Pixel

Journals
Author
Volume
Issue
Publication Year
Article Type
Keyword

Insights into Key Determinants of Personal Initiative among Palestinian Professionals

0

Citation Download PDF

International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration

Volume 7, Issue 5, July 2021, Pages 23-37


Insights into Key Determinants of Personal Initiative among Palestinian Professionals

DOI: 10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.75.1002  
URL: https://doi.org/10.18775/ijmsba.1849-5664-5419.2014.75.1002

1Farid Irshaid, 2Kevin You

1,2Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia

Abstract: The aim of this study is to get an understanding of whether contemporary research on key determinants of employees’ personal initiative is applicable in the context of a developing Middle Eastern country in the midst of a tumultuous period in its history – a country in which, in spite of it all, life continues for its residents and the organisations that serve them. We collected survey data from 144 office workers of several organisations operating in Palestine to examine the relationship between personal initiative and a list of its theoretical determinants, namely: self-efficacy, need for achievement, perceived supervisor support and cultural orientation towards individualism. Our findings support the conclusions of contemporary research about the effects of self-efficacy and the need for achievement on personal initiative – thus indicating that Palestinian office workers are, in many respects, quite similar to their counterparts in other parts of the world. But our expectations regarding the link between perceived supervisor support, the cultural value of individualism and personal initiative are not supported by our findings.

Keywords: Personal initiative, Palestinian professionals, Middle East, self-efficacy, need for achievement, individualism, supervisor support.

Insights into Key Determinants of Personal Initiative among Palestinian Professionals

1. Introduction

Aside from coverage of new developments in Israel’s turbulent political landscape, news coming from the Middle East in recent days tend to focus on the uneasy ceasefire between Hamas and the Israeli military. Images presented to international audiences paint a picture of a warzone ravaged by escalations of violence, devastated victims caught (through no fault of their own) on the crossroads between two warring forces, and a general sense of hopelessness and devastation. But through it all, life goes on; and it invariably does, not just in Gaza and the West Bank – but also in farming villages in Afghanistan, in the bustling markets of Somalia, and in the homes and camping grounds of herder communities in Yemen. Amidst prolonged conflicts, ordinary people resolutely strive to go on with their lives.

Businesses, community organisations, non-profit non-government organisations (NGOs) and civilian government bodies have no choice but to reflect this resilience by continuing to make do and go on with what they have available. For most people and organisations in places ravaged by conflict, maintaining a sense of business-as-usual is a courageous choice and a demonstration of defiance to the adversities unfolding all around them. This is something that does not often get covered in mainstream media – and, indeed, in academic journals. Though few and far between, articles like ours highlight the fact that non-military organisations still exist and do operate even amidst conflict; they have to. Their employees are, in some respect, quite similar to their counterparts in other countries. And, despite the relatively limited points of access that academics have to these individuals and organisations, they are worth studying, and insights from their experiences present worthwhile lessons.

We are interested in factors that contribute to professional staff’s level of personal initiative in the workplace – particularly in the territories under the de facto jurisdiction of the State of Palestine. Despite the idiosyncratic set of circumstances that form the context of our subjects’ working environments, they are still affected by global factors that affect the working lives of white-collared workers worldwide: i.e. the pressure to innovate, the increasing emphasis on taking individual over collective responsibilities and the push to display elements of an entrepreneurial mindset – all of which are expected outcomes of a high level of personal initiative (Rooks, Sserwanga and Frese, 2014; Burn, 2001; Solesvik, 2017).

Now, the degree to which Western human resource management (HRM) practices can be successfully transplanted into a non-Western context – especially one in the midst of significant flux – has been a subject of considerable discussions (e.g. Ahlstrom, Bruton and Chan, 2001; Child, 2000; Ding, Goodall and Warner, 2000; Evans, Pucik and Barsoux, 2000; Gamble, 2006; Harris, Brewster and Sparrow, 2003; Rosenzweig and Nohria, 1994; Wong and Law, 1999). And whether non-Western employees’ levels of personal initiative and innovative qualities can be maximised through measures that increase contributing attributes found in Western professionals is an example of such a debate worth looking deeper into.

Hitherto, the emphasis of international HRM literature tends to be on difficulties around successfully importing Western policies and practices into offshore operations of Western companies – and risks associated with cross-cultural interactions. Salk (1997) brings our attention to issues that can arise from cultural differences. Jin, Chen, Fosh and Chen (2014) find that incongruence between Western HRM practices and Eastern cultural values can negatively affect the former’s implementation in Asia. Jackson (2004) suggests that Arab cultural approaches to management and bureaucratic administration can act as a barrier to the implementation of Western-style management practices (also see Al-Husan, Brennan and James, 2006).

But others, like Cooke (2004) and Gamble (2006), argue that these challenges should not be overstated. They give credence to the ‘universalist’ (Evans et al, 2002; Harris et al, 2003) argument that “best practice management translates remarkably well across cultures” (Gamble, 2006, p.342). The applicability of any HRM approaches and practices, of course, relies on the soundness of the assumptions on which it rests. The more similar host and home country workers are, the more likely Western management practices are to successfully be adopted abroad (Dalton and Druker, 2012; Jin et al, 2014; c.f. Gamble, 2006).

The good news for many MNCs is that globalisation and technological advancements in communication platforms – even in the face of new restrictions to labour mobility in the face of COVID-19 – are creating a degree of convergence in workforce attributes, values and expectations. This allows for convergence in institutions and practices worldwide (Ralston, 2008; Friedman, 1999; Mayrhofer, Brewster, Morley and Ledolter, 2011). Increasingly today, leading employers tend to emphasise a common set of attributes in their employees, among which are: adaptability, willingness to learn and personal initiative (Suarta, Suwintana, Sudhana and Hariyanti, 2017; Tien and Wang, 2017).

