« Am I doing well? » is a natural question one can ask to reassure himself/herself regarding his/her actions (Anseel et al., Reference Anseel, Beatty, Shen, Lievens and Sackett2015). Thus, workers seek feedback to answer this common question in their daily routine. Feedback-seeking behavior (FSB) refers to “the conscious devotion of effort toward determining the correctness and adequacy of behavior for attaining valued end states” (Ashford Reference Ashford1986, p. 466). Feedback is pertinent information that provides cues to improve (Ashford et al., Reference Ashford, De Stobbeleir and Nujella2016). Employees who actively seek feedback about their everyday activities tend to perform better (Gong et al., Reference Gong, Wang, Huang and Cheung2017) and adapt to their work environment (Ashford et al., Reference Ashford, De Stobbeleir and Nujella2016).
According to the organizational socialization (Morrison, Reference Morrison1993) and proactivity literature (Grant & Ashford, Reference Grant and Ashford2008), individuals seek feedback because it constitutes a means to obtain accurate information and helps them to survive and prosper in the organization (Ashford & Cummings, Reference Ashford and Cummings1983). FSB is a proactive behavior (e.g., Ashford & Cummings, Reference Ashford and Cummings1983; Ashford et al., Reference Ashford, Blatt and VandeWalle2003; Crant, Reference Crant2000) that helps workers to fit organizational norms and demands (e.g., Ashford, Reference Ashford1986; Morrison, Reference Morrison1993). Moreover, FSB has shown its importance to develop performance at work because it helps to clarify one’s role (Whitaker et al., Reference Whitaker, Dahling and Levy2007) and to adjust one’s behavior (Tsui et al., Reference Tsui, Ashford, Clair and Xin1995).
As a result, FSB’s proactive nature is particularly relevant for organizations because it can support employees’ continuous adaptation, learning and performance throughout their career (Crant, Reference Crant2000; Crommelinck & Anseel, Reference Crommelinck and Anseel2013). FSB should thus allow individuals to adapt to ambiguous, changing and/or uncertain organizational contexts. The view that employees proactively seek feedback to better adapt to their environment is consistent with self-regulation theories (Bandura, Reference Bandura2001; Locke & Latham, Reference Locke and Latham2006) that emphasize the capacity of individuals to direct their own actions and performance towards their goals by setting their own expectations and by monitoring their progress towards those expectations (Vohs & Baumeister, Reference Vohs, Baumeister, Baumeister and Vohs2004).
However, no consensus exists in the literature about the relationship between adaptability and proactivity (Ellis et al., Reference Ellis, Bauer, Mansfield, Erdogan, Truxillo and Simon2015; Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Frese, Li and Chan2014). Adaptability and proactivity are essential to organizational performance, but they are conceptualized as opposite (Frese & Fay, Reference Frese and Fay2001), independent (Griffin et al., Reference Griffin, Neal and Parker2007), or interrelated constructs (Berg et al., Reference Berg, Wrzesniewski and Dutton2010). It is still difficult to determine how these constructs are connected and how they influence each other. Unfortunately, few studies have addressed this issue (Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Frese, Li and Chan2014) and fewer investigated the empirical relationship between FSB and individual adaptivity. Our research follows the perspective raised by Berg et al. (Reference Berg, Wrzesniewski and Dutton2010) by proposing that proactivity (i.e., FSB) could foster adaptivity (i.e., individual adaptive performance), stating that in order to meet their own work expectations, employees must seek to adapt to their environment by using self-regulatory tactics such as feedback (Ashford & Tsui, Reference Ashford and Tsui1991).
Succeeding to be in line with the team or organizational standard through a self-regulated approach should in the long run allow individuals to be more involved in their organization (Park & Park, Reference Park and Park2019). However, there have been few attempts to examine the relationship between feedback and psychological attachment. Vandenberghe et al. (Reference Vandenberghe, Landry, Bentein, Anseel, Mignonac and Roussel2019) have shown that lower levels of FSB can lead to a decrease in organizational commitment over time and then a greater turnover likelihood. These results would be linked to employees’ failure to commit and adapt to the environment. Adaptive performance would thus play a key role in the psychological attachment (Gruman & Saks, Reference Gruman, Saks and Bakker2013) and well-being processes (Cooper-Thomas et al., Reference Cooper-Thomas, Paterson, Stadler and Saks2014). Furthermore, it has been found that contextual variables can limit or enhance the effect of individuals performance (e.g., Griffin et al., Reference Griffin, Parker and Mason2010). Employees who lack the capacity to self-regulate in obstructing and unpredictable environments would be less involved in their work and less likely to adapt to unexpected events (Pulakos et al., Reference Pulakos, Arad, Donovan and Plamondon2000). Notwithstanding that, Jundt et al., (Reference Jundt, Shoss and Huang2015) highlighted that there has been a limited amount of contextual research in the adaptive performance literature and called for more studies examining its relevance. Adaptive performance generated by self-regulated tactics (e.g., feedback seeking) is likely to be useful in situations where one perceives the organization as a source of obstruction. Indeed, this kind of workplace requires high adjustment capacity because it may hinder one’s well-being (Gibney et al., Reference Gibney, Zagenczyk and Masters2009) and enhance withdrawal (Walsh et al., Reference Walsh, Ashford and Hill1985). Pulakos et al. (Reference Pulakos, Arad, Donovan and Plamondon2000) support this premise because well-adapted employees can find new resources beyond the formal solutions, solve problems creatively and then more commit to organizations.
Based on self-regulation theories, the contribution of our study is threefold. First, it investigates the positive relationship between proactivity and adaptivity beyond the organizational socialization context (Chan & Schmitt, Reference Chan and Schmitt2000). Because the adaptation process is not limited to the organizational entry, it is worthwhile to extend this research to other periods in the organizational course. In doing so, we contribute to Zhu et al. (Reference Zhu, Frese, Li and Chan2014) appeal for more empirical evidence to assess the validity of each view of the relationship between proactivity and adaptability. Secondly, our research examines the extent that adaptive performance helps to develop well-being at work and reduces withdrawal (Jundt et al., Reference Jundt, Shoss and Huang2015). Our study thus provides clues on the benefits of implementing an adaptive approach following proactive action. Thirdly, our study explores the effect of perceived organizational obstruction (POO) on the individual adaptive process. We made the case that POO had a direct negative impact on psychological attachment variables. However, its effects were reversed when individuals used FSB to better adapt to a context of perceived obstruction. In sum, we extend the literature of FSB (Ashford et al., Reference Ashford, De Stobbeleir and Nujella2016) by exploring its role in shaping adaptive performance (Park & Park, Reference Park and Park2019) and by investigating the role of adaptive performance between FSB and adaptive process outcomes (i.e., well-being, withdrawal) in POO context.
