An identity-based perspective on proactivity: Future work selves and beyond

Abstract

In this chapter, we extend previous theorizing on how proactivity is motivated and explore how identity motivates, shapes, and constrains proactivity, and how proactive behavior in turn influences who individuals believe they are, or may become. We specifically argue that proactive behavior is often identity-congruent, and serves the purpose of expressing one’s self. We further discuss the role of future work selves: hoped for, future-oriented identities in relation to work. Future work selves constitute a motivational resource for proactivity, and drive self-directed behaviors aimed at development and change (Strauss, Griffin, & Parker, 2012).

Full text

Running head: IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 1
An Identity-Based Perspective on Proactivity: Future Work Selves and Beyond
Karoline Strauss & Ciara Kelly
Author Note
Karoline Strauss, ESSEC Business School, Avenue Bernard Hirsch, 95021 Cergy-Pontoise,
France;
Ciara Kelly, Institute of Work Psychology, Sheffield University Management School,
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, United Kingdom.
To appear in: Parker, S. K. & Bindl, U. K. (Eds.),
Proactivity at Work,
Routledge Organization and Management Series
Correspondence concerning this chapter should be addressed to Karoline Strauss,
ESSEC Business School, Avenue Bernard Hirsch, 95021 Cergy-Pontoise, France.
E-mail: karo.strauss@gmail.com

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 2
An Identity-Based Perspective on Proactivity: Future Work Selves and Beyond
I've never had a dream in my life
Because a dream is what you want to do, but still haven't pursued
I knew what I wanted and did it until it was done
So I've been the dream that I wanted to be since day one.
Aesop Rock, “No regrets”
Proactivity refers to future-oriented behavior that aims to bring about change, and
that, importantly, is self-initiated (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010; Parker, Williams, &
Turner, 2006). A growing body of research provides evidence for the relationship between
proactive behavior and a range of positive outcomes, including career success (Seibert,
Kraimer, & Crant, 2001) and job performance (Thompson, 2005), as well as job attitudes (see
Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010; and Tornau & Frese, 2013, for meta-analyses).
The self-initiated nature of proactivity emphasizes that this type of behavior is
relatively independent of external contingencies (Parker et al., 2010). This conceptualization
of proactivity “makes room for individual goals that are not tied to external rewards but are
pursued because they are interesting, highly valued, or reflect authentic values and interests”
(Strauss & Parker, 2014a, p. 50). It highlights that proactive behavior is inherently linked to
how individuals think about themselves, in other words, to their self-concept and identity.
In this chapter, we extend previous theorizing on how proactivity is motivated and
explore how identity motivates, shapes, and constrains proactivity, and how proactive
behavior in turn influences who individuals believe they are, or may become. We specifically
argue that proactive behavior is often identity-congruent, and serves the purpose of
expressing one’s self. We further discuss the role of future work selves: hoped for, future-

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 3
oriented identities in relation to work. Future work selves constitute a motivational resource
for proactivity, and drive self-directed behaviors aimed at development and change (Strauss,
Griffin, & Parker, 2012).
Self-concept, identity, and future work selves
Before exploring the role of the self in relation to proactive behavior, we first define
the key terms of self-concept and identity, and introduce the concept of future work selves.
While self-concept and identity are sometimes used interchangeably (Oyserman & Destin,
2010), the self-concept can be seen as a dynamic, changing collection of individual identities
(Markus & Wurf, 1987). Identities thus constitute elements of the self (Oyserman & James,
2009).
Not all identities that form part of the self-concept are accessible at any given time.
Instead, “the self-concept of the moment is best viewed as a continually active, shifting array
of accessible self-knowledge” (Markus & Wurf, 1987, p. 306). Depending on situational
cues, different identities become activated and exert their influence on behavior, perception,
and judgment (Markus & Wurf, 1987), usually without conscious awareness (Oyserman,
2009). Activated identities “cue readiness to act and to make sense of the world in terms of
the norms, values, and behaviors relevant to the identity” (Oyserman & Destin, 2010, p.
1003). Which identities are activated in turn depends on the social context (Oyserman,
Fryberg, & Yoder, 2007). This view of the self-concept thus takes social aspects of the self
into account, and situates the self in context, rather than treating it as decontextualized
(Oyserman & James, 2009). It thus reconciles psychological and sociological perspectives on
identity (Markus & Wurf, 1987).
Identities can be categorized in a number of different ways. First, identities can be
personal, relational, or collective (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Personal identities emphasize
the distinct aspect of the self-concept that differentiate an individual from others (Brewer &

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 4
Gardner, 1996). Relational identities reflect role-related relationships, such as leader-follower
(Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). Collective identities reflect individuals’
membership in groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).
At each of these three levels, we can further distinguish between current identities and
possible identities (Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999), which reflect who individuals may
become (Markus & Nurius, 1986). These possible identities are particularly critical for
proactive behavior as they motivate self-directed behavior aimed at bringing about change
(Hoyle & Sherrill, 2006). In particular, individuals’ future work selves have been identified
as a driver of proactive behavior (Strauss et al., 2012; Strauss & Parker, 2014b).
Future Work Selves
Future work selves are “an individual’s representation of himself or herself in the
future that reflects his or her hopes and aspirations in relation to work” (Strauss et al., 2012,
p. 580). Future work selves are a specific type of personal possible selves (Markus & Nurius,
1986). In particular, they have three defining characteristics. First, future work selves are
future-oriented (Strauss et al., 2012). While possible selves can also represent, for example,
ideal current selves (Higgins, 1998), future work selves are selves individuals hope to hold in
the future. This is critical because discrepancies between one’s current self and a desired
future are evaluated differently than discrepancies between the current self and a desired
present (Boldero & Francis, 2000, 2002). Boldero and Francis (2000, 2002) argued that
discrepancies between the present self and an ideal future self, such as the future work self,
are evaluated based on the rate of progress, while discrepancies between the current self and a
present standard are evaluated based on the magnitude of discrepancy. A discrepancy
between one’s current self and an ideal present self is experienced as a negative
psychological state which in turn motivates the individual to reduce the discrepancy (Boldero
& Francis, 2002) . In contrast, discrepancies between one’s current self and a future self are

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 5
thus not necessarily associated with negative affect (cf. Carver & Scheier, 1990). This
implies that individuals can hold a future work self that is very different from their current
self without negative consequences for their self-evaluation.
Second, future work selves are positive reference values, rather than selves to be
avoided (Strauss et al., 2012). Strauss et al. (2012) proposed that future work selves are
hoped for, rather than feared future work selves, because feared selves would be less effective
in regulating behavior as they are less likely to provide a specific direction (Elliot, Sheldon,
& Church, 1997).
Finally, future work selves are defined as specific to work (Strauss et al., 2012).
Possible selves affect individuals’ behavior in the domain of their lives to which they are
linked (Black, Stein, & Loveland-Cherry, 2001; Hooker & Kaus, 1994; Oyserman, Bybee, &
Terry, 2006). Correspondingly, future work selves are likely to be most relevant to behaviors
related to one’s work and career.
Future work selves can be a motivational resource for proactive behavior (Strauss et
al., 2012; Strauss & Parker, 2014b). Before we discuss this relationship in more detail, we
first introduce a broader model linking identity and proactivity, based on recent research on
identity-based motivation (Oyserman, 2007, 2009; Oyserman et al., 2007).
Identity-based motivation and proactive behavior
Engaging in proactive behavior is generally seen as a conscious decision based on a
careful weighing of costs and benefits (Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Parker et al., 2010). The
role of identity has been discussed much less (Ashford & Barton, 2012). However, the
calculated decision of whether to engage in proactive behavior may not always be purely
utilitarian. Instead it can, as we argue here, be driven by identity-based motivation
(Oyserman, 2007, 2009; Oyserman et al., 2007), and reflect “current action in pursuit of
identity-based goals” (Oyserman & James, 2011, p. 117). We propose that proactive behavior

