Why Are Proactive People More Satisfied With Their Job,Career,and Life? An Examination of the Role of Work Engagement

Abstract

This study is a response to the call to examine motivational mechanisms linking proactive personality and outcomes. We examined proactive personality as a dispositional antecedent of work and life satisfaction, asserting that work engagement mediates the proactive personality—satisfaction relationships. With data collected from 365 employees from diverse backgrounds, we found support for our research model. Results of structural equation modeling indicate that proactive personality serves as a dispositional antecedent of work engagement, and work engagement fully mediated proactive personality’s relationship with job satisfaction and partially mediated its relationship with career satisfaction and life satisfaction. We discuss implications of results for theory and practice and offer suggestions for future research.

Keywords

proactive personality work engagement job satisfaction career satisfaction life satisfaction

Increasingly, organizations today are recognized as places where people come together not only to work but also to enjoy a sense of personal fulfillment and satisfaction. The past decades have witnessed a trend of organizational psychology research that focuses on human flourishing at the workplace, as evidenced by the popularity of research on positive organizational behavior concepts (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003), such as happiness, engagement, and proactivity at work. The question of what makes people happy and satisfied at work has become a topic of interest among both scholars and practitioners. Among the answers offered are insights provided by research on proactive personality (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant, 2000) and work engagement (e.g., Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).

Proactive personality refers to individuals’ dispositional tendency to initiate change in a variety of situations (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant, 2000). Proactive personality has been linked to many beneficial outcomes, including not only enhanced performance and career success (e.g., Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001; Thompson, 2005) but also greater satisfaction and well-being (e.g., Erdogan & Bauer, 2005; Greguras & Diefendorff, 2010).

Despite the rich knowledge about proactivity’s beneficial outcomes, to date we are yet to fully understand how and why proactive personality influences employee attitudes and behaviors (Greguras & Diefendorff, 2010; Thompson, 2005). In fact, over a decade ago, Crant (2000) called for research that examines goals or motivational constructs that might mediate the relations between proactivity and work-related criteria. Research in this area remains scant. In this study, we examine one motivational construct that may help explain the proactive personality—satisfaction relationship, work engagement. Work engagement is a role-based motivational concept that “captures how one expresses himself or herself in work role by investing his or her physical, emotional, and cognitive energies simultaneously” (Liao, Yang, Wang, Drown, & Shi, 2013, pp. 63–64). Engaged employees are energetic, mentally resilient, dedicated, and engrossed in work.

We hold that the tendency to be highly engaged in work helps explain why proactive individuals enjoy greater satisfaction with work and life. Job satisfaction and career satisfaction are as central to the work domain as is life satisfaction to the life domain. Job satisfaction refers to positive feelings individuals have toward their jobs (Locke, 1976). Career satisfaction measures the extent to which individuals believe their career progress is consistent with their goals, values, and preferences (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). And, life satisfaction refers to the subjective evaluation of the overall quality of one’s life (Pavot & Diener, 1993). Achieving an acceptable level of satisfaction is arguably an important goal for individuals, and feelings of satisfaction have implications for individuals, such as well-being and stress, and for organizations, such as performance, citizenship behaviors, and counterproductive behaviors (e.g., Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Fassina, Jones, & Uggerslev, 2008; Herschcovis et al., 2007). Thus, both practitioners and organizational scientists are interested in uncovering and understanding factors and psychological processes impacting satisfaction.

Through this study, we seek to better understand the links between proactivity and satisfaction with job, career, and life. In addition, we address the call for greater understanding of dispositional antecedents of work engagement. We first offer a brief review of proactive personality research, especially as it pertains to its relationships with various forms of satisfaction. We then examine the concept of work engagement and how it mediates the proactive personality—satisfaction relationships.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Proactive Personality

Along with increased interests on the general topic of individual proactivity in the workplace (e.g., Campbell, 2000; Parker, 2000), proactive personality has received a great deal of scholarly attention. Research has established discriminant validity of proactive personality from the Big Five personality traits and shown that proactive personality predicts relevant criterion variables over and above the contribution of the Big Five traits (Crant & Bateman, 2000).

Highly proactive people identify opportunities and act on them to improve their current circumstances (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). They anticipate environmental contingencies and generate constructive changes (Bateman & Crant, 1993). They tend to be keen on harnessing all resources available to accomplish their goals and objectives (Crant, 1996). Instead of readily accepting the status quo, proactive individuals challenge the present conditions and initiate changes (Crant & Bateman, 2000). They are motivated to learn and engage in developmental experiences (Major, Turner, & Fletcher, 2006; Seibert et al., 2001). A significant relationship between proactive personality and learning goal orientation has been found in a recent meta-analysis (Fuller & Marler, 2009). There has been considerable evidence indicating proactive people enjoy a greater sense of satisfaction from both work and life.

Proactive personality and job satisfaction

Job satisfaction refers to positive feelings individuals have toward their jobs because of their positive appraisals of the job experiences (Locke, 1976). Personality’s close association with job satisfaction has long been documented, evidenced by both earlier research that indicates that job satisfaction appears to be stable across time and situations (e.g., Staw & Ross, 1985), and recent studies that directly assess the relationships between personality traits and job satisfaction (e.g., Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000).

Proactive personality could contribute to job satisfaction because proactive individuals tend to create conditions that are conducive to personal success at work (Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010). Erdogan and Bauer (2005) suggest that proactive individuals will be more satisfied with their jobs because they remove obstacles preventing satisfaction. Giving indirect support to this argument is the evidence, suggesting that proactivity is associated with enhanced person–job fit (e.g., Erdogan & Bauer, 2005; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005), likely due to efforts to remove obstacles, such as creating facilitating conditions and adjusting work roles to achieve better person–job fit. A number of studies have reported positive relationships between proactive personality and job satisfaction (e.g., Li et al., 2010; Prabhu, 2007).

Proactive personality and career satisfaction

As mentioned earlier, career satisfaction measures the extent to which individuals believe their career progress is consistent with their goals, values, and preferences (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). While frequently considered as a facet of work satisfaction along with job satisfaction, career satisfaction differs from job satisfaction in that it pertains to one’s overall experiences with the entire career over a period of time. Career satisfaction is the most prevalent measure of subjective career success (Hall & Chandler, 2005). Seibert, Crant, and Kraimer (1999) emphasized the importance of including personality variables in career success research, with some researchers arguing that dispositions may play as important a role in career satisfaction as more “objective” features of the career (e.g., Bell & Staw, 1989).

Proactive individuals are resourceful and are better at networking and leveraging their social capital than less proactive individuals (Thompson, 2005). They have a self-directed career attitude (Uy, Chan, Sam, Ho, & Chernyshenko, 2015) and take greater initiative in planning and managing their careers (Barnett & Bradley, 2007; Seilbert et al., 2001). Because highly proactive employees seek out opportunities that lead to learning and adaptation (e.g., Kim, Hon, & Crant, 2009; Major et al., 2006), and build resources they need for work and performance (e.g., Seibert et al., 2001), they are more likely to be successful at achieving their career goals.

Proactively managing one’s career and achieving career progression contribute to a stronger sense of career satisfaction (Barnett & Bradley, 2007). In addition, because proactive people seek challenges and resources while working and develop a better person–job fit (e.g., Erdogan & Bauer, 2005; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), they are more likely to derive a greater sense of career satisfaction (Seibert et al., 1999). Seiber et al. (1999) also argued that proactive people are more likely to experience self-determination and self-efficacy in their work lives, which in turn increases career satisfaction.

Indeed, a positive relationship between proactive personality and career satisfaction has been reported in many studies (e.g., Barnett & Bradley, 2007; Seibert et al., 1999, 2001). Meta-analytic results have indicated that proactivity is strongly related to career satisfaction, with a sample size weighted corrected correlation of .38 (p < .05; Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005).

Proactive personality and life satisfaction

Life satisfaction is a core component of individual’s subjective well-being. It refers to the subjective evaluation of the overall quality of one’s life (Pavot & Diener, 1993). Similar to job satisfaction, life satisfaction appears to have a substantial dispositional base (Diener, 1984; Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). In fact, personality has been found to be one of the strongest and most consistent predictors of subjective well-being (Boyce, Wood, & Powdthavee, 2013).

In a longitudinal study, Greguras and Diefendorff (2010) found that proactive people are more likely to enjoy greater life satisfaction. The study revealed that proactive people are more likely than others to set self-concordant goals, attain those goals, and in turn enhance their sense of psychological need satisfaction and greater subjective well-being. In addition, given work is a central life activity for many, to the extent that proactive people are satisfied with their work, such satisfaction should feed into their general satisfaction with life, a spillover effect that is well documented (Judge & Watanabe, 1994; Tait, Padgett, & Baldwin, 1989).

Work Engagement

Work engagement is defined as a positive work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, Bakker, 2002). Vigor is reflected in high levels of energy and mental resilience while working. Dedication is characterized with being strongly involved in one’s work and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, and challenge. Absorption refers to the state of being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one finds it difficult detaching oneself from work. Work engagement has been found to be associated with higher levels of job performance and organizational citizenship behavior (e.g., Saks, 2006; Salanova, Agut, & Peiro, 2005).

Work engagement has both situational and dispositional antecedents (Christain, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011). In terms of situational factors, Maslach, Schaufelli, and Leiter (2001) suggested that work engagement tends to increase when organizations provide a sustainable workload, feelings of choice and control, appropriate recognition and reward, a supportive work community, fairness and justice, and meaningful and valued work. This was largely supported by recent empirical research (e.g., Salanova et al., 2005; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).

