ROLE CONFLICT AND THE BUFFERING EFFECT OF
PROACTIVE PERSONALITY AMONG MIDDLE MANAGERS
East China University of Science and Technology
Beijing Foreign Studies University
East China University of Science and Technology
Role conflict is typically present in boundary-spanning roles such as middle managers in
organizations. We used conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) as a basis
for our examination of the impact of role conflict on middle managers’ job satisfaction and
work-related anxiety, and the buffering effect of proactive personality. Participants comprised
245 middle managers. The results showed that more role conflict did not significantly lead to
lower job satisfaction, but led to significantly higher work-related anxiety. We also found that
proactive personality significantly moderated the relationships between role conflict and the
two outcome variables. Specifically, for more proactive middle managers, role conflict did
not significantly influence either job satisfaction or work-related anxiety. However, for less
proactive middle managers, more role conflict led to significantly lower job satisfaction and
higher work-related anxiety. This suggests that proactive personality can serve as a coping
resource that buffers the dysfunctional effects of role conflict. Implications of the results and
directions for future research are discussed.
Keywords: role conflict, proactive personality, buffering effect, job satisfaction, work-related
anxiety, middle managers, conservation of resources, boundary-spanning roles.
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2014, 42(3), 473-486
© Society for Personality Research
Yulan Han, Business School, East China University of Science and Technology; Min Wang,
International Business School, Beijing Foreign Studies University; and Linping Dong, Business
School, East China University of Science and Technology.
This study was based on research supported by grants from the Fundamental Research Fund for the
Central Universities (WN1123006), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71102175),
and the Shanghai Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science (N103-2-1202). The authors wish
to thank Haifeng Yan and Yugang Li for their assistance in collecting data.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Yulan Han, Business School, East
China University of Science and Technology, 130 Meilong Road, Shanghai, 200237, People’s
Republic of China. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
ROLE CONFLICT AND PROACTIVE PERSONALITY
Middle managers “occupy positions between the strategic apex and the
operating core of an organization” (Mintzberg, 1989, pp. 98-99). Because of their
boundary-spanning roles in organizations (Shi, Markoczy, & Dess, 2009), they
have to simultaneously meet the often conflicting and changing expectations or
demands of superiors, subordinates, and peers, and of external groups such as
customers, vendors, suppliers, or government agents. Thus, middle managers
are often involved in role conflict. Previous researchers have found that role
conflict decreases job satisfaction and increases work-related anxiety (e.g.,
Boyd, Lewin, & Sager, 2009; Glazer & Beehr, 2005; Webster, Beehr, & Love,
2011). However, the results are not consistent. For example, in a meta-analysis,
Fisher and Gitelson (1983), found that even when controlling for sample size
and occupational type, the correlations between role conflict and both overall
job satisfaction and anxiety were still highly variable. In addition, Mohr and
Puck (2007) found that role conflict was negatively related to job satisfaction,
and conversely, Chen, Chen, Tsai, and Lo (2007) found that role conflict was not
significantly related to job satisfaction. These inconsistent results suggest a need
to pursue further research on the moderators between these two variables.
In this study, using conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) as
our theoretical foundation, we examined how proactive personality moderated
the effects of role conflict on job satisfaction and work-related anxiety. Job
satisfaction and work-related anxiety are two important psychological outcome
variables in role conflict studies. Proactive personality indicates a relatively
stable behavioral tendency for individuals to take action to influence their
environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993). It is associated with intrinsic motivation
in its manipulation and control of situational forces (Joo & Lim, 2009). In this
study we have contributed to the literature by explaining why researchers have
obtained inconsistent results on the effects of role conflict on job satisfaction and
work-related anxiety, by revealing the buffering effects of proactive personality,
which acts as a coping resource.
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
Conservation of Resources Theory
COR theory provides an integrative framework for comprehensively explaining
individuals’ behavior in stressful situations. In COR theory the complex process
of the interplay between individuals and their situation is underscored, and it
is suggested that stress and coping are determined by the fit of resources with
situational demands (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002). Resources refer to “those objects,
personal characteristics, conditions, or energies that are valued by the individual
or that serve as a means for attainment of these objects, personal characteristics,
conditions, or energies” (Hobfoll, 1989, p. 516). Resources are the essential
ROLE CONFLICT AND PROACTIVE PERSONALITY 475
elements for understanding stress and coping. People strive to retain, protect, and
build resources and will experience psychological stress when there is a threat
of loss or actual loss of resources, or when resources are not gained following
the investment of resources (Hobfoll, 1989). In COR theory four categories of
valued resources are identified that serve as a means for offsetting resource loss
or gaining resources: objects (e.g., house, car); conditions (e.g., marriage, tenure,
seniority, being embedded in a supportive social network); personal charac-
teristics (e.g., personal traits, skills); and energies (e.g., time, money, knowledge).
In COR theory it is proposed that although loss of resources leads to stress,
people will strive to minimize net loss of resources by employing other resources
they possess or by seeking resources available in their environment (Hobfoll,
1989). However, resources are not equally distributed. In COR theory it is
predicted that people with strong resources should cope better than those who
lack resources, and having one resource should facilitate the increase of the
benefits of other resources (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2000). Personal characteristics
aid stress resistance because they provide people with a sense of resilience
and control over their environment (Hobfoll, 2002; Hobfoll, Johnson, Ennis,
& Jackson, 2003). As a result, people high in these characteristics would be
less likely to experience psychological strain than would those low in these
characteristics. Some researchers have conducted empirical studies on the basis
of COR theory, in which they investigated the buffering effects of personal
characteristics, including self-esteem, mastery, optimistic orientation, conscien-
tiousness, emotional stability, and political skill (Jawahar, Stone, & Kisamore,
2007; Perry, Witt, Penney, & Atwater, 2010; Ralston et al., 2010).
Role Conflict Experienced by Middle Managers
Role conflict is a common work stressor for middle managers because they play
multiple roles (e.g., superior, subordinate, peer, and sometimes organizational
agent) simultaneously in organizations (Shi et al., 2009). Role conflict refers
to “a state of mind or experience or perception of the role incumbent arising
out of the simultaneous occurrence of two or more role expectations such that
compliance with one would make compliance with the other(s) more difficult
or even impossible” (Pandey & Kumar, 1997, p. 191). Of the three types of role
conflict, we considered the two types that are more typical for middle managers,
that is, interrole conflict (i.e., the expectations associated with different roles
the individual plays are incongruent with each other), and intrarole conflict
(i.e., the different expectations associated with a single role conflict with each
other), which involves both intrasender conflict (i.e., a single role sender has
incompatible expectations towards the role incumbent) and intersender conflict
(i.e., the expectations of two role senders towards the role incumbent are
ROLE CONFLICT AND PROACTIVE PERSONALITY
According to COR theory, work stressors can threaten, or cause a depletion
of, resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Consequently, role conflict may impede the
achievement of goals, or threaten the middle managers’ self-esteem, status, and
reputation. Moreover, using resources to cope with role conflict also depletes
resources. Specifically, middle managers may employ a lot of time, effort, and
favors to juggle competing expectations or demands. This, in turn, leaves fewer
resources available for other work demands (Ralston et al., 2010). Such potential
or actual loss of resources can lead to negative outcomes, such as decreased job
satisfaction and increased work-related anxiety. Although results on the effects
of role conflict on job satisfaction and work-related anxiety are inconsistent in
extant studies, the general patterns are consistent with the predictions of COR
theory. Thus, we proposed the following two hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Role conflict will be negatively related to job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2: Role conflict will be positively related to work-related anxiety.
Proactive Personality as a Buffer
Proactive personality reflects individual differences in the extent of the
tendency for people to control situational forces and initiate change in their
environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993). People high in proactive personality tend
to identify opportunities, show initiative, take action, and persevere until they
have achieved their goals and brought about significant change. Conversely, less
proactive people tend to passively adapt to their environments and rely on others
to initiate change (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant, 2000). Because more proactive
people have a greater sense of self-determination and self-efficacy in their work
and careers (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006; Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999),
and are intrinsically motivated to perform well and improve their work outcomes
(Joo & Lim, 2009), they are more likely to engage in proactive behaviors than are
less proactive people (Miceli, Near, Rehg, & Van Scotter, 2012; Parker, Bindl, &
Strauss, 2010; Parker & Collins, 2010).