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 6
is particularly likely to be linked to an individual’s self-concept, more so than work behaviors
that are prescribed or reactive in nature. The self-initiated nature of proactivity is one of its
defining features. For example, personal initiative, a proactive form of work performance
(Parker et al., 2010), refers to the “pursuit of self-set goals” (Frese & Fay, 2001, p. 139). As
Parker et al. (2010) put it, when engaging in proactive behavior “[t]he individual acts on his
or her own volition rather than as the result of a specification or direction given by someone
else” (p. 831). In deciding whether or not to engage in proactive behavior, individuals are
likely to have a sense of choice. At least in individualistic cultures, choice is experienced as
an opportunity to express one’s identity (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Markus & Kitayama,
1991). In contrast, work behaviors which are reactive in nature and prescribed are less likely
to provide a sense of volition.
In support of this idea, Ashford and Barton (2012) previously proposed that proactive
behavior aimed at raising issues may be consistent with an individual’s identity. Drawing on
self-verification theory (Swann, 1983), the authors argued that this type of proactive behavior
may be driven by individuals’ motivation to verify their self-view. For example, for a person
who might see themselves as a “fixer”, finding a better way for the team to work together or
preventing a problem from recurring, is linked to their identity. Suggesting a new way for the
team to collaborate would thus confirm their self-view. Anseel and colleagues (Anseel,
Beatty, Shen, Lievens, & Sackett, 2015; Anseel, Lievens, & Levy, 2007) proposed a
theoretical framework of self-motives underlying proactive feedback seeking, and similarly
argued that self-verification is a possible driver of this specific type of proactive behavior
(see also De Stobbeleir, this volume).

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 7
In this sense, identity-based motivation can provide a “reason to” engage in proactive
behavior (Parker et al., 2010)
1
, depending on the situation. When a relevant identity becomes
activated in a social context, this is likely to trigger proactive behavior linked to this identity
(Oyserman & Destin, 2010; Oyserman et al., 2007; Oyserman & James, 2009).
Although research that directly investigates the link between proactivity and identity
is scarce, Greguras and Diefendorff (2010) provide indirect support for the self-expressive
nature of proactive behavior. In a study of 165 full-time employees in Singapore, individuals
listed six short-term work related goals they were currently pursuing and indicated to what
extent each of these goals was pursued because of external pressures, feelings of guilt,
personal importance, or intrinsic enjoyment (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Participants high in
proactive personality were more likely to pursue goals consistent with their values, interests,
and needs. The authors argued that individuals high in proactive personality would “be more
likely to resist social pressures and therefore set goals that are consistent with their own
values and beliefs” (Greguras & Diefendorff, 2010, p. 542), suggesting that proactive
individuals are likely to behave in ways that express their personal identity.
Figure 1 summarizes our model and describes the three ways in which we propose
identity relates to proactive behavior: First, the discrepancy between current selves and future
work selves drives proactive behavior (Strauss et al., 2012). This mechanism facilitates
individuals’ self-development. Second, engaging in proactive behavior can in turn inform
individuals’ current and future work selves and trigger identity revision. Finally, we propose
1
Parker et al. (2010) introduced “reason to” motivations as one category of motivational states that
drive proactive behavior. The authors highlighted integrated motivation as a “reason to” motivational state
which is conceptually similar to identity-based motivation. Integrated regulation reflects individuals’ sense “that
the behavior is an integral part of who they are, that it emanates from their sense of self” (Gagné & Deci, 2005,
p. 335). There are parallels but also key differences between identity-based motivation and integrated regulation.
Identity-based motivation similarly captures the notion that proactive behavior can be self-expressive, but it
differs from the concept of integrated regulation in that it takes into account the dynamic interplay between
context and identity. Identities become salient depending on the situation, and act as a “reason to” engage in
proactive behavior only in contexts where they become accessible. In contrast, the concept integrated regulation
is not explicitly context-specific.

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 8
that the identity-congruent nature of proactive behavior explains persistence in the face of
setbacks. If proactive behavior is identity congruent, individuals persist in their efforts to
bring about change even if they encounter obstacles. Below, we elaborate on each of the
pathways in our Figure.
------------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
------------------------------------------
Identity congruence: Explaining persistence in proactive behavior
Proactive behavior requires persistence in the face of obstacles (Fay & Frese, 2001).
As they attempt to bring about change, proactive individuals are likely to face resistance from
others and experience setbacks (Parker et al., 2010). Drawing on conservation of resources
theory (Hobfoll, 1989), scholars have proposed that proactive behavior is highly effortful,
requiring considerable resources (Bolino et al., 2010). Under certain conditions, proactive
behavior can even cause strain, possibly because it involves higher order cognitive functions
such as anticipation, planning and decision making, which can be resource depleting (Strauss,
Parker, & O'Shea, 2014). This raises the question of how proactive behavior can be sustained,
and when and how individuals decide to abandon their efforts to bring about change,
considering the significant amount of resources they are investing.
We argue that the motivational properties of identity provide insights into individuals’
persistence in their proactive behavior. As reflected in the quote at the beginning of the
chapter, when proactive behavior is perceived as identity congruent, it will be seen as
particularly meaningful and self-expressive (Oyserman, 2009), rather than as merely
utilitarian. The self-expressive nature of proactivity explains why individuals invest time and
energy in proactive behavior, even if the costs of doing so seem to outweigh the benefits. If a

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 9
behavior is perceived as congruent with one’s identity, difficulties in engaging in the
behavior will be interpreted as an indication that the behavior is important, which will further
enhance persistence. On the other hand, individuals are reluctant to engage in identity-
incongruent behaviors, even when forgoing them has negative consequences. For example,
Oyserman et al. (2007) found that that participants who see health promotion as incongruent
with their (social) identities are likely to feel conflicted about corresponding behaviors.
Difficulty in engaging in identity-incongruent behavior means that the behavior will be
interpreted as “pointless and ‘not for people like me’” (Oyserman & Destin, 2010, p. 1002).
Identity congruence thus explains why individuals persist in their proactive behavior,
sometimes even when the costs seem to outweigh the benefits. If they encounter difficulties
and setbacks, individuals for whom a proactive behavior is identity congruent will interpret
this as an indication that the behavior is important (Oyserman, 2009) and will continue in
their efforts. If on the other hand proactive behavior is seen as identity-inconsistent, difficulty
will undermine effort (Oyserman, 2009; Oyserman & Destin, 2010).
To date, we know little about how proactive behavior is sustained over time and when
proactive goals, i.e., goals that are self-set and aimed at bringing about a different future
(Parker et al., 2010), are abandoned. Further research is needed to explore these questions,
and the role of identity congruence in motivating persistence in proactive behavior.
Self-development: Future work selves and proactive behavior
In addition to expressing current identities, future identities can also provide a
powerful driver of proactive behavior (Parker et al., 2010). Previous research has primarily
focused on the role of future work selves in motivating proactivity (Guan et al., 2014; Strauss
et al., 2012; Strauss & Parker, 2014b; Taber & Blankemeyer, 2015). Like other possible
selves, future work selves provide a standard against which the current self is compared, and
thus an incentive for future-oriented behavior (Oyserman et al., 2006; Strauss et al., 2012).