Our study focuses on one of these key attributes, namely: personal initiative (per Andrisani, 1977; Frese, Kring, Soose, and Zempel, 1996; Frese and Fay, 2001), an important element of an innovative mindset, entrepreneurial behaviour, and responsible action (Rooks et al, 2014; Burn, 2001; Solesvik, 2017). Specifically, we seek to understand whether contemporary research on key determinants of employee personal initiative is applicable in the context of a highly unstable socio-political environment – particularly in the Middle East. These key determinants are: self-efficacy, need for achievement and perceived supervisor support (Chiaburu and Carpenter, 2013; Hong, Liao, Raub and Han, 2016; Frese and Fay, 2001; Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, and Tag, 1997; Frese et al, 1996).

In addition, we also wanted to test our current understanding of the impacts of culture on personal initiative (specifically, cultural orientation towards individualism). As a construct, personal initiative has mostly been studied in Western societies, and there is limited research on it in developing economies – especially in the Middle East. This study assists in addressing the gap.

We collected survey data from 144 employees of four large Palestinian organisations, and then performed correlation and regression analyses to examine relationships between the aforementioned key variables. Our findings support the conclusions of contemporary research about the effects of self-efficacy and need for achievement on personal initiative – thus indicating that management approaches which rely on these relationships are likely to translate well into organisations, even ones operating in a very different geopolitical context. But our expectations regarding the link between perceived supervisor support, the cultural value of individualism and personal initiative are not supported by our findings.

Under the next heading, we examine extant literature on key factors that influence personal initiative, with a particular focus on self-efficacy, need for achievement, perceived supervisor support and individualist cultural orientation. We also lay out our six hypotheses which were tested using the methodology narrated under the following heading. Subsequently, we present the results of our analyses and discuss insights that can be drawn from this study. Acknowledgements of major limitations are also presented in the discussion.

2. Literature Review

Personal initiative is an individual attribute that, in the context of the working environment, prompts a worker to take a proactive approach to their employment. This includes going beyond what is required by their specific contractual duties and coming up with creative ways to deal with issues (Andrisani, 1977; Frese et al, 1996; Frese et al, 1997; Frese and Fay, 2001). Personal initiative has been found to contribute to job satisfaction (Gamboa, Gracia, Ripoll and Peiró, 2009), as well as performance – both at the individual and organisational levels (Bledow and Frese, 2009; Grant, Nurmohamed, Ashford and Dekas, 2011; Herrmann and Felfe, 2014; Lisbona, Palaci, Salanova, Frese, 2018). In the context of a developing economy, it is positively associated with socially-responsible entrepreneurial endeavours (Nsereko et al, 2018) and business growth (Jacob, Frese, Krauss and Friedrich, 2019). A worker with personal initiative exhibits three characteristics; they are: self-starting, proactive and persistent (Frese et al, 1996; Frese et al, 1997).

A worker who is self-starting tends to take action, if they deem such action to be suitable, without having to receive clear instructions from their supervisor (Fay and Frese, 2001; Frese and Fay, 2001). A self-starter is also unrestrained by the details of their formal job description when deciding what action needs to be taken. A worker who exhibits the character of being proactive takes a long-term focus and acts on their own volition to address issues without having to wait until the issues becomes more substantial (Frese and Fay, 2001; Hakanen, Perhoniemi and Toppinen-Tanner, 2008). They consider repeated problems, emerging opportunities and new demands, and then take the initiative to start addressing these issues independently (Crant, 2000; Grant and Ashford, 2008). Persistence, as a core feature of personal initiative, refers to an individual’s ability to sustain effort, and overcome obstacles and setbacks to achieve planned goals. It also incorporates resilience against resistance to proposed changes that result from new initiatives.

Research suggests that the display of these indicia of personal initiative is positively affected, at the individual level, by the worker’s self-efficacy, need for achievement and perceived supervisor support: Self-efficacy because “people need to believe in their own capacity … to act competently in self-starting some changes in working conditions” (Lisbona et al, 2018, p.99); need for achievement because without it the motivation to display such attributes is missing (Frese and Fay, 2001; Warr and Faye, 2001); and perceived supervisor support because it serves as a resource or supportive environment to enable such display. Cultural value seems to also influence whether personal initiative is displayed in the workplace (Frese et al, 1996) in the sense that an individualistic cultural orientation (as opposed to a collectivist orientation) strengthens the effects of self-efficacy and need for achievement. These four constructs, and their effects on personal initiative, are further discussed below alongside our hypotheses for our empirical study.

2.1 Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy describes an individual’s assessment of their ability to perform (Bandura, 2006; Gist and Mitchell, 1992; Judge, Jackson, Shaw, Scott and Rich, 2007). It also reflects the individual’s belief in their skills and capabilities to proactively tackle challenges that go above and beyond the strict boundaries of their job description (Axtell and Parker, 2003). For this reason, people who exhibit self-efficacy are also likely to exhibit higher levels of personal initiative. Simply put, people who think that they can do well on a task are more likely to take on new initiatives and do better than those who think they cannot (Gist and Mitchell, 1992).

