JOB CRAFTING AN OVERARCHING APPROACH · PDF fileSummary of PhD - Job Crafting: An Overarching...
Transcript of JOB CRAFTING AN OVERARCHING APPROACH · PDF fileSummary of PhD - Job Crafting: An Overarching...
FACULTY OF PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
JOB CRAFTING: AN OVERARCHING APPROACH
Supported by FWO Flanders Belgium under Grant POR-C4088-G.0954.12.
2017
Doctoral thesis offered to obtain the degree of Doctor in Psychology (PhD)
Els Vanbelle
Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Hans De Witte Prof. Dr. Anja Van den Broeck
RESEARCH UNIT OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY AND PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
i
Summary of PhD - Job Crafting: An Overarching Approach
Job crafting emerged in the early 2000s as a bottom-up perspective on job redesign in which
employees take an active role in customizing their job. It describes the self-initiated changes
employees make to their job in order to optimize their functioning. In this PhD project, the aims
were twofold. First, we aimed to clarify the concept of job crafting. We started from the two main
streams on job crafting (i.e. Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), compared
definitions, elaborated on similarities and differences, and built an overarching approach. In line
with our conceptualization, we developed an overarching job crafting scale. Second, we aimed to
expand our understanding of job crafting by exploring its nomological network, including both
antecedents and consequences in our overall model.
This PhD dissertation consists of six chapters. In Chapter 1, we introduce job crafting, elaborate
on the two central aims of this PhD project and structure the four empirical studies (Chapter 2-5)
in an overall model. In Chapter 2, we develop and validate the overarching job crafting scale
(OJCS). The scale consists of four items, and includes the two core elements of job crafting: (1) we
made abstraction of the specific type of changes employees make to their jobs and (2) we included
the inherently pro-self-focused purpose of job crafting, referring to optimizing one’s well-being,
meaning of the job, work identity and performance. We demonstrated reliability, construct
validity in relation to other job crafting scales, predictive validity, and incremental validity for
positive outcomes. In Chapter 3, we present a cross-sectional study among governmental
employees aged between 45 and 65 years in which we modelled active jobs as antecedents of job
crafting and the willingness to work until retirement age as outcome. In Chapter 4, we present a
daily diary study on the role of individual characteristics in relation to daily job crafting and daily
person-job fit. We found that active emotions positively relate to daily job crafting and daily
person-job fit. Furthermore, personal growth initiative showed to be a general personal strength
that positively relates to daily job crafting and that makes employees less dependent of daily
fluctuations in active emotions. In Chapter 5, we found a curvilinear relationship between
emotional exhaustion and job crafting, especially under the condition of high servant leadership.
In addition, servant leadership amplified the positive relationship between personal
accomplishment and job crafting. No significant results were found on cynicism. Finally, in Chapter
6, we look back on our findings and think ahead on future avenues for job crafting research.
In sum, within this PhD dissertation, we developed an overarching approach of job crafting and
validated an overarching job crafting scale. In addition, we explored the nomological network of
this overarching job crafting construct.
iii
Samenvatting van Doctoraat – Job Crafting: Een Overkoepelende Benadering
Job crafting is een recent onderzoeksthema binnen de arbeidspsychologie en biedt een bottom-
up perspectief op het herontwerpen van jobs. Het betreft de actieve rol die werknemers opnemen
in het aanpassen van hun job op maat van persoonlijke behoeften, interesses en capaciteiten. We
definiëren job crafting als de zelfgeïnitieerde veranderingen die werknemers aanbrengen in hun
job met de bedoeling hun functioneren te optimaliseren. Doorheen dit doctoraatsproject komen
we tegemoet aan twee doelstellingen. Ten eerste streven we naar een conceptverduidelijking van
job crafting. We starten vanuit de twee hoofdstromingen in de literatuur (i.e. Tims & Bakker, 2010;
Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), bestuderen gelijkenissen en verschillen, en ontwikkelen een
overkoepelende benadering. Daarbij aansluitend ontwikkelen we een overkoepelende schaal om
job crafting te bevragen. Ten tweede beogen we meer kennis te vergaren inzake het nomologische
netwerk van job crafting door zowel antecedenten als gevolgen op te nemen in ons model.
Deze dissertatie bestaat uit zes hoofdstukken. In Hoofdstuk 1 omschrijven we de doelstellingen
van het doctoraatsonderzoek en structureren we de vier empirische studies (Hoofdstuk 2-5) in
een overzichtelijk model. In Hoofdstuk 2 ontwikkelen en valideren we de Overkoepelende Job
Crafting Schaal (OJCS). Dit instrument omvat vier items die zijn opgebouwd volgens de twee
kernelementen van job crafting: (1) we maken abstractie van de diverse specifieke veranderingen
die werknemers kunnen maken en (2) verwijzen naar de inherente doelstelling van job crafting
om het persoonlijke welzijn te verbeteren, beter te kunnen presteren of de job beter te laten
passen bij wie men is en wat men belangrijk vindt. Onze studieresultaten geven aan dat de OJCS
betrouwbaar en valide is. We tonen constructvaliditeit in relatie tot andere job crafting schalen en
vinden dat de OJCS voorspellend is voor positieve uitkomsten. In Hoofdstuk 3 tonen we aan de
hand van een cross-sectionele studie dat 45-plussers hun job craften in de context van actieve jobs
en dat dit positief samenhangt met de bereidheid om langer te werken. In Hoofdstuk 4 bespreken
we een dagboekstudie en tonen we de rol van actieve emoties en doelgerichtheid in relatie tot job
crafting en persoon-job fit (i.e. de perceptie dat eigen behoeften en capaciteiten overeenstemmen
met wat de job te bieden heeft en vereist). Werknemers die hoog scoren op doelgerichtheid, een
persoonlijke sterkte, blijken minder afhankelijk te zijn van dagelijkse schommelingen in emoties.
In Hoofdstuk 5 onderzoeken we het verband tussen burnout en job crafting. De resultaten tonen
dat emotionele uitputting curvi-lineair (omgekeerde U-vorm) samenhangt met job crafting
wanneer werknemers een dienende leidinggevende hebben. Werknemers die hoog scoren op
persoonlijke bekwaamheid scoren hoger op job crafting en dit wordt versterkt door dienend
leiderschap. We vonden geen significante resultaten voor cynisme. In Hoofdstuk 6, tot slot, voeren
we een globale discussie van de bevindingen, bieden we suggesties voor toekomstig onderzoek en
bespreken we praktische implicaties. Samengenomen hanteren we in dit doctoraatswerk een
overkoepelende benadering van job crafting en exploreren we zowel antecedenten als gevolgen.
v
BEAUTIFUL THAT WAY – NOA
Smile, without a reason why
Love, as if you were a child
Smile, no matter what they tell you
Don’t listen to a word they say
'Cause life is beautiful that way
Tears, a tidal-wave of tears
Light that slowly disappears
Wait, before you close the curtain
There’s still another game to play
And life is beautiful that way
Here, in his eyes forever more
I will always be as close
as you remember from before.
Now, that you're out there on your own
Remember, what is real
and what we dream is love alone.
Keep the laughter in your eyes
Soon, your long awaited prize
We’ll forget about our sorrow
And think about a brighter day
'Cause life is beautiful that way
Music: Nicola Piovani
Lyrics: Noa & Gil Dor
“La Vitta e Bella”
Personal source of reflection
(August 2015 – March 2016)
vii
LET’S CRAFT! LET’S WALK! LET’S THANK!
Een memorabele boswandeling … …A memorable walk through the forest
Een deugddoende wandeling, ik kan het iedereen aanraden. Een frisse neus halen, nieuwe paden
bewandelen, mooie plekjes exploreren. Af en toe de weg wat moeten zoeken alvorens een
herkenningspunt te spotten en tot rust te komen.
An energizing walk, a true recommendation for each and every one of you. Getting outside for
some fresh air, exploring unknown pathways and beautiful sites. You might get lost from time to
time before you recognize that one spot that enables you to relax and enjoy.
De tocht naar de dag van vandaag, het behalen van mijn doctoraatsdiploma, was zonder twijfel dé
meest uitdagende, maar ook inspirerende en verrijkende wandeling die ik maakte de voorbije
jaren. Een heldere wandelkaart was er niet voor handen. Het is een wandeling die je niet gauw
even op een dagje klaart, maar waarbij zowel heldere zomerdagen als schemerdagen elkaar
afwisselen. Soms zie je door de bomen even het bos niet meer en op andere momenten ervaar je
dan weer een aangename wind in de rug die je meevoert en laat uitkijken naar nieuwe horizonten.
Het was een wandeling die ik gelukkig niet alleen maakte. Diverse wandelaars daagden me uit,
kruisten mijn pad en wezen me de weg of boden een houvast en wandelden een heel eind mee.
The walk towards this defense-day, was undoubtedly the most challenging, exciting and
inspiring walk of the past years. Even though there was no strict roadmap available, I could
count on many people during my journey that I would like to thank.
Sommigen moedigden me aan mijn inhoudelijke alsook persoonlijke grenzen uit te dagen
en op de proef te stellen. Ieder op zijn of haar eigenste wandelwijze.
Jury members: Prof. Dr. Peter Kuppens, Prof. Dr. Jari Hakanen, & Prof. Dr. Wilmar Schaufeli– Thank
you for reading and evaluating my PhD dissertation, for providing me with your helpful and
enlightening remarks. Thank you for lifting my work up to a higher level. Kiitos! Wilmar, een
bijzonder woord van dank richt ik graag naar jou. Dank voor je inhoudelijke en persoonlijke
interesse, bezorgdheid en open deur voor een helpende hand of luisterend oor. Special thanks
to Prof. Dr. Maria Tims for taking part in my mid-term committee. Not only as a job crafting
pioneer, but as a truly agreeable and warm-hearted person, you gave me the opportunity to
walk beside you and to meet the intriguing world and explorers of job crafting.
Anja - “Soms moet je tot de bodem gaan, om de top te bereiken” – dat was de boodschap die te
lezen stond op de tas die ik van je kreeg als welkomstgeschenk te Brussel. Ik wil jou in het
bijzonder danken voor je warme begrip en persoonlijke flexibiliteit de afgelopen periode. Ik
ben ontzettend dankbaar voor het contact dat we hadden de laatste maanden. Het betekent
oprecht meer voor me dan ik ooit kan verwoorden… Dankje!
Hans – Waar zal ik beginnen… Acht jaar geleden begon onze unieke samenwerking… Dankzij jou
kon ik proeven van de wondere wereld der wetenschappen en ging mijn hart sneller slaan bij
het kennis vergaren inzake theorie en empirie. Dankzij jou werd ik een arbeidspsychologe in
hart en nieren en koester ik de wens om de brug te slaan van wetenschap en pragmatiek naar
het dagelijkse praktijkveld. Dankzij jou vatte ik deze bijzondere wandeling aan en wist ik
uitdagende paden te trotseren. Als een onvoorwaardelijke steun en toeverlaat, bij momenten
alwaar mijn “professionele vaderfiguur”, wandelde je mee tot op de dag van vandaag. Dankje!
viii
Verschillende mensen kruisten mijn pad en wezen me de weg…
O2L – Thank you for sharing your smiles, for your companion during our endeavours and joy.
Nele, jij was mijn stagebegeleidster en coachte me doorheen mijn verdere werk en
persoonlijke ontwikkeling. Je houdt me de nodige spiegels voor en staat steeds paraat voor
advies of een gezellige lunch, dank. Kristien, dank om er steeds te zijn voor een luisterend oor,
helpende hand of moment van rust. Marc, dank voor je hart onder de riem en het
onvoorwaardelijk kunnen delen van ons verhaal. Bart, dank voor je vriendschap en prachtige
zangmomenten! Jana, dank om me steeds weer te verbazen en te laten lachen. Tijs, dank voor
je bevlogenheid. Katrien & Kathleen, dank voor jullie dagelijkse ondersteuning! Katrien,
Kristien, Ivana, Steffie, Anahí en Irina, hartelijke dank om mijn proefverdediging mogelijk te
maken. Each and every ex- and current O2L member, thank you for the little things.
Mijn kantoorgenootjes – Wendy, dank voor je warme onthaal en vele onvergetelijke momenten.
Irina, Beatrice, Salvatore, & Kaisa, thank you for creating a joyful, supportive and warm office-
climate. Julie, je was hét te gekste kantoorgenootje! Ivana & Ellen, oprechte dank voor jullie
dagelijkse glimlach, empathie, gekke & plagende-onderlinge-zelven, gezellige thee-delen,
ludieke kleenex-(balsem!)-momenten en onvoorwaardelijke steun.
HRRG | WOS – Thank you for being such a wonderful and welcoming research group.
Mijn masterproefstudenten – Dank voor de aangename samenwerking en verwezenlijkingen.
Deelnemers aan ons onderzoek – Zonder jullie was dit niet mogelijk. Hartelijke dank!
Professionele contacten die ik ontmoette onderweg – Dank!
Anderen wandelden een heel eind mee en zorgden voor dagelijkse herkenningspunten…
LUK & Tempo – Dank om deze wandeling al zingend of dansend een extra dimensie te bieden.
Psychologie-meiden – Fran, Heleen, Stef, Steve, Lisa, Sofie, Marie & Elien dank voor jullie interesse,
medeleven, warme vriendschap, nodige momenten van ontspanning en hart onder de riem.
De vrienden uit Halle & omstreken – Hartelijke dank voor jullie energie!
Yannick – Dank voor je inhoudelijke nieuwsgierigheid, statistische ondersteuning en vriendschap.
Jeroen – Dank om samen door gedeelde persoonlijke uitdagingen te wandelen. Dank voor de vele
momenten van reflectie, je begrip en je vriendschap.
Anne – Jij bent “Anne”! Niet zo maar een collega, maar een ware vriendin. Dank om wie je bent,
om me op tijd en stond een halt toe te roepen, houvast te bieden en mijn denken even over te
nemen. Woorden schieten te kort. Dankje om “Anne” te zijn!
Valérie – Dankjewel voor je luisterend oor, je verlossende EMDR-kunsten en je deskundigheid.
Dankjewel om er te zijn en me te vergezellen de voorbije 2 jaar en in het hier en nu.
Charite & Floriaan – Dank omdat jullie er steeds zijn en ik telkens weer op jullie kan rekenen.
Isabel & Davy – Thank you for your friendship, unconditional believe and for making me “metie”!
Katty & Geert – Dank om zowel mijn glimlach als traan telkens weer een plaatsje te bieden, voor
de vrijdagse opfleurtjes, jullie advies en de vele vrolijke, gezellige momenten samen.
Ama – Dank voor je dagelijkse portie muziek, energie en positivisme. Onbeschrijfelijk!
Alwientje – Dank voor je onvoorwaardelijke vriendschap, begrip en vasthoudendheid.
ix
Henny – Dank voor de talrijke boswandelingen. Je bent écht een top-wandelcoach!
Mieke – Dankje om te springen op moeilijke momenten, voor je openheid, goedlachse zelf, het
delen van persoonlijke spannende stappen en unieke vriendschap.
Mijn schoonfamilie – Mama Marlies, papa Freddy, Liesbeth, Ugo, Emma, Arthur, Grietje, Tim &
Fientje: dank voor jullie gastvrijheid, de zondagse energieboost met “wolfje!”, het vertrouwen,
steun en de vele vitamientjes. Dank om me mee op pad te nemen, dankzij jullie leerde ik echt
genieten van gastronomische, en misschien soms zelfs wat bourgondische, verwennerijen.
Ugo, dank voor je interesse en voor het nalezen van diverse hoofdstukken. Dank allemaal om
mij een tweede thuis te bieden en deel te laten voelen van jullie warme nest.
Mijn grootouders, dankje om er te zijn en voor de bijzondere momenten die we koesteren.
Memeke, dank voor de zaterdagse koffie en glimlach van geluk bij ieder samenzijn.
Anke & Kali – Dank voor jullie liefde. Lieve zus, een bijzondere dank voor jou van een heel erg fiere
“grote” zus om wie je bent, wat je doet en je vele talenten. Van onze prachtige kindertijd tot
deze nieuwsgierige twintiger-tijd verzamelden we reeds ontzettend mooie herinneringen. Ik
kijk op naar je doorzettingsvermogen en naar de wijze waarop je hevige waterstromen steeds
met klem weet te doorzwemmen. Het zijn ervaringen die je vormen tot de fantastische
persoon die je bent. Ik wil je ook in het bijzonder danken om dit boekje van layout en
persoonlijke touch te voorzien. Je wist de perfecte vertaalslag te maken van mijn soms wat
warrige hoofd via jouw creatieve hand naar een prachtig resultaat.
Mama & papa – Ik kan me geen beter ouderpaar voorstellen. Dank dat we mochten opgroeien in
jullie warme nest van liefde, openheid en vertrouwen. Dank voor de unieke kansen die ik
kreeg en voor het onvoorwaardelijke geloof in mijn kunnen. Dank om me op te vangen en te
beschermen, telkens weer. Papa, ik geniet ervan om met jou te kunnen praten en koester de
momenten die we samen beleven. Tal van muziekflarden roepen warme herinneringen op
aan de fantastische tijden die we als gezin beleefden. Mama, dat ene stukje van de wandeling
liep je wel heel erg letterlijk en figuurlijk mee. Dat ene stukje van onze wandeling, bracht ons
zonder enige twijfel nóg dichter bij elkaar. Woorden hebben we niet per se nodig, een blik of
gevoel zegt vaak genoeg. Een traan, een lach, passie en vuur, reflectie, rust alsook de
broodnodige gekke momenten helpen in onze persoonlijke queeste naar het balanceren van
bevlogenheid, plichtsbewustzijn en assertiviteit. Ik zie jullie bijzonder graag.
Pieter – Mijn trouwste steun en toeverlaat, mijn ware rots in de branding. Woorden schieten te
kort om recht te doen aan wat jij voor mij doet en betekent. Je biedt me een heerlijke thuis. Je
voelt aan wat goed voor me is en waar valkuilen op de loer liggen. Je neemt mijn denken van
me over op momenten dat dat nodig is en tilt me telkens weer een stapje hoger. Ik weet dat
het niet steeds even gemakkelijk voor je was de voorbije jaren en kan je niet voldoende
danken om het verlichten van de uitdagingen die we tegenkwamen. Jij bent mijn perfecte
complement, je haalt het beste in mij naar boven en bent een ware verrijking voor de persoon
die ik ben. Om het in jouw woorden te zeggen: “ik ben ontzettend blij dat jij in m’n team zit”!
De mooiste momenten beleef ik en zal ik beleven samen met jou, simpelweg omdat ik echt
zielsveel van je hou.
Dankjewel voor deze memorabele wandeling!
Thank you all for this memorable walk!
xi
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER 1 – General Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
1. Once Upon A Time ................................................................................................................................ 3
2. Clarifying The Concept Of Job Crafting (Aim 1 – Proposition 1).......................................... 5
2.1. Job Crafting: Taking An Overarching Approach ............................................................................ 5
2.2. Situating Job Crafting Within the Proactivity Perspective on Job Redesign ...................... 9
2.3. From Conceptualization to the Added Value of an Overarching Scale of Job Crafting10
3. Exploring the Nomological Network of the Overarching Job Crafting Construct
(Aim 2 – Proposition 2 & 3) ................................................................................................................... 11
3.1. Job Crafting as an Individual Strategy in Relation to (Sub)optimal Functioning ......... 12
3.2. Personal and Contextual Factors and Opportunities to Craft ............................................... 14
3.3. From Propositions to Four Empirical Studies............................................................................. 15
4. Overview of Empirical Studies and Following Chapters ..................................................... 17
4.1. Chapter 2 - Study 1: Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS) ............... 17
4.2. Chapter 3 - Study 2: Job Crafting: Autonomy and Workload as Independent Variables
and the Willingness to Continue Working Until Retirement Age as Dependent Variable ....... 18
4.3. Chapter 4 - Study 3: Active Emotions and Personal Growth Initiative in Relation to
Employees’ Daily Job Crafting and Person-Job Fit: A Multilevel Study ............................................ 20
4.4. Chapter 5 - Study 4: Digging into the Linear and Curvilinear Relationship Between
Burnout and Job Crafting. Servant Leadership as Moderator .............................................................. 21
5. Taken Together.................................................................................................................................. 23
6. References ........................................................................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 2 – Study 1: Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS)..................... 31
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 34
1.1. Job Crafting: Building an Overarching Approach....................................................................... 34
1.2. The Added Value of an Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS) ............................................ 35
2. Study 1: Scale Development and Reliability Analyses ......................................................... 36
2.1. Method......................................................................................................................................................... 37
2.2. Sample and Procedure. ......................................................................................................................... 38
xii
2.3. Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 38
2.4. Discussion Study 1 .................................................................................................................................. 40
3. Study 2: Construct validity of the OJCS ...................................................................................... 41
3.1. Method......................................................................................................................................................... 41
3.2. Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 42
3.3. Discussion Study 2 .................................................................................................................................. 44
4. Study 3: Predictive validity ............................................................................................................ 47
4.1. Method......................................................................................................................................................... 47
4.2. Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 49
4.3. Discussion Study 3 .................................................................................................................................. 50
5. Study 4: Incremental validity of OJCS above JCS and JCQ .................................................... 52
5.1. Method......................................................................................................................................................... 52
5.2. Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 53
5.3. Discussion Study 4 .................................................................................................................................. 53
6. General Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 55
6.1. Main contributions ................................................................................................................................. 55
6.2. Future research directions .................................................................................................................. 56
7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 58
8. References ........................................................................................................................................... 59
CHAPTER 3 – Study 2: Job Crafting: Autonomy and Workload as Independent Variables
and the Willingness to Continue Working Until Retirement Age as Dependent Variable .. 65
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 68
Job Crafting ................................................................................................................................................ 68
Job Crafting and the Willingness to Continue Working........................................................... 70
Active Jobs and Job Crafting................................................................................................................ 71
Indirect Relationships from Active Jobs to the Willingness to Continue Working via
Job Crafting ............................................................................................................................................................... 73
2. Method .................................................................................................................................................. 74
Sample and Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 74
xiii
Measures ..................................................................................................................................................... 75
3. Results ................................................................................................................................................... 76
Preliminary Results ................................................................................................................................ 76
Test of the Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................... 76
4. Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 81
Strengths, Limitations and Directions for Future Research .................................................. 83
5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 85
6. References ........................................................................................................................................... 86
CHAPTER 4 – Study 3: Active Emotions and Personal Growth Initiative in Relation to
Employees’ Daily Job Crafting and Person-Job Fit: A Multilevel Study ...................................... 93
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 96
1.1. Job Crafting ................................................................................................................................................ 98
1.2. Individual Characteristics and Job Crafting ................................................................................. 98
1.3. A Functional Classification Approach of Individual Characteristics to Job Crafting 100
1.4. Cross-level Interaction of Personal Growth Initiative and Work-Related Emotions101
1.5. Job Crafting and Person-Job Fit ...................................................................................................... 102
1.6. Indirect Relationships from Individual Characteristics to Person-Job Fit
via Job Crafting ..................................................................................................................................................... 102
2. Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 103
2.1. Procedure ................................................................................................................................................ 103
2.2. Sample ...................................................................................................................................................... 104
2.3. Measures .................................................................................................................................................. 104
2.4. Analyses ................................................................................................................................................... 105
3. Results ................................................................................................................................................. 106
3.1. Descriptive results ............................................................................................................................... 106
3.2. Confirmatory Factor Analyses ........................................................................................................ 106
3.3. Hypotheses Testing ............................................................................................................................. 109
4. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 111
4.1. Main Contributions ............................................................................................................................. 112
xiv
4.2. Limitations and Future Research .................................................................................................. 113
4.3. Implications ............................................................................................................................................ 115
5. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 116
6. References ......................................................................................................................................... 117
CHAPTER 5 – Study 4: Digging Into the Linear and Curvilinear Relationship Between
Burnout and Job Crafting: The Moderating Role of Servant Leadership ................................ 123
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 126
Burnout and Job Crafting .................................................................................................................. 127
1.1.1. Emotional exhaustion and job crafting. ............................................................................ 128
1.1.2. Cynicism and job crafting. ....................................................................................................... 129
1.1.3. Personal accomplishment and job crafting. .................................................................... 130
Servant Leadership and Job Crafting ........................................................................................... 131
1.2.1. Servant leadership as a moderator of the burnout-job crafting relationship. .. 131
2. Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 133
Procedure and Sample ....................................................................................................................... 133
Measures .................................................................................................................................................. 134
Analyses ................................................................................................................................................... 135
3. Results ................................................................................................................................................. 136
Confirmatory Factor Analysis ......................................................................................................... 136
Hypotheses Testing ............................................................................................................................. 136
4. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 141
Main Contributions ............................................................................................................................. 141
4.1.1. The burnout-job crafting relationship. .............................................................................. 141
4.1.2. Job crafting as a socially embedded phenomenon. ...................................................... 143
4.1.3. COR as a relevant theoretical framework. ....................................................................... 144
Limitations and Future Research Avenues ............................................................................... 145
Conclusion and Practical Implications ........................................................................................ 147
5. References ......................................................................................................................................... 149
xv
CHAPTER 6: General Discussion: Time To Look Back and To Think Ahead ......................... 155
1. Time to Look Back and to Think Ahead .................................................................................. 157
2. Looking Back: Our Main Findings in the Light of Two Aims and
Three Propositions ................................................................................................................................. 157
2.1. The Concept of Job Crafting: Taking an Overarching Approach
(Aim 1 - Proposition 1) .......................................................................................................................... 158
2.1.1. Job crafting includes a broad range of work-related changes. ................................ 159
2.1.2. Job crafting includes a pro-self-focused purpose. ......................................................... 160
2.1.3. Job crafting and positive outcome variables. .................................................................. 161
2.2. Job Crafting and (Sub)optimal Functioning (Aim 2 - Proposition 2) ............................ 162
2.2.1. Job crafting modelled as an antecedent of (sub)optimal functioning. ................. 162
2.2.2. (Sub)optimal functioning modelled as an antecedent of job crafting. ................. 165
2.3. Contextual and Personal Factors (Aim 2 - Proposition 3) ................................................ 166
2.3.1. Main effects of personal and contextual factors (antecedents). ............................. 166
2.3.2. Personal and contextual factors as opportunities to craft (moderators). .......... 169
2.4. Theoretical Considerations: Taken Together ....................................................................... 169
2.4.1. Aim 1: Clarifying the concept of job crafting. .................................................................. 170
2.4.2. Aim 2: Exploring the nomological network of job crafting. ...................................... 171
2.4.3. Some final theoretical considerations. .............................................................................. 171
2.5. Methodological Considerations ................................................................................................. 173
2.5.1. The Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS). ..................................................................... 173
2.5.2. Samples........................................................................................................................................... 174
2.5.3. Study design, causality and dynamics. .............................................................................. 175
2.5.4. Self-reports. .................................................................................................................................. 176
3. Thinking Ahead: Remaining Issues on Job Crafting ............................................................ 177
3.1. The Concept of Job Crafting and the Matter of Time .......................................................... 178
3.2. Un(der)-investigated Paths in our Overall Model: Job Crafting in Relation to Optimal
Functioning, and Personal and Contextual factors ..................................................................... 179
3.2.1. Job crafting and optimal functioning: only a bright side?.......................................... 180
xvi
3.2.2. The role of personal and contextual factors: an interactionist perspective. ..... 181
3.2.3. Explaining the positive outcomes of job crafting. ......................................................... 182
3.2.4. Job crafting as a moderator. ................................................................................................... 183
4. Job Crafting in Practice.................................................................................................................. 183
5. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 187
6. References ......................................................................................................................................... 188
Appendices .................................................................................................................................................... 197
xvii
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 1 – General Introduction
Table 1. Overview of propositions and studies. ................................................................... 16
Chapter 2 – Study 1
Table 1. Descriptives and exploratory factor analyses (NT1=423). ............................... 39
Table 2. Fit statistics for the models based on confirmatory factor analyses
(N=637). .............................................................................................................................. 45
Table 3. Latent correlations between job crafting factors (N=637). ............................ 46
Table 4. Means, standard deviations and latent correlations between OJCS and
outcomes. ............................................................................................................................ 51
Table 5. Hierarchical regression of outcomes on job crafting measures (N=358). 54
Chapter 3 – Study 2
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations and reliabilities (Cronbach’s
alphas in parentheses (N=1168). .............................................................................. 78
Table 2. Results of the analysis for simple mediation using the SPSS PROCESS macro
of Hayes (2013) (N=1168). .......................................................................................... 79
Chapter 4 – Study 3
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, zero-order and person-centered correlations .
................................................................................................................................................ 107
Table 2. Fit statistics for the models based on confirmatory facto analyses
(Nindividuals=116; Nobservations=341) .............................................................................. 108
Chapter 5 – Study 4
Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, means, standard deviations and correlations
(N=603). ............................................................................................................................ 138
Table 2. Hierarchical regression analyses of job crafting on each burnout
component as independent variable (IV), servant leadership as moderator,
quadratic effects of the IV, interaction and moderated quadratic effects
(N=583). ............................................................................................................................ 139
Chapter 6 – General Discussion
xviii
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter 1 – General Introduction
Figure 1. The overall model of this PhD project based on three propositions.............. 5
Figure 2. Developing an overarching approach on job crafting building on two
pioneering streams ............................................................................................................ 8
Figure 3. Situating job crafting within the proactive perspective on job redesign
(based on Grant & Parker, 2009) .............................................................................. 10
Figure 4. Schematic overview of the studies in an overall model ................................... 17
Figure 5. Hypothesized model of Study 2 .................................................................................. 19
Figure 6. Hypothesized model of Study 3 .................................................................................. 21
Figure 7. Hypothesized model of Study 4 .................................................................................. 22
Chapter 2 – Study 1
Chapter 3 – Study 2
Figure 1. Hypothesized research model based on the simple mediation model
explained by Preacher & Hayes (2008) and further suggestions by Hayes
(2012). .................................................................................................................................. 77
Figure 2. Final model. ....................................................................................................................... 80
Chapter 4 – Study 3
Figure 1. Hypothesized multilevel moderated mediation model.
Notes. Full lines represent expected positive relationships and dashed
lines represent expected negative relationships. ............................................... 97
Figure 2. Estimated paths in the full multilevel moderated mediation model.
Notes. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001. Dotted lines indicate non-significant
relationships. ................................................................................................................... 110
Figure 3. Cross-level interaction of personal growth initiative and positive active
emotions in relation to daily job crafting. ........................................................... 110
Figure 4. Cross-level interaction of personal growth initiative and negative active
emotions in relation to daily job crafting. ........................................................... 111
xix
Chapter 5 – Study 4
Figure 1. Moderating effect of servant leadership on the curvilinear relationship
between emotional exhaustion and job crafting, controlling for educational
level (two-way quadratic interaction with continuous moderator) ........ 140
Figure 2. Moderating effect of servant leadership on the relationship between
personal accomplishment and job crafting, controlling for educational
level (two-way interaction) ....................................................................................... 140
Chapter 6 – General Discussion
Figure 1. Schematic overview of the studies in an overall model ................................. 158
Figure 2. The overall model of this PhD project (dark lines) expanded with avenues
for future research (grey lines) ............................................................................... 179
Figure 3. 9 tips on job crafting in practice from an employee- and employer
perspective ....................................................................................................................... 187
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
3
1. Once Upon A Time
Job crafting emerged as a new perspective on job redesign within the field of contemporary
occupational health psychology in the early 2000s (Oldham & Fried, 2016). It refers to a bottom-
up perspective in which employees take an active role in “[shaping, moulding and redefining their
jobs]” to create different jobs for themselves (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p.180).
Job crafting is especially promising in times of change arising from economic, technological
and demographic trends in the contemporary world of work (Grant & Parker, 2009; Peeters, Taris,
& de Jonge, 2014). Two broad trends challenge top-down job design and shed light on the added
value of bottom-up approaches such as job crafting (Demerouti, 2014). First, the workforce is
becoming increasingly diverse in terms of gender, ethnicity, educational background and age,
bringing along different needs, values, skills and preferences to meet. In the upcoming years, for
instance, it will be especially important to encourage the aging workforce to continue working
until retirement age and to manage the workforce diversity.
Second, the nature and organisation of work is becoming increasingly complex and intense,
implying new job characteristics for both employers and employees to deal with (Oldham & Fried,
2016; Peeters et al., 2014). We shifted from a predominantly manufacturing economy to a vast
increase of a knowledge and service economy, bringing along new psychosocial risks such as
emotional, social and cognitive demands (Grant & Parker, 2009; Peeters et al., 2014). In addition,
rapid developments in information technology influence the organisation of work in terms of how,
when and where work is conducted. Although this brings along opportunities for flexible work
arrangements (e.g. flexibility in timing and place of work, working together in virtual ways, etc.),
it also creates challenges to balance work and non-work domains (Peeters et al., 2014). These new
work arrangements might furthermore impact job characteristics such as enhanced autonomy
and less monitoring at work, creating opportunities to engage in job crafting (Oldham & Fried,
2016). Finally, the mutual expectations of employer and employee also changed. Whereas an
organisation used to be a place for lifelong employment, it now offers a means to strengthen one’s
employability, to use and develop one’s skills, competencies and abilities (Grant & Parker, 2009),
and to strive for meaningful jobs and careers (Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2013). Flexibility,
employability, and self-regulation are key words in the current psychological contract (Peeters, et
al., 2014). Taken together, jobs, traditionally conceived as merely predesigned sets of specific
tasks to be conducted in specified ways with specified others at fixed workhours and a vast
workplace, pave the way for more uncertain, dynamic and flexible entities (Oldham & Hackman,
2010).
In the light of these trends, it becomes increasingly challenging to design jobs and work
conditions that are beneficial for work-related well-being, motivation and performance for each
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
4
and every employee in a merely top-down way (Demerouti, 2014). Especially job crafting is
promising in this realm as it refers to the changes employees initiate to customize the job
according to personal needs and abilities, and to personally keep up with the contemporary world
of change. Taking a proactive stance to job redesign such as job crafting might be helpful in
creating enriching, resourceful jobs as well as in facing up to demanding work aspects (Grant &
Parker, 2009; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).
Since 2012, job crafting has become an increasingly popular and blossoming research topic.
At the start of this PhD project, there were only about 15 publications on job crafting of which the
majority were qualitative studies. In February 2017, the topic of job crafting results in 109 hits of
contributions on Web of Science (of which 57 articles referred to job crafting in the title). For an
overview of these articles, see Appendix I.
The trends and new topics also find their way to practitioners and policymakers. In the past
few years, we elaborated on what job crafting has to offer for HR practice, presented about job
crafting at seminars and contributed to handbooks directed at HR practitioners and scholars (see
Appendix II and Appendix III for two contributions on job crafting in Dutch). Job crafting might
also be valuable in the realm of work-related policies and legislation. In Belgium, more specifically,
three legislative initiatives shed light on the need of new approaches of work to keep up with
recent societal developments. As from 2013, a nationally binding Collective Labour Agreement
(CLA) obliges companies with more than 20 employees to develop an employment policy to retain
and create jobs for older employees, i.e. employees aging between 45 and 65 (cf. “CAO 104” in
Dutch)i. In 2014, the legislation on well-being at work was extended in terms of psychosocial risks
at workii. In March 2017, the government approved a labour law concerning “workable and agile
work” (i.e. “Werkbaar en Wendbaar Werk” in Dutch) to enable more flexible work arrangements
for both employers and employeesiii. At this moment, the Ministry of public health debates on
recognizing burnout as a work-related syndrome to be able to subsidize prevention- and
reintegration initiativesiv. Job crafting as an individual strategy provides a potential interface with
each of these legislative initiatives as it might add to successful aging, dealing with psychosocial
risks at work and creating customized, workable and agile work.
In the current PhD dissertation on job crafting, the aims are twofold. First, we aim to clarify
the concept of job crafting. What is this concept about? At the beginning of this project in 2012,
only a few theoretical contributions in the literature did shed light on the concept of job crafting
in a diverging way (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Therefore, we start from
the two main streams on job crafting, compare definitions, elaborate on similarities and
differences to build an overarching definition of job crafting and a new measurement scale.
Second, we aim to expand our understanding of this overarching job crafting construct by
exploring its nomological network, including both antecedents and consequences in our overall
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
5
research model. Job crafting sounds like a promising concept but is job crafting indeed associated
with a better person-job fit, motivation to work and positive states of well-being? Can it also be an
individual strategy to respond to negative states of well-being such as burnout? What is the role
of personal and contextual aspects in relation to job crafting? In what follows, we elaborate on
these questions and formulate three propositions (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The overall model of this PhD project based on three propositions.
2. Clarifying The Concept Of Job Crafting (Aim 1 – Proposition 1)
The first aim of this PhD project concerns clarifying the concept of job crafting. In what follows,
we first build on the extant literature to develop an overarching conceptualisation of job crafting.
Second, we situate job crafting within the proactivity perspective on job design. Third, we
elaborate on the added value to develop and validate a new overarching job crafting scale in order
to explore the nomological network of our overarching job crafting construct (proposition 1).
2.1. Job Crafting: Taking An Overarching Approach
The literature on job crafting mainly draws on two views. On the one hand, Wrzesniewski
and Dutton (2001) introduced the term ‘job crafting’ as “the physical and cognitive changes
individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their job” (p.179). They distinguish three
types of job crafting. By means of task crafting, employees can change the number (quantity), the
scope and type of tasks (quality) they conduct. Employees can for instance choose to allocate more
or less time, energy and attention to specific tasks or explore different ways to conduct them (Berg
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
6
et al., 2013). By means of relational crafting, employees make changes in both the amount and the
quality of interactions at work. Employees can invest in building new relationships, reframe or
strengthen extant interactions or opt to avoid specific demanding relationships. By means of
cognitive crafting employees alter the way they perceive their job. Employees might for instance
view their job “either as a set of discrete work tasks or as an integrated whole” (Wrzesniewski &
Dutton, 2001, p.186) and hence, cultivate meaningfulness and purpose (Berg et al., 2013).
According to Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), “job crafters create different jobs for themselves,
within the context of defined jobs” (p.180). More specifically, employees craft their job in order to
give meaning to what they do at work and to create a work identity capturing who they are at
work. The pioneering work of Wrzesniewski and Dutton in 2001 especially led to qualitative
research on job crafting (e.g. Leana, Appelbaum, & Shevchuk, 2009; Lyons, 2008).
On the other hand, Tims and Bakker (2010) frame job crafting within the job demands-
resources model (JD-R model; Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014) and define it as the actual
changes employees make in “their levels of job demands and job resources in order to align them
with their own abilities and preferences” (p.4). In line with recent developments of the JD-R model
(Crawford, Lepine & Rich, 2010; Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, De Witte, & Vansteenkiste, 2010),
they specifically argue that employees can decrease their level of job hindrances (e.g. cognitive
and emotional demands), increase job challenges (e.g. workload) and increase structural (e.g.
autonomy, skill utilization) and social job resources (e.g. feedback, coaching). Currently, scholars
refer to so-called “expansive/enhancement job crafting”, including increasing job resources and
challenges, and “avoidance/protective job crafting”, including decreasing job hindrances
(Hakanen, Seppälä, & Peeters, 2017; Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015; Vogt, Hakanen,
Brauchli, Jenny, & Bauer, 2016). Importantly, Tims and Bakker (2010) explicitly opt to only
investigate actual changes employees may make. Hence, they do not include the cognitive crafting
dimension which, in their opinion, rather refers to coping with specific circumstances instead of
actively shaping job boundaries. Conceptually, the task and relational crafting dimensions of
Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) can be fitted into the JD-R perspective on job crafting (Tims &
Bakker, 2010). By means of seeking structural resources (e.g. increasing skill utilization and
development), seeking challenges (e.g. take on extra tasks), and reducing hindrances (e.g.
reducing cognitive and emotional demands) employees might alter task boundaries of their job.
Relational crafting can be found in seeking social resources at work such as investing in social
contacts as well as in reducing hindrances when avoiding emotionally intense interactions for
instance (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Notably, Tims and Bakker (2010) emphasize feedback-, advice-
and coaching-seeking as specifications of seeking social resources whereas relational crafting
might also be about organising social events at work, making effort to get to know people well at
work, taking initiative to mentor new employees, etc. (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). In line with
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
7
Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), job crafting is emphasized as a means for employees to
“enhance or benefit their own goals” (Tims & Bakker, 2010, p.1). By means of the four job crafting
types employees are more specifically assumed to thrive for a better person-job fit and enhanced
work engagement (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Tims, Bakker, and Derks (2012) were the first to
develop and validate a job crafting scale, which boosted quantitative research on job crafting.
Even though these two main views present different definitions and focus on specific types
of job crafting, they share two crucial elements: job crafting is about (1) employees making self-
initiated changes to their job with (2) a pro-self-focused purpose (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013,
Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). In Figure 2, we provide a schematic
overview of the two main streams on job crafting, which formed the starting point for developing
our overarching approach on job crafting. We define job crafting in an overarching way as the self-
initiated changes employees make to their job in order to optimize their functioning (Vanbelle,
Van den Broeck, & De Witte, 2013). In doing so, we approach job crafting more broadly than
Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) - who only account for task, relational and cognitive crafting -,
and less specific than Tims and colleagues (2012) - who only investigate changes in particular job
demands (e.g. workload, emotional and cognitive demands) and resources (e.g. autonomy, skill
utilization, feedback). Furthermore, we account for the multiple reasons to craft, such as creating
meaning and work identity (Berg et al., 2013; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), enhancing one’s
person-job fit and well-being (Tims & Bakker, 2010) and foster one’s performance (Demerouti,
Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015; Oldham & Fried, 2016), as we refer to the overarching purpose of
optimizing one’s functioning in terms of well-being, attitudes or behaviour.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
8
Figure 2. Developing an overarching approach on job crafting building on two pioneering streams.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
9
2.2. Situating Job Crafting Within the Proactivity Perspective on Job Redesign
In their review on redesigning work design theories, Grant and Parker (2009) introduce the
rise of the proactive perspective on job design. This proactive perspective emphasizes the growing
importance of the active role of employees in (re)designing their job in order to be able to deal
with the contemporary world of work. Job crafting can be situated within this proactive
perspective, next to related but different proactive constructs like role and individual innovation,
personal initiative, organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB), task revision (Grant & Parker,
2009), voice and idiosyncratic deals (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).
In general, proactive behaviour can be defined as “taking initiative in improving current
circumstances or creating new ones; it involves challenging the status quo rather than passively
adapting to present conditions” (Crant, 2000, p.436). Parker, Bindl and Strauss (2010) describe
proactive action as self-initiated change to bring about a different future. Building on the
proactivity literature (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Grant & Parker, 2009; Parker et al., 2010) we
distinguish two dimensions to categorize job (re)design behaviour and to situate job crafting
(Figure 3). The first dimension focuses on the initiator of the job redesign. Here, Grant and Parker
(2009) distinguish three dominant perspectives. The first perspective builds on the traditional
point of view on job (re)design and suggests that managers or supervisors initiate changes and
redesign jobs for employees. The second perspective involves employees taking the initiative to
negotiate and agree on personalized job agreements with the supervisor. Examples are
idiosyncratic deal making and role negotiation. The third perspective studies job redesign
approaches initiated by the employees themselves such as job crafting.
The second dimension involves the primary target of impact of job redesign behaviour, and
focuses on the future employees aim to bring about (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Grant & Parker, 2009;
Parker et al., 2010). The primary target of impact may be the organisation: employees improve
work methods for example by means of personal initiative or task revision, or engage in
organizational citizenship behaviour. The primary target could also be the optimization of
employees’ functioning, for instance through job crafting. Especially this aspect is what makes job
crafting unique and different from other individual proactive behaviours. Job crafting focuses on
“the changes employees make in their jobs to enhance or benefit their own goals (such as a better
person-job fit, more enjoyable work, better well-being, less work-home conflict, etc.)” (Tims &
Bakker, 2010, p.1). By means of job crafting, employees seek meaningfulness (Berg et al., 2013;
Tims, Derks, & Bakker, 2016) and customize the job to fit personal needs, values, interests, skills,
and abilities (Oldham & Fried, 2016; Tims & Bakker, 2010).
Taken together, job crafting can be understood as a specific form of proactive behaviour, and
has to be distinguished from other proactive work behaviours in two ways (Wrzesniewski &
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
10
Dutton, 2001; Tims & Bakker, 2010): it is initiated by the employee without the necessary
involvement of the supervisor and is primarily aimed at benefitting oneself rather than others or
the organization.
Figure 3. Situating job crafting within the proactive perspective on job redesign (based on
Grant & Parker, 2009)
2.3. From Conceptualization to the Added Value of an Overarching Scale of Job Crafting
We develop a new overarching job crafting scale to be able to conduct empirical studies on
the nomological network of our overarching job crafting construct. Since 2012, researchers start
to recognize the need to investigate job crafting in a quantitative way in order to gain a better
understanding of the construct and to set the stage for future research (Tims et al., 2012). Next to
some preliminary scales (e.g. Leana et al., 2009; Kroon, Kooij, & van Veldhoven, 2013), so far, at
least four different job crafting measurements have been validated (Tims et al., 2012; Nielsen &
Abildgaard, 2012; Niessen, Weseler, & Kostova, 2016; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). In this PhD
project, we discuss the added value of a new overarching job crafting scale based on three
arguments.
First, we believe it is important to explore the range of possible changes employees might
make to their jobs in order to optimize their functioning. As job crafting is about self-initiated
change to do good for oneself, many changes can be made that contribute to one’s functioning. The
existing measurements, however, seem to prime employees with a predetermined selection of
particular job crafting types. Tims and colleagues (2012) and Nielsen and Abildgaard (2012) for
example, ask employees to indicate to what extent they decrease specific job hindrances, increase
job challenges and increase job resources. Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (2013) and Niessen et al.