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 10
Importantly, not all future work selves motivate proactive behavior. Strauss et al.
(2012) showed that salience is a key characteristic that determines the influence of future
work selves on behavior. Future work selves that are salient are clear and easy to imagine.
Consequently, they are frequently activated in a person’s working self-concept (Markus &
Wurf, 1987), and have a strong influence on behavior (Leondari, Syngollitou, & Kiosseoglou,
1998). Across three different studies, Strauss et al., (2012) found that future work self
salience was positively related to proactive career behavior. In a cross-sectional study of 397
employees from a range of occupations and 103 Australian doctoral students, the authors
found that future work self salience was positively related to proactive career behavior, after
controlling for career identity and future orientation. A longitudinal study of 53 doctoral
students in the UK demonstrated that future work self salience predicted proactive career
behavior 6 months later, after controlling for initial levels of proactive career behavior.
Taber and Blankemeyer (2015) also found that future work self salience predicted
proactive career behaviors. In a cross-sectional study of 113 students at a US university, the
authors found that the effects of future work self salience on proactive skill development and
networking were (partially) mediated by career adaptability. Career adaptability reflects
individuals’ resources that enable them “to solve the unfamiliar, complex, and ill-defined
problems presented by developmental vocational tasks, occupational transitions, and work
traumas” (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012, p. 662), and is composed of four dimensions: concern
about the future, a sense of control over one’s environment, curiosity to imagine different
possible pathways for one’s career, and a sense of confidence in one’s ability to pursue career
aspirations (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). Taber and Blankemeyer found that the effects of
future work self salience on proactive skill development were fully mediated by confidence,
while curiosity partially mediated the relationship between future work self salience and
proactive career networking.

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 11
In a three-wave lagged study of 270 college students in China by Guan and colleagues
(Guan et al., 2014), future work self salience “consistently predicted career adaptability, job
search self-efficacy and employment status, which provide[s] strong evidence for the positive
role it plays in new entrants' job search success” (p. 144). Future work self salience was
significantly related to participants’ employment status three months later, and this
relationship was partially mediated by career adaptability and job search self-efficacy.
Together, these studies provide preliminary support for the importance of future work
self salience for proactive career behaviors and career-related outcomes. In addition to
salience, a further important characteristic of future work selves is their elaboration. In a
cross-sectional study of 233 doctoral students in the UK, Strauss et al. (2012) showed that the
effect of salient future work selves on proactive behavior was further strengthened when
future work selves are also elaborate. Drawing on self-complexity theory (Linville, 1982,
1985), the authors proposed that more elaborate future work selves which contain a larger
number of different elements are less vulnerable to negative feedback (Niedenthal,
Setterlund, & Wherry, 1992). Individuals with elaborate future work selves are thus more
open to considering information threatening their future work self, which allows them to plan
for contingencies and further strengthens the link between salience and behavior.
Salient future work selves are likely to promote proactive behavior through a number
of different mechanisms (Strauss et al., 2012). First, they create a discrepancy between the
status quo and the desired future (Carver & Scheier, 1990), which can stimulate the
generation of proactive goals (Strauss et al., 2012; Strauss & Parker, 2014b), aimed at
initiating change in the self or in one’s environment (Parker et al., 2010).
Second, because of their future-focus future work selves are less limited by
individuals’ need to be pragmatic (Strauss et al., 2012). Time can act as a resource which
enables individuals to set maximal goals (Pennington & Roese, 2003), i.e., goals that

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 12
represent the most individuals could wish for (Idson, Liberman, & Higgins, 2000). At greater
temporal distance, individuals’ idealistic selves, their selves reflecting values and principles
and a sense of one’s “true” self, are more likely to be activated. When focusing on their more
immediate rather than their more distal future, individuals’ pragmatic selves become
activated, resulting in a focus on practical concerns (Kivetz & Tyler, 2007). Salient future
work selves thus lay the basis of self-development by encouraging individuals to pursue their
best possible future.
Finally, salient future work selves enable individuals to imagine themselves in the
future, through the process of episodic prospection. Episodic prospection allows individuals
to project themselves into, and thus pre-experience, the future (Atance & O'Neill, 2001). This
allows individuals to anticipate, for example, the resources their future work self will require,
which in turn motivates proactive behavior aimed at building these resources (Strauss et al.,
2012).
These three mechanisms outlined by Strauss et al. (2012) explain how future work
selves motivate the setting of proactive goals, but have yet to be tested empirically. Here we
propose a further mechanism, integrating recent research on identity-based motivation
(Oyserman, 2007, 2009; Oyserman et al., 2007) with insights from developmental
psychology (Vygotsky, 1978). We suggest that proactive behavior can also be a way of
“trying out” a future work self (cf. Ibarra, 1999). In engaging in proactive behavior
individuals often go beyond their current job role and enact behavior consistent not with their
current self, but with their future work self. By enacting work behaviors that lie beyond their
current role, individuals perform what may still be beyond them, which in turn contributes to
their development (Vygotsky, 1978). Bagash, Strauss, and Eubanks (2015) suggested that,
depending on their implicit leadership theories (Eden & Leviatan, 1975; Engle & Lord,
1997), individuals may see proactive behavior, such as taking charge (Morrison & Phelps,

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 13
1999), as reflective of a leader identity. Engaging in proactive behavior may thus be a way of
claiming a leader identity (DeRue & Ashford, 2010), which forms part of one’s future work
self. As we discuss below, the success and failure of proactive behavior linked to one’s future
work self in turn informs individuals’ identities.
Identity revision: Consequences of failure and success in proactive behavior for the self
Future work selves are continuously revised and adjusted. As Brandtstädter (1999) put
it, “[a]s individuals move through their life cycles, they continuously revise and reinterpret
the goals and plans they adopt for themselves in response to previous history, as well as in
response to changes in competencies, motives, and external demands” (p. 58). We propose
that success and failure in proactive behavior provide important information about progress
towards one’s future work self, and can trigger change in an individual’s future-oriented self-
concept.
Aspects of the self-concept may be modified (A. E. Wilson, Buehler, Lawford,
Schmidt, & Yong, 2012) and even dropped, “depending on contextual affordances and
constraints” (Oyserman & James, 2011, p. 120). Drawing on previous research on self-
complexity (Linville, 1985, 1987; Niedenthal et al., 1992; Stein, 1994), Strauss et al. (2012)
argued that more elaborate future work selves, i.e., future work selves which are detailed and
complex, and contain “a larger and more diverse range of features” (p. 583), would be less
affected by negative feedback. Extending this argument, we propose that individuals can
“revise” their future work self by changing their commitment to specific features (Carroll,
Shepperd, & Arkin, 2009). The malleability of future work selves is likely to be adaptive and
important for individuals’ functioning. Abandoning valued personal goals is stressful
(Brandstätter, Herrmann, & Schüler, 2013). However, giving up on unattainable goals is
critical for individuals’ well-being (Wrosch, Miller, Scheier, & De Pontet, 2007; Wrosch,
Scheier, Carver, & Schulz, 2003; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz, & Carver, 2003).

