In this present article, I will explore the possibility that
organizational identification and political skill moderates the
relationship between proactive personality and entrepreneurial
leadership. Research has begun to move from merely examining personality
as a main effect (Barrick, Parks, & Mount, 2005) to focus on the
moderating or mediating effects that explain how personality influences
dependent variables. This approach can also be taken to examine the
relationship between proactive personality and entrepreneurial
leadership and to investigate whether organizational identification and
political skill moderates the relationship. The ability for
practitioners to identify individuals that will successfully lead
innovation and take risks in the workplace is very beneficial for
organizations. Leadership research indicates that the trait approach
facilitates the selection of leaders. Viewed from a selection
perspective, organizations can determine the desired employee profile to
meet their needs (Naquin & Holton, 2002).
The concept of entrepreneurial leadership involves fusing the
concepts of "entrepreneurship" (Schumpeter, 1934),
"entrepreneurial orientation" (Miller, 1983; Covin &
Slevin, 1988), and "entrepreneurial management" (Stevenson,
1985) with leadership (Gupta, McMillan & Surie, 2004). It emphasizes
taking a strategic approach to entrepreneurship, so that the
entrepreneurial initiatives can support development of enhanced
capabilities for continuously creating and appropriating value in the
firm (Gupta, McMillan & Surie, 2004). Thus, entrepreneurship can
form a basis for competitive advantage and technological growth in all
types of firms that are oriented towards leadership and excellence in
the new global economy (Gupta, McMillan & Surie, 2004).
Entrepreneurial leadership is defined as leadership that creates
visionary scenarios that are used to assemble and mobilize a
'supporting cast' of participants who become committed by the
vision to the discovery and exploitation of strategic value creation
(Gupta, McMillan & Surie, 2004). This definition emphasizes the
challenge of mobilizing the resources and gaining the commitment
required for value creation that the entrepreneurial leader faces, which
involves creating a vision and a cast of supporters capable of enacting
that vision (Gupta, McMillan & Surie, 2004). The two challenges of
forging a vision and building a cast of competent and committed
supporters are interdependent since the former is useless without the
latter (Gupta, McMillan & Surie, 2004). Thus, entrepreneurial
leaders envision and enact a proactive transformation of the firm's
transaction set (Venkataraman & Van de Ven, 1998). Entrepreneurial
leadership has much in common with transformational leadership in that
the leader evokes super-ordinate performance by appeals to the higher
needs of followers (Gupta, McMillan & Surie, 2004). However, the
entrepreneurial leader's ability to evoke such performance is
founded in the context of the firm's need to adapt to emerging
environmental contingencies (Gupta, McMillan & Surie, 2004). Thus,
the basic challenge is to create a willingness in followers to abandon
current conventional but career-secure activities for creative,
entrepreneurial action (Gupta, McMillan & Surie, 2004).
Entrepreneurial leadership can also be thought of as leading,
through direct involvement, a process that creates value for
organizational stakeholders by bringing together a unique innovation and
package of resources to respond to a recognized opportunity (Darling,
Keeffe, & Ross, 2007). In fulfilling this process, entrepreneurs
function within a paradigm of three dimensions: innovativeness,
risk-taking and proactiveness (Morris, Schindehutte & Laforge,
2004). Innovativeness focuses on the search for creative and meaningful
solutions to individual and operational problems and needs (Darling,
Keeffe, & Ross, 2007). Risk-taking involves the willingness to
commit resources to opportunities that have a reasonable possibility of
failure (Darling, Keeffe, & Ross, 2007). Proactiveness is concerned
with implementation, and helping to make events happen through
appropriate means, which typically include the efforts of others
(Darling, Keeffe, & Ross, 2007). The practice of successful
entrepreneurial leadership is thereby fulfilled within an array of
exciting activities and new creative developments that are full of
innovations and evolving concepts, constantly changing, and in many
cases eluding classification (Darling, Keeffe, & Ross, 2007).