(2016) follow Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and also focus on specific job crafting types as
they tap into the extent to which employees craft their tasks, relations or cognitions. Being so
specific, these scales may miss out on important additional changes employees may make to their
job (Oldham & Fried, 2016). Leana et al. (2009) for instance also included “rearranging equipment
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
11
or furniture in the play areas of your classroom”, hinting at so-called context crafting (Van Vuuren
& Dorenbosch, 2011) which is not included in other measurements. Therefore, we aim for an
overarching job crafting scale in which we make abstraction of the type of changes employees
might make, to leave room for employees’ personal interpretation of which specific personally
relevant changes they make.
A second argument for the development of a new job crafting scale is that, to date, the popular
scales do not specify the purpose of job crafting. Only some scales integrate the purpose in a few
of their items (e.g. Kroon et al., 2013; Leana et al., 2009; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013) and very
recently, Niessen et al. (2016) developed and validated a new scale in which they explicitly
address the pro-self-focused nature of job crafting. More specifically, they asked participants to
what extent they engage in task, relational and cognitive crafting “so the job they do suits them”.
Including the purpose is relevant, given that job crafting is argued to be a change-oriented and
goal-directed, proactive behaviour (Grant & Parker, 2009; Tims & Bakker, 2010). The inherently
self-serving purpose of job crafting is one of the crucial elements to distinguish job crafting from
other proactive job redesign behaviours (Grant & Parker, 2009; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001;
see also Figure 2). To be truly proactive and to be able to make a distinction with other forms of
individual-level changes at work, we aim for an overarching job crafting scale in which the
purpose of job crafting is included, i.e. reference is made to optimizing one’s well-being, meaning
and identity, and behaviour at work.
Third, we aim to develop a short questionnaire to measure job crafting in an overarching way
to foster its practical merits. In addition, this overarching job crafting scale might provide an
alternative measurement to examine a general construct of job crafting and its surrounding
mechanisms (Tims et al., 2016; Vogt et al., 2016).
Proposition 1: A new overarching job crafting scale adds to the understanding of job crafting in
two ways: (1) it accounts for a broad range of relevant changes employees may
make to the job; (2) it measures job crafting as a truly proactive job redesign
behaviour by including the inherent self-serving purpose.
3. Exploring the Nomological Network of the Overarching Job Crafting Construct
(Aim 2 – Proposition 2 & 3)
The second aim of this PhD project concerns exploring the nomological network of our
overarching job crafting construct. In what follows, we build proposition 2 and proposition 3
which, together with proposition 1, will provide a framework for the empirical studies of this PhD
project. First, we elaborate on the role of job crafting in relation to both optimal and suboptimal
functioning (proposition 2). Second, we tap into contextual and personal factors that might
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
12
provide opportunities to craft (proposition 3; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Third, we translate
the three propositions into four empirical studies.
3.1. Job Crafting as an Individual Strategy in Relation to (Sub)optimal Functioning
Job crafting arose within the field of positive (occupational) psychology, which includes the
study of employees’ optimal functioning (Bakker & Derks, 2010; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2014).
The concept of “optimal functioning” is increasingly used in the realm of positive psychology
research. Interestingly, however, hardly any contribution provides a clear definition. Whereas
some scholars use optimal functioning to refer to well-being related outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 2001;
Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2014), others especially refer to performance outcomes (De Cuyper et al.,
2014). Within this PhD project, we use the concept of optimal functioning as umbrella concept to
refer to a range of individual outcome variables including work-related well-being (Peeters, De
Cuyper, & De Witte, 2016; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2014) as well as traditional outcomes such as
performance (De Cuyper et al., 2014) and other psychological outcomes like person-job fit and
motivation (Grant & Parker, 2009; Oldham & Fried, 2016). We roughly group the range of
individual outcomes in terms of well-being, attitudes and behaviour. Well-being refers to both
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Hedonic well-being focuses on happiness and pleasure such
as positive versus negative affect. Eudaimonic well-being focuses on mental health, personal
growth and vitality such as work engagement (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2014). Attitudes, strictly
speaking, include the employees’ beliefs, feelings and behavioural intentions towards a person, an
event or situation (Greenberg & Baron, 2008). Typical work-related attitudes are job satisfaction
and organizational commitment. In line with some other scholars, however, we also use the
heading of attitudes to refer to other psychological outcomes such as person-job fit, motivation
(Grant & Parker, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2001) and turnover intentions. Person-job fit then refers to
the employees’ evaluation and beliefs concerning the alignment of the job with personal needs
and abilities whereas the motivation to do something includes the employees’ evaluation and
behavioural intentions. Behavioural outcomes include aspects such as in-role and extra-role
performance (Oldham & Fried, 2016). Although there might be some overlap between well-being,
attitudinal and behavioural aspects of employee functioning, we see optimal functioning as a
useful umbrella concept that describes “the ultimate outcome, [namely] a human being’s maximal
level of development [or “doing well”], operationalized using [well-being, attitudinal and
behavioural] indicators” (adapted from Gagné & Vansteenkiste, 2013, p. 63).
Following our overarching approach, optimal functioning is a core concept in the realm of job
crafting. In accordance, Wrzesniewski, LoBuglio, Dutton and Berg (2013) note that “job crafting
helps to illuminate the job-related actions that employees engage in to move themselves toward
more optimal functioning” (p. 282). We want to emphasize two underlying assumptions within
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
13
the job crafting literature concerning the job crafting – optimal functioning relationship. The first
important assumption is that job crafting is an antecedent of optimal functioning. So far, extant
empirical evidence seems to converge and indeed shows that job crafting yields diverse positive
consequences for employees. Job crafting relates to work engagement (Nielsen & Abildgaard,
2012; Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, & Hetland, 2012), person-job fit (Chen, Yen, & Tsai,
2014; Lu, Wang, Lu, Du, & Bakker, 2014), meaningfulness (Tims et al., 2016), basic need
satisfaction and psychological well-being (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2014), job satisfaction,
organizational commitment and job effectiveness (Ghitulescu, 2007) and performance (Bakker,
Tims, & Derks, 2012; Demerouti et al., 2015; Solberg & Wong, 2016; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2015).
Within this PhD project, we strengthen the understanding of our overarching job crafting
construct modelled as an antecedent of work engagement, autonomous motivation, work
enjoyment, the willingness to continue working until retirement age and daily person-job fit. More
specifically, we elaborate on the role of job crafting in the realm of contemporary challenges to
encourage employees to continue working and to take responsibility in their job in order to
enhance fit with personal needs and abilities.
The second fundamental, albeit more implicit, assumption underlying the job crafting theory
is that employee functioning is an antecedent of job crafting (Bakker et al., 2014; Tims & Bakker,
2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Theorizing on job crafting implicitly suggests that
employees craft their job starting from (sub)optimal functioning. Optimal functioning, and hence
positive indicators might trigger job crafting to strive for an equally well (“those who feel good,
strive to maintain this”) or even higher level of functioning (“those who feel good, strive for even
better”). Alternatively, suboptimal functioning or malfunctioning, and hence negative indicators
might trigger job crafting to recover or restore employee functioning (“those who are
malfunctioning, strive to recover and to feel good”). Only a few studies tapped into this reversed
relationship. Lu et al. (2014) and Tims et al. (2015) for instance demonstrated work engagement
as an antecedent of job crafting. Petrou et al. (2015) found that employees who experience feelings
of exhaustion engage in hindrance crafting. Very recently, two studies were published on the
relationship between both positive (i.e. work engagement) and negative (i.e. workaholism,
burnout, job boredom) well-being and job crafting (Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2017; Harju,
Hakanen, & Schaufeli, 2017). Especially the relationships between job crafting and indicators of
suboptimal functioning remain puzzling. To contribute, we dig into the puzzling relationship
between burnout and job crafting. This is important because it sheds light on individual strategies
to deal with adversity in the current world of work (Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2008;
Demerouti, 2015; Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2017).
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
14
Proposition 2: Job crafting relates to both optimal and suboptimal functioning such that (a) job
crafting is an antecedent of (sub)optimal functioning and (b) (sub)optimal
functioning is an antecedent of job crafting.
3.2. Personal and Contextual Factors and Opportunities to Craft
Not every employee in every context may feel inclined to make changes to his or her job.
Hence, personal characteristics as well as contextual factors are assumed to be antecedents of job
crafting (Bakker et al., 2012; Lyons, 2008; Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2014). Expanding our
understanding on antecedents is important because it sheds light on the circumstances in which
job crafting takes place and on how job crafting can be stimulated in practice.
Previous research hints at the role of personal factors in relation to job crafting. Lyons (2008)
was one of the first to demonstrate the role of individual differences in self-image, perceived
control and readiness to change in relation to job crafting. To date, empirical studies provide
evidence for the role of proactive personality (Bakker et al., 2012), daily self-efficacy (Tims et al.,
2014; Weseler & Niessen, 2016), and regulatory focus (Brenninkmeijer & Hekkert-Koning, 2015;
Petrou & Demerouti, 2015) as antecedents of job crafting. In this PhD project, we take into account
personal resources which are malleable individual characteristics, namely personal growth
initiative (PGI) and work-related active emotions. To our knowledge, we are the first to include
these personal resources in relation to job crafting. Especially PGI is a promising individual
strength given that it conceptually aligns with the envisioning and planning aspects of the process
model of proactive behaviour (Parker et al., 2010). It includes the individuals intentional
engagement in the process towards personal growth and hence job crafting, a specific form of
proactive behaviour. Furthermore, we expect daily active emotions to urge employees to engage
in daily job crafting. Malleable resources are changeable and developable and hence, shed light on
practical implications.
Next to personal characteristics, also contextual factors may play a role. Extant studies
demonstrate the antecedent-role of job characteristics such as autonomy or discretion (Leana et
al., 2009; Niessen et al., 2016), active jobs (Petrou et al., 2012), job demands (i.e. work pressure,
cognitive and emotional demands) and job resources (social support, feedback and leadership;
Gordon, Demerouti, Le Blanc, & Bipp, 2015), job enlargement (Berdicchia, Nicolli, & Masino, 2016)
as well as broader contextual aspects such as the impact of organizational change (Petrou et al.,
2015). We include active jobs and the role of managers as contextual factors in relation to job
crafting. Active jobs, characterized by high amounts of workload and autonomy (see also Petrou
et al., 2012), can be expected to activate employees towards new growth-related behaviour and
hence, we expect a positive relationship with job crafting (Karasek, 1989; Petrou et al., 2012). In
addition, we examine job crafting as a socially embedded behaviour by including the role of
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
15
managers. Although some scholars already argued the important role of managers in facilitating
beneficial job crafting (Berg et al., 2008; Demerouti, 2014; Hakanen & Mutanen, 2014), this
remains under-investigated. More specifically, we argue that servant leadership may foster a
supportive context for job crafting given that servant leaders care about the followers’ personal
problems and well-being, empower them to take initiative and help them reaching their full
potential (Hakanen & Mutanen, 2014; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008).
Within this PhD project, we examine both the antecedent and moderator function of personal
and contextual characteristics. Next to directly relate to job crafting, personal and contextual
factors may also moderate the relationship between indicators of (sub)optimal functioning and
job crafting (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Wrzesniewksi and Dutton
(2001) model personal and job characteristics as moderators of the relationship between the
motivation to craft (i.e. need for control, positive self-image, and human connection with others)
and job crafting. They argue that job features such as autonomy and task independence might
create opportunities to craft for employees. Similarly, Tims and Bakker (2010) include personal
and job characteristics as moderators of the relationship between person-job misfit and job
crafting. Despite theoretical assumptions, however, empirical evidence on this moderating role is
scarce (Berdicchia et al., 2016; Petrou et al., 2012; Weseler & Niessen, 2016). We expect that
personal and contextual resources (i.e. PGI, autonomy and servant leadership) are especially
valuable moderators in the context of demanding situations (e.g. job demands, negative emotions
or feelings of burnout) given that they provide employees necessary resources at hand to be
translated into job crafting (Berg et al., 2008). Taken together:
Proposition 3: Both contextual and personal factors relate to job crafting such that (a) personal
factors can be modelled as antecedents of job crafting, (b) contextual factors can
be modelled as antecedents of job crafting, (c) personal factors moderate the
relationship between (sub)optimal conditions and job crafting, and (d) contextual
factors moderate the relationship between (sub)optimal conditions and job
crafting.
3.3. From Propositions to Four Empirical Studies
Our aims and propositions give raise to four empirical studies (Table 1). In Study 1, in
response to proposition 1, we defined job crafting and validated an overarching job crafting scale
(OJCS). In Study 2 to 4, we elaborate on the nomological network of job crafting (i.e. proposition 2
& 3). In Study 1 to 3, we test whether job crafting indeed relates to indicators of optimal
functioning (i.e. work engagement, autonomous motivation, willingness to continue working until
retirement age, daily person-job fit, burnout; proposition 2). In Study 2 and 3, we look at
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
16
contextual (i.e. autonomy and workload) and personal factors (i.e. personal growth initiative and
emotions) in relation to job crafting (proposition 3). In Study 4, we examine the relationship
between suboptimal functioning (i.e. emotional exhaustion, cynicism and personal
accomplishment) and job crafting (proposition 2). Moreover, we include servant leadership as a
contextual opportunity that may play a moderating role (proposition 3).
Tabel 1. Overview of propositions and studies
Study
1
Study
2
Study
3
Study
4
Proposition 1:
A new overarching job crafting scale adds to the
understanding of job crafting in two ways: (1) it accounts
for a broad range of possible personally relevant changes
employees might make to the job; (2) it measures job
crafting as a truly proactive job redesign behaviour by
including the inherent self-serving purpose.
Proposition 2:
Job crafting relates to both optimal and suboptimal
functioning such that:
(a) Job crafting is an antecedent of (sub)optimal
functioning
(b) (Sub)optimal functioning is an antecedent of job
crafting
Proposition 3:
Both contextual and personal factors relate to job crafting
such that:
(a) Personal factors can be modelled as antecedents of
job crafting
(b) Contextual factors can be modelled as antecedents of
job crafting
(c) Personal factors moderate the relationship between
(sub)optimal conditions and job crafting
(d) Contextual factors moderate the relationship
between (sub)optimal conditions and job crafting
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
17
4. Overview of Empirical Studies and Following Chapters
In what follows, we will outline the four empirical studies which will be described in the
following chapters. Figure 4 presents a schematic overview. Throughout the studies, we used six
different samples (See Appendix IV for an overview).
Note that if we use causal language throughout the following chapters, we do so from a
theoretical perspective having our hypothesized model in mind. Although our overall model
suggests that the investigated relationships are causal in nature, the correlational methods and
data that we use throughout the four empirical studies do not allow us to make causal inferences
or conclusions.
Figure 4. Schematic overview of the studies in an overall model
4.1. Chapter 2 - Study 1: Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS)
In the first empirical article, we present the development and validation of the Overarching
Job Crafting Scale (OJCS). We discuss the added value of a new overarching job crafting scale based
on three arguments. First, as the understanding of job crafting is still rather limited, we believe it
is important to explore the range of possible changes employees may make to their jobs in order
to optimize their functioning. Therefore, we need a broad, overarching scale which does not limit
changes to specific job crafting types. Second, to date, the majority of job crafting scales do not
specify the purpose of job crafting (for an exception; see Niessen et al., 2016). To be truly
proactive, we aim for an overarching job crafting scale in which the purpose of job crafting is
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
18
included, e.g. reference is made to optimizing one’s functioning in terms of well-being (i.e. to feel
better), attitudes (i.e. to increase meaning and identity) or behaviour (i.e. to perform better).
Third, we develop a short questionnaire to further contribute to the practical merits of the scale.
Starting from the job crafting literature (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton,
2001), we developed four items starting from job crafting definitions in which scholars assume
that employees engage in job crafting to foster well-being, meaning, identity and performance (cf.
Appendix V). The scale was tested using both cross-sectional and longitudinal data. We addressed
reliability and validity issues by means of four substudies, using different samples (cf. Appendix
IV, Sample A-C). First, we developed the OJCS and demonstrated its reliability and content validity.
More specifically, we examined psychometric properties and conducted exploratory factor
analyses. In addition, we conducted a qualitative pilot study to examine the content validity of the
OJCS, namely to check whether our items indeed account for a broad range of personally relevant
changes employees may make to their job and whether employees make this changes with a pro-
self-focused purpose. Second, we investigated construct validity of the OJCS in relation to other
job crafting measurements, namely the job crafting scale of Tims et al. (JCS; 2012) and the job
crafting questionnaire of Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (JCQ; 2013). Third, we tested predictive
validity of the OJCS for indicators of both optimal functioning (i.e. vigour, dedication, autonomous
motivation and performance) and malfunctioning (i.e. exhaustion, cynicism and turnover
intentions) within a time period of six months. Fourth, we examined incremental validity of the
OJCS in the prediction of indicators of both optimal functioning (i.e. work enjoyment and
autonomous motivation) and suboptimal functioning (i.e. need for recovery and turnover
intentions) in addition to the JCS and JCQ over a time period of three months.
4.2. Chapter 3 - Study 2: Job Crafting: Autonomy and Workload as Independent Variables
and the Willingness to Continue Working Until Retirement Age as Dependent
Variable
In the second study, we investigate the role of job crafting in relation to 45-plussers’
willingness to continue working in an active work environment. Changes in demographics imply
that the workforce will increasingly consist of more older and fewer younger workers and
numbers of the OECD show that many employees take early retirement (2011). Consequently,
both political and scientific initiatives are needed to enhance older workers’ willingness to
continue working. Next to the importance of job characteristics (Schreurs, Van den Broeck,
Notelaers, van der Heijden, & De Witte, 2012; van Dam, van der Vorst, & van der Heijden, 2009),
also the employee has an impact on the employees’ willingness to continue working (Kooij, Tims,
& Kanfer, 2014). Until recently, however, no empirical research seemed to focus on the active role
of the employee in this process (Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2016). In this study, we expected that
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
19
the work environment may stimulate 45-plussers to craft their job, which then relates to their
willingness to work longer. We aim to shed light on this issue from the perspective of two theories:
The selective optimization and compensation theory (SOC-theory; Baltes & Dickson, 2001)
focussing on the associations from job crafting to the willingness to work longer and the job
demands control model, which allows to examine the associations from the work context to job
crafting (Karasek, 1979).
First, SOC assumes that employees use adaptive strategies to help them balancing their work
environment with age-related changes in personal needs and goals (Baltes & Dickson, 2001). Kooij
et al. (2014) argue that by means of job crafting older employees might increase their ability and
motivation to continue working. We aimed to contribute to the empirical evidence on this
assumption and hypothesized that employees who craft their job will experience a stronger
willingness to continue working. Until recently, the association between job crafting and older
employees’ willingness to continue working remained to be empirically tested (Lichtenthaler &
Fischbach, 2016).
Second, the activation hypothesis of Karasek’s job demands control model (JDC-model; 1979)
states that an active work environment, characterized by autonomy and workload, will stimulate
learning and new growth related behaviour. In line with this assumption, Petrou et al. (2012)
showed that active jobs play an important role in the prediction of job crafting. Against this
background, we investigated whether 45-plussers in active jobs are likely to craft their job (i.e., a
growth related outcome) and - as a result - are more willing to continue working (i.e., a
motivational outcome). Job crafting can be modelled as a growth related outcome of an active
environment given that it refers to individuals’ efforts in optimizing their functioning in specific
circumstances. Hypotheses were tested using Sample D (cf. Appendix IV). The hypothesized model
is presented in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Hypothesized model Study 2.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
20
4.3. Chapter 4 - Study 3: Active Emotions and Personal Growth Initiative in Relation to
Employees’ Daily Job Crafting and Person-Job Fit: A Multilevel Study
In this multilevel study we strengthen the nomological network of job crafting in two ways:
(1) we modelled active emotions and personal growth initiative (PGI) as personal antecedents of
daily job crafting and (2) we included daily person-job fit as a consequence. First, we expand on
individual characteristics as potential antecedents of job crafting. Several authors argued that the
importance of the active role of employees in shaping their environment according to personal
needs and preferences has increased (Grant & Parker, 2009; Oldham & Fried, 2016; Wrzesniewski
& Dutton, 2001). Therefore, it is relevant to investigate malleable, e.g. developable individual
characteristics that stimulate employees to take responsibility on a daily basis, i.e. by means of
daily job crafting. In response, building on a functional classification perspective (Wu, Parker, &
Bindl, 2013), we expect within-person differences in active emotions and between-person
differences in PGI to relate to daily job crafting. Emotions are those individual characteristics that
are situated on the malleable and very changeable extreme of the trait-state continuum of
Luthans, Avolio, Avey, and Norman (2007). Emotions include the momentary, elementary feelings
of pleasure or displeasure and of activation or deactivation (Russell, 1980). They can be described
within a circumplex, as an integral blend of two dimensions, valence and activation (Warr, Bindl,
Parker, & Inceoglu, 2014). PGI is defined as the active, intentional engagement in the process of
personal growth, including both cognitive and behavioural components of self-efficacy
(Robitschek, 1998).
We advance that daily fluctuations in active work-related emotions and personal growth
initiative (PGI) relate to daily fluctuations in job crafting via two main mechanisms, namely energy
and human agency. At the within-person level, we expect that daily fluctuations in active (both
positive and negative) work-related emotions energize employees to engage in daily job crafting
level (Wu, et al., 2013; Harmon-Jones, Gable, & Price, 2013). At the between-person level, we argue
that PGI positively relates to daily job crafting as it triggers employees’ agency (e.g. envisioning,
thinking, and mastering) to actively encounter the environment (Robitschek, 1998). In addition
to the main effects, we expect daily fluctuations in active emotions and overall PGI to interact in
the prediction of daily job crafting. More specifically, building on the idea of resource caravans
(Hobfoll, 1989), we expect PGI to boost the relationships between both positive and negative
active emotions and job crafting.
Second, we provide further insights in the relationship between job crafting and person-job
fit at the daily level. Person-job fit describes the employees’ perceived alignment between one’s
job demands and personal abilities, and between one’s personal needs and job supplies. As job
crafting is primarily about making changes to the job to optimize their functioning, especially
person-job fit might be a relevant outcome to examine. Job crafting scholars seem to agree that
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
21
striving for a better person-job fit is an inherent purpose of job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,
2001; Tims & Bakker, 2010). In this study, we hypothesize positive associations between job
crafting and both demands-abilities and needs-supplies fit at a within-person level. To complete
our research model, we expect indirect relationships from PGI and daily active emotions, via daily
job crafting to both daily demands-abilities and daily needs-supplies fit. Figure 6 gives an
overview of the hypothesized model. To test our hypotheses, we conducted a daily diary study (cf.
Appendix IV, Sample E).
Figure 6. Hypothesized model of Study 3.
4.4. Chapter 5 - Study 4: Digging into the Linear and Curvilinear Relationship Between
Burnout and Job Crafting. Servant Leadership as Moderator
The aims of the fourth study are twofold: (1) examining burnout in relation to job crafting
and (2) including servant leadership as moderator. First, we investigate burnout in relation to job
crafting. To date, the majority of job crafting studies models well-being and performance
indicators as consequences of job crafting. Much less is known about (sub)optimal functioning as
an antecedent of job crafting (Bakker et al., 2014). Only a few studies provide empirical evidence
suggesting that engaged employees more often craft their job (Lu, et al., 2014; Tims et al., 2015).
Petrou et al. (2015) demonstrated that employees who experience feelings of exhaustion engage
in hindrance crafting. Very recently, two studies on the reversed relationships between well-being
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
22
and job crafting were published (Harju et al., 2016; Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2017). Hakanen,
Peeters and Schaufeli (2017) showed that work engagement, workaholism and burnout relate to
job crafting over time. They conclude that the well-being – job crafting relationship may be more
complex than initially assumed. In addition, whereas the findings on positive indicators of optimal
functioning such as work engagement seem to be straightforward, especially the relationship
between job crafting and suboptimal functioning such as burnout remains unclear. Extant studies
reveal mixed results suggesting that the relationship is more complex.
We dig into the burnout-job crafting relationship for the three burnout components, namely
emotional exhaustion, cynicism and personal accomplishment to provide a more nuanced
investigation of the burnout-job crafting relationship. In doing so, we expect emotional exhaustion
and job crafting to show a curvilinear relationship, and cynicism and personal accomplishment to
linearly relate to job crafting in a respectively negative and positive way. We draw on the
conservation of resources theory to build hypotheses (Hobfoll, 1989; Ng & Feldman, 2012).
Second, we tap into the role of servant leadership in this burnout-job crafting relationship
(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Managers are assumed to play an essential role in creating a
resourceful context that fosters job crafting (Berg et al., 2008; Demerouti, 2014). We argue that
especially servant leadership may be a relevant leadership style in relation to job crafting because
servant leaders care about the followers’ personal problems and well-being, empower them to
take initiative and help them reaching their full potential (Hakanen & Mutanen, 2014; Liden et al.,
2008). In addition to its main effect, we expect that servant leadership has a moderating effect,
helping employees to engage in job crafting when experiencing feelings of emotional exhaustion,
cynicism and personal accomplishment. More specifically, we expect stronger relationships
among burnout and job crafting under conditions of high servant leadership. We tested our
hypotheses in a cross-sectional dataset (cf. Appendix IV, Sample F). An overview of the hypotheses
is displayed in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Hypothesized model of Study 4.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
23
5. Taken Together
In sum, within this PhD project, we take an overarching approach and conceptualize job
crafting as the self-initiated changes employees make to their job in order to optimize their
functioning in terms of well-being (e.g. work engagement), attitudes (e.g. person-job fit,
willingness to continue working) and behaviour (e.g. performance). We aim to contribute to the
job crafting literature in two ways. First, we aim to clarify the concept of job crafting. More
specifically, we build on the two pioneering streams on job crafting to introduce an overarching
approach including the development and validation of an overarching job crafting scale
(Proposition 1 - Chapter 2). Second, we explore the nomological network of a general job crafting
construct and (mainly cross-sectionally) investigate both antecedents and consequences (Chapter
2-4). In doing so, we tap into the relationship between job crafting and indicators of both optimal
and suboptimal functioning (Proposition 2). In addition, we examine the role of both personal and
contextual factors (Proposition 3). In Chapter 6, we discuss our overall findings and return to our
three propositions. We shed light on the theoretical, methodological and practical implications of
the presented studies and elaborate on remaining avenues for future research in the realm of the
job crafting literature.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
24
6. References
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. (2014). Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD-R
Approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1,
389-411. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235
Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2010). Positive Occupational Health Psychology. In: S., Leka, & J.,
Houdmont (Eds.). Occupational Health Psychology (pp.194-224). UK: John Wiley & Sons
Ltd.
Bakker, A.B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of
job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65(10), 1359-1378. DOI:
10.1177/0018726712453471
Baltes, B.B., & Dickson, M.W. (2001). Using Life-Span Models in Industrial-Organizational
Psychology: The Theory of Selective Optimization With Compensation. Applied
Developmental Science, 5(1), 51-62.
Berdicchia, D., Nicolli, F., & Masino, G. (2016). Job enlargement, job crafting and the moderating
role of self-competence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 318-330. DOI:
10.1108/JMP-01-2014-0019
Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2008). What is job Crafting and Why Does It Matter?
University of Michigan: Centre of Positive Organizational Scholarship.
Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work. In: B.J. Dik,
Z.S. Byrne, & M.F. Steger (Eds). Purpose and Meaning in the Workplace (pp.81-104).
American Psychological Association.
Brenninkmeijer, V., & Hekkert-Koning, M. (2015). To craft our not to craft: the relationships
between regulatory focus, job crafting and work outcomes. Career Development
International, 20(2), 147-162. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-12-2014-0162.
Chen, C.Y., Yen, C.H., & Tsai, F.C. (2014). Job crafting and job engagement: The mediating role of
person-job fit. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, 21-28. DOI:
10.1016/j.JIHM.2013.10.006
Crant, J.M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462.
Crawford, E.R., LePine, J.A., & Rich, B.L. (2010). Linking Job Demands and Resources to Employee
Engagement and Burnout: A Theoretical Extension and Meta-Analytic Test. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834-848. DOI: 10.1037/a0019364
De Cuyper, N., Sulea, C., Philippaers, K., Fischmann, G., Iliescu, D., & De Witte, H. (2014). Perceived
employability and performance : moderation by felt job insecurity. Personnel Review,
43(4), 536-552. DOI: 10.1108/PR-03-2013-0050
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
25
Demerouti, E. (2014). Design Your Own Job Through Job Crafting. European Psychologist. Advance
online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000188
Demerouti, E. (2015). Strategies used by individuals to prevent burnout. European Journal for
Clinical Investigation, 45(1), 1106-1112. DOI: 10.1111/eci.12494
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2015). Productive and counterproductive job
crafting: A daily diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online
publication. DOI: 10.1037/a0039002
Gagné, M., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2013). Self-Determination Theory’s Contribution to Positive
Organizational Psychology. In: A.B. Bakker (Ed.). Advances in Positive Organizational
Psychology. Volume 1. (p.61-82). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Ghitulescu, B. E. (2007). Shaping tasks and relationships at work: Examining the antecedents and
consequences of employee job crafting (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh).
Gordon, H.J., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P.M., & Bipp, T. (2015). Job crafting and performance of Dutch
and American health care professionals. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14(4), 192-202.
DOI: 10.1027/1866/a000138
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in
organizational behavior, 28, 3-34.
Grant, A.M., & Parker, S.K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and
proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317-375. DOI:
10.1080/19416520903047327
Greenberg, J., & Baron, R.A. (2008). Behavior in Organizations. Ninth Edition. Pearson Education
International: New Jersey.
Hakanen, J., & Mutanen, P. (2014). Does servant leadership boost work engagement via job crafting?
An individual and team level study. Paper presented at the 11th conference of the European
Association of Occupational Health Psychology (EAOHP), London, April, 2014.
Hakanen, J.J., Peeters, M.C.W., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2017, February 13). Different types of employee
well-being across time and their relationships with job crafting. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000081
Hakanen, J.J., Seppälä, P., & Peeters, M.C.W. (2017). High job demands, still engaged and not burned
out? The role of job crafting. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. DOI:
10.1007/s12529-017-9638-3
Harju, L., Hakanen, J.J., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2016). Can job crafting reduce job boredeom and
increase work engagement? A three-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 95-96, 11-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2016.07.001
Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P.A., & Price, T.F. (2013). Does negative affect always narrow and positive
affect always broaden the mind? Considering the influence of motivational intensity on
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
26
cognitive scope. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 301-307. DOI:
10.1177/0963721413481353
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989). Conservation of Resources. A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress.
American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.
Karasek, R.A. (1979). Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job
Redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285-308.
Kooij, D.T.A.M., Tims, M., & Kanfer, R. (2014). Successful aging at work: the role of job crafting. In
P.M. Bal, D.T.A.M. Kooij, & D.M. Rousseau (Eds.), Aging workers and the employee-employer
relationship, 145-162. Springer
Kroon, B., Kooij, D.T.A.M., & van Veldhoven, M.J.P.M. (2013). Job crafting en bevlogenheid. Zijn er
verschillen tussen teams met een restrictieve dan wel onbegrensde werkcontext? Gedrag
en organisatie, 26, 46-65.
Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work process and quality of care in early
childhood education: the role of job crafting. The Academy of Management Journal, 52(6),
1169-1192.
Lichtenthaler, P.W., & Fischbach, A. (2016). Job crafting and motivation to continue working
beyond retirement age. Career Development International, 21(5), 477-497. DOI:
10.1108/CDI-01-2016-0009.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Zao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a
multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161-
177.
Lu, C.Q., Wang, H.J., Lu, J.J., Du, D.Y., & Bakker, A.B. (2014). Does work engagement increase person-
job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84, 142-
152.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Avey, J.B., Norman, S.M. (2007). Positive psychological capital:
measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology,
60(3), 541-572.
Lyons, P. (2008). The crafting of jobs and individual differences. Journal of Business Psychology, 23,
25-36.
Ng, T.W.H., & Feldman, D.C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the
conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 216-234.
DOI: 10.1002/job.754
Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J.S. (2012). The development and validation of a job crafting measure
for use with blue-collar workers. Work & Stress, An International Journal of Work, Health
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
27
and Organisations, 26(4), 365-384. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.
733543
Niessen, C., Weseler, D., & Kostova, P. (2016). When and why do individuals craft their jobs? The
role of individual motivation and work characteristics for job crafting. Human relations,
69(6), 1287-1313. DOI: 10.1177/0018726715610642
OECD. (2011). Pensions at a Glance 2011. Retirement-income systems in OECD and G20 countries.
Available at: www.oecd.org/els/social/pensions/PAG.
Oldham, G.R., & Fried, Y. (2016). Job design research and theory: past, present and future.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 20-35. DOI:
10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.002
Oldham, G.R., & Hackman, J.R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: the future of job
design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3): 463-479. DOI:
10.1002/job.678
Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive
motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856.
Peeters, E., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2016). Too employable to feel well?: Curvilinear
relationship between perceived employability and employee optimal functioning.
Psihologia Resurselor Umane Revista Asociaţiei de Psihologie Indusstrială şi
Organizaţională, 14(1), 35-44
Peeters, M.C.W., Taris, T.W., & de Jonge, J. (2014). Introduction. People at Work. In: M.C.W. Peeters,
J. de Jonge, & T.W. Taris (Eds.) An Introduction to Contemporary Work Psychology, (pp. 3-
30). UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Petrou, P., & Demerouti, E. (2015). Trait-level and week-level regulatory focus as a motivation to
craft a job. Career Development International, 2(2), 102-118. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-09-2014-
0124
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M.C.W., Schaufeli, W.B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a job on a
daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1120-1141. DOI: 10.1002/job.1786
Petrou, P. Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Job crafting in changing organizations :
antecedents and implications for exhaustion and performance. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 20(4), 470-480. DOI: 10.1037/a0039003
Robitschek, C. (1998). Personal growth initiative: The construct and its measure. Measurement &
Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 30(4), p.183-198.
Russell, J.A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
39(6), 1161-1178.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
28
Ryan, M.R., & Deci, E.L.(2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual review, 52, 141-166.
Schreurs, B., Van den Broeck, A., Notelaers, G., van der Heijden, B., & De Witte, H. (2012). De relatie
tussen werkeisen, energiebronnen, spanning en werkplezier: een kwestie van leeftijd?
Gedrag & Organisatie, 25(1), 5-27.
Slemp, G.R., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2013). The job crafting questionnaire: A new scale to measure
the extent to which employees engage in job crafting. International Journal of Wellbeing,
3(2), 126-146. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v3i2.1
Slemp, G.R., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2014). Optimising Employee Mental Health: The Relationship
Between Intrinsic Need Satisfaction, Job Crafting, and Employee Well-Being. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 15(4), 957-977. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-013-9458-3.
Solberg, E., & Wong, S.I. (2016). Crafting one’s job to take charge of role overload: When
proactivity requires adaptivity across levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 713-725. DOI:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.03.001
Tims, M., & Bakker, A. (2010). Job Crafting: towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), Art. #841, 9 pages, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841
Tims, M., Bakker, A., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173-186. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy – performance
relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 490-505. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-05-
2012-0148
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2015). Job crafting and job performance: A longitudinal study.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 914-928. DOI:
10.1080/1359432X.2014.969245
Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person-job fit and
meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92(1), 44-53. DOI:
10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007
Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2013). Development and Validation of a General
Job Crafting Scale. Poster presentation at the 6th International Seminar on Positive
Occupational Health Psychology, Leuven.
van Dam, K., van der Vorst, J.D.M., & van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. (2009). Employees’ Intentions to
Retire Early. A Case of Planned Behavior and Anticipated Work Conditions. Journal of
Career Development, 35(3), 265-289. DOI: 10.1177/0894845308327274
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
29
Van den Broeck, A., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). Not all job demands
are equal: Differentiating job hindrances and job challenges in the Job Demands-Resources
model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(6), 735-759. DOI:
10.1080/13594320903223839
Van Vuuren, M., & Dorenbosch, L. (2011). Mooi werk. Naar een betere baan zonder weg te gaan.
Handboek job crafting. Uitgeverij Boom, Amsterdam.
Vogt, K., Hakanen, J. J., Brauchli, R., Jenny, G. J., & Bauer, G. F. (2016). The consequences of job
crafting: A three-wave study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
25(3), 353-362. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2015.1072170
Warr, P., Bindl, U.K., Parker, S.K., & Inceoglu, I. (2014). Four-quadrant investigations of job-related
emotions and behaviours. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(3),
342-363. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.744449
Weseler, D., & Niessen, C. (2016). How job crafting relates to task performance. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 31(3), 672-685. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-05-2012-0148
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of
their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.
Wrzesniewski, A., LoBuglio, N., Dutton, J. E., & Berg, J. M. (2013). Job crafting and cultivating
positive meaning and identity in work. Advances in positive organizational
psychology, 1(1), 281-302. DOI:10.1108/S2046-410X(2013)0000001015
Wu, C., Parker, S., & Bindl, U.K. (2013). Who is proactive and why? Unpacking individual
differences in employee proactivity. In A.B. Bakker (Ed.), Advances in Positive
Organizational Psychology, Volume 1 (pp. 261-280). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
References of the relevant Belgian legislative documents (in Dutch, see also http://www.werk.belgie.be):
i KB van 24 oktober 2012 waarbij algemeen verbindend wordt verklaard de collectieve
arbeidsovereenkomst nr. 104 van 27 juni 2012, gesloten in de Nationale Arbeidsraad, betreffende de
invoering van een werkgelegenheidsplan oudere werknemers in de onderneming, BS 8 november 2012.
ii Wet van 28 februari 2014 tot aanvulling van de wet van 4 augustus 1996 betreffende het welzijn van de
werknemers bij de uitvoering van hun werk wat de preventie van psychosociale risico’s op het werk betreft,
waaronder inzonderheid geweld, pesterijen en ongewenst seksueel gedrag op het werk, BS 28 april 2014;
Wet van 28 maart 214 tot wijziging van het Gerechtelijk Wetboek en de wet van 4 augustus 1996
betreffende het welzijn van de werknemers bij de uitvoering van hun werk wat de gerechtelijke procedures
betreft, BS 28 april 2014; KB van 10 april 2014 betreffende de preventie van psychosociale risico’s op het
werk, BS 28 april 2014.
iii Wet van 5 maart 2017 betreffende werkbaar en wendbaar werk, BS 15 maart 2017.
iv Ontwerp van algemene uitgavenbegroting voor het begrotingsjaar 2017, Advies over sectie 24 (partim:
Sociale Zaken), Parl.St. Kamer 2016-2017, nr. 54K2109/033.
31
CHAPTER 2 – STUDY 1
VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE (OJCS)1.
.
1 Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016). Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting
Scale. Manuscript in review.
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
33
Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS)
Abstract
We developed and validated an overarching job crafting scale (OJCS) through four studies.
We define job crafting as the self-initiated changes employees make to their job in order to
optimize their functioning in terms of well-being, attitudes and behaviour. In Study 1, we first
developed the OJCS, a short questionnaire consisting of four items and demonstrated its reliability
and content validity. In Study 2, we established the construct validity of the OJCS in relation to
other job crafting measurements, namely the job crafting scale of Tims, Bakker and Derks (JCS;
2012) and the job crafting questionnaire of Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (JCQ; 2013). In Study 3, the
OJCS showed to be predictive for the positive outcomes vigour and autonomous motivation within
a time period of six months. In Study 4, the OJCS demonstrated incremental validity in the
prediction of the positive outcomes work enjoyment and autonomous motivation in addition to
the JCS and JCQ over a time period of three months. The OJCS did not contribute to the prediction
of negative outcomes (i.e. emotional exhaustion, cynicism and turnover intention). Taken
together, we demonstrated the validity of a short questionnaire to measure job crafting in an
overarching way which might be especially be relevant to establish the nomological network of
the general concept of job crafting.
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
34
1. Introduction
Job crafting is about the employees’ active role in shaping and customizing their job (Berg,
Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2008; Grant & Parker, 2009). It emerges as a bottom up approach
complementing the traditional top down perspective on job (re)design. In the current study, we
build on the pioneering work of both Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and Tims and Bakker
(2010) to take an overarching approach of both the conceptualization and operationalization of
job crafting. We develop and validate an overarching job crafting scale (OJCS) in which we (1)
make abstraction of the type of changes employees make to their job and (2) take the purpose of
job crafting, as a pro-self-focused proactive behaviour, into account. In addition, by means of a
short questionnaire we further contribute to the practical merits of the scale when investigating
antecedents, consequences and underlying mechanisms that matter to job crafting in general,
instead of to specific job crafting behaviours.
After elaborating on the current conceptual approaches and measurements of job crafting,
we present four studies in which we address reliability and validity issues of the OJCS. In the first
study, we tap into the scale development and examine the (test-retest) reliability of the OJCS. In
the second study, we examine the construct validity by examining the OJCS next to other validated
job crafting measurements. In the third study, we investigate the predictive or criterion validity
and in the fourth study, we demonstrate the incremental validity of the OJCS over other job
crafting measures in the prediction of indicators of optimal functioning.
1.1. Job Crafting: Building an Overarching Approach
The literature on job crafting mainly draws on two perspectives. On the one hand,
Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) introduced the term ‘job crafting’ as “the physical and cognitive
changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their job” (p.179). By means of
making changes in the boundaries of their job, employees strive to achieve meaning and identity
at work. On the other hand, starting from the job demands-resources model (JD-R model; Bakker,
Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014), Tims and Bakker (2010) define job crafting as employees
making actual changes in the levels of job demands and job resources in order to fit the job with
one’s personal abilities and preferences to increase work motivation. In addition, the latter
perspective aims to focus on employees’ actual behaviour in modifying their job design to enhance
their work motivation. Consequently, they do not include the cognitive dimension of job crafting.
In line with recent developments of the JD-R model (Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, De Witte, &
Vansteenkiste, 2010), they specifically argue that employees can decrease their level of job
hindrances (e.g. making the work less intense), increase job challenges (e.g. proactively
participating in new projects) and increase structural (e.g. developing one’s capabilities) and
social job resources (e.g. asking colleagues or the supervisor for advice).
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
35
Even though the two main views present different definitions and focus on diverse types of
job crafting, they share two crucial elements: job crafting is about (1) employees making self-
initiated changes to their job with (2) a pro-self-focused purpose. We expand these communalities
and define job crafting in an overarching way as the self-initiated changes employees make to
their job in order to optimize their functioning in terms of well-being, attitudes or behaviour
(Vanbelle, Van den Broeck, & De Witte, 2013). We make abstraction of the specific type of changes
employees may make to their job (i.e. first element). Hence, we approach job crafting more
broadly than Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) - who only account for task, relational and
cognitive crafting -, and less specific than Tims and colleagues (2012) - who only investigate
changes in specific job demands and resources. Furthermore, we refer to the overarching purpose
of optimizing one’s functioning in terms of well-being, attitudes or behaviour to account for the
multiple pro-self-focused reasons to craft, such as creating meaning and work identity (Berg et al.,
2008; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) or enhancing one’s person-job fit (Tims & Bakker, 2010).
The intent behind individually redesigning the job is thus not to promote the good of the others
and the organization (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), but rather to enhance personal
(work)outcomes in the first place (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Hence, as we define job crafting as a
purposeful behaviour, we aim to measure it as a truly proactive behaviour by taking the purpose
of job crafting into account in the OJCS.
1.2. The Added Value of an Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS)
Increasingly, researchers start to recognize the need to investigate job crafting in a
quantitative way in order to gain a better understanding of the construct and to set the stage for
future research (Tims et al., 2012). Since 2012, at least four validation studies of different job
crafting measurements have been published (Tims et al., 2012; Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2013; Slemp
& Vella-Brodrick, 2013; Niessen, Weseler, & Kostova, 2016).
In this study, we examine the added value of an overarching job crafting scale (OJCS) based
on three arguments. First, despite the steep increasing interest in job crafting as a research topic,
a thorough understanding of this construct in general is still in its infancy. The existing
measurements seem to prime employees with a predetermined selection of specific job crafting
types. Tims and colleagues (2012) and Nielsen and Abildgaard (2013) for example, ask employees
to indicate to what extent they decrease specific job hindrances, increase job challenges and
increase job resources. Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (2013), and similarly Niessen et al. (2016), build
on Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and also focus on specific job crafting types as they tap into
the extent to which employees craft their tasks, relations or cognitions. Being so specific, these
scales may miss out on important additional changes employees may make to their job such as for
instance when and where they work and how they install their physical workplace (Van Vuuren
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
36
& Dorenbosch, 2011). We argue it is important to explore and account for the range of possible
changes employees may make to their jobs in order to optimize their functioning. Therefore, we
aim for an overarching job crafting scale in which we make abstraction of the type of changes
employees may make, to leave room for employees’ personal interpretation of specific personally
relevant changes.
A second argument for the development of a new overarching job crafting scale is that the
current used scales do not specify the purpose of job crafting. This is interesting given that job
crafting scholars all include the pro-self-focused function of the self-initiated changes in their
definition of job crafting. Some preliminary scales on job crafting only integrate the purpose in a
few of their items, such as “I introduce new approaches to improve my work” (Slemp & Vella-
Brodrick, 2013; and comparably Leana, Appelbaum, & Shevchuk, 2009), “I introduce new work
tasks that I think better suit my skills or interests” (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013) or “I change
my job to make it more fun” (Kroon, Kooij, & van Veldhoven, 2013). Only very recently, Niessen et
al. (2016) developed and validated a new scale in which they explicitly address the pro-self-
focused nature of job crafting. More specifically, they ask participants to what extent they engage
in task, relational and cognitive crafting so the job they do suits them.