Empirical studies from various parts of the (mainly developed Western) world consistently identify a clear link between self-efficacy, personal initiative and performance (Hong et al, 2016; Speier and Frese, 1997; Lisbona et al, 2018) – in that self-efficacy has a positive effect on personal initiative, which in turn, has a positive effect on job performance. None of the studies presented above involve organisations that operated in the Middle East – or in the context of a volatile socio-political landscape. So the applicability of their findings to such an environment, like in Palestine, is interesting to investigate. In line with the results of the abovementioned studies in Western contexts, we hypothesised that within the Palestinian organisations that we sample, there is a positive relationship between an individual’s sense of self-efficacy and their display of personal initiative.

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between self-efficacy and personal initiative

2.2 Need for Achievement

Intrinsic motivation is also a key antecedent to the development of personal initiative (Frese et al, 1996; Frese et al, 1997). The specific aspect of intrinsic motivation that has been found to be positively related to personal initiative is an individual’s need for achievement. Need for achievement is distinguishable from other facets of intrinsic motivation – such as altruism – in that the former is internally driven by a determination to excel, envisioned by higher standards for success and fuelled by persistence (Chiaburu and Carpenter, 2013; McClelland, 1975; Frese et al, 1996; Frese et al, 1997; Frese and Fay, 2001).

Need for achievement prompts an individual to demonstrate personal initiative by internally stimulating the desire to find a better way of performing a task, address an existing issue or achieve a better outcome. An employee who has a higher need for achievement, for example, is more likely to offer problem solving assistance to a colleague without having been asked to do so (Frese and Fay, 2001; Warr and Faye, 2001). They would also be more willing to promote ideas to improve on existing processes and give above and beyond what is required of them in their job description. Given strong empirical support for the link between need for achievement and personal initiative in the West (Frese et al, 1996; Frese et al, 1997), we hypothesised that we would also be able to find a positive relationship between an individual’s need for achievement and their display of personal initiative among employees of our Palestinian sample organisations.

Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between need for achievement and personal initiative

2.3 Perceived Supervisor Support

Another key determinant to the display of personal initiative is the perceived availability of resources. Hakanen et al (2008) finds that resources available to a worker help to reduce the negative effects of job demands and stimulate personal growth. These result in a higher level of job engagement, which in turn encourages the development and display of personal initiative.

The role of a work supervisor is critical in making necessary resources available for an employee to do their job, and develop and display personal initiative. Supervisory support can also be regarded as a resource in its own right. Moreover, supervisory support helps to convey appreciation, employer commitment and a caring attitude – thus adding a human touch to the firm-employee relationship, which an incorporated entity employer by definition cannot offer on its own (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski & Rhoades, 2002; Kottke and Sharafinski, 1988; Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison and Sowa, 1986). This in turn leads to greater motivation and, therefore, the display of personal initiative and improved performance.

Empirical studies in the West have confirmed that employees’ perception of their supervisor’s support and appreciation does indeed have a positive effect on work performance (Eisenberger et al, 2002; Kottke and Sharafinski, 1988). Studies by Frese et al (1996) and Frese et al (1997) show a strong and direct relationship between perceived supervisor support and employee personal initiative. Conversely, they argue, a supervisor who is perceived to be non-supportive can discourage an employee’s display of personal initiative by creating barriers and unproductive procedural rigidities. Against this background, we hypothesised that within the Palestinian organisations in our sample, perceived supervisor support will moderate the relationship between personal initiative and the two aforementioned independent variables, namely: need for achievement and self-efficacy.

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between need for achievement and personal initiative is positively moderated by perceived supervisor support

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between self-efficacy and personal initiative is positively moderated by perceived supervisor support

2.4 Individualistic Cultural Values

Cultural values can also affect the display of personal initiative (Frese et al, 1996), which in turn affect job performance (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). A comparative study on workers from East and West Germany finds a positive relationship between individualistic cultural values (per Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005) and the display of personal initiative; and, conversely, a negative relationship between collectivist cultural values and the display of personal initiative (Frese et al, 1996). The reason seems to be that an individualistic mindset promotes innovative thinking (Taylor and Wilson, 2012), which is strongly conducive to the display of personal initiative (Frese et al, 1996). Collectivist values, on the other hand, place a greater emphasis on group harmony and conformity.

This is not to say that collectivism is necessarily incompatible with the notion of initiative and innovation. Collectivist cultural values may promote the development and display of ‘team’ initiative and collective ‘group’ innovation – but just not ‘personal’ initiative. The development and display of personal initiative are supported by reward systems directed towards personal gain (Eisenberger et al, 2002; Frese et al, 1996; Kottke and Sharafinski, 1988), which are associated with individualistic cultural values. Research suggests that individualism moderates other antecedents of personal initiative, such as need for achievement (Aycan, 2005; Daus, Dasborough, Jordan and Ashkanasy, 2012; Frese et al, 1996). Consequently, we hypothesised that the relationship between need for achievement and self-efficacy, and personal initiative is positively moderated by individualistic cultural values – and the reverse by collectivist cultural values.

Arab cultures have, at the aggregate level, generally been classified as being positioned somewhere around the middle of the continuum between individualism and collectivism (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005; Taylor and Wilson, 2012). Workers in the Arab world see their workplaces through different lenses. Many view their organisations as family units, in a way that is similar to how organisations are viewed in collectivist East Asia. Yet many others see their organisations as avenues through which survival and self-esteem can be attained, reflecting the way workers view their organisations in the individualistic Anglosphere (Abboushi, 1990; Weaver, Gillespie and Al-Jarbawi). In our study, we expected to see that the cultural values and perspective of an individual employee affects the way that need for achievement and self-efficacy translate to personal initiative at work. This expectation forms our last two hypotheses.