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 14
Drawing on Carroll and colleagues’ (2009) process model of self-revision, we suggest
that future work selves are revised in response to success and failure in the proactive goals
aimed at bringing them about. Failing to achieve proactive goals linked to a future work self
is likely to initially raise doubt, and result in rising anxiety, and ultimately in a fall of
expectations regarding one’s future work self (Carroll et al., 2009). Future work selves are
particularly likely to be revised in response to setbacks in proactive goals if continuing to
pursue a proactive goal also makes an undesired self more likely (Carroll et al., 2009).
Corresponding feared selves are thus critical in determining whether setbacks in relation to
proactive goals trigger a revision of a future work self. We argue that, in addition, self-
revision in response to setbacks in the pursuit proactive goals is especially likely if
individuals attribute their failure to enduring factors within themselves that are beyond their
control (Weiner, 1985).
Carroll et al. (2009) prompted business and psychology students to imagine a future
work self as business psychologist, and then exposed students to information threatening this
future work self. When participants were told that pursuing their desired future work self was
not only unlikely to be successful but would also make a feared future self (working in a low-
paid office job) more likely to become reality, this resulted in increased self-doubt and
anxiety, and decreased commitment to this future self. However, it is important to note that
Carroll et al.’s (2009) set of studies used experimentally induced possible selves. To date, we
know little about change in salient future work selves in response to setbacks in proactive
goals.
While failure in relation to proactive goals can trigger a downward revision of one’s
future work self, with identities being adjusted and possibly abandoned, success may have the
opposite effect and strengthen individuals’ commitment to their future work self, and
encourage an upward revision. Success and failure in proactive behavior are likely to promote

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 15
reflection, which will in turn influence future episodes of proactive behavior (Bindl, Parker,
Totterdell, & Hagger-Johnson, 2012). Positive feedback is likely to increase individuals’ can
do motivation (Parker et al., 2010), their efficacy beliefs and outcome expectancies in relation
to proactive behavior. These will in turn increase individuals’ commitment to their future
work self, and make it more likely that they will set further proactive goals aimed at bringing
it about.
Carroll (2014) suggested that positive feedback can promote upward self-revision,
particularly when it is clearly linked to a desired future self. In an experimental study of 67
undergraduate students, participants were given information about a graduate program in
business psychology and provided with positive feedback regarding their GPA. Participants
who had not only been told that their GPA exceeded the entry requirement of the program but
had also been assured that this made it more likely for their desired future self as a business
psychologist to become reality increased in confidence and were more likely to commit to
applying to the program. This provides initial support for the idea that success can promote
upward self-revision, via its effect on expectations to achieve a future self. However, the
future selves in this study were experimentally induced, and upward revision was assessed as
increases in participants’ intention to pursue a new career. Little is known about how success
affects long-held salient future work selves.
Beyond the Personal Self
So far we have focused primarily on the individual level of the self-concept, both in
terms of current selves and future work selves. However, proactive behavior can also be
motivated by identities located at the relational and collective level of the self-concept. We
first discuss social identification and its relevance for proactive behavior, before turning to
collective and relational future work selves.

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 16
Identification and different targets of proactive behavior
Identification refers to the extent to which individuals define themselves in terms of
their membership in groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). When individuals identify with a group,
they are likely to engage in proactive behavior aimed at shaping the future of this group.
Parker et al. (2010) suggested that identification with the team or organization is likely to
promote proactive work behavior, aimed at changing the internal organizational environment,
or proactive strategic behavior, aimed at improving the organization’s fit with its external
environment (Parker & Collins, 2010). Ashford and Barton (2012) similarly argued that
identification with the organization would motivate individuals to raise issues on its behalf. Liu,
Zhu, and Yang (2010) drew on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and proposed that an
employee identifying with the organization would be motivated to direct voice at colleagues
so that they may benefit from the employee’s suggestions, because he or she regards the
interests of the organization as his or her own. On the other hand, employees who identify
with the leader, rather than the organization, are more likely to direct voice at the leader “so
that the leader can directly benefit from them” (p. 193). The authors investigated personal
identification with the leader and social identification with the organization as mechanisms in
the relationship between transformational leadership and peer-rated voice. In a study of 191
employees from different organizations in China, they found that social identification with
the organization partially mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and
voice directed at peers, while personal identification with the leader fully mediated the
relationship between leadership and voice directed at the leader. This suggests that
identification with specific groups or individuals can motivate proactive behavior aimed at
their benefit.
Further support for the importance of different levels of the self-concept comes from
research investigating different foci of commitment (see also Belschak & Den Hartog, this

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 17
volume). Commitment is defined as “emotional attachment to, identification with, and
involvement in the organization” (Allen & Meyer, 1990, p. 1). While commitment and
identification are conceptually distinct, they are highly correlated (van Knippenberg &
Sleebos, 2006), and identification can be seen as an antecedent of commitment (Meyer,
Becker, & Van Dick, 2006). Research on different foci of commitment can thus provide
insights into the relationship between identification with different targets and proactive
behavior.
In a study of 196 Australian public sector employees, Strauss, Griffin, and Rafferty
(2009) found that commitment to the organization was positively related to self-reported
proactive behavior targeting the organization, but not to proactive behavior targeting the
team. Belschak and Den Hartog (2010) investigated whether commitment to one’s team,
organization, and career was significantly related to corresponding proactive behaviors, rated
by employees’ peers. In a cross-sectional study of 117 employee-coworker dyads from a
broad cross-section of organizations in the Netherlands, the authors found limited support for
a clear-cut link between foci of commitment and targets of proactive behavior. Team
commitment was a consistent predictor of proactive behavior aimed at benefitting the
organization, co-workers, and the individual, respectively. Career commitment was
significantly related to proactive career behavior, but organizational commitment did not
predict peer-ratings of proactivity.
While the studies we have described provide preliminary evidence that identifying
with a group may motivate proactive behavior aimed at benefitting this group, the support for
links between different levels of identification – career, team, or organization – and
corresponding targets of proactivity is mixed. This may be because the target of proactive
behavior is not always identical with its beneficiary. For example, individuals may make a
suggestion for a solution to an organizational problem because they identify with the

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 18
organization and thus see its success as their own success (Mael & Ashforth, 1992).
However, they may also make a similar suggestion with the aim of distinguishing themselves
from others and, as we argued above, expressing their personal identity. In this way the
behavior itself does not always signal a clear motivation.
Research on organizational citizenship behaviors has long discussed the possibility
that the same behavior can be linked to a number of different motives, benefitting the
organization, others, or the self (Bolino, 1999; Rioux & Penner, 2001), thus reflecting
different levels of identification. Empirical support for a matching of the target of
identification and the beneficiary of organizational citizenship behavior is mixed, with some
studies showing an exact matching of foci (Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006), while others
suggest the possibility of a spill-over from one focus of identification to another (Rupp &
Cropanzano, 2002), similar to the study of Belschak and Den Hartog (2010). Similar
arguments have been applied to proactivity (e.g., Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010; Liu et al.,
2010).
We suggest that future research should go beyond the utilitarian aspects of
proactivity. Going beyond a social exchange perspective and emphasizing the unique features
of proactive behavior that distinguish it from other positive work behaviors has the potential
to further our understanding of the interplay between proactive behavior and different levels
of self-construal. For example, identification with a group is likely to make proactive
behavior aimed at shaping the future of this group self-expressive, regardless of its
instrumental benefits (Oyserman et al., 2007). Similarly, relational identification as a
follower may make proactive relationship building identity-congruent. Next, we argue that
proactive behavior may not only be expressive of identification with current collective and
relational selves, but also motivated by collective and relational future selves.

