JOB SATISFACTION AND ITS INFLUENCE ON PROACTIVE BEHAVIOUR

The purpose of this paper is to show the relation between job satisfaction and proactive behaviour. Existing studies clearly indicate the impact of proactive attitude on job satisfaction. The authors’ objective was to verify this relation, assuming reversed hypothesis. Therefore their intention was to establish to what extent job satisfaction affects proactive attitude. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was implemented to test and verify the micromodel containing two latent variables: job satisfaction (exogenic) and proactive behaviour (endogenic). Both of them were equipped with relevant manifest variables, measured in a survey. The survey questionnaires were distributed using snowballing method and the model was tested on the sample of 292 employees. The verification process came out positive and provided necessary data to support the assumed hypothesis. However the model fit was problematic in a sense that it requires verification of the measurement model in order to increase the internal consistency of the set of variables used. These findings can contribute to future studies on job satisfaction. The article points out that as the active attitude is the result, rather than the factor of the job satisfaction, it can be of great importance to people managing human resources.


Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is one of the most important constructs of many theoretical and empirical studies in social and economic sciences. It represents a combination of positive or negative feelings, attitudes of employees, their experience of work-environment. Job satisfaction is often presented in relation to employees' attitude towards their work, i.e. how well they perform their assigned professional duties. People in the same job environment may feel the job satisfaction in very different ways, as various factors can influence their feelings. Their satisfaction may be related both to individual features and job environment.
Many authors present numerous approaches to defining job satisfaction phenomenon (e.g. Locke, 1976;Vroom, 1964;Wanous and Lawler, 1972;Churchill et al., 1974;O'Reilly, 1991;Spector, 1997;Hulin and Judge, 2003;Bernstein and Nash, 2008;Bartkowiak, 2009). Majority of definitions focus on affective feeling which employees have towards their job, however job satisfaction can be perceived as a configuration of three components: affective, cognitive and behavioral one (Jex, 2002). Other scholars, e.g. Wudarzewski (2016) claim that job satisfaction in the context of research and diagnostic studies can be understood in three ways: cognitive, emotional and process.
Comprehension of factors affecting job satisfaction is imperative and relevant not only from the point of view of the company but also from the point of view of the employees. Locke (1976, cited in Sempane et al., 2002 mentions several dimensions of job satisfaction, such as: work, pay, promotions, recognition, benefits, working conditions, supervision, coworkers, company and management. According to Bugdol (2006) the concept of job satisfaction includes the following factors: salaries, motivation, relationships, market position of the company, the opinions about the organization and the organization of the nature of work. Luthans (1998) talks about a few other aspects of job satisfaction: (1) Job satisfaction is an emotional response to a job situation. As such it cannot be seen, it can only be inferred. (2) Job satisfaction is often determined by how well results meet or exceed expectations. (3) Job satisfaction represents several related attitudes which are the most significant characteristics of a job to which people have effective response. Wudarzewski (2016) pointed out 74 potential components of job satisfaction and grouped them into 17 dimensions (modules). Some of them can be called 'proactive', such as: flexibility, creativity, self-reliance, commitment to work. However other studies reduce the number of job satisfaction dimensions. For example Kulikowski (2016) positively verifies scale consisting of 5 factors only, namely: work conditions, salary, quality of work of superiors and colleagues, as well as fair treatment.
The components of job satisfaction depend on the studied branch (industry). For example, Niedzielski (2017), presenting the results of research from one of the Polish public administration institutions, notes that the general job satisfaction is mostly affected by three factors: a clear definition of responsibilities and good organization of work, the opportunity for development of employees and a good climate in the workplace. On the other side, the level of job satisfaction decreases mainly due to factors such as: low salaries, lack of recognition by the employer and the negative image of the organization.
Contemporary researchers show also the relationship of job satisfaction with other, unconventional factors. For example Leszczyńska (2016) proves that job satisfaction can be affected by an environmental orientation of an organization. In her opinion, the environmental orientation leads to a greater job satisfaction, for workers with more ecological knowledge and professing the values of the environment. This proves that many factors of job satisfaction have not been discovered yet.
Job satisfaction also brings a number of consequences and benefits for the employee, for the organization and for the society (Jaros, 2005, cited in Lubrańska, 2014). These bene-fits include: individual life satisfaction, better health, longer life, less absenteeism and less desire to change jobs, a stronger sense of happiness and the ability of self-realization (Zalewska, 2003, cited in Lubrańska, 2014.
Satisfied employees are particularly valuable for organizations, have a better involvement in the execution of their duties, and tend to be more loyal to the employer.