In addition, proactive people actively develop resources through relationship
and network building (Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010; Thompson, 2005), information
exchange (Gong, Cheung, Wang, & Huang, 2012; Kammeyer-Mueller &
Wanberg, 2003), job crafting (Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012), and identifying new
ideas (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). It is demonstrated in these prototypic
manifestations that a proactive personality can act as a resource that people use
to cope with stress. Thus, according to COR theory, more proactive people may
cope better with stressors and thus experience less undesirable outcomes than do
less proactive people.
Specifically, our prediction that middle managers’ proactive personality
would buffer the dysfunctional effects of role conflict on job satisfaction and
work-related anxiety was based on the following arguments: First, proactive
ROLE CONFLICT AND PROACTIVE PERSONALITY 477
managers would be likely to feel that they can deal successfully with role conflict
and to perceive less depletion of resources because they have a greater sense of
self-determination and self-efficacy. In contrast, less proactive managers would
be likely to feel helpless and to perceive themselves as vulnerable in the face
of role conflict. Second, proactive managers tend to interpret role conflict as a
challenge instead of a threat. To solve the conflict, they search for information
(e.g., stakeholders involved in the conflict and their relations and power structure;
the underlying interests, preferences, and needs; and the context in which conflict
occurs) that can help them to understand the conflict, seek support and help
from others (especially those who occupy positions of influence and power),
and identify creative solutions for balancing conflicting expectations. These
behaviors may be used to reduce the net loss of resources in the process of coping
with conflict. In contrast, less proactive managers are more likely to interpret
role conflict as a threat to their resources. Their preference to react passively
may make them more vulnerable to resource loss. These two points suggest that
role conflict will cause less job dissatisfaction and work-related anxiety for more
proactive managers than for less proactive managers.
We can also draw these insights from the person-environment interaction
perspective (Magnusson & Endler, 1977). This perspective is similar to
contingency theory in which it is posited that generally positive outcomes depend
on the alignment or fit between the attributes of the person and the aspects of
the environment (Albright & Forziati, 1995; Kristof, 1996). Because proactive
personality has been shown to predict proactive person-environment fit behavior
(Seibert et al., 2001), proactive people are more likely to achieve greater person-
environment compatibility by changing themselves or the situation than are
people who are not proactive. This, in turn, attenuates the undesirable effects
of unfavorable conditions, such as role conflict. Therefore, we proposed the
Hypothesis 3: Proactive personality will moderate the effect of role conflict on
job satisfaction. Specifically, under the condition of high role conflict, more
proactive managers will report higher job satisfaction than will less proactive
Hypothesis 4: Proactive personality will moderate the effect of role conflict
on work-related anxiety. Specifically, under the condition of high role conflict,
more proactive managers will report lower work-related anxiety than will less
Participants comprised 245 middle managers employed by 32 companies in
Beijing, Shanghai, and Tianjin in China. Of the participants, 69.8% were men
ROLE CONFLICT AND PROACTIVE PERSONALITY
and 30.2% were women. On average, they were 37.33 (SD = 7.50) years old and
had been in the current management position for 6.65 years (SD = 5.48). They
were highly educated, that is, 17.6% had graduate education, 66.9% had a 4-year
college education, and 15.5% had a 3-year junior college education.
The managers had worked in state-owned firms, private firms, and foreign
companies, or joint ventures. Some reported multiple working experiences.
The managers were responsible for various departments or teams including
marketing, sales, human resource management, research and development,
finance or accounting, manufacturing, administration, purchasing, logistics, and
We obtained the email addresses of 50 potential coordinating managers from
Master of Business Administration alumni from East China University of Science
and Technology and Peking University. We then emailed them describing the
research project and asking them whether or not they would participate in the
survey and distribute survey forms in their companies. We sent the survey
forms to the 32 coordinating managers who agreed to participate, by post.