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 19
Collective and Relational Future Work Selves
To date, future work selves have been discussed primarily in terms of personal selves
(Strauss et al., 2012), emphasizing unique aspects of the self (Brewer & Gardner, 1996).
However, like other possible selves (Cinnirella, 1998; Lord et al., 1999), future work selves
can also be considered at the collective and relational level of the self (Strauss et al., 2012).
While a substantial body of research has investigated the role of personal future selves
(Oyserman & James, 2011), collective or relational future selves have received considerably
less attention.
Relational future work selves can be seen as “representations of hoped for role
relationships” (Strauss et al., 2012, p. 595). Relational future work selves are likely to
promote proactive behavior targeting social relationships (Lord et al., 1999; Strauss et al.,
2012), such as proactive relationship building (Ashford & Black, 1996; Thompson, 2005). A
relational future work self that involves, for example, an individual’s role relationship as a
carer may facilitate proactive efforts to improve the relationship with a client. Importantly,
we propose that relational future work selves are specific to dyadic role relationships. The
relational future work self in our example focuses on the particular relationship the individual
holds with a specific client, rather than reflecting a more personal future work self of being a
caring person more generally.
Mirroring the mechanisms outlined by Strauss et al. (2012) for personal future work
selves, relational future work selves may provide a basis for mental simulation, and thus
facilitate anticipating a dyad partner’s future needs. They may create a discrepancy between
the current and the desired relationship and motivate efforts to improve the relationship
(Carver & Scheier, 1990), and they may facilitate a more open and creative approach to
thinking about a role relationship (Ibarra, 1999).

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 20
Previous research on individuals’ proactive efforts to shape specific relationships has
focused primarily on instrumental motives, such as receiving positive performance
evaluations. Ashford and Black (1996) argued that proactive efforts to build a positive
relationship with one’s supervisor “may be undertaken for […] instrumental reasons” (p.
210). In their longitudinal study of 103 MBA graduates in the US, newcomers who
proactively built relationships with their supervisors received higher performance ratings,
which the authors interpreted as support for their argument.
Research on job crafting has also begun to explore proactive efforts to shape
relationships, and has conceptualized proactive relationship building as a means for
increasing social resources (Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, & Hetland, 2012; Tims,
Bakker, & Derks, 2012, 2013). However, measures of job crafting targeting social resources
do not distinguish between proactive efforts to build relationships with one’s coworkers or
one’s supervisor, and thus tell us little about proactivity specifically targeting dyadic role
relationships.
Together these studies highlight that individuals are proactive in shaping social
relationships, and suggest that they do so because of the benefits they anticipate. Instrumental
motives are certainly likely to play a role in proactive relationship building. However, we
suggest that relational future work selves represent a promising area of future research which
may provide insights not only into the motivation behind proactive relationship building, but
into the self-regulatory processes underlying it.
Collective future work selves are “individuals’ representations of their group or
organization in the future that reflect their hopes and aspirations” (Strauss et al., 2012, p.
595). While collective future work selves reside by definition within the individual, the
processes through which these selves are constructed are inherently social. These social
processes constitute a fruitful area of research. For example, leaders are particularly likely to

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 21
play a key role in shaping collective future work selves. By encouraging social identification
with the collective, they may make collective future work selves more salient (Kark &
Shamir, 2002; Lord et al., 1999). Collective future work selves are also a potential
mechanism through which leader vision may be translated into proactive behavior (Strauss,
Griffin, & Parker, 2009). Griffin et al. (2010) argued that leaders’ communication of a vision
creates a discrepancy between the status quo and a desired future which highlights the need
for change. A longitudinal study of 102 public sector employees in Australia provides some
initial support for this argument. The authors found that, controlling for initial levels of
proactivity, leader vision was positively related to proactive behavior one year later, at least
for employees who felt confident in going beyond their prescribed job role. We suggest that
leaders’ visions may be translated into collective future work selves which form the basis of
proactive goals aimed at shaping the future of the organization.
Avenues for Future Research
Throughout this chapter we have highlighted what we consider to be promising
avenues for future research. So far little research has explicitly investigated the link between
identity and proactivity, and there are few studies to date on the role of future work selves in
facilitating proactive behavior (Guan et al., 2014; Strauss et al., 2012; Strauss & Parker,
2014b; Taber & Blankemeyer, 2015). Our model of the potential links between identity and
proactive behavior provides an organizing framework for this underdeveloped area of
research. Below, we further discuss specific directions for future research.
Characteristics of Future Work Selves
To date, research on future work selves has focused on their salience, i.e., the extent
to which they are clear and easily come to mind, and their elaboration, i.e., the extent to
which they contain a complex set of diverse features (Strauss et al., 2012). Salience is
generally considered a key characteristic that determines the influence of possible selves on

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 22
behavior (see Oyserman & James, 2011, for a review). Studies to date have used the measure
by Strauss et al. (2012) which instructs participants to mentally travel in to the future and rate
how clear and accessible the resulting mental image is (Cai et al., 2015; Guan et al., 2014;
Strauss et al., 2012; Taber & Blankemeyer, 2015). However, future research is needed to
explore further possible characteristics that may determine the consequences of future work
selves for proactive behavior, such as, for example, the perceived control in relation to a
future work self (Norman & Aron, 2003). Proactive behavior aimed at bringing about a future
work self inherently implies working towards an uncertain future, but we know little about
the influence of varying degrees of uncertainty. It may be that the relationship between the
uncertainty of a future work self and proactive behavior is likely to be U-shaped (Oyserman
& James, 2011). If a future work self is very likely to become reality, irrespective of one’s
own efforts, there is no need to act. If on the other hand a future work self seems
unattainable, this will undermine proactive efforts to bring it about.
Similarly, the role of the temporal distance of future work selves deserves further
attention. Previous studies on future work selves did not specify a time frame when
instructing participants to envision their future work selves (Cai et al., 2015; Guan et al.,
2014; Strauss et al., 2012; Taber & Blankemeyer, 2015). Individual differences in time
perspective (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999) are likely to influence the temporal distance of
individuals’ future work selves (Oyserman & James, 2009). Different arguments can be made
regarding the effect of temporal distance on the motivation effect of future work selves. On
the one hand, individuals are more ambitious in relation to distal rather than proximal goals
(Mogilner, Aaker, & Pennington, 2007; Pennington & Roese, 2003). On the other hand,
future selves that feel closer in time more strongly influence an individual’s current identity.
Holding calendar time constant, A. E. Wilson et al. (2012) found that participants predicted

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 23
that they would hold more “favorable qualities at a future time that seemed close rather than
distant” (p. 342), suggesting that more proximal future work selves will be more positive.
How future work selves relate to the present also matters for their link with behavior.
As Oyserman and James (2011) argued, “the present is experienced as separate from the
future and the future feels distal, vague, and open. When the future begins later, there is not
much that can be done now – except wait for the future to arrive. Conversely, the present can
be seen as connecting fluidly to the future, and as such, as a time for setting the groundwork
for what will become possible in the future. When the future begins now, current action is
immediately necessary” (p. 129).
Further research is also needed regarding the content of future work selves, such as
the extent to which they reflect intrinsic or extrinsic values, which may determine the well-
being outcomes of pursuing a future work self (Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). Instructing
research participants to provide future work self narratives in addition to rating the salience of
their future work self has the potential to provide richer insights into the nature of future work
selves. Moreover, to date we know little about how stable future work selves are, and how
future work self salience develops over time and is shaped by individuals’ experiences.
Future research should employ longitudinal designs to investigate the potential reciprocal
relationship between future work selves and proactive behavior. While there is preliminary
evidence from a longitudinal field experiment that encouraging individuals to engage with
their future work self results in greater levels of proactive behavior, at least for some
individuals (Strauss & Parker, 2014b), further studies employing rigorous experimental
designs are needed to more clearly establish the causal relationship between identity-based
motivation and proactive behavior.

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 24
Consequences of proactive self-development
Proactive behavior is generally portrayed as having primarily positive consequences
for individuals, such as by enhancing their job performance (Thompson, 2005) or career
satisfaction (Seibert et al., 2001). Guan et al. (2014) found that students with salient future
work selves were more likely to obtain employment. Strauss et al. (2012) suggest that
proactive behavior aimed at bringing about a future work self may provide a basis for
creating future person-environment fit (Edwards, 1996). While this argument has yet to be
tested, there is empirical as well as theoretical support for the idea that proactive self-
development based on future work selves is likely to be beneficial. However, there may also
be downsides to investing time and energy in bringing about one’s future work self. Research
on affective forecasting suggests that individuals tend to overestimate their affective reaction
to future events (Dunn & Laham, 2006; T. D. Wilson & Gilbert, 2005) . This means that
achieving one’s future work selves may not result in genuine happiness. It is however
important to note that research on affective forecasting focuses primarily on “happiness”,
rather than on, for example, the experience of meaning (Ryan & Deci, 2001).
When investigating the benefits of the self-expressive and identity-congruent
characteristics of proactive behavior for individuals’ well-being, cultural differences need to
be taken into account. Proactivity is likely to be self-expressive primarily in individualistic
cultures that value actively seeking success and overtaking others (Markus & Kitayama,
1991). Markus and Kitayama (1991) argue that controlling and shaping one’s environment, as
reflected in proactive behavior, is not universally preferred across cultures. Collectivistic
cultures value alignment over more proactive forms of control. Future research should
explore the consequences of proactively pursuing one’s future work self, using a broad range
of indicators of well-being and accounting for cultural differences.

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 25
Intersection of collective and personal identities
Drawing on Strauss et al. (2012), we make a clear distinction between personal,
relational, and collective future work selves. This is based on the notion that different levels
of the self-concept are unlikely to be activated simultaneously (Kark & Shamir, 2002; Lord et
al., 1999). However, to date we know little about how clearly this distinction holds when
individuals imagine their future work self. Further research is needed to explore whether
personal future work selves can be clearly distinguished from relational future work selves.
Conceptualizing future work selves more broadly, beyond a clear distinction between the
three levels of the self-concept, may provide fruitful avenues for future research. For
example, just as the present-oriented self-concept can be seen as individuals’ theory about
who they are (Oyserman, 2001), future work selves may represent working theories of who
individuals hope to become in the future. Future work self could thus be thought of as an
individual’s theory of their hoped for future self in relation to work, encompassing a range of
different possible future identities (Oyserman & James, 2009), including collective and
relational identities.
Further research is also needed to explore the intersection of future work selves and
collective identities. While collective future work selves can form the basis of proactive
behavior aimed at shaping the future of a team or organization, social identities can also
restrict what individuals can imagine for themselves, and thus create barriers to proactive
behavior. Social identities may influence the formation of a future work self by signaling that
certain roles or achievements are not suitable or attainable by people that share a particular
social identity (Oyserman & James, 2011). For example, a woman from a working class
background, who is presented with images of only wealthy male politicians in the media,
might consider a future work self as politician as outside of the realm of possible future
selves for “people like me”. In support of this idea, research has shown that the perceived

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 26
likelihood and desirability of attaining certain possible selves can differ by social identity
(Lips, 2000, 2007). For instance, women are more likely to feel that their social identity is
incompatible with a future work self in a professional area which is strongly stereotyped as
male, such as science and engineering, or high power roles (Lips, 2000). Discrepancies
between different social identities can operate at a subconscious level, as demonstrated by a
study of the implicit attitudes of college students towards math (Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald,
2002). The authors tested students’ implicit associations between math and gender, and found
that women who implicitly associated math with “male” were less likely to associate math
with their own identity. This effect was present even for women who were taking math
majors.
Social identities may also influence future work selves when they generate additional
future identities which are incompatible with a potential future work self. Individuals may
feel that they must choose between incompatible future selves, or negotiate among multiple
future selves, depending on their social identities. For example, academically gifted girls
have been found to be influenced by considerations of both work and family roles when
discussing salient future selves, while academically gifted boys were focused only on work
(Curry, Trew, Turner, & Hunter, 1994). Differences such as these, originating in social
identities, may affect the degree to which individuals invest resources and proactively work
towards a future work self. Future research is needed to explore this possibility.
Finally, in particular our discussion of collective future work selves has been
grounded primarily in social psychological research on the self-concept which views
collective future selves as situated within a person’s self-concept, and thus as relatively
enduring individual variables. From this perspective, context and situation are seen as playing
a secondary role (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004), such as by making different
identities salient or shaping their influence on behavior. In contrast, processual approaches to

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 27
the self-concept would provide a different perspective and may offer insights into how
collective future selves are negotiated and defined in social interactions (see e.g., Gecas,
1982).
Practical implications
An identity-based perspective on proactive behavior has important practical
implications for organizations aiming to enhance proactivity in their workforce. Identity-
congruent motivation provides a reason to motivation for proactivity (Parker et al., 2010)
which has received relatively little attention in the literature to date (Ashford & Barton,
2012). In this chapter we argued that proactive behavior may not always be utilitarian but can
be based on identity-congruent motivation. This suggests that identity-congruent proactivity
may be relatively unaffected by rewards; instead, attempts to incentivize proactive behavior
may undermine the self-expressive nature of proactivity (Strauss & Parker, 2014a).
However, there is evidence that identity-based motivation is open to change
(Oyserman & Destin, 2010), which highlights the potential to enhance proactivity through
training and development interventions in organizations. To date however most research on
interventions based on identity-based motivation and possible selves has focused either on
students (Day, Borkowski, Punzo, & Howsepian, 1994; Oyserman, Terry, & Bybee, 2002), or
on career counselling (Plimmer, 2012), rather than investigating proactive behavior in
organizations more generally. For example, in a study of African American high school
students, Oyserman and colleagues (Oyserman et al., 2002) showed that a 9-week small-
group intervention resulted in improved behavior and increased school attendance as well as
well as in improvements in the balance of students’ expected and feared possible selves. The
intervention included strategies such as strengthening group membership, creating more
concrete links between the present and a desired future, and building the skills that would be
required to pursue expected possible selves and avoid feared possible selves.