In terms of dispositional factors, only a small body of research has examined relationships between work engagement and personality variables, such as the Big Five personality factors (e.g., Liao et al., 2013), optimism, and self-efficacy (e.g., Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009). However, as Inceoglu and Warr (2011) observed, “comprehensive information about a wider range of traits appears to be lacking” (p.177), and there appears to be a need to identify personality traits that are more relevant in the prediction of work engagement. We suggest that proactive personality represents one of such more relevant personality traits.

Proactive Personality and Work Engagement

Kahn (1990) suggested that engagement is “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s preferred self” (p. 700). Inceoglu and Warr (2011) also argued that aspects of personality that are more activated and energized should be reflected in engagement, which itself reflects high activation and energy. Proactivity appears to be such a high energy personality trait. Indeed, to the extent behaviors are driven in part by predispositions (Levin, 1935), it is likely that the proactive actions taken by engaged employees are nourished and supported by their dispositional proactivity.

A review of extant research suggests that there is a great deal of similarity between the behavioral patterns of those that are highly engaged at work and those of proactive people. Prior research has shown that engaged employees tend to increase their job resources and job demands to create a more challenging work environment (e.g., Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013). Further, they also tend to craft their jobs, so that there is greater person–job fit (Christain et al., 2011; Lu, Wang, Lu, Du, & Bakker, 2014). Recent studies also found that engaged employees took greater personal initiative (e.g., Sonnentag, 2003). Thus, it appears that the motivational state of increased work engagement and its associated behaviors are a manifestation of one’s proactive personality.

In terms of the underlying mechanisms, proactive people are less restrained by their formal job duties, are more likely to engage in trial and error with a broader set of work roles, and to negotiate their work roles proactively through job crafting and network building (Fuller & Marler, 2009; Kim et al., 2009; Major et al., 2006; Thompson, 2005). Therefore, they are more likely to better manage their work roles and related expectations, experience a great fit between their skills and values with what they do on a daily basis (Erdogan & Bauer, 2005). This person–job fit makes it easier for individuals to bring themselves fully into their work roles and to devote greater amounts of cognitive, emotional, and physical energy. This is consistent with prior research that suggested that work engagement is more likely when there is a balance between jobs’ demands and resources (e.g., Bakker & Demerouti, 2008).

Dikkers, Jansen, de Lange, Vinkenburg, and Kooij (2010) suggested that proactive personality may serve as a personal resource enhancing work engagement. Using a longitudinal design, they found that proactive personality was positively related to two dimensions of work engagement (i.e., dedication and absorption). Thus,

Hypothesis 1: Proactive personality is positively related to work engagement.

The Mediating Role of Work Engagement

Work engagement and job satisfaction

Engaged employees find their work interesting, meaningful and energizing, and experience positive emotions, such as happiness, joy, and enthusiasm (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). These positive emotional experiences are likely to increase job satisfaction (Fisher, 2000). Prior research has found a positive relationship between work engagement and job satisfaction (e.g., Karatepe, 2011; Saks, 2006).

Work engagement and career satisfaction

Because engaged employees tend to proactively manage their jobs’ demands and resources, they are more likely to obtain better person–job fit (Lu et al., 2014). Performing jobs that are compatible with one’s skills and values may give rise to the feeling that one has chosen the right career and has put one’s skills to good use, leading to increased career satisfaction.

Work engagement and life satisfaction

As discussed earlier, given work is a central part of most people’s life, it is plausible to expect that when individuals feel energetic and enthusiastic about their work and find their work meaningful, they are more likely to feel that their life is well lived and worthwhile. Thus, we expect a positive relationship between work engagement and life satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: Work engagement is positively related to (a) job satisfaction, (b) career satisfaction, and (c) life satisfaction.

As discussed earlier, individuals with high levels of proactive personality are predisposed to display high levels of work engagement. Given work engagement is positively related to one’s satisfaction with work and life, as discussed earlier, it is likely that the positive relationships between proactive personality and work and life satisfaction can be partially explained by work engagement. Greater levels of satisfaction may well be a consequence of being fully engaged in one’s work, a benefit that accrues to individuals with proactive personality. Thus,

Hypothesis 3: Work engagement mediates the relationship between proactive personality and (a) job satisfaction, (b) career satisfaction, and (c) life satisfaction.

Method

Procedure

Data for this study came from a cross-sectional survey administered to employees from diverse organizations in Midwestern United States. Thirty graduate students who were employed full-time as professionals helped distribute 500 surveys to employees at their organizations. Of the 500 surveys distributed, 365 completed surveys were returned directly to the first author.

Participants

On average, participants were 35.87 years of age (SD = 10.47) and had 14 years (SD = 10.56) of full-time work experience, 11.57 years (SD = 9.28) of industry experience, 9.07 years (SD = 8.30) of organizational tenure, and 5 years (SD = 5.62) of job tenure. Of the 365 participants, 186 were males and 173 were females. Six respondents did not indicate their sex. Participants identified themselves with a number of functional areas: 15.3% (sales/marketing), 5.8% (accounting), 5.65 (finance), 3.3% (research and development), 10% (management), 21.7% (information technology), 2.5% (general administration), 14.4 (support services), and 20.3% (other). They represented various organization types: 49% (private for-profit), 5.6% (private not-for-profit), 1.7% (government), 5.8% (education), 21.7% (manufacturing), and 15% (services). In addition, it appears that all levels of a typical organizational hierarchy were represented: 36.9% (employee), 35.8% (professional), 8.3% (first-level manager), 5.8% (lower level manager), 7.8 % (mid-level manager), 4.2% (director), and 0.3 (vice president).

Measures

Proactive personality

The Proactive Personality Scale (Bateman & Crant, 1993) was used to measure proactive personality. We used a 10-item shortened version of the scale developed by Seibert et al. (1999). Sample items include “I am constantly on the lookout for new ways to improve my life” and “I am always looking for better ways to do things.” Participants used a 7-point scale with anchors ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree to respond to the items. Bateman and Crant (1993) reported the original scale’s reliability, with Cronbach’s αs ranging from .87 to .89 across three samples, and a test–retest reliability coefficient of .72. Seibert et al. (1999) additionally established the validity and reliability of the 10-item shortened version, reporting a correlation of .96 between the two versions of the scale, and a Cronbach’s α of .86. The Cronbach’s α reliability estimate of the scale in the present study was .86.

Work engagement

Work engagement was measured with the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). This instrument was developed to measure vigor, dedication, and absorption, each with 3 items. Respondents indicated their level of agreement (1 = never, 7 = always) with items. Sample items include “At my work, I feel bursting with energy,” “I am enthusiastic about my job,” and “I am immersed in my work.” Schaufeli et al. reported that Cronbach’s α of the scale ranged between .85 and .92 across samples from 10 countries. The Cronbach’s α reliability estimate of the scale in the present study was .93.

Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction was measured with a 5-item scale developed by Judge, Bono, and Locke (2000) based on Brayfield and Rothe (1951) measure of job satisfaction. Sample items include “I feel fairly satisfied with my present job” and “I consider my job to be rather unpleasant (reverse scored).” Respondents used a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) to rate the items. Judge and colleagues (Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003; Judge et al., 2000) reported Cronbach’s αs of the scale ranging from .82 to .89 in various samples. The Cronbach’s α reliability estimate of the scale was .74.

Career satisfaction

Career satisfaction was measured using the 5-item Career Satisfaction Scale (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990). Respondents indicated their level of agreement (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) with each of the statements, prefaced with the stem “I am satisfied with”: success I have achieved in my career, success I have made toward meeting my overall career goals, progress I have made toward meeting my goals for income, progress I have made toward meeting my goals for advancement, and progress I have made toward meeting my goals for developing new skills. Greenhaus, Parasuraman, and Wormley (1990) reported a Cronbach’s α of the scale of .88. The Cronbach’s α reliability estimate of the scale in the present study was .95.

Life satisfaction

Life satisfaction was measured with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), which asks participants to rate their level of agreement (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) with five statements, such as “I am satisfied with my life.” Diener et al. (1985) reported favorable psychometric properties for the scale, including internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and convergent validity. The Cronbach’s α reliability estimate of the scale in the present study was .89.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

A CFA was conducted using LISREL 8.8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006). Sample covariances served as input for LISREL estimates and the maximum likelihood approach was employed (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). As recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) were used to evaluate model fit. CFI values of 0.90 indicate an acceptable fit (Bentler, 1990) and values higher than 0.95 indicate a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). RMSEA values of 0.10 indicate a mediocre fit, between 0.06 and 0.08 an acceptable fit, and lower than 0.06 a good fit (Schermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Muller, 2003). SRMR values of 0.08 or below indicate a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

The number of parameters estimated relative to sample size is an important determinant of convergence, standard errors, and model fit in covariance structure models (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Williams & Anderson, 1994). Bentler and associates (Bentler, 1985; Bentler & Chou, 1987) recommend a minimum sample size to parameter ratio of 5:1 to achieve reliable estimates in maximum likelihood estimation. We thus used the items parcels procedure (e.g., Williams & Anderson, 1994) to reduce the number of parameters estimated. Items are randomly assigned to item parcels and then the items for each item parcel are averaged and these served as manifest indicators (Russell, Kahn, Spoth, & Altmaier, 1998). Manifest indicators created in this fashion were used to measure constructs. Five manifest indicators (i.e., item parcels) were used to measure proactive personality. Three item parcels each were used to measure work engagement, job satisfaction, career satisfaction, and life satisfaction. Using item parcels reduced the number of items from 34 to 17 manifest indicators.