Theoretical Background and Hypothesis
Impact of the Feedback Seeking on Individual Adaptivity
FSB refers to individuals actively monitoring and seeking information for organizationally determined and individually held goals (Ashford & Cummings, Reference Ashford and Cummings1983). The FSB literature has flourished with the organizational socialization literature, as the period of entry in an organization is very important to adjust to the organizational requirements and to become a competent employee (Bauer et al., Reference Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo and Tucker2007). Indeed, joining a new organization is a period of trouble, uncertainty, and doubt (Griffeth et al., Reference Griffeth, Gaertner and Sager1999). Considering the above, developing knowledge, rules and skills is an effective way to adjust to the workplace (Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, Reference Kammeyer-Mueller and Wanberg2003). This can be achieved either with organizational or socialization tactics initiated by proactive worker, particularly by using FSB (Chan & Schmitt, Reference Chan and Schmitt2000). However, FSB are tactics deploy by workers to learn and to develop competencies not only during the socialization phase but also during their whole career (Ashford et al., Reference Ashford, Blatt and VandeWalle2003).
Since the first conceptualization of FSB (Ashford & Cummings, Reference Ashford and Cummings1983), two dimensions have been identified, inquiry and monitoring. Inquiry happens when directly asking others, whereas monitoring describes an indirect strategy to attain feedback (Ashford et al., Reference Ashford, Blatt and VandeWalle2003). Monitoring consists of observing the environment and others to find meaningful cues, which can provide information. From a conceptual point of view, literature has considered FSB as a single general concept (Morrison, Reference Morrison2002). However, several studies challenged this perspective underlining that inquiry and monitoring are different dimensions (Anseel et al., Reference Anseel, Beatty, Shen, Lievens and Sackett2015; Ashford, Reference Ashford1986). Anseel et al. (Reference Anseel, Beatty, Shen, Lievens and Sackett2015) found that these two constructs were related but distinguishable from each other, accordingly they argued that FSB would be a multidimensional construct (Ashford & Cummings, Reference Ashford and Cummings1983). Moreover, there is consensus on the proactive nature of the FSB in the workplace (Grant & Ashford, Reference Grant and Ashford2008; Parker & Collins, Reference Parker and Collins2010). This assumption postulates that employees do not wait to receive information from others but rather proactively seek information or evaluations about their work, performance or duties (Ashford & Cummings, Reference Ashford and Cummings1983). The latter implies that FSB, as other proactive constructs, is self-starting, change- and future-oriented (Crant, Reference Crant2000; Tornau & Frese, Reference Tornau and Frese2013). Furthermore, proactivity is also associated with taking risk which can damage the image of the worker (Ashford & Cummings, Reference Ashford and Cummings1983). For instance, inquiry is an acknowledging act of one’s ignorance which can be interpreted as a sign of incompetence (Ashford et al., Reference Ashford, Blatt and VandeWalle2003). Thus, FSB is a costly behavior and is often used sparingly.
The literature of FSB strove to determine its nature and when and why workers used it (Ashford et al., Reference Ashford, De Stobbeleir and Nujella2016; De Stobbeleir et al., Reference De Stobbeleir, Ashford and Zhang2020) by reviewing individual antecedents (e.g., cognitive style, demographic variables), relational antecedents (e.g., quality of the leader-subordinate relationship) and organizational antecedents (e.g., organizational structure). Beyond the literature of organizational socialization, research on FSB had studied particularly the relation with one outcome: The job performance. The relationship between FSB and performance was never direct. It was mediated by several variables like personality traits (VandeWalle & Cummings, Reference VandeWalle and Cummings1997), contextual factors (Krasman, Reference Krasman2011) and the quality of the feedback (Lam et al., Reference Lam, Peng, Wong and Lau2017). The association could also depend on moderators like the type of FSB (i.e., negative vs. positive) or goal orientation (Gong et al., Reference Gong, Wang, Huang and Cheung2017).
Ashford et al., (Reference Ashford, De Stobbeleir and Nujella2016) emphasized that the FSB behavior was like a valuable resource or strategy which brings to the attention of the employee areas of improvement and leads to an increase of performance (Ashford, Reference Ashford1986). Thus, FSB is a self-regulatory behavior by which one acquires accurate information about his/her actions and offers guidance to know how to adjust one’s actions (Ashford et al., Reference Ashford, Blatt and VandeWalle2003). In this study, we focused on FSB as a behavioral strategy to develop employee adaptivity. The employees would seek feedback to cope with changes at work (Cangialosi et al., Reference Cangialosi, Odoardi and Battistelli2020; Pulakos et al., Reference Pulakos, Arad, Donovan and Plamondon2000) and to protect their image and ego from negative feedback that their colleagues or supervisor might give (Moss et al., Reference Moss, Valenzi and Taggart2003). Between the two dimensions of FSB, only the inquiry has been shown to be related to job performance (Anseel et al., Reference Anseel, Beatty, Shen, Lievens and Sackett2015). Accordingly, in this study we focused on the inquiry strategy.
Importance of Individual Adaptivity
Literature highlighted the importance of adaptation to cope with the changes in the work environment (Baard et al., Reference Baard, Rench and Kozlowski2014; Griffin et al., Reference Griffin, Neal and Parker2007; Pulakos et al., Reference Pulakos, Arad, Donovan and Plamondon2000). Baard et al. (Reference Baard, Rench and Kozlowski2014) propose a multi-level conceptual architecture that allows to "situate theoretical and research treatments of adaptation across the organizational space" (p. 89). Indeed, adaptation is a broad, multi-dimensional concept that can be applied at all organizational levels. Adaptation is composed of four different approaches (performance construction, individual difference, performance change, and process) that bring together different conceptualizations. For example, adaptability is generally conceptualized as a meta-competence or a set of traits, skills or knowledge that provide one with the key to effectiveness in changing work conditions (Chan & Schmitt, Reference Chan and Schmitt2000), while adaptivity can represent behaviors that focus on how one copes with, responds to, and supports change (Griffin et al., Reference Griffin, Neal and Parker2007). In this paper, the focus is on adaptivity perspective.
Adaptivity is useful for dealing with uncertainty and showing autonomy at work (Bindl & Parker, Reference Bindl, Parker and Albrecht2010). In an ever-changing environment, it is valuable to identify behaviors that allow employees to fulfill their tasks and contribute to the effectiveness of the group and the organization (Griffin et al., Reference Griffin, Parker and Mason2010). It is even more valuable to know the behaviors that sustain employee performance. To this end, measures of adaptive performance have been developed to respond to these demands of work context (Pulakos et al., Reference Pulakos, Arad, Donovan and Plamondon2000). Scholars have generally considered adaptive performance as a facet of the overall performance which is distinct from task and contextual performance (Han & Williams, Reference Han and Williams2008; Pulakos et al., Reference Pulakos, Arad, Donovan and Plamondon2000). In this framework, certain forms of work performance are more beneficial than others particularly when the workplace demands to learn new ways to perform tasks (Pulakos et al., Reference Pulakos, Arad, Donovan and Plamondon2000). Based on work performance theories, Griffin et al. (Reference Griffin, Neal and Parker2007) described three different forms (i.e. adaptive, proficiency, proactive). While proficiency represents task performance, change behaviors, which include adaptivity and proactivity, describe behaviors when the work requirements cannot be clearly anticipated (Grant & Ashford, Reference Grant and Ashford2008; Griffin et al., Reference Griffin, Parker and Mason2010). Proactivity defines self-initiated change behaviors to actively change the self, the workplace or the environment, whereas adaptivity refers to successfully accommodating the uncertainties of externally initiated changes (Griffin et al., Reference Griffin, Neal and Parker2007).