We state that including the purpose or target of job crafting is relevant given that job crafting
is argued to be a change-oriented and goal-directed, proactive behaviour (Grant & Parker, 2009;
Tims & Bakker, 2010). Moreover, the inherently pro-self-focused purpose of job crafting is one of
the crucial elements to distinguish job crafting from other proactive job redesign behaviours
(Grant & Parker, 2009; Niessen et al., 2016; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). In distinguishing
proactive behaviours, not only the initiator (i.e. the individual alone or in collaboration with the
employer/supervisor) and the content of the behaviour matter (Parker & Collins, 2010), but also
the target of the behaviour should be taken into account (Belschak & den Hartog, 2010). Hence,
we develop the OJCS in which the purpose of job crafting is included, i.e. reference is made to
optimizing one’s functioning in terms of well-being, attitudes or behaviour.
Third, we aim to develop a short questionnaire to measure job crafting in an overarching way
to foster its practical merits. In addition, this overarching job crafting scale might provide an
alternative measurement to examine a general construct of job crafting and its mechanisms (Tims,
Derks, & Bakker, 2016; Vogt, Hakanen, Brauchli, Jenny, & Bauer, 2016).
2. Study 1: Scale Development and Reliability Analyses
In Study 1, we first deductively develop the Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS). Second, we
rely on quantitative data to test psychometric properties such as the item descriptives, factorial
validity (i.e. EFA) and reliability of the OJCS. Third, we inspect the content validity by means of a
qualitative pilot study consisting of two parts. In the first part, before showing the items of the
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
37
OJCS, we ask participants to elaborate (1) on the changes they make to their job as well as (2) on
the underlying purpose of these changes. In the second part of this qualitative study, we ask
participants to provide examples for each of the four items of the OJCS. We specifically expect that
the type of changes participants come up with will outreach the seven job crafting dimensions
operationalized in the current literature. Employees may for instance also alter their physical
space at work or the temporal dimensions of work (Leana et al., 2009; Wrzesniewski & Dutton,
2001). Furthermore, we expect (in the first part) that the underlying reasons for making changes
in one’s job mainly concern personal goals, namely optimizing one’s functioning in terms of well-
being, attitudes and behaviour (i.e. job crafting), but might also tap into more external reasons
(i.e. other forms of proactive behaviour). Hence, to be sure that employees initiate changes to their
job to do good for themselves, we highlight the added value of taking the purpose of job crafting
into account in its measurement.
2.1. Method
Scale development. The items of the OJCS were developed in a deductive way (Hinkin,
1995). Given our interest in the overarching concept of job crafting, we aimed to account for the
two unique elements that are needed to define job crafting (e.g. self-initiated changes and
optimization of functioning) and to distinguish it from other proactive behaviours in generating
the items. Consequently, we formulated four double-barrelled items that include both the
behavioural change element and the pro-self-focused purpose element of job crafting (Table 1).
What concerns the change element, we opted to make abstraction of the specific type of
changes employees initiate in order to leave room for personal interpretation. We started the
items with ‘I make changes in my job’ or ‘I change my job’ to enable employees to think of personally
relevant changes that may not be captured in other job crafting measurements. What concerns
the purpose element of job crafting, scholars agree that employees make changes in their job to
enhance personal benefits. Building on the job crafting literature, we make reference to optimizing
one’s functioning in terms of well-being (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013), attitudes such as person-
job fit (Chen, Yen, & Tsai, 2014; Tims, et al., 2016) and behaviour such as performance (Bakker,
Tims & Derks, 2012). In this way, we approach optimal functioning as an umbrella concept that
describes “the ultimate outcome, [namely] a human being’s maximal level of development [or
“doing well”], operationalized using [well-being, attitudinal and behavioural] indicators” (adapted
from Gagné and Vansteenkiste, 2013, p.63).
We generated the following four items: ‘I make changes in my job to feel better’ (i.e. well-
being), ‘I change my job so it would better fit with who I am’ (i.e. identity; person-job fit) , ‘I make
changes in my job to perform better’ (i.e. behaviour), ‘I change my job so it would better fit with what
I think is important’ (i.e. meaning; person-job fit). These items were preceded by the following
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
38
stem: Some people make changes in their job, others do not. To what extent do you shape your job?
Please register to what extent you agree with the following statements. The items were rated on a
5 point Likert scale ranging from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree.
2.2. Sample and Procedure.
Psychometric properties in a quantitative study. We used the first two waves of a three
wave study on the experience of work in a health care organization with 518 employees. During
our data collection, the organization went through organizational change which involved the
merger of the three departments. The first wave was collected in May 2013 (pre-change), the
second wave in December 2013 (during change). We invited all 518 employees to participate in
our online questionnaire. We invited the majority of employees by e-mail with a personalized link
to the questionnaire, 60 employees received the link and a unique code by post to get access to
the online questionnaire. Of the 518 employees, 423 employees completed the first wave
(response rate 82%). The average age of the participants was 39 years (SD=11.15) and the sample
consisted of 28.8% men. The majority of the participants (83.9%) had a higher education degree
of which 25.6% a university degree and 16% a primary or secondary school degree. The first wave
of data was used to derive psychometric properties of the OJCS, to conduct exploratory factor
analysis and reliability analysis. We used the data collected at T1 and T2, completed by 313
employees (response rate 60%) to examine test-retest reliability.
Content validity in a qualitative pilot study. We invited our personal network through
social media to contribute to our understanding of job crafting by means of an online
questionnaire that mainly consisted of open questions. In the first part of the questionnaire, we
tapped into the changes they make in their job in general and the underlying reasons for these
changes. In the second part of the questionnaire, we asked them to elaborate on the four items of
the OJCS. In total, 26 participants completed our questionnaire of which 52% were men. The
average age of the respondents was 35.56 years. The majority (80%) held a university degree,
56% worked as professional, 20% in an administrative position and 24% in a middle management
position.
2.3. Results
Psychometric properties in a quantitative study. The means of all items ranged from 3.19
to 3.46 and the standard deviations ranged from .76 to .83. The values of skewness (ranged from
-.35 to -.03, SD=.12) and kurtosis (ranged from -.58 to -.11, SD=.24) tended to be (slightly) negative
which indicate more high scores and a rather flat distribution, respectively (Field, 2013).
Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that all four items loaded on one factor, with item
loading ranging from .82 to .90, exceeding the recommended .40 (Hinkin, 1995; Table 1).
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
39
Table 1
Descriptives and exploratory factor analysis (NT1=423).
Sample 1 (T1)
M SD 1
(1) I make changes in my job
to feel better 3.46 .77 .86
(2) I change my job so it would better fit
with who I am 3.26 .80 .90
(3) I make changes in my job
to perform better 3.42 .76 .86
(4) I change my job so it would better fit
with what I think is important 3.19 .83 .82
Note. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree. All
items were administered in Dutch, English translations for communication purposes.
Reliability. The inter-item correlations, Cronbach’s alpha and scale score correlations over
time demonstrate the reliability of the OJCS (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991). The inter-
item correlations ranged from .57 to .72 at both T1 and T2 which can be considered as exemplary
(Robinson et al., 1991). Internal consistency analyses show satisfying Cronbach’s alpha’s both at
T1 (αT1=.88) and T2 (αT2=.89). Finally, given our time lag of 6 months between T1 and T2, our
correlation of .47 (p<.01) between the job crafting scores at T1 and T2 exceeds the criterion of
>.40 for test-retest reliability (Robinson et al., 1991). Similar to the findings of Nielsen and
Abildgaard (2013), who found Pearson correlations ranging between .47 and .77, our results
suggested that job crafting is somewhat variable over time.
Content validity in a qualitative pilot study. First, as expected for both parts of the study,
the type of changes participants came up with went beyond the job crafting items measured in the
literature (Tims et al., 2012; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). Changes concerning the job content
such as “come up with new ideas”, “making changes in my tasks” or “redistributing tasks” (i.e. task
crafting, increasing structural resources, increasing challenging demands, reducing hindering
demands) as well as changes in work methods such as “implementing new ways of conducting
work” or “requesting training opportunities” (i.e. increasing structural resources) were mentioned.
Furthermore, respondents crafted social aspects of their job as they “ask colleagues or the
supervisor for advice when getting stuck”, “communicate and reflect on interpersonal interaction
and collaboration”, “determine the frequency/quantity of social contacts”, “seek for new people to
work with” and “invest in the quality of social interactions”. Furthermore, they “divide tasks
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
40
according to each other’s strengths and capacities” and “exchange and vary tasks among colleagues”,
pointing at team or collaborative forms of crafting (Leana et al., 2009; Tims, Bakker, Derks, & Van
Rhenen, 2013).
Although less frequently, respondents hinted at cognitive crafting as they “set priorities”,
“reflect at lunch on what they need to feel happy (get some fresh air or schedule a meeting)” or “think
about the alignment of their job with their vision and the importance of the identification with one’s
job”. In addition, employees “create more structure” in their job, “test alternative work methods
according to personal preferences” and “focus on small changes to perceive greater personal
control”. Finally, respondents also engaged in the so called context crafting (Van Vuuren &
Dorenbosch, 2011), they “adapt their work hours in function of their work life balance”, “work from
home” and “reorganize their physical work environment”.
Second, strengthening our job crafting approach, respondents indicated in the first part of the
study that they make changes in their job in order to optimize their functioning in terms of well-
being (e.g. “to monitor their resilience”, “to invest in their work-life balance”), attitudes (e.g. “to keep
their job interesting”, “to divide workload according to personal competencies”, “to reach person-job
fit”) and behaviour (e.g. “to work more efficiently”). Notably, although less frequently mentioned,
individuals also make changes to their job for “external reasons”, “because they have to” or “to solve
(technical) problems” hinting at other types of proactive behaviour that primarily target the
organization or others instead of the self.
2.4. Discussion Study 1
In Study 1, we developed the OJCS, demonstrated its psychometric properties in a
quantitative study and discussed the content validity in a qualitative study. The results of the
qualitative part strengthen our job crafting approach. First, as intended, the OJCS captures a
variety of changes employees might make in their job in order to optimize their functioning in
terms of well-being, attitudes and behaviour. Although especially enhancing content related work
aspects seem to be subject to job crafting, which is in line with previous research (e.g. Lyons,
2008), employees also indicate to craft hindering demands, relational aspects, physical work
environment, work hours as well as planning and reflection aspects (Van Wingerden, Derks,
Bakker, & Dorenbosch, 2013). Second, our findings demonstrate that the target of changing work
aspects might be both pro-self and pro-others focused (Belschak & den Hartog, 2010). Therefore,
taken the pro-self-focused purpose of job crafting into account in the measurement of job crafting
enables the distinction with other forms of proactive behaviour.
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
41
3. Study 2: Construct validity of the OJCS
In Study 2, we examine the construct validity of the OJCS in relation to two other job crafting
measurements, namely the job crafting scale of Tims et al. (JCS; 2012) and the job crafting
questionnaire of Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (JCQ; 2013). The aim is twofold.
First, we expect the OJCS to be different from the specific JCS-factors and JCQ-factors because
it captures a wider range of changes employees may make and because it takes the purpose of job
crafting into account. We therefore expect an eight factor model (M1), consisting of the OJCS, four
dimensions of the JCS (i.e. increasing structural resources, increasing social resources, increasing
challenging demand and reducing hindering demands; Tims et al., 2012) and three dimensions of
the JCQ (i.e. task crafting, cognitive crafting and relational crafting; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013),
to fit the data best in comparison with seven alternative models in which the OJCS load onto one
factor together which each of the other seven scales.
Second, although we expect the OJCS to differ from the other specific job crafting factors, we
also expect them to positively correlate given that they all aim to be an index of an underlying job
crafting concept. Whereas previous studies on the convergent validity of job crafting
measurements demonstrated relationships between job crafting and other proactivity constructs
such as personal initiative and proactive personality (Tims et al., 2012), and organizational
citizenship behaviour (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013), we add to the literature by associating
different job crafting measures to establish convergent validity.
3.1. Method
Sample and Procedure. We used the first wave of a larger two wave dataset collected among
governmental employees. The first wave was collected in November – December 2014, the second
wave of data in March – April 2015. Our study on job crafting was announced via the intranet of
the organization. In total, we invited 2505 employees by e-mail to participate in our electronic
questionnaire. We communicated on the content, stressed that participation was voluntary and
could be terminated at any point of time and we provided the contact of both the research
responsible in case of questions and the ethical committee in case of complaints.
Of the 2505 invited employees, 637 participants completed the questionnaire at T1 (response
rate of 26%). The average age of the participants was 44.41 years (SD=10.28). The sample
consisted of 53% men. In terms of job position, 39% of the respondents worked in a job for which
a master degree is required (job position A), 23% in a job that requires a bachelor degree (job
position B), 28% in a job that demands a high school degree (job position C) and 10% in a job for
which no degree is needed (job position D). The participants worked on average 11.90 years (SD=
10.28) in their current job.
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
42
Measures. Three scales were used to measure job crafting, namely the newly developed
overarching job crafting scale (OJCS; see Table 1), the job crafting scale of Tims et al. (JCS; 2012),
and the job crafting questionnaire of Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (JCQ; 2013).
The Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS), subject to validation in this manuscript, consisted
of four items (Table 1). In contrast to Study 1, the items were rated on a 7-point frequency scale
ranging from (1) never or seldom to (7) daily2. The reliability of the OJCS was satisfying (α=.93).
Job Crafting Scale (JCS). The JCS measures four dimensions of job crafting and consists of 21
items, rated on a 5-point frequency scale ranging from (1) never to (5) often (as often as possible
at work) (Tims et al., 2012). The reliabilities were satisfying: increasing structural resources
(STRUCTJCS; α=.77); increasing social resources (SOCJCS; α=.79), increasing challenging job
demands (CHALLJCS; α=.78); and reducing hindering job demands (HINDJCS; α=.76). Example
items are respectively ‘I try to develop my capabilities’, ‘I ask my supervisor to coach me’, ‘When an
interesting project comes along, I offer myself proactively as project co-worker’, and ‘I make sure
that my work is mentally less intense’.
Job Crafting Questionnaire (JCQ). The JCQ measures three dimensions of job crafting and
consists of 15 items (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013), rated on a 5-point frequency scale ranging
from (1) never to (5) often (as often as possible at work). The reliabilities were satisfying: task
crafting (TASKJCQ; α=.79); cognitive crafting (COGNJCQ; α=.87); and relational crafting (RELJCQ.
α=.81). We reformulated the original items to “I-statements”. Example items are respectively ‘I
introduce new approaches to improve my work’, ‘I think about how my job gives my life purpose’, and
‘I make an effort to know people well at work’.
3.2. Results
To examine the construct validity of the OJCS, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) in MPLUS 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2015) in which we included 8 latent factors, namely
the OJCS which is subject to validation, the four dimensions of the JCS (STRUCTJCS, SOCJCS,
CHALLJCS, HINDJCS; Tims et al., 2012) and the three dimensions of the JCQ (TASKJCQ, COGNJCQ,
2In contrast to Study 1 and 3, in which we used a 5 point Likert scale from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree, we used a 7 point frequency scale from (1) seldom or never to (7) daily in Study 2 and 4. In this way, we wanted to allow participants to use more scale points to rate their behaviour, thereby enhancing information richness (Weijters, Baumgartner, & Anseel, 2016). Furthermore, similar to Kroon et al. (2013), this frequency scale is also used in the measurement of burnout (Schaufeli, & van Dierendonck, 2000) and work engagement (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006) and intends to measure actual behaviour instead of attitudes. Using a frequency scale allows a different interpretation of the scores given that it enables to report on the extent to which respondents engage in job crafting instead of on their level on agreement with the items (Van Parys, 2016). Hence, a frequency scale allows to measure job crafting as a true behaviour, which might vary among situations, instead of as a general behavioural tendency of individuals over situations (Van Parys, 2016).
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
43
RELJCQ; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). In conducting the CFA, we applied the robust maximum
likelihood estimator MLM to account for the non-normal distribution of the observed variables
(Byrne, 2012). Based on the modification indices indicated in the initial results, we included four
theoretical relevant correlations post hoc to improve the model fit to the data3 (Schreiber, Stage,
King, Nora, & Barlow, 2006).
We evaluated the model fit of the eight factor model based on the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA=.04; 90% CI=[.041; .047], comparative fit index (CFI=.92), the Tucker-
Lewis index (TLI=.91), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR=.06). We
compared the Satorra-Bentler Chi Square (S-X²) of this eight factor model to the S-X² of alternative
seven factor models in which we modelled the OJCS to load onto one latent factor together with
each of the specific job crafting scales. Based on the recommendations of Schreiber et al. (2006),
the eight factor model offered a good and significantly better fit to the data in comparison with
the alternative models (Table 2). The factor loadings of the four items of the OJCS were significant
and ranged from .85 to .89 which exceeded the recommended .40 (Hinkin, 1995). The items of the
other job crafting factors also showed significant loadings on their respective factor, but were
slightly lower than the factor loadings of the OJCS-items.
After evaluating the model fit of this eight factor model and the factor loadings, we
investigated the convergent validity of the OJCS by inspecting the correlations between the OJCS
and the other job crafting factors. The results showed moderate to high positive latent
correlations of the OJCS with all other job crafting factors (Field, 2013; Table 3). The highest latent
correlations were found between OJCS and STRUCTJCS (r=.42, p<.001), CHALLJCS (r=.47, p<.001),
and TASKJCQ (r=.54, p<.001). The lowest latent correlation was found between OJCS and HINDJCS
(r=.18, p<.001). In sum, as expected, we demonstrated that the OJCS measured a different but
highly related construct to the other job crafting measurements.
In addition, especially the task related types of job crafting showed high latent correlations:
TASKJCQ with CHALLJCS (r=.91 (p<.001), TASKJCQ with STRUCTJCS (r=.72, p<.001) and
CHALLJCS with STRUCTJCS (r=.86, p<.001). Remarkably, the latent correlations between HINDJCS
and the other specific factors were rather small (i.e. ranging between -.12 and .18) or
nonsignificant (i.e. with CHALLJCS, TASKJCQ and RELJCQ).
3We included the following four theoretically relevant inter-item correlations post hoc, based on the modification indices indicated in the initial results: 1) the JCQ-item ‘I take on additional tasks at work’ with the JCS-item ‘I regularly take on extra tasks even though I do not receive extra salary for them’, 2) the JCQ-items ‘I remind myself of the importance of my work for the broader community’ and ‘I remind myself about the significance my work has for the success of the organization’, 3) the JCS-items ‘I ask my supervisor to coach me’ and ‘I look to my supervisor for inspiration’, and 4) the JCQ-items ‘I organize special events in the workplace (e.g., celebrating a co-worker’s birthday)’ and ‘I organize or attend work related social functions’.
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
44
3.3. Discussion Study 2
In Study 2, we demonstrated the construct validity of the OJCS in two ways. First, we
conducted confirmatory factor analysis to differentiate the job crafting construct measured by the
OJCS from job crafting constructs measured by the validated JCS (Tims et al., 2012) and JCQ (Slemp
& Vella-Brodrick, 2013). More specifically, the OJCS could not be equaled to one of the other
specific job crafting scales and thus contributes to our understanding of job crafting. Second, the
OJCS showed to be convergent valid given its moderate to high latent correlations with the specific
job crafting factors. Employees who more frequently engage in job crafting in general, as
measured by the OJCS, are more likely to engage in the variety of specific job crafting behaviours.
Hence, our findings support the argument that the changes employees make through job crafting
might be both behavioural and cognitive (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). Taken together, the OJCS
demonstrated both convergent and discriminant validity. Presumably, the change- and purpose-
element integrated in the OJCS respectively accounts for the association with and differentiation
from the specific job crafting factors which especially (or only) measure the change-element of
job crafting (see also Little, 2013).
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
45
Table 2
Fit statistics for the models based on confirmatory factor analyses (N=637).
Models S-χ2 (df) BIC RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR Comparison T Δdf p
M1 8 latent factors 1570.98 (708) 66878.08 .04 .92 .91 .06
M2 7 latent factors 2553.36 (715) 67932.48 .06 .83 .81 .09 M2-M1 982.38 7 <.001
M3 7 latent factors 2162.48 (715) 67495.87 .06 .86 .85 .09 M3-M1 591.50 7 <.001
M4 7 latent factors 2444.47 (715) 67812.26 .06 .84 .82 .10 M4-M1 873.49 7 <.001
M5 7 latent factors 2269.01 (715) 67622.90 .06 .85 .84 .08 M5-M1 375.93 7 <.001
M6 7 latent factors 2408.55 (715) 67770.92 .06 .84 .83 .10 M6-M1 837.57 7 <.001
M7 7 latent factors 2681.22 (715) 68079.61 .07 .81 .80 .09 M7-M1 1110.24 7 <.001
M8 7 latent factors 2246.87 (715) 67586.93 .06 .86 .84 .09 M8-M1 675.89 7 <.001
Note: Best-fitting model in italics. M1: OJCS, STRUCTJCS, SOCJSC, CHALLJCS, HINDJCS, TASKJCQ, COGNJCQ and RELJCQ load onto eight separate latent
factors. M2: OJCS and STRUCTJCS load onto one latent factor; SOCJSC, CHALLJCS, HINDJCS, TASKJCQ, COGNJCQ and RELJCQ load onto six separate
latent factors. M3: OJCS and SOCJCS load onto one latent factor; STRUCTJSC, CHALLJCS, HINDJCS, TASKJCQ, COGNJCQ and RELJCQ load onto six
separate latent factors. M4: OJCS and CHALLJCS load onto one latent factor; STRUCTJSC, SOCJCS, HINDJCS, TASKJCQ, COGNJCQ and RELJCQ load onto
six separate latent factors. M5: OJCS and HINDJCS load onto one latent factor; STRUCTJSC, SOCJCS, CHALLJCS, TASKJCQ, COGNJCQ and RELJCQ load
onto six separate latent factors. M6: OJCS and TASKJCQ load onto one latent factor; STRUCTJCS, SOCJSC, CHALLJCS, HINDJCS, COGNJCQ and RELJCQ
load onto six separate latent factors. M7: OJCS and COGNJCQ load onto one latent factor; STRUCTJCS, SOCJSC, CHALLJCS, HINDJCS, TASKJCQ and
RELJCQ load onto six separate latent factors. M8: OJCS and RELJCQ load onto one latent factor; STRUCTJCS, SOCJSC, CHALLJCS, HINDJCS, TASKJCQ
and COGNJCQ load onto six separate latent factors.
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
46
Table 3
Latent correlations between job crafting factors (N=637).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. OJCS -
2. STRUCTJCS .42*** -
3. SOCJCS .33*** .51*** -
4. CHALLJCS .47*** .86*** .59*** -
5. HINDJCS .18*** -.12* .18*** -.04ns -
6. TASKJCQ .54*** .72*** .54*** .91*** .06ns -
7. COGNJCQ .33*** .45*** .37*** .49*** .13** .51*** -
8. RELJCQ .29*** .48*** .47*** .54*** -.08ns .48*** .49*** -
*p<.05; **p<.01;***p<.001;ns=nonsignificant.
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
47
4. Study 3: Predictive validity
We examine the predictive or criterion-related validity of the OJCS in relation to optimal
functioning (Wrzesniewski, LoBuglio, Dutton, & Berg, 2013). More specifically, we relate job
crafting to work engagement and burnout (i.e. well-being), autonomous motivation and turnover
intentions (i.e. motivation and attitudes), and in-role performance (i.e. behaviour).
First, we expect job crafting to positively relate to work engagement and negatively to
burnout. Work engagement is a positive motivational state characterized by feelings of vigour,
dedication and absorption (Bakker et al., 2014). By means of job crafting, employees mobilize
their resources at hand (Berg, et al., 2008) which may install further resources gains (Hobfoll,
1989) and hence, feelings of work engagement (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013a). Burnout, on the
contrary, is a negative well-being state characterized by emotional exhaustion, cynicism and lack
of personal accomplishment. We expect employees who engage in job crafting, to mobilize and
accumulate resources which might help them to deal with job demands and prevent them from
resource depletion and hence, burnout (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012; Tims et al., 2013a).
Second, we expect job crafting to positively enhance the autonomous motivation to work and
to decrease turnover intentions. Employees who redesign their job through job crafting make the
job more consistent with one’s goals, values, and preferences (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).
This fosters the internal regulation for conducting the job, and hence increases autonomous work
motivation (Gagné & Panaccio, 2014). In addition, job crafting might serve as a means by which
employees diminish turnover intentions. Employees who craft their job create a resourceful work
environment according to personal preferences, abilities and needs, which in turn will enhances
the motivational enhancement process towards positive organizational outcomes and hence, a
decrease in turnover intentions (Bakker et al., 2014; Wrzesniewski et al., 2013).
Third, we expect a positive relationship between job crafting and in-role performance.
Although job crafting does not per se have to align with organizational goals (Wrzesniewski &
Dutton, 2001), to date, empirical findings demonstrated that job crafting positively associates to
performance (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2015). By means of job
crafting, employees mobilize and accumulate job resources, which enhances the motivational
process towards in-role performance (Demerouti, Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015; Petrou,
Demerouti, Schaufeli, 2015; Tims et al., 2015).
4.1. Method
Sample and Procedure. In Study 3, we used the second and third wave of the sample
described in Study 1. The procedure of collecting the second and third wave of data was equal to
the first wave of data collection (See Study 1 for a description). Of the 518 employees, 350
employees completed the second questionnaire (response rate 68%) and 298 employees
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
48
completed both the second and third questionnaire (response rate 58%). Of the 298 employees,
30.5% were men. The average age was 38.96 years (SD=11.03). The majority (62.4%) had a higher
education degree, 21.8% a university degree and 15.7% a primary or secondary degree.
Measures.
Job crafting. We measured job crafting with the newly developed 4 item OJCS (see Table 1).
The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally
agree. The reliability of the scale was satisfying (α=.88).
Work engagement. We used the dimensions vigour and dedication of the short 9-item
version of the Dutch Utrecht Work Engagement Scale to measure work engagement (UWES;
Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanavo, 2006). Each dimension was measured with three items rated on a
7-point Likert Scale ranging from (1) never to (7) always/every day. The reliabilities at T2 and T3
were satisfying for both vigour (αT2=.88, αT3=.89 ) and dedication (αT2=.88, αT3=.93). Example items
are: ‘At work, I feel bursting with energy’, ‘I am enthusiastic about my job’.
Burnout. We used the dimensions emotional exhaustion and cynicism of the Dutch Utrecht
Burnout Scale to measure burnout (UBOS; Schaufeli & van Dierendonck, 2000). Emotional
exhaustion was measured with five items such as ‘I feel emotionally drained from my work”.
Cronbach’s alpha’s were satisfying, both at T2 (α=.89) and T3 (α=.92). Cynicism was measured
with four items such as ‘I have become less enthusiastic about my work’. Cronbach’s alpha’s were
satisfying, both at T2 (α=.89) and T3 (α=.91). Items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging
from (0) never to (6) always/every day.
Autonomous motivation. We measured autonomous motivation as a combination of two
dimensions of the Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale of Gagné et al. (2015). Identified
regulation was measured with three items such as ‘I put effort in my current job because I
personally consider it important to put efforts in this job’. Intrinsic motivation was measured with
three items such as ‘I put effort in my job because I have fun doing my job’. Cronbach’s alpha’s were
satisfying, both at T2 (α=.91) and T3 (α=.92). Items were rated on a scale from (1) not at all to (7)
completely.
Turnover intentions. We measured turnover intentions with the following single item: ‘To
what extent do you plan to look for a job outside this organization?’, from the Dutch “Questionnaire
on the Experience and Evaluation of Work” (QEEW; van Veldhoven, Meijman, Broersen, & Fortuin,
2002). The item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally
agree.
In-role performance. We measured in-role performance with the subscale individual task
proficiency of Griffin, Neal, and Parker (2007), consisting of three items such as ‘I carried out the
core parts of my job well’. The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) totally
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
49
disagree to (5) totally agree. We only measured in-role performance at T3, reliability was
satisfying (α=.86).
4.2. Results
Prior to investigating the predictive validity of OJCS, we conducted confirmatory factor
analysis to exclude potential overlap between job crafting and the outcomes. We applied the
robust maximum likelihood estimator MLM to account for the non-normal distribution of the
observed variables (Byrne, 2012). The results showed that the seven-factor model at T2 (job
crafting, vigour, dedication, emotional exhaustion, cynicism, autonomous motivation and
turnover intention) and the eight-factor model at T3 (job crafting, vigour, dedication, emotional
exhaustion, cynicism, autonomous motivation, turnover intention and in-role performance)
yielded a good fit to the data (Schreiber et al., 2006): the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEAT2=.05; RMSEAT3=.06), comparative fit index (CFIT2=.96; CFIT3=.94), the Tucker-Lewis
index (TLIT2=.95; TLIT3=.93), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMRT2=.05;
SRMRT3=.05).
Furthermore, we compared these hypothesized models at T2 and T3 respectively, with
alternative models in which the OJCS loaded onto one latent factor together with each of the
positive outcomes. We only modelled job crafting and each of the positive outcomes together in
the alternative models because the OJCS explicitly entails the personal goal of optimizing one’s
functioning in the items. Therefore, it is especially relevant to exclude potential overlap between
job crafting and the positive outcomes. We compared the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) –
which represents the balance between the number of parameters (i.e. model complexity) and the
fit of the model to the data (Aiken, West, & Reno, 1991). As expected, the hypothesized seven-
factor model at T2 (BICT2=18383.17) and eight-factor model at T3 (BICT3=19528.64)
demonstrated the lowest BIC-value and thus revealed a better fit to the data in comparison with
the alternative models in which job crafting loaded onto one factor with autonomous motivation
(BICT2=18932.46; BICT3=20218.24), vigour (BICT2=19179.50; BICT3=20392.15), dedication
(BICT2=19258.05; BICT3=20647.34) and performance (BICT3=19941.79). These results support
the construct validity of the OJCS.
In Table 4, to investigate the predictive validity of the OJCS, we present the correlations
between job crafting at T2 and the outcome variables at T3 below the diagonal. In addition, we
provide the correlations between job crafting and the outcomes, both measured at T2, above the
diagonal. As expected, our results show positive correlations between job crafting at T2 and the
outcomes work engagement, but only the vigour part (r=.15, p<.05), and autonomous motivation
at T3 (r=.18; p<.01). We did not found significant results for the correlations between job crafting
at T2 and the outcomes dedication, emotional exhaustion, cynicism, turnover intentions and in-
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
50
role performance at T3. Notably, at T2, we found a negative correlation between job crafting and
cynicism (r=-.16, p<.05) but not with exhaustion. Furthermore, job crafting at T2 positively
correlated with both vigour (r=.16, p<.05) and dedication at T2 (r=.18; p<.05), as well as with
autonomous motivation at T2 (r=.20; p<.01). No significance results were found for the
relationship with turnover intentions at T2. In-role performance was not measured at T2.
4.3. Discussion Study 3
In Study 3, we first conducted confirmatory factor analyses of the constructs at T2 and at T3,
to exclude potential overlap between job crafting and outcomes. Furthermore, our results
demonstrate that although job crafting is a means to proactively optimizing one’s functioning, it
cannot be equaled to these envisioned outcomes (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010). Therefore, it is
especially valuable to investigate the relationships between job crafting and optimal functioning.
We examined the predictive validity of the OJCS by inspecting correlations between job
crafting and the outcomes vigour, dedication, emotional exhaustion, cynicism, autonomous
motivation, turnover intention and in-role performance. As expected, the OJCS positively
correlated over time (time lag of six months) with vigour and autonomous motivation. Notably,
we found that job crafting associated, positively and negatively respectively, with the outcomes
dedication and cynicism cross-sectionally at T2. These findings are similar to the results of Tims
et al. (2012) who found negative cross-sectional relationships of seeking resources and seeking
challenges with cynicism.
Contrary to the expectations, we did not find significant relationships between job crafting
and the outcomes turnover intentions and in-role performance. Four aspects might shed light on
these findings. First, outcomes such as turnover intentions and in-role performance might be
more distal outcomes of job crafting. Previous studies suggest for example that job crafting
indirectly relates to performance via work engagement (Bakker et al., 2012; Demerouti, Bakker,
& Gevers, 2015; Tims et al., 2015). Second, the specific change context of our sample may have
influenced the results. Given that our surveys took place during and just after the merger of
different departments, employees’ job crafting might rather be “targeted at finding appropriate
ways of responding to, dealing with, or coping with [the] new situation” (Petrou et al., 2015,
p.471), rather than targeted at seeking resources and challenges to contribute to performance.
Third, Weseler and Niessen (2016) state that a positive link between proactivity and performance
cannot be taken for granted, especially not for pro-self-focused proactive behaviour, such as job
crafting. Fourth, counterbalancing processes may underlie nonsignificant relationships between
job crafting, as measured by the OJCS, and outcomes. To date, empirical evidence shows mixed
results on the outcomes of job crafting, depending on the type of job crafting (Demerouti, Bakker,
& Halbesleben, 2015; Tims et al., 2013a).
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
51
Table 4
Means, standard deviations and latent correlations between OJCS and outcomes.
M (SD)
T2
M (SD)
T3
1(T2) 2 (T2) 3(T2) 4(T2) 5(T2) 6(T2) 7(T2) 8(T2)
1. OJCS (T2) 3.28 (.65) - - .16* .18* -.05 ns -.16* .20** -.05ns -
2. Vigour (T3) 5.32 (1.17) 5.14 (1.22) .15* - .91*** -.55*** -.66*** .56*** -.41*** -
3. Dedication (T3) 5.61 (1.20) 5.41 (1.28) .11 ns .88*** - -.51*** -.76*** .73*** -.53*** -
4. Emotional exhaustion (T3) 2.68 (1.07) 2.98 (1.25) -.04 ns -.45*** -.31*** - .66*** -.35*** .32*** -
5. Cynicism (T3) 2.10 (1.18) 2.29 (1.29) -.07 ns -.68*** -.69*** .68*** - -.55*** .58*** -
6. Autonomous motivation
(T3)
3.31 (.74) 3.66 (.74) .18** .63*** .71*** -.34*** -.55*** - -.41*** -
7. Turnover intentions (T3) 2.09 (1.04) 2.18 (1.13) -.04 ns -.43*** -.51*** .32*** .58*** -.43*** - -
8. In-role performance (T3) - 3.93 (.64) .02ns .19* .17* -.20** -.16* .13 ns -.03 ns -
*p<.05; **p<.01. Correlations between OJCS T2 and outcomes T2 (N=350) above the diagonal, OJCS T2 and outcomes T3 (N=298) below the
diagonal.
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
52
5. Study 4: Incremental validity of OJCS above JCS and JCQ
In Study 4, we add to both Study 2 and Study 3 as we examine the incremental validity of the
OJCS in the prediction of optimal functioning indicators over and above the JCS (Tims et al., 2012)
and the JCQ (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). Specifically, we conduct hierarchical regression
analyses of work enjoyment, need for recovery, autonomous motivation and turnover intentions
on both specific job crafting types and our overarching job crafting construct. We expect job
crafting to positively contribute to positive indicators (i.e. work enjoyment and autonomous
motivation) and negative to negative indicators (i.e. need for recovery and turnover intentions).
In addition, we expect the OJCS to explain variance in the outcome variables in addition to the
specific job crafting dimensions.
5.1. Method
Sample and Procedure. In addition to Study 2, in Study 4, we used the two wave dataset
collected among governmental employees. The procedure of collecting the second wave was equal
to the first wave of data collection. Of the 2505 invited employees, 358 completed the electronic
questionnaire at T1 and T2 (response rate of 14.29%). The average age was 44.43 years
(SD=10.33). The sample consisted of 54.2% men. In terms of job position, 40.8% of the
respondents worked in a job requiring a master degree (job position A), 22.3% in a job requiring
a bachelor degree (job position B), 26.8% in a job demanding a high school degree (job position
C) and 10.1% in a job for which no degree is needed (job position D).
Measures.
Job crafting. Three scales were used to measure job crafting, namely the newly developed
OJCS (see Table 1), the JCS of Tims et al. (2012), and the JCQ of Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (2013).
The reliabilities of all job crafting factors were satisfying, namely: OJCS (α=.92), STRUCTJCS
(α=.77), SOCJCS (α=.80), CHALLJCS (α=.78), HINDJCS (α=.77), TASKJCQ (α=.77), COGNJCQ (α=.88)
and RELJCQ (α=.81). See Study 2 for a detailed description of these job crafting measurements.
Work enjoyment. We used the subscale “work enjoyment” of the Short Inventory to Monitor
Psychosocial Hazards (SIMPH; Notelaers, De Witte, Van Veldhoven et al., 2007). The scale
consisted of 5 items such as ‘I enjoy my work’ and were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging
from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree. The reliability was satisfying (α=.91).
Need for recovery. We used the subscale “need for recovery” of the SIMPH (Notelaers, et al.,
2007). The scale consisted of 5 items that were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1)
totally disagree to (5) totally agree. A sample item is ‘I find it hard to relax at the end of the workday’.
The reliability was satisfying (α=.89).
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
53
Autonomous motivation. We measured autonomous motivation with two dimensions of the
Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale of Gagné et al. (2015). Identified regulation was
measured with three items such as ‘I put effort in my current job because I personally consider it
important to put efforts in this job’. Intrinsic motivation was measured with three items such as ‘I
put effort in my job because I have fun doing my job’. Items were rated on a scale from (1) not at all
to (7) completely. The reliability of the scale was satisfying (α=.93).
Turnover intentions. We measured turnover intentions with the single item: ‘To what extent
do you plan to leave your job?’, adopted from the QEEW (van Veldhoven, et al., 2002). The item was
rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree.
5.2. Results
We conducted hierarchical regression analyses of work enjoyment, need for recovery,
autonomous motivation and turnover intentions on job crafting. In Table 5, we present the results
of the third step of the analysis in which we added the OJCS to the JCS-dimensions and JCQ-
dimension as predictors. The OJCS significantly contributed to the prediction of work enjoyment
(β=.14, p<.01) and autonomous motivation (β=.14, p<.01) in addition to increasing social
resources (β=.12, p<.05), increasing challenging demands (β=.17, p<.05) and reducing hindering
demands (β=-.32, p<.001) for work enjoyment, and in addition to increasing challenging demands
(β=.15, p<.05), reducing hindering demands (β=-.30, p<.001) and cognitive crafting (β=.21,
p<.001) for autonomous motivation. Contrary to our expectations, the OJCS did not add to the
prediction of need for recovery and turnover intentions.
5.3. Discussion Study 4
The OJCS significantly contributed to the positive indicators work enjoyment and
autonomous motivation in addition to the specific job crafting scales, which supports the
incremental validity of the OJCS. Contrary to the expectations, however, the OJCS did not predict
the negative outcomes need for recovery and turnover intentions. Interestingly, only reducing
hindering demands enhanced need for recovery. Furthermore, only reducing hindering demands
and seeking social resources related to turnover intention. In previous studies, reducing hindering
demands is argued to resemble avoidance coping (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012), and to be an
inefficient strategy that might have unwarranted consequences (Petrou et al., 2015) and further
withdrawal manifestations such as turnover intention (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006; Krausz,
Koslowsky, & Eiser, 1998). Seeking social resources at work seems to be a better strategy. By
means of this job crafting strategy employees may seek the needed advise or information (Soltis,
Agneessens, Sasovova, & Labianca, 2013), may seek support in dealing with demanding aspects of
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
54
work (Pomaki, DeLongis, Frey, Short, & Whoehrle, 2010) and hence be less likely to experience
turnover intentions.
Similar to the results of Study 3, the OJCS does not contribute to the understanding of negative
indicators of optimal functioning. The relationship between job crafting and negative outcomes
seems to be more complex and might depend on different underlying mechanisms than the
relationship with positive outcomes. Moreover, extant studies suggest different processes for the
increasing and reducing types of job crafting as measured by the JCS (Tims et al., 2012). Given that
the OJCS positively related to both increasing and reducing forms of job crafting (see Study 2), it
is possible that counterbalancing processes filter each other out. Taken together, OJCS showed
incremental validity for the positive, but not for the negative indicators of optimal functioning in
addition to the JCS and JCQ dimensions.
Table 5.
Hierarchical regressions of outcomes on job crafting measures (N=358).
Work
enjoyment T2
β
Need for
recovery T2
β
Autonomous
motivation T2
β
Turnover
intention (job)
T2
β
JCS T1
STRUCTJCS .04 -.02 .10 -.11
SOCJCS .12* .01 .05 -.14*
CHALLJCS .17* .07 .15* .12
HINDJCS -.32*** .12** -.30*** .12*
JCQ T1
TASKJCQ -.02 -.09 -.04 .04
COGNJCQ .07 .12 .21*** -.02
RELJCQ -.001 -.08 .04 .03
OJCS T1 .14** -.03 .14** .01
R² .24 .05 .30 .04
ΔR² .02** .00 .01** .00
*p<.05; **p<.01; ΔR² = change in R² in comparison with model without OJCS
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
55
6. General Discussion
Building on the literature, we define job crafting in an overarching way as the self-initiated
changes employees make to their job to optimize their well-being, attitudes and behaviour.
Accordingly, we developed a short overarching job crafting scale in which we (1) make abstraction
of the specific changes individuals may make in their job to leave room for personal interpretation
and (2) in which we take the pro-self-focused purpose into account. We demonstrate reliability
and validity of the OJCS through four studies using different datasets. In what follows, we discuss
four main contributions and provide future research directions.
6.1. Main contributions
First, the OJCS showed to be a reliable instrument to measure job crafting in an overarching
way. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was satisfying among the different samples investigated.
Furthermore, the correlation of job crafting over six months’ time indicated test-retest reliability
(Robinson et al., 1991) and revealed that job crafting is somewhat variable over time (Study 1;
Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012).
Second, both the qualitative (Study 1) and quantitative results (Study 2) demonstrated the
construct validity of the OJCS. Strengthening the content validity of the OJCS, the qualitative study
in which we asked participants to reflect upon the OJCS revealed that employees engage in diverse
ways of job crafting. As expected, the examples of job crafting went beyond the specific job crafting
types measured in the extant literature. In addition, in Study 2, we demonstrated that the OJCS is
distinct from but related to all specific job crafting dimensions measured by the JCS of Tims et al.
(2012) and the JCQ of Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (2013). Employees who engaged in job crafting
as measured through the OJCS, scored especially higher on task crafting, increasing challenging
demands and increasing structural resources. These findings indicate the prominent role of
“enhancing” task or content-related changes employees might make when crafting their job (see
also Lyons, 2008; Tims et al., 2012; Van Wingerden et al., 2013). To a lesser extent, employees
scoring high on the OJCS also scored higher on cognitive crafting, on the relational job crafting
types, and on reducing hindering demands. The OJCS thus includes a short overarching scale that
captures diverse ways of crafting, going beyond the specific job crafting types defined within the
literature.
Third, the OJCS measures job crafting as a truly proactive behaviour because it captures the
pro-self-focused purpose of optimizing one’s functioning into the items. Importantly, our results
support that the underlying construct measured through the OJCS is different from indicators of
optimal functioning (Study 3). Even though employees thus make changes to their job in order to
optimize their functioning, it is still relevant to investigate whether employees actually succeed in
achieving a different situation (Parker et al., 2010).
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
56
Fourth, the OJCS seems to be predictive for positive indicators of optimal functioning such as
work engagement, work enjoyment and autonomous motivation (Study 3 and Study 4). By means
of job crafting employees invest in the energizing aspects of work such as job resources and
challenging demands which, in turn, is helpful in establishing person-job fit (Chen et al., 2014),
attaining goals, fostering personal development and hence, adding to work enjoyment and work
engagement (Tims et al., 2013a). In addition, by means of job crafting, employees invest in the
meaning of their job (Tims et al., 2016). Employees reshape their job so it becomes more
consistent with their goals and values (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), which promotes the
process of internalization and hence, autonomous motivation (Gagné & Panaccio, 2014).
Moreover, the OJCS shows to be incremental valid in addition to the JCS and JCQ in relation to work
enjoyment and autonomous motivation (Study 4).
6.2. Future research directions
First, future research might strengthen the convergent and discriminant validity among the
job crafting factors by means of an alternative analytic approach such as a (pseudo) multitrait-
multimethod (MTMM) framework. The work on aggressive behaviour described by Little (2013)
might be inspiring in this realm. Comparable to the aggressive behaviour literature, we could
distinguish the job crafting approach which typifies (or operationalizes) job crafting in terms of
the specific types of changes employees make (i.e. Tims et al., 2012) from an approach in which
also the functional purpose of making changes to the job is included (i.e. the current study; see
also Niessen et al., 2016). Using a MTMM might be helpful to disentangle and demonstrate the
different sources of variance in the OJCS items (Little, 2013).
Second, future research might explore the role of time in the context of job crafting. Within
the job crafting literature, research designs vary from daily diary studies to longitudinal studies
with time lags of 12 month (Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, & Hetland, 2012; Petrou et al.,
2015). In the current study, we used cross-sectional data as well as longitudinal data with time
lags of three and six months. However, to date, it is not clear which time perspective is most
appropriate in conducting research on job crafting. More specifically, job crafting might be both
relevant in relation to optimal functioning in the short run and in the long run (Daniels, 2011, in
Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012). Additionally, the role of time might also shed light on the dynamic
relationships between job crafting and outcomes. In our study, for example, job crafting only
cross-sectionally related to dedication and cynicism. Perhaps, job crafting might deal with
cynicism in the short run but not in the long run. Alternatively, our findings might hint at a
reversed relationship in which employees who experience feelings of cynicism are less likely to
engage in job crafting, whereas dedicated people are more likely to craft their job.