Entrepreneurial leadership is all about breaking new ground, going
beyond the known, and helping to create the future (Darling, Keeffe,
& Ross, 2007). What makes a truly successful entrepreneurial leader
is not narrowly focused on only intelligence, education, lifestyle or
background (Darling, Keeffe, & Ross, 2007). A principal factor that
seems to determine success is the entrepreneur's ability to deal
with opportunities through the dynamics of organizational setting,
thereby enabling and motivating the people concerned to be actively and
enthusiastically involved and successful (Darling, Keeffe, & Ross,
2007). The basic challenge of entrepreneurial leaders (McGrath and
MacMillan, 2000) is to envision future possibilities and enable the
organization to transform its current transaction set (Venkataraman
& Van de Ven, 1998). Moreover, such adaptation must be accomplished
without overstraining the unit's resource endowments (Gupta,
McMillan & Surie, 2004). In addition, this must often be done in the
face of conservative and risk-averse attitudes stemming from
followers' lack of confidence in the gains from innovation in
uncertain environments (Gupta, McMillan & Surie, 2004).
Despite the widespread acceptance of the five factor model,
theorists have argued that when attempting to link personality to a
specific criterion of interest, the criterion-related validity of basic
personality traits is likely to be exceeded by compound or emergent
personality variables that are more specifically tailored to the outcome
(Hough & Schneider, 1996). According to Hough and Schneider,
"Compound personality traits are comprised of basic personality
traits that do not all covary" (p. 57). Proactive personality is
thought to be one example of such a compound variable (Hough, 2003), and
it has proven to be predictive of a number of career development
outcomes. Bateman and Crant (1993) developed the proactive personality
concept, defining it as a relatively stable tendency to effect
environmental change that differentiates people based on the extent to
which they take action to influence their environments. Individuals with
a prototypical proactive personality identify opportunities and act on
them, show initiative, take action, and persevere until meaningful
change occurs (Crant, 2000, p. 439). In contrast, people who are not
proactive exhibit the opposite patterns: they fail to identify, let
alone seize, opportunities to change things. Less proactive individuals
are passive and reactive, preferring to adapt to circumstances rather
than change them (Crant, 2000, p. 439). As work becomes more dynamic and
decentralized, proactive behavior and initiative become even more
critical determinants of organizational success. For example, as new
forms of management are introduced that minimize the surveillance
function, companies will increasingly rely on employees' personal
initiative to identify and solve problems (Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng,
& Tag, 1997).
Crant (2000) defined proactive behavior as taking initiative in
improving current circumstances or creating new ones; it involves
challenging the status quo rather than passively adapting to present
conditions. Employees can engage in proactive activities as part of
their in-role behavior in which they fulfill basic job requirements
(Crant, 2000). For example, sales agents might proactively seek feedback
on their techniques for closing a sale with an ultimate goal of
improving job performance. Extra-role behaviors can also be proactive,
such as efforts to redefine one's role in the organization. For
example, employees might engage in career management activities by
identifying and acting on opportunities to change the scope of their
jobs or move to more desirable divisions of the business (Crant, 2000).
Crant (1995) demonstrated that proactive personality accounted for
incremental variance in the job performance of real estate agents after
controlling for both extraversion and conscientiousness. Proactive
personality seems more specifically tailored to predicting motivation in
learning contexts than the more general Big Five factors and facets
(Major, Turner, & Fletcher, 2006).
Several researchers have examined an array of potential outcomes of
proactive personality at work. For example, Crant (1995) examined the
criterion validity of the proactive personality scale developed by
Bateman and Crant (1993). Using a sample of 131 real estate agents,
results indicated that the proactive personality scale explained an
additional 8% of the variance in an objective measure of agents'
job performance beyond experience, social desirability, general mental
ability, and two of the big five personality factors- conscientiousness
and extraversion. Parker (1998) found that, using a sample from a glass
manufacturing firm, proactive personality was positively and
significantly associated with participation in organizational
improvement initiatives. Becherer and Maurer (1999) examined the effects
of a proactive disposition on entrepreneurial behaviors. Results from a
sample of 215 small company presidents suggested that the
presidents' level of proactivity was significantly associated with
three types of entrepreneurial behaviors: starting versus not starting
the business, the number of startups, and the types of ownership.
Proactive personality appears to have the potential for providing
further insight into the personality trait-entrepreneurship relationship
(Crant, 1996). The proactive personality scale measures a personal
disposition toward proactive behavior, an idea that intuitively appears
to be related to entrepreneurship (Crant, 1996). In a study conducted by
Crant (1996) that examined the relationship between proactive
personality and entrepreneurial intentions, proactive personality was
positively associated with entrepreneurial intentions. This may also be
the case for entrepreneurial leadership; because people with a proactive
personality may be more inclined to mobilizing the resources and gaining
the commitment required for value creation that the entrepreneurial
leader faces. More proactive people may have a greater desire to become
entrepreneurial leaders in order to help create value for their firm.