Factor structures of three different models were compared. Model 1 comprised of all the items used to measure the five constructs. It did not fit the data, χ²(119, n = 356) = 3,435.82, RMSEA = .28, RMSEA 90% confidence interval (CI) [.29, .28], CFI = .71, and SRMR = .21. Model 2, a three-factor model comprised of all the items used to measure proactive personality as one factor, all the items used to measure work engagement as a second factor, and all the items used to measure career satisfaction, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction as a third factor, did not fit the data, χ²(116, n = 356) = 1,490, RMSEA = .18, RMSEA 90% CI [.18, .17], CFI = .85, and SRMR = .14. Model 3 was the hypothesized model in which items used to measure each of the five constructs were specified to load on their respective constructs. The hypothesized model was supported as fit statistics indicated acceptable fit, χ²(1,095, n = 356) = 597.27, RMSEA = .08, RMSEA 90% CI [.08, .09], CFI = .94, and SRMR = .075.

Evidence of convergent validity is ascertained by examining whether individual indicators load significantly on hypothesized dimensions (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The paths from the latent constructs to individual indicators were statistically significant (p < .05) and completely standardized factor loadings ranged in values from .60 to .91. The 90% CI of the RMSEA values of Model 1 [.28, .29] or Model 2 [.17, .18] did not overlap with that of the hypothesized model [.08, .09]. A model with more factors is considered to be significantly better than a model with fewer factors if the CI of RMSEA value of the two models do not overlap. Fornell and Larcker (1981)’s average variance extracted (AVE) method was also applied to test for discriminant validity. In this method, support for discriminant validity is established if the AVE for constructs is greater than their shared variance. Results of χ² difference tests, the nonoverlapping CI tests (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988), and the AVE method tests provide considerable evidence of discriminant validity.

Since a single source was used to collect data, the procedures recommended by Widaman (1985) were used to test for method bias. If common method variance exists, a model with a method factor will fit the data significantly better than a model with no method factor. To test for method effects, we created a five-factor plus method factor model in which all items used in the study had dual loadings and the correlation between the method factor and each substantive factor was set to zero. The model did not fit the data, χ²(92, n = 356) = 444.05, RMSEA = .12, RMSEA 90% CI [.12, .13], CFI = .83, and SRMR = .11. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between study variables are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Between Study Variables.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Age	35.76	10.45	—
2. Sex	0.48	0.50	.02	—
3. Proactive personality	5.14	0.91	.02	−.11	(.86)
4. Work engagement	4.71	1.14	.26	.02	.35	(.93)
5. Job satisfaction	4.14	0.69	.16	.04	.19	.57	(.74)
6. Career satisfaction	5.00	1.27	.18	.03	.20	.46	.40	(.95)
7. Life satisfaction	5.07	1.16	.22	.08	.22	.47	.40	.54	(.89)

Note. N = 365. Scale reliabilities are noted on the diagonal; age is in years; sex was dummy coded as male = 0 and female = 1.

Correlations >.11 are significant at p < .05 and correlations >.16 are significant at p < .01.

Structural Model

The structural model had the same indicator structure as the measurement model and was fit to the data. Two models were compared, and, in both the models, error terms of job satisfaction, career satisfaction, and life satisfaction were allowed to covary because of the three variables are conceptually correlated. In the full mediation model, work engagement fully mediated the influence of proactive personality on career satisfaction, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction. This model included paths from proactive personality to work engagement and from work engagement to career satisfaction, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction. The paths from proactive personality to career satisfaction, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction were constrained to zero. The structural model indicated acceptable fit, χ²(112, n = 356) = 613.92, RMSEA = .08, RMSEA 90% CI [.08, .09], CFI = .92, and SRMR = .08.

To test for partial mediation, the paths from proactive personality to career satisfaction, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction that were previously constrained (for full mediation) were estimated freely. This model fits the data well, χ²(109, n = 356) = 597.27, RMSEA = .08, RMSEA 90% CI [.08, .09], CFI = .93, and SRMR = .075. The χ² difference test was conducted between the more restrictive full mediation model and the hypothesized partial mediation model. The obtained χ² difference of 16.65 for 3 degrees of freedom was greater than the critical χ² value of 7.82, indicating that the more restrictive model should be rejected in favor of a partial mediation model. The results are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Results of structural equation modeling analyses of the research model.

In this partial mediation model, proactive personality was related to work engagement (β = .43, p < .05) in support of Hypothesis 1. Work engagement was positively related to job satisfaction (β = .36, p < .05), career satisfaction (β = .34, p < .05), and life satisfaction (β = .33, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 was supported as fit indices indicated support for the partial mediation model. Collectively, the model explained 18% of the variance in work engagement, 15% in job satisfaction, 21% in career satisfaction, and 18% in life satisfaction.