To evaluate adaptivity, in this study, we focus on adaptive behaviors which Griffin et al. (Reference Griffin, Neal and Parker2007) defined as adaptive performance, as the degree to which individuals cope with, respond to, and/or support changes resulting in more effective contribution in their role as individuals, team members, or as members of the organization. Previous scholars have mainly focused on the dispositional factors which enhance adaptive performance. For instance, general and specific cognitive abilities have been reported to have a positive influence on adaptability (Kozlowski et al., Reference Kozlowski, Gully, Brown, Salas, Smith and Nason2001). Particularly, traits of the big five such as openness to experience, emotional stability, conscientiousness but also self-efficacy, coping style and goal orientation display a positive link with adaptability (Kozlowski et al., Reference Kozlowski, Gully, Brown, Salas, Smith and Nason2001). However, some studies attempted to understand how to enhance adaptive actions outside the scope of the study of dispositional factors (Jundt et al., Reference Jundt, Shoss and Huang2015). Research showed that stakeholders demonstrate adaptive behaviors when they were able to master their environment (Chan & Schmitt, Reference Chan and Schmitt2000; Park & Park, Reference Park and Park2019). Therefore, the use of environmental resources allows employees to respond to new work demands (Ghitulescu, Reference Ghitulescu2013). FSB capture particular proactive behaviors that occur in a limited domain and that are conceptualized as active behaviors (Crant, Reference Crant2000), whereas adaptivity supposes a passive perspective (Griffin et al., Reference Griffin, Neal and Parker2007) that allow people to adapt or cope with the uncertain environment (Pulakos et al., Reference Pulakos, Arad, Donovan and Plamondon2000). The active use of proactivity via FSB, initially, should then allow the individual to develop over the long term automation of passive responses adapted to his environment, thus allowing him to develop a feeling of personal control (Ashford & Black, Reference Ashford and Black1996; Crant, Reference Crant2000) and to reduces the psychological cost related to proactivity (Ashford & Cummings, Reference Ashford and Cummings1983). Although adaptivity can be conceptualized as opposed to proactivity, they would no longer be opposed but complementary over time (Berg et al., Reference Berg, Wrzesniewski and Dutton2010). Then, employees can be reassured about what they are doing or can gain indications to adjust their behavior in a more effective way (Griffin et al., Reference Griffin, Parker and Mason2010). Thus, FSB may help employees to recognize which goals are valued and rewarded by their organization (Ashford et al., Reference Ashford, Blatt and VandeWalle2003). Furthermore, Tsui et al. (Reference Tsui, Ashford, Clair and Xin1995) have highlighted that FSB fostered the adaptation. These propositions are congruent with some literatures studying the relationship between proactivity and adaptivity (e.g., Gong et al., Reference Gong, Wang, Huang and Cheung2017; Griffin et al., Reference Griffin, Parker and Mason2010). Thus, FSB should help one to adjust his/her behavior to managerial demands and then to adapt to the organizational environment. The above reasoning suggests the following hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: FSB will be positively related to individual adaptivity.
Adaptivity as a Way to Promote Well-being at Work
Adaptive performance in the workplace is beneficial for both the employee and the organization (Cullen et al., Reference Cullen, Edwards, Casper and Gue2014). An adaptive workforce can contribute to organizational success by the rise of many worthy behaviors at work (Ghitulescu, Reference Ghitulescu2013). Carpini et al. (Reference Carpini, Parker and Griffin2017) underlined that the study of outcomes of adaptive performance is lacking. Adjustment has been mainly seen as information acquisition and uncertainty reducing, however, moving beyond these perspectives little is known of its role on well-being (e.g., Ellis et al., Reference Ellis, Bauer, Mansfield, Erdogan, Truxillo and Simon2015; Gruman & Sacks, Reference Gruman, Saks and Bakker2013; Cooper-Thomas et al., Reference Cooper-Thomas, Paterson, Stadler and Saks2014). Nevertheless, adaptative performance is likely to raise employee well-being by the process that job stakeholders master more their environment and feel less uncertainty (Chan & Schmitt, Reference Chan and Schmitt2000; Cullen et al., Reference Cullen, Edwards, Casper and Gue2014).
Well-being is still suffering from a lack of theorizing (Dagenais-Desmarais & Savoie, Reference Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie2012) but has been conceptualized as both hedonic and eudaimonic (Ryan & Deci, Reference Ryan and Deci2001). In this paper we focus on the eudaimonic approach that present well-being at work as optimal functioning, meaning and self-actualization (Ryan & Deci, Reference Ryan and Deci2001). Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie (Reference Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie2012) argue that well-being at work represents all aspects of work life. They propose a framework which encompasses and clarifies the notion of well-being at work using five components: Interpersonal fit, thriving, feeling of competence, perceived recognition and desire for involvement. In this study, we focus on the desire for involvement, which by its nature linked to the engagement process is the only dimension of well-being that can be integrated into organizational psychological attachment theories (Dagenais-Desmarais, & Savoie, Reference Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie2012). It refers to the willingness to be involved in the organization, which is to contribute to the smooth running of the company but also to personal success (Gilbert et al., Reference Gilbert, Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie2011). Like desire for involvement encompasses the joint effect of individual and organizational level, it is more likely to be an adaptive indicator at the workplace.
Proactive behaviors like FSB enhance employees’ personal (e.g., self-efficacy), relational (e.g., social acceptance) and structural (e.g., perceived fit) resources. These resources in turn influence their appraisal process so that they approach work demands as challenges stressors rather than hindrance stressors. A well-adapted employee perceives more challenge stressors because he or she is more confident in meeting effectively work demands (Edwards, Reference Edwards2008). Thus, FSB enables the employee belief to achieve success and to overcome stressors (Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, Reference Podsakoff, LePine and LePine2007). This will in turn improve positive states at work like positive affect or commitment (Ellis et al., Reference Ellis, Bauer, Mansfield, Erdogan, Truxillo and Simon2015). Moreover, positive work relationships may be a predictor of the interpersonal fit dimension of well-being at work (Dagenais-Desmarais & Savoie, Reference Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie2012). The adaptive resources acquired through FSB help the positive framing of employees’ work demands. Thus, adaptivity would have a mediating role between FSB and well-being because the employee feels more able to perform and a greater sense of competence and social acceptance. Therefore, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 2: FSB will have a positive relationship with well-being involvement through adaptive performance.