Proposition 1: There will be a positive relationship between
proactive personality and entrepreneurial leadership.
As threats to employee loyalty resulting from organizational
mergers, take-overs, and restructuring have become part of everyday
organizational life, the ability to elicit a certain level of
identification with an organization has become increasingly important to
the well-being of both organizations and their members (Dutton,
Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). Social identity theory provides the
theoretical basis for the concept of organizational identification
(Elsbach, 1999). Social identification thus refers to the
'perception of belongingness to a group classification'
through which 'an individual perceives him or herself as an actual
or symbolic member of the group' (e.g. 'I am a man',
'I am a biologist') (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p. 104).
Self-conceptions may also include an awareness of the features that
distinguish oneself from other individuals (e.g. 'I am
cheerful', 'I am generous', etc) (Abrams, 1992, p. 59).
Further, depending on social identity salience, identification is
closely associated with high commitment and involvement within, and
efforts invested into, a social group (Ellemers, De Gilder, &
Haslam, 2004; Ellemers, Kortekaas & Ouwerkerk 1999). Organizations
can be conceived as social systems through which individuals define
their self-conceptions. Organizational identification is seen as a form
of the construct of social identification (Ashforth & Mael, 1989;
Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Elsbach, 1999). That is, organizational
identification is a particular facet, while social identification is a
multifaceted construct. According to Dutton et al. (1994),
organizational identification refers to the cognitive connection between
the definition of an organization and the definition a person applies to
him or herself.
A sense of organizational identification may prevent employees from
becoming alienated and may be an important precondition for general
feelings of job satisfaction. Moreover, members that identify with an
organization may be more likely to remain with the organization and to
expend effort on behalf of the organization (Dutton et al., 1994). The
notion of organizational identification (OI) has become a central
concept in the area of organizational behavior and is attracting
increasing attention in management research more generally. The reason
for this is that OI is seen as a key psychological state reflecting the
underlying link or bond that exists between the employee and the
organization and, therefore, potentially capable of explaining and
predicting many important attitudes and behaviors' in the workplace
(Edwards, 2005). Cheney (1983) argued OI can be seen as a mechanism of
persuasion. Through identification, employees can be influenced by
getting them to buy in to the organization's activities. The
organization's goals become the individual's goals, and those
who identify strongly are more likely to be motivated to work hard to
help achieve these goals.
Individuals who hold strong organizational identification are
concerned with the well-being of their organization. As noted by Dutton
et al. (1994, p. 254), when people strongly identify with their work
organization, their sense of survival is tied to the organization's
survival. This link leads individuals to direct efforts on behalf of
their colleagues and the organization as a whole (Dutton et al., 1994)
as part of the process of creating distinctiveness from other groups and
favorable bias towards members in the group with which the individuals
are associated (Kramer, 1991). Hence, it is likely that employees who
strongly identify with their organization will perform their tasks
better than employees who identify less with their organization
(Carmeli, Gilat, & Waldham, 2007). Social identity theory suggests
that organizational identification is likely to result in enhanced
in-role performance because people who strongly identify with their
organization are likely to exert much effort, contribute their best for
the social system, cooperate, develop lower turnover intentions and
actual turnover, and are expected to exhibit high performance as they
feel a strong sense of belongingness (e.g., Abrams et al., 1998; Mael
& Ashforth, 1995; Tyler, 1999). Carmeli et al. (2007) tested the
relationship between organizational identification and job performance
and were able to provide support for the role of organizational
identification in the enhancement of job performance. Their findings
confirm the notion that employees who identify with a particular
organization tend to exert their best efforts for it, and thus exhibit a
relatively higher level and quality of performance (Carmeli et al.,
Entrepreneurial leaders also build commitment by encouraging others
to experiment and learn for themselves (Gupta, McMillan & Surie,
2004). The intent is not only to get followers to be super-normally
motivated to work hard but also to help them develop a different
perspective (Gupta, McMillan & Surie, 2004). Further, the mechanism
is not charisma, values, or team pressure, but a collective spirit of
conscious innovation (Gupta, McMillan & Surie, 2004). This has a lot
of implications for the relationship between organizational
identification and entrepreneurial leadership because it makes sense
conceptually that if someone strongly identifies with the firm that they
work with will engage in higher levels of entrepreneurial leadership
than those who do not identify themselves with the organization.