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
57
Third, future research might dig into the different underlying processes that seem to play a
role in the relation between job crafting and negative outcomes such as burnout, need for recovery
and turnover intentions in comparison with positive outcomes such as work engagement, work
enjoyment and autonomous motivation. Whereas the OJCS is positively related to positive
indicators of optimal functioning, we found no significant relationships with negative well-being
indicators. One explanation lies in the fact that job crafting is a positively framed construct that
arose in the realm of positive psychology (Bakker & Derks, 2010) and might especially operate in
positive well-being spirals. Employees might primarily craft their job in order to enhance positive
outcomes (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013), rather than to avoid negative outcomes. In line with
the literature, our results show that job crafting especially plays a role within the motivational
process of the JD-R model towards positive indicators of optimal functioning. Even though these
positively valued indicators might in turn negatively relate to negatively valued indicators
(Schaufeli & Taris, 2014), the direct relationship of job crafting with negative outcomes seems to
be more complex and might be subject to future research.
In addition, the level of optimal functioning and the use of different types of job crafting might
matter in the differential processes towards positive versus negative outcomes. Although job
crafting theory suggests that all types of job crafting, including reducing hindering demands,
should enhance well-being and performance outcomes, empirical evidence shows mixed results
(Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2013b). Within the motivational process, employees might experience a
higher level of optimal functioning in the first place. They might already possess a certain level of
job resources to invest in resource or challenge crafting (Berg et al., 2008) which might install an
accumulation of positive consequences. Furthermore, increasing job resources and job challenges
is motivational in nature (Petrou et al., 2012). In contrast, it might be more difficult for employees
already experiencing negative states of well-being or negative attitudes, such as feelings of
cynicism, to invest the limited level of resources they have to optimize their functioning by means
of job crafting (Hobfoll, 1989; Demerouti, Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015). Within the health-
impairment process, employees might experience a lack of resources, be more likely to avoid
further depletion and well-being deterioration and hence, to engage in protective strategies or
avoidance coping strategies, such as crafting hindrances (Petrou et al., 2015). However, these
protective strategies might rather relate to a progressive withdrawal process when ineffective
and thus even increase negative outcomes (Study 4; Krausz et al., 1998; Petrou et al., 2015; Tims
et al., 2013). It is argued that reducing hindrances might be an active coping strategy to prevent
oneself from experiencing negative outcomes when “enacted in constructive and skillful ways”
(Petrou et al., 2015, p.477). Notably, the OJCS is also positively related to hindrances crafting, as
measured by Tims et al. (2012). Building on our approach, future research might investigate the
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
58
role of a “deliberate” form of crafting by making the function or purpose of reducing hindering
demands more explicit (Petrou et al., 2012, p.1123).
7. Conclusion
We developed and validated a short scale to measure job crafting in an overarching way and
by taking its underlying pro-self-focused purpose into account. We demonstrated construct
validity (Study 1-3), predictive validity (Study 3) and incremental validity over and above specific
job crafting types (Study 4) in relation to positive indicators of optimal functioning. The OJCS
might be a good alternative when one is interested in investigating a general job crafting construct
and its surrounding mechanisms (Tims et al., 2016; Vogt et al., 2016).
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
59
8. References
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., & Reno, R.R. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. (2014). Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD-R
Approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1,
389-411. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235
Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2010). Positive Occupational Health Psychology. In: S., Leka, & J.,
Houdmont (Eds.). Occupational Health Psychology (pp.194-224). UK: John Wiley & Sons
Ltd.
Bakker, A.B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of
job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65(10), 1359-1378. DOI:
10.1177/0018726712453471
Belschak, F.D., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of
proactive behaviour: differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 83, 475-498. DOI: 10.1348/096317909X439208
Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2008). What is job Crafting and Why Does It Matter?
University of Michigan: Centre of Positive Organizational Scholarship.
Byrne, B.M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus. Basis concepts, application, and
programming. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Chen, C.Y., Yen, C.H., & Tsai, F.C. (2014). Job crafting and job engagement: The mediating role of
person-job fit. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, 21-28. DOI:
10.1016/j.JIHM.2013.10.006
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Gevers, J.M.P. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: the role
of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87-96. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.001
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2015). Productive and counterproductive job
crafting: A daily diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online
publication. DOI: 10.1037/a0039002
Field, A., (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPPS Statistics. London: Sage.
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspecli, A.K., … &
Halvari, H. (2015). The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale: Validation evidence in
seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 24(2), 178-196
Gagné, M., & Panaccio, A. (2014). The motivational power of job design. In: M. Gagné (Ed.). The
Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
60
(pp.165-180). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199794911.
013.012
Gagné, M., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2013). Self-Determination Theory’s Contribution to Positive
Organizational Psychology. In: A.B. Bakker (Ed.). Advances in Positive Organizational
Psychology. Volume 1. (p.61-82). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Grant, A.M., & Parker, S.K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and
proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317-375. DOI:
10.1080/19416520903047327
Griffin, M.A., Neal, A., & Parker, S.K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: positive
behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal,
50(2), 327-347.
Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A., & Roth, P.L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic
comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. The Academy of
Management Journal, 49(2), 305-325. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159765
Hinkin, T.R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organization. Journal
of management, 21(5), 967-988.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989). Conservation of Resources. A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress.
American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.
Krausz, M., Koslowsky, M., & Eier, A. (1998). Distal and proximal influences on turnover intentions
and satisfaction: support for a withdrawal progression theory. Journal of Vocational
behavior, 52, 59-71.
Kroon, B., Kooij, D.T.A.M., & van Veldhoven, M.J.P.M. (2013). Job crafting en bevlogenheid. Zijn er
verschillen tussen teams met een restrictieve dan wel onbegrensde werkcontext? Gedrag
en organisatie, 26, 46-65.
Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work process and quality of care in early
childhood education: the role of job crafting. The Academy of Management Journal, 52(6),
1169-1192.
Little, T.D. (2013). Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
Lyons, P. (2008). The Crafting of Jobs and Individual Differences. Journal of Business Psychology,
23, 25-36. doi: 10.1007/s10869-008-9080-2
Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2015). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén
Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J.S. (2012). The development and validation of a job crafting measure
for use with blue-collar workers. Work & Stress, An International Journal of Work, Health
and Organisations, 26(4), 365-384. DOI: 10.1080/02678373.2012.733543
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
61
Niessen, C., Weseler, D., & Kostova, P. (2016). When and why do individuals craft their jobs? The
role of individual motivation and work characteristics for job crafting. Human relations,
69(6), 1287-1313. DOI: 10.1177/0018726715610642
Notelaers, G. D., De Witte, H., Van Veldhoven, M. et al. (2007). Construction and validation on the
Short Inventory to Monitor Psychosocial Hazards. Arbeidsgezondheidszorg en
Ergonomie,44, 11-17.
Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive
motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856.
Parker, S.K., & Collins, C.G. (2010). Taking Stock: Integrating and Differentiating Multiple Proactive
Behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633-662. doi: 10.1177/0149206308321554
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M.C.W., Schaufeli, W.B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a job on a
daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1120-1141. DOI: 10.1002/job.1786
Petrou, P. Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Job crafting in changing organizations :
antecedents and implications for exhaustion and performance. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 20(4), 470-480. DOI: 10.1037/a0039003
Pomaki, G., DeLongis, A., Frey, D., Short, K., & Woehrle, T. (2010). When the going gets tough:
Direct, buffering and indirect effects of social support on turnover intention. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26, 1340-1346. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.03.007
Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation.
In: J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.). Measures of personality and social
psychological attitudes (pp. 1-16). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with
a short questionnaire. Educational and psychological measurement, 66(4), 701-716. DOI:
10.1177/001316-4405282471
Schaufeli, W.B., & Taris, T.W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands-resources model:
implication for improving work and health. In: G.F. Bauer, & O. Hämmig (Eds.). Bridging
Occupational, Organizational and Public Health: A Transdisciplinary Approach (pp.43-68).
The Netherlands: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-5640-3_4
Schaufeli, W., & van Dierendonck, D. (2000). Utrechtse Burnout Schaal. Handleiding. Nederland,
Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.
Schreiber, J.B., Stage, F.K, King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E.A. (2006). Reporting structural equation
modelling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational
Research, 99(6), 323-337. DOI: 10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
62
Slemp, G.R., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2013). The job crafting questionnaire: A new scale to measure
the extent to which employees engage in job crafting. International Journal of Wellbeing,
3(2), 126-146. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v3i2.1
Soltis, S.M., Agneessnes, F., Sasovova, Z., & Labianca, G. J. (2013). A social network perspective on
turnover intentions : the role of distributive justice and social support. Human Resource
Management, 52(4), 561-584. DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21542
Tims, M., & Bakker, A. (2010). Job Crafting: towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), Art. #841, 9 pages, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841
Tims, M., Bakker, A., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173-186. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D. (2013a). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources,
and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 230-240. DOI:
10.1037/a0032141
Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D. (2013b). De job demands-resources benadering van job crafting.
Gedrag en organisatie, 26, 16-31.
Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D., & van Rhenen, W. (2013). Job crafting at the team and individual
level: implications for work engagement and performance. Group & Organization
Management, 38(4), 427-454. DOI: 10.1177/1059601113492421
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2015). Job crafting and job performance: A longitudinal study.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 914-928. DOI:
10.1080/1359432X.2014.969245
Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person-job fit and
meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92(1), 44-53. DOI:
10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007
Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2013). Development and Validation of a General
Job Crafting Scale. Poster presentation at the 6th International Seminar on Positive
Occupational Health Psychology, Leuven.
Van den Broeck, A., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). Not all job demands
are equal: Differentiating job hindrances and job challenges in the Job Demands-Resources
model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(6), 735-759. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320903223839
Van Parys, L. (2016). On the street-level implementation of ambiguous activation policy. How
caseworkers reconcile responsibility and autonomy and affect their clients' motivation
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Leuven, KU Leuven.
STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE
63
Van Veldhoven, M., Meijman, T.F., Broersen, J.P.J., & Fortuin, R.J. (2002). Handleiding VBBA.
Amsterdam: SKB Vragenlijst Services.
Van Vuuren, M., & Dorenbosch, L. (2011). Mooi werk. Naar een betere baan zonder weg te gaan.
Handboek job crafting. Uitgeverij Boom, Amsterdam.
Van Wingerden, J., Derks, D., Bakker, A.B., & Dorenbosch, L. (2013). Job crafting in het speciaal
onderwijs: een kwalitatieve analyse. Gedrag & organisatie, 26, 85-103.
Vogt, K., Hakanen, J. J., Brauchli, R., Jenny, G. J., & Bauer, G. F. (2016). The consequences of job
crafting: A three-wave study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
25(3), 353-362. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2015.1072170
Weijters, B., Baumgartner, H., & Anseel, F. (2016). Designing Better Questionnaires: A multi-
disciplinary review of recent findings. Manuscript in preparation.
Weseler, D., & Niessen, C. (2016). How job crafting relates to task performance. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 31(3), 672-685. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-05-2012-0148
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of
their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.
Wrzesniewski, A., LoBuglio, N., Dutton, J. E., & Berg, J. M. (2013). Job crafting and cultivating
positive meaning and identity in work. Advances in positive organizational
psychology, 1(1), 281-302. DOI:10.1108/S2046-410X(2013)0000001
65
CHAPTER 3 – STUDY 2
JOB CRAFTING: AUTONOMY AND WORKLOAD AS INDEPENDENT VARIABLES AND
THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING UNTIL RETIREMENT AGE
AS DEPENDENT VARIABLE4,5.
4 Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Emily Degraeve, Evelien Rombaut, Koen Van der
dood and Laurens Van Tichelen for their contribution in collecting the data.
5 Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (accepted). Job Crafting: Autonomy and Workload
as Antecedents and the Willingness to Continue Working Until Retirement Age as a Positive
Outcome. Psychology of Human Resources Journal (Psihologia Resurselor Umane), 15(1), 25-41.
DOI: 10.24837/pru.2017.1.3
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
67
Job Crafting: Autonomy and Workload as Independent Variables and the Willingness to
Continue Working Until Retirement Age as Dependent Variable
Abstract
This study focuses on job crafting and models autonomy and workload as antecedents and
the willingness to continue working until retirement age as a positive outcome of job crafting in a
population of employees aged between 45 and 65 years6. We define job crafting as making
changes in one’s job in order to optimize one’s functioning in terms of well-being, work-related
attitudes or behaviour. Building on the selective optimization compensation theory, we expect job
crafting to be a successful aging strategy which positively relates to the willingness to continue
working. Furthermore, starting from the activation hypothesis of Karasek, we expect that
employees in active jobs (i.e., a combination of high autonomy and workload) will craft their jobs
to a higher extent. Results among 1168 governmental employees generally confirmed our
hypotheses. An active work environment, in terms of high autonomy and high workload
associated indirectly with an enhanced willingness to continue working via job crafting. Results
and steps forward are discussed.
Keywords: Job crafting; Active Jobs; Willingness to Continue Working Until Retirement Age
6 If we use terms such as ‘antecedent(s)’, ‘consequence(s)’, ‘outcome(s)’ or other words that might implicitly hint at causal relationships throughout this chapter, no inferences about causal relationships are intended. We use these terms from a theoretical perspective, having our hypothesized model in mind.
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
68
1. Introduction
In this study, we investigate job crafting among older employees in relation to both a positive
motivational outcome, i.e. willingness to continue working until retirement age, and the context
in which job crafting might take place, i.e. active jobs as antecedents. Instead of passively
undergoing changes at work, employees are increasingly expected to also be active agents who
craft their job (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012). They then make
changes in their job in order to optimize their functioning in terms of well-being, work-related
attitudes or behaviour (Vanbelle, Van den Broeck, & De Witte, 2013; 2016). First, starting from
the selective optimization and compensation theory (SOC-theory) which assumes that employees
do use adaptive strategies to help them balancing their work environment with age-related
changes in personal needs and goals (Baltes & Dickson, 2001), we expect job crafting to positively
associate with the employees’ willingness to continue working until retirement age. Second, using
the activation hypothesis of Karasek’s job demands control model (JDC-model; 1979), we analyse
whether an active work environment, characterized by autonomy and workload, will stimulate
job crafting as well as the willingness to continue working.
Taken together, we investigate whether older employees in active jobs are likely to craft their
job and - as a result - are more willing to continue working until retirement age (i.e., a motivational
outcome), which we also refer to as the willingness to continue working or to work longer (i.e.
until retirement age instead of taking early retirement options). In the following paragraphs, we
first introduce the topic of job crafting and then link it to the outcome variable, namely the
willingness to continue working. Next, we examine the role of active jobs in stimulating job
crafting and therefore also the willingness to continue working.
Job Crafting
Whereas job design theory traditionally focuses on the top down (re)design of jobs, research
increasingly adopts the complementary bottom up view in which employees are considered to be
proactive agents changing their jobs themselves. By means of job crafting, employees take an
active role in customizing their job in order to do good for themselves (Tims et al., 2012; Vanbelle
et al., 2013; 2016).
Currently, the literature on job crafting mainly draws on two views, which differ in their
definition and methodological approach but overlap concerning the purpose and assumed
consequences of job crafting. First, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) introduced the term “job
crafting” as ‘the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational
boundaries of their job’ (p.179). Employees craft their job in order to achieve meaning and identity
at work. More specifically, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) advance that employees make
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
69
changes in the task (e.g. introducing new approaches to improve work), relational (e.g. making
efforts to know people well at work) or cognitive boundaries (e.g. thinking about the job’s purpose
and meaningfulness) of their job. Second, starting from the job demands - resources model (JD-R
model; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), Tims et al. (2012) define job crafting as employees making
actual changes in the levels of job demands and job resources in order to fit the job with one’s
personal abilities and preferences. In line with recent developments of the JD-R model (Crawford,
Lepine & Rich, 2010; Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, De Witte, & Vansteenkiste, 2010), they
specifically argue that employees can increase their level of structural and social job resources
(e.g. trying to develop one’s capabilities, asking for coaching or advise), increase job challenges
(e.g. proactively participate in new projects) and decrease job hindrances (e.g. making the job
mentally less intense, avoid emotionally demanding aspects of the job).
Building on these two perspectives, we distinguish two crucial elements of job crafting: Job
crafting is about (1) employees making self-initiated changes to their job with (2) a self-serving
purpose. More specifically, we define job crafting as the changes employees make in their job in
order to optimize their functioning in terms of well-being, work-related attitudes or behaviour
(Vanbelle et al., 2013; 2016). Hence, building on the work of Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and
Tims et al. (2012), we present an overarching definition of job crafting. As a result, we approach
job crafting more broadly than Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) - who only account for task,
relational and cognitive crafting -, and less specific than Tims and colleagues (2012) - who
investigate changes in specific job demands and resources. Taking an overarching approach of job
crafting adds to the literature in at least three ways. First, it gives employees the freedom to give
personal meaning and content to which changes they make to thrive for optimal functioning. This
is relevant given that people know their needs, values and goals best and may act upon these
themselves by means of job crafting. Second, the overarching approach accounts for the multiple
pro-self-focussed reasons to craft assumed previously (e.g. meaning, work identity, person-job fit,
etc.) by referring to the overarching concept of functioning in terms of well-being, attitudes or
behaviour. Taking this pro-self-focussed purpose into account is an added value because it is one
of the crucial elements to define job crafting and to distinguish it from other proactive behaviours
such as personal initiative and i-deals (for a more thorough elaboration on the differences with
other proactive behaviours, see Tims & Bakker, 2010). Third, by means of an overarching
approach we are able to study the general concept of job crafting and its mechanisms. Moreover,
Vanbelle et al. (2016) demonstrated that the overarching approach of job crafting significantly
relates to all specific job crafting types described in the literature and explains incremental
variance in motivational outcomes. In this study, we expand the growing research on job crafting
by investigating whether job crafting contributes to older workers’ willingness to continue
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
70
working in the context of an active work environment, characterized by high workload and high
autonomy.
Job Crafting and the Willingness to Continue Working
Changing demographics imply that the workforce will increasingly consist of more elderly
and less younger workers. Furthermore, in the Belgian context, many older employees choose
early retirement options. Given these current changes on the labour market, it becomes
increasingly relevant to keep older employees motivated or willing to work longer (Truxillo,
Cadiz, Rineer, Zaniboni, & Fraccaroli, 2012). In response, research is expanding on aging at work
in general (Bal, Kooij, & Rousseau, 2015; Iweins, Desmette, & Yzerbyt, 2012; Schalk et al., 2010)
and on age-related differences in work motivation more specifically (Gaillard & Desmette, 2010;
Inceoglu, Segers, & Bartram, 2012; Stamov-Roβnagel & Hertel, 2010). Scholars have for example
studied early retirement intentions (Schreurs, Van Emmerik, De Cuyper, Notelaers, & De Witte,
2011), employees’ focus on work opportunities (Zacher & Frese, 2011), the ability and willingness
to continue working (Oude Hengel, Blatter, Geuskens, Koppes, & Bongers, 2012; Schalk &
Desmette, 2015). In this study, we include the willingness to continue working until retirement
age as a positive outcome of job crafting and draw on the selective optimization and compensation
theory to build hypotheses (SOC-theory; Baltes & Dickson, 2001).
The SOC-theory is a lifespan development theory which builds upon two assumptions that
enlighten the relevance of job crafting among older employees. The first assumption is that people
in different life stages experience different expectations, needs and personal goal orientations
which determine their motivation and behaviour (Truxillo et al., 2012). While aging, the reference
point of older employees changes: they increasingly prefer to perform in domains that
demonstrate their mastery and expertise (Stamov-Roβnagel & Hertel, 2010). It thus seems that
“older employees are not less motivated but – on average – motivated by different job features”
(Inceoglu et al., 2012, p. 324). Moulding the job environment by means of job crafting can
therefore be beneficial to restore the balance between the employees’ needs and their job
supplies.
The second assumption more explicitly concerns the active role of employees in dealing with
these age-related changes. More specifically, the SOC-theory advances that people may use several
adaptive strategies (Baltes & Dickson, 2001): People select which goals and outcomes they want
to pursue and then, by allocating their resources and efforts towards these selected domains, they
optimize their performance and goal achievement. When faced with losses, they furthermore
adopt compensation strategies to maintain a certain level of functioning in specific domains
(Baltes & Dickson, 2001; Truxillo et al., 2012). Employees thus engage in successful aging
strategies which involve “self-regulatory actions that help individuals to achieve a positive
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
71
balance between age-related personal changes and their (work) environment” (Robson &
Hansson, 2007, in Zacher & Frese, 2011, p. 292).
These successful aging strategies furthermore align with the idea of job crafting because by
means of making changes to one’s job, employees try to balance the work environment with their
personal needs and abilities to optimize their functioning (Tims et al., 2012; Vanbelle et al., 2013).
Robson, Hansson, Abalos, and Booth (2006) also implicitly hint at job crafting as they
operationalize successful aging strategies at work as the adjustments people make to their job in
function of what they want to do and still can do. Their results indicate that successful aging
strategies are positively related to self-perception of successful aging. Employees who engaged in
successful aging strategies indicated for example that they adjusted to age-related changes on the
job and that they retained control over their work-life.
In this study, we therefore expect a positive relationship between job crafting and the
willingness to work longer. By means of job crafting, employees are able to perform tasks that add
to their reference point and values and in turn, they will become more motivated (Stamov-
Roβnagel, & Hertel, 2010). Tasks which allow older employees to demonstrate mastery and
experience for example, will add to their motivation. People who craft their job, in order to
improve or restore their person- job fit, will thus not only increase their ability but also their
willingness to continue working (Kooij, Tims, & Kanfer, 2015). To date, however, this relationship
remains to be empirically tested. Therefore, in this study, we expect that employees who craft
their job will experience high levels of work motivation, reflected in a strong willingness to
continue working. In short, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1. Job crafting is positively associated with the willingness to continue working.
Active Jobs and Job Crafting
Several work stress models describe the impact of the work environment on employees’ well-
being. Especially relevant in this study is the JDC-model (Karasek, 1979) and more specifically, its
activation hypothesis which states that active jobs yield positive consequences for employees’
learning, motivation and engagement in new growth related behaviours. Active jobs are
characterized by both high job control (i.e. autonomy) and high job demands (i.e. workload). De
Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, and Bongers (2003) note that these joint effects can be
interpreted in two ways, namely as an additive effect (e.g. combination of the main effects) or as
a multiplicative effect (e.g. interaction). In what follows, we elaborate on autonomy and workload
as characteristics of active jobs and tap into their hypothesized relationship with proactive
behaviour and hence, job crafting.
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
72
Previous research on the activation hypothesis mainly focused on outcomes such as job
satisfaction, job commitment, self-efficacy, mastery and job challenge (Taris, Kompier, De Lange,
Schaufeli, & Schreurs, 2003). Recently, the activation hypothesis has been examined with respect
to behavioural outcomes such as proactivity (Ohly & Fritz, 2010; Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009) and
personal initiative and i-deals (Hornung, Rousseau, Glaser, Angerer, & Weigl, 2010). Especially
relevant for this study are the results of Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, and Hetland (2012)
who show that active jobs also positively associate with job crafting on a daily level: on days on
which employees experience high levels of autonomy and workload, they seek more resources
and reduce demands.
The link between autonomy and job crafting is theoretically supported. More specifically,
autonomy is advocated as one of the main antecedents of job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,
2001; Ghitulescu, 2006; Tims & Bakker, 2010). Autonomy involves a sense of freedom, control
and responsibility in the job which enhances the perceived opportunity to craft the job. Perceived
job control stimulates employees to proactively thrive for more control and to innovate their roles
according to their personal preferences (Ashforth & Saks, 2000). Ghitulescu (2006) comment that
‘discretion over work enables an individual to adapt work elements to his or her skills and
preferences’ (p. 67). Therefore, we expect the following:
Hypothesis 2a. Autonomy is positively related to job crafting.
A positive relationship between workload and proactive behaviour may also be expected.
Workload can trigger employees to proactively deal with their environment and to ensure goal
achievement (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009; Van den Broeck et al., 2010). Job demands might lead to
activation, which in turn positively relates to favourable outcomes such as proactive behaviour
(Ohly & Fritz, 2010). Hence, we hypothesize that employees will initiate changes in their job to
optimize their functioning when they experience a high amount of workload.
Hypothesis 2b. Workload is positively related to job crafting.
Besides accounting for the main effects of autonomy and workload (i.e. additive effect), we
also expect them to interact (i.e. multiplicative effect) in the prediction of job crafting (De Lange
et al., 2003). More specifically, we hypothesize that the presence of a high amount of autonomy
will boost the positive relationship between workload and job crafting. Specifically, starting from
the activation hypothesis (Karasek, 1979), we argue that particularly in active jobs, i.e. contexts
in which employees face many demands but also have high levels of autonomy, they both have a
reason and the possibility to actively deal with the environment and thrive. Moreover, autonomy
might be necessary to translate feelings of activation, elicited by job demands, into behaviour
(Ohly and Fritz, 2010). In sum, analogous to De Lange et al. (2003), we thus consider both additive
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
73
and multiplicative effects of autonomy and workload to support the activation hypothesis. We
formulate the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2c. Autonomy and workload interact in the prediction of job crafting such that
autonomy boosts the positive relation between workload and job crafting.
Indirect Relationships from Active Jobs to the Willingness to Continue Working via
Job Crafting
Previous studies support the importance of the work environment in enhancing older
employees’ motivation to work longer (e.g., Desmette & Gaillard, 2008; Schreurs et al., 2011; Oude
Hengel et al., 2012; van Dam, van der Vorst, & van der Heijden, 2009). We add to this line of work
as we suggest that not only the environment, but also the active role of the employees themselves
through job crafting has an impact. Specifically, we argue that autonomy and workload will jointly
activate employees to craft their job towards a stronger willingness to work longer.
First, we expect that autonomy will add to employees’ willingness to continue working as it
enables them to craft their job according to their needs and expectations. Building on the SOC-
theory, we expect employees to optimally use the resources available to them. Moreover, we
advance that employees will allocate their resources, such as autonomy, to those aspects of work
that give energy, and craft their job to function optimally and hence, experience an increased
willingness to continue working. Given that autonomy, and thus job control, becomes even more
important with age (Inceoglu et al., 2012), the availability of autonomy and hence, the opportunity
to craft the job, adds to the expectation of an increased willingness to continue working (Desmette
& Gaillard, 2008). Furthermore, Schreurs, van den Broeck, Notelaers, van der Heijden and De
Witte (2012, p. 20) argue that with age, employees themselves not only increasingly seek and
enhance their motivation to work but that available resources can feed this process. Autonomy
thus enables employees to craft their job to better fit their changing needs (Truxillo & colleagues,
2012). Making changes to their job will in turn optimize their functioning and motivation to work
longer. In sum, we expect that autonomy will create the opportunity to make changes in one’s job
according to personal needs and abilities, which will contribute to employees’ willingness to
continue working.
Hypothesis 3a. Autonomy will indirectly associate with the willingness to continue working
through job crafting: autonomy will positively associate with job crafting which will in turn
positively associate with the willingness to continue working.
Second, employees’ job crafting might be a means to adapt or manage the amount of job
demands (i.e. workload) to restore the balance with personal needs and capacities, which will
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
74
enhance employees’ optimal functioning. Given that a mismatch between work conditions and
individual needs and capacities might enhance employees’ intentions to retire early (van Dam et
al., 2009), job crafting might function as an individual adaptive strategy to resist or counter early
retirement intentions and to positively impact their willingness to continue working. By means of
job crafting, employees can thus adapt the amount of workload to a manageable and challenging
level, which fits their personal needs, and hence contribute to their willingness to work longer.
Hypothesis 3b. Workload will indirectly associate with the willingness to continue working
through job crafting: workload will positively associate with job crafting, which in turn will
positively associate with the willingness to continue working.
Taken together, we expect that employees working in active jobs will be more willing to
continue working because they take the opportunity to craft their job. Investigating both the
additive and multiplicative effect of autonomy and workload (De Lange et al., 2003), we also
examine the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3c. Autonomy and workload will interactively associate with the willingness to
continue working through job crafting; workload will stimulate employees to craft their job,
especially when autonomy is high, which will in turn positively associate with the willingness to
continue working.
2. Method
Sample and Procedure
This study was part of a larger study on attracting and retaining older employees in the
Flemish government in Spring 2013. Following January 2013, the Belgian legislation obliges
organizations to develop an employment policy to retain and create jobs for older employees, i.e.
employees aging between 45 and 65. In line with the demographical trends in Europe (Ybema &
Giesen, March 2016), the Flemish government also has to deal with both an aging workforce and
a declining proportion of younger workers entering their workforce (Vanmullem & Hondeghem,
2005). In 2014, 48% of the workforce belonged to the 45-plus group (Cijfers demografische
gegevens, n.d.). In implementing their age-related personnel policy, the Flemish government
wanted to examine the acquaintance and use of several initiatives they launched to increase the
motivation and willingness to work longer among employees aging between 45 to 65 years. For
the current study, we focused on the role of autonomy, workload and job crafting in this realm.
We invited 6177 governmental employees by internal mailing to participate in an electronic
questionnaire. The organization sent the invitation to fill out the survey to 6177 older employees,
stressing that participation was voluntary and the answers would be kept confidential. Of the
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
75
1884 employees starting our questionnaire, 1168 provided complete responses and were
retained for the study (response rate of 19%). This response rate remains within the expected
range for the internal mailing distribution method described by Baruch and Holtom (2008).
The mean age in the sample was 53 years (SD=4.9): 56% of the participants aged between 45
and 54 years, 32% ranged between 55 and 59 years and 11% were 60 years or older. Fifty seven
per cent of the respondents were men. In terms of job position, 34% of the respondents worked
in a job with a master degree required (job position A), 18% in a job that requires a bachelor
degree (job position B), 35% in a job that demands a high school degree (job position C) and 13%
in a job for which no degree is needed (job position D). Finally, 80% worked on a full-time basis
and the sample included 25% supervisors.
Measures
Job crafting. Job crafting was measured with the overarching job crafting scale (OJCS) of
Vanbelle et al. (2013; Vanbelle et al., 2016), consisting of four items. More specifically we asked
the participants the following: Some people make changes in their job, others do not. To what extent
do you shape your job? Please register to what extent you agree with the following statements.
Example items are: ‘I make changes in my job to feel better’, ‘I change my job so it would better fit
with who I am’. The items were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree)
to 5 (totally agree). Vanbelle et al. (2016) demonstrated construct validity, convergent and
discriminant validity in relation to specific job crafting scales, and predictive validity of the OJCS.
Autonomy. We used the subscale “autonomy” of the Short Inventory to Monitor Psychosocial
Hazards (SIMPH; Notelaers, De Witte, Van Veldhoven et al., 2007). The scale consisted of three
items that were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally
agree). A sample item is ‘I can interrupt my work when necessary’.
Workload. Three items to measure workload were taken from the SIMPH (Notelaers et al.,
2007). An example is ‘I have to work fast in my job’. The items were rated on a five-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).
Willingness to continue working. Based on Oude Hengel et al (2012), this outcome variable
was measured using a single item: ‘I am willing to work until the maximum retirement age’. It was
rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) tot 5 (totally agree). Despite
some drawbacks, the use of one-scale can be equally good as the use of multiple items (Gardner,
Cummings, Dunham, & Pierce, 1998; Loo, 2001).
Control variables. We controlled for age, and job position (job position A = reference group)
in testing the hypotheses. Previous research showed that both age and job position might have an
impact on the willingness to continue working (Schalk & Desmette, 2015; Schreurs et al., 2011;
Schreurs et al., 2012). Employees working in different job positions may experience different
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
76
types of demands (e.g. mentally versus physically demanding jobs) which may influence the
intention to retire early and the willingness to continue working (Schalk & Desmette, 2015).
Furthermore, both job position and age might relate to the amount of autonomy one has in the job
which in turn may impact both the ability to engage in job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001)
and the willingness to continue working (Schreurs et al., 2012).
3. Results
Preliminary Results
Table 1 represents the means, standard deviations, intercorrelations and Cronbach alphas of
all variables. Autonomy correlated positively with both job crafting and the willingness to
continue working. Workload was unrelated to job crafting and correlated negatively with the
willingness to continue working. As expected, job crafting correlated positively with the
willingness to continue working.
Test of the Hypotheses
To test Hypothesis 1, in which we expected a positive relationship between job crafting and
the willingness to continue working, we first conducted linear regression analyses (SPSS 23). As
expected, the results revealed a positive relationship between job crafting and the willingness to
continue working (B=.29, p<.001, 95%CI[.17;.41]). Hypothesis 1 was supported. Following the
recommendations of Becker (2005), we only reported the results without control variables given
that hierarchical regression analysis in which we entered age and job position as control variables
in the first step, led to the same conclusion concerning Hypothesis 1.
Furthermore, we employed the PROCESS macro of Hayes (2012, 2013) to test our
hypothesized model (Figure 1) using bootstrapping (5000) (model 7; Hayes, 2012). Given that our
full hypothesized model concerns a moderated mediation model or conditional indirect effect
model, we specified ‘model 7’ to conduct the analysis. The interaction term was the product of the
centered scores of autonomy and workload. The first part of the model 7 output allows us to test
Hypotheses 2a, 2b and 2c7. To investigate whether active jobs, characterized by autonomy and
workload, stimulate job crafting (Hypothesis 2a, b & c), we looked at the results of the a-paths.
These paths represent the direct effects of the independent variables and the interaction term on
job crafting, after controlling for age, job position and for each other. We found significant results
for the main effects of autonomy (b=.47, SE= .02, 95%CI[.42;.52]) and workload (b=.07, SE=.02,
7 Note that the first part of the model 7 output reveals the same results as whether you would specify a model 4
in which you enter the product of the centered scores of autonomy and workload. However, we opted to start
with specifying a model 7 to test our moderated mediation model in more straightforward way.
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
77
95%CI[.03;.12]) on job crafting. As expected, high levels of autonomy and workload contributed
to job crafting. The interaction term did not relate to job crafting over and above the main effects
of workload and autonomy and the demographics (b=-.03, SE=.02, 95%CI[-.07;.02]). Hypothesis 2
was therefore only partially confirmed.
Figure 1. Hypothesized research model, based on the PROCESS model explained by
Preacher & Hayes (2008) and further suggestions by Hayes (2012).
Hypothesis 3 stated that an active work environment indirectly associated with the
willingness to continue working via job crafting. Given that the interaction of autonomy and
workload in relation to job crafting was not significant, we turned to model 4 analyses to test for
the indirect effects (ab paths; Hypothesis 3). We used a bootstrapping sampling method (5000)
and calculated bias-corrected confidence intervals (Hayes, 2012, 2013). We included autonomy
and workload as the independent variable in two separate analyses (i.e. autonomy/workload),
while controlling for the other independent variable (i.e. workload/autonomy) and the
demographics age and job position. The results are displayed in Table 2.
b-path (H1)
a-path (H2)
IV1
(age, job position,
autonomy, workload &
autonomy*workload)
Job crafting
Willingness to
continue
working c’-path (remaining direct
effect)
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
78
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations and reliabilities (Cronbach’s alphas in parentheses) (N=1168).
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Age 53.43 4.86 -
2. Job position Ba .18 - -.06* -
3. Job position Ca .35 - .04 -.35** -
4. Job position Da .13 - .03 -.18** -.28** -
5. Autonomy 3.57 .72 .07* -.06* .05 -.07* (.68)
6. Workload 3.07 .83 -.11** .01 -.04 -.19** -.20** (.76)
7. Job Crafting 3.27 .68 .01 .04 -.09** -.05 .48** .001 (.81)
8. Willingness to
continue working 2.92 1.42 .10** -.01 -.02 -.08** .16** -.06* .15** -
*p<.05; **p<.01; aReference group = Job position A (employees who worked in a job for which a master degree is required).
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
79
Table 2
Results of the analyses for indirect effects1 using the SPSS PROCESS macro of Hayes (2013).
Results of the indirect effects with control variables (Nwith controls = 1168)
Coefficient SE 95%CI
Direct effect2 of job crafting (M) on the DV (b-path)
Job crafting .21 .07 [.07;.34]
Effect of independent variables (IV’s) to M (a-paths)
Autonomy .47 .02 [.42;.52]
Workload .08 .02 [.03;.12]
Partial effects of age and gender on DV
Age .03 .01 [.01; .04]
Job position B3 -.17 .12 [-.40; .06]
Job position C3 -.22 .10 [-.41; -.02]
Job position D3 -.48 .14 [-.75; -.21]
Effect Boot SE Bootstrap 95% CI
Indirect effects of IV1 of DV through M1 (ab-path) (Hypothesis 3a)
Autonomy
Remaining direct effect (c’-path)
.09
.16
.03
.07
[.04;.17]
[.03; .29]
Indirect effects of IV2 of DV through M1 (ab-path) (Hypothesis 3b)
Workload
Remaining direct effect (c’-path)
.02
-.10
.007
.05
[.005; .03]
[-.21; -.001]
Model R2 .05*
Note. IV=Independent Variable; DV=Dependent Variable=willingness to continue working;
M=Mediator. 1We ran two times this PROCESS macro (model 4) as we included two
independent variables in our model, the interaction term of autonomy and workload was not
significant in previous analyses and therefore excluded from this model. Each time we
included one IV as IV and the other IV as covariate (as suggested by Hayes, 2012). 2Although
we used the term ‘effect’, no inferences about causal relationships are intended. 3Reference
group = Job position A (employees who worked in a job for which a master degree is
required). *p<.001.
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
80
The results confirmed an indirect effect of autonomy on the willingness to continue working
through job crafting (b=.09, bootSE=.03, 95%CI[.04;.17]), thereby supporting Hypothesis 3a. After
controlling for this indirect effect, autonomy still related directly and positively to the willingness
to work longer (c’ path; b=.16, SE=.07; 95%CI[.03;.29]). Furthermore, results show a significant
indirect effect of workload on the willingness to continue working through job crafting (b=.02,
bootSE=.007, 95%CI[.005;.03]), providing evidence for Hypothesis 3b. After controlling for this
indirect effect, a negative direct effect remained (c’ path; b=-.10, SE=.05; 95%CI[-.21;-.001]).
However, although this remaining direct path is significant, the upper limit of the 95% confidence
interval is very close to zero8. Given that the interaction of autonomy and workload in relation to
job crafting was not significant, there was no moderated mediation and we could not confirm
Hypothesis 3c. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was only partially supported. The final model is displayed
in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Final model
In the previous analyses to test our hypotheses, we included age as a control variable.
However, given that the willingness to continue working might be different at different ages
(Schalk & Desmette, 2015), we ran an additional PROCESS analysis to exclude that age acting as a
moderator of the relationship between job crafting and the willingness to continue working
(model 1; Hayes, 2012; 2013). The interaction term was the product of the centered scores of job
crafting and age. Results indicated that age did not moderate this relationship (b=-.004, SE=.01,
95%CI [-.03; .02]), which suggests that job crafting had the same positive relationship with the
willingness to continue working until retirement age for employees between 45 and 65 years. Age
however positively related to the willingness to continue working after controlling for job crafting
(b=.03, SE=.01, 95%CI[.01; .04]).
8 We conducted the analyses both with and without control variables. Given that the analyses yielded similar results, we opted to display only the results of the analyses with control variables. Note that the remaining direct effect of workload on the willingness to continue working was not significant in the model without controlling for age and job position.
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
81
4. Discussion
In this study, we investigated job crafting in relation to both a positive outcome (i.e.
willingness to continue working) and antecedents (i.e. active jobs). Building on the dominant
approaches on job crafting, we define this phenomenon as making changes to one’s job in order
to optimize one’s functioning. We more specifically displayed job crafting as a valuable individual
strategy to optimize one’s functioning in terms of the willingness to continue working in the
context of active jobs, characterized by a high amount of autonomy and workload.
Enhancing older employees’ motivation or willingness to continue working becomes
increasingly relevant given the expected demographical changes and the current tendency to take
early retirement (OECD, 2011). Recent Belgian legislation moreover obliges employers to plan
actions to motivate older employees (i.e. from 45 years on) to continue working instead of retiring
early. As expected, our results show that employees who craft their job, display a higher
willingness to continue working. By means of job crafting employees adapt their job to meet their
expectations and preferences which might in turn enhance positive outcomes, such as an
increased willingness to continue working. Drawing on a SOC-theory perspective, job crafting
seems to be a successful aging strategy as by means of job crafting, employees balance their work
environment with their age-related personal capabilities, needs and goals which positively relates
to their motivation to continue working (Zacher & Frese, 2011; Kooij et al., 2015). Although
longitudinal research is necessary to further explore the causality of these relations, our study
provides a first empirical contribution on the relationship between job crafting and the
willingness of older employees to continue working.
Next, we modelled autonomy and workload as antecedents of job crafting starting from an
activation hypothesis perspective (Karasek, 1979). The activation hypothesis was highly relevant
in this view as it assumes a positive relationship from active jobs to learning, motivation and new
growth related behaviour (De Lange et al., 2003; Petrou et al., 2012). Given that previous studies
of the activation hypothesis mainly focused on learning and attitudinal outcomes (Taris et al.,
2003), we added to the JDC-literature by showing that employees in active jobs are more likely to
craft their job, which is a behavioural outcome.
Furthermore, the more employees perceived autonomy and workload, the more they
reported to make changes in their jobs and the more they were willing to continue working.
Results confirmed that employees who perceived high levels of autonomy in their job, engaged
more in job crafting and were indirectly more willing to continue working. Interestingly,
autonomy also directly enhanced the willingness to continue working after taking job crafting into
account. On the one hand, this points at the direct importance of job design, i.e. autonomy, in
relation to older employees’ work motivation (Desmette & Gaillard, 2008). On the other hand, this
remaining direct effect of autonomy suggests that also other indirect or mediating processes come
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
82
into play. Autonomy might, for example, enable older employees to demonstrate their mastery
and expertise which might in turn add to their work motivation (Scheurs et al., 2012; Stamov-
Roβnagel & Hertel, 2010; Taris & Kompier, 2005) and more specifically, to their willingness to
continue working. Besides autonomy, also workload indirectly added to the willingness to
continue working, through job crafting. It thus seems that workload activates employees to be
proactive and to look for ways to deal with the work environment, which in turn relates to positive
outcomes such as an increased willingness to continue working (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009). After
controlling for age, job position, autonomy, and job crafting, workload showed a remaining
negatively direct effect on the willingness to continue working.
Notably, our results point at differential mechanisms from job resources and job demands to
motivational outcomes, via job crafting. Whereas autonomy shows positive direct and indirect
relationships, workload negatively relates to the willingness to continue working in a direct way
and positively in an indirect way through job crafting. Although job demands such as workload
might thus trigger employees to craft their job to deal with the potential costs or challenges
associated with the demands to some extent, our results seem to suggest that there might remain
a negative relationship between job demands and motivational outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti,
2007). Employees might perceive job demands rather as ‘givens’, and therefore as job
characteristics that are harder to change and that have a negative impact on one’s functioning
(Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013). Our results further support the beneficial and strong effects of
autonomy in stimulating job crafting and positive outcomes (i.e. willingness to continue working),
and support a weak but significant relation from job demands. These findings align with previous
findings of Gordon, Demerouti, Le Blanc, and Bipp (2015) who found that job demands positively
related to seeking resources, whereas autonomy related to all types of job crafting. Job crafting
thus especially seems to be an enhancement strategy stimulated through job resources such as
autonomy, but might also function as a proactive coping strategy triggered by job demands
(Ouwehand, De Ridder, & Bensing, 2007; Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015). Extant literature
on these differential mechanisms from job demands and job resources to job crafting is scarce and
might be a valuable direction for future research.
Our results supported the main effects of autonomy and workload in the prediction of job
crafting, but not their interaction effect. Although some studies showed a significant interaction
in investigating the activation hypothesis in relation to job crafting (Petrou et al., 2012), our
findings are in line with the majority of studies in the realm of the JDC-model providing evidence
for the main and additive effects of autonomy and workload only (de Lange et al., 2003). In this
study, the combination of autonomy and workload – but not their interaction – thus positively
related to older employees’ willingness to continue working indirectly through job crafting.
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
83
Strengths, Limitations and Directions for Future Research
A first remark concerns the scales used in the study, and more specifically the scales of
autonomy and job crafting. The reliability of the autonomy measure was just below the threshold
of .70 in the current study. Future research might include a more reliable measurement of
autonomy or strive to increase the reliability of this scale. In addition, we want to comment on
both the strength and possible limitation of the scale used to measure job crafting (Vanbelle et al.,
2016). Given that people know best their needs, values and goals and may act upon these
themselves by means of job crafting, we opted for an overarching operationalization of job
crafting: the OJCS. This scale investigates whether employees make changes in their job in order
to feel better, to perform better or to enhance their person-job fit –whatever the specific changes
may be. The strength of this operationalization is that it gives employees the freedom to give
personal meaning and content to the items, and more specifically to which changes they make to
thrive for optimal functioning. A possible limitation, however, might be that the OJCS is a general
job crafting scale that does not specify concrete changes. Although the OJCS thus might be a good
alternative when one is interested in the general construct of job crafting, future research might
use more specific operationalisations of job crafting (e.g. Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012; Tims et al.,
2012; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013) to investigate whether the relationships hold for different
job crafting types. Recent developments in the job crafting literature for instance suggest that
whereas crafting job resources yield positive outcomes, crafting job hindrances might be rather
detrimental for employees’ functioning instead of beneficial (Demerouti, 2014).