Hindrance Role of Adaptivity for Withdrawal
Spector and Fox (Reference Spector and Fox2002) conceptualized withdrawal behaviors as an emotional response to environmental appraisal. Therefore, withdrawal is deemed as an employees’ emotion-focused coping strategy to extract themselves from negative situations. It also ranges among the counterproductive behaviors and characterizes the lessen participation of employees in their organization (Spector et al., Reference Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh and Kessler2006)Footnote 1. Mainly, the literature has focused on the relationship between negative mood, affect, dissatisfaction and withdrawal behaviors (Podsakoff et al., Reference Podsakoff, LePine and LePine2007). An employee who lacks adaptive performance at work has more chances to feel stress, negative emotions, cultural shift, labor management conflict, etc. However, some studies seek to demonstrate how the employee can alleviate withdrawal (e.g., Roznowski & Hanisch, Reference Roznowski and Hanisch1990). Alleviating withdrawal is critical for the organizations since counterproductive behaviors are highly costly for them (Hancock et al., Reference Hancock, Allen, Bosco, McDaniel and Pierce2013).
According to Griffeth et al. (Reference Griffeth, Gaertner and Sager1999), a well-adapted employee perceives fewer negative aspects and feels more satisfaction at work. Thus, employee adaptation is a suitable asset to offset withdrawal. When the adaptation process is effective it will likely elicit work satisfaction and will decrease the likelihood of withdrawal behavior adoption (Griffeth et al., Reference Griffeth, Gaertner and Sager1999). This can be explained by the fact that adaptivity allows the employee to fulfill the requirements in terms of changes, uncertainty, novelty or unexpected events at work (Pulakos et al., Reference Pulakos, Arad, Donovan and Plamondon2000). Thus, well-adapted employees are more likely to adopt fewer withdrawal behaviors (Park & Park, Reference Park and Park2019).
Studies have shown that FSB also decreases withdrawal behavior at work (e.g., Ashforth et al., Reference Ashforth, Harrison and Corley2008; Ibarra & Barbulescu, Reference Ibarra and Barbulescu2010) However, FSB may not participate directly to withdrawal but through a mediated way (Vandenberghe et al., Reference Vandenberghe, Landry, Bentein, Anseel, Mignonac and Roussel2019). Efforts to proactively build relationships and seek out information should also alleviate feelings of social separation, confusion, misfit or alienation, which can lead to work withdrawal (Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, Reference Kammeyer-Mueller and Wanberg2003). Thus, adaptivity may play a role of mediation in the relation between FSB and withdrawal, like adaptivity helps one to form interpersonal relationships and to clarify one’s role. We propose that FSB behaviors will sustain the employees’ adaptation process which in turn contributes to a decrease of withdrawal behaviors.
Hypothesis 3: FSB will have a negative relationship with withdrawal behaviors through adaptive performance.
The Moderating Role of Perceived Organizational Obstruction (POO)
Studies interested in employee psychological attachment have explored the positive role that perceived organizational support can play (e.g., Marchand & Vandenberghe, Reference Marchand and Vandenberghe2016). Nevertheless, perceived organizational support only captures the positive side of the organizational treatment (Gibney et al., Reference Gibney, Zagenczyk and Masters2009). Indeed, the organizational support theory (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, Reference Eisenberger and Stinglhamber2011) assumes that an absence of supportive treatment or negative treatment conduct to the same effects. However, Gibney et al., (Reference Gibney, Zagenczyk and Masters2009) have put forward that employees distinguish between different organizational treatments. The authors conceptualized perceived organizational obstruction (POO) to examine the effects of the perception of negative organizational treatment. POO is grounded in the organizational support theory (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, Reference Eisenberger and Stinglhamber2011) and describes the “employees’ belief that the organization obstructs, hinders, or interferes with the accomplishment of their goals and is a detriment to their well-being” (Gibney et al., Reference Gibney, Zagenczyk and Masters2009, p. 667).
Like POO is related to the employees’ perceived depletion of their well-being (Gibney et al., Reference Gibney, Zagenczyk and Masters2009), one might intuitively think that POO will inhibit the positive effect of adaptive performance on psychological attachment. However, as adaptive performance refers to an effective reaction to situational features (Han & Williams, Reference Han and Williams2008), an employee who performs adaptively is more likely to cope with adverse situations (e.g., environment changes).
Indeed, adaptivity requires from its champion to deal with the environment and stress at work (Pulakos et al., Reference Pulakos, Arad, Donovan and Plamondon2000). Beyond the strain research, the conservation resources theory postulates that people with many resources will more likely acquire additional resources (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll1989). Adaptivity offers the availability of several resources like positive work relationships, social support, task mastery or role clarity (Ellis et al., Reference Ellis, Bauer, Mansfield, Erdogan, Truxillo and Simon2015). We suggest that even if POO can be an adverse situation that can decrease individual resources, adaptive performance following the use of FSB can have a preventive role and allow individuals to deal with POO.
Indeed, adapted employees can fill the lack of organizational resources due to POO by seeking feedback with coworkers or supervisors; peers and leaders buffering the negative effects of organizational stressors (Cohen & Wills, Reference Cohen and Wills1985). Empirical research supports this hypothesis as coworkers have been shown to be a source of socioemotional, instrumental or informational support which reduces strain and perception of stressors (e.g., role conflict, role overload) and moderates their relationship (Chiaburu & Harrison, Reference Chiaburu and Harrison2008). Thus, employees will spend energy to build their social network or to learn about the organization in order to deal with POO. On the one hand, Hobfoll (Reference Hobfoll1989) suggested that people who have numerous resources will more likely develop well-being. Moreover, this author proposed that seeking feedback from coworkers can foster the positive self-view and then can promote the employees’ belief to handle difficult work situations (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll1989). As a result, well-adapted employees facing a POO context can primarily rely on support by using FSB to foster their positive self-efficacy which in turn leads to well-being (Sonnentag, Reference Sonnentag2015). On the other hand, Harvey et al. (Reference Harvey, Stoner, Hochwarter and Kacmar2007) found that people high in affective resources less undergo the effects of negative work situations. People high in affective resources feel less job tension, less emotional exhaustion and are less willing to quit even in organizational obstruction situations. Well-adapted employees that had primarily used FSB would adopt less withdrawal behaviors and perceive even higher well-being. However, the higher the OOP, the more likely employees are to develop passive self-regulatory behaviors such as withdrawal to conserve resources (Zimmerman et al., Reference Zimmerman, Swider, Woo and Allen2016). We propose that POO enhance the relationship between adaptivity and well-being but hinder the one between adaptivity and withdrawal. We suggest the following:
Hypothesis 4: POO will moderate the positive relationship between individual adaptivity and well-being involvement such that the relationship becomes stronger at high levels of POO.
