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。积极主动的行为包括发起行动以带来积极的变化(Frese&Fay，2001；Parker，Bindl，&Strauss，2010)。一些理论框架和大量研究为主动行为的前因提供了洞察力。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，积极主动的行为对个人幸福感的影响几乎没有受到关注。现有的关于主动行为对幸福感影响的少数研究表明，两者之间存在复杂的关系，因为两个相互矛盾的发现需要整合。一方面，主动行为和相关结构随着时间的推移具有高度的稳定性(Frese，Garst，&Fay，2007；Li，Fay，Frese，Harm，&Gao，2014)。另一方面，我们自己最近的研究表明，积极主动的行为会损害个人的幸福感。主动行为会导致每日皮质醇产量和日常疲劳水平的增加(Fay&Hüttges，2015)，并且在特定的工作条件下，随着工作时间的延长，工作压力会增加(Strauss，Parker，&O‘Shea，2016)。总而言之，这些发现指向了一个必须解决的矛盾。如果积极主动的行为对个人的幸福是有代价的，那么为什么个人要保持他们的主动主动行为呢？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主义幸福感的影响，而且还纳入了享乐主义幸福感。工作心理学直到最近才开始承认幸福感的相关性(Sonnentag，2015)。我们的模型提出，虽然主动行为在享乐主义幸福感方面可能会有代价，但对于幸福主义幸福感来说，有同步的和更长期的好处。幸福主义幸福感可能会补偿享乐主义幸福感的负面影响。该模型阐明了有助于解开主动行为和幸福感之间的黑匣子的不同中介路径。此外，到目前为止，关于主动行为的研究几乎没有考虑到民族文化作为主动行为产生的背景。文化及其相关的价值观、期望值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，在不确定性规避水平较高的国家，主动行为可能会特别繁重。法国和德国之间的比较有助于进行文化比较，因为法国和德国在避免不确定性的水平上存在很大差异(Chhokar等人，2007年)。本提案包括三项研究。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，并考虑到拟议的中介变量。所有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.