They distributed the questionnaires to the middle managers in their companies.
Participants were informed that their responses would remain confidential.
Role conflict. Role conflict was measured using the three-item scale developed
by Peterson et al. (1995). The managers responded on a 6-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. A sample item is: “I
often get involved in situations in which there are conflicting requirements.” The
items reflect the common feature of interrole and intrarole conflict, that is, the
incompatible expectations of people with whom the managers interact. Because
all the participants were Chinese, we used a translation/backtranslation procedure
to ensure a correct understanding of the items. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale
Proactive personality. We used the 10-item shortened version (Seibert et
al., 1999) of the Proactive Personality Scale that was originally developed by
Bateman and Crant (1993). A sample item is: “Wherever I have been, I have been
a powerful force for constructive change.” The items were measured on a 6-point
scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha
for the 10-item scale was .87.
Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured using the three-item scale
developed by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1983). A sample item is:
“All in all, I am satisfied with my job.” The items were rated on a 7-point scale
ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha for
this scale was .82.
ROLE CONFLICT AND PROACTIVE PERSONALITY 479
Work-related anxiety. Work-related anxiety was measured by the four-item
scale developed by Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, and Pinneau (1980). A
sample item is: “I feel nervous.” The items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging
from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale
Control variables. Because some of the demographic variables may have been
related to job satisfaction and work-related anxiety, we included gender, age,
education level, and job tenure in the management position as control variables
in this study.
Common Method Variance
As all data were collected from a single source and self-reported, spurious
relationships among research variables may have occurred owing to common
method variance (CMV; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). We
conducted a set of analyses to determine the extent of method variance in the
data. Following procedures used in previous studies (e.g., Carlson & Kacmar,
2000; Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd, & Kudisch, 1995; Williams, Cote, &
Buckley, 1989), we used confirmatory factor analysis to test four alternative
models: Model 1, a null model (i.e., no factors underlie the data); Model 2, a
single-method factor model (i.e., items are loaded on a single-method factor);
Model 3, a multifactor measurement model (i.e., items are loaded on their
theoretical constructs); and Model 4, a measurement model with an additional
unmeasured latent-method factor (i.e., items are loaded on their theoretical
constructs as well as on a latent method factor). If a common method factor
exists, Model 2 should fit the data better than should Model 1, and Model 4
should fit the data better than should Model 3. The results showed that, according
to the calculations of comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI), and
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), Model 2 (2 = 1203.94, df
= 170, p < .001; CFI = .72; NFI = .69; RMSEA = .17) had a significantly better
fit than did Model 1 (2 = 2182.19, df = 190, p < .001), Δ2 = 978.25, Δdf = 20,
p < .001, but it fit the data very poorly; Model 4 (2 = 278.19, df = 144, p < .001;
CFI = .96; NFI = .93; RMSEA = .06) fit the data significantly better than did
Model 3 (2 = 383.00, df = 164, p < .001; CFI = .94; NFI = .90; RMSEA = .08),
Δ2 = 104.81, Δdf = 20, p < .001, but it provided a relatively small improvement
in model fit.
We then partitioned the variance accounted for by Model 4 into three
components: trait (i.e., the theoretical constructs), method, and random error.
The results showed that the trait factor accounted for 68% of the variance, and
the method factor accounted for only 21% of the variance, which is less than the
amount of method variance (25%) observed by Williams et al. (1989).
ROLE CONFLICT AND PROACTIVE PERSONALITY
Taken together, the results of the above analyses suggest that CMV was not
a serious problem in this study. In addition, it has been found that CMV cannot
create an artificial interaction effect but makes it more difficult to detect through
statistical means (Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010). Therefore, the relationships
observed in this study represented substantive rather than spurious effects.
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Descriptive statistics and correlations among all research variables are shown
in Table 1. Role conflict was not significantly correlated with job satisfaction, and
was significantly but marginally correlated with work-related anxiety. Proactive
personality was positively correlated with job satisfaction and negatively
correlated with work-related anxiety, and job satisfaction and work-related
anxiety were negatively correlated.