Hypothesis 5: POO will moderate the negative relationship between individual adaptivity and withdrawal such that the relationship becomes weaker at high levels of POO.
Method
Sample and Procedure
We tested our hypothesized model using a three-wave survey on a random sample of French employees (N = 273) recruited via professional social media (i.e., Facebook, LinkedIn, Viadeo). The questionnaire was distributed to job self-help groups, job search groups and job-specific focus groups (e.g., nurses, lawyers, handlers). The questionnaire was hosted on a private and anonymous platform (Limesurvey). A message offering to participate in the study provided access to it. This message also invited participants to leave a comment when they completed the questionnaire. First, this approach made it possible to thank each participant and to update the message in the discussion group pages. Previously, to participate, respondents were asked to be employed, to deal with an ongoing organizational change, and to work full-time. The sample was essentially composed of workers from health (24%) and social (22%) sectors. Workers from administration (20%), high distribution (18%), and educational (16%) sectors also participated. The sample was 85% female with an average age of 35.10 (SD = 11.19). Most of the workers were from the public sector (47%), had a tenure to their organizations longer than 1 year (79.4 %) and worked in team context (89.4%). The majority of participants were employees without managerial responsibilities in their organization (63%) and had a degree at least equivalent to bachelor (71.8%).
We collected data at three points in time to analyze the effect across time of our hypothesized model and to reduce the potential for common method variance (Podsakoff et al., Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003). We aimed at a starting sample of 1,000 participants to Time 1 to ensure an adequate sample at Time 3. It has been shown that one-month delay recruitment ensures lower average correlations than in a cross-sectional collection context (Podsakoff et al., Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff2012). Yet, well-being and withdrawal are constructs that can take several weeks to emerge (Somers, Reference Somers2009; Sonnentag, Reference Sonnentag2015). We, therefore, followed a recruitment procedure spaced three months apart between each collection time. The first-time recruitment was conducted using professional social network. Then respondents were contacted for Times 2 and 3 by using email addresses collected during the first time point. At Time 1, 1,097 participants reported the measure in which they seek feedback from their direct supervisor (i.e., four-item FSB scale). At Time 2–approximatively three months after the first completion of the survey–536 remaining participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they were adopting individual adaptive performance behavior (i.e., three-item adaptive performance scale). Finally, 273 participants completed the third phase, approximately three months after the second completion. Participants were asked to indicate their perception of how the organization obstructed them (i.e., five item POO scale), but also their sense of well-being at work (i.e., five-item well-being involvement scale) and the extent to which they were engaging in withdrawal behaviors (i.e., four-item withdrawal scale). An average level of dropout was observed; sample decreased approximatively by half between each point in time (Time 1–Time 2: 52%; Time 2–Time 3: 49%).
Measures
All measures were originally compiled in English; except for the well-being measurement scale, which was originally constructed and validated in French. We followed the translate-retranslate procedure to ensure a good translation of the items (Brislin, Reference Brislin1970). First, the items were translated in French by a bilingual collaborator. Then, items were translated back into English by a bilingual native speaker. Finally, potential discrepancies between the original and French versions were discussed within the author team. For each measure we used a Likert-type scale procedure rated from one to five.
Feedback seeking. At Time 1, feedback seeking was assessed using a four-item measure from Ashford and Black (Reference Ashford and Black1996). Sample items included “Sought critiques from your boss” and “Sought feedback on your performance after assignments” (α = .88; 1 = very few to 5 = a lot).
Individual task adaptivity. At Time 2, respondents provided task adaptivity self-evaluation with three items from Griffin et al. (Reference Griffin, Neal and Parker2007). Items included “You adapted well to changes in core tasks” and “You coped with changes to the way you have to do your core tasks” (α = .67; 1 = very few to 5 = a lot).
Well-being involvement. At Time 3, well-being involvement was assessed using a five-item measure adapted from Gilbert et al. (Reference Gilbert, Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie2011). Sample items included “I feel confident” and “I feel like I really appreciate my work” (α = .88; 1 = almost never to 5 = almost always).
Withdrawal. At Time 3, we measured participants’ self-reported withdrawal with a four-item scale from Spector et al., (Reference Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh and Kessler2006). Sample items included “Came to work late without permission” and “Stayed home from work and said you were sick when you were not” (α = .72; 1 = almost never to 5 = almost always).
Perceived organizational obstruction. At Time 3, perceived organizational obstruction was measured with a five-item scale from Gibney et al. (Reference Gibney, Zagenczyk and Masters2009). Sample items included “My organization is a detriment to my well-being” and “The company blocks my personal goals” (α = .95; 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
Control variables. We controlled for age, job tenure, if employees were from public or private organization, and their sector activity. Age and tenure are commonly associated with FSB in the literature (e.g., Vandenberghe et al., Reference Vandenberghe, Landry, Bentein, Anseel, Mignonac and Roussel2019) and are related to well-being (Sonnentag, Reference Sonnentag2015) and withdrawal (Hanisch & Hulin, Reference Hanisch and Hulin1990). Furthermore, the dynamics of well-being and withdrawal over time are linked to the work environment (Sonnentag, Reference Sonnentag2015) and thus could be related to the sectors in which the employee evolves.
Results
Prior to the hypothesized path analysis model, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Bonferroni and Tukey’s post-hoc analyses, were carried out to test if mean differences, regarding scores of feedbacks seeking, individual task adaptivity, well-being involvement, withdrawal, and POO, were attributable to sector variables (private versus public, and activity sector). These preliminary analyses allowed to determine if the sector in which employees evolved created potential disparities preventing generalization of future results. No significant results were observed (all p > .05), confirming that scores related to the sector distribution should not lead to non-random sampling.
To assess the independency of the selected variables, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using maximum likelihood with robust standard errors was conducted using Mplus 8.3 (Muthén & Muthén, Reference Muthén and Muthén2017). To determine which was the better model, we used model fit indices scores. Usually, for root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) scores, a value less than or equal to .08 indicates an acceptable fit (Browne & Cudeck, Reference Browne and Cudeck1992), a value of .06 or less indicates a good fit model (Hu & Bentler, Reference Hu and Bentler1999), and a value less than .05 indicates a very good fit (MacCallum et al., Reference MacCallum, Browne and Sugawara1996). For comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the general rule of thumb is to accept a value greater than .90 for an acceptable model (Brown, Reference Brown2015) and a value greater than .95 for a very good model (Hu & Bentler, Reference Hu and Bentler1999). Finally, the lower the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) scores are, the more parsimonious the model tested is. The thresholds selected for this paper are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Note. N = 273; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; FS = feedback seeking; ATI = individual task adaptivity; WB = well-being involvement; WD = withdrawal; POO = perceived organizational obstruction.
a cutoff value.