Further, we used the PROCESS V.2.15 macro developed by Preacher and Hayes (2004) for SPSS V.21 to assess the significance of the indirect effects. Specifically, the mediation effects were examined by a bootstrapping procedure to compute a CI around the indirect effects. If zero falls outside this interval, mediation can be said to be present. Bias corrected and accelerated CIs were set at .95 with 5,000 resamples. Three separate tests were conducted with job satisfaction, career satisfaction, and life satisfaction as the dependent variable, respectively. The indirect effects of proactive personality on job satisfaction, career satisfaction, and life satisfaction equalled .15 (95% bias-corrected CI [.09, .22]), .22 (95% CI [.13, .33]), and .19 (95% CI [.12, .28]), respectively, indicating significant mediating effects.

Discussion

Seeking to answer the question of why proactive people are more satisfied, this study systematically examined the mediating role of work engagement in the relationships between proactive personality and various forms of satisfaction. Given the similar behavioral patterns of people high in proactive personality and those in a motivational state of work engagement, it is not surprising to find that work engagement serves as a mediator in the proactive personality—satisfaction relationships. The results of our study suggest that the positive motivational state associated with being fully absorbed in one’s work plays a pivotal role in proactive people’s satisfaction with their work and life.

Theoretical Implications

Our study makes a number of contributions to the literature. First, answering the call to better understand how and why proactive personality leads to beneficial outcomes, we examine a motivational state variable as the mediating mechanism between proactive personality and three forms of satisfaction germane to individual well-being. The results of our study suggest that part of the reason that proactive people are also satisfied people is that they are more likely to be in a state of vigor, dedication, and absorption while at work. Although there appears to be a great deal of similarities of the behavioral patterns of proactive individuals and those who are engaged at work, including taking initiative, seeking challenges and resources, and so forth, the relationship between these two variables has not been frequently examined. Our study also gives support to the general notion that individuals are proactive agents in creating their own work environment conducive to greater well-being and success (Bell & Staw, 1989).

Second, although work engagement is considered to be influenced by both situational and dispositional factors, to date more research has focused on situational than dispositional factors (Inceoglu & Warr, 2011). Our study adds to the small but growing literature on the dispositional antecedents of work engagement by identifying an additional personality variable as an antecedent. This echos the call by Liao et al. (2013) for more research on the antecedents of work engagement, and in particular, its dispositional antecedents. Hough and Schneider (1996) suggested that personality variables that are more specifically tailored to the criterion of interest should demonstrate greater criterion-related validity. Inceoglu and Warr (2011) also emphasized that the utilities of different personality variables in predicting work engagement are likely to vary. It appears that proactive personality is one of the more relevant personality traits in predicting work engagement.

Finally, our study also sheds light on prior research on work and life satisfaction. Our study supports prior research that suggests satisfactions are in part dispositional (Tait et al., 1989). Further, there has been considerable debate regarding the relationship between work and life satisfaction, with some arguing that they reinforce each other, and others suggesting that they are either unrelated with or compensate for each other (Heller, Judge, & Watson, 2002). The results of our study indicate that although the three forms of satisfaction are positively and significantly correlated, these correlations are only moderate in size. Our results are also consistent with those of Rode’s (2004), which suggest the various forms of satisfactions share the same dispositional source, in our case, proactive personality. In addition, there does appear to be some differences in terms of the way they relate to their personality and motivational antecedents. In particular, although proactive personality seems to be both directly and indirectly related with career and life satisfaction, its relationship with job satisfaction appears to be indirect in nature, mediated by work engagement.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Results of our study should be interpreted in light of a number of limitations. First, we used a cross-sectional design with data collected from a single source. Although it is theoretically sound to expect that personality serves as an antecedent to motivational state at work, which further influences one’s satisfaction and subjective well-being, we cannot make any conclusion regarding the causal directions among the relationship of our study variables. The single source data also raise concerns of common method bias, although we took steps to avoid such issues and preliminary data analyses preclude the possibility that our findings are merely artifactual. Future research will benefit from the use of longitudinal and experimental designs and peer evaluations of proactive personality and work engagement. Second, the fact that our sample is student recruited may raise concerns over external validity of our findings. However, debate on this issue has recently reached the general conclusion that this sampling procedure yields samples that are similar in characteristics as other sampling procedures, and the heterogeneity of these type of samples in fact increases the external validity of results (Demerouti & Rispens, 2014). Finally, besides age and sex, we did not collect other demographic information on participants, such as race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Lack of information on these demographic variables raise questions about the generalizability of the study results. It is likely that findings of the study may vary based on these and other variables such as cultural values. Future research is needed to replicate the current study with diverse samples and see if the relationships among the study variables vary across different demographic or cultural groups.

There are a number of questions that can be addressed by future research. First, we call for more research to examine why and how proactive personality is related to satisfactions with work and life. There has been a growing body of research unveiling the reasons behind proactive personality’s ability to enhance job performance (e.g., Thompson, 2005) and career success (e.g., Seibert et al., 2001). However, we know relatively less about why proactive people are also happier and more satisfied. In addition to work engagement, other affective, cognitive, and motivational mediators need to be explored.