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Intercorrelations, and Reliabilities of the Research
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Gendera .70 .46 ---
2. Age 37.33 7.50 .06 ---
3. Education 1b .18 .38 .02 -.04 ---
4. Education 2b .16 .36 .06 .07 -.20** ---
5. Job tenure 6.65 5.48 .03 .71*** .04 .04 ---
6. Role conflict 4.04 .81 .07 -.01 .09 -.11† .10 .70
7. Proactive personality 4.44 .59 .03 -.02 .02 -.04 .05 .18** .87
8. Job satisfaction 5.05 1.13 .01 -.01 .12† -.06 -.06 -.06 .25*** .82
9. Work-related anxiety 3.11 1.16 .06 .14* -.10 .08 .08 .12† -.34*** -.38** .84
Note. N = 245. Bold figures on the diagonal are Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities of measures.
† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
a 0 = female; 1 = male.
b Education 1 and Education 2 are two dummy variables when the college group is the reference
group, and they refer to the graduate group and the junior college group, respectively.
We conducted hierarchical regressions to test the hypotheses. As shown in
Table 2, role conflict had an insignificant main effect on job satisfaction, and
a significant main effect on work-related anxiety. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was not
supported, but Hypothesis 2 was supported. In addition, role conflict interacted
with proactive personality to significantly influence both job satisfaction and
work-related anxiety. Thus, Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4 were supported.
Following the interaction probing procedure recommended by Aiken and
West (1991), we conducted simple slope analyses. The results showed that role
conflict did not significantly influence job satisfaction ( = .05, t = .46, ns)
and work-related anxiety ( = .16, t = 1.60, ns) for more proactive managers,
ROLE CONFLICT AND PROACTIVE PERSONALITY 481
but significantly influenced job satisfaction ( = -.51, t = -4.00, p < .001) and
work-related anxiety ( = .53, t = 4.23, p < .001) for less proactive managers. The
interaction patterns are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Table 2. Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results for Hypothesis Testing
Predictors Job satisfaction Work-related anxiety
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Gendera .01 .02 .01 .07 .12 .09 .11 .07
Age .01 .01 .02 .02 .02 .03† .02 .02
Education1b .35† .36† .36† .32† -.25 -.27 -.28 -.25
Education2b -.13 -.15 -.13 -.15 .16 .21 .19 .20
Job tenure -.03 -.02 -.03 -.03 -.00 -.01 -.00 -.00
Role conflict -.09 -.15† -.23* .21* .29** .35***
Proactive personality .51*** .49*** -.72*** -.71***
Role conflict × Proactive personality .47*** -.31**
R2 .023 .027 .097 .151 .032 .052 .183 .206
ΔR2 .023 .004 .070 .054 .032 .019 .131 .023
F 1.124 1.087 3.622*** 5.246*** 1.602 2.161* 7.580*** 7.663***
ΔF 1.124 .904 18.359*** 15.101*** 1.602 4.832* 38.073*** 6.916**
Note. N = 245. † p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
a 0 = female; 1 = male; b Education 1 and Education 2 are two dummy variables when the college
group is the reference group, and they refer to the graduate group and the junior college group,
3 -1SD +1 SD
More proactive managers
Less proactive managers
Figure 1. The moderating effect of proactive personality on the relationship between role
conflict and job satisfaction.
ROLE CONFLICT AND PROACTIVE PERSONALITY
Our findings indicate that role conflict had a significant effect on work-related
anxiety but not on job satisfaction, and proactive personality buffered the effects
of role conflict on the two psychological outcomes.
A possible reason for the inconsistent results that researchers have obtained on
the relationships between role conflict and psychological outcomes is that role
conflict influences people differently. According to COR theory, role conflict
may not cause negative consequences for people who possess strong resources,
but may be detrimental for those who lack resources. Recently, Ralston et al.
(2010) found that self-esteem is a personal resource that buffers the undesirable
effects of role conflict. In this study we confirmed that proactive personality was
also an important personal resource for managers to cope with role conflict. In
addition, the buffering effect of proactive personality could also be drawn from
the person-environment interaction perspective. Our finding is consistent with
previous findings and also enriches the literature.