** p < .01.
The CFA results showed that the hypothesized five-factor model (0), composed of feedback seeking, individual task adaptivity, well-being involvement, withdrawal, and POO, outperformed, χ2(178) = 338.95, p < .01; RMSEA = .06; CFI = .93; TLI = .92; SRMR = .05; AIC = 14,190.97; BIC = 14,458.07, fourteen alternative models (Table 1). The initial model (0) surpassed models such as, for the most relevant, a four-factor model (1) that combined feedback seeking and individual task adaptivity, χ2(182) = 414.71, p < .01; RMSEA = .07; CFI = .90; TLI = .88; SRMR = .07; AIC = 14,266.79; BIC = 14,519.81; ∆χ2(4) = 86.64, p < .01, a three-factor model (7) that grouped feedback seeking with individual task adaptivity, and well-being involvement with withdrawal feedback, χ2(185) = 550.49, p < .01; RMSEA = .09; CFI = .84; TLI = .82; SRMR = .09; AIC = 14,410.17; BIC = 14,652.01, ∆χ2(3) = 93.63, p < .01, a two-factor model (12) that combined feedback seeking, individual task adaptivity with POO, and well-being involvement with withdrawal feedback, χ2(187) = 820.44, p < .01; RMSEA = .11; CFI = .72; TLI = .69; SRMR = .11; AIC = 14,710.32; BIC = 14,944.93; ∆χ2(2) = 183.97, p < .01, and a one-factor (14) model that encompassed all the five variables, χ2(202) = 1,908.00, p < .01; RMSEA = .18; CFI = .25; TLI = .22; SRMR = .25; AIC = 15,942.16; BIC = 16,122.63; ∆χ2(15) = 956.78, p < .01. The hypothesized five-factor model supported the discriminant validity of the used variables.
The separation of independent, mediated and dependent variables should reduce the potential for common method variance associated with the use of self-report data. However, well-being involvement, withdrawal and POO were measured at the same time. According to Podsakoff et al. (Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003), an orthogonal latent factor encompassing all the variables items and named common method variance (CMV) was added to the initial model (0). Model fit indices scores improved, χ2(158) = 283.767, p < .01; RMSEA = .05; CFI = .94; TLI = .92; SRMR = .04; AIC = 14,147.34; BIC = 14,486.63, but correlation between latent factor remained unchanged. The CMV factor accounted for 26.46% of the total variance, not slightly more than the average portion of the variance (26%) usually observed in self-reported studies (Williams et al., Reference Williams, Cote and Buckley1989). Therefore, the probability of common method bias was low.
Means, standard deviation and observed correlation are reported in Table 2. We tested internal consistency by using Cronbach’s alpha and Omega indices (Peters, Reference Peters2014). Cronbach’s alphas are reported in measures description and Omega in Table 2. The internal consistency showed good reliabilities scores (α ≥ .72; Ω ≥ .74), setting aside the individual task adaptivity (α = .67; Ω = .69). Well-being involvement and POO were highly correlated (r = –.62, p < .01). Correlations between the other variables showed low to moderate scores (r = –.13 to .28, p < .05). Concerning the control variables, negative correlations were observed between tenure in job, feedback seeking (r = –.14, p < .05) and individual task adaptivity (r = –.12, p < .05). Moreover, a negative relationship between sector activity and feedback seeking was also obtained (r = –.15, p < .05).
Table 2. Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlation among Variables
Note. N = 273; The Omega scores corresponds to the number in brackets.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
The hypothesized structural mediation model involving feedback seeking, individual task adaptivity, well-being involvement, and withdrawal, was tested using Shrout and Bolger (Reference Shrout and Bolger2002) recommendations for mediation analyses (see Figure 1). Analyses were conducted by structural equation modelling using MLF estimator. The hypothesized structural model fitted adequately the data, χ2(99) = 167.654, p < .001; RMSEA = .05; CFI = .94; TLI = .92; SRMR = .05; AIC = 10,861.64; BIC = 11,052.94. To determine whether this model was the more suitable, one alternative models, adding direct paths between feedback seeking, well-being involvement, and withdrawal, was tested. The alternative model did not significantly improve over the hypothesized model, χ2(97) = 176.318, p < .001; RMSEA = .05; CFI = .94; TLI = .92; SRMR = .05; AIC = 10,862.02; BIC = 11,060.54; ∆χ2(2) = 5.48, p = ns). Hypothesized model structure was retained for structural equation modelling analysis. Based on the Hypothesized model structure, we analyzed the effect of control variables on individual task adaptivity, affective well-being involvement and withdrawal. Among the different control variables, only the organizational tenure showed significant results and was related to well-being, β = .15, p < .05; β = .37, p < .01. By adding organizational tenure to the model, good fit indices, χ2(149) = 273.198, p < .001; RMSEA = .05; CFI = .91; TLI = .90; SRMR = .05; AIC = 10,865.33; BIC = 11,107.17, and no modification to the hypothesized model were observed. The standardized path coefficients, the standardized indirect effect, and the 95% confidences (95%CI) intervals are reported in Table 3.
Figure 1. Hypothesized Model
Table 3. Analyses of the Mediation Model and Indirect Path Results
Note. N = 273; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval. Unstandardized coefficients are reported. POO = perceived organizational obstruction; POOxATI = interaction between perceived organizational obstruction and individual task adaptivity.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Hypothesis 1 stated that feedback seeking was positively related to individual adaptivity. Hypothesis 1 was supported (β = .32, p < .01). Hypothesis 2 predicted the existence of a positive indirect path between feedback seeking and well-being involvement through individual adaptivity. First, a significant positive relation between individual adaptivity and well-being involvement was observed (β = .40, p < .01). Second, the indirect effect from feedback seeking to well-being via individual adaptivity was found positive, estimate = .15, 95% CI [.03, .27], validating Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 predicted the existence of a negative indirect path between feedback seeking and withdrawal through individual adaptivity. First, a significant negative relation between individual adaptivity and withdrawal was observed (β = –.38, p < .01). Second, the indirect effect from feedback seeking to withdrawal via individual adaptivity was found negative, estimate = –.12, 95% CI [–.23,–.02], validating Hypothesis 3. The Hypothesized mediation model (Model 1) was thus confirmed (Table 3).
Hypotheses 4 and 5 stated that perceived organizational obstruction played a moderating role between individual adaptivity, well-being and withdrawal. To ensure that the moderation effect was not observed because of a mixed product of variance sharing between the outcomes, we first tested the hypothesis in different modelsFootnote 2. Hypothesis 4 predicted that perceived organizational obstruction should moderate positively the relationship between individual adaptivity and well-being involvement. The “perceived organizational obstruction” X “well-being involvement” interaction term was statistically significant (β = .32, p < .01). The results from the simple slope test showed that in case of High perceived organizational obstruction, individual adaptivity was positively and significantly related to well-being (β = .33, p < .01), whereas in the case of low perceived organizational obstruction, the relationship was no more significant (β = .03, p = ns). Moreover, the indirect path from feedback seeking to well-being through individual adaptivity was significant, estimate = .14, p = .01, 95% CI [.02, .27.]. Hypothesis 5 proposed that the perceived organizational obstruction should moderate negatively the relationship between individual adaptivity and withdrawal. The “perceived organizational obstruction” X “withdrawal” interaction term was statistically significant (β = –.22, p < .01). The results from the simple slope test showed that in case of High perceived organizational obstruction, individual adaptivity was negatively and significantly related to withdrawal (β = –.26, p < .01), whereas in the case of low perceived organizational obstruction, the relationship was no more significant (β = –.06, p = ns). Moreover, the indirect path from feedback seeking to withdrawal through individual adaptivity was non-significant, estimate = –.10, p = .05, 95% CI [–.20, .00].
Second, we tested Hypotheses 4 and 5 in a common model (Model 2). The results were significantly like our separated previous analysis (Table 3). Indeed, the “perceived organizational obstruction” X “well-being involvement” (β = .33, p < .01) and “perceived organizational obstruction” X “withdrawal” (β = –.24, p < .05) interaction term were statistically significant. To interpret the nature of interaction effect, we conducted a simple slope test and graphically represent the moderating effect of high (+1 above the mean) and low (–1 above the mean) level of perceived organizational obstruction, on the relationship between individual adaptivity and the outcomes. As observed in Figure 2, individual adaptivity was more positively related to well-being when perceived organizational obstruction was high (β = .33, p < .01) rather than low (β = .04, p < .01). As shown in Figure 3, individual adaptivity was more negatively related to withdrawal when perceived organizational obstruction was high (β = –.27, p < .01) rather than low (β = –.05, p < .01). Therefore, Hypotheses 4 and 5 were supported. Despite the significant interactions observed, the indirect path from feedback seeking to withdrawal through individual adaptivity was non-significant, estimate = .14, p = .02, 95% CI [.02, .26], contrary to the indirect path from feedback seeking to well-being, estimate = .10, p = .05, 95% CI [–.22, .00].
Figure 2. Interaction between Individual Adaptivity and Perceived Organizational Obstruction in Predicting Well-being Involvement
Figure 3. Interaction between Individual Adaptivity and Perceived Organizational Obstruction in Predicting in Withdrawal
Discussion
The core contribution of this research was twofold. The first was to show that FSB related indirectly to withdrawal and well-being through individual adaptivity following a self-regulatory process. The second contribution highlighted how adaptive performance would prepare individuals to deal with the negative impact of POO. Results demonstrated thus that FSB increased adaptive performance and they also showed that a positive indirect path between FSB and well-being through adaptive performance existed. Furthermore, our results demonstrated a negative indirect path between FSB and withdrawal through adaptive performance. Finally, we found an interaction effect in which POO increases the relation between adaptive performance and well-being and decreases the relation between adaptive performance and withdrawal.
Our results advanced the literature of the FSB and adaptive performance in multiple ways. First, our model extended the understanding of the complementary view of FSB and adaptivity by demonstrating that FSB participates in the adaptation of employees in the workplace. The strength of this finding allowed understanding why proactive people using FSB could have a better adjustment in the organizational socialization process (Bauer et al., Reference Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo and Tucker2007). The proactive actions would enable employees to have an active adjustment (e.g., role clarification, building relationships with organizational members, coping with adverse situations). This research contributed to confirm results from Chan and Schmitt (Reference Chan and Schmitt2000) who demonstrated that proactivity was related to adaptation in the workplace. Second, our study investigated broader and distal outcomes of the adaptive process (Jundt et al., Reference Jundt, Shoss and Huang2015). The results suggest that adaptivity in the workplace boosted employee well-being and reduced the intent to lessen participation in the organization (e.g., lateness, absenteeism). Our findings advocated that employees who were well adapted to the organization had a higher well-being to it and more involved in its goals (Bauer et al., Reference Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo and Tucker2007). Thus, employees would be less likely to adopt behaviors that hinder the achievement of the organizational objectives as lateness or absenteeism (Hanisch & Hulin, Reference Hanisch and Hulin1990). These findings expanded our knowledge of the largely neglected well-being perspective (Gruman & Sacks, Reference Gruman, Saks and Bakker2013). The literature concentrated on trying to understand how to increase adaptive performance (Pulakos et al., Reference Pulakos, Arad, Donovan and Plamondon2000) but largely ignored the outcomes of adaptive performance (Jundt et al., Reference Jundt, Shoss and Huang2015). Therefore, as we have assumed, when an individual adapts to his or her team or organization because of FSB through a self-regulated approach, he or she enhances organizational involvement. Third, we examined the positive effects of adaptive performance on adverse situations. Our study sheds light that well-adapted employees could cope with POO. This process was explained by the fact that employees who were adapted could turn to other resources like relational resources rather than organizational resources. In addition, the results showed that the more senior the individual’s job tenure, the more well-being was enhanced by prior use of FSB in a context of perceived organizational obstruction. However, the observed effect from POO on the relationship between adaptivity and withdrawal indicated that even if adapted people succeed to deal with POO, they tend to withdraw to protect themselves. These results are partially consistent with those observed by Akhtar et al. (Reference Akhtar, Syed, Javed and Husnain2020). Indeed, their model showed that the more individuals were ostracized, the more they tended to develop a facade of conformity that led them to generate unethical behaviors at work harming the organizational interest, especially in a POO context. Fostering adaptation processes through FSB should thus reduce the emergence of unethical behavior at work. However, our results obtained in relation to withdrawal behaviors seem to indicate that individuals would tend to disengage from their organization. Since withdrawal processes are one of the first phases in the emergence of destructive deviant behavior (Spector et al., Reference Spector, Fox, Penney, Bruursema, Goh and Kessler2006), it is conceivable that the positive consequences obtained on well-being cannot be sustained in a POO context. Moreover, the results related to adaptivity in the POO context suggest that employees would favor a passive rather than active action. Therefore, there is a need to study the long-term impact of POO on the emergence of proactive behaviors such as FSB. According to self-regulation theories, future research should investigate the individual, team, and organizational (e.g., learning goal orientation, self-leadership strategies, team climate for voice) construct that would reduce the negative effects of POO. Future research should also investigate the factors that could impact the relation between adaptivity and withdrawal. It would also be useful to analyze the role of organizational support in the moderating effect of the POO. Lastly, one contribution of this study is the time lagged nature of the data collection. Data were collected at three different periods and allows a stronger strength of the conclusion study (Ployhart & Vandenberg, Reference Ployhart and Vandenberg2010).
