For more Psychology projects click here


In this study the relationship between core self-evaluations, self-monitoring, supervisory support and taking charge was examined cross-sectionally among sales employees drawn from three (3) mobile money organizations. Supervisory ratings of subordinates’ taking charge behaviour were collected and matched with 200 subordinates’ self-ratings of core self-evaluations, self-monitoring and supervisory support characteristics .The researcher performed hierarchical regression analyses to examine the relationships. Results showed that core self-evaluations failed to make any statistically significant contribution. Support was found for the hypothesis that self-monitoring will significantly play a positive role on taking charge at work. Employees perceiving more career support from their supervisors were more likely to take charge at work, and the result was statistically significant in view of the hypothesis that supervisory support will significantly play a positive role on taking charge at work. Implications for management and future research are discussed.


Title page
Table of Contents
List of Appendices

Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Operational Definition

Literature Review
Theoretical Review
Empirical review
Summary of Literature Review

Design & Statistics


Implications of the study
Limitations of the study
Suggestions for further studies
Summary and conclusion



The benefits of securing a committed workforce and retaining organizational competitive advantage over other organizations are crucial for the success and sustainability of organization and this is increasingly becoming indispensable. One of the essential sources of such competitive advantage according to researchers is the human capital (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004; Cunningham and Sagas, 2004). Being proactive is about taking control to make things happen rather than watching things happen. It involves aspiring and striving to bring about change in the environment and/or oneself to achieve a different future (Bindl and Parker, 2011; Grant and Ashford, 2008).

Extra-role performance, which includes taking charge behaviours, refers to discretionary behaviours (i.e. sportsmanship, civic virtue, and helping behaviour) on the part of the salesperson that are not objectively related to his/her sales productivity Podsakoff,  MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2000). Even though taking charge is not part of individual‘s assigned duties, they are still beneficial to the organization, its members and the employees themselves. In the sales context, it has been demonstrated that OCB have a strong, positive, and consistent effect on the evaluation of the employees‘ performance, in several contexts, Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994).

One of the arguments used to explain the influence of organizational citizenship behaviour on performance evaluation lies in the mediating effect of affective variables (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994). According to this idea, employees that engage in these behaviours will be rewarded with the positive liking of their supervisors (Lefkowitz, 2000). Despite these arguments, there is still the need to empirically confirm them in the sales context.

Recently Parker and Collins (2010) showed through empirical investigations that taking charge can be classified as important extra-role behaviour. Existing studies also provide extensive proof of the diverse ways in which workers express proactive behaviour, including seeking feedback (Ashford, Blatt & VandeWalle, 2003), breaking rules (Morrison, 2006), implementing ideas and solving problems (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006), taking initiative in pursuing personal and organizational goals (Frese and Fay, 2001) , taking charge to bringing about change (Morrison and Phelps, 1999) and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB), (Allen, 2006; Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010; Organ, 1988; Onyishi, 2006). As suggested by these studies, attention to discretionary work behaviour has most often grown out of interest in a particular field. These phenomenon-driven approaches have led to rich array of proactive behaviours that have been important in diverse areas. Recently, focus has shifted to, taking charge, a less researched form of extra role behaviour that is capable of facilitating the initiation of innovative behaviours that are critical to modern organizational competitiveness and sustainability (Morrison & Phleps, 1999). Using both individual-level and contextual predictors, Morrison and Phelps (1999) demonstrated that taking charge behaviours are a function of an employee‘s felt responsibility to change the workplace, their belief in their capacity to perform and the perception of the top management‘s openness to change.

Despite the significance of taking charge at the workplace, its antecedents are relatively understood. Most attention has been given to reactive concepts of performance in which it is assumed that there is a set job to which an individual must be matched (Frese & Fay, 2001). For instance, much research has been devoted to investigating the predictors of standard task performance (Viswesvaran, 2001) as well as citizenship behaviours (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000). These concepts, however, have been criticized for their emphasis on rather passive behaviours (Morrison & Phleps, 1999). Researchers have proposed that both individual differences and contextual factors are antecedents to proactive work behaviours (Parker, Bindl & Strauss, 2010). To date, scholars have largely emphasized individual differences as antecedents to proactive work behaviour. Proactive personality, (Parker & Collins, 2010), general self-efficacy and felt responsibility (Morrison & Phleps, 1999) have well been linked with proactive work behaviour and some specifically to taking charge at work.......

For more Psychology projects click here
This is a Postgraduate Thesis and the complete research material plus questionnaire and references can be obtained at an affordable price of N3,000 within Nigeria or its equivalent in other currencies.


Kindly pay/transfer a total sum of N3,000 into any of our Bank Accounts listed below:
·         Diamond Bank Account:
A/C Name:      Haastrup Francis
A/C No.:         0096144450

·         GTBank Account:
A/C Name:      Haastrup Francis
A/C No.:         0029938679

After payment, send your desired Project Topic, Depositor’s Name, and your Active E-Mail Address to which the material would be sent for downloading (you can request for a downloading link if you don’t have an active email address) to +2348074521866 or +2348066484965. You can as well give us a direct phone call if you wish to. Projects materials are sent in Microsoft format to your mail within 30 Minutes once payment is confirmed. 

N/B:    By ordering for our material means you have read and accepted our Terms and Conditions

Terms of Use: This is an academic paper. Students should NOT copy our materials word to word, as we DO NOT encourage Plagiarism. Only use as guide in developing your original research work.

Delivery Assurance
We are trustworthy and can never SCAM you. Our success story is based on the love and fear for God plus constant referrals from our clients who have benefited from our site. We deliver project materials to your Email address within 15-30 Minutes depending on how fast your payment is acknowledged by us.

Quality Assurance
All research projects, Research Term Papers and Essays on this site are well researched, supervised and approved by lecturers who are intellectuals in their various fields of study.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Search for your topic here

See full list of Project Topics under your Department Here!

Featured Post

Article: How to Write a Research Proposal

Most students and beginning researchers do not fully understand what a research proposal means, nor do they understand ...

Popular Posts