Hypothesis 5: The relationship between need for achievement and personal initiative is positively moderated by cultural orientation towards individualism

Hypothesis 6: The relationship between self-efficacy and personal initiative is positively moderated by cultural orientation towards individualism

Figure 1, below, presents our conceptual model.

3. Research Methodology and Samples

Data for this study were generated from a primary survey we conducted on employees of four large organisations in the state of Palestine in May of 2015. These organisations operate in the banking, energy, education and personnel services sector. The sampling process posed a considerable challenge in that there did not exist a list of registered organisations in the country on which random sampling could be based. Consequently, we had to adopt a convenience sampling strategy (Creswell, 2013; Patton, 2002), relying on the first authors’ professional contacts.  This meant reaching out to organisations in the first author’s and those of his contacts’ networks.

We requested managers in participating organisations to distribute invitations to participate in the study to their employees. To ensure individual participants’ confidentiality, however, they were unaware of which employees ultimately partook in the study. Participants were given a two-week window after the invitations were sent out to complete the survey (i.e. between 05 May and 20 May 2015). While we collected some identifying information, this information is only available in an aggregated form in the results.

Out of approximately 3,000 employees reached, we received a total of 215 responses but some of the responses were blank (indicating that the electronic surveys were opened but not filled), incomplete (e.g. only one or two questions were ticked), disengaged (the same answer ticked all the way through) or duplicates. In the end, we were able to collect completed responses from 144 individual participants. Their raw data are stored securely on our institution’s password-protected database and were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics software version 22.

Table 1 below presents the demographic characteristics of our 144 respondents. It is interesting to note the large number of participants with management responsibilities (38%) and the fact that a considerable percentage have post-graduate education (35%). These statistics will be revisited in the findings.

*Top-level managers report directly to their organisations’ governing board or owners.

Table 1: Respondent demographics

3.1 Survey Questionnaire

The survey questionnaire used pre-existing validated measures and scales, following existing literature on personal initiative (Earley, 1993; Frese et al, 1996; Frese et al, 1997; Lynn, 1969; Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988). However, it was necessary for us to convert our questions into Arabic for our participants. To mitigate the risk of mistranslation, we performed a back-translation from Arabic into English and confirmed the accuracy of the Arabic version of the text (Brislin, 2000).

Data reported by individual informants may be subject to a common method bias. Therefore, we performed Herman’s one-factor test, using exploratory factor analysis, on our final sample (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986; see Table 2 below). The exploratory factor analysis also ensures that the measures we use are valid given the study sample group.

+ In the tables, personal initiative is abbreviated ‘PI’, self-efficacy ‘SE’, individualistic cultural persuasion ‘Cultur_indiv’, need for achievement ‘NFA’ and perceived supervisory support ‘PSA’.

Table 2: Results of exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha reliability

Before running the principal component analysis, an examination of the data indicated that not every variable was perfectly normally distributed. However, these deviations were not considered problematic, given that factor analysis is a robust method (Allen and Bennett, 2012; Pallant, 2013; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). The result of our principal component analysis with Promax rotation and Kaiser normalisation suggest that common method variance is not of great concern, and therefore is unlikely to affect the results.

Chronbach’s alpha coefficients of three of the variables (i.e. personal initiative, individualism and perceived supervisor support) exceed the cut off of .70 recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) and Tabachnick and Fidell (2001). Two (i.e. self-efficacy and need for achievement) exceed a lesser threshold of .60, which is still considered reliable by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), and Nunnally, Bernstein and Berge (1967). Accordingly, the reliability of each scale is satisfactory (also see George and Mallery, 2007; Kline, 2013).

4. Result and Discussion

Table 3, below, reports the means, standard deviations and correlations of all variables. As the estimated correlation between variables was well below the recommended upper threshold of 0.7, discriminant validity was established for the study constructs (Pallant, 2013; Allen and Bennett, 2012). The correlation results indicate that our planned moderated hierarchal regression analysis can be performed to test our six research hypotheses.

*p<0.001, **p<0.05

Table 3: Mean, standard deviation and correlations (n=144)

We performed hypothesis testing on our data through a moderated multiple regression analysis (Baron & Kenny, 1986), in that separate independent variables were constructed for our predictors (i.e. NFA, SE), moderators (PSS, Culture_indiv), and the two-way interaction terms (NFA*PSS, SE* PSS, NFA*Culture_indiv, and SE*Culture_indiv). The interaction effects must be significant for them to suggest a moderation effect (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

Before conducting the regression analysis, the predictors and moderators were mean-centred. This was done in order to avoid issues associated with multicollinearity. Our results are shown in Table 4 below.

*p<0.001, **p<0.05, ***p<0.1

Table 4: Results of moderated multi regression models

Model 1 shows the main effect of just one of our predictors (i.e. NFA), which explains approximately 22% of the variance in the dependent variable (F= 40.60, p< 0.001). We introduced the second predictor (i.e. SE) in Model 2, the results of which show that: by controlling for the main effect of NFA, SE has a significant and positive effect on PI, explaining an additional 5.1% of the variance in PI (F= 27.16, p< 0.05). In the next stage of our analysis, we entered our two moderators into the model, namely PSS and Culture_indiv. The results indicate that when controlling for the effects of both independent variables (NFA and SE), these moderators have no significant effect on PI; no additional variance is explained by adding these two variables (change in adjusted R2 = – 0.6%).