This study has also practical implications. First, developing FSB behaviors in organizations could be positive not only to foster organizational effectiveness (e.g., increase of organizational commitment, decrease of turnover intentions) but also it could be a valuable behavior to be promoted to facilitate the workforce adaptivity to a more changing and interdependent organizational system (Griffin et al., Reference Griffin, Neal and Parker2007). Consistent with other research, our findings highlight the importance of supporting FSB in organizations to promote organizational competitiveness (e.g., diminishing withdrawal behaviors) (e.g., Vandenberghe et al., Reference Vandenberghe, Landry, Bentein, Anseel, Mignonac and Roussel2019; Whitaker et al., Reference Whitaker, Dahling and Levy2007). Indeed, FSB is framed within the impression management and performance enhancement literature (Ashford et al., Reference Ashford, De Stobbeleir and Nujella2016; Tsui et al., Reference Tsui, Ashford, Clair and Xin1995). The impression management framework asserts that people may use FSB as a means of generating good impressions in the workplace (Moss et al., Reference Moss, Valenzi and Taggart2003). Thus, FSB may be mainly motivated by the desire to protect or enhance one’s public image in organizations (Moss et al., Reference Moss, Valenzi and Taggart2003). In that regard, there are several ways to promote FSB in organizations. For instance, managers can try to reward employees who seek feedback (Ashford et al., Reference Ashford, Blatt and VandeWalle2003). By doing so, they will participate to create work conditions where the employees can speak freely without worrying about the negative consequences of this act. Consequently, fostering FSB represents a challenge for managers and practitioners.
Second, even though FSB can promote adaptivity, which in turn can improve well-being and reduce withdrawal behaviors at work, minimizing the impact of a perceived organizational obstruction is also an important issue for organizations. In general, perceptions of organizational obstruction not only might create a representation that the organization is detrimental for employees but also could create organizational misbehavior (Gibney et al., Reference Gibney, Zagenczyk, Fuller, Hester and Caner2011). Our findings suggest that indeed such negative perception can negatively affect the proactive and adaptive employees’ behavior. Therefore, from a practical standpoint, it would be useful to identify and tackle the organizational factors that can create the negative perception concerning the organizational environment. As an example, managers can point out the negative conditions (e.g., abusive leadership) and ensuring that these conditions will be no more present in the organization, and then informing the employees about these new conditions in order to create a perception of organizational support (Chreim, Reference Chreim2002). Hence, being attentive to employees’ perceptions concerning a possible organizational obstruction is important to create an enabling environment for proactive and adaptive behaviors.
Although these findings are promising, this study has some limitations. We collected the answers at multiple times which limits the common method variance, but the heterogeneity of our data and the random nature of the sample can inflate the common method variance (Podsakoff et al., Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003). This leads to the second limitation: the nature of the sample. Given the random nature of the sample, we could not examine the role of control variables like context-specific variables or the nature of jobs. The occupational context influences the design of jobs, for example in certain occupations, it is easier to obtain feedback, have more social support and requires more personal initiative (Humphrey et al., Reference Humphrey, Nahrgang and Morgeson2007). For instance, the occupational context and design of jobs could moderate some variables of this study like feedback seeking or others. Notably, the work characteristics significantly influence the satisfaction and well-being at work (Humphrey et al., Reference Humphrey, Nahrgang and Morgeson2007). A third limitation of this study is the dropout of participants at different times of measure. More than 50% of participants does not respond between Time 1 and Time 3. This important loss of participants can limit the generalizability of our findings. A fourth limitation of this study is related to the use of the desire for involvement variable rather than the full Gilbert et al.’s (Reference Gilbert, Dagenais-Desmarais and Savoie2011) well-being scale. The objective was to study the consequences of the relationship between FSB and adaptivity in a POO context on psychological attachment variables such as well-being and withdrawal. In this sense, our research studies only the effect on the desire for involvement and not total well-being at work. Future research will focus on analyzing the effect of our model on all dimensions of well-being. A final limitation relates to the use of adaptive performance to analyze the relationship between FSB and adaptivity. Indeed, adaptive performance measurement is part of a model integrating proactivity, adaptivity and proficiency (Griffin et al., Reference Griffin, Neal and Parker2007). However, the use of FSB rather than other proactive behavior (i.e., taking charge, voice, personal initiative, proactive performance) reduces potential bias. Indeed, it has been shown that the previous measures of proactivity were inconsistent with the definition of the construct they assess (Cho et al., Reference Cho, Carpenter and Zhang2020). According to the results obtained by Parker and Collins (Reference Parker and Collins2010), the risk of contamination between constructs should not concern FSB, as it was not part of the second-order factor of proactive work behavior, but of proactive person-environment fit behavior. FSB therefore measures a different perspective of proactivity from that implied in proactive performance. Moreover, the correlations scores between the two second-order factors were moderate (Parker & Collins, Reference Parker and Collins2010), thus reducing possible contamination bias between the proactive dimension of FSB and adaptive performance.
This study provides a clarification of the links between proactivity and adaptivity. In the future, one challenge for researchers will be to enhance our understanding of how different types of proactive work behaviors are related to adaptivity. It is possible that proactive person-environment fit behaviors (Parker & Collins, Reference Parker and Collins2010) may lead to individual adaptivity because they aim at creating compatibility between the individual and the environment. Examples of these behaviors are feedback monitoring, job negotiation and career initiative. Second, it is also possible that adaptivity and proactivity increase each other in a self-reinforcing cycle. Indeed, Strauss et al. (Reference Strauss, Griffin, Parker and Mason2015) found that adaptivity creates optimal conditions for the adoption of proactive behaviors. Therefore, the relationship between the two constructs might not be unilateral. In addition, a learning orientation has been shown to positively predict the proactive and adaptive performance of work roles (Marques-Quinteiro & Curral, Reference Marques-Quinteiro and Curral2012). Therefore, future research using a self-regulated perspective should investigate, through longitudinal analysis, the role played by learning orientation in the potential co-evolutionary relationship between adaptability and proactivity, in order to better understand how one may impact the other. Third, future research could further expand our knowledge with the study of within-person level. Our research is the first step by the use of time lagged design but the adoption of methods as Latent Growth Model or Latent Change Score can foster our understanding of the effect of time and within-person variability.
To conclude, our study aimed at exploring to which extent adaptivity represents a mechanism through which feed-back seeking affects psychological attachment. Furthermore, the role played by the interaction POO between adaptivity and psychological attachment was analyzed. Findings of the present study revealed that adaptivity positively mediated the relation between FSB and desire for involvement, and negatively mediated the relation between FSB and withdrawal. Results also showed that adaptivity played a major role in POO context. It helped employees to deal with the perception of obstruction by enhancing their well/being. However, POO reduced the effect of adaptivity on withdrawal, increasing thus over time the risks of employee’s withdrawal. Through the findings of our study, we can propose to managers and organizations confronted with POO to foster research and practices oriented towards organizational learning by promoting the dual emergence of proactive behaviors and adaptive performance.