Proposition 2: Organizational identification will moderate the
relationship between proactive personality and entrepreneurial
leadership such that the higher the organizational identification score,
the more individuals will display entrepreneurial leadership.
Individuals that possess political skill have the ability to read
others and suitably adjust their behavior in accordance with the
situation to achieve favorable outcomes (Ferris, Perrewe, Anthony, &
Gilmore, 2000). It is defined as an interpersonal style construct that
combines social astuteness with the ability to relate well, and
otherwise demonstrate situationally appropriate behavior in a
disarmingly charming and engaging manner that inspires confidence,
trust, sincerity, and genuineness (Ferris, Perrewe, Anthony, &
Gilmore, 2000). According to Ferris, Treadway, Perrewe, Brouer, Douglas,
and Lux (2007), it is the ability to effectively understand others at
work, and to use such knowledge to influence others to act in ways that
enhance one's personal and/or organizational objectives. The
authors characterize it as a "comprehensive pattern of social
competencies, with cognitive, affective, and behavioral
manifestations" (Ferris et al., 2007). Therefore, political skill
is a multi-dimensional construct that involves perspicacity, the art of
persuasion, the knack of forming the right connections, and the seeming
embodiment of authenticity. Ferris et al. (2007) explain the dimensions,
namely social astuteness, interpersonal influence, networking ability,
and apparent sincerity. Todd, Harris, Harris and Wheeler (2009) viewed
political skill as a skill that employees used to achieve desired
outcomes in the form of career benefits. They tested the effect of
political skill on the five career-related outcomes of total
compensation, total promotions, perceived career success, life
satisfaction, and perceived external mobility and their findings
indicated that the overall political skill construct was significantly
related to all of the career outcomes except total compensation (Todd,
Harris, Harris, & Wheeler, 2009). Social influence theory is a
theoretical framework for understanding the effects of political skill
(Todd, Harris, Harris, & Wheeler, 2009). Using social influence
theory, researchers try to understand how individuals use their social
influence to achieve desired outcomes (Todd, Harris, Harris, &
Wheeler, 2009). In the work context, individuals often want to influence
others to attain desired roles, assignments, and rewards (Judge &
Politically skilled persons possess social competencies that
enhance their personal and/or organizational goals through their
understanding and influence of others in social interactions at work
(Blickle, Wendel, & Ferris, 2010). Hogan's (1991; Hogan &
Shelton, 1998) socio-analytic theory suggests that personality needs
social skill to demonstrate its influence, and he argued that specific
personality traits are the embodiment of the motives to get along
(Blickle, Wendel, & Ferris, 2010). By implication, strong
personality prediction of entrepreneurial leadership should not be
expected without the presence of social effectiveness competencies.
Political skill is a social effectiveness competency that already has
demonstrated its effectives as a predictor of important work outcomes
(Ferris, Davidson, & Perrewe, 2005; Ferris et al., 2008; Semadar,
Robbins, & Ferris, 2006), and moderators of stress-strain (e.g.,
Perrewe et al., 2004) and influence tactics-performance (e.g., Treadway,
Ferris, Duke, Adams, & Thatcher, 2007) relationships. In addition,
it might be that political skill may also play a facilitating role with
proactive personality in the prediction of entrepreneurial leadership.
Entrepreneurial leaders elicit high levels of participation and
involvement by the group and they orchestrate constantly changing role
definitions driven by an uncertain organizational context (Gupta,
McMillan & Surie, 2004). Entrepreneurial leadership requires an
ability to be effective at bargaining and team building and emphasizes
path clearing for opportunity exploitation and value creation (Gupta,
McMillan & Surie, 2004). In their "path-clearing" role,
entrepreneurial leaders negotiate the internal and external environments
(Cyert & March, 1966; Thompson, 1983). They are able to anticipate
and dissolve potential resistance, obtain support from key stakeholders
within the firm as well as from external constituencies, and eliminate
obstacles to the accomplishment of desired goals. Critical resources and
information are thereby made available (Daily & Dalton, 1993; Lewis,
1980). To be successful at all of this requires a leader with political
Proposition 3: Political skill will moderate the relationship
between proactive personality and entrepreneurial leadership such that
the higher the political skill score, the more individuals will display
Researchers need to conceptualize entrepreneurial leadership
frameworks that can be utilized to develop individuals who can make
positive impacts in their organizations. This will link entrepreneurial
leadership with human resource development and it will aid in developing
individuals who have a desire to create value in their firms.