In Models 4 and 5, we added the two-way interaction terms to the regression. In Model 4, NFA*PSS, and SE*PSS are entered. We find that neither NFA*PSS nor SE*PSS has a significant effect on PI (change in adjusted R2 = 0.6%). In Model 5, we added the two-way interaction terms of NFA*Culture_indiv and SE*Culture_indiv. The results also show that both interaction terms have no significant effect on PI, and no significant additional variance is explained by adding these two terms to the model (change in adjusted R2 = 0.5%). We summarise the results of our hypothesis testing below:

4.1 Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between self-efficacy and personal initiative

Model 5 in Table 4 shows a significant and positive relationship between NFA and our dependent variable (i.e. PI) (β= .217, t= 2.87, p<.05). Hence, our empirical results support the first hypothesis.

4.2 Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relationship between need for achievement and personal initiative

Our model also shows a significant and positive relationship between SE and our dependent variable (β= .422, t= 5.41, p< .001). Hence, our empirical results support the second hypothesis.

4.3 Hypothesis 3: The relationship between need for achievement and personal initiative is positively moderated by perceived supervisor support

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between self-efficacy and personal initiative is positively moderated by perceived supervisor support

Model 5, however, does not show a significant and positive relationship between the interaction term NFA*PSS and our dependent variable (β= .046, t= .56, p>.05). Neither does it show a significant and positive relationship between the interaction term SE*PSS and our dependent variable (β= -.153, t= -1.96, p=.051). In fact, our results appear to suggest that there is a negative and marginally significant relationship between SE*PSS and PI, indicating that perceived supervisor support may even negatively moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and the display of personal initiative at work. Our empirical results fail to support the third and fourth hypotheses.

4.4 Hypothesis 5: The relationship between need for achievement and personal initiative is positively moderated by cultural orientation towards individualism

Hypothesis 6: The relationship between self-efficacy and personal initiative is positively moderated by cultural orientation towards individualism

Furthermore, the model does not show a significant and positive relationship between our dependent variable and the interaction terms NFA*Culture_indiv (β= -.033, t= -.42, p>.05) and SE*Culture_indiv (β= -.118, t= -1.59, p>.05) respectively. Consequently, our empirical results fail to support the fifth and sixth hypotheses.

In summary, our analysis suggests that contemporary understanding of the relationship between need for achievement and self-efficacy, and personal initiative holds true in the context of the Palestinian workplaces that we sampled. This indicates that management approaches that rely on these relationships are likely to translate well into comparable organisations across the region. For instance, implementing initiatives that improve self-efficacy (e.g. positive reinforcement) to increase personal initiative is likely to have a desired effect. But perceived supervisor support and cultural orientation towards individualism do not have the effect that we expected on the personal initiatives of our Palestinian participants. We discuss these findings under the next heading.

5. Discussion

An explanation for the discrepancy between our actual and expected findings vis-à-vis the effects of individual cultural orientation and perceived supervisor support on personal initiative revolves around the characteristics of our survey participants. A careful perusal of Table 1 on respondent demographics reveals that our respondents cannot be regarded as representatives of the general adult working population. For instance, 86% of our survey participants have graduated from university, 40% of whom have postgraduate qualifications. In contrast, only around 12-13% of Palestinian adults have completed university studies at all (UNDP, 2015; PCBS, 2017). Moreover, 62% of our survey participants have management / supervisory responsibilities, indicating their level of seniority in their organisations.

These observations suggest that, unlike the overwhelming majority of the workforce, our survey participants consist of only its professional and managerial fractions, which are engaged in the formal sector. Consequently, our findings cannot be generalised across the entire labour market covering the area. But this is not to say that our findings are not valuable. NGOs and large foreign and local firms frequently rely on local professional and managerial workforce – and they almost exclusively source their labour supply from the formal labour market on the ground (Budhwar and Mellahi 2007, Mellahi, Demirbag and Riddle 2011). Our findings will prove valuable to these organisations. Furthermore, the relevance of our study will increase as authorities – like the Palestinian government – engage in nation-building efforts.

5.1 Cultural Orientation towards Individualism

The effects of individualist cultural orientation on the relationship between personal initiative and its antecedents are less significant in our study than what we expected. This is because individuals with higher levels of education and intellectual competence, like our survey participants, tend to be less attached to elements of their cultural identities. Consequently, their cultural values are less likely to contribute to their behaviours at work than those of other workers.

For instance, a survey participant may respond negatively to the following questionnaire statements: “to be superior, a person must stand alone” and “only those who depend upon themselves get ahead in life” due to their traditional upbringing. But this may not actually manifest in the form of something concrete in the workplace. Facets of an individuals’ cultural values and traditional upbringing, like religion, tend to diminish in their importance to an individual’s behaviour the more educated and intellectually competent that individual is (Eurobarometer, 2005; Gallup, 2015; Zuckerman, Silberman and Hall, 2013; Sacredote and Glaeser, 2001). Furthermore, they are more able to separate personal values and professional behaviours. This may explain why our participants’ cultural orientations do not have such a strong impact on the interactions between their personal initiative, self-efficacy and need for achievement.

5.2 Perceived Supervisor Support

The effects of perceived supervisor support and the relationship between personal initiative and its antecedents in our study are surprising. Our findings fail to support the notion that perceived supervisor engagement is a positive moderator between personal initiative and need for achievement. This is perhaps because, for senior and highly skilled professionals, the guidance of top-level managers is not as crucial to translating personal motivation into tangible initiative as it is for, say, an entry-level staff whose day-to-day activities are closely monitored by their supervisors.

Unexpectedly, our analysis also shows a marginally significant (0.1>p>0.05) but negative relationship between the interaction terms SE*PSS and PI, indicating that perceived supervisor support may even negatively moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and the display of personal initiative at work. This is surprising given our framing of supervisor support as a resource. But this is not always how supervisor engagement is perceived by staff, especially highly skilled professionals. Personal initiative, after all, “implies a certain rebellious element toward the supervisor” (Fay and Fresse, 2001, p.98). Consequently, we conclude that, for highly skilled professionals, supervisor involvement has the potential to be perceived (and felt) as much as a nuisance as it is a resource that supports the display of personal initiative (also see Austin and Larkey, 1992; Chambers, 2004; Wright, 1999). This provides a plausible explanation for our negative and marginally significant finding concerning this variable.

5.3 Self-efficacy and Need for Achievement

Given the limitations of this research, we are ultimately unable to claim that our current understanding regarding the impacts of self-efficacy and need for achievement on personal initiative is broadly transferrable to Palestinian (and indeed, Middle Eastern) workplaces. But we can make this claim in the narrower context of the highly educated, Palestinian and Middle Eastern professional workforce. While most workers in the region still operate in the informal sector, increases in government investment nation-building in the aftermath of years of violent conflicts are likely to contribute towards an increase in the percentage of formal sector workers relative to their informal sector counterparts.

As this happens, ideas and management approaches from the developed world – including those that rely on positive correlations between self-efficacy and need for achievement, and personal initiative – will become more relevant and gain greater traction. This is consistent with the convergence hypothesis we outlined earlier in the literature review section of this paper.

6. Conclusion

The aim of this study is to better understand the applicability of contemporary HRM practices, which are based on our knowledge about the relationship between personal initiative and its key antecedents in the context of a developing Middle Eastern country that has just emerged from a destabilising conflict. Specifically, we sought to understand whether or not the relationships between self-efficacy, need for achievement and perceived supervisor support, and personal initiative – among Middle Eastern professionals – reflect those of their Western counterparts who live in a remarkably different environment. We were also curious about the roles of cultural orientation towards individualism on these relationships.

We collected survey data from employees of large organisations operating in Palestinian territories, and then performed correlation and regression analyses to examine relationships between the said variables. Our findings support the conclusions of contemporary research about the positive effects of self-efficacy and need for achievement on personal initiative (Hong et al, 2016; Speier and Frese, 1997; Lisbona et al, 2018, Frese et al, 1996; Frese et al, 1997).

But our expectations regarding the link between perceived supervisor support, the cultural value of individualism and personal initiative are not supported by our findings. The reason appears to be that our initial assumptions are based on studies done on the general workforce (Frese et al, 1996; Frese et al, 1997), whereas our survey participants occupy the top echelons of their society in terms of educational attainment and socio-economic status. We suspect that cultural values tend to have less of an impact on well-educated, senior professionals, who are also less dependent on the attention and support of their supervisors. This is because education and income are found to be negatively related to key aspects of cultural identity like religious belief (Sacredote and Glaeser, 2001), and the scope of highly skilled professionals’ work benefit from independence more so than close supervision. In fact, too much supervisor involvement may even distract their ability to turn self-efficacy into tangible demonstrations of personal initiative (as highlighted by Austin & Larkey, 1992; Chambers, 2004; Wright, 1999).

Our findings suggest that organisations that operate in a similar environment as our study participants should be cautious about attributing the effects of cultural values on qualities like personal initiative in their professional workforce. Moreover, they should consider how the impacts of supervisory engagement may vary between employees at different levels of seniority and educational attainments. The good news is that initiatives aimed at improving self-efficacy and motivation among staff, for the purpose of developing personal initiative (the value of which is increasing in a changing commercial landscape), are likely to achieve the desired outcome among workers across the board irrespective of workplace context. Consequently, we suggest that maximising self-efficacy and motivation (a.k.a. need for achievement) – say, by way of positive reinforcement or offering attractive incentives to perform – are effective ways to improve personal initiative.

We believe that future research in the broader context of the Middle East and North Africa, encompassing multiple national jurisdictions, would prove worthwhile – as would an investigation into employees in small firms as well as the informal economy.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Prof Kate Hutchings and Dr Waye O’Donohue for their invaluable assistance in this study.