Proactive Behaviour
In recent years proactivity has become an area of researchers' interests. Parker and Bindl (2016) counted over 360 important articles in psychology and management literature, published since 1990 that have 'proactive' in their abstract or that address topics, that they consider to be the examples of proactivity (taking charge, proactive feedback seeking, individual innovation, personal initiative). Grant and Ashford (2008) defined proactive behaviour as "anticipatory action that employees take to impact themselves and/or their environments". Proactive behaviour can also be defined as "self-directed and future-focused action in an organization, where the individual aims to bring about change, including change to the situation and/or change within oneself" (Bindl and Parker, 2011). Crant (2000) describes proactive behaviour as taking initiative in improving current circumstances or creating new ones, which involves challenging the status quo rather than adapting to present conditions passively.
To be proactive is to take the initiative in improving business, change things, in an intended direction, for the better (Bateman and Crant, 1999). Employees solving problems occurring in their work in a proactive way are more flexible and show initiative or take action (Crant, 1995;Parker, 2000;Swan and Fox, 2009).
We can come across numerous types of classification of proactivity for example: individual task proactivity, team member proactivity and organization member proactivity (Griffin et al., 2007); proorganizational (directed at the organization), prosocial (directed at the workgroup/colleagues), and pro-self proactive behaviours (directed at facilitating the achievement of one's personal or career goals) according to Belschak et al. (2010). Parker and Collins (2010) proposed three categories of proactive behaviour: proactive work behaviour, proactive strategic behaviour and the proactive personenvironment fit behaviour. Bańka (2015), presenting results of the research on young people, distinguishes four types of proactive behaviour: general and cognitive proactivity, active in building support networks, active in the construction of psychological comfort Grant and Ashford (2008) pointed out that proactive behaviours vary in terms of their form (the type of behaviour), their intended target of impact (self, others, and/or the organization), their frequency (how often), their timing (where and when), and their tactics (how). Proactive behaviour at work involves selfinitiated, anticipatory action aimed at changing either the situation or one's personality (Bindl and Parker, 2011). To be proactive is to change things in an intended direction and to improve them. Bateman and Crant (1999) show seven interconnected behaviours of proactive person. Those people: (1) scan for change opportunities; (2) set effective, change-oriented goals; (3) anticipate and prevent problems; (4) do different things, or do things differently; (5) take action; (6) persevere; (7) achieve results.
According to Bańka (2015) proactive people are stubborn, looking for opportunities to reach their intended target, focus on maximizing their achievements, predict problems and take remedial measures, focus on searching for new ways of achieving goals, take action and are aware of the risks.
Proactive people can define new problems, find new solutions and provide active leadership through an uncertain future, may alter their own work methods and procedures, identify opportunities and act on them, look for ways to select work environment that match their vocational needs and values (Bateman and Crant, 1999;Rodopman, 2006).
Two of the most frequently identified antecedents of proactivity in the literature are work design and leadership (Parker and Bindl, 2016). Some studies reveal the influence of other factors. For example Caesens et al. (2016) showed that perceived organizational support was positively related to temporal change in proactive behaviour directed towards the organization. Employees who feel that their organization highly values their contribution at work and cares about their well-being are more inclined to act proactively.
Undoubtedly, there are numbers of empirical studies in the literature that examine the relationship between proactive behaviour/personality and employee satisfaction or career satisfaction etc. (Seibert et al., 1999;Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Researchers suggest a consistent link between personality and outcomes such as performance, career success and job satisfaction (Lee et al., 2003).
In some studies, proactive personality is associated with high career satisfaction (Seibert et al., 1999) or career success and satisfaction (Bateman and Crant, 1993;Ng et al., 2005). The results of the research carried out by Ismail et al. (2016) demonstrated that proactive behaviour acts as an important mediating variable in the relationship between career management and career satisfaction. According to them, positive proactive behaviour may lead to a higher career satisfaction in the organization. However, this relationship seems to depend on a studied branch (industry). For example Li et al. (2015) revealed that proactive personality has a significant positive effect on teachers' job satisfaction. In addition, the relation between proactive personality and teachers' job satisfaction was simply mediated by self-efficacy and work engagement. On the other hand, Ramli et al. (2016) showed that in higher education association between proactive behaviour and career success is insignificant.
In Chan's (2006) study, proactive personality was positively related to job satisfaction only when accompanied by situational judgment effectiveness (Rodopman, 2006). Krot and Lewicka (2016) show that active behavioural components such as commitment to profession or pro-innovation attitude are related to job satisfaction and commitment. Belschak et al. (2010) claims that proactive behaviour leads to increased positive affect and job satisfaction, sometimes it may be more efficient to 'let go' rather than persist and overcome obstacles.
Proactivity also appears in the broader context of job crafting. Job crafting is referred to "the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work" (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). This construct has not yet been explored much, but the latest studies, e.g. Dulara and Sen (2016) reveal positive relationship between proactive personality and job crafting leading to in-role performance (task performance).
Based upon this theoretical consideration we suggest the following hypothesis: H 1 : There is a positive influence between job satisfaction and proactive behaviour. It is not only proactive behaviour that affects the job satisfaction, as tested in previous studies, but it is possible to verify the reverse relation.