An issue addressed in COR theory is that role conflict triggers negative
reactions because it is perceived as a threat to resources. However, we found
that these negative reactions occurred only among less proactive managers.
Regardless of the magnitude of role conflict, more proactive managers had
relatively high job satisfaction and low work-related anxiety. And, as shown in
Figure 1, more proactive managers’ job satisfaction even tended to increase with
1 -1SD +1 SD
More proactive managers
Less proactive managers
Figure 2. The moderating effect of proactive personality on the relationship between role
conflict and work-related anxiety.
ROLE CONFLICT AND PROACTIVE PERSONALITY 483
greater role conflict, supporting our argument that proactive managers perceive
role conflict as a challenge instead of a threat. Dealing with role conflict may
bring them a sense of achievement and enhance their self-efficacy, resulting in
these people gaining more personal resources.
We focused on two outcome variables: Job satisfaction is an attitudinal outcome
and work-related anxiety is an emotional outcome. Our findings suggest that role
conflict may have a differential impact on attitudinal and emotional outcomes,
and provide robust evidence for the buffering effects of proactive personality.
The results indicated that role conflict can increase middle managers’
work-related anxiety, which, in turn, may be detrimental to their work
effectiveness. To help middle managers maintain a healthy psychological state,
organizations can take action to decrease their role conflict, such as clarifying
organizational goals, making sure members at all levels understand these goals,
and formulating clear organizational rules. These actions can reduce incongruent
role expectations that are placed on middle managers.
It has become an important component of middle managers’ jobs to manage
role conflict in the workplace effectively. In this study we found that having a
proactive personality can buffer the dysfunctional effects of role conflict. Thus,
organizations could use proactive personality as one of the criteria to select
middle managers, and provide more support or skill training for less proactive
managers. To increase their skills associated with proactive personality, middle
managers could participate in training or learning programs, on topics such as
how to build good relationships with others, how to increase job resources, how
to negotiate role expectations, and how to seek support and help from others.
Limitations and Future Directions
First, we focused on only two types of role conflict, that is, interrole and
intrarole, and the scale we used in this study did not distinguish between them.
According to COR theory, the buffering effect of proactive personality may show
similar patterns across both types because they share the common feature that the
expectations of others are conflicting. However, we did not have a method for
measuring how proactive personality moderates the effects of the third type of
role conflict, person-role conflict (i.e., when the expectations associated with one
of the individual’s roles are incompatible with his or her own needs, aspirations,
and/or values) on psychological outcomes. Future researchers could develop
scales that measure the three types of role conflict separately, and examine the
moderating effects of personal resources on the relationships between different
types of role conflict and outcomes.
ROLE CONFLICT AND PROACTIVE PERSONALITY
Second, personal characteristics interplay with the organizational context.
Although proactive managers tend to actively solve role conflict, lack of
organizational support may make them dissatisfied, anxious, and even frustrated.
Therefore, future researchers could examine the triple interaction among role
conflict, proactive personality, and organizational support.
Third, future researchers could also explore the mechanism underlying the
interaction effects of proactive personality and role conflict on psychological
outcomes. Self-efficacy may be an important mediator, because proactive people
tend to perceive role conflict as a challenge and challenging tasks can increase
Finally, we examined the buffering effects of only one personal resource.
Future researchers could continue to investigate the effects of other personal
resources, such as learning-goal orientation, need for achievement, need for
cognition, and holistic thinking. More information on these aspects of buffering
effects of personal resources would be helpful for the selection and training of
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Albright, L., & Forziati, C. (1995). Cross-situational consistency and perceptual accuracy in
leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1269-1276. http://doi.org/crj635
Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of
job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65, 1359-1378. http://doi.org/rm4
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A
measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-118. http://doi.org/d9prhw
Boyd, N. G., Lewin, J. E., & Sager, J. K. (2009). A model of stress and coping and their influence
on individual and organizational outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 197-211. http://
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Klesh, J. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and
perceptions of organizational members. In S. Seashore, E. Lawler, P. Mirvis, & C. Cammann
(Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practices (pp.
71-138). New York: Wiley.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Jr., Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R. (1980). Job demands
and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research
Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). Work-family conflict in the organization: Do life role values
make a difference? Journal of Management, 26, 1031-1054. http://doi.org/cjz492
Chen, Y.-M., Chen, S.-H., Tsai, C.-Y., & Lo, L.-Y. (2007). Role stress and job satisfaction for nurse
specialists. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 59, 497-509. http://doi.org/bb5qn3
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435-462.
ROLE CONFLICT AND PROACTIVE PERSONALITY 485
Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J. E. A., Ladd, R. T., & Kudisch, J. D. (1995). The influence
of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived
training transfer. Journal of Management, 21, 1-25. http://doi.org/c6gx6n
Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320-333. http://doi.org/fn26cw
Glazer, S., & Beehr, T. A. (2005). Consistency of implications of three role stressors across four
countries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 467-487. http://doi.org/bh94gj
Gong, Y., Cheung, S.-Y., Wang, M., & Huang, J.-C. (2012). Unfolding the proactive process for
creativity: Integration of the employee proactivity, information exchange, and psychological
safety perspectives. Journal of Management, 38, 1611-1633. http://doi.org/dfcmpd
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American
Psychologist, 44, 513-524. http://doi.org/czr
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General
Psychology, 6, 307-324. http://doi.org/cdzpd5
Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource loss, resource gain, and
emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2000). Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress
and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational
behavior (2nd rev. ed., pp. 57-80). New York: Dekker.
Jawahar, I. M., Stone, T. H., & Kisamore, J. L. (2007). Role conflict and burnout: The direct and
moderating effects of political skill and perceived organizational support on burnout dimensions.
International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 142-159. http://doi.org/ckxjzc
Joo, B.-K., & Lim, T. (2009). The effects of organizational learning culture, perceived job complexity,
and proactive personality on organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16, 48-60. http://doi.org/bh36s4
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry process:
Disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 779-794. http://doi.org/fsxj6j
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49. http://doi.org/dcjg4k
Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and
organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95,
Magnusson, D., & Endler, N. S. (1977). Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional
psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., Rehg, M. T., & Van Scotter, J. R. (2012). Predicting employee reactions to
perceived organizational wrongdoing: Demoralization, justice, proactive personality, and whistle-
blowing. Human Relations, 65, 923-954. http://doi.org/rm5
Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on management: Inside our strange world of organizations. New
York: Free Press.
Mohr, A. T., & Puck, J. F. (2007). Role conflict, general manager job satisfaction and stress and the
performance of IJVs. European Management Journal, 25, 25-35. http://doi.org/fbzz82
Pandey, S., & Kumar, E. S. (1997). Development of a measure of role conflict. International Journal
of Conflict Management, 8, 187-215. http://doi.org/d9ccbt
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive
motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827-856. http://doi.org/d5v6hc
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive
behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 633-662. http://doi.org/dv8m3k
ROLE CONFLICT AND PROACTIVE PERSONALITY
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior
at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636-652. http://doi.org/b5d75n
Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., Penney, L. M., & Atwater, L. (2010). The downside of goal-focused
leadership: The role of personality in subordinate exhaustion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95,
Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V., … Viedge, C. (1995).
Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study. Academy of Management Journal, 38,
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. http://doi.org/czw
Ralston, D. A., Lee, C. H., Perrewé, P. L., Van Deusen, C., Vollmer, G. R., Maignan, I., … Rossi,
A. M. (2010). A multi-society examination of the impact of psychological resources on stressor-
strain relationships. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 652-670. http://doi.org/
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416-427. http://doi.org/dbgwdt
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal
model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845-874.
Shi, W., Markoczy, L., & Dess, G. G. (2009). The role of middle management in the strategy process:
Group affiliation, structural holes, and tertius lungens. Journal of Management, 35, 1453-1480.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear,
quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456-476. http://doi.
Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1011-1017. http://doi.org/drdfgj
Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. (2011). Extending the challenge-hindrance model of
occupational stress: The role of appraisal. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 505-516. http://
Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported affect
and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 462-468. http://