References

  • Abboushi, S. (1990). Impact of individual variables on the work values of Palestinian Arabs. International Studies of Management and Organization, 20(3), 53-68. Crossref
  • Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G., and Chan, S. (2001, May). HRM of foreign firms in China: The challenge of managing host country personnel. Business Horizons, pp. 59-68. Crossref
  • Al-Husan, F., Brennan, R., and James, P. (2009). Transferring Western HRM practices to developing countries: The case of a privatized utility in Jordan. Personnel Review, 38(2), 104-123. Crossref
  • Allen, P., and Bennett, K. (2012). SPSS Statistics: A Practical Guide Version 20. South Melbourne: Cengage.
  • Austin, R., and Larkey, P. (1992). The Unintended Consequences of Micromanagement: The Case of Procuring Mission Critical Computer Resources. Policy Sciences, 25(1), 3-28. Crossref
  • Axtell, C., and Parker, S. (2003). Promoting Role Breadth Self-Efficacy Through Involvement, Work Redesign and Training. Human Relations, 56(1), 113-131. Crossref
  • Aycan, Z. (2005). The interplay between cultural and institutional/structural contingencies in human resource management practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(7), 1083-1119. Crossref
  • Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares, and T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Charlotte: Information Age.
  • Baron, R., and Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. Crossref
  • Beddoes, Z. (2016). Planet Trump. The Economist: The World in 2017, pp. 13-14.
  • Bledow, R., and Frese, M. (2009). A situational judgment test of personal initiative and its relationship to performance. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 229-258. Crossref
  • Blumberg, M., and Pringle, C. (1982). The missing opportunity in organizational research: Some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review, 7(4), 560-569. Crossref
  • Brislin, R. (2000). Back-translation. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Crossref
  • Budhwar, P., and Mellahi, K. (2007). Introduction: human resource management in the Middle East. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(1), 2-10. Crossref
  • Burn, G. (2001). A personal initiative to improve palliative care in India: 10 years on. Palliative Medicine, 15, 159-162. Crossref
  • Chambers, H. (2004). My Way or the Highway: The Micromanagement Survival Guide. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.
  • Chiaburu, D., and Carpenter, N. (2013). Employees’ motivation for personal initiative: The joint influence of status and communion striving. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12(2), 97-103. Crossref
  • Child, J. (2000). Theorizing about organization cross-nationally. Advances in International Comparative Management, 13, 27-75.
  • Clark, B., Abela, A.,and Ambler, T. (2005). Organizational motivation, opportunity and ability to measure marketing performance. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 13(4), 241-259. Crossref
  • Cooke, F. (2004). Foreign firms in China: modelling HRM in a toy manufacturing corporation. Human Resource Management Journal, 14(3), 31-52. Crossref
  • Crant, J. (2000). Proactive Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462. Crossref
  • Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Cukier, K. (2014). The World in Transition. The Economist: The World in 2015, pp. 92-93.
  • Dalton, K., and Druker, J. (2012). Transferring HR concepts and practices within multi-national corporations in Romania: The management experience. European Management Journal, 30, 588-602. Crossref
  • Daus, C., Dasborough, M., Jordan, P., and Ashkanasy, N. (2012). We are all mad in wonderland: An organizational culture framework for emotions and emotional intelligence research. In N. Ashkanasy, C. Härtel, and W. Zerbe (Eds.), Research on Emotion in Organizations (pp. 375-399). Bingley: Emerald. Crossref
  • Dibben, P., & Williams, C. (2012). Varieties of Capitalism and Employment Relations: Informally Dominated Market Economies. Industrial Relations, 51(S1), 563-582. Crossref
  • Ding, D., Goodall, K., and Warner, M. (2000). The end of the “iron rice bowl”: Whither Chinese human resource management? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(2), 217-236. Crossref
  • Dış Ekonomik İlişkiler Kurulu (DEIK). (2016). Invest in Palestine: A Manual Regarding PIPA Incentives. Istanbul: Turkey-Palestine Business Council.
  • Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., and Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507. Crossref
  • Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I., and Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36(2), 565-573. Crossref
  • Eurobarometer. (2005). Social values, Science and Technology. Brussels: European Commission.
  • Evans, P., Pucik, V., and Barsoux, J. (2002). The Global Challenge: Frameworks for International Human Resource Management. London: McGraw-Hill.
  • Fay, D., and Frese, M. (2001). The Concept of Personal Initiative: An Overview of Validity Studies. Human Performance, 14(1), 97-124. Crossref
  • Frese, M., and Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. In B. Staw, and R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 133-187). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Crossref
  • Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., and Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139-161. Crossref
  • Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., and Zempel, J. (1996). Personal Initiative at Work: Differences between East and West Germany. The Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 37-63. Crossref
  • Friedman, T. (1999). The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  • Gallup. (2015). Losing our religion? Two thirds of people still claim to be religious. London: WIN Gallup International.
  • Gamble, J. (2006). Introducing Western-style HRM practices to China: Shopfloor perceptions in a British multinational. Journal of World Business, 41, 328-343. Crossref
  • Gamboa, J., Gracia, F., Ripoll, P., and Peiró, J. (2009). Employability and personal initiative as antecedents of job satisfaction. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 632-640. Crossref
  • George, D., and Mallery, P. (2007). SPSS for windows step by step: a simple guide and reference. Boston: Pearson.
  • Gist, M., and Mitchell, T. (1992). Self-efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183-211. Crossref
  • Grant, A., and Ashford, S. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34. Crossref
  • Grant, A., Nurmohamed, S., Ashford, S., and Dekas, K. (2011). The performance implications of ambivalent initiative: the interplay of autonomous and controlled motivations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 241-251. Crossref
  • Gray, A. (2017, June 9). These are the world’s fastest-growing economies in 2017. Retrieved from World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/06/these-are-the-world-s-fastest-growing-economies-in-2017-2/
  • Gruen, T., Osmonbekov, T., and Czaplewski, A. (2005). How e-communities extend the concept of exchange in marketing: An application of the motivation, opportunity, ability (MOA) theory. Marketing Theory, 5(1), 33-49. Crossref
  • Harris, H., Brewster, C., and Sparrow, P. (2003). International Human Resource Management. London: CIPD.
  • Herrmann, D., and Felfe, J. (2014). Effects of leadership style, creativity technique and personal initiative on employee creativity. British Journal of Management, 25(2), 209-227. Crossref
  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences. London: Sage.
  • Hofstede, G., and Hofstede, G. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Hong, Y., Liao, H., Raub, S., and Han, J. (2016). What It Takes to Get Proactive: An Integrative Multi-level Model of the Antecedents of Persnal Initiative. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(5), 687-701. Crossref
  • Jackson, T. (2004). HRM in developing countries. In A. Harzing, and J. Ruysseveldt (Eds.), Internatoinal Human Resource Management (pp. 221-248). London: Sage.
  • Jacob, G., Frese, M., Krauss, S., and Friedrich, C. (2019). On the Importance of a Motivational Agency Variable: Being a Formal Business in Developing Countries Is Only Helpful for Growth if Business Owners Show a High Degree of Personal Initiative. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(9), 1181-1194. Crossref
  • Jin, J., Chen, C., Fosh, P., and Chen, Y. (2014). Understanding Chinese non-managerial employees’ responses to western HRM: changes in turnover intention. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 52, 316-332. Crossref
  • Judge, T., Jackson, C., Shaw, J., Scott, B., and Rich, B. (2007). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: the integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 107-127. Crossref
  • Kline, P. (2013). Handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge. Crossref
  • Kottke, J., and Sharafinski, C. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(4), 1075-1079. Crossref
  • Lisbona, A., Palaci, F., Salanova, M., and Frese, M. (2018). The effects of work engagement and self-effi cacy on personal initiative and performance. Psicothema, 30(1), 89-96.
  • Lynn, R. (1969). An achievement motivation questionnaire. British Journal of Psychology, 60(4), 529-534. Crossref
  • Mayrhofer, W., Brewster, M., Morley, M., and Ledolter, J. (2011). Hearing a different drummer? Convergence of Human Resource Management in Europe – a longitudinal analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 21(1), 50-67. Crossref
  • Mellahi, K., Demirbag, M., and Riddle, L. (2011). Multinationals in the Middle East: Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of World Business, 46(4), 406-410. Crossref
  • Nsereko, I., Balunywa, W., Munene, J., Orobia, L., and Muhammed, N. (2018). Personal initiative: Its power in social entrepreneurial creation. Cogent Business and Management, 5(1). doi:10.1080/23311975.2018.1443686 Crossref
  • Nunnally, J., and Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychological theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Nunnally, J., Bernstein, I., and Berge, J. (1967). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Palestine Economic Policy Research Institute (PEPRI). (2010). Palestine Investment Guide. Ramallah: Palestinian Investment Promotion Agency.
  • Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Evoluation and Research Methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
  • PCBS. (2017). Palestine in Figures: 2016. Ramallah: Palestinian Centre Bureau of Statistics.
  • Podsakoff, P., and Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544. Crossref
  • Polaski, S. (2016). The Future of Work in India and Beyond. Indian Journal of Human Development, 10(1), 1-9. Crossref
  • Rachman, G. (2014, November). The Economist: Nationalism is back. The World in 2015, p. 89.
  • Ralston, D. (2008). The crossvergence perspective: reflections and projections. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1), 27-40. Crossref
  • Rodenbeck, M. (2016). Strength in Numbers. The Economist: The World in 2017, p. 40.
  • Rooks, G., Sserwanga, A., and Frese, M. (2014). Unpacking the Personal Initiative–Performance Relationship: A Multi‐Group Analysis of Innovation by Ugandan Rural and Urban Entrepreneurs. Applied Psychology, 65(1), 99-131. Crossref
  • Rosenzweig, P., and Nohria, N. (1994). Influences on human resource management practices in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(2), 229-251. Crossref
  • Sacredote, B., and Glaeser, E. (2001, January). Education and Religion. NBER Working Paper Series. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
  • Salk, J. (1997). Partners and Other Strangers. International Studies of Management and Organisations, 26(4), 48-72. Crossref
  • Solesvik, M. (2017). A Cross-National Study of Personal Initiative as a Mediator between Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of East-West Business, 23(3), 215-237. Crossref
  • Steinglass, M. (2016). Blond bombast: Europe’s centrists will prove powerless aganst populism. The Economist: The World in 2017, p. 22. Crossref
  • Suarta, I., Suwintana, I., Sudhana, I., and Hariyanti, N. (2017). Employability Skills Required by the 21st Century Workplace: A Literature Review of Labour Market Demand. International Conference on Technology and Vocational Teachers. Yogyakarta: Atlantis Press. Crossref
  • Tabachnick, B., and Fidell, L. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. Harlow: Pearson.
  • Taylor, M., and Wilson, S. (2012). Does culture still matter? The Effects of Individualism on National Innovation Rates. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(2), 234-247. Crossref
  • The World Bank. (2019, October 9). Palestine’s Economic Update – October 2019. Where We Work. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/westbankandgaza/publication/economic-update-october-2019#:~:text=The%20most%20recent%20national%20accounts,of%202018%20was%20especially%20weak.
  • Tien, H., and Wang, Y. (2017). Career Adaptability, Employability, and Career Resilience of Asian People. In K. Maree (Ed.), Psychology of Career Adaptability, Employability and Resilience (pp. 299-314). Cham: Springer. Crossref
  • UNDP. (2015). The 2014 Palestine Human Development Report. New York: United Nations Development Programme.
  • Warr, P., and Faye, D. (2001). Age and personal initiative at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 343-353. Crossref
  • Weaver, T., Gillespie, J., and Al-Jarbawi, A. (1985). What Palestinians Believe: A Systematic Analysis of Belief Systems in the West bank and Gaza. Journal of Palestine Studies, 14(3), 110-126. Crossref
  • Wong, C., and Law, K. (1999). Managing localization of human resources in the PRC. Journal of World Business, 34(1), 26-40. Crossref
  • Wright, R. (1999). Effect of Micro Management on Job Satisfaction & Productivity: A Case Study. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 3(1), 51-61. Crossref
  • Zuckerman, M., Silberman, J., and Hall, J. (2013). The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(4), 325-354. Crossref
Share.

Comments are closed.

DO YOU WANT TO CONDUCT MORE IMPACTFUL RESEARCH?
Subscribe To High-quality Research and Scientific Content
Get the latest research results, academic writing tips, and access research opportunities.
Stay Updated