La proactivité des professionnels en ressources humaines

The purpose of this research is to propose a valid instrument in measuring proactivity by assessing its validity with professionals in the field of Human Resources. We also examine the impact of an organizational setting on the manifestation of proactivity. This new concept has been studied by Bateman and Crant (1993) who proposed the proactivity personality scale. Although the proactive personality scale is a promising instrument, its psychometric properties are not well defined. We propose to develop a scale that will greater represent proactivity defined as the propension to anticipate change and to take actions toward this anticipation.

In order to develop a scale that will be more valid than the proactive personality scale of Bateman and Crant (1993), we have measured proactivity with their scale, and examined the psychometric properties. We also developed new indicators using the different definitions found in the literature and assessed the proactivity with this new scale, as well as evaluated its psychometric properties. Finally, we compared the psychometric properties of the two scales.

The validation of a scale is done by examining evidence acquired through numerous empirical studies. We had the opportunity to assess the proactivity, and other variables, through samples from two separate studies. Sample 1 consisted of 510 Human Resource professionals from all over Canada, while Sample 2 consisted of 165 Human Resource professionals from several Departments within the Federal public sector of Canada (Capital region).

The results of the confirmatory analysis showed that the structure of the proactive personality scale of Bateman and Crant (1993) was not well fitted to the data the Samples revealed. Contrary to our initial presumptions, we failed to produce a radically different scale. However, we did succeed in improving the scale that measured proactivity, and one that demonstrated sound psychometric properties in term of reliability and validity. We also established the statistical equivalence between the French and English versions of this scale. We assessed convergent validity with three correlates (locus of control, need for achievement and need for dominance) and discriminant validity by using six variables (age, gender, years of services in the position, in the organization and within the domain of human resources and labour relations). Empowerment, commitment, work satisfaction and career satisfaction are the different outcomes that have been measured with this study in order to establish concomitant validity. All the hypothesis were examined and supported, except for the relation between proactivity and work satisfaction.

The secondary goal of this study was to examine the consequences of the effect of both proactivity and organizational settings on attitudes, feelings and behaviours at work. The results showed that there were no effects, and that there is no interdependence between proactivity and the organizational settings.

The validation of a measure is a long and tedious process. Further studies are needed to offer conclusive evidence of the validity on the measure of proactivity.