Second, although longitudinal research designs are necessary to make inferences about
causal relationships between the study variables, we contribute to the job crafting literature as
we investigated job crafting in relation to both an active work environment and a specific positive
outcome, namely the willingness to continue working. In this study, we started from traditional
job design and the activation hypothesis of Karasek (1979) to hypothesize that autonomy and
workload are associated with older employees’ job crafting, which in turn is related to a higher
willingness to continue working. Alternatively however, one could also hypothesize reversed
causation in which employees who are willing to continue working may engage more in job
crafting and as a result, experience more autonomy and workload.
Third, given our interest in the employees’ perception of their amount of autonomy and
workload in their job, of their job crafting behaviour and their willingness to continue working,
all measurements were based on self-reports. Although common method bias might still
artificially have inflated or deflated the strength of the observed relationships, we applied some
remedies to counter this bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). We did distant the
variables of interest in our questionnaire. The participants were first asked to indicate their
degree of willingness to continue working. Then, they had to evaluate some organization specific
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
84
initiatives for older employees that were not included in this study, after which all other items
were presented. Furthermore, the items of work characteristics and job crafting were mixed.
A fourth remark concerns the generalizability of our findings. Future research might aim to
replicate this study with a more heterogeneous sample such as non-public sector employees and
employees of a wider age span. Future research might tap into the role of differences in work
experience between public and private sector employees, as suggested in the extant literature. In
the Netherlands, private sector employees are found to face more physical demands, longer work
hours and a higher job insecurity (Smulders & Houtman, 2012). Similarly, in Belgium, public
sector employees seem to experience slightly more autonomy in their work, less job demands and
higher job security in comparison with non-public sector employees. They also showed higher
levels of work enjoyment and organizational commitment, and they showed less intention to quit
their job (De Witte, Vets, & Notelaers, 2010). Furthermore, Buelens and Van den Broeck (2007)
demonstrated different motivational patterns between public and private sector employees. It is
plausible that differences in job characteristics and work motivation did influence our study
results. To exclude the confounding role of third variables, future research might examine
whether and to what extent differences between public and non-public employees influence our
findings.
Future studies might also include younger employees. At first sight, working until retirement
age may seem especially relevant for older employees as they are the ones who need to be
motivated to work longer than initially expected. However, the willingness to continue working,
as an indicator of work motivation, might also prove relevant for younger employees. An age-
related HRM policy should target younger employees (i.e. proactive dimension), employees
between 40 and 55 years old (i.e. protective dimension) as well as employees of 55 years and older
(i.e. corrective dimension; Vanmullem & Hondeghem, 2006). Our extra analyses, showing that age
did not moderate the relationship between job crafting and the willingness to continue working
until retirement age, support the idea that stimulating job crafting might be beneficial for all
employees between 45 and 65 years (Schreurs et al., 2012). Nevertheless, investigating the
current research model more thoroughly at different ages would be an added value.
Fifth, in the current study, we used the core dimensions of the job demands control model of
Karasek (1979), i.e., autonomy and workload as a starting point to investigate the role of work
characteristics in relation to job crafting. In future research, however, it seems valuable to
integrate other work characteristics of this model such as social support and skill variety
(Zaniboni, Truxillo, & Fraccaroli, 2013; Kooij, Jansen, Dikkers, & De Lange, 2010), or draw on other
– also broader – work stress models such as the JD-R model of Bakker and Demerouti (2007;
Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014).
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
85
5. Conclusion
To conclude, this study contributed to the literature in at least three ways. First, we add to
the job crafting literature by modelling autonomy and workload as antecedents of job crafting and
the willingness to continue working as a positive outcome in the context of older employees.
Second, this study adds to the age-related literature by stating that both an active work
environment and an active role of employees by means of job crafting relate to the willingness to
continue working. More specifically, job crafting can be seen as a successful aging strategy that
helps employees to adapt their work environment according to their personal preferences, needs
and goals. Furthermore, in addition to the indirect effect of autonomy and workload via job
crafting, autonomy also has a remaining direct positive effect on the willingness to continue
working. Third, our findings are valuable for practice, e.g. personnel management. Creating an
active work environment, with especially a sufficient amount of autonomy, seems to be a valuable
way to stimulate older employees to customize their job according to their own needs as well as
to increase their willingness to continue working until retirement age.
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
86
6. References
Ashforth, B.E., & Saks, A.M. (2000). Personal Control in Organizations: A Longitudinal
Investigation with Newcomers. Human Relations, 53(3), 311-339. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726700533002
Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. (2014). Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD-R
Approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1,
389-411. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235
Bal, P.M., Kooij, D.T.A.M., & Rousseau, D.M. (2015) Aging Workers and the Employee-Employer
Relationship (pp. 187- 201). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08007-9
Baltes, B.B., & Dickson, M.W. (2001). Using Life-Span Models in Industrial-Organizational
Psychology: The Theory of Selective Optimization With Compensation. Applied
Developmental Science, 5(1), 51-62.
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B.C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational
research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139-1160. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726708094863
Becker (2005). Potential problem in the statistical control of variables in organizational research:
a qualitative analysis with recommendation. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274-
289. DOI: 10.1177/1094428105278021
Buelens, M., & Van den Broeck, H. (2007). An Analysis of Differences in Work Motivation between
Public and Private Sector Organizations. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 65-74.
Cijfers demografische gegevens: leeftijd. (n.d.). Retrieved September 26, 2016, from
https://overheid.vlaanderen.be/bedrijfsinformatie/cijfers-demografische-gegevens-
leeftijd
Crawford, E.R., LePine, J.A., & Rich, B.L. (2010). Linking Job Demands and Resources to Employee
Engagement and Burnout: A Theoretical Extension and Meta-Analytic Test. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834-848. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019364
De Lange, A.H., Taris, T.W., Kompier, M.A.J., Houtman, I.L.D., & Bongers, P.M. (2003). “The Very Best
of the Millennium”: Longitudinal Research and the Demand-Control-(Support) Model.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 282-305. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.282
Demerouti, E. (2014). Design Your Own Job Through Job Crafting. European Psychologist. Advance
online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000188
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
87
Desmette, D., & Gaillard, M. (2008). When a “worker” becomes an “older worker”: The effects of
age related social identity on attitudes towards retirement and work. Career Development
International, 13(2), 168-185. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620430810860521
De Witte, H., Vets, C., & Notelaers, G. (2010). Werken in Vlaanderen: Vermoeiend of plezierig?
Resultaten van 10 jaar onderzoek naar de beleving en beoordeling van arbeid. Leuven/Den
Haag: Acco.
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of Day-Level Proactive Behavior: A Look at Job
Stressors and Positive Affect During the Workday? Journal of Management, 35(1), 94-111.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308911
Gaillard, M., & Desmette, D. (2010). (In)validating Stereotypes About Older Workers Influences
Their Intentions To Retire Early and to Learn and Develop. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 32(1), 86-98. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1010/01973530903435763
Gardner, D.G., Cummings, L.L., Dunham, R.B., & Pierce, J.L. (1998). Single-item versus multiple-
item measurement scales: an empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 58(6), 898-915.
Gordon, H.J., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P.M., & Bipp, T. (2015). Job crafting and performance of Dutch
and American health care professionals. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14(4), 192-202.
DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000138
Ghitulescu, B.E. (2006). Shaping tasks and relationships at work: Examining the antecedents and
consequences of employee job crafting. University of Pittsburgh.
Hayes, A.F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,
moderation, and conditional process modelling. [white paper]. Retrieved from
http://www.afhayes.com/
Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
http://www.guilford.com/p/hayes3
Hornung, S., Rousseau, D.M., Glaser, J., Angerer, P., & Weigl, M. (2010). Beyond top-down and
bottom-up work redesign: Customizing job content through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 31, 187-215. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.625
Inceoglu, I., Segers, J., & Bartram, D. (2012). Age-related differences in work motivation. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 300-329. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02035.x
Iweins, C., Desmette, D., & Yzerbyt, V. (2012). Ageism at work: What happens to older workers
who benefit from preferential treatment? Psychologica Belgica, 52(4), 327-349. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pb-52-4-327
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
88
Karasek, R.A. (1979). Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job
Redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285-308.
Kooij, D.T.A.M., Jansen, P.G.W., Dikkers, J.S.E., & de Lange, A.H. (2010). The influence of age on the
associations between HR practices and both affective commitment and job satisfaction: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 1111-1136. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.666
Kooij, D.T.A.M., Tims, M., & Kanfer, R. (2015). Successful aging at work: the role of job crafting. P.M.
Bal, D.T.A.M. Kooij, & D.M. Rousseau (eds.). Aging Workers and the Employee-Employer
Relationship (pp. 145-161). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08007-9_9
Loo, R. (2001). A caveat on using single-item versus multiple-item scales. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 17(1), 68-75. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940210415933
Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J.S. (2012). The development and validation of a job crafting measure
for use with blue-collar workers. Work & Stress, An International Journal of Work, Health
and Organisations, 26(4), 365-384. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.733543
Notelaers, G. D., De Witte, H., Van Veldhoven, M. et al. (2007). Construction and validation on the
Short Inventory to Monitor Psychosocial Hazards. Arbeidsgezondheidszorg en
Ergonomie,44, 11-17.
OECD. (2011). Pensions at a Glance 2011. Retirement-income systems in OECD and G20 countries.
Available at: www.oecd.org/els/social/pensions/PAG.
Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity and proactive
behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 543-565. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.633
Oude Hengel, K.M., Blatter, B.M., Geuskens, G.A., Koppes, L.L.J., & Bongers, P.M. (2012). Factors
associated with the ability and willingness to continue working until the age of 65 in
construction workers. International archives of occupational and environmental health,
85(7), 783-790. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00420-011-0719-3
Ouwehand, C., de Ridder, D.T.D., & Bensing, J.M. (2007). A review of successful aging models:
Proposing proactive coping as an important additional strategy. Clinical Psychology
Review, 27, 873-884. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2006.11.003
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M.C.W., Schaufeli, W.B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a job on a
daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1120-1141. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1786
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
89
Petrou, P. Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Job crafting in changing organizations :
antecedents and implications for exhaustion and performance. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 20(4), 470-480. DOI: 10.1037/a0039003
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3),
879-891.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2012). Sources of Method Bias in Social Science
Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. Annual Review of Psychology, 63,
539-569. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Robson, S.M., Hansson, R.O., Abalos, A., & Booth, M. (2006). Successful Aging. Criteria for Aging
Well in the Workplace. Journal of Career Development, 33(2), 156-177. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894845306292533
Schalk, R., & Desmette, D. (2015). In: P.M. Bal, D.T.A.M. Kooij, & D.M. Rousseau (eds.). Aging
Workers and the Employee-Employer Relationship (pp. 187-201). Switzerland: Springer
International Publishing. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08007-9_11
Schalk, R., van Veldhoven, M., de Lange, A.H., De Witte, H., Kraus, K., Stamov-Roβnagel, C., Tordera,
N., van der Heijden, B., Zappalà, S., Bal, M., Bertrand, F., Claes, R., Crego, A., Dorenbosch, L.,
de Jonge, J., Desmette, D., Gellert, F.J., Hansez, I., Iller, C., Kooij, D., Kruipers, B., Linkola, P.,
van den Broeck, A., van der Schoot, E., & Zachter, H. (2010). Moving European research on
work and ageing forward: Overview and agenda. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 76-101. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320802674629
Schreurs, B., Van Emmerik, H., De Cuyper, N., Notelaers, G., & De Witte, H. (2011). Job demands-
resources and early retirement intention: Differences between blue- and white-collar
workers. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 32(1), 47-68. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143831X10365931
Schreurs, B., Van den Broeck, A., Notelaers, G., van der Heijden, B., & De Witte, H. (2012). De relatie
tussen werkeisen, energiebronnen, spanning en werkplezier: een kwestie van leeftijd?
Gedrag & Organisatie, 25(1), 5-27.
Slemp, G.R., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2013). The job crafting questionnaire: A new scale to measure
the extent to which employees engage in job crafting. International Journal of Wellbeing,
3(2), 126-146. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v3i2.1
Smulders, P., & Houtman, I. (2012). Arbeid in publieke en private sectoren vergeleken. Tijdschrift
voor Arbeidsvraagstukken, 28(3), 268-287.
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
90
Stamov-Roβnagel, C., & Hertel, G. (2010). Older workers’ motivation: against the myth of general
decline. Management decision, 48(6), 894-906. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741011053451
Taris, T.W., & Kompier, M.A.J. (2005). Job characteristics and learning behavior: Review and
psychological mechanisms. Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being, 4, 127-166.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/1016/S1479-3555(04)04004-1
Taris, T.W., Kompier, M.A.J., de Lange, A.H., Schaufeli, W.B., & Schreurs, P.J.G. (2003). Learning new
behaviour patterns: a longitudinal test of Karasek’s active learning hypothesis among
Dutch teachers. Work & Stress, 17(1), 1-20. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267837031000108149
Tims, M., & Bakker, A. (2010). Job Crafting: towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), Art. #841, 9 pages, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841
Tims, M., Bakker, A., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173-186. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources,
and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 230-240. DOI:
10.1037/a0032141
Truxillo, D.M., Cadiz, D.M., Rineer, J.R., Zaniboni, S., & Fraccaroli, F. (2012). A lifespan perspective
on job design: Fitting the job and the worker to promote job satisfaction, engagement, and
performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(4), 340-360. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2041386612454043
Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2013). Development and Validation of a General
Job Crafting Scale. Poster presentation at the 6th International Seminar on Positive
Occupational Health Psychology, Leuven.
Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016). Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting
Scale (OJCS). Manuscript in review.
van Dam, K., van der Vorst, J.D.M., & van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. (2009). Employees’ Intentions to
Retire Early. A Case of Planned Behavior and Anticipated Work Conditions. Journal of
Career Development, 35(3), 265-289. DOI: 10.1177/0894845308327274
Van den Broeck, A., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). Not all job demands
are equal: Differentiating job hindrances and job challenges in the Job Demands-Resources
model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(6), 735-759. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320903223839
Vanmullem, K., & Hondeghem, A. (2005). Een leeftijdsbewust personeelsbeleid: stand van zaken
binnen het Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Leuven: Steunpunt BOV.
STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING
91
Vanmullem, K., & Hondeghem, A. (2006). Het Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap op weg
naar een leeftijdsbewust personeelsbeleid. Tijdschrift voor HRM, 1, 54-87.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of
their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.
Ybema, J.F., & Giesen, F. (2016, March 2). Older workers. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from
https://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Older_workers
Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2011). Maintaining a focus on opportunities at work: The interplay
between age, job complexity, and the use of selection, optimization, and compensation
strategies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 291-318; DOI: 10.1002/job.683
Zaniboni, S., Truxillo, D.M., & Fraccaroli, F. (2013). Differential effects of task variety and skill
variety on burnout and turnover intentions for older and younger workers. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(3), 306-317. DOI:
10.1080/1359432X.2013.782288
93
CHAPTER 4 – STUDY 3
ACTIVE EMOTIONS AND PERSONAL GROWTH INITIATIVE IN RELATION TO
EMPLOYEES’ DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT: A MULTILEVEL STUDY 9,10.
9 Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Jill Vandervoort for her contribution in collecting
the data.
10 Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., Griep, Y., & De Witte, H. (2016). Active emotions and personal
growth initiative fuel employees’ daily job crafting and person-job fit: A multilevel study.
Manuscript in review.
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
95
Active Emotions and Personal Growth Initiative in Relation to Employees’ Daily Job
Crafting and Person-Job Fit: A Multilevel Study11
Abstract
In this multilevel study we strengthen the nomological network of job crafting in two ways.
First, we expand on the role of individual characteristics in relation to job crafting. Building on a
functional classification perspective, we expect within-person differences in active emotions and
between-person differences in personal growth initiative (PGI) to positively associate with daily
job crafting. Second, we provide further insights in the relationship between job crafting and
person-job fit on the daily level. Using multilevel data from 116 employees (341 observations),
collected by means of a daily diary study, our results showed that fluctuations in positive active
emotions (PAE), negative active emotions (NAE) and overall PGI positively related to daily job
crafting. Furthermore, job crafting depended less on daily PAE and NAE when employees have a
high overall PGI. Next, daily job crafting positively related to daily person-job fit. Finally, we found
indirect effects from NAE and PGI, via job crafting to person-job fit. No indirect effect was found
for PAE.
Keywords: active emotions; personal growth initiative; job crafting; person-job fit; multilevel
11 If we use causal language throughout this chapter, no inferences about causal relationships are intended. We use these terms from a theoretical perspective, having our hypothesized model in mind.
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
96
1. Introduction
Job crafting emerges as a promising individual behaviour in the contemporary world of work
which is increasingly characterized by change, uncertainty, and the call for flexibility (Grant &
Parker, 2009). By means of job crafting, employees shape their own job to align their job demands
and resources with their personal abilities and needs (Tims & Bakker, 2010). As a consequence,
employees enhance their person-job fit and are more likely to experience work engagement
(Chen, Yen, & Tsai; 2014; Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, & Hetland, 2012) and (indirectly)
performance (Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012). Although research on job crafting is on the raise,
several theoretical and methodological questions remain.
From a methodological point of view, the majority of the empirical studies on job crafting
accounts for between-person differences in job crafting and examines between-person correlates.
However, job crafting does not only differ between individuals, but also shows within-person
variation, for example from day to day (Petrou et al., 2012; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013;
Demerouti, Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015). In the current multilevel study, we therefore include
job crafting as a day-level behaviour and thus account for its dynamic nature.
From a theoretical point of view, we strengthen the nomological network on job crafting in
two ways. First, we enlarge our understanding of the role of individual characteristics as
antecedents of daily fluctuations in job crafting. Although job crafting happens “all around us”
(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, p. 180), not all employees may feel inclined to make changes to their job.
Particular individual characteristics might make it more likely that employees will craft their job.
Previous research for instance demonstrated the role of proactive personality (Bakker et al.,
2012), self-efficacy (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2014; Niessen, Weseler, & Kostova, 2016), regulatory
focus (Brenninkmeijer & Hekkert-Koning, 2015; Petrou & Demerouti, 2015), and work
engagement (Lu, Wang, Lu, Du, & Bakker, 2014) in relation to job crafting.
In the current multilevel study, we broaden the functional trait-perspective in relation to
proactive behaviour (Wu, Parker, & Bindl, 2013) and argue that also malleable individual
characteristics (i.e., state and state-like characteristics) fulfil necessary functions to engage in
proactive behaviour. We advance that daily fluctuations in active work-related emotions at the
within-person level and personal growth initiative (PGI) at the between-person level relate to
daily fluctuations in job crafting via two main mechanisms, namely energy and human agency. At
the within-person level, we expect that daily fluctuations in active (both positive and negative)
work-related emotions energize employees to engage in job crafting at the daily level (Wu et al.,
2013). At the between-person level, we argue that PGI positively relates to daily job crafting as it
triggers employees’ agency (e.g. envisioning, thinking, and mastering) to actively encounter the
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
97
environment (Robitschek, 1998). In addition to the main effects, we expect daily fluctuations in
active emotions and overall PGI to interact in the prediction of daily job crafting.
Second, we investigate whether daily fluctuations in job crafting also contribute to daily
fluctuations in person-job fit at a within-person level. Job crafting theoretically entails the purpose
of thriving for an optimal person-job fit (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Tims & Bakker, 2010) and
contributes empirically to a better alignment between person and job (Chen et al., 2014; Lu et al.,
2014; Tims, Derks, & Bakker, 2016). Investigating whether these dynamics also hold at the daily
level is relevant given that they may serve as a pathway from job crafting to work engagement
(Chen et al., 2014) and meaningfulness (Tims et al., 2016).
In what follows, we first present the concept of job crafting. Second, we detail the roles of
work-related emotions at the within-person level and PGI at the between-person level in relation
to daily fluctuations in job crafting. Third, we elaborate on the relationship between daily
fluctuations in job crafting and person-job fit. Finally, we present the overall research model by
also including the indirect relationships from daily fluctuations in work-related emotions and
overall PGI to daily fluctuations in person-job fit via daily fluctuations in job crafting. Our
hypothesized model can be summarized as outlined in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Hypothesized multilevel moderated mediation model. Full lines represent expected
positive relationships and dashed lines represent expected negative relationships.
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
98
1.1. Job Crafting
Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) introduced the term job crafting as the changes employees
make in the task, relational, and cognitive boundaries of the job to achieve meaning and identity
at work. Tims and Bakker (2010) embed job crafting in the job demands-resources model and
conceptualize it as the actual changes employees make in the levels of job demands and job
resources in order to fit the job with one’s personal abilities and preferences. Although both
perspectives spurred quite some research, they also include some limitations. First, these
approaches limit job crafting to the employees’ changes in tasks, relations, cognitions, job
demands or job resources. However, employees might, for example, also craft their work context
such as work hours, and physical work environment. Second, they define different purposes of job
crafting, namely to create meaning and work identity (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) or to
enhance one’s person-job fit (Tims & Bakker, 2010). However, employees may craft their job for
multiple pro-self-focused reasons that refer to optimizing one’s functioning. To account for the
variety of aspects employees may craft, as well as the diverse purposes for which employees
engage in job crafting, we tie in with recent developments approaching job crafting in an
overarching way. We define job crafting as the self-initiated changes employees make to their job
to optimize their functioning in terms of well-being, attitudes and behaviour (Vanbelle, Van den
Broeck, & De Witte, 2016). Additionally, we include job crafting as a day-level behaviour and
account for its within-individual variations (Petrou et al., 2012).
1.2. Individual Characteristics and Job Crafting
Individual characteristics play a role in the prediction of job crafting (Bakker et al., 2012;
Brenninkmeijer & Hekkert-Koning, 2015). In the hypothesized model, we include two (relatively)
malleable person-related antecedents of daily job crafting, namely active emotions at the within-
person level, which are momentary and very changeable states, and PGI at the between-person
level, which concerns a relatively malleable and open to development state-like characteristic.
Both characteristics are situated at the malleability side of the trait-state continuum described by
Luthans and Youssef (2007).
Active emotions. Emotions, to be situated at the right-hand extreme of the trait-state
continuum (Luthans & Youssef, 2007), are dynamic, show high levels of variation within the same
person and are highly sensitive to external stimuli which make them especially relevant to be
studied at a within-person level, e.g. within the same person on a daily basis (Van der Heijden, van
Dam, Xanthopoulou, & de Lange, 2014; Luthans et al., 2007). Traditionally, emotions are described
within a circumplex, varying alongside the dimensions of valence and activation (Warr, Bindl,
Parker, & Inceoglu, 2014). Activation refers to a sense of mobilization or energy and ranges from
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
99
passive to active. Valence refers to the pleasantness of the emotions and ranges from negative or
positive. The combination of these dimensions leads to four kinds of emotions: 1) positive active
emotions (PAE; e.g., enthusiastic), 2) negative active emotions (NAE; e.g., angry), 3) positive
passive emotions (PPE; e.g., contented), and 4) negative passive emotions (NPE; e.g., dejected). In
the current study, we focus on active emotions.
Personal growth initiative (PGI). PGI can be categorized as a state-like characteristic on the
trait-state continuum (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). State-like characteristics are relatively
malleable and might be influenced through training, but they do not momentarily change.
Therefore, they are most relevant at a between-person level to explain differences between
persons (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). PGI refers to the active, intentional engagement in the process
of personal growth, including both cognitive and behavioural aspects. It “can be thought of as a
metacognitive construct, an awareness and control of intentional engagement in growth
enhancing cognitions and behaviours in all areas of life” (Robitschek, 1998, p.184). Although PGI
shares some resemblance with other state-like individual characteristics such as self-efficacy and
hope, it is distinct. For instance, PGI adds to the self-efficacy concept by focusing not only on
knowing what to strive for and how to strive for it, but also on implementing a broader growth-
related perspective (e.g., “having a good sense of where I am headed in my life”) into behavioural
aspects (e.g., “having an action plan to help one reaching personal goals”). Furthermore, both PGI
and hope involve cognitive agency, personal goal-setting, and the development of pathways
toward personal goals. However, whereas hope is relevant with regard to global positive outcome
expectancies, PGI might be a better choice to investigate outcomes related to specific individually
change-oriented behaviour, such as job crafting.
PGI may also be closely related to proactive personality and promotion regulatory focus,
other growth-oriented characteristics that showed to influence job crafting (Bakker et al., 2012;
Brenninkmeijer & Hekkert-Koning, 2015; Petrou & Demerouti, 2015). A promotion regulatory
focus implies a general orientation towards growth, development and maximization of positive
outcomes at work (Brenninkmeijer & Hekkert-Koning, 2015). Employees with a proactive
personality have the general tendency to scan their environment on opportunities to change, they
anticipate on the future, take action and persevere to bring about meaningful change (Crant,
2000). In contrast, PGI particularly reflects the level of intentional engagement in the goal-setting
process towards personal growth. It taps into self-regulatory processes such as envisioning and
planning (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010) which precede proactive behaviour.
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
100
1.3. A Functional Classification Approach of Individual Characteristics to Job Crafting
Besides a malleability classification alongside the trait-state continuum, individual
characteristics can also be categorized according to their function or the way they influence
behaviour, which is referred to as a functional classification approach (Buss & Finn, 1987). Buss
and Finn (1987) distinguish three types of traits that fulfil three distinct functions: cognitive traits
enhance employees’ thinking and envisioning; affective traits energize employees, and
instrumental traits foster employees’ mastering, planning, and behavioural intentions. This
functional classification approach has already been used to understand the role of traits in the
prediction of proactivity (Wu et al., 2013). Building on this, we argue that active emotions and PGI
also fulfil the functions needed enact job crafting. We integrate the functions into two underlying
mechanisms, namely energy and human agency, to derive our hypotheses.
The first mechanism, energy, fulfils the energizing function of affective individual
characteristics. At a daily basis, active emotions urge employees to behaviourally respond in the
short run (Parker et al., 2010). They entail a high motivational intensity which indicates
employees’ readiness for action (Bindl, Parker, Totterdell, & Hagger-Johnson, 2012). Active
emotions trigger focus and goal-directedness (Harmon-Jones, Gable, & Price, 2013), and may
relate to job crafting at a daily level. Additionally, employees are aroused to translate active
emotions into behaviour, regardless of the valence. Both PAE and NAE thus may trigger proactive
behaviour, either to pursuit personal goals in case of PAE, or to react on a negative stimulus in
case of NAE (Bindl et al., 2012, Parker et al., 2010; Warr et al., 2014).
PAE broadens though-action repertoires, enhances the ability to generate distinct, creative
ideas and to come up with diverse solutions to deal with specific situations which is beneficial to
proactivity, and hence job crafting (Fredrickson, 2004; Fritz & Sonnentag 2009; Parker et al.,
2010). In addition, and despite previous findings on the relationship between negative affect and
proactivity (Fay & Sonnentag, 2012), we also expect daily NAE to energize employees to engage
in job crafting that same day for three reasons. First, NAE may trigger employees’ desire to relieve
negative feelings and to reduce the discrepancy between the actual and desired emotional state
(Parker et al., 2010). NAE actively signals an undesirable situation and urges employees to craft
their job (Yu, 2009). As individuals are motivated to feel good, negative emotions might spur them
to change personal or environmental aspects (Yu, 2009). Second, the high activation of NAE
enables employees to translate discrete emotions into immediate behavioural reactions (Harmon-
Jones et al., 2013). People can deal with the amount of energy they feel through job crafting. Third,
studies on the affect-proactivity relationship focused on proactive behaviours targeting others or
the organization such as taking charge or organizational citizenship behaviour (Fay & Sonnentag,
2012; Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009; Ilies, Scott, & Judge, 2006). However, in the short run, NAE might
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
101
especially trigger forms of proactivity such as job crafting, targeted to positively impact the own
optimal functioning.
Hypothesis 1. Daily fluctuations in PAE positively related to daily fluctuations in job crafting.
Hypothesis 2. Daily fluctuations in NAE positively related to daily fluctuations in job crafting.
Next to energy, also human agency is likely to relate to job crafting. This second
mechanism entails both functions of cognitive (i.e., thinking and envisioning) and instrumental
(i.e., mastering and planning) individual characteristics. Proactive behaviour, and hence job
crafting, relies on the employees’ ability to encounter the work environment, to take initiative and
to engage in self-regulation which is referred to as human agency (Van der Heijden et al., 2014;
Wu et al., 2013). Given that PGI addresses both cognitive (i.e., knowing what goals to reach and
which pathways to follow) and instrumental functions (i.e., making plans to reach the goals), we
expect PGI to positively relate to daily job crafting.
Hypothesis 3. PGI has a direct positive cross-level relationship with daily fluctuations in job
crafting such that individuals scoring high on PGI engage more in daily job crafting.
1.4. Cross-level Interaction of Personal Growth Initiative and Work-Related Emotions
Daily fluctuations in emotions may relate differently to daily fluctuations in behaviour
depending on general personal resources (Mischel & Shoda, 1998). Building on the idea of
resource caravans (Hobfoll, 1989), we expect active emotions and PGI to positively interact in
relation to daily job crafting given that their functions might reinforce each other. The more
resources employees have at hand, the more likely they will be to invest these resources to engage
in further resources gain through job crafting (Hobfoll, 1989). We include PGI as a cross-level
moderator of the within-person relationship between active emotions and job crafting.
Consequently, we expect that employees who experience PAE and score high on PGI, will craft
their job most. Moreover, as PGI entails an awareness and control of personal goals, we expect PGI
to provide employees with agency and persistence, and to strengthen the ability to engage in daily
job crafting, even when having a bad day (i.e. NAE).
Hypothesis 4. PGI moderates the within-person relationship between daily fluctuation in PAE
and daily fluctuations in job crafting such that for those who score high on PGI, experiencing PAE
will more strongly positively relate to job crafting.
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
102
Hypothesis 5. PGI moderates the within-person level relationship between daily fluctuations in
NAE and daily fluctuations in job crafting such that for those who score high on PGI, experiencing
NAE will more strongly positively relate to job crafting.
1.5. Job Crafting and Person-Job Fit
Striving for a better person-job fit aligns with the inherent purpose of job crafting (Tims &
Bakker, 2010). Job crafters “act upon the job to create a better fit” (Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2001,
p.188), they “customize [their job] to fit their own sense of what the job should be” (p.185). By
means of job crafting “employees seek to ‘make jobs fit’ by proactively modifying their jobs to
match their values, skills and preferences” (Grant & Parker, 2009, p. 347). Despite the agreement
on the inherent connection between job crafting and person-job fit, the positive empirical
relationship between these constructs has only rarely been demonstrated at the between-person
level (Chen et al., 2014; Lu et al., 2014). Recently, Tims et al. (2016) demonstrated this relationship
at a weekly within-person level. Because job crafting may also occur on a daily basis (Petrou et al.,
2012), we add to the literature by hypothesizing positive associations between job crafting and fit
at a daily level. In this perspective, two types of fit are relevant. On the one hand, employees who
make changes to their job in order to optimize their functioning, may aim for a greater perceived
congruence between their knowledge, skills and abilities, and the demands of the job (i.e.,
demands-abilities fit; DA-fit). On the other hand, they may shape their job to achieve a better
perceived congruence between their needs, preferences and desires, and what the job has to offer
(i.e., needs-supplies fit; NS-fit; Cable & DeRue, 2002). We hypothesize:
Hypothesis 6. Daily fluctuations in job crafting positively related to daily fluctuations in (a) DA-
fit and (b) NS-fit.
1.6. Indirect Relationships from Individual Characteristics to Person-Job Fit via Job
Crafting
Although the realm of person-environment fit research focuses on work-related emotions as
outcomes of person-job fit, both PAE and NAE may indirectly relate to person-job fit because they
provide employees with energy and information to actively manage and optimize person-job fit
(Yu, 2009). On the one hand, a growth-oriented view on human nature, implies that “feeling good”
not only “signals optimal functioning [but rather stimulates people to build or] produces optimal
functioning” (Fredrickson, 2004, p.1367). Lu et al. (2014) support this assumption and showed
that work engagement, a positive and highly active affect, has an indirect effect on changes in DA-
fit and NS-fit through changes in physical and relational job crafting respectively. On the other
hand, people are also vulnerable to malfunctioning and to experience negative affect, which may
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
103
signal a suboptimal fit and trigger behaviours such as job crafting to reduce the discrepancy
between the current and ideal person-job fit (Edwards, 1992; Yu, 2009). Both PAE and NAE may
thus be beneficial for person-job fit via job crafting:
Hypothesis 7. Daily fluctuations in PAE positively related to daily fluctuations in (a) DA-fit and
(b) NS-fit through daily fluctuations in job crafting.
Hypothesis 8. Daily fluctuations in NAE positively related to daily fluctuations in (a) DA-fit and
(b) NS-fit fit through daily fluctuations in job crafting.
Finally, we expect PGI to relate indirectly with daily fluctuations in person-job fit, via daily
fluctuations in job crafting. State-like resources such as PGI include human agency to act upon the
environment (i.e. by means of job crafting) and, as a result, relate to positive outcomes such as a
stronger person-job alignment (van Dam, 2013). Therefore, we expect PGI not only to trigger job
crafting but as a result to also relate indirectly to increased person-job fit.
Hypothesis 9. PGI positively associates with daily fluctuations in (a) DA-fit and (b) NS-fit,
through daily fluctuations in job crafting.
2. Methods
2.1. Procedure
We conducted a multilevel study, which consisted of a general questionnaire and diary
questionnaires for five consecutive work days. We invited 166 employees via email to take part in
an online questionnaire. A limited amount of employees who did not have access to a computer at
work, received paper-and-pencil questionnaires and a stamped envelope to send their completed
questionnaires directly to the research centre. We used a process of translation and back-
translation in our preparation of the surveys. Of the 166 invited employees, 120 completed the
general questionnaire and at least one diary questionnaire (response rate: 72.29%), all online.
Based on the information on the exact date and point of time of participation, we excluded four
respondents because they filled out several daily questionnaires on the same day. Because the
unit of analysis is “daily surveys” rather than “respondents” (Conway & Briner, 2002) for all
within-person hypotheses, the effective sample size was 341 observations (116 respondents x
daily surveys), or an average of 2.94 daily surveys per person. Of the 116 respondents, 19
employees (16.4%) completed all five diary questionnaires, 21 persons four (18.1%), 32 persons
three (27.6%), 22 persons two (19%) and 22 persons only one diary questionnaire (19%). For the
cross-level interactions (between-person moderator on a within-person relationship), the unit of
analyses is both “respondents” and “daily surveys”. Maas and Hox (2005) found that Level 2
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
104
(respondents) sample sizes exceeding 30 in a multilevel framework, resulted in an accurate
estimation of standard errors. Hence, we concluded that our sample of 116 respondents has
satisfactory power and accuracy. Finally, to avoid the exclusion of respondents who dropped out
because of missing data (i.e., traditionally referred to as listwise deletion), we relied on the Full
Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) method to reduce response bias (Duncan, Duncan, &
Strycker, 2006). We conducted logistic regression analyses to estimate differences between our
final sample and dropouts. None of the demographic characteristics or variables under study
could explain dropout.
2.2. Sample
Our respondents were on average 38 years old (SD=10.33), 63.8% were female, 42.2% held
a university degree, 36.2% a higher education degree and 21.6% a high school degree. They
mainly worked in three different health-care organizations: 34.5% in organization A, 19.0% in
organization B, 26.7% in organization C and 19.8% worked in other organizations.
2.3. Measures
General questionnaire. We used a general questionnaire to collect demographical data (i.e.
gender, age and educational level) and the between-persons variable PGI. We included the original
Personal Growth Initiative Scale of Robitschek (1998) to assess PGI. Respondents were asked to
rate 9-items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).
Example items are: “I know how to change specific things that I want to change in my life” and “I
have a specific action plan to help me reach my goals” ( = .79).
Daily questionnaire. Consistent with recommendations for diary studies (e.g., Ohly,
Sonnentag, Niessen, & Zapf, 2010), we used short scales to ensure a reasonable length and to avoid
endangering the compliance of respondents. To reinforce the daily nature of the survey all items
were worded such that they (1) included “today”, and (2) used the past tense. Level-specific
composite reliability (i.e. level-specific ω) was tested using the multilevel confirmatory factor
analysis approach advocated by Geldhof, Preacher, and Zyphur (2014).
Positive and negative emotions were assessed building on the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), Russell’s (1980) four dimensional circumplex and the
work of Warr and colleagues (2014). We asked participants: “To what extent did you experience
the following emotions at work today?”. Positive active emotions (PAE) were measured using the
following five items: “enthusiastic”, “cheerful”, “inspired”, “energetic”, and “determined”. Based on
the confirmatory factor analysis results, we excluded the fifth item “determined”. The within-
person omega reliability coefficient was .81. Positive passive emotions (PPE) were measured with
five items, namely “happy”, “contented”, “calm”, “relieved”, and “relaxed” (ω=.68). Negative active
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
105
emotions (NAE) were measured with seven items: “angry”, “frustrated”, “irritated”, “anxious”,
“guilty”, “ashamed”, and “tense” (ω=.79). Negative passive emotions (NPE) were measured with six
items, namely “despondent”, “dejected”, “depressed”, “sad”, “bored”’, and “fatigued” (ω=.69). All
emotions were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (I did not) tot 5 (I did).
Job crafting was measured using the Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS), a new job crafting
measure which has been developed and extensively validated in Vanbelle, et al. (2016). The OJCS
operationalizes the general concept of job crafting instead of specific job crafting types. It enables
respondents to think of personally relevant changes and it accounts for diverse pro-self-focused
reasons to craft. Vanbelle et al. (2016) demonstrated construct validity, convergent and
discriminant validity in relation to specific job crafting scales (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012; Slemp,
& Vella-Brodrick, 2013), and showed predictive validity of the OJCS in relation to positive
outcomes. The four items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to
5 (totally agree) and where rephrased from a daily level perspective. More specifically we asked
the following: Some people make changes in their job, others do not. To what extent did you shape
your job today? Please register to what extent you agree with the following statements: “Today, I
made changes in my job to feel better”; “Today, I changed my job so it would better fit with who I
am”; “Today, I made changes in my job to perform better”; “Today, I changed my job so it would
better fit with what I think is important” (ω=.78).
Person-job fit was measured with Cable and DeRue’s (2002) demands-abilities (DA) and
need-supplies (NS) scales. An example item of daily DA fit is “Today, my personal abilities and
education provided a good match with the demands that my job places on me” and of NS fit: “Today,
there was a good fit between what my job offered me and what I am looking for in a job”. Each
subscale had three items rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally
agree). The reliabilities of both DA (ω=.81) and NS fit (ω=.86) were satisfying.
2.4. Analyses
We used Mplus 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 2013) to conduct confirmatory factor analyses and to
test our hypothesized multilevel moderated mediation path model. We applied the full
information maximum likelihood (FIML) algorithm for handling missing data and relied on the
TWOLEVEL RANDOM option in Mplus to assess the cross-level interaction (Hox, 2010). In the
estimated model, the indirect effects were tested using the product-of-coefficients approach (the
product of each a-path with each b-path; see Figure1). More specifically, we calculated ten indirect
effects, each consisting of the product of the regression coefficient of the association between an
antecedent and job crafting (a-paths) and the regression coefficient of the association between job
crafting and one of both fit outcomes (b-paths). To facilitate the comparability of these indirect
and direct effects, we will report the 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for all effects when
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
106
discussing the results. Furthermore, we allowed for correlations between (1) the positive and
negative emotions, and (2) the outcomes. We did not include any control variables at the between-
person level (e.g., age, gender, education), because these do not directly influence the within-
person effects.
To assess the added value of a multilevel modelling approach, we estimated the intraclass
correlation coefficient (ICC) for PAE, PPE, NAE, NPE, job crafting, DA-fit, and NS-fit (Hox, 2010).
We did not estimate an ICC of personal growth initiative (PGI) because this variable was only
measured at a between-persons level. The results indicated that a substantial proportion of the
variance (ICC values are .52, .48, .43, .42, .48, .48, and .46, respectively) is attributable to within-
person fluctuations. Given that all ICC’s at the day-level were higher than .05, we are confident
that our data had a nested structure and that investigating the variables at a within-persons level
is warranted (Marcoulides & Schumacker, 2009).
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive results
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, zero-order and person-centered correlations of
study variables.
3.2. Confirmatory Factor Analyses
The fit statistics for eight CFA models (M) are presented in Table 2. The first measurement
model (M1) is the hypothesized model, including the following eight latent factors: PAE, PPE, NAE,
NPE, PGI, job crafting, DA-fit, and NS-fit. Seven alternative CFA models were estimated: one
alternative model comprised the same eight latent factors and a common method factor (M1*),
three alternative models comprised seven latent variables (M2, M3, M4), one model consisted of
six latent factors (M5), one model consisted of five latent variables (M6), and one model included
four latent variables (M7). A model was considered to offer a good fit to the data when CFI and
TLI values were in the mid .90’s or higher, and when RMSEA and SRMR values were 0.08 or less
(Schreiber, Stage, King, Nora, & Barlow, 2006). The hypothesized model (M1) had an acceptable
fit with the data. In addition, we used a χ2-difference test to compare competing models (M1*-M6)
to our theoretical model (M1) which indicated that M1 fitted the data significantly better. When
comparing the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) -which represents the balance between the
number of parameters (i.e. model complexity) and model fit (Aiken, West, & Reno, 1991)- the
hypothesized model showed the lowest BIC-value and thus the best fit to the data. Hence, M1 will
guide our hypotheses testing.
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
107
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, zero-order and person-centered correlations
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Positive active emotions (PAE) 3.61 .63 - .52*** -.29*** -.32*** - .08* .35*** .40***
2. Positive passive emotions (PPE) 3.54 .58 .67*** - -.49*** -.41*** - .07 .24*** .31***
3. Negative active emotions (NAE) 1.84 .64 -.44*** -.66*** - .58*** - .11* -.14* -.23***
4. Negative passive emotions (NPE) 1.74 .57 -.45*** -.43*** .68*** - - -.04 -.09 -.25***
5. Personal Growth Initiative (PGI) 3.60 .42 .17* .25** -.12 -.18* - - - -
6. Job crafting 2.86 .68 .28** .21* .01 -.07 .31*** - .02 -.03
7. Demands-Abilities fit (DA-fit) 3.64 .41 .58*** .37*** -.22* -.35*** .25** .30*** - .68***
8. Needs-Supplies fit (NS-fit) 3.42 .68 .64*** .52*** -.39*** -.43*** .21* .28** .79*** -
Notes. Zero-order correlations are presented below the diagonal (N=116). Person-centered correlations are presented above the diagonal (N=341). Means and standard deviations are presented at the between-person level. We did not estimate person-centered correlations for the between-person variable PGI. *: p<.05. **: p<.01. ***: p<.001
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
108
Table 2
Fit statistics for the models based on confirmatory factor analyses (Nindividuals=116; Nobservations=341).
Models χ2 (df) BIC RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR Comparison Δχ² Δdf p
M1 8 latent factors 1759.73 (751) 32580.94 .05 .90 .89 .07
M1* 8 latent factors
with CMF
2041.35 (771) 32861.71 .05 .75 .74 .10 M1*-M1 281.62 20 <.001
M2 7 latent factors 1829.33 (758) 32631.02 .05 .79 .77 .08 M2-M1 69.6 7 <.001
M3 7 latent factors 1889.85 (758) 32728.30 .05 .78 .76 .08 M3-M1 130.12 7 <.001
M4 7 latent factors 1845.25 (758) 32677.61 .06 .79 .77 .07 M4-M1 85.52 7 <.001
M5 6 latent factors 2483.70 (764) 33510.55 .06 .66 .64 .10 M5-M1 723.97 13 <.001
M6 5 latent factors 2479.93 (769) 33500.78 .06 .67 .64 .10 M7-M1 720.2 18 <.001
M7 4 latent factors 2553.95 (773) 33608.63 .06 .65 .63 .10 M8-M1 794.22 22 <.001
Note: CMF = common method factor. Best-fitting model in italics. M1: Positive active emotions, positive passive emotions, negative active emotions, negative passive emotions, PGI, job crafting, need-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit load onto eight separate latent factors. M1*: Positive active emotions, positive passive emotions, negative active emotions, negative passive emotions, PGI, job crafting, need-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit load onto eight separate latent factors + one higher-order common method factor. M2: Positive active emotions and positive passive emotions load onto one latent factor; negative active emotions, negative passive emotions, PGI, job crafting, need-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit load onto six separate latent factors. M3: Negative active emotions and negative passive emotions load onto one latent factor; positive active emotions, positive passive emotions PGI, job crafting, need-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit load onto six separate latent factors. M4: Need-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit load onto one latent factor; positive active emotions and positive passive emotions load onto one latent factor; negative active emotions, negative passive emotions, PGI, and job crafting load onto six separate latent factors. M5: Positive active emotions and negative active emotions load onto one latent factor; positive passive emotions and negative passive emotions load onto one latent factor, PGI, job crafting, need-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit load onto four separate latent factors. M6: Positive active emotions, positive passive emotions, negative active emotions, negative passive emotions load onto one latent factor; PGI, job crafting, need-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit load onto four separate latent factors. M7: Positive active emotions, positive passive emotions, negative active emotions, negative passive emotions load onto one latent factor; need-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit load onto one latent factor; PGI, and job crafting load onto two separate latent factors.
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
109
3.3. Hypotheses Testing
Prior to presenting the results, we assessed whether the full or partial multilevel moderated
mediation model fit the data best. The BIC and sample-size adjusted BIC value identified the full
multilevel moderated mediation model as the one that fits the data best (BIC=10391.40; sample-
size adjusted BIC=10216.93) compared to the partial multilevel moderated mediation model
(BIC=10716.59; sample-size adjusted BIC=10567.38). Hence the full multilevel moderated
mediation model will guide hypotheses testing.
The estimated paths are presented in Figure 2. As hypothesized, both daily fluctuations in
PAE (95%CI = [.09; .93]) and in NAE (95%CI = [.09; .68]) positively related to daily fluctuations in
job crafting at the within-person level. Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 were thus supported. As
expected, we did not find significant results concerning the relationship between PPE and job
crafting (95%CI = [-.02; .63]) or for the relationship between NPE and job crafting (95%CI = [-.57;
.36]). Next, we found a positive cross-level relationship between PGI and daily fluctuations in job
crafting (95%CI = [.04; .83]), supporting Hypothesis 3. Furthermore, we found two significant
cross-level interactions for PGI and PAE (95%CI = [-.27; -.01]) and for PGI and NAE (95%CI = [-
.20; -.003]) in relation to daily fluctuations in job crafting. We want to note that the 95%CI of both
interaction effects are close to zero.
PGI seems to buffer the positive relationships between PAE/NAE and daily job crafting. Both
Figure 3 and 4 demonstrate that the strength of the relationship between daily fluctuations in
PAE/NAE and daily fluctuations in job crafting was smaller for employees scoring high on PGI in
comparison to employees scoring low on PGI. Put differently, daily job crafting was less dependent
on daily fluctuations in PAE and NAE when employees had a high PGI. Hypothesis 4 and 5 are thus
not supported because we found the opposite moderating impact of PGI than initially expected;
namely a buffering effect of PGI on the relationships between both positive and negative active
emotions and job crafting instead of a boosting effect.
Furthermore, our results showed that daily fluctuations in job crafting positively related to
daily fluctuations in DA-fit (95%CI = [.06; .66]) and NS-fit (95%CI = [.01; .81]), thereby providing
support for Hypotheses 6a and 6b. Finally, we found significant indirect effects from daily
fluctuations in NAE to both daily fluctuations in DA-fit (95%CI = [.01; .27]) and NS-fit (95%CI =
[.01; .31]) via daily fluctuations in job crafting, thereby providing support for Hypothesis 8. Our
results also supported Hypothesis 9 as they showed indirect effects from PGI to both daily
fluctuations in DA-fit (95%CI = [.04; .28]) and in NS-fit (95%CI = [.03; .32]) via daily fluctuations
in job crafting. Hypothesis 7 was not supported as we did not find significant indirect relationships
from daily fluctuations in PAE to daily fluctuations in DA-fit (95%CI = [-.11; .48]) and NS-fit
(95%CI = [-.15; .57]) via daily fluctuations in job crafting.
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
110
Figure 2. Estimated paths in the full multilevel moderated mediation model.
Notes. Dotted lines indicate non-significant relationships. *: p<.05. **: p<.01. ***: p<.001.
Figure 3. Cross-level interaction of personal growth initiative and positive active emotions
in relation to daily job crafting.
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
Low PAE High PAE
Dail
y J
ob
Cra
ftin
g
Low PGI
High PGI
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
111
Figure 4. Cross-level interaction of personal growth initiative and negative active emotions
in relation to daily job crafting.
4. Discussion
The current study expands both our methodological and theoretical understanding on job
crafting. From a methodological point of view, we investigated job crafting at a within-person level
to account for its dynamic nature. From a theoretical point of view, we examined daily job crafting
in relation to both between- (i.e., PGI) and within-person level correlates (i.e. active emotions and
person-job fit). Our findings support the hypothesis that daily fluctuations in job crafting are
positively associated with daily fluctuations in person-job fit. Furthermore, individual
characteristics related both in a direct and interactive way to daily fluctuations in job crafting.
More specifically, our results demonstrated that the within-person level differences in both PAE
and NAE, as well as the between-person level differences in PGI positively related to daily
fluctuations in job crafting. Contrary to our expectations, we found buffering cross-level
interaction effects of PGI on the relationships between daily fluctuations in PAE/ NAE and daily
fluctuations in job crafting. Notably, we only found indirect relationships from PGI and daily
fluctuations in NAE to both daily fluctuations in DA- and NS-fit, via daily fluctuations in job
crafting. In what follows, we will discuss the main contributions of the current study.
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
Low NAE High NAE
Dail
y J
ob
Cra
ftin
gLow PGI
High PGI
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
112
4.1. Main Contributions
We contributed to the literature of job crafting in at least five ways. First, we modelled job
crafting as a within-person level behaviour to account for its dynamic nature and intra-individual
variation. The extent to which employees engage in job crafting not only differs at the between-
person level, but also differs within a particular employee as that employee moves through daily
life (Demerouti et al., 2015; Petrou et al., 2012; Tims et al., 2013).
Second, job crafting positively associated to both DA- and NS-fit at a within-person level.
Although the enhancement of person-job fit is commonly agreed to be an inherent purpose of job
crafting, this empirical association has only rarely been addressed (Chen et al., 2014; Lu et al.,
2014; Tims et al., 2016). We add to extant findings by associating daily fluctuations in job crafting
with daily fluctuations in both DA- and NS-fit. Employees who crafted their job on a particular day
were more likely to experience person-job fit that same day compared to days on which they did
not, or to a lesser extent, engaged in job crafting.
Third, we used a multilevel study to examine both within- and between-person level
individual characteristics and their interaction to understand daily job crafting. Active emotions
(i.e., PAE and NAE) and individual differences in PGI related to daily fluctuations in job crafting.
Broadening the functional classification perspective on traits in relation to proactive behaviour
(Wu et al. 2013), we reason that active emotions and PGI trigger job crafting because they provide
employees with the needed energy and human agency, respectively.
At the within-person level, active emotions (i.e., PAE and NAE) fulfil the energizing function
(Parker et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2013). The high motivational intensity of active emotions is
beneficial for effective goal striving and accomplishment, and hence job crafting, regardless of
their valence (Harmon-Jones et al., 2013). Employees experiencing passive emotions seem to lack
the energy and goal-directedness to engage in job crafting behaviour in the short run (i.e., the
same day). In contrast to previous studies on the affect-proactivity relationship (Fay, & Sonnentag,
2012; Fritz, & Sonnentag, 2009), we found a positive relationship from NAE to job crafting.
Perhaps, NAE does not tend to stimulate employees to engage in proactive behaviours such as
taking charge (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009), or helping behaviour (Fay & Sonnentag, 2009) because
these behaviours are primarily targeted to positively impact others. Because job crafting is
primarily targeted to impact the self (Tims & Bakker, 2010), it might be a good way to cope with
NAE. The finding that job crafting also seems to be a strategy to deal with NAE adds to the
proactivity literature in which job crafting is merely considered to be part of a positive spiral in
which well-being increase the likelihood that employees improve their jobs through job crafting
which in turn further adds to their well-being (Bakker & Costa, 2014). Active emotions thus seem
to be so salient at the very moment that they urge people to behaviourally respond in the short
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
113
run, either to pursuit unsatisfied goals in case of PAE, or to react on a negative stimulus in case of
NAE (Edwards, 1992).
At the between-personal level, PGI acted as a cross-level antecedent of daily job crafting.
Building on the functional classification approach of individual characteristics, we argue that PGI
includes human agency as it entails both the cognitive functions of envisioning and thinking (i.e.,
knowing what goals and how to reach them) and the instrumental functions of mastering and
planning behavioural enactment (Robitschek, 1998). These functions involve key self-regulatory
processes that precede the implementation of proactive behaviour (Wu et al., 2013; Parker et al.,
2010). In line with Van Dam’s (2013) criteria of state-like personal resources, PGI (a) includes
agency to actively encounter the environment by means of daily job crafting, (b) is relatively
malleable and open to development and training (Robitschek, 1998), and (c) indirectly relates to
positive outcomes like daily DA- and NS-fit (Van Dam, 2013).
Fourth, within- and between-person processes tend to interact in relation to daily behaviour
(Mischel & Shoda, 1998). Contrary to our expectations, we found a buffering impact of PGI. PGI
thus seems to be a general personal strength of employees that not only directly stimulates
employees to craft their job on a daily basis but also might make employees’ daily job crafting less
dependent on daily experienced emotions. Comparably, Ilies et al. (2006) found that employees
who scored high on trait agreeableness engaged more in daily organisational citizenship
behaviours and were less dependent on daily experienced positive affect. Furthermore, despite a
buffering interaction effect of PGI, employees who score high on both PGI and PAE/NAE seem to
craft their job most. The combination of daily active emotions and scoring high on PGI is thus
beneficial for job crafting, but these individual characteristics seem to interact in a compensating
instead of boosting way. In sum, taking both within- and between-person level individual
characteristics and their interactions into account adds to the understanding of daily individual
behaviour (Ilies et al., 2006; Mischel & Shoda, 1998).
Fifth, contrary to our expectations, we found an indirect relationship with person-job fit
through job crafting for NAE, but not for PAE. A possible explanation is that employees
experiencing NAE craft their job to ameliorate a suboptimal situation and enhance person-job fit
at the very moment, whereas employees experiencing PAE perhaps engage in job crafting to strive
for the optimization of person-job fit in the longer run as demonstrated in Lu et al. (2014).
4.2. Limitations and Future Research
Notwithstanding the merits of this study, at least five aspects deserve further attention and
include suggestions for future research. First, the use of self-reports might raise concerns about
social desirability and common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012).
Although it would be advisable to use other-rated (e.g. supervisor, colleague, etc.) measures to
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
114
overcome the issue of social desirability, we relied on self-reported measurements because
employees themselves are probably the best persons to report on personal goal-related
constructs like PGI as well as on daily fluctuations in emotions, job crafting behaviour, and
perceptions of person-job fit (Tims et al., 2013; Demerouti et al., 2015). Given that job crafting is
an individually initiated and motivated behaviour, it might be difficult—or even impossible—for
others to decide whether the observed changes can be labelled as job crafting behaviour or as
other types of proactive behaviour (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). We aimed to minimize risks
owing to social desirability by guaranteeing confidentiality and by relying on discretionary
participation. To overcome the risks of common method bias, we tested an alternative model in
which we included a common method factor which did not fit the data better than the
hypothesized model. In addition, Siemsen, Roth, and Oliveira (2010) argued that common method
bias cannot explain nor distort interaction effects (i.e., PGI as a cross-level moderator).
Second, our theoretical model could be tested in a longitudinal way to strengthen the
empirical evidence on the hypothesized directionality of the relationship between, for example,
daily fluctuations in job crafting and daily fluctuations in person-job fit. Although our study design
does not allow us to make causal assumptions, theoretical arguments (Grant & Parker, 2009; Tims
& Bakker, 2010) and Lu and colleagues’ (2014) empirical longitudinal findings suggest that job
crafting should precede a better person-job fit. However, it might also be the other way around
such that employees experiencing person-job fit on a particular day might be more likely to engage
in job crafting that same day.
Third, we found that employees who experienced NAE were more likely to craft their job and
in turn were more likely to experience a higher person-job fit on that particular day. However, one
may question whether job crafting, triggered by NAE always entails positive consequences both
for and beyond the individual, such as for the direct colleagues or the organisation. Although
employees intend to craft their job for their own sake, recent findings indicate that job crafting
not necessarily results in positive consequences for themselves and others. Demerouti et al.
(2015) found that daily reducing demands diminished engagement and exhaustion for the
employee, and was detrimental for daily task performance and altruism. Moreover, Tims, Bakker,
and Derks (2015) showed that job crafting might increase colleagues’ risk for burnout due to an
increased workload and role conflicts. Even though NAE might trigger employees to craft their job
at the very moment which might relate to a better person-job fit, it is important to explore possible
distinct consequences for both individual and others.
Fourth, although our findings provide new insights to the literature, it is warranted to
replicate these findings given that the confidence intervals of some effects were close to zero.
Finally, it might be interesting to combine or compare diary survey studies with event-related
sampling studies in which employees are also requested to report about their behaviour and
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
115
experiences every time they craft their job. Researchers would then need to introduce job crafting,
to explain specific expectations in the realm of the study, and to follow up the data-gathering
process more closely (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003).
4.3. Implications
The current study yields some practical implications. The most important one includes the
development of PGI which, given its state-like nature, is an excellent construct to focus on in
coaching, mentoring, training, or other forms of interventions (Robitschek, 1998). Practitioners
can enhance employees’ PGI by stimulating both cognitive (i.e., goal setting) and behavioural
aspects (i.e., goal implementation). Cognitive aspects of PGI can be strengthened through
reflection on personal interests, abilities, and values which might enhance employees’ goal setting
in a “SMART” way. In addition, employees might be coached in developing a realistic and time-
bounded action plan to reach their personal goals which in turn would enhance their goal
implementation capacities, and therefore the behavioural elements of PGI. Increasing employees’
awareness of their personal goals (cognitive component) and supporting them in planning the
implementation of these goal strivings (behavioural component), may stimulate them to engage
in job crafting (Van den Heuvel, Demerouti, & Peeters, 2015). This in turn adds to positive
outcomes such as person-job fit. Moreover, when employees have a stronger PGI, they may be less
dependent of affective fluctuations to engage in daily job crafting. PGI might thus be
comprehended as a state-like personal resource which helps employees to actively encounter the
environment and its accompanied emotions. Supervisors might have a valuable role to take and
can be trained to stimulate employees’ personal growth and development, goal-setting and -
striving, and to communicate on the employees’ well-being.
In addition, employers should create work conditions that induce PAE as these emotions
positively associate to job crafting. Strengthening employees’ job resources such as the amount of
autonomy, skill utilization, and social support would be especially relevant to enhance positive
active states (Bakker et al., 2014). Furthermore, supporting employees who experience NPE such
as sadness or depression is recommended as these employees may not find the needed energy
themselves to actively encounter their environment by means of job crafting. Similarly, employees
who experience PPE such as contentment and calmness should be energized to craft their job
towards an optimal person-job fit.
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
116
5. Conclusion
The findings of this multilevel study can be summarized into three main messages. First,
especially the activation dimension of emotions may have an important within-person role in
relation to job crafting. Active emotions provide energy to initiate changes in the work
environment to optimize functioning, regardless of their valence. Second, in addition to daily
affective states, PGI seem to provide employees with agency to engage in job crafting (positive
relationship) and reduces their dependency of affective fluctuations to craft. Third, we expand the
empirical understanding of the relationship between job crafting and person-job fit at a within-
person level. Employees who craft their job on a particular day, also experience an increased
person-job fit that day.
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
117
6. References
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., & Reno, R.R. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bakker, A.B., & Costa, P.L. (2014). Chronic job burnout and daily functioning: A theoretical
analysis. Burnout Research, 1(3), 112-119. DOI: 10.1016/j.burn.2014.04.003
Bakker, A.B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of
job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65(10), 1359-1378. DOI:
10.1177/0018726712453471
Bindl, U.T., Parker, S.K., Totterdell, P., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the self-starter: how
mood related to proactive goal regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 134-150.
DOI: 10.1037/a0024368.
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived. Annual review
of psychology, 54, 579-616.
Brenninkmeijer, V., & Hekkert-Koning, M. (2015). To craft our not to craft: the relationships
between regulatory focus, job crafting and work outcomes. Career Development
International, 20(2), 147-162. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-12-2014-0162.
Buss, A.H., & Finn, S.E. (1987). Classification of personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52(2), 432-444. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.2.432
Cable, D.M., & DeRue, D.S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit
perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884. DOI: 10.1037//0021-
9010.87.5.875
Chen, C.Y., Yen, C.H., & Tsai, F.C. (2014). Job crafting and job engagement: The mediating role of
person-job fit. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, 21-28. DOI:
10.1016/j.JIHM.2013.10.006
Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., & Conway, M. (1994). Affective causes and consequences of social
information processing. In: R.S. Wyer, & T.K., Srull (Eds.), Handbook of Social Cognition,
Second Edition: Volume 1: Basic Processes (pp. 323-417). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conway, N., & Briner, R.B. (2002). A daily diary study of affective responses to psychological
contract breach and exceeded promises. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 287-
302. DOI: 10.1002/job.139
Crant, J.M. (2000). Proactive Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2015). Productive and counterproductive job
crafting: A daily diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online
publication. DOI: 10.1037/a0039002
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
118
Duncan, S. C., Duncan, T. E., & Strycker, L. A. (2006). Alcohol use from ages 9 to 16: A cohort-
sequential latent growth model. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 81(1), 71-81. DOI:
10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.06.001
Edwards, F.R. (1992). A cybernetic theory of stress, coping and well-being in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 238-274. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1992.4279536
Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (2012). Within-person fluctuation of proactive behavior: How affect and
experienced competence regulate work behavior. Human Performance, 25(1), 72-93. DOI:
10.1080/08959285.2011.631647
Fredrickson, B.L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical
transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological science, 359, 1367-1377.
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1512
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A Look at job
stressors and positive emotions during the workday. Journal of Management, 35(1), 94-
111. DOI: 10.1177/0149206307308911
Gelfhof, G.J., Preacher, K.J., & Zyphur, M.J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel
confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 72-91. DOI:
10.1037/a0032138
Grant, A.M., & Parker, S.K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and
proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317-375. DOI:
10.1080/19416520903047327
Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P.A., & Price, T.F. (2013). Does negative affect always narrow and positive
affect always broaden the mind? Considering the influence of motivational intensity on
cognitive scope. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 301-307. DOI:
10.1177/0963721413481353
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American
Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.
Hox, J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Ilies, R., Scott, B.A., & Judge, T.A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced
stated on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. The Academy of Management
Journal, 49(3), 561-272. DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.2179467
Lu, C.Q., Wang, H.J., Lu, J.J., Du, D.Y., & Bakker, A.B. (2014). Does work engagement increase person-
job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(2),
142-152. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.12.004
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C., M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of
Management, 33(3), 321-349 DOI: 10.1177/0149206307300814
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
119
Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3),
86-92. DOI: 10.1027/1614-1881.1.3.86
Marcoulides, G.A., & Schumacker, R.E. (2009). New developments and techniques in structural
equation modelling. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions.
Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229-258. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.229
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2013). Mplus User’s Guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén &
Muthén.
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research: An
introduction and some practical recommendations. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(2),
79-93. DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000009
Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive
motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310363732
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M.C.W., Schaufeli, W.B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a job on a
daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1120-1141. DOI: 10.1002/job.1786
Petrou, P., & Demerouti, E. (2015). Trait-level and week-level regulatory focus as a motivation to
craft a job. Career Development International, 20(2), 102-118. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-09-2014-
0124
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-
569. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Robitschek, C. (1998). Personal growth initiative: The construct and its measure. Measurement &
Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 30(4), 183-198.
Russell, J.A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
39(6), 1161-1178.
Schreiber, J.B., Stage, F.K, King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E.A. (2006). Reporting structural equation
modelling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational
Research, 99(6), 323-337. DOI: 10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
Shorey, H.S., Little, T.D., Snyder, C.R., Kluck, B., & Robitschek, C. (2007). Hope and personal growth
initiative: A comparison of positive, future-oriented constructs. Personality and Individual
Differences, 43(7), 1917-1926. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.O6.011
Slemp, G.R., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2013). The job crafting questionnaire: A new scale to measure
the extent to which employees engage in job crafting. International Journal of Wellbeing,
3(2), 126-146. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v3i2.1
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
120
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear,
quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456-476. DOI:
10.1177/1094428109351241
Tims, M., & Bakker, A.B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign.
South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1-9. DOI: 10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841
Tims, M., Bakker, A., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173-186. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2013). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy – performance
relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 490-505. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-05-
2012-0148
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2015). Examining job crafting from an interpersonal
perspective: Is employee job crafting related to the well-being of colleagues? Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 64(4), 727-753. DOI: 10.1111/apps.12043
Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person-job fit and
meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92(1), 44-53. DOI:
10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007
Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016). Validation of the overarching job crafting
scale (OJCS). Manuscript in review.
van Dam, K. (2013). Employee adaptability to change at work: A multidimensional, resource-
based framework. In: S. Oreg, A. Michel, & R.T. By (Eds.), The psychology of organizational
change: Viewing change from the employee’s perspective (pp.123-142). Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M.C.W. (2015). The job crafting intervention: Effects
on job resources, self-efficacy, and affective well-being. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 88, 511-532. DOI: 10.1111/joop.12128
Van der Heijden, B., van Dam, K., Xanthopoulou, D., & de Lange, A.H. (2014). Individual
characteristics and work-related outcomes. In: M.C.W. Peeters, J. de Jonge, & T.W. Taris
(Eds.), An introduction to contemporary work psychology (pp. 243-266). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Warr, P., Bindl, U.K., Parker, S.K., & Inceoglu, I. (2014). Four-quadrant investigations of job-related
emotions and behaviours. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(3),
342-363. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.744449
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative emotions: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT
121
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of
their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201. DOI:
10.5465/AMR.2001.4378011
Wu, C., Parker, S., & Bindl, U.K. (2013). Who is proactive and why? Unpacking individual
differences in employee proactivity. In A.B. Bakker (Ed.), Advances in Positive
Organizational Psychology, Volume 1 (pp. 261-280). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Yu, K.Y.T. (2009). Affective influences in person-environment fit theory: Exploring the role of
emotions as both cause and outcome of P-E fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1210-
1226. DOI: 10;1037/a0016403
123
CHAPTER 5 – STUDY 4
DIGGING INTO THE LINEAR AND CURVILINEAR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BURNOUT
AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP12,13.
12 Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Marie Casier and Lena De Meulenaere for their
contribution in collecting the data.
13 Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., Camps, J., & De Witte, H. (2017). Digging into the linear and
curvilinear relationship between burnout and job crafting. The moderating role of servant
leadership. Manuscript in preparation.
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
125
Digging into the Linear and Curvilinear Relationship Between Burnout and Job Crafting. The Moderating Role of Servant Leadership14
Abstract
Job crafting, to date, has been especially related to positive employee outcomes. However, the
reversed relationship between suboptimal functioning and job crafting remains to be put to test.
We tap into the question whether employees at risk for burnout engage in job crafting and
whether servant leadership might provide a supportive and facilitating context in this realm. More
specifically, the aims of this study are twofold. First, we examine the relationships between the
three burnout components and job crafting. From a conservation of resources perspective, we
expect a curvilinear relationship between emotional exhaustion and job crafting in an inverted-U
shaped manner, a negative relationship between cynicism and job crafting, and a positive
relationship between personal accomplishment and job crafting. Second, we investigate the
moderating role of servant leadership. We tested our hypotheses in a dataset of 583 Dutch-
speaking employees. Our results show that emotional exhaustion displays a curvilinear
relationship with job crafting only under conditions of high servant leadership. When servant
leadership is low, the relationship between emotional exhaustion and job crafting is more modest.
Contrary to expectations, no significant results were found for cynicism. As expected, personal
accomplishment positively relates to job crafting. This positive relationship is amplified by
servant leadership. Finally, next to its moderating effect, servant leadership has a direct positive
relationship with job crafting. In all, this study suggests that different components of burnout
might relate to job crafting in a different way. In addition, the context (e.g. servant leadership) of
employees at risk for burnout, might play an important role to play in stimulating employees to
engage in job crafting.
14 If we use causal language throughout this chapter, no inferences about causal relationships are intended. We use these terms from a theoretical perspective, having our hypothesized model in mind.
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
126
1. Introduction
Job crafting emerged in the literature as a proactive approach of job redesign (Grant & Parker,
2009). It describes the bottom-up changes or adjustments employees make to their job in order
to optimize their functioning (Vanbelle, Van den Broeck, & De Witte, 2016). Optimal functioning
is used as an umbrella concept, referring to a range of individual outcome variables in terms of
well-being, attitudes and behaviour (Gagné & Vansteenkiste, 2013). To date, the majority of extant
empirical evidence supports the assumption that job crafting yields diverse positive
consequences for employees’ functioning. By means of job crafting, employees assign meaning to
their work (Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2013; Tims, Derks, & Bakker, 2016; Wrzesniewski &
Dutton, 2001), enhance person-job fit (Tims et al., 2016) and work engagement (Chen, Yen, & Tsai,
2014; Tims & Bakker, 2010), and serve productivity-purposes (Demerouti, Bakker, &
Halbesleben, 2015; Solberg & Wong, 2016; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2015).
So far, much less is known about the reversed relationship including optimal functioning as
an antecedent of job crafting (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014). Only a few studies provide
empirical evidence suggesting that engaged employees craft their job more often (Lu, Wang, Lu,
Du, & Bakker, 2014; Tims et al., 2015). Whereas the findings with regards to optimal functioning
(e.g. work engagement) seem straightforward, the relationship between suboptimal functioning
(e.g. burnout) and job crafting remains unclear. To our knowledge, only one study demonstrated
that employees who experience feelings of exhaustion engage in hindrance crafting (Petrou,
Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015). Although scholars theoretically suggest that job crafting is a
strategy to face suboptimal functioning such as feelings of burnout, this assumption remains to be
empirically tested.
In response, our general aim is to dig into the puzzling relationship between burnout and job
crafting in two ways. First, we tap into this relationship for the three components of burnout,
namely emotional exhaustion, cynicism and personal accomplishment to provide a more nuanced
investigation of the burnout-job crafting relationship. In doing so, we draw on the conservation of
resources theory to explore both linear and curvilinear relationships between burnout
components and job crafting (Hobfoll, 1989). More specifically, we expect emotional exhaustion
and job crafting to show a curvilinear relationship in an inverted U-shaped manner, and cynicism
and personal accomplishment to linearly relate to job crafting in a respectively negative and
positive way. Second, we introduce servant leadership as a moderator of the burnout-job crafting
relationship. Some scholars emphasize the role that managers have to play in creating a context
that fosters job crafting (Berg, Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2008; Demerouti, 2014). We argue that
servant leaders in particular might fulfil this role because of their primary focus on bringing out
the best in their followers (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Servant leaders “rely on one-to-one
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
127
communication to understand the abilities, needs, desires, goals and potential” of their followers
(Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; p.162). They care about their followers’ personal
problems and well-being, empower them to take initiative and help them reaching their full
potential (Liden et al., 2008). Building on Berg et al. ‘s (2008) assumption that job crafting is about
“taking advantage of the resources at hand” (p.5), we expect employees at risk for burnout to take
advantage of having a servant leader in order to craft their job.
Taken together, this study contributes to the literature in at least two ways: (1) by
investigating the reversed relationship between burnout and job crafting, and (2) by including the
role of servant leadership in helping employees translating feelings of burnout into job crafting.
Burnout and Job Crafting
Burnout is a work-related psychological syndrome characterized by feelings of emotional
exhaustion, cynicism and reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001).
Emotional exhaustion and cynicism are the core dimensions of the burnout phenomenon
(Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Schaufeli & Taris, 2005). Emotional
exhaustion involves feelings of drained energy and depleted resources. Cynicism (or
depersonalization) reflects a negative, callous and distant attitude towards work. It is a specific
kind of withdrawal or mental distancing reflected in disengagement concerning work (Demerouti
et al., 2001). The third dimension, reduced personal accomplishment (or the experience of
professional inefficacy) refers to a negative self-evaluation, to feelings of incompetence and a lack
of achievement and productivity (Maslach et al., 2001). It is mainly investigated as the opposite or
reversed form of personal accomplishment or efficacy. The reduction of personal accomplishment
is believed to develop independently of emotional exhaustion and cynicism (Lee & Ashforth,
1996). In the current study, we examine whether (and when) employees at risk for burnout (i.e.
high on emotional exhaustion and cynicism, and low on personal accomplishment) engage in job
crafting (Bakker & Costa, 2014).
We define job crafting as a bottom-up approach of job redesign in which employees initiate
changes to their job in order to optimize their functioning (Vanbelle et al., 2016). By means of job
crafting employees may seek to increase job resources or reduce job demands to a manageable
level in order to enhance the alignment with personal needs and capacities (Tims, & Bakker, 2010;
Petrou et al., 2015). In this study, we consider job crafting as a global concept instead of
distinguishing specific types of job crafting (see also Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012; Vogt, Hakanen,
Brauchli, Jenny, & Bauer., 2016; Travaglianti, Babic, & Hansez, 2016). In doing so, we take a
positive stance on job crafting as a constructive means to optimize one’s functioning.
Theoretically, suboptimal functioning can thus be framed as an antecedent of job crafting.
Theorizing on job crafting implicitly suggests that employees craft their job starting from a
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
128
suboptimal situation, for instance when experiencing person-job-misfit (Tims & Bakker, 2010), or
when feeling the need to assert more control, to establish a positive self-image or to be connected
to others (Wzresniewski & Dutton, 2001; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2014). In addition, Bakker et al.
(2014) frame job crafting within the recent version of the JD-R model as the missing link in the
reversed causal path from burnout and engagement to job demands and job resources suggesting
that (sub)optimal functioning constitutes an antecedent of job crafting. Wrzesniewski and Dutton
(2001) assert that “the motivation to craft most often will result from situations in which
employees feel that their needs are not being met in their job as it is currently designed” (p.183).
In addition, Tims and Bakker (2010) argue that employees might craft their job when job demands
exceed one’s capabilities, a precedent of burnout.
Empirically, however, the relationship between suboptimal functioning such as burnout and
job crafting remains puzzling and demonstrates mixed findings. Whereas some results indicate a
positive relationship (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012; Petrou et al., 2015), other findings reveal a
negative relationship (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013; Demerouti et
al., 2015) or no relationship at all (Tims et al., 2013; Demerouti et al., 2015). Clarifying the
burnout-job crafting relationship is important as it taps into the active role of employees in
dealing with overload and burnout symptoms.
In what follows, we build separate hypotheses for the three burnout components. This is
relevant given that these components show to differentially associate with employees’
behavioural tendency to withdraw or to seek control (Lee & Ashorth, 1996). More specifically, Lee
and Ashforth (1996, p.130) suggest that “whichever response (either withdrawing or seeking
control) predominates may depend on the relative strengths of emotional exhaustion and
personal accomplishment”. Cynicism is argued to be a consequence of emotional exhaustion and
entails the tendency to withdraw and distance oneself from work. We build our hypotheses based
on the conservation of resources theory (COR; Hobfoll, 1989; Ng & Feldman, 2012; Qin, Direnzo,
Xu, & Duan, 2014). The basic premise of COR is that “people strive to retain, protect, and build
resources and that what is threatening to them is the potential or actual loss of these valued
resources” (p.516). In addition, COR implies two tenets, namely resource conservation and
resource accumulation or acquisition – and hence, job crafting – in relation to resource loss – and
hence, feelings of burnout (Ng & Feldman, 2012).
1.1.1. Emotional exhaustion and job crafting.
Emotional exhaustion might associate with job crafting in both a positive and negative way,
which may hint at a curvilinear relationship. We are not the first to explore a curvilinear
relationship between negative conditions and proactive behaviour. Qin et al. (2014) for instance,
demonstrated a U-shaped curvilinear relationship between emotional exhaustion and voice.
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
129
Similarly, Chen, Zhang, and Zhao (2015) showed a U-shaped curvilinear relationship between
challenge stressors and voice behaviour in condition of high leader-member-exchange.
Alternatively, other studies found an inverted U-shaped curvilinear relationship of job demands
such as time pressure (Baer & Oldham, 2006), role stress in conditions of high support (Leung,
Huang, Su, & Lu, 2011), and underemployment (Lin, Law, & Zhou, 2014) in relation to proactive
constructs such as creativity, innovative performance and task crafting.
In this study, we hypothesize an inverted U-shaped relationship between emotional
exhaustion, which results from a long-term exposure to excessive job demands, and job crafting.
On the one hand, emotional exhaustion may positively relate to job crafting. Feelings of emotional
exhaustion signal a suboptimal situation and represent resource depletion (Halbesleben &
Bowler, 2007). This might trigger employees to engage in job crafting to deal with these feelings,
to recover from job demands and to prevent further resource loss and eventually, burnout. In
addition, COR theory suggests that employees facing resource loss will carefully select the manner
in which they use remaining resources (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007). We argue that job crafting
might be a way to do so. Employees who feel exhausted may for instance plan their work
differently, ask colleagues for temporary help with specific (demanding) tasks, chose to work from
home one day a week or adapt work hours. This might help them to deal with symptoms of
emotional exhaustion. On the other hand, however, emotional exhaustion may negatively relate
to job crafting. We argue that a positive relationship might especially be the case when lowly
exhausted employees still have sufficient energy and resources to invest in job crafting (Ng &
Feldman, 2012). Above a certain threshold, however, we expect that emotional exhaustion will
not translate into job crafting anymore because of severe resource depletion and inactivity
(Bakker & Derks, 2010). At high level of emotional exhaustion, employees may not have sufficient
energy to translate feelings of emotional exhaustion into job crafting, which might result in
negative associations. Taken together, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1a. Emotional exhaustion relates to job crafting in an inverted U-shaped manner. At
low levels of emotional exhaustion, an increase in emotional exhaustion positively associates with
job crafting, whereas at high levels of emotional exhaustion, a further increase in emotional
exhaustion negatively associates with job crafting.
1.1.2. Cynicism and job crafting.
We expect cynicism to negatively relate to job crafting (Tims et al., 2012). Cynicism indicates
depersonalization and withdrawal, an inactive, distant and indifferent attitude towards work
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Maslach et al. (2001) assume that exhausted and discouraged
employees cognitively and emotionally distance themselves from work. Cynicism is presented as
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
130
the immediate reaction to emotional exhaustion. Employees who are confronted with cynicism
lack the willingness or motivation (Schaufeli & Taris, 2005) to invest further effort in work. In
addition, feelings of cynicism lack the motivational intensity needed to engage in behaviour, and
hence job crafting (Harmon-Jones, Gable, & Price, 2013). From a COR perspective, we expect
cynicism to relate to resource conservation instead of resource acquisition to prevent further
resource loss. Hence, we expect cynical employees to be less likely to engage in job crafting. The
available empirical evidence indeed supports a negative relationship between positively framed
job crafting behaviours and cynicism (Tims et al., 2012). Employees scoring high on cynicism
showed to be less likely to invest in resources seeking and challenges seeking, and to be more
likely to engage in avoidance coping (Tims et al., 2012; Tims et al., 2013). We hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1b. Cynicism negatively associates with job crafting.
1.1.3. Personal accomplishment and job crafting.
We expect a positive relationship between personal accomplishment and job crafting. Recent
developments in the literature suggest that reduced personal accomplishment might be either
seen as a consequence of emotional exhaustion and cynicism or as a lacking personal resource
(Demerouti, et al., 2001; Schaufeli, & Taris, 2005). In the current study, we include the positive
construct of personal accomplishment (Schaufeli, & van Dierendonck, 2000). According to COR
theory, personal accomplishment as a personal resource might relate to resources acquisition or
accumulation, for instance by means of job crafting. Personal accomplishment is theoretically
similar to the self-efficacy concept of Bandura (1986; Demerouti et al., 2001), which includes the
agency to actively encounter the environment to bring along positive outcomes (Van Dam, 2013).
Self-efficacy is about the beliefs employees have of their personal capacities to conduct work and
to have a successful impact (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2014). Employees who are self-efficacious are
more likely to expend effort in managing challenges at work and to persevere in the face of
obstacles and difficulties. Personal accomplishment is also strongly related to control coping and
might therefore be especially relevant in the realm of job crafting (Lee & Ashforth, 1996). Given
that outcomes stemming from personal accomplishment reflect the desire to seek control (Lee &
Ashforth, 1996) and that job crafting is described as an individual strategy to assert some control
over one’s work environment, we expect a positive relationship between personal
accomplishment and job crafting. Tims et al. (2014) indeed showed that daily self-efficacy
positively related to daily job crafting. We hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1c. Personal accomplishment positively associates with job crafting.
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
131
Servant Leadership and Job Crafting
Servant leadership might add to the contextual opportunities that enable and stimulate
employees to engage in job crafting. More specifically, we argue that servant leaders create a
resourceful environment that fosters employees job crafting. Servant leadership is defined as a
multidimensional construct (Liden et al., 2015; Van Dierendonck, 2011). Servant leaders care
about employees’ well-being, they put subordinates first and empower them to use their
autonomy, to take initiative and to make decisions. They help followers to reach their full potential
and to function optimally. In doing so, they use one-to-one communication to clarify individual
needs, interests, and values (Liden et al., 2008). These core features of servant leadership
strengthen the relevance of linking servant leadership to behavioural employee outcomes such as
job crafting. Previous research for instance demonstrated the added value of servant leadership
in relation to both in-role (Liden et al., 2008) and extra-role performance (Liden et al., 2008;
Malingumu, Stouten, Euwema, & Babyegeya, 2016), to creativity and innovation (Liden et al.,
2008; Yoshida, Sendjaya, Hirst, & Cooper, 2014), and to turnover intentions and disengagement
(Hunter et al., 2013). In this study, we expect that employees evaluating their supervisor as high
on servant leadership will more often engage in job crafting. The role of managers in fostering a
resourceful environment that triggers beneficial forms of job crafting remains under-investigated
(Demerouti, 2014). We hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2. Servant leadership positively associates with job crafting.
1.2.1. Servant leadership as a moderator of the burnout-job crafting relationship.
Next to a positive direct relationship, we include servant leadership as a moderator of the
burnout-job crafting relationship. Schaufeli and Greenglass (2001) note that people who provide
social support might “alleviate burnout because they provide important informational, practical,
and emotional benefits to workers” (p.505). Social support may come from many resources,
including leaders. Some studies pointed at the particular importance of servant leadership for
employees’ psychological health in terms of emotional exhaustion and cynicism or
depersonalization (Hunter et al., 2013; Rivkin, Diestel, & Schmidt, 2014; Tang, Kwan, Zhang, &
Zhu, 2016). While in these studies servant leadership was shown to reduce feelings of emotional
exhaustion and cynicism, in the current study, we investigate servant leadership as a moderator
of the relationship between the burnout components and job crafting. More specifically, we argue
that servant leaders may provide a social context that amplifies the likelihood that employees at
risk of burnout engage in resource acquisition by means of job crafting. Based on job crafting
theory and building on COR theory, we expect employees to take advantage of servant leadership
in the face of burnout symptoms (Berg et al., 2008; Hobfoll, 1989). Therefore, next to its role as an
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
132
antecedent of job crafting, we also expect servant leadership to facilitate, and hence moderate the
relationship between burnout and job crafting. Servant leaders’ pre-occupation with and primary
focus on the follower instead of the organization, makes servant leaders especially relevant in the
realm of job crafting which concerns an individual strategy to optimize personal goals. Given that
servant leaders care about personal problems and the well-being of employees, they might help
employees in recognizing burnout symptoms and stimulate them to act upon these in order to
recover from demands or to acquire resources. They provide employees with the needed
autonomy and empowerment to initiate changes to the job in order to optimize their functioning
(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). To, Fisher and Ashkanasy (2015) recently supported the
assumption that a negative mood is most strongly and positively related to creativity among
employees who perceive that they are empowered.
We expect high servant leadership to pronounce the inverted U-shaped association between
emotional exhaustion and job crafting. More specifically, building on COR-theory, we argue that
servant leadership is especially relevant at the early stage of emotional exhaustion. At that stage,
employees might still be able and willing to invest their time and energy in order to protect, retain
and accumulate resources. In addition, we expect high servant leadership to increase the
threshold above which a further increase of emotional exhaustion results in a decline in job
crafting. At high levels of emotional exhaustion, we assume that employees’ energy is severely
depleted to such an extent that even servant leaders cannot mitigate the consequences. Taken
together, we expect:
Hypothesis 3a. Servant leadership moderates the curvilinear relationship between emotional
exhaustion and job crafting such that the inverted U-shaped relationship is more pronounced
when servant leadership is high.
Furthermore, we expect servant leadership to buffer the negative relationship between
cynicism and job crafting. Through one-to-one communication, servant leadership might help
employees to put things into perspective (Hobfoll, 1989) and might encourage them to actively
and constructively cope with feelings of cynicism. Through changing task and cognitive
boundaries of work for instance, employees might enhance meaning to their work (Wrzesniewski,
& Dutton, 2001). From a COR perspective, servant leaders might help and allow employees to deal
with cynicism in a more constructive way by means of job crafting (Demerouti, 2014; Lee &
Ashforth, 1996; Petrou et al., 2015). In sum:
Hypothesis 3b. Servant leadership buffers the negative relationship between cynicism and job
crafting.
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
133
Finally, we expect servant leadership to boost the positive relationship between personal
accomplishment and job crafting. Servant leaders help employees to grow, succeed and achieve
their full potential (Liden et al., 2008). In addition, when employees are not experiencing strain,
they will be motivated to gain and accumulate resources and therefore, they call on available
resources (COR; Hobfoll, 1989). Servant leaders might reinforce the positive relationship between
feelings of personal accomplishment and job crafting as they strengthen employees by granting
them autonomy and challenge them to bring out the best of themselves (Schaufeli, 2015; Van
Dierendonck, 2011). Hence, we expect:
Hypothesis 3c. Servant leadership boosts the positive relationship between personal
accomplishment and job crafting.
2. Methods
Procedure and Sample
We collected data among Belgian employees in Autumn 2016 to test our hypotheses. By
means of a flyer on job crafting we convinced 14 organizations to participate in our data collection.
A week before launching our first questionnaire, we announced our study via a general email. We
invited 2223 employees to fill out our online survey through a personalised email (16.15%) or via
a general link to the survey that was distributed by the organizations if we did not have access to
the email addresses (83.85%). We informed participants on the content of the questionnaire,
emphasized that participation was voluntary and could be terminated at any point of time. We
also provided contact information of both the research responsible in case of questions and the
ethical committee in case of complaints.
Of the 2223 employees, 675 started our questionnaire15 (response rate: 30.36%). The final
sample included 603 employees of which 583 employees provided complete data. The average
age of the participants was 38.85 years (SD=10.97). The sample consisted of 26% men. The
participants worked on average 10.16 years (SD= 9.72) in their current job. The majority yielded
a bachelor or master degree (70%). They worked in diverse sectors such as the health care sector,
public service sector, retail services, financial services and education.
15 We provided the questionnaire both in Dutch and French for five organizations because they included also native French speaking employees. Respondents could choose between the two languages when starting the questionnaire. The Dutch questionnaire was translated into French by means of a translation-back translations process in collaboration with the translation department of one of the organizations. We did not establish measurement invariance of the study variable scores across the two language groups. Therefore, we excluded the 72 native-French speaking employees from the sample to avoid bias due to language differences.
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
134
Measures
Burnout. We used the 14-item Dutch Utrecht Burnout Scale (UBOS; Schaufeli & van
Dierendonck, 2000) to measure the three components of burnout. Emotional exhaustion measures
feelings of energy depletion by means of five items. Example item: “I feel emotionally drained from
my work”. Cronbach’s alpha was satisfactory (α=.91). Cynicism measures feelings of
disengagement and depersonalization from one’s work by means of four items (α=.89) such as ‘I
have become less enthusiastic about my work’. Personal accomplishment reflects feelings of efficacy
to conduct work (5 items; α=.79). An example item is “I can effectively handle job related
problems”. All items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (0) never to (6)
always/every day.
Servant leadership. We measured servant leadership using the SL-7 of Liden et al. (2015). The
SL-7 is a short global measure of overall servant leadership that captures each of the seven
dimensions of the original SL-28 scale (Liden et al., 2008) with seven items such as “My leader can
tell if something work-related is wrong” and “My leader gives me the freedom to handle difficult
situations in the way that I feel is best” (α=.83). The English items were translated to Dutch via a
translation-back translation process. This Dutch scale was previously used in Malingumu et al.
(2016). The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) Disagree to (5) Agree.
Job crafting. Job crafting was measured with the overarching job crafting scale (OJCS) of
Vanbelle et al. (2016), consisting of four items. More specifically, we asked the participants: Some
people make changes in their job, others do not. By means of the following statements, we want to
investigate to what extent you shape your job. Please register to what extent you do the following: ‘I
make changes in my job to feel better’, ‘I change my job so it would better fit with who I am’, ‘I make
changes in my job to perform better’, and ‘I change my job so it would better suit with what I think
is important’. The items were rated on a 7-point frequency scale ranging from (1) never or seldom
to (7) daily. Vanbelle, et al. (2016) demonstrated construct validity, convergent and discriminant
validity in relation to specific job crafting scales, and predictive validity of the OJCS.
Control variables. To date, no clear impact of demographics on job crafting has been shown,
Nevertheless, we measured educational level, age, tenure and gender as potential control
variables. Employees with a higher educational level might report higher scores on job crafting
given that they are more likely to hold jobs with higher levels of autonomy, and therefore higher
opportunities to craft (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). However, there is also evidence that blue
collar workers engage in job crafting (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012). In addition, extant studies
reveal mixed arguments regarding age and tenure in relation to job crafting. On the one hand,
older employees and employees with a longer tenure are assumed to more often craft their job as
they might be more aware of both the possibilities to craft and their own needs and interests
(Berdicchia, Nicolli, & Masino, 2016). On the other hand, long tenured employees might be used
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
135
to their job and perceive it as a fixed entity, and hence less often craft their job (Berdicchia et al.,
2016). Previous research does not suggest that men or women craft their job more often.
Educational level was dummy-coded such that ‘0’ represented employees who attained a primary
or secondary school degree (i.e. low- and middle-educated) and ‘1’ employees who attained a
bachelor or master degree (i.e. high-educated). Gender was dummy-coded such that ‘0’
represented women and ‘1’ men. After inspecting the correlation matrix (Table 1), we decided
only to include educational level as a control variable for hypotheses testing. Age, tenure and
gender did not significantly correlate with job crafting and were therefore excluded from further
analyses (Becker et al., 2015).
Analyses
Prior to testing our hypotheses, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Mplus
7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2015) to test whether the hypothesized five factor model (emotional
exhaustion, cynicism, personal accomplishment, servant leadership and job crafting) fitted our
data. In addition, we tested two alternative models in which we fitted components of burnout on
two and one latent factors respectively. We compared these models with the hypothesized model
based on the AIC and BIC, which represents the balance between the number of parameters (i.e.
model complexity) and model fit (Aiken, West, & Reno, 1991).