Research Instrument
To verify the hypothesis we used structural equation modelling (SEM). As a framework for the study we proposed a micromodel containing two latent variables: job satisfaction (exogenic) and proactive behaviour (endogenic). It is shown in Fig. 1.  We assumed that both constructs are shaped in a reflective way. To measure latent variables in the model we used self-developed scales. The "job satisfaction" variable was equipped with three manifest variables and the "proactive behaviour" with four. Initially more variables were used, but using Cronbach's alpha coefficient we eliminated variables which were inconsistent with others in both constructs. This also explains the lack of consequence in variable numbering. Variables used in the measurement model are shown in Tab. 1.
Manifest variables were measured with 5point Likert's scale, from 1 -"I do not agree at all" to 5 -"I extremely agree".

The Sampling Method
Manifest variables were measured in a survey. The survey questionnaire was set up and put together by the authors. The questionnaire consisted of two parts: part A described the profile of the employee: gender, age, seniority, industry, position in the organization. In section B of the questionnaire, we measured 20 variables related to such constructs, as: proactivity, job satisfaction, pro-development attitude of the employee.
The questionnaires were distributed in various companies in the Bielsko Subregion (Silesian Voivodship, Poland), using snowballing method. We distributed over 500 questionnaires, 360 returned (so, we reached return ratio over 70%). Finally, after verification of the questionnaires, the model was tested on the sample of 292 employees. Tab. 2 shows the structure of the sample.

Data Analysis
To determine the model we used procedures of structural equation modelling implemented in STATISTICA 12.5. The application uses co-variance methods of estimation. For the purpose of our analysis we used mixed method: GLS (General Least Square) and ML (Maximum Likehood).

Measurement Model
As stated before, the measurement model consisted of 7 variables, evaluated on the scale of 1-5. Descriptive statistics of the variables reveal, that among respondents the statement representing variable B17 (I try to improve my work) has the highest level of approval and the statement representing B13 (I am satisfied with my job) the lowest one. Other descriptive statistics are shown in the Tab. 3. We tested measurement model using Cronbach's alpha coefficient and item-to-item correlations. For the job satisfaction alpha reached the value of 0.726 and for the proactive behaviour 0.737. It is frequently assumed that these values should be larger than 0.7 (Esposito Vinci et al., 2010). In our case this level was reached which means that both scales have sufficient internal consistency and can be used as the measurements of the latent variables. Statistical regression confirmed that all path coefficients between latent and manifest variables are statistically significant. Results of measurement model evaluation are shown in Tab. 4.

Structural Model
In our simple micromodel we only had one inner path representing the introduced hypothesis. The results of modelling indicate that we have achieved the regression coefficient equal to 0.652, connected with it standard error value of 0.102 and calculated t-statistic 6.367 which gave p-value, accurate to three decimal places, as equal to 0.000. It means that obtained path coefficient is statistically significant at level lower than 0.001, and the assumed hypothesis is supported. The results of modelling are presented in Fig. 2

Model Fit
Unfortunately overall model fit is not satisfactory as only general fit indices are on an acceptable level (GFI = 0.905, AGFI = 0.795). The χ 2 /df ratio exceeds traditional threshold value of 3 or sometimes acceptable 5 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Fit indices: normed (NFI) and non-normed (NNFI) also give unsatisfactory results. In some literature the RMSEA index is considered as one of the most informative criteria (Matzler et al., 2005). In our case its value significantly exceeds the required < 0.05 or the acceptable < 0.10 range (Biesok and Wyród-Wróbel, 2016). Therefore we have to confirm that the fit of the model is insufficient. All fit indices are gathered in Tab. 5.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we emphasized the relations between job satisfaction and proactive behaviour. Both constructs are complex so are the relations between them.
The phenomenon of proactive behaviour (or proactive personality) is a field of intense research since 90's. Despite numerous studies about proactivity, some scholars, e.g. Bindl and Parker (2011) state that at the moment, little is known about the temporal linkages between antecedents and proactive behaviour, such as how long it takes for work characteristics to promote or prevent proactive behaviour, or the time it takes for proactive behaviour to unfold and influence well-being or performance.
Proactive behaviour has a positive influence on how people are perceived by others and it may result in a variety of positives consequences, including better work relationship (Bateman and Crant, 1999). Thus proactivity and its influence on organisational behaviours and relations was a matter of concern of various studies.
Our paper shows relation between proactivity and the job satisfaction. Most previous studies investigated and verified the relationship between these concepts (e.g. Bateman and Crant, 1993;Crant, 1995;Crant and Bateman, 2000;Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000;Ng et al., 2005). However in those studies the job satisfaction was an effect of proactive personality. We put forward a reversed hypothesis which has also been positively verified. It shows that the reversed relation makes sense, should be verified in future studies and can be integrated in larger models.
Previous studies do not indicate such a direction of the relationship. However several works can be found verifying a positive influence of similar construct on job satisfaction. For example Rue and Byars (2003) concluded commitment to organisation as an effect in a model of job satisfaction, Salanova and Schaufeli (2008) proved influence of work engagement on proactive behaviour.
All these constructs are interrelated. Thus in this field of research, according to Agho et al. (1993) researchers must examine the combined effects of environmental (opportunity), job characteristics (routinization, distributive justice), and personality (positive affectivity, work motivation).
The limitation of our study is nonrepresentative data. Choosing the method of snowballing we had the opportunity to reach many respondents, but we lost control of the process of data obtaining. It is very hard to predict how the structure of the sample will shape if using snowballing.
The second limitation is the model fit. The model is verified but the fit is not the ideal. Poor fit requires a verification of the model measurement, increases the consistence of the variables within the constructs.
Measuring job satisfaction and proactivity is problematic. According to Bindl and Parker (2011) the issue with measuring proactive behaviour over time lies in its dynamic nature, because proactivity influences the situation and the situation influences proactive behaviour.
Scales used in our study are very simple (for example Bateman and Crant (1993) used 17item scale for measuring proactivity) and in future studies we will have to develop more precise scales.
The third limitation is that the model is simple. Increasing the amount of latent variables can change the image of the relation and the degree of impact.
And the last constraint of our study is that employees were working in companies in narrow region (the Bielsko Subregion). That's why we cannot fully generalise the results of the study.
Future studies will require a larger sample and more variables in the measuring model so that the most inconsistent result can be eliminated.
They should furthermore examine the relation between job satisfaction and proactive behaviour bilaterally to determine which direction of the relation is more important.
Last but not least, they should be expanded to include international companies enabling the researchers to carry out the surveys on a larger scale and not just within Poland, at the same time making it possible to compare the result and impact with the Polish companies.