25 Conceptualization and Measurement of Proactive Vitality Management studies provide initial evidence that physical energy can be replenished and offer some examples of activities people may engage in to renew their resources. Our approach is, however, both conceptually and methodologically different from the literature on recovery during or after work. Recovery is usually regarded as a process in which empty energy reserves are replenished after (periods of) work (cf. effort-recovery model; Meijman &Mulder, 1998). In this sense, it may be described as a reaction to strain from work. In contrast, we define proactive vitality management as having a clear proactive component, which refers to the idea that the behavior is self-initiated and goal-oriented (cf. Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). Even though recovery may promote well-being, employees may engage in activities after work (e.g., hobbies) or breaks at work (e.g., have lunch or coffee) as part of a routine or habit, for physiological reasons, to reward themselves, or simply because they are bored. In addition, few studies have linked recovery experiences to actual work performance outcomes, and the ones that have, have yielded inconsistent results (Sonnentag et al., 2017). Building on Parker, Bindl, and Strauss (2010), we argue that proactive vitality management has a clear goal (being able to function at work and achieve work-related goals), and that people strive to achieve this goal by engaging in strategies to manage both physical and mental energy. As proactive vitality management entails individual, goal-oriented behavior, we propose that individuals may proactively manage their physical and mental energy according to their own personal, idiosyncratic needs and preferences (i.e., how, where, and when they need or prefer to do so). For example, whereas some people may start the workday with their favorite music playing in the car, others may decide to go jogging to the workplace to boost themselves physically and mentally for work (i.e., individual differences). Additionally, at certain times, one may go for a walk or cup of coffee to prepare for a long work shift, whereas at other times, this person may decide to ignore phone calls and e-mails for a while to be able to concentrate on a task (i.e., momentary differences). In other words, not all strategies or activities may be equally effective or favorable for everyone at all times, for example due to individual preferences or workschedule factors (cf. Sonnentag et al., 2017). Moreover, research suggests that engaging in ‘preferred activities’ requires less effort and may be most beneficial in terms of physical and mental energy (Trougakos &Hideg, 2009; Hunter &Wu, 2016). Accordingly, we propose that a proactive approach in the vitality management process may promote work outcomes, irrespective of the specific strategies people choose to employ. 2
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw