scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

J. Michael Crant

Bio: J. Michael Crant is an academic researcher from University of Notre Dame. The author has contributed to research in topics: Personality & Big Five personality traits. The author has an hindex of 20, co-authored 28 publications receiving 9142 citations. Previous affiliations of J. Michael Crant include University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill & Mendoza College of Business.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a personal disposition toward proactive behavior, defined as the relatively stable tendency to effect environmental change, was investigated, and an initial scale to assess the construct and administered it to a sample of 282 undergraduates.
Abstract: This study investigated a personal disposition toward proactive behavior, defined as the relatively stable tendency to effect environmental change. We developed an initial scale to assess the construct and administered it to a sample of 282 undergraduates. Factor analysis led to a revised, unidimensional scale with sound psychometric properties. A second sample of 130 undergraduate students was used to determine the relationships between the proactive scale and the ’Big Five‘ personality domains: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. In a third sample of 148 MBA students, we assessed the proactive scale's relationships with three personality traits and three criterion measures. Consistent with hypotheses, scores on the proactive scale correlated with need for achievement, need for dominance, and independent measures of the nature of subjects' extracurricular and civic activities, the nature of their major personal achievements, and peer nominations of transformational leaders. We discuss the potential of the proactive construct to enhance our understanding of, and ability to predict, a wide range of behaviors.

2,412 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors review a diverse set of literatures that directly address proactive behavior in organizational contexts and describe four constructs related to proactive behavior: proactive personality, personal initiative, role breadth self-efficacy, and taking charge.

1,873 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors developed and tested a model linking proactive personality and career success through a set of four behavioral and cognitive mediators, and found that proactive personality measured at time 1 was positively related to innovation, political knowledge, and career initiative, but not voice; all measured at Time 2.
Abstract: We developed and tested a model linking proactive personality and career success through a set of four behavioral and cognitive mediators. A 2-year longitudinal design with data from a sample of 180 full-time employees and their supervisors was used. Results from structural equation modeling showed that proactive personality measured at Time 1 was positively related to innovation, political knowledge, and career initiative, but not voice; all measured at Time 2. Innovation, political knowledge, and career initiative in turn had positive relationships with career progression (salary growth and the number of promotions during the previous 2 years) and career satisfaction. Interestingly, voice had a negative relationship with career progression. We discuss practical implications and future research directions for proactive personality, extra-role behavior, and careers.

1,340 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The proactive personality scale as mentioned in this paper measures a personal disposition toward proactive behavior, an idea that intuitively appears to be related to entrepreneurship, and it has been used to examine empirically the extent to which having a proactive personality is associated with entrepreneurial intentions.
Abstract: In a review of trends in the entrepreneurship literature, Gartner (1990) identified eight themes characterizing the major issues of entrepreneurship. One of these themes focused on the entrepreneur as an individual, and the notion that entrepreneurship involves individuals with unique personality characteristics and abilities. Within this domain of research, five attributes have consistently been found to covary with entrepreneurship: need for achievement, locus of control, risk-taking propensity, tolerance for ambiguity, and Type-A behavior (Brockhaus 1982; Brockhaus and Horwitz 1986; Furnham 1992). Despite these findings, a number of scholars have expressed dissatisfaction with extant knowledge of the personality-entrepreneurship relationship. Chell, Haworth, and Brearley (1991) suggested that disagreement on the meaning of "entrepreneurship" has impeded research progress; moreover, these authors advocated using trait terms which describe natural categories accessible to lay persons. Gartner (1988) noted that theoretical models seeking to explain the broad phenomenon of entrepreneurship would benefit by including variables beyond traits alone. Robinson et al. (1991) argued for more dynamic models of the entrepreneurship process. Shaver and Scott (1991) identified the methodological weaknesses of much entrepreneurial trait research (including the research that generated the attributes listed above) and argued for consistency between the specificity of measures and underlying constructs. Perhaps as a result of criticisms such as these, recently little research has been published examining the relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurship. Considerable attention has been devoted to creating ambitious models of various entrepreneurial processes, such as new venture initiation (Herron and Sapienza 1992), entrepreneurial potential (Krueger and Brazeal 1994), and entrepreneurial motivation (Naffziger, Hornsby, and Kuratko 1994). These conceptual frameworks have significantly enhanced the precision of theory surrounding the entrepreneurship process. However, the death knell for the study of personality and entrepreneurship may have sounded prematurely. The proactive personality scale, a recent addition to the literature on individual differences, appears to have the potential for providing further insight into the personality trait-entrepreneurship relationship. The proactive personality scale measures a personal disposition toward proactive behavior, an idea that intuitively appears to be related to entrepreneurship. The purpose of this paper is to examine empirically the extent to which having a proactive personality is associated with entrepreneurial intentions. Because a common definition of entrepreneurship is lacking, it is incumbent upon researchers to define explicitly the meaning they ascribe to the term (Gartner 1989; 1990). The central variable in this paper, entrepreneurial intentions, will be defined as one's judgements about the likelihood of owning one's own business. For the research questions in this paper, differences in specific tactics and themes of entrepreneurship (for example, creating a new venture vs. buying an existing business) will not be explored. Defining entrepreneurial intentions broadly is consistent with the objectives of this research in that it avoids delimiting subjects' expression of entrepreneurial intentions. The study of behavioral intentions has a rich history in psychology (for example, Ajzen and Fishbein 1980), and has begun to appear in both conceptual (Bird 1988; Katz and Gartner 1988; Krueger and Brazeal 1994) and empirical (Brenner, Pringle, and Greenhaus 1991; Krueger 1993a; 1993b; Scott and Twomey 1988) entrepreneurship research. Krueger (1993b) argued that entrepreneurial intentions are central to understanding the entrepreneurship process because they form the underpinnings of new organizations. Because entrepreneurship occurs over time (Gartner et al. …

1,005 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Bateman et al. as mentioned in this paper examined the criterion validity of the proactive personality scale by using objective job performance as the criterion measure and found that the proactive scale explained an additional 8% of the variance in the objective measure of agents' job performance.
Abstract: A sample of 131 real estate agents was used to examine the criterion validity of the Proactive Personality Scale (T. S. Bateman & J. M. Crant, 1993). A job performance index was computed for each agent from archival records of the number of houses sold, number of listings obtained, and commission income over a 9-month period. Experience, social desirability, general mental ability, and 2 of the Big Five factors—Conscientiousness and Extraversion—were controlled for, and the Proactive Personality Scale explained an additional 8% of the variance in the objective measure of agents' job performance. These results provide additional evidence for the criterion validity of the Proactive Personality Scale and suggest that specific personality measures can have incremental validity over the Big Five factors. Attempting to predict job performance with personality measures has a long tradition in organizationa l research. This body of work has led some researchers to conclude that personality—relative to other predictors— is a rather weak predictor of performance (e.g., Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, & Kirsch, 1984). Recently, however, researchers have begun to reconsider the structure of personality (e.g., Digman, 1990) and the extent to which personality may validly predict on-thejob performance (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991, 1993; Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993). The purpose of this study was to examine the criterion validity of a recently introduced measure, the Proactive Personality Scale, by using objective job performance as the criterion measure. After discussing the theoretical underpinnings of the proactive personality construct, I review research pertaining to four domains that must be controlled in a rigorous test of the criterion validity of the Proactive Personality Scale: the Big Five factors, general mental ability (GMA), work experience, and social desirability.

693 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Meta-analytic results of the relationship of 4 traits--self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability (low neuroticism) with job satisfaction and job performance suggest that these traits are among the best dispositional predictors of job satisfactionand job performance.
Abstract: Recently, Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) proposed a higher order construct they termed core self-evaluations or, more simply, positive self-concept. According to Judge et al. (1997), this construct is a broad dispositional trait that is indicated by four more specific traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability (low neuroticism). The core selfevaluations construct was originally proposed as a potential explanatory variable in the dispositional source of job satisfaction. Subsequently, Judge and colleagues also have argued that the construct should be related to work motivation and, ultimately, to job performance (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998). Investigations of a link between core self-evaluations and job performance, however, are lacking. Despite a lack of studies linking the core self-evaluations factor to job satisfaction and, especially, to job performance, three of the core traits (self-esteem, locus of control, and emotional stability) appear to be the most widely studied personality traits in personality and applied psychology.1 Yet, with the exception of emotional stability and job performance, we have found no metaanalyses of the relationship between any of these traits with either job satisfaction or job performance.2 Thus, the purpose of the present study is to provide a quantitative review of the literature that examines the relationship of the four core self-evaluation traits with job satisfaction and job performance. This study determines whether general relationships exist and, if so, what the magnitudes of these relationships are. In the next section, we provide a brief review of the four traits and discuss the possible relationship of these traits with both job satisfaction and job performance.

3,197 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the meaning of employee engagement is ambiguous among both academic researchers and among practitioners who use it in conversations with clients, and they show that the term is used at different times to refer to psychological states, traits and behaviors as well as their antecedents and outcomes.
Abstract: The meaning of employee engagement is ambiguous among both academic researchers and among practitioners who use it in conversations with clients. We show that the term is used at different times to refer to psychological states, traits, and behaviors as well as their antecedents and outcomes. Drawing on diverse relevant literatures, we offer a series of propositions about (a) psychological state engagement; (b) behavioral engagement; and (c) trait engagement. In addition, we offer propositions regarding the effects of job attributes and leadership as main effects on state and behavioral engagement and as moderators of the relationships among the 3 facets of engagement. We conclude with thoughts about the measurement of the 3 facets of engagement and potential antecedents, especially measurement via employee surveys.

2,742 citations

Book
01 Jun 1976

2,728 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a systematic review of literature published over the past 27 years, synthesize various research perspectives into a comprehensive multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation - linking leadership, innovation as a process, and innovation as an outcome.
Abstract: This paper consolidates the state of academic research on innovation. Based on a systematic review of literature published over the past 27 years, we synthesize various research perspectives into a comprehensive multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation - linking leadership, innovation as a process, and innovation as an outcome. We also suggest measures of determinants of organizational innovation and present implications for both research and managerial practice.

2,414 citations