There is also general agreement that social networks play a major
role in the entrepreneurial process by providing the fundamental
resources necessary for starting a business (Boyd, 1989). This has
implications for entrepreneurial leadership and there is also a need to
determine if a social network plays a role in individuals becoming
entrepreneurial leaders and whether it facilitates the entrepreneurial
leadership process via strong or weak ties.
Future research should also consider other possible moderating
mechanisms involved in the proactive personality and entrepreneurial
leadership relationship. It is possible that organizational climate,
achievement goals, locus of control, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy
moderate the relationship between proactive personality and
entrepreneurial leadership. Researchers should also try to determine if
gender role orientation plays a role because the career psychology
literature provides a substantial amount of evidence that gender is a
significant variable in understanding differences in career
self-efficacy (Lent & Hackett, 1987; Nevill & Schleckler, 1988).
Overall, empirical evidence suggests that women are likely to have lower
expectations than men for success in a wide range of occupations
(Eccles, 1994); however, I suspect that this may not be the case for
women's desire to become entrepreneurial leaders.
The ability for practitioners to identify individuals that will
successfully lead innovation in the workplace is very beneficial for
organizations. As previously stated individuals with a prototypical
proactive personality identify opportunities and act on them, show
initiative, take action, and persevere until meaningful change occurs
(Crant, 2000, p. 439) and this has tremendous implications because these
individuals may be more successful in becoming leaders in the workplace
because of their desire to take action and to create a positive change
in their work environment. Practitioners may want to identify employees
that identify with an organization because they may be more likely to
remain with the organization and to expend effort on behalf of the
organization (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994); this has
implications because employees who strongly identify with an
organization may strive to create value for the firm. It may also be
beneficial to identify those proactive individuals who are politically
skilled because of their ability to read others and suitably adjust
their behavior in accordance with the situation to achieve favorable
outcomes such as creating a vision and a cast of supporters capable of
enacting that vision (Gupta, McMillan & Surie, 2004). Also if the
findings do indeed show that the moderating variables (organizational
identification and political skill) moderate the relationship, steps
should be taken to continue and implement HR practices that will create
a climate that fosters organizational identification; also steps should
be taken to offer training in political skill.
Dispositional characteristics have not been emphasized in previous
studies, which have tended to rely more heavily on situational variables
(Naquin & Holton, 2002). The goal of this article is to show the
importance of looking at proactive personality, organizational
identification, and political skill in the context of entrepreneurship
leadership. Individual differences such as personality may be useful in
predicting entrepreneurial leadership and it has several implications
for practice. Leadership research indicates that the trait approach
facilitates the selection of leaders. Viewed from a selection
perspective, organizations can determine the desired employee profile to
meet their needs (Naquin & Holton, 2002). The concept of
entrepreneurial leadership has become increasingly important because
organizations must be more entrepreneurial to enhance their performance,
their capacity for adaptation and long-term survival (Gupta et al.,
2004). Proactive individuals may be more successful in entrepreneurial
leadership and may contribute more to the organization. Proactive
personality, which is the tendency to show initiative and take action in
one's environment in order to effect meaningful change, may be more
specifically tailored to predicting entrepreneurial leadership in firms
than the more general Big Five factors and facets. The proactive
personality construct fits well conceptually with the current emphasis
on entrepreneurial leadership and has been linked empirically to a
number of career outcomes (Seibert et al., 1999).
Abrams, D. (1992). Processes of social identification. In
Breakwell, G. M. (Ed.), Social psychology of identity and the
self-concept. London: Surrey University Press, 57-99.
Abrams, D., Ando, K. & Hinkle, S. (1998). Psychological
attachment to the group: cross-cultural differences in organizational
identification and subjective norms as predictors of workers'
turnover intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24,
Ashforth, B. E. & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and
the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency.
American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality
dimensions and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 41, 1-26.
Barrick, M. R., Parks, L., & Mount, M. K. (2005).
Self-Monitoring as a moderator of the relationships between personality
traits and performance. Personnel Psychology, 58, 745-767.
Bateman, T., & Crant, J. (1993). The proactive component of
organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-118.
Becherer, R. C, & Maurer, J. G. (1999). The proactive
personality disposition and entrepreneurial behavior among small company
presidents. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(1): 28-36.
