What hurts today may pay off tomorrow: An integrative perspective on the well-being consequences of proactive behavior at work

关于主动工作行为的研究一直在蓬勃发展。主动行为包括为了带来积极的变化而主动采取行动（Frese & Fay, 2001; Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010）。一些理论框架和大量的研究对主动行为的前因有了深入的了解。关于主动行为的结果，现有的研究主要集中在与绩效相关的结果上。到目前为止，积极主动行为对个人幸福感的影响还很少受到关注。关于主动行为对幸福感影响的少数现有研究表明，这是一个复杂的关系，因为两个相互矛盾的发现需要整合。一方面，主动行为及其相关构念具有高度的稳定性（Frese, Garst, & Fay, 2007; Li, Fay, Frese, Harms, & Gao, 2014）。另一方面，我们自己最近的研究表明，主动行为对个人的幸福是有代价的。主动行为导致日常皮质醇分泌水平升高和日常疲劳（Fay & h<e:1> ttges, 2015），并且在特定的工作条件下，与长时间的工作压力增加有关（Strauss, Parker, & O’shea, 2016）。总之，这些发现指出了一个必须解决的矛盾。如果主动行为对个人的幸福是有代价的，为什么个人要保持他们的主动行为？为了解决这一矛盾，我们提出了一个模型，该模型不仅关注主动行为对享乐幸福的影响，而且还纳入了现实幸福。工作心理学直到最近才开始承认幸福感的相关性（Sonnentag, 2015）。我们的模型表明，虽然积极主动的行为在享乐幸福方面可能有成本，但对幸福幸福有同步和长期的好处。理想幸福可以弥补享乐幸福的负面影响。该模型阐明了不同的中介途径，有助于打开主动行为和幸福之间的黑盒子。此外，迄今为止对主动行为的研究几乎没有考虑到作为主动行为产生背景的民族文化。文化及其相关的价值观、期望和行为规范可能会影响主动性与幸福感的关系。由于其以变化为导向的性质，在不确定性规避程度较高的国家，积极主动的行为可能特别费力。法国和德国之间的比较是一种文化比较，因为法国和德国在不确定性规避水平上存在很大差异（Chhokar等人，2007年）。本建议包括三项研究。它们的设计是为了测试主动性对幸福感的短期、中期和长期影响，并将提出的中介变量考虑在内。所有的研究都包括跨文化比较。

Research on proactive work behavior has been thriving. Proactive behavior involves initiating action in order to bring about positive change (Frese & Fay, 2001; Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010). Several theoretical frameworks and a large body of research give insights into the antecedents of proactive behavior. With regard to the outcomes of proactive behavior, extant research has focused primarily on performance related outcomes. The effect on the well-being of individuals' engaging in proactive behavior has so far received little attention. The few existing studies on the effect of proactive behavior on well-being suggest a complex relationship, because two contradictory findings need to be integrated. On the one hand, proactive behavior and related constructs have a high level of stability over time (Frese, Garst, & Fay, 2007; Li, Fay, Frese, Harms, & Gao, 2014). On the other hand, our own recent research suggests that proactive behavior has costs for individuals' well-being. Proactive behavior results in elevated levels of daily cortisol output and daily fatigue (Fay & Hüttges, 2015), and is, under specific working conditions, associated with increases in job strain over longer periods of time (Strauss, Parker, & O'Shea, 2016). Together, these findings point to a contradiction that has to be resolved. If proactive behavior has costs for individuals' well-being, why do individuals maintain their proactive behavior? To resolve this contradiction, we propose a model that does not only focus on proactive behavior's effects on hedonic well-being, but that also incorporates eudaimonic well-being. Work psychology has only recently begun to acknowledge the relevance of eudaimonic well-being (Sonnentag, 2015). Our model proposes that while proactive behaviors may have costs in terms of hedonic well-being, there are simultaneous and longer term benefits for eudaimonic well-being. Eudaimonic well-being may compensate for the negative effects on hedonic well-being. The model spells out differential mediating pathways that help to unlock the black box between proactive behavior and well-being. Furthermore, research on proactive behavior has so far barely taken the national culture as the context in which proactive behavior emerges into account. Culture and its associated values, expectations, and behavioral norms are likely to affect the proactivity - well-being relationship. Because of its change oriented nature, proactive behavior is likely to be particularly taxing in countries with elevated levels of uncertainty avoidance. A comparison between France and Germany lends itself to a cultural comparison, because France and Germany differ substantially in their level of uncertainty avoidance (Chhokar, et al., 2007). The present proposal includes three studies. They are designed to test for short-, mid- and long-term effects of proactivity on well-being, taking the proposed mediating variables into account. All studies include a cross-cultural comparison.