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 28
A rare example of a future work self intervention in an organizational setting is a ten
month longitudinal field experiment carried out by Strauss and Parker (Strauss & Parker,
2014b). The authors found that participants who underwent an intervention based on future
work selves showed an increase in proactive behavior aimed at changing the future of the
organization. However, these effects were only found for individuals high in future
orientation. This is in line with previous research which has shown that individual differences
determine how responsive participants are to interventions based on ideal identities
(Ouellette, Hessling, Gibbons, Reis-Bergan, & Gerrard, 2005). Together these studies suggest
that increasing the salience of future work selves has the potential to enhance proactive
behavior, however individual differences need to be taken into account.
In addition, leaders are likely to play a critical role for identity-congruent motivation
for proactivity in a number of ways. First, in particular transformational leadership may
encourage identity-congruent proactive behavior aimed at benefitting the organization by
enhancing employees’ social identification with the organization (Kark, Shamir, & Chen,
2003; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Second, by encouraging social identification with the
team or organization, leaders may make collective future work selves more salient (Kark &
Shamir, 2002; Lord et al., 1999). Finally, leader visions may form the basis of collective
future work selves (Strauss, Griffin, & Parker, 2009), and thus stimulate proactive efforts to
change the future of the organization. This suggests that organizations can potentially
increase identity-congruent proactivity by selecting and developing transformational leaders
who stimulate social identification and provide clear visions of the future.

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 29
References
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 63(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
Anseel, F., Beatty, A. S., Shen, W., Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). How are we doing
after 30 years? A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and outcomes of feedback-
seeking behavior. Journal of Management, 14(1), 318-348. doi:
10.1177/0149206313484521
Anseel, F., Lievens, F., & Levy, P. E. (2007). A self-motives perspective on feedback-
seeking behavior: Linking organizational behavior and social psychology research.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(3), 211-236. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
2370.2007.00210.x
Ashford, S. J., & Barton, M. (2012). Identity-based issue selling In C. Bartel, S. Blader, & A.
Wrzesniewski (Eds.), Identity and the modern organization (pp. 223-244). Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of
desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 199-214. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.81.2.199
Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for
collective identity: articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological
bulletin, 130(1), 80-114. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80
Atance, C. M., & O'Neill, D. K. (2001). Episodic future thinking. Current trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 5(12), 533-539. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01804-0

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 30
Bagash, A., Strauss, K., & Eubanks, D. (2015). How proactive behavior shapes leadership:
The interplay of identity and implicit theories. Paper presented at the 17th congress of
the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, Oslo, Norway.
Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, pro-social, and pro-organizational foci
of proactive behavior: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal Of
Occupational And Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 475-498. doi:
10.1348/096317909X439208
Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., Totterdell, P., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the self-
starter: How mood relates to proactive goal regulation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97(1), 134-150. doi: 10.1037/a0024368
Black, M. E. A., Stein, K. F., & Loveland-Cherry, C. J. (2001). Older women and
mammography screening behavior: Do possible selves contribute? Health Education
and Behavior, 28(2), 200-216.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
Boldero, J., & Francis, J. (2000). Self-regulation: The emotional and behavioral
consequences of discrepancies with standards and goals. International Journal of
Psychology, 35(3/4), 162.
Boldero, J., & Francis, J. (2002). Goals, standards, and the self: Reference values serving
different functions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(3), 232-241.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good
actors? Academy Of Management Review, 24(1), 82-98. doi: 10.2307/259038
Brandstätter, V., Herrmann, M., & Schüler, J. (2013). The struggle of giving up personal
goals: Affective, physiological, and cognitive consequences of an action crisis.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(12), 1668-1682. doi:
10.1177/0146167213500151

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 31
Brandtstädter, J. (1999). The self in action and development: Cultural, biosocial, and
ontogenetic bases of intentional self-development. In J. Brandtstädter & R. M. Lerner
(Eds.), Action & self-development: Theory and research through the life span. (pp.
37-65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and
self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83-93.
Cai, Z., Guan, Y., Li, H., Shi, W., Guo, K., Liu, Y., . . . Hua, H. (2015). Self-esteem and
proactive personality as predictors of future work self and career adaptability: An
examination of mediating and moderating processes. Journal Of Vocational Behavior,
86(0), 86-94. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2014.10.004
Carroll, P. J. (2014). Upward self-revision: Constructing possible selves. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 36(5), 377-385. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2014.934451
Carroll, P. J., Shepperd, J. A., & Arkin, R. M. (2009). Downward self-revision: Erasing
possible selves. Social Cognition, 27(4), 550-578.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Principles of self-regulation: Action and emotion. In
E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition:
Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3-52). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Cinnirella, M. (1998). Exploring temporal aspects of social identity: The concept of possible
social identities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 227 - 248.
Curry, C., Trew, K., Turner, I., & Hunter, J. (1994). The effect of life domains on girls'
possible selves. Adolescence, 29(1), 133-150.
Day, J. D., Borkowski, J. G., Punzo, D., & Howsepian, B. (1994). Enhancing possible selves
in Mexican American students. Motivation and Emotion, 18(1), 79-103. doi:
10.1007/BF02252475

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 32
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process
of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy Of Management
Review, 35(4), 627-647. doi: 10.5465/amr.2010.53503267
Dunn, E. W., & Laham, S. M. (2006). A user's guide to emotional time travel: Progress on
key issues in affective forecasting. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Affect in social thinking and
behavior (pp. 177-196). New York: Psychology Press.
Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor
structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology,
60(6), 736-741. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.60.6.736
Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit
approach to stress. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 292-339. doi:
10.2307/256782
Elliot, A. J., Sheldon, K. M., & Church, M. A. (1997). Avoidance personal goals and
subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(9), 915-927.
Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader-member
exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 988-1010.
Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2001). The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity
studies. Human Performance, 14(1), 97-124. doi: 10.1207/S15327043HUP1401_06
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in
the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187. doi:
10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23005-6
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal Of
Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362. doi: 10.1002/job.322
Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 1-33.

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 33
Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2010). Why does proactive personality predict
employee life satisfaction and work behaviors? A field investigation of the mediating
role of the self-concordance model. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 539-560. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01180.x
Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. (2010). Leader vision and the development of
adaptive and proactive performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(1), 174-182. doi: 10.1037/a0017263
Guan, Y., Guo, Y., Bond, M. H., Cai, Z., Zhou, X., Xu, J., . . . Ye, L. (2014). New job market
entrants' future work self, career adaptability and job search outcomes: Examining
mediating and moderating models. Journal Of Vocational Behavior, 85(1), 136-145.
doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2014.05.003
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational
principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-47.
Hooker, K., & Kaus, C. R. (1994). Health-related possible selves in young and middle
adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 9(1), 126-133. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.660
Hoyle, R. H., & Sherrill, M. R. (2006). Future orientation in the self-system: Possible selves,
self-regulation, and behavior. Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1673 - 1696.
Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional
adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 764 - 791.
Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and
losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 252-274.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: a cultural perspective
on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 349.

