26 Chapter 2 The Present Research In order to capture proactive vitality management (PVM), we aim to develop and validate a reliable measurement instrument. In addition to measuring people’s general use of proactive vitality management, we adapt the scale for use on a daily basis, and examine the validity of this day-level scale as well. We assume that there are individual differences in people’s tendencies to proactively engage in vitality management to promote their work. However, it is important to also acknowledge the intra-individual nature of proactive vitality management. That is, this behavior is likely to fluctuate within persons as well – for example, due to differences between workdays and tasks, the amount of physical and mental energy work requires, and fluctuating personal needs. Moreover, research showing that proactive behavior (e.g., job crafting) and potential outcomes of proactive vitality management (e.g., work engagement, affect and energetic resources) fluctuate within persons also supports the idea that there are within-person fluctuations in proactive behavior aimed at managing vitality (e.g., Beal, Weiss, Barros, &MacDermid, 2005; Binnewies &Wörnlein, 2011; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2014; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009). Another advantage of questionnaires that are adjusted to a specific time period (e.g., day or week) is that they may reduce retrospective bias because of the proximity of the measurement to the behaviors the scale items refer to. Participants’ self-evaluations and recollection of their behavior are therefore likely to be more accurate when researched using such a ‘diary’ measurement instrument (Ohly, Sonnentag, Niessen, & Zapf, 2010). In the first study, we develop the PVM scale and examine its factorial validity. In the second study, we examine the validity of a daily version of the PVM scale in a fiveday diary sample. Moreover, we explore a range of potential strategies that people may use while at work to manage their energy (i.e., work-related strategies and microbreaks; Fritz et al., 2011; Zacher et al., 2014), and examine how these relate to the PVM construct. Finally, in the third study, we explore the wider nomological network of proactive vitality management. In doing so, we aim to gain more insight into the nature of proactive vitality management, and to find support for convergent, discriminant and criterion validity of the PVM scale.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw