The performance implications of ambivalent initiative: The interplay of autonomous and controlled motivations Adam M. Grant a,⇑ , Samir Nurmohamed b , Susan J. Ashford b , Kathryn Dekas b,c a The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Locust Walk, Suite 2000 SHDH, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6370, United States b Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1234, United States c Google, Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States article info Article history: Received 23 May 2010 Accepted 16 March 2011 Available online 16 April 2011 Accepted by Paul Levy Keywords: Initiative Autonomous motivation Controlled motivation Self-determination theory Performance Proactive behavior abstract Although initiative is thought to contribute to higher performance, researchers have called for a more comprehensive understanding of the contingencies for this relationship. Building on self-determination theory, we propose that initiative is more likely to predict performance when individuals experience autonomous and not controlled motivation. Across two studies, we find support for a hypothesized three-way interaction between initiative, autonomous motivation, and controlled motivation in predict- ing individual performance. In Study 1, the personal initiative reported by job applicants was most pos- itively related to the number of job offers that they received several months later when they experienced high autonomous motivation and low controlled motivation. In Study 2, the objective initiative taken by call center employees was most positively related to the revenue that they generated in subsequent months when they reported high autonomous motivation and low controlled motivation. We discuss the- oretical implications for motivation, initiative, proactivity, and performance. Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Introduction As the pace and unpredictability of organizational life grows rapidly, individuals can no longer afford to simply wait for instruc- tions from above on what to do and when to do it (Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007). To achieve success at work, it is critical for individ- uals to take initiative—to identify opportunities, proactively pursue them, and persist in the face of obstacles (Bindl & Parker, 2009; Campbell, 2000; Crant, 2000; Frese & Fay, 2001; Grant & Ashford, 2008). Research has shown that when individuals take initiative, they are rated by managers as more employable (Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, & Tag, 1997), earn more rewards, promotions, and higher salaries (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001; Van Scotter, Motowidlo, & Cross, 2000), receive higher supervisor performance evaluations (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000), and even lead their businesses to better performance (Frese, Krauss, et al., 2007). Despite this evidence, researchers have begun to observe that initiative does not always contribute to higher performance, and call for more theory and research to explain the conditions under which initiative is more versus less successful (Chan, 2006; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Grant, Parker, & Collins, 2009). Several research- ers have suggested that initiative is often accompanied by a sense of pressure that makes it difficult to sustain effective contributions over time (Bolino, Valcea, & Harvey, 2010; see also Bolino, Turnley, & Niehoff, 2004; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006, 2007). For example, Erdogan and Bauer (2005, p. 859) note that managers ‘‘increasingly expect employees to demonstrate proactive behaviors’’ such as initiative. Similarly, Bolino et al. (2010, p. 89) suggest that ‘‘the emphasis on proactive behaviors in today’s organizations... is likely to be par- ticularly stressful.’’ Indeed, recent studies indicate that individuals often take initiative under stress (Fay & Sonnentag, 2002), that tak- ing initiative is associated with higher role overload and job stress (Bolino & Turnley, 2005), and that individuals who feel pressured fail to maintain their effort and performance over time (Grant, 2008). Building on these emerging theoretical perspectives and empir- ical findings, it is important to understand how the psychological experiences of individuals influence the effectiveness of their ini- tiative. Drawing on self-determination theory (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000), we propose that the relationship be- tween initiative and performance varies as a function of individu- als’ autonomous and controlled motivations in the task in which initiative is taken. Specifically, we argue that when individuals experience high autonomous motivation and low controlled moti- vation toward a task, they take initiative based on choice rather than pressure and obligation, which provides them with the psychological resources necessary to engage in effective forms of initiative over time. As a result, we predict that initiative will more 0749-5978/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.004 ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: grantad@wharton.upenn.edu (A.M. Grant). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116 (2011) 241–251 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp