Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-12
Portuguese Version of Parker’s ( 1998 ) Role Breadth Self-Efficacy Scale: Examining Its Factor Structure,Reliability and Validity to Predict Innovative Work Behaviour
Drawing upon previous theorizing and empirical research efforts supporting the importance of role breadth self-efficacy (RBSE) as a key motivational antecedent of proactive forms of behaviour at work, including individual innovation, this paper reports the process of building and validating a Portuguese version of Parker’s RBSE scale. Data from two studies with independent samples of employees (N = 103, N = 148) pertaining to an information technology company, showed that this version (RBSE-P) has, as expected, a unidimensional structure with a high level of factor structure similarity in both samples, as well as appropriate levels of internal consistency. Furthermore, evidence from the second sample (N = 148) revealed that, in line with preliminary research, this construct shows validity to predict the distinctive proactive behaviour of individual innovation, evaluated by the employee’s corresponding direct supervisors. These results support the use of this scale for assessing RBSE in Portuguese-speaking work settings and the meaningful role of this construct for predicting this criterion, which is acknowledged as an important driver of organizational success and competitiveness.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.
2.
AndersonN. R.PotočnikK.ZhouJ. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state‐of‐the‐science review and prospective commentary. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128
3.
AxtellC. M.HolmanD. J.UnsworthK. L.WallT. D.WatersonP. E.HarringtonE. (2000). Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900167029
4.
AxtellC. M.HolmanD.WallT. (2006). Promoting innovation: A change study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(3), 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X68240
5.
AxtellC. M.ParkerS. K. (2003). Promoting role breadth self-efficacy through involvement, work redesign and training. Human Relations, 56(1), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726703056001452
6.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view. Prentice Hall.
7.
BanduraA. (1995). Exercise of personal control and collective efficacy in changing societies. In BanduraA. (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1–45). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527692.003
BanduraA. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606
10.
BindlU. K.ParkerS. K. (2011). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 2. Selecting and developing members for the organization (pp. 567–598). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12170-019
BrislinR. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In LonnerW. J.BerryJ. W. (Eds.), Field methods in cross‐cultural research (pp. 137–164). Sage.
13.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
14.
CabreraA.CollinsW.SalgadoJ. S. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(2), 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500404614
15.
CampbellD. J. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/258353
16.
ChenG.FarhJ.-L.Campbell-BushE. M.WuZ.WuX. (2013). Teams as innovative systems: Multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1018–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032663
17.
Den HartogD. N.BelschakF. D. (2012). When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024903
18.
FlakeJ. K.PekJ.HehmanE. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practice and recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693063
19.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
20.
GistM. E.MitchellT. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/258770
21.
GrantA. M.ParkerS.CollinsC. (2009). Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.01128.x
22.
GriffinM. A.NealA.ParkerS. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438
23.
HammondM. M.NeffN. L.FarrJ. L.SchwallA. R.ZhaoX. (2011). Predictors of individual‐level innovation at work: A meta‐analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 90–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018556
24.
HaoP.HeW.LongL.-R. (2018). Why and when empowering leadership has different effects on employee work performance: The pivotal roles of passion for work and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817707517
25.
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238
26.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
HsuM. L.ChenF. H. (2017). The cross‐level mediating effect of psychological capital on the organizational innovation climate–employee innovative behavior relationship. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(2), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.90
29.
HuL-t.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
30.
JanssenO. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job dissatisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1039–1050. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069447
31.
JanssenO. (2004). How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less stressful. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 201–215. https://doi.org//10.1002/job.238
32.
KanterR. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organization. In StawB. M.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 169–211). JAI Press.
33.
LiS.-L.HeW.YamK. C.LongL.-R. (2015). When and why empowering leadership increases followers' taking charge: A multilevel examination in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(3), 645–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-015-9424-1
34.
Lorenzo-SevaU.ten BergeJ. M. F. (2006). Tucker's congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2(2), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.2.2.57
35.
LovikA.NassiriV.VerbekeG.MolenberghsG. (2020). Supplementary materials to: A modified tucker’s congruence coefficient for factor matching. PsychOpen. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.2786
36.
MorrisonE. W.PhelpsC. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extra-role efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.5465/257011
37.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). Does longer job tenure help or hinder job performance? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.012
38.
NgT. W. H.LucianettiL. (2016). Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social–cognitive theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000029
39.
OuyangK.ChengB. H.LamW.ParkerS. K. (2019). Enjoy your evening, be proactive tomorrow: How off-job experiences shape daily proactivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(8), 1003–1019. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000391
40.
ParkerS. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835–852. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.835
41.
ParkerS. K. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 447–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00025
42.
ParkerS. K.BindlU. K.StraussK. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732
43.
ParkerS. K.CollinsC. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321554
44.
ParkerS. K.WilliamsH. M.TurnerN. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636
45.
PettyR. E.BriñolP.TormalaZ. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 722–741. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.722
46.
PituchK. A.StevensJ. P. (2016). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM's SPSS. Routledge.
47.
PotočnikK.AndersonN. (2012). Assessing innovation: A 360-degree appraisal study. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(4), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12012
48.
PotočnikK.AndersonN. (2016). A constructively critical review of change and innovation-related concepts: Towards conceptual and operational clarity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(4), 481–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1176022
49.
PotočnikK.AndersonN. R.LatorreF. (2015). Selecting for innovation: Methods of assessment and the criterion problem. In NikolaouI.OostromJ. K. (Eds.), Employee recruitment, selection, and assessment: Contemporary issues for theory and practice (pp. 209–227). Psychology Press.
50.
RoosP. A.TreimanD. J. (1980). DOT scales for the 1970 census classification. In MillerA.TreimanD.CainP.RoosP. (Eds.), Work, jobs, and occupations: A critical review of the dictionary of occupational titles (pp. 336–389). National Academy Press.
51.
SonnentagS.SpychalaA. (2012). Job control and job stressors as predictors of proactive work behavior: Is role breadth self-efficacy the link?Human Performance, 25(5), 412–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2012.721830
52.
TierneyP.FarmerS. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069429
53.
TierneyP.FarmerS. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020952
54.
Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies (No. PRS-984). Educational Testing Service.
55.
Van BavelJ. J.Mende-SiedleckiP.BradyW. J.ReineroD. A. (2016). Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(23), 6454–6459. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521897113
56.
VardamanJ. M.AmisJ. M.DysonB. P.WrightP. M.Van de Graaff RandolphR. (2012). Interpreting change as controllable: The role of network centrality and self-efficacy. Human Relations, 65(7), 835–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712441642
57.
VogtD. S.KingD. W.KingL. A. (2004). Focus groups in psychological assessment: Enhancing content validity by consulting members of the target population. Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.231
58.
VroomV. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.
59.
WanbergC. R.BanasJ. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.132
60.
WangX., ‐H. F.FangY.QureshiI.JanssenO. (2015). Understanding employee innovative behavior: Integrating the social network and leader‐member exchange perspectives. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(3), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1994
61.
WoodsS. A.MustafaM. J.AndersonN.SayerB. (2018). Innovative work behavior and personality traits: Examining the moderating effects of organizational tenure. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 33(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2017-0016
62.
WuC.-H.ParkerS. K. (2017). The role of leader support in facilitating proactive work behavior: A perspective from attachment theory. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1025–1049. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920631455474
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