Bergami, M. and Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization,
affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social
identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39,
Binning, J. F., & Barrett, G. V. (1989). Validity of personnel
decisions: A conceptual analysis of the inferential and evidential
bases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 478-494.
Blickle, G., Wendel, S., & Ferris, G. R. (2000). Political
skill as moderator of personality-Job performance relationships in
socioanalytic theory: Test of the getting ahead motive in automobile
sales. Organizational Dynamics, 28(4), 25-37.
Boyd, M. (1989). Family and personal networks in international
migration: Recent developments and new agendas. International Migration
Review, 23, 638-670.
Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). The role of
perceived organizational performance in organizational identification,
adjustment and job performance. Journal of Management Studies, 44,
Cheney, J. M. (1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study
of organizational communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J.A., & Noe, R.A. (2000). Toward an
integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis
of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678-707.
Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). The influence of
organization structure on the utility of an entrepreneurial top
management style. Journal of Management Studies. 25(3), 217-34.
Crant, J. M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective
among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532-537.
Crant, J. M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor
of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34,
Crant, J. M. (2000). The proactive personality scale in
organizations. Journal of Management, 80, 435-462.
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership
viewed from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 63-75.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G., 1966. A behavioral theory of the
firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R., (1993). Board of directors
leadership and structure: Control and performance implications.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 17(3), 65-81.
Darling, J., Keeffe, M., & Ross, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial
leadership strategies and values: Keys to operational excellence.
Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. 20 (1), 41-54.
Deluga, R. (1998). American presidential proactivity, charismatic
leadership, and rated performance. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 265-291.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: emergence of the
five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C.V. (1994).
Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 39, 239-263.
Eccles, J. (1994). Understanding women's educational and
occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585-609.
Edwards, M. R. (2005). Organizational identification: A conceptual
and operational review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7,
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas P. and Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999).
Self-categorization, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as
related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 29, 371-89.
Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D. and Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating
individuals and groups at work: a social identity perspective on
leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29,
Elsbach, K. D. (1999). An expanded model of organizational
identification. In Staw, B. M. and Sutton, R. I. (Eds), Research in
Organizational Behavior, 21, 163-200.
Ferris, G. R., Perrewe, P. L., Anthony, W. P., & Gilmore, D. C.
(2000). Political skill at work. Organizational Dynamics, 28(4), 25-37.
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W., Hochwarter, W.
A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink, D. D. (2005). Development
and validation of the political skill inventory. Journal of Management,
Ferris, G. R., Davidson, S. L., & Perrewe, P. L. (2005).
Political skill at work: Impact on work effectiveness. Mountain View,
Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewe, P. L., Brouer, R. L.,
Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organizations.
Journal of Management, 33(3), 290-320.
Ferris, G. R., Blickle, G., Schneider, P. B., Kramer, J., Zettler,
I., Solga, J., Noethen, D., & Meurs, J. A. (2008). Political skill
construct and criterion-related validation: A two-study investigation.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 744-771.
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997).
Validity generalization results for law enforcement occupations. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139-161.
Gupta, V., MacMillan, I., & Surie, G. (2004). Entrepreneurial
leadership: developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. Journal
of Business Venturing, 19(2), 241-260.
Herold, D. M., Davis, W., Fedor, D. B., & Parsons, C. K.
(2002). Dispositional influences on transfer of learning in multistage
training programs. Personnel Psychology, 55(4), 851-869.
Hirsh, H. R., Northrop, L. C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1986).
Validity generalization results for law enforcement occupations.
Personnel Psychology, 39, 399-420.
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know
about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist,
Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. (1996). Personality
measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers. American
Psychologist, 51, 469-477.
Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socio-analytic perspective
on job performance. Human Performance, 11, 129-144.
Holton, E. F., Bates, R. A, & Ruona, W. E. A. (2000).
Development of a generalized learning transfer system inventory. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 11(4), 333-360.
Hough, L. M. (2003). Emerging trends and needs in personality
research and practice: Beyond main effects. In M. R Barrick (Ed.),
Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in
organizations, (pp. 31-88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hough, L. M. & Schneider, R. J. (1996). Personality traits,
taxonomies, and applications in organizations. In K.R Murphy (Ed.),
Individual differences and behavior in organizations: Reconsidering the
role of personality in organizations, (pp. 289-325). San Francisco:
Hirsh, H. R., Northrup, L., & Schmidt, F. L. (1986). Validity
generalization results for law enforcement occupations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 39, 399-420.
Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (1994). Political influence
behavior and career success. Journal of Management, 20(1), 43-65.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive
abilities: An integrative/aptitude--treatment interaction approach to
skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657- 690.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management:
Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management
Journal, 42(1), 58-74.
Kramer, R. M. (1991). 'Intergroup relations and organizational
dilemmas: the role of categorization processes'. In Cummings, L. L.
and Staw, B. M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press, 13, 191-228.
Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy:
Empirical status and future directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Lewis, E. (1980). Public entrepreneurship: Toward a theory of
bureaucratic power. Indiana University Press, Indianapolis, IN.
Mael, F. & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and alma mater: a
partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-23.
Mael, F. & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata,
organizational identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel
Psychology, 48, 309-33.
Major, D. A., Turner, J. E. & Fletcher, T. D. (2006).
'Linking proactive personality and the big five to motivation to
learn and developmental activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4,
Martocchio, J. J., & Judge, T. A.. (1997). Relationship between
conscientiousness and learning in training: Mediating influences of
self-deception and self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology. 82(5),
Miller, D. (1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three
types of firms. Management Science. 29(7), 770-791.
Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & LaForge, R. (2004). The
emergence of entrepreneurial marketing: Nature and meaning. Pp. 41-54 in
H. Welsh (ed.), Entrepreneurship: The way ahead. New York: Routledge.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R.. (1998). Five reasons why the
"Big Five" article has been frequently cited. Personell
Psychology. 51, 849-857.
Naquin, S. S., & Holton, E. F. (2002). The effects of
personality, affectivity, and work commitment on motivation to improve
work through learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13(4),
Nevill, D. & Schleckler, D. (1988). The relation of
self-efficacy to willingness to engage in traditional/nontraditional
career activities. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 91-98.
Newstrom, J.W. (1986). Leveraging management development through
the management of transfer. Journal of Management Development, 5(5),
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The
roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 83: 835-852.
Pearlman, K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1980). Validity
generalization results for tests used to predict job proficiency and
training criteria in clerical occupations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 65, 373-407.
Perrewe, P. L., Zellars, K. L., Ferris, G. R., Rossi, A. M.,
Kacmar, C. J., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Neutralizing job stressors:
Political skill as an antidote to the dysfunctional consequences of role
conflict stressors. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 141-152.
Ruona, W. E. A., Leimbach, M., Holton, E. F., & Bates, R.
(2002). The relationship between learner utility reactions and predicted
learning transfer among trainees. International Journal of Training and
Development, 6 (4), 218-228.
Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in
the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 162-173.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Seibert, S., Crant, J., & Kraimer, M. (1999). Proactive
personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
Semadar, A., Robbins, G., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Comparing the
validity of multiple social effectiveness constructs in the prediction
of managerial job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27,
Snyder, D. L. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (1), 162-173.
Snyder, D. L. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 85-128.
Stevenson, H. H. (1985). The heart of entrepreneurship. Harvard
Business Review, 63, 85-94.
Tannenbaum, S. I. & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development
in work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 43(2), 399-441.
Thompson, P., (1983). The nature of work. Introduction to debates
on the labor process. Macmillan, London.
Todd, S. Y., Harris, K. J., Harris, R. B. & Wheeler, A. R.
(2009). Career success implications of political skill. Journal of
Social Psychology, 149(3), 179-204.
Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Duke, A. B., Adams, G., &
Thatcher, J. B. (2007). The moderating role of subordinate political
skill on supervisors' impressions of subordinate ingratiation and
ratings of interpersonal facilitation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Tziner, A., Haccoun, R. R., & Kadish, A. (1991). Personal and
situational characteristics influencing the effectiveness of transfer of
training improvement strategies. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64,
Turnley, W. H. & Bolino, M. C. (2001). Achieving desired images
while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring
in impression management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 351-360.
Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: an
identity-based perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21,
Venkataraman, S., Van de Ven, A.H., 1998. Hostile environmental
jolts, transaction sets and new business development. Journal of
Business Venturing. 13(3), 231-255.
Warr, P. B., & Bunce, D. (1995). Trainee characteristics and
the outcomes of open learning. Personnel Psychology, 48, 347-375.
Leon C. Prieto, Savannah State University