To test our hypotheses, we conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses in MPlus
7.4 (Muthén, & Muthén, 1998-2015), in line with previous studies on curvilinear relationships and
interactions (Janssen, 2001; Lin et al., 2014; Qin et al., 2014). As recommended by Dawson (2014),
we mean-centered the control, independent and moderator variables before entering them in the
analyses. We created the linear interaction terms by multiplying the mean-centred independent
variables with the moderator variable servant leadership. We multiplied the predictor-squared
variables with the moderator to create the curvilinear interaction terms. Then, we conducted the
analyses in a hierarchical manner, following Janssen (2001), as we subsequently introduced the
control variable (Step 1), independent variable(s) (IV; Step 2), IV-squared variables to test for the
quadratic effect (Step 3), moderator (Step 4), linear interaction term (Step 5), and curvilinear
interaction term to test for the moderated curvilinear effect (Step 6). We first ran the series of
analyses for emotional exhaustion, cynicism and personal accomplishment separately. To ensure
that cynicism and personal accomplishment did not relate to job crafting in a curvilinear way, we
also entered their quadratic forms into the regressions. In addition, we ran the series of analyses
(Step 1-6) for the three components simultaneously. Here, we only entered the significant
curvilinear and moderated curvilinear effects derived from the separate analyses. In all analyses,
we applied the robust maximum likelihood estimator MLR to account for the non-normal
distribution of the observed variables (Byrne, 2012).
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
136
3. Results
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
According to the results of the CFA, the hypothesized five factor model with emotional
exhaustion, cynicism, personal accomplishment, servant leadership and job crafting
demonstrated a good fit to our data and will guide our hypotheses testing (χ²=657.07, df=265,
scaling correction factor=1.16; RMSEA=.05; CFI=.94; TLI=.94; SRMR=.05; AIC=44031.51;
BIC=44405.68). In addition, the five factor model provided a better fit than the alternative four
factor model in which emotional exhaustion and cynicism loaded on one latent factor (χ²=1427.13,
df=269, scaling correction factor=1.15; RMSEA=.08; CFI=.83; TLI=.82; SRMR=.07; AIC=44902.16;
BIC=45258.71) and the alternative three factor model in which the three burnout components
loaded on one factor (χ²=2101.29, df=272, scaling correction factor=1.14; RMSEA=.11; CFI=.74;
TLI=.71; SRMR=.10; AIC=45658.61; BIC=46001.96).
Hypotheses Testing
In Table 1, we present the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, means, standard deviations and
correlations of all studied variables. We ran a series of separate analyses for respectively
emotional exhaustion, cynicism and personal accomplishment to test our hypotheses. Following
Janssen (2001; see also Baer & Oldham, 2006; Leung et al., 2011), we displayed the standardized
regression coefficients (β) of both the model at the indicated step (“entry β”) and the full model
(“final β”) in Table 2. To test our hypotheses, we interpret the standardized regression coefficients
at the relevant step (Petrocelli, 2003).
Our first set of analyses concerned the relationship between each burnout component and
job crafting. More specifically, we expected emotional exhaustion to relate to job crafting in an
inverted U-shaped manner (Hypothesis 1a), cynicism to negatively relate to job crafting
(Hypothesis 1b) and personal accomplishment to positively relate to job crafting (Hypothesis 1c).
Contrary to expectations, emotional exhaustion positively associated with job crafting. The
quadratic effect of emotional exhaustion was only marginally significant in the “entry model” (β=-
.12, p=.07, 95%CI=[-.25;.01]) after controlling for educational level16. The results did not
corroborate Hypothesis 1a. In addition, we expected a negative relationship between cynicism
and job crafting. Contrary to expectations, cynicism did not relate to job crafting (β=-.04, p>.05).
Therefore, Hypothesis 1b was rejected. As expected, personal accomplishment was positively
associated with job crafting (β=.27, p<.001), confirming Hypothesis 1c. To ensure that cynicism
16Remarkably, if we do not control for educational level, the quadratic effect is significant in the “entry model” (β=-.15, p<.05, 95%CI=[-.28;-.02]).
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
137
and personal accomplishment did not relate to job crafting in a curvilinear way, we entered their
quadratic terms in Step 3 of the analyses. These quadratic terms were not significant.
In Hypothesis 2, we hypothesized that servant leadership would positively relate to job
crafting. A separate regression analysis revealed that servant leadership positively related to job
crafting over and above educational level (β=.20; R²=.06, p<.01), confirming Hypothesis 2. In
addition, the results showed a positive main effect of servant leadership in addition to emotional
exhaustion (β=.22, p<.001; ΔR²=.04), cynicism (β=.22, p<.001; ΔR²=.04), personal accomplishment
(β=.14, p<.001; ΔR²=.02) and the respective quadratic terms.
In a third set of analyses, we introduced servant leadership as a moderator of the relationship
between the burnout components and job crafting. First, we expected the curvilinear inverted U-
shaped relationship between emotional exhaustion and job crafting to be more pronounced when
servant leadership was high. Our results supported the hypothesis that servant leadership
moderated the curvilinear relationship between emotional exhaustion and job crafting (β=-.27,
p<.01, ). We used the unstandardized regression coefficients to interpret the interaction plot
(Dawson, 2014). As expected, Figure 1 shows a steeper increase in job crafting in moving from
low to medium levels of emotional exhaustion under conditions of high servant leadership. Above
a certain threshold of emotional exhaustion, however, a further increase only associates with a
slight, less clear-cut, decrease in job crafting. Hence, servant leadership especially pronounces the
sharp increase in job crafting when moving from low to medium emotional exhaustion. For low
servant leadership, the relationship between emotional exhaustion and job crafting is far more
modest and almost linear in nature. Our results provide support for Hypothesis 3a. The
relationship between emotional exhaustion and job crafting is curvilinear in nature under
conditions of high servant leadership.
Servant leadership did not moderate the relationship between cynicism and job crafting (β=-
.07, p>.05; ΔR²=.00), thereby rejecting Hypothesis 3b. Finally, we expected servant leadership to
boost the positive relationship between personal accomplishment and job crafting such that
employees experiencing personal accomplishment will craft their job more often under
conditions of a high servant leader. Our results revealed a significant linear interaction of servant
leadership with personal accomplishment in relation to job crafting (β=.11, p<.01; ΔR²=.01). The
interaction plot (Figure 2), based on unstandardized regression coefficients, showed that for high
servant leadership, personal accomplishment more strongly relates to job crafting. At low levels
of personal accomplishment, however, the difference in servant leadership seems to matter less
in relation to job crafting scores. Hypothesis 3c was supported.
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
138
Table 1
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, means, standard deviations and correlations (N=603)
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Tenure 10.12 9.72 -
2. Age 38.92 10.97 .66*** -
3. Gendera .26 .44 .16*** .25*** -
4. High-educatedb .70 .46 -.06 .08 .09* -
5. Exhaustion 2.50 1.37 .01 -.09* .01 .05 (.91)
6. Cynicism 1.97 1.29 .002 -.05 .07 .07 .56*** (.89)
7. Personal
accomplishment 5.40 1.07 .12** .17*** .03 -.05 -.21*** -.36*** (.79)
8. Servant leadership 3.43 .74 -.11*** -.10* -.09* -.15*** -.25*** -.39*** .22*** (.83)
9. Job crafting 3.01 1.64 -.006 .06 .03 .15** .11* -.03 .26*** .16*** (.94)
Note. aDummy-coded: 1= men, 0 = women. bDummy-coded: 1= Bachelor or Master degree, 0=primary or secondary school degree.
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
139
Table 2
Hierarchical regression analyses of job crafting on each burnout component as independent variable
(IV), servant leadership as moderator, quadratic effects of the IV, interaction and moderated
quadratic effects (N=583).
Job crafting (DV)
Emotional exhaustion
(IV)
Cynicism (IV) Personal
accomplishment (IV)
Variablesa “entry”
β
“final”
β
ΔR² “entry”
β
“final”
β
ΔR² “entry”
β
“final”
β
ΔR²
Step 1
High-
educatedb .15*** .16** .02 .15*** .18*** .02 .15*** .18*** .02
Step 2
IV .10* .22*** .01 -.04 .13† .00 .27*** .23*** .08
Step 3
IV-squared
-.12† -.17* .01 -.09 -.10 .01 .04 .07 .00
Step 4
Servant
leadership .22*** .33*** .04 .22*** .22*** .04 .14** .14** .02
Step 5
IV x Servant
leadership -.04 .13 .01 -.07 - .00 .11** .11** .01
Step 6
IV-squared x
Servant
leadership -.27** -.27** .01 .06 - .00 .07 - .00
R² .10*** .07*** .13***
Note. Standardized regression coefficients (β) of the model at the indicated step (entry β) and
the full model (final β) are displayed. Given that Step 5 and Step 6 did not add to Step 4 for the
analyses with cynicism and Step 6 did not add to Step 5 for the analyses with personal
accomplishment, we display the coefficients of Step 4 and Step 5 respectively. aControl
variables, predictors and the moderator were mean-centered. bDummy-coded: 1= Bachelor or
Master degree, 0=primary or secondary school degree. †p<.10; *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
140
Figure 1. Moderating effect of servant leadership on the curvilinear relationship between
emotional exhaustion and job crafting, controlling for educational level (two-way quadratic
interaction with continuous moderator)
Figure 2. Moderating effect of servant leadership on the relationship between personal
accomplishment and job crafting, controlling for educational level (two-way interaction)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Low Emotional exhaustion High Emotional exhaustion
Job
cra
ftin
g
Low
Servant
leadership
High
Servant
leadership
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
Low Personal
accomplishment
High Personal
accomplishment
Job
cra
ftin
g
Low Servant
leadership
High Servant
leadership
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
141
In addition to the separate regression analyses for emotional exhaustion, cynicism and
personal accomplishment, we ran the stepwise analyses for the three components simultaneously
to present a more strict test of our hypotheses. The results were similar to the separate analyses,
except for the linear interaction between personal accomplishment and servant leadership which
was only marginally significant.
4. Discussion
The overall aim of this study was to dig into the puzzling relationship between burnout and
job crafting in two ways. First, we explored both linear and curvilinear associations of the three
burnout components with job crafting. Second, we introduced servant leadership both as an
antecedent of job crafting and as a moderator of the burnout-job crafting relationship. In what
follows, we elaborate on the main contributions of our findings to the literature.
Main Contributions
The current study contributes to the literature in at least three ways: (1) we investigated the
burnout-job crafting relationship and made a distinction between the three burnout components
to explore both linear and curvilinear relationships with job crafting, (2) we conceived job crafting
as a social embedded behaviour as we included servant leadership, and (3) we used COR as a
relevant theoretical framework.
4.1.1. The burnout-job crafting relationship.
We expanded the understanding of the burnout-job crafting relationship. So far, burnout has
been scarcely related to job crafting in different ways (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012; Hakanen,
Seppälä, & Peeters, 2017; Tims et al., 2013; Petrou et al., 2015). Nielsen and Abildgaard (2012)
and Tims et al. (2013) modelled burnout as a consequence of job crafting. To date, only Petrou
and colleagues (2015) included the reversed path and showed that emotional exhaustion also
tends to increase protective job crafting strategies. Some scholars model job crafting as a
moderator (Hakanen et al., 2017; Demerouti, Bakker, & Leiter, 2014). Hakanen et al. (2017), for
instance, recently demonstrated that “expansive job crafting”, a job crafting construct that only
refers to resources and challenges seeking, can be efficient in preventing burnout in the face of
demanding or stressful situations. Similarly, Demerouti, et al. (2014) hint at the moderating role
of job crafting in the burnout-performance relationship. They demonstrated that the employee’s
engagement in selection, optimization and compensation (SOC) strategies might buffer the
negative consequences of burnout symptoms on performance. Whereas these studies hint at a
buffering role of job crafting in preventing negative outcomes of burnout (Demerouti et al., 2014)
or in preventing job demands to result in burnout, we took another stance and probed whether
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
142
and when employees at risk of burnout will engage in job crafting. This adds to the extant
literature in which job crafting is mainly examined as an individual strategy in relation to optimal
functioning.
In addition, we included the three burnout dimensions to conduct a nuanced investigation of
the burnout-job crafting relationship (Maslach et al., 2001). Our findings add to the assumption
that different burnout dimensions reveal different relationships with behavioural outcomes (Lee
& Ashforth, 1996). The distinction between the inability and unwillingness to describe the core
dimensions of burnout, made by Schaufeli and Taris (2005), might shed light on our findings.
Emotional exhaustion, especially resulting from long-term exposure to excessive demands, refers
to the depletion of energy and hence, the inability to invest energy. Cynicism or disengagement on
the other hand, resulting from lacking resources, refers to the unwillingness to invest energy. We
argue that professional efficacy or personal accomplishment reflects the belief that one is able to
conduct work effectively and therefore is rather related to ability than to willingness.
Interestingly, we only found significant burnout-job crafting relationships and interaction effects
of servant leadership for the “ability-related” components, namely emotional exhaustion and
personal accomplishment. More specifically, our results suggest that a certain amount of “ability”
is needed in order to craft.
Contrary to our expectations, the results revealed a positive linear (only marginally
curvilinear) association between emotional exhaustion and job crafting after controlling for
educational level if we do not consider the moderating role of servant leadership. One explanation
for not finding the expected curvilinear effect might concern power-issues. It is possible that we
obtained too few data points at the upper level of the scale, a common finding in burnout research
(Demerouti et al., 2014), to observe the inverted U-shaped curvilinear relationship of emotional
exhaustion and job crafting. Notably, we did establish a significant curvilinear association when
we did not control for educational level, suggesting that educational level and emotional
exhaustion shared some variance in explaining job crafting. This finding calls for further
investigation in future research. An alternative explanation for the nonsignificant curvilinear
relationship includes the need for facilitating conditional factors to establish or pronounce a
significant relationship, such as having a servant leader as we demonstrated in the current study.
At low levels of servant leadership, the relationship between emotional exhaustion and job
crafting was modest, and rather linear in nature. At high levels of servant leadership, however, we
found a curvilinear relationship between emotional exhaustion and job crafting. Emotional
exhaustion may signal a suboptimal situation or resource loss, which may trigger employees to
craft a more desirable situation. However, employees seem to be able to craft only at initial levels
of exhaustion (i.e. low to medium), presumably because they still have sufficient resources (e.g.
energy) to invest in crafting. However, when employees become too exhausted, resource or
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
143
energy depletion is more severe which might disable them to engage in job crafting. After a
threshold of emotional exhaustion, job crafting might stagnate and even tend to decrease. Next to
emotional exhaustion, personal accomplishment can be conceived as an indication of employees
ability to engage in job crafting. We expected and found that personal accomplishment positively
relates to job crafting in a direct linear way. The lower the level of personal accomplishment – or
the higher reduced personal accomplishment which indicates burnout –, the lower employees’
beliefs about their ability to conduct work, and hence the lower their job crafting.
The difference between emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment in relation to job
crafting might be theoretically framed in COR. Emotional exhaustion indicates potential loss of
resources which might urge employees to craft at initial levels of exhaustion. The initial threat of
emotional exhaustion might energize employees to craft, but the actual loss (at medium or higher
levels) would refrain employees from further resource investment in job crafting (Hobfoll, 1989),
hinting at a curvilinear relationship. Personal accomplishment, to the contrary, is a positively
framed construct which adds to the available resources employees have to invest in crafting,
hinting at a positive linear relationship. The more resources employees have at hand, the more
likely they will be to invest these resources to protect or gain future resources (Hobfoll, 1989).
Our findings did not support the negative relationship between cynicism, the component
related to unwillingness and withdrawal, and job crafting. The nonsignificant relationship might
again hint at more complex relationships. Given that cynical employees are highly resistant and
unwilling in putting any effort in their work, it might be especially challenging to motivate
employees to deal with cynicism in constructive ways. On the other hand, cynical employees may
have engaged in constructive job crafting attempts in the past but opted to abandon this strategy
because of ineffectiveness (Lee & Ashforth, 1996). In addition, future research could investigate
whether other contextual or personal resources might be more helpful in helping employees to
translate feelings of cynicism into job crafting behaviour.
4.1.2. Job crafting as a socially embedded phenomenon.
We model job crafting as a socially embedded phenomenon (Solberg & Wong, 2016).
Although job crafting is an individual-oriented construct, it also benefits from a supportive
environment which might be installed by a servant leader (Berg et al., 2008; Demerouti, 2014;
Liden et al., 2008). Our findings reveal that servant leadership directly relates to job crafting. In
addition, servant leadership seems to act as a valuable resource that helps employees to engage
in job crafting in the face of burnout (i.e. emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment). At
high levels of servant leadership, emotional exhaustion showed the expected inverted U-shaped
curvilinear relationship. Especially at an early stage of emotional exhaustion, servant leaders thus
seem to help employees to translate feelings of emotional exhaustion into job crafting. Similarly,
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
144
servant leadership amplified the positive relationship between personal accomplishment and job
crafting. Servant leaders empower employees and stimulate them to growth and succeed (Liden
et al., 2008) which might reinforce employees’ likelihood to invest feelings of accomplishment into
job crafting. In the current study, servant leadership did not moderate the cynicism-job crafting
relationship. Cynical employees hold a negative attitude towards work which is reflected in a
detached response to their work and to the individuals with whom employees interact (Bakker &
Costa, 2014). Hence, it is possible that cynical employees distance themselves from their leaders
too.
4.1.3. COR as a relevant theoretical framework.
COR theory demonstrated to be a relevant theoretical framework in studying the burnout-job
crafting relationship. COR holds the main premise that “people strive to retain, protect, and build
resources” and that the “potential or actual loss of valued resources” threatens humans most
(Hobfoll, 1989, p.516). In the current study, personal accomplishment and servant leadership
might be framed as resources. Emotional exhaustion and cynicism can be seen as indications of
potential or actual resource loss. Job crafting can be framed as a strategy to enable oneself to gain
resources, to buffer stress and to restore energy levels to prevent resource depletion (Hakanen et
al., 2017).
According to COR, resource loss might trigger two relevant processes, namely resource
conservation and resource acquisition (Qin et al., 2014). Resource conservation implies that
employees will be unlikely to invest time and energy in order to protect remaining resources,
relating to withdrawal behaviour. Resource acquisition is needed to gain additional resources, to
face and recover from losses and to protect against future loss. Experiencing loss can “serve as a
prompt for employees to create and initiate tactics that assure their functioning despite their
resource shortfall” (Demerouti et al., 2014, p.98). Emotional exhaustion represents resource loss
and might therefore trigger employees to deal with it by means of job crafting (Halbesleben &
Bowler, 2007). However, investing in resource gain through job crafting requires a certain amount
of energy or other resources (e.g. job resources, social resources, personal resources) to invest,
implying that employees need a minimum amount of resources in order to be able to craft. We
provide empirical evidence for the assumption that the supervisor has an important role to play
in creating positive conditions to engage in job crafting (Demerouti, 2014; Petrou et al.; 2015; Qin
et al., 2014). More specifically, servant leadership is a valuable resource as it helps employees to
invest available resources in job crafting behaviour. This in turn might help employees to acquire
resources, to recover from job demands or to prevent further resource loss (Ng & Feldman, 2012).
Future research should investigated whether job crafting in this realm indeed leads to positive
consequences and decreases feelings of initial emotional exhaustion. In addition, personal
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
145
accomplishment may be conceived as a personal strength to invest in job crafting, and might be
expected to acquire additional resources. Lee and Asfhorth (1996) refer to a mutually reinforcing
mechanism between personal accomplishment and forms of control coping such as job crafting.
This also aligns with the so-called concept of resource caravans (Hobfoll, 1989).
Whereas on the one hand, initial resource loss might trigger employees to prevent additional
loss by means of resource acquisition such as job crafting, on the other hand we may also suggest
that more severe conditions of resource loss, for instance cynicism, will result in more selective
resource investment or resource conservation. Cynical employees are typically unwilling to invest
any effort into work and might be more likely to engage in withdrawal behaviour and resource
conservation. Demerouti et al. (2014) for instance argue that cynical employees will be more likely
to focus on core tasks. In the current study, servant leadership did not seem to provide cynical
employees with the necessary resources to engage in job crafting. However, future research might
explore other job-, climate-based or personal resources that might help cynical employees to
recover from loss and to restore their willingness to put effort into work.
Limitations and Future Research Avenues
We want to discuss five aspects to shed light on strengths and limitations of the current study
and to direct future research avenues. First, the cross-sectional design might be addressed as a
potential limitation of the current study because we cannot make assumptions on the temporal
precedence of the studied variables. However, in the current study we were especially interested
in the immediate, linear or curvilinear, association between burnout components and job crafting
to examine whether and when employees at risk of burnout engage in job crafting. Our results
might probe different process models in which these study variables relate in a dynamic way.
Future research might investigate the optimal time lag to include in-between measurements of
our study variables, ranging from several hours to days (Tims et al., 2014), several weeks (Tims
et al., 2013), a couple of months (Lu et al., 2014) or even a year (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012;
Petrou et al., 2015).
Second, we collected data from a single source which may yield the risk of social desirable
answers and inflated relationships due to common-method bias. To avoid or reduce this risk, it is
recommended to collect multi-source data, for instance self-reports and colleague- or supervisor-
reports (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). However, we relied on self-reported
measurements because employees themselves are probably the best persons to report on their
feelings of emotional exhaustion, cynicism and personal accomplishment, as well as on job crafting
(Tims et al., 2013; Demerouti et al., 2015; Liden et al., 2013). Employees’ perceptions, well-being
and behaviours are central to all our study variables and are difficult to be correctly evaluated by
others. Although servant leadership might also be measured through supervisor-reports, we
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
146
argue that especially the employees’ subjective experience of their supervisor as being a servant
leader matters in influencing their behaviour. We aimed to minimize risks owing to social
desirability by guaranteeing confidentiality and by relying on discretionary participation.
Third, our sample included a large proportion high-educated (70%) and female (74%)
employees which might limit the heterogeneity of the data, and therefore the generalizability of
our findings. We entered educational level as a control variable in our analyses showing that
higher educated employees more often engaged in job crafting. A possible explanation for this
positive association is that high educated employees are more likely to hold jobs with high levels
of autonomy and thus might perceive higher opportunities to craft (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,
2001). In addition, high educated employees might score high in cognitive ability, resulting in
stronger self-regulatory capabilities and a stronger involvement in the goal-setting process
(Parker, Bindl & Strauss, 2010). Future research could include the educational level more
explicitly in the hypothesized model and investigate its role in relation to job crafting (Becker et
al., 2015). In addition, future research should examine whether the association between
educational level and job crafting is influenced by the measurement of job crafting, which might
be less suited for low-educated employees (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012). Gender did not relate
significantly to job crafting in the current study.
Fourth, we conducted the analyses with manifest variables (Maslowsky, Jager, & Hemken,
2015) and used MLR, a robust estimator to deal with non-normal data. Future research could
strive for more power and invest in data collection among employees ranging for low-risk to high-
risk of burnout. Motivating employees running intermediate-risk and high-risk of burnout to
participate in survey research, might be especially challenging because of two reasons. First,
employees with excessive levels on exhaustion and cynicism are plausibly absent from work or
about to drop out. Second, employees scoring high on exhaustion, are assumed to be more
selective in the tasks they conduct and might choose to focus on formal tasks to fulfil their job
requirements instead of doing extra’s such as filling out surveys (Demerouti et al., 2014; Ng &
Feldman, 2012). In future data collections, participating in a questionnaire on work-related well-
being and work-related demands and resources, might be presented as a means to enact voice.
However, this might only work under specific, supportive conditions (Qin et al., 2014). Previous
research showed that employees scoring high on emotional exhaustion might engage in
prohibitive voice under the condition of job security and a high interactional justice climate.
Exhausted employees might be encouraged to express their concerns and difficulties, for instance
by completing a questionnaire (Qin et al., 2014), when they believe that supervisors and
management will listen to the results and act upon it by initiating attempts to create additional
resources and reduce exhausting factors (Qin et al., 2014). A bigger sample size and more data-
points at the right hand side of the burnout continuum would enable more advanced statistical
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
147
analyses such as structural equation modelling including latent interaction and quadratic effects
(Marsh, Wen, Hau, & Nagengast, 2013). Nevertheless, our results reveal a first contribution on the
burnout-job crafting relationships and the role of servant leadership and call for further
investigation. More specifically, our findings suggest future research to investigate the linear and
curvilinear relationships between burnout components and job crafting, and to include the
moderating role of both contextual and personal resources (Leung et al., 2011).
Finally, in the current study, our specific interest was to dig into the relationship from
burnout to job crafting. Nevertheless, alternative or additional models might be subject for future
investigation. Future research could investigate the dynamic relationships among our study
variables. For instance, one should examine whether job crafting as a response to emotional
exhaustion also brings along the expected consequences, namely an optimization of one’s
functioning. In addition, one could further invest boundary conditions that stimulates job crafting
benefitting both employees and employers (Demerouti et al., 2014; Petrou et al., 2015). Another
avenue for future research might be to explore the role of job crafting in the process of burnout.
For instance, assuming that emotional exhaustion causes cynicism (Maslach et al., 2001), one
could investigate whether job crafting might buffer the relationship from exhaustion to cynicism
and therefore aid in preventing employees to burn out.
Conclusion and Practical Implications
In sum, our findings demonstrated significant relationships between two burnout
dimensions, namely emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment, and job crafting. Job
crafting might thus be relevant in demanding situations and in case of suboptimal functioning. In
addition, high servant leadership showed to be a positive condition for enacting job crafting at the
early stages of emotional exhaustion and amplifies the positive relationship between personal
accomplishment and job crafting.
To conclude, our study sheds light on two practical implications. First of all, our results show
that employees are not always able or willing to engage in job crafting. Moreover, when there is
high emotional exhaustion, cynicism and reduced personal accomplishment, more formal or top-
down approaches are needed to install the necessary circumstances for energy recovery. This
brings us to emphasize the importance of qualitative traditional, top-down job design aimed at
preventing burnout and enhancing work engagement by providing a good balance between job
demands and job resources. Job crafting should be conceived as a complementary bottom-up
redesign approach to optimize one’s functioning. Second, our findings emphasize the important
role of supervisors. Organisations might for instance train leaders to act as true servants (Liden
et al., 2008). This might increase the likelihood that employees at early stages of burnout are
encouraged to deal with it and prevent further deterioration. In addition, servant leadership might
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
148
help employees to set job crafting goals and grant them the needed empowerment and support to
persevere in goal striving, even when facing difficulties or adversity.
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
149
5. References
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., & Reno, R.R. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Baer, M., & Oldham, G.R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time
pressure and creativity: moderating effects of openness to experience and support for
creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 963-970. DOI: 10.1037/0021-
9010.91.4.963
Bakker, A.B., & Costa, P.L. (2014). Chronic job burnout and daily functioning: a theoretical analysis.
Burnout Research. DOI: 10.1016/j.burn.2014.04.003
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A.I. (2014). Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD-R
Approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1,
389-411. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235.
Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2010). Positive Occupational Health Psychology. In: S., Leka, & J.,
Houdmont (Eds.). Occupational Health Psychology (pp.194-224). UK: John Wiley & Sons
Ltd.
Bakker, A.B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of
job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65(10), 1359-1378. DOI:
10.1177/0018726712453471
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
Becker, T.E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J.A., Carlson, K.D., Edwards, J.R., & Spector, P.E. (2015). Statistical
control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational
researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 157-167. DOI: 10.1002/job.2053
Berdicchia, D., Nicolli, F., & Masino, G. (2016). Job enlargement, job crafting and the moderating
role of self-competence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 318-330. DOI:
10.1108/JMP-01-2014-0019
Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2008). What is job Crafting and Why Does It Matter?
University of Michigan: Centre of Positive Organizational Scholarship.
Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work. In: B.J. Dik,
Z.S. Byrne, & M.F. Steger (Eds). Purpose and Meaning in the Workplace (pp.81-104).
American Psychological Association.
Byrne, B.M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus. Basis concepts, application, and
programming. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Chen, C.Y., Yen, C.H., & Tsai, F.C. (2014). Job crafting and job engagement: The mediating role of
person-job fit. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, 21-28. DOI:
10.1016/j.JIHM.2013.10.006
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
150
Chen, L., Zhang, L., & Zhao, N. (2015). Exploring the nonlinear relationship between challenge
stressors and employee voice: The effects of leader-member exchange and organisation-
based self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 24-30. DOI:
10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.043
Dawson, J. (2014). Moderation in Management Research: What, Why, When, and How. Journal of
Business Psychology, 29, 1-19. DOI: 10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7
Demerouti, E. (2014). Design Your Own Job Through Job Crafting. European Psychologist. Advance
online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000188
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2015). Productive and counterproductive job
crafting: A daily diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online
publication. DOI: 10.1037/a0039002
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Leiter, M. (2014). Burnout and Job Performance: The Moderating Role
of Selection, Optimization and Compensation Strategies. Journal of Occupational Health
Psycholoy, 19(1), 96-107. DOI: 10.1037/a0035062
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The Job Demands-Resources
Model of Burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512). DOI: 10.1037/0021-
9010.86.3.499
Gagné, M., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2013). Self-Determination Theory’s Contribution to Positive
Organizational Psychology. In: A.B. Bakker (Ed.). Advances in Positive Organizational
Psychology. Volume 1. (p.61-82). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Grant, A.M., & Parker, S.K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and
proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317-375. DOI:
10.1080/19416520903047327
Hakanen, J., Seppälä, P;, & Peeters, M.C.W. (2017). High Job Demands, Still Engaged and Not Burned
Out? The Role of Job Crafting. International Journal for Medicine. DOI: 10.1007/s12529-
017-9638-3
Halbesleben, J.R.B., & Bowler, W.M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The
mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 93-106. DOI: 10.1037-
0021-9010.92.1.93
Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P.A., & Price, T.F. (2013). Does negative affect always narrow and positive
affect always broaden the mind? Considering the influence of motivational intensity on
cognitive scope. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 301-307. DOI:
10.1177/0963721413481353
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989). Conservation of Resources. A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress.
American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
151
Hunter, E.M., Neubert, M.J., Perry, S.J., Witt, L.A., Penney, L.M., & Weinberger, E. (2013). Servant
leadership inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the
organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 316-331. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001
Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between
job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal,
44(5), 1039-1050.
Lee, R.T., & Ashforth, B.A. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three
dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 123-133.
Leung, K., Huang, K., Su, C., & Lu, L. (2011). Curvilinear relationships between role stress and
innovative performance: Moderating effects of perceived support for innovation. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 741-758. DOI:
10.1348/096317910X520421
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Meuser, J.D., Hu, J., Wu, J., & Liao, C. (2015). Servant leadership: Validation
of a short form of the SL-28. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 254-269. DOI:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.12.002
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Zao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a
multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161-
177.
Lin, B., Law, K.S., & Zhou, J. (2014). Why is underemployment related to creativity and OCB? A task
crafting explanation of the curvilinear moderated relations. Academy of Management
Journal (revision).
Lu, C.Q., Wang, H.J., Lu, J.J., Du, D.Y., & Bakker, A.B. (2014). Does work engagement increase person-
job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84, 142-
152.
Malingumu, W., Stouten, J., Euwema, M;, & Babyegeya, E. (2016). Servant leadership,
Organisational Citizenship Behavior and Creativity: The Mediating Role of Team-Member
Exchange. Psychologica Belgica, 56(4), 342-356. DOI: 10.5334/pb.326
Marsh, H.W., Wen, Z., Hau, K-T., Nagengast, B. (2013). Structural equation models of latent
interaction and quadratic effects. In G.R. Hancock & R.O. Mueller (Eds.). Structural equation
modeling: A second course, 2nd Edition (pp. 267-308). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job Burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,
397-422
Maslowsky, J., Jager, J., & Hemken, D. (2015). Estimating and interpreting latent variable
interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method.
Methods and Measures, 39(1), 87-96. DOI: 10.1177/0165025414552301
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
152
Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2015). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén
Ng, T.W.H., & Feldman, D.C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the
conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 216-234.
DOI: 10.1002/job.754
Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J.S. (2012). The development and validation of a job crafting measure
for use with blue-collar workers. Work & Stress, An International Journal of Work, Health
and Organisations, 26(4), 365-384. DOI: 10.1080/02678373.2012.733543
Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive
motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856.
Petrou, P. Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Job crafting in changing organizations :
antecedents and implications for exhaustion and performance. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 20(4), 470-480. DOI: 10.1037/a0039003
Petrocelli, J.V. (2003). Hierarchical multiple regression in counseling research: common problems
and possible remedies. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36, 9-
22.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-
569. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Qin, X., Direnzo, M.S., Xu, M., & Duan, Y. (2014). When do emotionally exhausted employees speak
up? Exploring the potential curvilinear relationship between emotional exhaustion and
voice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 1018-1041. DOI: 10.1002/job.1984
Rivkin, W., Diestel, S., & Schmidt, K.H. (2014). The positive relationship between servant
leadership and employees‘ psychological health: A multi-method approach. Zeitschrift für
Personalforschung, 28, 1-21. DOI: 10.1688/ZfP-2014-01-Rivkin
Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Engaging leadership in the job demands-resources model. Career
Development International, 20(5), 446-463. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-02-2015-0025
Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,
293-315. DOI: 10.1002/job.248
Schaufeli, W.B., & Greenglass, E.R. (2001). Introduction to special issue on burnout and health.
Psychology and Health, 16(5), 501-510. DOI: 10.1080/08870440108405523
Schaufeli, W.B., & Taris, T.W. (2005). The conceptualization and measurement of burnout:
Common ground and worlds apart. Work & Stress, 19(3), 256-262. DOI:
10.1080/02678370500385913
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
153
Schaufeli, W., & van Dierendonck, D. (2000). Utrechtse Burnout Schaal. Handleiding. Nederland,
Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.
Slemp, G.R., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2013). The job crafting questionnaire: A new scale to measure
the extent to which employees engage in job crafting. International Journal of Wellbeing,
3(2), 126-146. DOI: 10.5502/ijw.v3i2.1
Slemp, G.R., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2014). Optimising Employee Mental Health: The Relationship
Between Intrinsic Need Satisfaction, Job Crafting, and Employee Well-Being. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 15(4), 957-977. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-013-9458-3.
Solberg, E., & Wong, S.I. (2016). Crafting one’s job to take charge of role overload: when proactivity
requires adaptivity across levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 713-725. DOI:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.03.001
Tang, G., Kwan, H.K., Zhang, D., & Zhu (2016). Work-family effects of servant leadership: the roles
of emotional exhaustion and personal learning. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 285-297.
DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2559-7
Tims, M., & Bakker, A. (2010). Job Crafting: towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), Art. #841, 9 pages, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841
Tims, M., Bakker, A., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173-186. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources,
and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 230-240. DOI:
10.1037/a0032141
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy – performance
relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 490-505. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-05-
2012-0148
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2015). Job crafting and job performance: A longitudinal study.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 914-928. DOI:
10.1080/1359432X.2014.969245
Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person-job fit and
meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92(1), 44-53. DOI:
10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007
To, M., Fisher, C.D., & Ashkanasy N.M. (2015). Unleashing angst: Negative mood, learning goal
orientation, psychological empowerment and creative behaviour. Human Relations,
68(10), 1601-1622. DOI: 10.1177/0018726714562235
STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
154
Travaglianti, F., Babic, A., & Hansez, I. (2016). The role of work-related needs in the relationship
between job crafting, burnout and engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 42(1),
a1308. DOI: 10.4102/sajip.v42i1.1308
Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016). Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting
Scale (OJCS). Manuscript submitted for publication.
van Dam, K. (2013). Employee adaptability to change at work: A multidimensional, resource-
based framework. In: S. Oreg, A. Michel, & R.T. By (Eds.), The psychology of organizational
change: Viewing change from the employee’s perspective (pp.123-142). Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Van Dierendonck, D., (2011). Servant leadership: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Management,
37(4), 1228-1261. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310380462
Vogt, K., Hakanen, J. J., Brauchli, R., Jenny, G. J., & Bauer, G. F. (2016). The consequences of job
crafting: A three-wave study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
25(3), 353-362. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2015.1072170
Weseler, D., & Niessen, C. (2016). How job crafting relates to task performance. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 31(3), 672-685. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-05-2012-0148
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of
their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.
Yoshida, D.T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014). Does servant leadership foster creativity
and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality.
Journal of Business Research, 67, 1395-1404. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.013
GENERAL DISCUSSION
157
1. Time to Look Back and to Think Ahead
Job crafting refers to the self-initiated changes employees make to their job in order to
optimize their functioning. It emerges as a bottom-up perspective on job redesign in which
employees are conceived as active agents who customize their job according to personal needs
and abilities (Tims & Bakker, 2010) and to enhance meaning and identity (Wrzesniewski &
Dutton, 2001). As a specific form of proactive behaviour, job crafting is especially promising in the
light of the contemporary world of work in which aspects as self-regulation, employability and
flexibility of employees become increasingly important (Grant & Parker, 2009; Peeters, Taris, &
de Jonge, 2014). In addition, job crafting provides a potential interface with recent Belgian
legislative initiatives as it may offer a means for employees to establish customized, workable and
agile work, to deal with psychosocial risks at work, and to enhance one’s willingness to continue
working.
Especially the past five years, job crafting has become a blossoming topic within the field of
occupational health psychology. At the beginning of this PhD project, in 2012, there were only
about 15 contributions on job crafting of which the majority were qualitative studies. Following
the publication of the job crafting scale of Tims, Bakker, and Derks in 2012, more than 50
quantitative studies have been published, referring to job crafting in the title (Web of Science,
February 2017). The majority of these studies were published the past two years (14 in 2015 and
25 in 2016; cf. Appendix I.b). Some of the studies of this PhD project align with recently published
studies, demonstrating the convergence of ideas concerning this recent research topic. In this
concluding chapter, the general discussion of this PhD dissertation, we start from the two aims
and three propositions formulated in the general introduction (cf. Chapter 1) to look back on what
we have learned throughout this PhD and to think ahead on future research directions. We end
this Chapter with some practical implications and a brief conclusion.
2. Looking Back: Our Main Findings in the Light of Two Aims and Three Propositions
The aims of this PhD project were twofold. First, we aimed to clarify the concept of job crafting
(Proposition 1 – Study 1). Second, we aimed to explore the nomological network of job crafting in
general and our overarching job crafting construct in particular by including both antecedents and
consequences in our overall model17 (Proposition 2 & 3 – Study 1-4). As displayed in Figure 1,
across studies, we modelled optimal functioning as an outcome (e.g. willingness to continue
working, daily person-job fit) and suboptimal functioning as an antecedent (i.e. burnout) of job
17 Although our overall model suggests that the investigated relationships are causal in nature, the correlational methods and data that we used throughout the four empirical studies do not allow us to make causal inferences or conclusions. Hence, terms such as “antecedents” and “outcomes” are used having our overall hypothesized model in mind and do not refer to causal conclusions.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
158
crafting (Proposition 2). Additionally, we related both personal (i.e. personal growth initiative,
active emotions) and contextual (i.e. autonomy, workload, servant leadership) factors to job
crafting in our model (Proposition 3). In what follows, we discuss our findings in the light of these
aims and propositions.
Figure 1. Schematic overview of the studies in an overall model
2.1. The Concept of Job Crafting: Taking an Overarching Approach
(Aim 1 - Proposition 1)
Pioneering theoretical studies shed light on two different streams on job crafting, referring
to diverse definitions and types (Demerouti, 2014; Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton,
2001). In response, in Study 1, we opted to take an overarching approach. We define job crafting
as the self-initiated changes employees make to their jobs in order to optimize their functioning.
We use optimal functioning as an umbrella concept to refer to a wide range of individual outcomes
including work engagement, burnout, person-job fit, motivation and performance (Gagné &
Vansteenkiste, 2013; Oldham & Fried, 2016). In addition, to substantiate our overarching
conceptualization and to enable quantitative research on its nomological network, we developed
and validated the Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS). The development and validation of the
OJCS merits the literature because it (1) accounts for a broad range of relevant changes employees
may make to the job, and (2) it measures job crafting as a truly proactive behaviour by including
the inherent pro-self-focused purpose (Proposition 1). We showed that our overarching job
crafting construct can be reliably measured by means of four items, referring to making changes
to the job in order to enhance well-being, meaning, identity and performance. In line with
Proposition 1, our results demonstrated construct validity, convergent and discriminant validity
GENERAL DISCUSSION
159
of the OJCS in relation to other job crafting measurements (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013; Tims et
al., 2012). In addition, the OJCS showed to be predictive and incrementally valid in relation to
positive well-being and motivational outcomes. More specifically, the findings of Study 1,
described in Chapter 2, contribute to the underpinning of our overarching approach on job
crafting in three ways. First, our findings support the assumption that job crafting can include a
broad range of work-related changes. Second, we elaborate on the pro-self-focused purpose of job
crafting. Third, job crafting shows to be different from but related to positive individual outcome
variables. We elaborate on these three contributions and theoretical implications in the following
sections.
2.1.1. Job crafting includes a broad range of work-related changes.
Our findings shed light on the broad range of changes employees may make to their job by
means of job crafting. In the literature, scholars distinguish different types of job crafting including
crafting task, relational and cognitive boundaries of the job (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) as
well as crafting specific job demands and job resources (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Although job
crafting scholars acknowledge that many features of work may be subject to job crafting
(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), existing job crafting measurements prime employees with a
predetermined selection of specific changes (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick,
2013; Tims et al., 2012).
In our overarching approach, and in developing the OJCS, we made abstraction of these
specific job crafting types to leave room for personal interpretation of relevant job-related
alterations. Our qualitative pilot study displayed that the OJCS captures a diversity of changes. In
line with previous research (Lyons, 2008), especially task- or content-related alterations seemed
to be prominently subject to job crafting. Employees for instance implement new work methods,
request training opportunities and make changes in the amount and distribution of tasks. In
addition, employees indicated to craft relational aspects, cognitive boundaries through planning
and reflection as well as the physical work environment and temporal dimensions of work. Our
quantitative findings demonstrated convergence between the OJCS and the specific types of job
crafting measured by means of the job crafting scale of Tims et al. (2012) and the job crafting
questionnaire of Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (2013). In line with the qualitative findings, the largest
correlations were shown between the OJCS and task crafting, seeking challenging demands and
seeking structural resources. Importantly, although to a lesser extent, the OJCS also positively
related to hindrance crafting (e.g. redistributing or delegating tasks to deal with high workload,
simplify work methods) and cognitive crafting (e.g. reflecting on one’s person-job alignment or on
what one needs to feel good at work).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
160
Taken together, our overarching approach seems to capture behavioural as well as cognitive
forms of job crafting. This is in contrast with the JD-R approach of Tims et al. (2012) who focus
solely on actual or physical changes in the level of job demands or job resources. They conceive
the cognitive dimension rather as coping, referring to inner processes by means of which
individuals cognitively redefine their job or tasks (Demerouti, 2014). Following the argument of
Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (2013) our findings show that although “many types of job crafting
behaviours are indeed attempts to increase job resources and decrease demands…”, “…cognitive
crafting permits another avenue from which to exert some influence over one’s job” (p.128). In
addition, our approach also accounts for so-called context crafting, concerning alterations of the
physical work environment and of the timing and place of work (Van Vuuren & Dorenbosch,
2011). Hence, our results suggest that existing job crafting scales might miss out on many ways in
which employees craft their job. Accordingly, van den Heuvel, Peeters and Demerouti (2015)
noticed that employees may initiate numerous specific changes that might be so small and specific
that they are not captured by the current job crafting scales. We opted to develop an overarching
job crafting scale that leaves room for personal interpretation of personally relevant changes. A
potential limitation of our measurement, however, is that it does not allow to make a distinction
between concrete types of job crafting. Alternatively, future research could broaden the range of
personally relevant changes employees make to their job through job crafting, by developing
specific measurement scales. Although Chapter 2 provides a first step, additional qualitative
research could give raise to a more comprehensive categorization of the type of changes that
constitutes job crafting.
2.1.2. Job crafting includes a pro-self-focused purpose.
Job crafting can be conceived as a specific form of proactive behaviour including a pro-self-
focused purpose. Although job crafting scholars theoretically agree that the intent behind job
crafting is to “create different jobs for themselves” (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p.180) and to
“enhance personal (work) outcomes in the first place” (Tims & Bakker, 2010, p.2), this pro-self-
focussed purpose is hardly included in quantitative measurements. In the extant literature, only
some (preliminary) scales on job crafting integrate the purpose in a few of their items, such as “I
introduce new approaches to improve my work” (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013; and similarly
Leana, Appelbaum, & Shevchuk, 2009), “I introduce new work tasks that I think better suit my
skills or interests” (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013) or “I change my job to make it more fun”
(Kroon, Kooij, & van Veldhoven, 2013). The findings of our qualitative pilot study supported that
to be able to distinguish proactive behaviours, also the target of the behaviour should be taken
into account in addition to the initiator (i.e. the employee) and content (i.e. making changes to the
job; Belschak & den Hartog, 2010). When we inquired the target of merely changing work aspects,
GENERAL DISCUSSION
161
employees referred both to the self (e.g. “to monitor their resilience”, “to keep the job interesting”,
“to work more efficiently”) and to external reasons (e.g. “to solve technical problems”, “because they
have to”). These findings provide evidence for the importance to also include the pro-self-focused
purpose of job crafting in the OJCS, i.e. reference is made to optimizing one’s well-being, meaning,
identity and performance. Especially this pro-self-focused element is what makes job crafting
unique and different from other individual proactive behaviours such as personal initiative and
organizational citizenship behaviour (Demerouti, 2014; Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski &
Dutton, 2001).
