j.jvb.2009.05.008
Goodman, P S., Devadas, R., & Grifflth-Hughson, T. L. (1988).
Groups and productivity: Analyzing
the effectiveness of self-managing teams. InJ. P Campbell & R.
J. Cambell (Eds.), Productivity
in organizations: New perspectives from industrial and
organizational psychology
(pp. 295-327). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model
of work role performance: Positive
behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of
Management Journal,
50(2), 327-347.
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What's the difference?
Diversity constructs as separation,
variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management
Review., 32(4), 1199-1228.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P (1998). Beyond

relational demography: Time and the
effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group
cohesion. Academy of Management
Journal, 41(1), 96-107. doi:10.2307/256901
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance
structure modeling: Sensitivity
to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological
Methods, 3(4), 424-453.
doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
Hyatt, D. E., & Reddy, T. M. (1997). An examination of the
relationship between work group
characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech.
Personnel Psychology, 50,
553-585. doi:10.1111/j.l744-6570.1997.tb00703.x
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D.
(2005). Teams in organizations: From
input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of
Psychology, 56, 517-543.
doi:10.1l46/annurevpsych.56.091103.070250
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal
analysis: Assumptions, models, and data.
Beverley Hüls, CA: Sage.
Jehn, K., Northcraft, G., & Neale, M. (1999). Why differences
make a difference: A field study of
diversity, conflict and performance in work groups.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4),
741-763. doi:10.2307/2667054
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1999)- LISREL 8.3: Users
reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific
Software International.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of
personality and transformational leadership.
Journal of Applied Psychology., 85(5), 751-765.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.751
Jung, D. I., C h o ^ C, & Wu, A. (2003). The role of
transformational leadership in enhancing
organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary
findings. Leadership Quarterly,
14, 525-544. doi:10.10l6/S1048-9843(03)00050-X
Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the
performance of research and
development project groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489-
501. doi:10.1177/
014920639201800304
Kelioway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation
modeling. A researcher's guide.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management:
The antecedents and consequences
oíX.ezmempo'we.tm&ríX.. Academy ofManagementjoumal,
42(1), 58-74. doi:10.2307/256874
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B.
(2004). The impact of team empowerment
on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-
face interaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 47(2), 175-192.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel
approach to theory and research in
organizations: Contextual, temporal and emergent processes. In

K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski
(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in
organizations: Foundations, extensions,
and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Landis, R., Beal, D. J., & Tesluk, P E. (2000). A comparison of
approaches to forming composite
measures in structural equation models. Organizational
Research Methods, 3, 186-207.
doi:10.1177/109442810032003
LeBreton,J. M., Wu,J., &Bing, M. N. (2009). The truth(s) on
testing for mediation in the social and
organizational sciences. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg
(Eds.), Statistical and
methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 107-142). New
York: Routledge.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior
in work groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(6), 853-868. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.853
lim, B. C, & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational
leadership: Relations to the five-factor model
and team performance in typical and maximum contexts./owm«/
of Applied Psychology.,
89(4), 610-621. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.6lO
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a
difference? The promise and reality of
diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the

Public Interest, 6(2), 31-55.
doi:10.1111/j.l529-1006.2005.00022.x
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A
temporally hased framework and taxonomy
of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(5),
356-376. doi: 10.2307/259182
Morgeson, F. P, & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and
function of collective constructs:
Implications for multilevel research and theory development.
Academy of Management
Review, 24, 249-265. doi:10.2307/259081
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at
work: Extra-role efforts to initiate
workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403-
419. doi:10.2307/257011
Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-
environment congruence?
Supplementary versus complementary model of fit. foumal of
Vocational Behavior, 31,
268-277. doi:10.10l6/0001-8791(87)90043-l
Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999).
The relationship between work-team
personality composition and the joh performance of teams.
Group and Organization
Management, 24(1), 28-45. doi:10.1177/105960119924l003
Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2010). Not what it was and
not what it will be: The future of job
design research, foumal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 463-
479. doi:10.1002/job.678

Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The
roles of joh enrichment and other
organizational interventions, foumal of Applied Psychology, 83,
835-852. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.83.6.835
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating
and differentiating multiple
proactive behaviors, fournal of Management, 36, 633-662.
doi:10.1177/0l49206308321554
Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. (1999). Minimizing strain and
maximizing learning: The role of job
demands, job control, and proactive personality, foumal of
Applied Psychology, 84(6),
925-939. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.925
Parker, S. K., & Wall, T. D. (1998)./ob and work design:
Organizing work to promote well-being
and effectiveness. London: Sage.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the
antecedents of proactive hehavior at
work, foumal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636-652.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. E (2004). SPSS and SAS
procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36(4),
717-731.
Rank, J., Nelson, N. E., Allen, T. D., & Xu, X. (2009).
Leadership predictors of innovation and task
performance: Subordinates' self-esteem and self-presentation as
moderator, foumal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(5), 465-489.

doi:10.1348/0963179
08X371547
Schippers, M. C, Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & van
Knippenberg, D. (2008). The role of
transformational leadership in enhancing team reflexivity.
Human Relations, 6l(),
1593-1616. doi: 10.1177/0018726708096639
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. N. (2001). What do
proactive people do? A longitudinal
model linking proactive personality and career success.
Personnel Psychology, 54, 845-874.
doi:10.1111/j.l744-6570.2001.tb00234.x
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and
modification: An interval estimation approach.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180.
doi:10.1207/sl5327906mbr2502_4
Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., & Rafferty, A. E. (2009).
Proactivity directed toward the team and
organization: The role of leadership, commitment and role-
breadth self-efficacy. British
foumal of Management, 20(3), 279-291.
Tesluk, P. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (1999). Overcoming roadblocks
to effectiveness: Incorporating
management of performance barriers into models of work group
effectiveness, fournal of
Applied Psychology, 84(2), 200-217. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.84.2.200

Van der Vegt, G. S. (2002). Effects of attitude dissimilarity and
time on social integration:
A longitudinal panel study. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 75,
439-452. doi:10.1348/096317902321119592
WUliams, H. M., & Allen, N. J. (2008). Teams at work. In J.
Barling & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook
of organizational behavior (pp. 124-140). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Williams, H. M., Parker, S. K., & Turner, N. (2007). Perceived
dissimilarity and perspective taking
within work teams. Group and Organization Management,
32(.5), 569-597. doi:10.1177/
1059601106293769
Williams, K. Y, & O'Reilly, C. (1998). The complexity of
diversity: A review of forty years of
research. In B. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (Vol. 21,
pp. 77-140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Zárraga, C, & Bonache, J. (2005). The impact of team
atmosphere on knowledge outcomes in self-
managed teams. Organization Studies, 26i5), 661-681.
Received /6 December 2008; revised version received 8 March
2010
324 Helert M. Williams et al.
Appendix

Model df RMSEA CFI
Hypothes/zed mode/(four-factor model) 149.81** 38
Alterr)ative model I (one-factor model) 654.49** 44
Alternative model 2 (three-factor model, transformational
238.45** 41
leadership and favourable interpersonal norms combined)
leadership 380.00** 41
and self-management combined)
leadership 320.98** 41
and proactive personality combined)
Alternative model 5 (three-factor model, self-management and
274.54** 41
favourable interpersonal norms combined)
Alternative model 6 (three-factor model, self-management and
311.83** 41
proactive personality combined)
.11
.24
.14
.19
.17

.16
.17
.91
.45
.79
.75
.72
.77
.74
**p<.0.
Completely standardized parameter estimates for the four-factor
confirmatory factor
analysis
Parcel
Transformational leadership 1
Self-management 1
Self-management 2
Self-management 3
Proactive personality 1
Proactive personality 2
Favourable interpersonal norms 1

Favourable interpersonal norms 2
.87
.79
.83
.79
.69
.84
.69
.95
.84
.74
.96
t{SE)
I6.I2(.O4)
I3.96(.O6)
I5.O5(.O6)
I4.O2(.O6)
IO.62(.O4)
13.01 (.06)
IO.52(.O7)
12.94(.O7)
II.74(.O7)
9.53(.O8)
II.23(.O9)
Note. All t values are significant at the p < .00 level.

Interfactor correlations
1. Transformational leadership
2. Self-management
3. Proactive personality
4. Favourable interpersonal norms
1.00
.07
.22**
.30**
1.00
.29**
. 2 1 * *
1.00
.29** 1.00
**p < .01.
Copyright of Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology is the property of British Psychological
Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2010), .docx

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2010), .docx

More Related Content

Similar to Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2010), .docx (20)

More from tawnyataylor528 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2010), .docx