Second, research on work engagement emphasizes the impact of both dispositional and situational characteristics (e.g., Christain et al., 2011; Lu et al., 2014). Future research may consider situational factors that may moderate the impact of proactivity on work engagement and outcomes. For example, Mauno, Pykko, and Hakanen (2005) found that high time pressures were associated with greater engagement. It will be interesting to see if proactive people become even more engaged when facing high time pressure, or otherwise high job demands.

Third, the comparative strength of proactive personality and other personality variables (e.g., conscientiousness) in predicting work engagement and satisfactions can be further explored. Lastly, very little is known about the existence or the strength of the relationship between workplace variables and proactive personality. Given recent research indicating personalities are malleable (Boyce et al., 2013), this may be a rich area for future research.

Practical Implications

The most prominent practical implication of this study is that well-being of employees can be enhanced through fostering proactive ways of thinking and behaving at work. The results of our study indicate that both proactive personality and work engagement have positive relationships with individuals’ satisfaction with their work and lives. The evidence suggesting that engagement is partially determined by personality, however, does not necessarily mean that increasing engagement has to start with personnel selection. A recent study by Boyce, Wood, and Powdthavee (2013) has found that personality is more malleable than previously thought and that changes in personality meaningfully predicts changes in life satisfaction over time. Given the positive benefits of proactive personality, facilitating a work environment that activates proactive personality will likely benefit both the organization and the individual. It appears that greater level of proactive personality benefits the organization through increased work engagement, and it benefits the individual through increased levels of satisfaction and the concomitant benefits that accrue as a result of satisfaction in both work (job and career) and home (life) domains.

It is a challenging undertaking for organizations to keep their employees engaged. A recent study in Canada conducted by Galt (2005) reveals that only 17% of employees are engaged in their jobs. It is critical to remember that intervention strategies involve both individuals and organizations. Prior research suggests that work engagement of individual employees have the potential to change the overall climate at the workplace (Salanova et al., 2005). It is likely that proactive individuals are able to enhance the overall climate of engagement through their personalities.

Conclusion

Proactivity, engagement, and subjective well-being are all important research topics, the understanding of which informs the development of organizations where individuals thrive and fulfill their potentials. This study sheds light on the inter-linkages among these important variables. We hope the identification of work engagement as a key path to proactive people’s satisfaction and happiness will serve as useful information for individuals and organizations to build better, more fulfilling workplaces.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13, 209–223.

Barnett

B. R.

Bradley

(2007). The impact of organizational support for career development on career satisfaction. Career Development International, 12, 617–636.

Bateman

T. S.

Crant

J. M.

(1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118.

Bell

N. E.

Staw

B. M.

(1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture: The role of personality and personal control in organizations. In Arther

M. B.

Hall

D. T.

Lawrence

B. S.

(Eds.), The handbook of career theory (pp. 232–251). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bentler

P. M.

(1985). Some comments on structural equation models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 120–121.

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

Bentler

P. M.

Chou

C. P.

(1987). Practical issues in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 78–117.

Boyce

C. J.

Wood

A. M.

Powdthavee

(2013). Is personality fixed? Personality changes as much as “variable” economic factors and more strongly predicts changes to life satisfaction. Social Indicator Research, 111, 287–305.

10.

Brayfield

A. H.

Rothe

H. F.

(1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311.

11.

Cameron

Dutton

Quinn

R. E.

(2003). Positive organizational scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

12.

Campbell

D. J.

(2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 52–66.

13.

Christain

M. S.

Garza

A. S.

Slaughter

J. E.

(2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136.

14.

Colquitt

J. A.

Conlon

D. E.

Wesson

M. J.

Porter

C. O.

K. Y.

(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.

15.

Crant

J. M.

(1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34, 42–50.

16.

Crant

J. M.

(2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462.

17.

Crant

J. M.

Bateman

T. S.

(2000). Charismatic leadership from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 63–75.

18.

Demerouti

Rispens

(2014). Improving the image of student-recruited samples: A commentary. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 34–41.

19.

Diener

(1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.

20.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

21.

Diener

Suh

E. M.

Lucas

R. E.

Smith

(1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.

22.

Dikkers

J. S. E.

Jansen

P. G. W.

de Lange

A. H.

Vinkenburg

C. J.

Kooij

(2010). Proactivity, job characteristics, and engagement: A longitudinal study. Career Development International, 15, 59–77.

23.

Erdogan

Bauer

T. N.

(2005). Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality: The role of fit with jobs and organizations. Personnel Psychology, 58, 859–891.

24.

Fassina

N. E.

Jones

D. A.

Uggerslev

K. L.

(2008). Relationship clean-up time: Using meta-analysis and path analysis to clarify relationships among job satisfaction, perceived fairness, and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 34, 161–188.

25.

Fisher

C. D.

(2000). Mood and emotions while working: Missing pieces of job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 123–129.

26.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

27.

Fuller

J. B.

Marler

L. E.

(2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 329–345.

28.

Galt

(2005). Falling in love (with work) all over again. Globe and Mail, 25, C1–C8.

29.

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, 539–560.

30.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Parasuraman

Wormley

W. M.

(1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 64–86.

31.

Hall

D. T.

Chandler

D. E.

(2005). Psychological success: When the career is a calling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 155–176.

32.

Heller

Judge

T. A.

Watson

(2002). The confounding role of personality and trait affectivity in the relationship between job and life satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 815–835.

33.

Herschcovis

M. S.

Turner

Barling

Arnold

K. A.

Dupre

K. E.

Inness

… Sivanathan

(2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228–238.

34.

Hough

L. M.

Schneider

R. J.

(1996). Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in organizations. In Murphy

K. R.

(Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 31–88). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

35.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

36.

Inceoglu

Warr

(2011). Personality and job engagement. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 10, 177–181.

37.

Jöreskog

K. G.

Sörbom

(2006). LISREL 8.80 for Windows [Computer Software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

38.

Judge

T. A.

Bono

J. E.

Erez

Locke

E. A.

(2005). Core elf-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 257–268.

39.

Judge

T. A.

Bono

J. E.

Locke

E. A.

(2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237–249.

40.

Judge

T. A.

Erez

Bono

J. E.

Thoresen

C. J.

(2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331.

41.

Judge

T. A.

Watanabe

(1994). Individual differences in the nature of the relationship between job and life satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 101–107.

42.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.

43.

Karatepe

O. M.

(2011). Procedural justice, work engagement, and job outcomes: Evidence from Nigeria. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 20, 855–878.

44.

Kim

Hon

A. H.

Crant

J. M.

(2009). Proactive personality, employee creativity, and newcomer outcomes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 93–103.

45.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Zimmerman

R. D.

Johnson

E. C.

(2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.

46.

Levin

(1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

47.

Liang

Crant

J. M.

(2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 395–404.

48.

Liao

Yang

Wang

Drown

Shi

(2013). Team-member exchange and work engagement: Does personality make a difference? Journal of Business Psychology, 28, 63–77.

49.

Locke

E. A.

(1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnette

M. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

50.

Wang

Bakker

A. B.

(2014). Does work engagement increase person-job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84, 142–152.

51.

Major

D. A.

Turner

J. E.

Fletcher

T. D.

(2006). Linking proactive personality and the Big Five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 927–935.

52.

Maslach

Schaufelli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

(2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422.

53.

Mauno

Pykko

Hakanen

(2005). The prevalence and antecedents of work engagement in three different organizations. Psykologia, 40, 16–30.

54.

Morrison

E. W.

Phelps

C. C.

(1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–419.

55.

T. W. H.

Eby

L. T.

Sorensen

K. L.

Feldman

D. C.

(2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367–408.

56.

Parker

S. K.

(2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 447–469.

57.

Pavot

Diener

(1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172.

58.

Prabhu

V. P.

(2007). Understanding the effect of proactive personality on job related outcomes in an organizational change setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.

59.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731.

60.

Rode

J. C.

(2004). Job satisfaction and life satisfaction revisited: A longitudinal test of an integrated model. Human Relations, 57, 1205–1230.

61.

Russell

D. W.

Kahn

J. H.

Spoth

Altmaier

E. M.

(1998). Analyzing data from experimental studies: A latent variable structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 18–29.

62.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 600–619.

63.

Salanova

Agut

Peiro

J. M.

(2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1217–1227.

64.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

(2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315.

65.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Bakker

A. B.

Salanova

(2006). The measurement of work engagement with a brief questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716.

66.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Salanova

Gonzalez-Roma

Bakker

A. B.

(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.

67.

Schermelleh-Engel

Moosbrugger

Muller

(2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74.

68.

Seibert

S. E.

Crant

J. M.

Kraimer

M. L.

(1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416–427.

69.

Seibert

S. E.

Kraimer

M. L.

(2001). The five-factor model of personality and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 1–21.

70.

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.

71.

Sonnentag

(2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive personality: A new look at the interface between non-work and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 518–528.

72.

Staw

B. M.

Ross

(1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469–480.

73.

Tait

Padgett

M. Y.

Baldwin

T. T.

(1989). Job and life satisfaction: A re-examination of the strength of the relationship and gender effects as a function of the date of study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 502–507.

74.

Thompson

J. A.

(2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1011–1017.

75.

Tims

Bakker

A. B.

Derks

(2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 230–240.

76.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 183–200.

77.

M. A.

Chan

K.-Y.

Sam

Y. L.

M. R.

Chernyshenko

O. S.

(2015). Proactivity, adaptability and boundaryless career attitudes: The mediating role of entrepreneurial alertness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 86, 115–123.

78.

Widaman

K. F.

(1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 1–26.

79.

Williams

L. J.

Anderson

S. E.

(1994). An alternative approach to method effects by using latent-variable models: Applications in organizational behavior research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 323–331.