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 34
Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2002). The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming
relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio & F. J.
Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead
(pp. 67-91). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:
Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246-255.
Kivetz, Y., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). Tomorrow I’ll be me: The effect of time perspective on the
activation of idealistic versus pragmatic selves. Organizational Behavior And Human
Decision Processes, 102(2), 193-211. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.002
Leondari, A., Syngollitou, E., & Kiosseoglou, G. (1998). Academic achievement, motivation,
and future selves. Educational Studies, 24(2), 153-163.
Linville, P. (1982). Affective consequences of complexity regarding the self and others. In M.
S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition (pp. 79-109). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Linville, P. (1985). Self-complexity and affective extremity: Don't put all your eggs into one
cognitive basket. Social Cognition, 3(1), 94-120.
Linville, P. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and
depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 663-676.
Lips, H. M. (2000). College students' visions of power and possibility as moderated by
gender. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 39-43.
Lips, H. M. (2007). Gender and possible selves. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education, 114, 51-59.
Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior,
employee identifications, and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
21(1), 189-202. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.014

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 35
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Freiberg, S. J. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of
leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader follower relationship.
Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 78(3), 167-203.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their Alma Mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizatinal identification. Journal Of Organizational
Behavior, 13(2), 103-123.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
Markus, H. R., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954-969.
Markus, H. R., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological
perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitments at
work: Towards an integrative model. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 27(5),
665-683.
Mogilner, C., Aaker, J. L., & Pennington, G. L. (2007). Time will tell: The distant appeal of
promotion and imminent appeal of prevention. Journal of Consumer Research, 34,
670-681.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate
workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403-419. doi:
10.2307/257011
Niedenthal, P. M., Setterlund, M. B., & Wherry, M. B. (1992). Possible self-complexity and
affective reactions to goal-relevant behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63(1), 5-16.
Norman, C. C., & Aron, A. (2003). Aspects of possible self that predict motivation to achieve
or avoid it. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 500-507.

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 36
Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female,
therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 44-59. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44
Olkkonen, M.-E., & Lipponen, J. (2006). Relationships between organizational justice,
identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes.
Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 100(2), 202-215. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.08.007
Ouellette, J. A., Hessling, R., Gibbons, F. X., Reis-Bergan, M., & Gerrard, M. (2005). Using
images to increase exercise behavior: Prototypes versus possible selves. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(5), 610-620. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271589
Oyserman, D. (2001). Self-concept and identity. In A. Tesser & N. Schwarz (Eds.), The
Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 499-517). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Oyserman, D. (2007). Social identity and self-regulation. In A. W. Kruglansi & E. T. Higgins
(Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (second ed.). New York:
Guilford Press.
Oyserman, D. (2009). Identity-based motivation: Implications for action-readiness,
procedural-readiness, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
19(3), 250-260. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.05.008
Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006). Possible selves and academic outcomes: How
and when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
91(1), 188 - 204.
Oyserman, D., & Destin, M. (2010). Identity-based motivation: Implications for intervention.
The Counseling Psychologist, 38(7), 1001-1043. doi: 10.1177/0011000010374775

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 37
Oyserman, D., Fryberg, S. A., & Yoder, N. (2007). Identity-based motivation and health.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1011-1027. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.93.6.1011
Oyserman, D., & James, L. (2009). Possible selves: From content to process. In K. D.
Markman, W. M. P. Klein, & J. A. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental
simulation (pp. 373-394). New York: Psychology Press.
Oyserman, D., & James, L. (2011). Possible identities. In S. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L.
Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 117-148). New York,
NY: Springer-Verlag.
Oyserman, D., Terry, K., & Bybee, D. (2002). Possible selves intervention to enhance school
involvement. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 313 - 326.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of
proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856. doi:
10.1177/0149206310363732
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple
proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633-662. doi:
10.1177/0149206308321554
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive
behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636-652. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.91.3.636
Pennington, G. L., & Roese, N. J. (2003). Regulatory focus and temporal distance. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 563-576.
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting
a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal
Of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1120–1141. doi: 10.1002/job.1783

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 38
Plimmer, G. (2012). Adult career counseling using possible selves: A quasi-experimental
field study in naturalistic settings. Journal of Career Assessment, 20(1), 53-70. doi:
10.1177/1069072711417164
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A
motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1306 - 1314.
Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange
relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice.
Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 925-946. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00036-5
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research
on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141-166.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: Construction,
reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal Of Vocational
Behavior, 80(3), 661-673.
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(2), 845-874. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00234.x
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership - A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594. doi:
10.1287/orsc.4.4.577
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-
being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76(3), 482-497. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.76.3.482

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 39
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining
ourselves through work relationships. Academy Of Management Review, 32(1), 9-32.
doi: 10.2307/20159278
Stein, F. K. (1994). Complexity of the self-schema and responses to disconfirming feedback.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18(2), 161-178.
Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Solving the initiative paradox: Leader
vision and the collective future self. Paper presented at the 14th European Congress of
Work and Organizational Psychology, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., & Parker, S. K. (2012). Future work selves: How salient hoped-
for identities motivate proactive career behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology,
97(3), 580-598. doi: 10.1037/a0026423
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 Journal of Management, 20(3), 279-291. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8551.2008.00590.x
Strauss, K., & Parker, S. K. (2014a). Effective and sustained proactivity in the workplace: A
self-determination theory perspective. In M. Gagné (Ed.), Oxford handbook of work
engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Strauss, K., & Parker, S. K. (2014b). Intervening to enhance proactivity in organizations:
Improving the present or changing the future. Manuscript under review.
Strauss, K., Parker, S. K., & O'Shea, D. (2014). Proactivity under pressure hurts: Motivation
moderates the effects of proactive work behavior on strain. Manuscript under review.
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self.
Social psychological perspectives on the self, 2, 33-66.

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 40
Taber, B. J., & Blankemeyer, M. (2015). Future work self and career adaptability in the
prediction of proactive career behaviors. Journal Of Vocational Behavior, 86(0), 20-
27. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2014.10.005
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S.
Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-
24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in
organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal
Of Occupational And Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 275-300. doi:
10.1348/096317910X502359
Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1011-1017. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.90.5.1011
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting
scale. Journal Of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173-186. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job
resources, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 230-
240. doi: 10.1037/a0032141
Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis
on the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental
validities. Applied Psychology, 62(1), 44-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00514.x
van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational identification versus
organizational commitment: Self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes.
Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 27, 571-584.

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 41
Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C. P., Soenens, B., De Witte, H., & Van den
Broeck, A. (2007). On the relations among work value orientations, psychological
need satisfaction and job outcomes: A self-determination theory approach. Journal Of
Occupational And Organizational Psychology, 80(2), 251-277.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Oxford, England:
Harvard University Press.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.92.4.548
Wilson, A. E., Buehler, R., Lawford, H., Schmidt, C., & Yong, A. G. (2012). Basking in
projected glory: The role of subjective temporal distance in future self-appraisal.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(3), 342-353. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1863
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(3), 131-134. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-
7214.2005.00355.x
Wrosch, C., Miller, G. E., Scheier, M. F., & De Pontet, S. B. (2007). Giving up on
unattainable goals: Benefits for health? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
33(2), 251-265.
Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Schulz, R. (2003). The importance of goal
disengagement in adaptive self-regulation: When giving up is beneficial. Self and
Identity, 2(1), 1-20.
Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Miller, G. E., Schulz, R., & Carver, C. S. (2003). Adaptive self-
regulation of unattainable goals: Goal disengagement, goal reengagement, and
subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(12), 1494-
1508.

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 42
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable
individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6),
1271-1288. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271

IDENTITY AND PROACTIVITY 43
Figure 1. Identity and proactivity
Future work self
Current self
Proactive behavior
Identity congruence
Self-development
Identity revision