Consequently, especially the included pro-self-focused element makes the OJCS unique in
comparison with other job crafting scales which especially focus on the change element. Following
our findings of Study 1, future research should investigate whether and to what extent the change-
element in the OJCS - also included in other scales - accounts for the convergent validity, and the
pro-self-focused purpose - unique for the OJCS - accounts for the discriminant validity of the OJCS
with other scales (e.g. Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013; Tims et al., 2012). In addition, it would be
relevant to include the recently validated scale of Niessen, Weseler and Kostova (2016), which
also explicitly addresses the pro-self-focused nature of job crafting. Notwithstanding some
differences, we would expect the OJCS to converge more strongly with Niessen et al.’s (2016) scale.
Whereas we refer to optimizing one’s well-being, meaning, identity and performance, they include
a more general purpose as they refer to “so the job suits me better”. In addition, we made
abstraction of the specific type of changes in the OJCS, whereas they ask participants to what
extent they engage in task, relational and cognitive crafting. Taken together, future research could
explore the added value of including a similar “so the job suits me better” (i.e. Niessen et al., 2016)
or referring to “optimizing one’s functioning in terms of well-being, meaning of work, fit of the job
with personal needs and abilities, or performance” (i.e. OJCS) in existing job crafting scales.
Additionally, measurements focusing solely (or mainly) on the change-element of job crafting (e.g.
Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013; Tims et al., 2012) could be compared to (new) measurements
including both the change- and purpose element.
2.1.3. Job crafting and positive outcome variables.
In the context of validating the OJCS, it is important to investigate whether the OJCS differs
from and is predictive for optimal functioning. The findings of Study 1 demonstrated that although
we include the purpose of optimizing one’s functioning in the OJCS, the measured construct
differed from optimal functioning indicated by positive outcomes such as work engagement,
enjoyment, autonomous motivation and in-role performance. Hence, even though employees
make changes with the intent to optimize their functioning, it is still relevant to investigate
whether job crafters actually experience optimal functioning (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
162
In addition, the OJCS was predictive for positive outcomes (i.e. optimal functioning) such as
work engagement, enjoyment and autonomous motivation. An exception was the nonsignificant
relationship with in-role performance, which was contrary to our expectations based on previous
studies (e.g. Bakker, Tims & Derks, 2012). In line with recent literature, our findings suggest that
the relationships between job crafting and positive outcomes are -in general- more
straightforward, whereas the relationships between job crafting and negative outcomes seem to
be more complex. We did not find any significant relationship over time with negative outcomes
(i.e. suboptimal functioning), but we did find some cross-sectional relationships between burnout
and job crafting. We more thoroughly elaborate on these findings in the next section of this
chapter on job crafting and (sub)optimal functioning.
2.2. Job Crafting and (Sub)optimal Functioning (Aim 2 - Proposition 2)
The second proposition of this PhD project concerned the relationships between job crafting
and (sub)optimal functioning such that (1) job crafting is modelled as an antecedent of
(sub)optimal functioning and (2) (sub)optimal functioning is modelled as an antecedent of job
crafting.
2.2.1. Job crafting modelled as an antecedent of (sub)optimal functioning.
Job crafting and optimal functioning. Throughout Study 1 to Study 3, our findings
demonstrate positive relationships between job crafting and optimal functioning in different
samples. We used optimal functioning as an umbrella concept and found that job crafting related
to positive indicators of well-being (e.g. work engagement, work enjoyment) and work-related
attitudes (e.g. person-job fit, autonomous motivation, willingness to continue working)
longitudinally and/or cross-sectionally, but not to performance. Our findings might be explained
in different ways.
First, by means of job crafting employees invest in energizing or motivating aspects of work
which fosters goal attainment, personal growth and hence, establishes feelings of work
engagement and work enjoyment (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel,
2014). Our findings in Study 1 contribute to the positive relationship between job crafting and
work engagement which is posited to be “the most consistent finding in job crafting research”
(Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2017, p.1). It has been found in cross-sectional (Brenninkmeijer,
& Hekkert-Koning, 2015; Chen, Yen, & Tsai, 2014; Demerouti, Bakker, & Gevers, 2015; Tims et al.,
2012), longitudinal (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013a; Harju, Hakanen,
& Schaufeli, 2016; Vogt, Hakanen, Brauchli, Jenny, & Bauer, 2016) as well as in within-person level
studies (Demerouti, Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015; Petrou, Demerouti, Peeteres, Schaufeli, &
Hetland, 2012; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2014).
GENERAL DISCUSSION
163
Second, by means of job crafting employees invest in the alignment of their jobs with personal
needs, preferences, values and abilities (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2001) and
hence, contribute to person-job fit and motivational outcomes. The alignment is expressed in a
positive relationship with person-job fit, and - contributing to previous studies (Chen et al., 2014;
Lu, Wang, Lu, Du, & Bakker, 2014; Tims, Derks, & Bakker, 2016) - even on a daily basis as
demonstrated in Study 3.
Third, the investment in the person-job alignment might shed light on the positive relationship
between job crafting and motivational indicators such as the willingness to continue working
(Study 2) and autonomous motivation (Study 1). In Study 2, 45 plus-aged-employees who engaged
in job crafting, were more likely to be willing to continue working until retirement age. Building
on the selective optimization and compensation theory (Baltes & Dickson, 2001), job crafting
might be conceived as a successful aging strategy by means of which employees seek job features
that fit age-related needs, preferences and interests (Stamov-Roβnagel & Hertel, 2010) and hence
balance the work environment with age-related changes (Robson & Hansson, 2007, in Zacher &
Frese, 2011). Hence, job crafting can be a way to meet the needs of the specific workforce of
45plus-employees (Demerouti, 2014). The publication of recent studies establishing relationships
between job crafting and the motivation of older employees to continue working also illustrates
its relevance (Kooij, Tims, & Kanfer, 2015; Lichtenthaler, & Fischbach, 2016). Furthermore, job
crafting is a way to give meaning to the job through aligning the job with personal needs, values
and goals (Tims et al., 2016; Wrzesniewski, LoBuglio, Dutton, & Berg, 2013), and hence promotes
the process of internalization establishing autonomous motivation (Gagné, & Panaccio, 2014). To
our knowledge, no other research is published on job crafting in relation to autonomous
motivation. Some studies do tap into basic need satisfaction of Self-Determination Theory (SDT;
see for example Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2014). Exploring the underlying mechanisms of SDT,
including internalization and need satisfaction, might enhance our understanding of the
relationship between job crafting and specific types of motivation and optimal functioning.
We did not find a relationship between job crafting and in-role performance in Study 1.
However, given that job crafting can be a way to enable better performance (cfr. one of the items
of the OJCS: “I make changes in my job in order to perform better”), to be more efficient or to make
one’s job more interesting (cfr. qualitative pilot study, Chapter 1), we expected a positive
relationship (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2015a). At least three aspects contribute to our
understanding of this nonsignificant finding. First, in-role performance could be a more distal
outcome of job crafting. Only some quantitative studies established direct relationships (Gordon,
Demerouti, Le Blanc, & Bipp, 2015; Leana et al., 2009; Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015; Slemp
& Vella-Brodrick, 2013). The majority of previous studies on the job crafting-performance
relationship, however, showed that job crafting indirectly related to job performance via work
GENERAL DISCUSSION
164
engagement (Bakker et al., 2012; Demerouti, Bakker, & Gevers, 2015; Demerouti, Bakker, &
Halbesleben, 2015; Tims, et al., 2015a). Hence, it is possible that the positive relationship between
job crafting and in-role performance especially exists via work engagement. This assumption
should be further investigated in future research. Second, the specific change context of the
sample might have influenced the relationship between job crafting and performance in our data.
Given that our measurements took place during and just after the merger of different
departments, employees’ job crafting might rather be “targeted at finding appropriate ways of
responding to, dealing with, or coping with [the] new situation” (Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli,
2015, p.471). Hence, adaptivity to change might have been a more appropriate outcome variable
in this sample (Peeters, Arts, & Demerouti, 2016; Petrou, Demerouti, & Häfner, 2015). Third, both
positive and negative processes may underlie the nonsignificant relationship between job
crafting, as measured by the OJCS, and performance. On the one hand, organisational change might
trigger employees to seek additional resources to be able to maintain performance (Petrou,
Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015). On the other hand, however, organisational change of high impact,
such as the merger of departments in our sample, may exhaust or threaten employees resources.
This might trigger employees to conserve resources and to deploy protective strategies such as
(temporally) reducing the scope of tasks or distancing themselves from the demanding situation
(Gordon et al., 2015; Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015), which could impede their task
performance. In addition, exhausted employees appeared to be more likely to invest their limited
resources in seeking social support, enhancing other types of performance such as interpersonal
extra role behaviour (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007) or altruism (Demerouti, & Bakker, &
Halbesleben, 2015) instead of in-role performance. These counterbalancing (i.e. positive and
negative) processes might have cancelled each other out.
Job crafting and suboptimal functioning. Although job crafting has been consistently
related to positive outcomes, the relationship with negative outcomes provides more mixed
results and seems to be more complex. Within this PhD project, we only established a negative
correlation between job crafting and cynicism. One explanation is that job crafting is a positively
framed construct that arose within positive psychology (Bakker & Derks, 2010) and might
especially operate in positive spirals. Employees might mainly craft their job in order to enhance
positive outcomes (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013), rather than to avoid negative outcomes.
Second, job crafting might relate to negative outcomes in both a positive and negative way,
resulting in nonsignificant or small effects. By means of job crafting employees might for example
take on extra tasks with the intent to make their job more challenging or interesting. Whereas in
some cases this job crafting behaviour might indeed counter negative outcomes such as turnover,
in other cases this might bring unintended negative experiences such as an increase in demands
and additional stress (Berg, Dutton & Wrzesniewski, 2008). Alternatively, the mixed results may
GENERAL DISCUSSION
165
hint at more complex relationships such as curvilinear relationships, as explored in Study 4 or at
the role of personal and contextual factors (will be discussed in Section 1.3.). Finally, the potential
bi-direction of the relationship might bring about nonsignificant cross-sectional results: job
crafting may lead to less negative outcomes (negative relationship), while negative outcomes may
motivate job crafting (positive relationship), at least to some extent or under specific conditions.
We elaborate on this reversed (sub)optimal functioning – job crafting relationship in the following
section.
2.2.2. (Sub)optimal functioning modelled as an antecedent of job crafting.
So far, the reversed relationship, namely from (sub)optimal functioning to job crafting,
received less research attention. On the one hand, optimal functioning (i.e. positive indicators)
might trigger job crafting to maintain or improve optimal functioning (Tims et al., 2015a;
Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2017). On the other hand, suboptimal functioning or
malfunctioning (i.e. negative indicators) might trigger job crafting to fulfil unsatisfied needs
(Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2001), and to recover from or to avoid further resource loss (Hobfoll,
1989).
Overall, our findings, albeit investigated cross-sectionally, seem to suggest that employees
might engage in job crafting starting from both optimal and suboptimal functioning, but they need
a minimum of resources, in the form of energy (i.e. active emotions), personal characteristics (i.e.
personal growth initiative) or contextual factors (i.e. servant leadership), to be able to do so. This
idea aligns with the basic premise of the Conservation of Resources Theory (COR, Hobfoll, 1989)
positing that people’s conservation and acquisition of resources are influenced by the amount of
resources employees have at hand (i.e. “resource backups”; Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2017,
p.11). Our findings showed for instance that employees experiencing active emotions on a specific
day are more likely to engage in job crafting that day. Active emotions, regardless of their valence,
entail a high amount of motivational intensity which might energize or urge them to translate
these emotions into behaviour, such as job crafting18. In addition, at early stages of emotional
exhaustion, employees who are confronted with feelings of emotional exhaustion are more likely
to engage in job crafting. At relatively low levels of emotional exhaustion, employees might still
have sufficient energy to invest in job crafting. However, this seems to be the case up to a certain
level. Above that threshold, energy might be depleted and hence, employees become unable to
craft their job (Hobfoll, 1989). Essentially, these findings were more pronounced in the condition
of high servant leadership (i.e. contextual resource) emphasizing the importance of contextual
18 We posited affective states as individual characteristics in Study 3, but affect might also be conceived as an indication of employees’ functioning (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). The results may thus also inform us about the (sub)optimal functioning – job crafting relationship.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
166
factors in amplifying resource backups, and hence facilitating job crafting in demanding
conditions. We will elaborate on the role of contextual factors in the next section (cfr. Section 1.3.).
Contrary to our expectations, we did not find significant relationships between cynicism and
job crafting. Perhaps, counterbalancing underlying mechanisms provide an explanation for this
non-significant finding. On the one hand, cynicism and job crafting could be expected to relate
negatively. Cynicism is characterized by the unwillingness to invest any effort in work (Schaufeli
& Taris, 2005), which might discourage employees to engage in job crafting, and hence, might
result in negative relationships. In previous studies, cynical employees were more likely to
withdraw from work and to engage in protective or avoiding job crafting such as reducing the
scope of tasks or avoiding cognitive and emotional demanding aspects at work (i.e. hindrance
crafting; Tims et al., 2012). On the other hand, cynicism and job crafting could be expected to relate
positively because cynicism might signal an undesirable situation, triggering employees to craft a
better one. However, building on COR, we assume that cynical employees would only be able to
craft when they have sufficient – and also relevant – resources at hand. In our study, servant
leadership did not succeed in helping employees to translate feelings of cynicism into job crafting.
In sum, future research is needed to dig into the reversed relationships between (sub)optimal
functioning and job crafting which so far have hardly been investigated in the extant literature.
Only recently, Harju et al. (2016) and Hakanen, Peeters and Schaufeli (2017) examined the
relationships between different types of well-being and job crafting across time. They found that
different types of well-being relate to job crafting, albeit in different ways. Based on our findings,
we concluded that in order to expand our understanding of the relationship between (sub)optimal
functioning and job crafting, it seems to be important to take into account the resources
employees have at hand. Hakanen, Peeters and Schaufeli (2017, p.11) refer to “different backups
of resources”. In the specific case of burned-out employees, the environment may need to provide
additional job resources as demonstrated in Study 4. We elaborate on this in the following section.
2.3. Contextual and Personal Factors (Aim 2 - Proposition 3)
The third and final proposition included that both personal and contextual factors relate to
job crafting such that both (a) personal and (b) contextual factors can be modelled as antecedents
of job crafting and that both (c) personal and (d) contextual factors moderate the relationship
between (sub)optimal functioning and job crafting.
2.3.1. Main effects of personal and contextual factors (antecedents).
Although job crafting happens “all around us” (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p.180), not
every employee may feel inclined to make changes to their job in every context. Our results indeed
showed that both personal and contextual factors positively related to job crafting. More
GENERAL DISCUSSION
167
specifically, our findings shed light on the importance of three personal (i.e. active emotions and
personal growth initiative in Study 3, personal accomplishment in Study 4) and two contextual
factors (i.e. active jobs in Study 2, servant leadership in Study 4).
Personal factors. First, daily active emotions positively related to daily job crafting. On days
when employees experienced positive or negative active emotions they were more likely to craft
their job (i.e. within-person level analysis). Both negative and positive active emotions are
momentary individual states that include a high level of motivational intensity. They seem to
energize people to enact job crafting, regardless of the emotions’ valence (Harmon-Jones, Gable,
& Price, 2013). Our results highlight the importance of the activation dimension of the circumplex
model of affect (Russell, 1980).
Second, broadening the functional classification perspective on individual characteristics, we
demonstrated that individuals who scored on personal growth initiative (PGI) were more likely
to engage in daily job crafting compared to individuals who scored low on PGI. PGI can thus be
conceived as a personal strength that includes human agency which enables individuals to act
upon the environment and hence, engage in job crafting (Luthans & Youssef, 2007; van Dam,
2013). Employees who intentionally engage in the process towards personal growth, are more
likely to be proactive, and hence to craft their job (Parker et al., 2010) because they know what
goals to aim for and how to reach them (i.e. thinking & envisioning) and plan behavioural
enactment (i.e. planning & mastering) (Robitschek, 1998). Furthermore, we found that PGI
indirectly relates to daily person-job fit via daily job crafting. A stronger intentional engagement
in the goal-setting process might enhance the likelihood that employees act upon their
environment by means of job crafting and hence, establish positive outcomes such as person-job
fit (Parker et al., 2010; van Dam, 2013).
Third, employees experiencing feelings of personal accomplishment were more likely to
engage in job crafting (Study 4). Theoretically, this component is similar to the concept of self-
efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001), including human
agency that helps employees to actively encounter the environment for example by means of job
crafting (Tims et al., 2014). Hence, personal accomplishment can be conceived as a personal
resource that enables employees to craft. Reduced feelings of personal accomplishment constitute
the third component of burnout.
Contextual factors. In this PhD project, active jobs characterized by autonomy and workload
(Study 2) and servant leadership (Study 4) were found to be contextual factors that positively
related to job crafting. First, in Study 2, we contributed to the literature on the activation
hypothesis of Karasek (1979) by showing that active jobs yield positive relationships with the
behavioural outcome job crafting. Our results are in line with previous research of Petrou et al.
(2012) who demonstrated positive relationships between active jobs and job crafting at a daily
GENERAL DISCUSSION
168
level. Different from Petrou et al.’s (2012) findings, our results only established positive main
effects.
Second, in Study 4, we shed light on the social embeddedness of job crafting and
demonstrated the positive role of servant leadership in relation to job crafting. Although job
crafting is an individual-oriented construct, it also benefits from a supportive environment
installed by a servant leader (Berg et al., 2008; Demerouti, 2014; Liden, Wayne, Zao, & Henderson,
2008). We argue that especially servant leadership is relevant in supporting job crafting because
of their preoccupation with and primary focus on bringing out the best in their followers (Van
Dierendonck, 2011). Servant leaders care about employees’ well-being, they put subordinates
first and empower them to use their autonomy, to take initiative and to make decisions. They help
followers to reach their full potential and to function optimally (Liden et al., 2008) and hence, may
encourage job crafting. Although many job crafting scholars hint at the supportive role of the
supervisor (Berg et al., 2008; Demerouti, 2014; Hakanen, Peeters & Schaufeli., 2017), empirical
evidence on this relationship remains scarce (Hakanen & Mutanen, 2014; Lyons, 2008; Solberg &
Wong, 2016) and deserves future research attention.
Indirect effects. Our results of Study 2 and Study 3 also tap into the indirect effects of positive
conditions (i.e. autonomy, positive active emotions) versus negative conditions (i.e. workload,
negative active emotions) via job crafting to individual outcomes19. More specifically, our findings
hint at different mechanisms for positive versus negative conditions. Especially the relationships
starting from the negative conditions merit further elaboration. Workload and negative active
emotions showed to negatively relate to outcomes such as the willingness to continue working
and daily person-job fit, respectively. However, they also showed to have positive indirect
relationships with these outcomes through job crafting. Job crafting thus showed to be a strategy
to constructively deal with negative conditions. For example, although employees who experience
a high amount of workload in their job are less willing to continue working until retirement age,
they might be triggered to actively deal with the amount of workload, for example by seeking
additional resources, which in turn might positively relate to their willingness to continue
working. Similarly, even though employees are less likely to experience person-job fit on days
when they experience negative active emotions, they might be urged or energized to actively deal
with these emotions, for example by changing their initial work schedule in order to solve the
issue, which in turn might positively relate to their perceived daily person-job fit. Hence, it might
be interesting to increase our understanding on how employees experiencing negative conditions
can be helped to actively deal with these conditions by means of job crafting. In doing so, given
19 Given that daily fluctuations in work-related emotions are assumed to result from daily situations at work (Affective Events Theory; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), we group emotions under the heading of “conditions” to elaborate on our findings concerning the indirect relationships starting from emotions and job characteristics via job crafting to individual outcomes.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
169
that job crafting consumes energy, it might be necessary to provide employees with extra
resources to enable crafting in highly demanding circumstances (Hakanen, Peeters & Schaufeli,
2017). We tapped into this by demonstrating the moderating role of PGI (Study 3) and servant
leadership (Study 4).
2.3.2. Personal and contextual factors as opportunities to craft (moderators).
In addition to their main effects in relation to job crafting, PGI and servant leadership also
moderated the relationship between (sub)optimal functioning and job crafting. In Study 3,
employees scoring high on PGI were less dependent on daily fluctuations in their emotions to craft
their job. This finding is similar to Ilies, Scott and Judge (2006) who found that employees who
scored high on trait agreeableness engaged more in daily organisational citizenship behaviours
and were less dependent on daily experienced positive affect. Again, employees with the largest
resource pools, namely employees who score high on PGI and high on active emotions, seemed to
craft their job most.
In Study 4, servant leadership boosted the relationship of two burnout components (i.e.
emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment) with job crafting. Especially at early stages
of emotional exhaustion, servant leadership seems to help employees to translate feelings of
emotional exhaustion into job crafting. However, when employees become too exhausted, job
crafting stagnates and even tends to slightly decrease, even when they have a servant leader. In
addition, empowering employees and stimulating them to growth and succeed (i.e. servant
leaders, Liden et al., 2008) reinforces employees’ likelihood to invest feelings of accomplishment
into job crafting. We did not find significant effects for the relationship between cynicism and job
crafting. An explanation might be that cynical employees distance themselves from their leaders
because they hold a negative attitude toward work which is reflected in a detached response to
their work and to the individuals with whom employees interact (Bakker & Costa, 2014). Future
research could investigate whether other resources such as personal resources or non-work
resources can help cynical employees to engage in job crafting.
Building on the conservation of resources theory, the findings suggest that PGI and servant
leadership provide employees with extra resources that might be invested in job crafting in both
resourceful and demanding circumstances. In all, “job crafting is about resourcefulness” and about
“taking advantage of the resources at hand” (Berg et al., 2008, p.5).
2.4. Theoretical Considerations: Taken Together
Throughout this PhD project, we added to the literature by clarifying the concept of job
crafting (aim 1) and by exploring the nomological network of job crafting including both
GENERAL DISCUSSION
170
antecedents and consequences in our overall model (aim 2). In what follows, we summarize what
we have learned.
2.4.1. Aim 1: Clarifying the concept of job crafting.
We clarified the concept of job crafting building an overarching approach, developing an
overarching job crafting scale and investigating reliability and validity issues in preliminary
qualitative data and quantitative data. Within this PhD project, we positioned job crafting as a
specific form of proactive behaviour that captures a broad range of changes employees may
initiate to their job with a pro-self-focused purpose. Our approach offers an alternative lens on job
crafting to the literature and might be especially relevant to investigate a general job crafting
construct and its surrounding mechanisms (see some studies using a composite, general job
crafting construct: Tims et al., 2016; Vogt et al., 2016; Travaglianti, Babic, & Hansez, 2016).
Future research could examine the relative importance of the change-element and purpose-
element of job crafting. Although we emphasize the need of both elements to define, investigate,
and distinguish job crafting from other proactive behaviours, not all scholars agree with this view.
Only recently, Niessen et al. (2016) also take the pro-self-focused purpose into account. The
existence of different traditions and approaches of behaviour is not that uncommon. Little (2013)
for instance elaborates on two research traditions within the literature on aggression: a tradition
which typifies aggression in terms of specific behavioural acts (i.e. overt behaviour versus
relational behaviour) and a tradition which includes the functional purpose of these behavioural
acts (i.e. instrumental versus reactive function). Whereas the first tradition attempts to broaden
the understanding about the kinds of aggressive behaviours, the second tradition seeks to
understand the underlying motives that give rise to the behaviour in the first place. However,
whereas in the case of aggression, it is rather clear that concrete behaviours are acts of aggression,
we argue it is less evident to state that the concrete changes employees make to their job are per
definition acts of job crafting and not refer to other proactive behaviours such as personal
initiative or organizational citizenship behaviour. Although there might be some overlap between
these proactive behaviours, the intent behind it is different (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), and
hence including the intent is an added value. For example, employees engaging in personal
initiative, might initiate changes in work methods or raise ideas to primarily solve problems and
improve the organization’s functioning. An avenue for future research would be to examine how
different approaches might strengthen each other and hence, expand our understanding of job
crafting. The pro-self-focused purpose could for instance be added to the job crafting scale of Tims
et al. (2012), similarly to Niessen et al. (2016). Alternatively, scholars may develop new
measurements of job crafting including a broad arrange of changes (e.g. based on qualitative or
GENERAL DISCUSSION
171
intervention research; for an example see van den Heuvel et al., 2015) and making the inherent
pro-self-focused purpose explicit.
2.4.2. Aim 2: Exploring the nomological network of job crafting.
We showed that job crafting especially related to positive individual outcomes, namely work
engagement, enjoyment, autonomous motivation, the willingness to continue working until
retirement age and person-job fit. In addition, our findings suggest that employees might engage
in job crafting starting from both optimal and suboptimal functioning, and in both positive and
negative conditions. Employees however need a minimum of resources in terms of energy, human
agency, or a supportive environment, to be able to do so. Optimal functioning can be conceived as
a resourceful state, indicating that people possess resources to invest in resource maintenance
and resource gain, by means of job crafting. Active emotions energize employees to craft in the
short run, namely on a daily level. The high motivational intensity provides energy to immediately
invest in job crafting. PGI includes a general personal strength that provides employees with
human agency to actively encounter the environment and to intentionally engage in the process
towards personal growth, and hence job crafting (Robitschek, 1998). Moreover, PGI made
employees less subject of daily fluctuations in active emotions to engage in daily job crafting
behaviour. Furthermore, servant leadership provides a supportive environment for employees’ job
crafting. We argued that especially servant leadership is a relevant leadership style to relate to job
crafting because of the primary focus on employees’ well-being and development. Finally, in the
case of emotional exhaustion, indicating resource loss or depletion, employees benefitted from
having a servant leader. More specifically, servant leaders enabled employees at early stages of
emotional exhaustion to translate these feelings into job crafting. Servant leadership also
reinforced the positive relationship between personal accomplishment (the reversed third
component of burnout) and job crafting. Whereas personal accomplishment, comparable to the
personal resource self-efficacy, fosters employees’ human agency, servant leadership installs a
supportive environment for the employee, accumulating resources to invest, and amplifying the
positive relationship between personal accomplishment and job crafting.
In this PhD project, we found mixed results concerning the relationship between cynicism
and job crafting. Perhaps, we did not include the vital resources cynical employees needed to
engage in job crafting. Future research might explore personal resources as well as contextual
resources that might help employees to translate feelings of cynicism in constructive job crafting.
2.4.3. Some final theoretical considerations.
Throughout this PhD, we used several theoretical frameworks to build hypotheses and
explain our findings. Although these theoretical frameworks include different nuances, they have
GENERAL DISCUSSION
172
in common that they tap into the employees’ reason and/or available resources to invest in job
crafting. In Study 2, we build on the selective optimization and compensation theory (Baltes &
Dickson, 2001) as well as on the activation hypothesis (Karasek, 1989) to introduce job crafting
as a successful aging strategy in the context of active jobs. In Study 3, we broadened the functional
classification perspective on individual characteristics in relation to proactive behaviour (Wu,
Parker, & Bindl, 2013) and argued that also relatively malleable individual characteristics (i.e. PGI
and active emotions) fulfil the needed functions to engage in job crafting via the mechanisms of
energy and human agency. In Study 4, we used the conservation of resources theory to elaborate
on the relationships between burnout which indicates resource loss, servant leadership as an
available resource, and job crafting which refers to resource acquisition or conservation (COR;
Hobfoll, 1989). In this section, we summarize how COR provides a relevant overall framework for
future research on job crafting and we briefly introduce a short research note on the affect-
proactivity relationship (see Appendix VI).
First, in discussing the overall findings within this PhD project, COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989)
showed to be a relevant theoretical framework to further examine the relationships between job
crafting and both positive and negative circumstances. COR holds the main premise that “people
strive to retain, protect, and build resources” and that the “potential or actual loss of valued
resources’ threatens humans most (p. 516). Positive circumstances can be conceived as resources,
while negative circumstances as indications of potential or actual loss. Job crafting can be framed
as a strategy to enable oneself to gain resources, to buffer stress and to restore energy levels to
prevent resource depletion (Hakanen, Peeters & Schaufeli, 2017). However, employees seem to
need resources in the form of job characteristics (i.e. autonomy, servant leadership), personal
characteristics (i.e. PGI, personal accomplishment), or energy (i.e. active emotions) to be able to
craft. Therefore, providing sufficient resources and installing so-called resource caravans or
“back-ups” (Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2017, p.11), enhances the likelihood that employees
engage in job crafting to optimize their functioning. A challenging question for future research
might be how employees who lack the necessary resources to craft still can be supported in
finding their way to job crafting, and optimizing their functioning.
Second, our study on the relationship between emotions and job crafting motivated us to
elaborate on the broader affect-proactivity relationship in a short research note (see Appendix
VI). Affect can be described within a circumplex, as an integral blend of two dimensions, namely
the valence dimension ranging from negative to positive, and the activation dimension ranging
from passive to active. We started from the literature in which, to date, there are two main streams
making predictions on the impact of affect or emotions on proactive behaviour, namely the
broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2004) and the motivational intensity perspective
(Harmon-Jones et al., 2013). Whereas the broaden-and-build perspective stresses the importance
GENERAL DISCUSSION
173
of the valence of emotions because of a broadened attentional scope when experiencing positive
emotions, the motivational intensity perspective stresses the importance of the activation
dimension of affect in stimulating proactive behaviour because of narrowed attentional scope
when experiencing active emotions. However, although at first sight these perspectives might
seem contradictious, we argue (theoretically) that the current literature on the affect-proactivity
literature might benefit from an integration of the broaden-and-build and motivational intensity
perspectives. Both approaches foster our understanding on the function of affect in relation to
both cognitive and behavioural elements of proactivity, but presumably at another level within
another timeframe. At a general level, investigated by means of cross-sectional or longitudinal
studies, we expect the valence dimension to have a dominant impact on proactivity. At a daily
level, however – as demonstrated in this PhD project –, the activation dimension might become
especially relevant in translating discrete experienced emotions into immediate behavioural
reactions, regardless of the valence of the emotion. Future research could elaborate on our
findings and on our theoretical thoughts described in Appendix VI.
2.5. Methodological Considerations
In this section, we want to address four methodological considerations which are important
to take into account when interpreting our results.
2.5.1. The Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS).
We formulated four double-barrelled items in a deductive way. Building on the literature, we
argued that job crafting consists of two core elements that we wanted to include in the
measurement. More specifically, we ask employees to what extent they initiate changes to their
job in order to feel better, to perform better, so the job would better suit who they are and fit with
what they think is important. One could raise the concern that the OJCS includes the underlying
purpose of optimizing one’s functioning which might bias research on its consequences. However,
intending to optimize functioning is not necessarily equal to actually succeeding in experiencing
or achieving optimal functioning (Parker et al., 2010). Although we could exclude overlap in our
studies by means of confirmatory factor analyses, we recommend future research to test for this
when using the OJCS in relation to positive outcomes. A second potential limitation of the OJCS is
that it does not allow to make a distinction between concrete types of job crafting. Hence, the OJCS
may especially be relevant when one is interested in the general concept of job crafting (e.g. Tims
et al., 2016; Vogt et al., 2016). A final aspect that should be considered when using the OJCS is the
choice of answering scale on which respondents have to rate the items. Throughout our studies
we used both a 5-point Likert scale from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree and a 7-point
frequency scale from (1) seldom or never to (7) daily. In the data samples collected at a later point
GENERAL DISCUSSION
174
within the PhD project, we opted to use a frequency scale. That allowed us to measure job crafting
as a true behaviour – instead of a general tendency – and to compare our overarching construct
with job crafting measured by means of other job crafting measurements using a frequency scale.
In addition, by means of a 7-point scale we wanted to allow participants to use more scale points
to rate their behaviour, thereby enhancing information richness (Weijters, Baumgartner, &
Anseel, 2016). A potential limitation of using a frequency scale, however, concerns the distribution
of job crafting which tends to be skewed such that more data points are collected at the lower side
of the scale. To deal with this non-normality, we used robust estimators in testing our hypotheses
(Byrne, 2012). We would recommend future research using the OJCS to carefully reflect on the
type of information one aims to collect, namely information on the general behavioural tendency
to engage in job crafting (i.e. individuals’ agreement with the items) or on the extent to which
employees engage in job crafting (i.e. frequency of individuals’ engagement in what the items
describe; Van Parys, 2016).
2.5.2. Samples.
We collected six different samples to test our hypotheses (Appendix IV). Sample A, a three-
wave dataset, was collected in a health care organisation and represented 82% of the employees
of the organisation (Study 1; NT1=423, NT1T2=313, NT2T3= 298). We used this dataset in validating
the OJCS. Important to note, during our data collection the organisation went through
organizational change which involved the merger of the three departments. This change context
might have influenced our findings on the predictive validity of the OJCS and more specifically the
nonsignificant relationship with in-role performance. Future research might aim to explore the
role of job crafting in different contexts (e.g. change context). Sample B was collected in our
personal network and consisted of 26, mainly high-educated, respondents (Qualitative pilot study
– Study 1). Sample C (Study 1, NT1=637, NT1T2=358) and D (Study 2, N=1168) were collected among
governmental employees. In Sample C, a two-wave dataset, we investigated the construct and
incremental validity of the OJCS in relation to other job crafting measurements. Sample D only
included employees aged between 45 and 65 years (Study 2). Future research might aim to
replicate these studies with a more heterogeneous sample such as non-public sector employees
(Study 1 & 2) and employees of a wider age span (Study 2). In Sample E, we conducted a daily
diary study among employees working in different organisations (N=116, observations=341).
Sample F (N=583) consisted of employees working in 14 different organisations. This sample
included a large proportion high-educated (70%) and female employees which might limit the
heterogeneity of the data and hence, the generalizability of the findings. We controlled for the
educational level in testing the hypotheses, showing that higher educated employees more often
engaged in job crafting. Until now, our knowledge on the impact of demographics in relation to
GENERAL DISCUSSION
175
job crafting is limited. Based on our findings in Study 4, future research could tap into the role of
educational level more thoroughly by including it more explicitly in the hypothesized model.
2.5.3. Study design, causality and dynamics.
We used different study designs throughout this PhD dissertation. Except for Study 1, we used
cross-sectional designs to test our hypotheses. Hence, we cannot be sure that the presumed
independent variables temporally preceded the dependent variables. It would be interesting to
tap into the dynamics and plausible reciprocal relationships between job crafting, optimal
functioning and opportunities to craft in future research. Extant empirical research for instance
seems to suggest that job crafting can be an antecedent (Tims et al., 2013a; Vogt et al., 2016) as
well as a consequence of (sub)optimal functioning (Hakanen, Peeters & Schaufeli, 2017; Harju et
al., 2016; Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015), a perspective we corroborate in this dissertation
too. Although we build our hypotheses based on theory, in Study 2, for example, one could
additionally hypothesize the reversed relationship, namely that willingness to continue working
would also motivate employees to craft their job towards more activating and stimulating jobs.
Despite theoretical, and first empirical, support for our hypothesized relationships, the
replication in longitudinal studies or experiments is warranted to provide empirical evidence on
the directionality of the relationships between the studied variables (Cook & Campbell, 1979).
Nevertheless, in the current dissertation, the cross-sectional designs allowed us to provide a first
answer on our research questions. Perhaps, in some studies within this dissertation, a longitudinal
design was not really necessary. In both Study 3 and Study 4 for instance, we were especially
interested in the concurrent association of active emotions and burnout with job crafting which
could be established by means of cross-sectional designs at a between-person (Study 4) or within-
person level (Study 3). In Study 3 and Study 4, we modelled daily active emotions and burnout
components respectively, as antecedents of job crafting. Future research could consider the use
of very short time-intervals, for instance two or three measurements within one day, to replicate
Study 3 and Study 4 taking the temporal precedence into account, or could test similar hypotheses
over the course of longer time intervals. So far, it remains unclear which time-interval would be
relevant. Longitudinal research on job crafting is still relatively scarce and extant studies use
diverse time-lags including one week (e.g. Tims et al., 2016), two weeks (Bipp & Demerouti, 2015),
one month (Tims et al., 2013a; Tims et al., 2015a), three months (e.g. Vogt et al., 2016), one year
(Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012; Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015) to even three (Harju et al.,
2016) or four years (Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2017). We would recommend future
researchers to take into account the potential meaning and value of different time lags given the
variety of job crafting behaviours. Diverse job crafting behaviours might require different
research designs with different timeframes in order to be investigated in a meaningful way.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
176
Whereas rather big, structural changes such as taking on new projects might require longer
timeframes for instance, small adaptations might need research designs with shorter timeframes
to demonstrate their impact. We elaborate more thoroughly on this matter of time in Section 3.1.
In addition, future research could take into account some third variable explanations to
exclude the possibility that the established relationships are just spurious (Cook & Campbell,
1979). Both organizational factors (e.g. public versus private sector, organizational climate,
leadership) and personal factors (proactive personality, conscientiousness) might relate to job
crafting and the investigated correlates. Future research could for instance explore potential
differential relationships among employees working in the public versus private sector (Solomon,
1986). Research in Belgium indicated that public sector employees experience slightly more
autonomy, less job demands, higher job security, higher levels of work enjoyment and lower levels
of turnover intention (De Witte, Vets, & Notelaers, 2010). Hence, in Study 1, public sector might
have been a third variable increasing the presence of active jobs, job crafting and the willingness
to continue working, without these variables causing each other. In addition, a supportive work
climate and leadership are argued to have an important role in relation to job crafting (Demerouti,
2014; Petrou et al., 2015) but might also enhance employees’ functioning (Gagné & Deci, 2005;
McMurray, Pirola-Merlo, Sarros, & Islam, 2010). Next to organizational factors, also personal
factors might have an impact. Proactive personality, for instance, showed to positively relate to
job crafting (Bakker et al., 2012) but also relates to a range of motivation-related outcomes and
indicators of career success (Fuller & Marler, 2009). It might be that proactive employees will not
only craft their job to a higher extent, but also are more willing to continue working and more
likely to experience person-job fit. In addition, Parker et al. (2010) advance conscientiousness as
a predictor of proactive person-environment fit behaviours, and hence job crafting. They argue
that conscientious employees not only would be more likely to engage in proactive behaviour, but
would more specifically strive to achieve a good fit. It would be interesting to investigate the role
of personality traits in the relationship between job crafting and its hypothesized correlates more
thoroughly as this, so far, remains under-investigated. In the current dissertation, we opted to
include more malleable individual characteristics that can be trained or developed in practice.
In sum, the use of longitudinal and experimental designs, along with the study of third
variables may allow future research to establish the causality of the relationships proposed in this
dissertation.
2.5.4. Self-reports.
All variables were measured by means of self-reports, yielding the risk of social desirability
and inflated relationships due to common-method bias. To avoid or reduce this risk, it is
recommended to collect multi-source data, for instance using additional colleague- or supervisor-
GENERAL DISCUSSION
177
reports (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). However, we relied on self-reports given our
interest in employees’ perceptions, well-being and job crafting behaviour. These aspects are
difficult to be correctly evaluated by others. It might for instance be difficult – or even impossible
– for others to decide whether observed changes employees made in their job can be labelled as
job crafting behaviour (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Moreover, job crafting acts can be so small
and specific that they are not necessarily visible for others (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; van
den Heuvel et al., 2015). In all our studies, we aimed to minimize risks owing to social desirability
by guaranteeing confidentiality and by relying on discretionary participation. Social desirability
might especially be an issue regarding more delicate outcomes such as burnout or organisation-
related evaluations such as leadership (Lievens, Van Geit, & Coetsier, 1997). Furthermore,
organisations might differ in their belief that job crafting is a desirable behaviour, potentially
influencing employees to give social desirable answers. In addition, we applied some remedies to
counter potential common method bias. In Study 2, we distant the variables of interest in the
questionnaire. The participants were first asked to report on their willingness to continue
working. Then, they had to evaluate some organization specific initiatives for older employees
that were not included in this study. Finally, the items to measure autonomy, workload and job
crafting were mixed. In Study 3, we tested an alternative model in which we included a common
method factor which did not fit the data better than the hypothesized model. Finally, Siemsen,
Roth, and Oliveira (2010) argued that common method bias cannot explain nor distort interaction
effects. Hence, notwithstanding the merits of multi-source data, we are relatively confident that
our results were minimally influenced by common-method bias. Nevertheless, future research
could combine self-report with other-reports to strengthen hypothesized models and minimize
potential common-method bias. This might especially be relevant to examine the role of
contextual aspects (e.g. leadership, team-related aspects, etc.) in relation to job crafting as
previously shown in some studies (Bakker et al., 2012; Demerouti, Bakker, & Gevers, 2015; Tims,
Bakker, & Derks, 2015b; Wang, 2017).
3. Thinking Ahead: Remaining Issues on Job Crafting
In this second part of the General Discussion, we think ahead on remaining issues in the job
crafting literature. First, we elaborate on the concept of job crafting and the matter of time in job
crafting research. Second, we tap into the remaining need to provide empirical evidence on the
dynamic interplay between job crafting and its surrounding mechanisms. In doing so, we build on
the overall model of this PhD project and draw the attention to some un(der)-investigated paths,
providing avenues for future job crafting research.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
178
3.1. The Concept of Job Crafting and the Matter of Time
Job crafting is a fairly complex concept that brings along challenges in conducting quantitative
research. It is described as a dynamic process that unfolds over time (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,
2001) and that continues to cycle as individuals move through daily life (Berg et al., 2008).
Wrzesniewski and colleagues refer to an ongoing process that individuals engage in as they move
through four stages, namely the motivation to craft, the identification of crafting opportunities
followed by job crafting behaviour, and outcomes for the job crafter which in turn trigger further
motivations to craft (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Berg et al., 2008). Within the current job
crafting literature, however, the dynamic interplay between job crafting, optimal functioning, and
both personal and contextual factors remains to be empirically tested. We need multiple
measurements across time to test assumptions on the temporal precedence and reciprocal
relationships between job crafting and indicators of optimal functioning. However, so far, it
remains rather unclear which time-interval would be the best to include (Hakanen, Peeters &
Schaufeli, 2017; Harju et al., 2016).
We assume that diverse job crafting behaviours might require different research designs with
different timeframes in order to be investigated in a meaningful way. More specifically, our
findings shed light on a diversity of changes employees may initiate by means of job crafting
including small as well as big, and momentary as well as (relatively) permanent changes to
optimize their functioning in the short- or long-run. Job crafting can be conceived as a way to make
more structural changes such as taking on a new project together with some colleagues as well as
a strategy for making day to day adaptations to meet daily circumstances such as seeking advice
from a colleague or using flexible work arrangements (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013b). Job crafting
behaviours such as more structural, perhaps more deliberate, changes may especially have an
impact in the long run and hence, may require research designs with a longer timeframe to
examine its effect. However, job crafting behaviours might also include small changes to benefit
temporary needs and preferences (Dorenbosch, Bakker, Demerouti, & van Dam, 2013), requiring
short timeframes. In addition, it can be an ad hoc strategy to deal with experienced well-being in
the short run. Hence, the effects of some job crafting behaviours might be more immediate or
concurrent (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012), requiring research designs such as daily diary or week
book studies. We assume that job crafting can but does not per se needs to fulfil long-term goals.
It would be interesting for future research to think through and take into account the
potential meaning and value of different time lags given the variety of job crafting behaviours.
How does “time” matter in the investigation of the relationships between job crafting, optimal
functioning, personal and context factors? For instance, what is the meaning of a relationship
between job crafting and optimal functioning over a time period of one year or longer? How does
this meaning differ when a time period of one day or even a couple of hours is used? How does the
GENERAL DISCUSSION
179
process of job crafting, starting with day to day adaptations, unfolds over time adding to long-term
meaningful relationships? Is it an ongoing process individuals engage in by altering their job on a
daily basis or do small changes stimulate employees to also engage in more structural changes
over time? In addition, as previously suggested by Leana et al. (2009), future research might tackle
the question whether individual job crafting may be preferably conceptualized and studied at the
within-individual level of analysis instead of the between-level of analysis to be able to account
for intra-individual variation.
In sum, the complex, dynamic, individual-level but also situated nature of job crafting raises
“methodological challenges for how to best study the practices, forms, and outcomes of job
crafting” by means of quantitative research (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p.196). Future
research might tackle the question which timeframe and study design expand our understanding
of a diversity of job crafting behaviours and its surrounding mechanisms in a meaningful way.
3.2. Un(der)-investigated Paths in our Overall Model: Job Crafting in Relation to
Optimal Functioning, and Personal and Contextual factors
In this section, we return to the overall model we presented to structure the empirical studies
within this PhD dissertation to think ahead on some future research avenues. More specifically,
we elaborate on four aspects in the model which are to date un(der)-investigated and might
provide avenues for future research (Figure 2).
Figure 2. The overall model of this PhD project (dark lines) expanded with avenues for
future research (grey lines)
GENERAL DISCUSSION
180
3.2.1. Job crafting and optimal functioning: only a bright side?
First, future research might further tap into the (reciprocal) relationships between well-being
and job crafting. Whereas the relationships between job crafting and work engagement seem to
be positive and straightforward, especially the burnout – job crafting relationship remains
puzzling. There might be at least three explanations for the mixed results. One reason, as
mentioned before, might be that the relationship can be both negative and positive, resulting in
counterbalancing mechanisms. On the one hand, negative well-being might signal a suboptimal
situation and might motivate employees to craft their job to optimize their well-being, resulting
in a positive relationship. On the other hand, employees experiencing negative well-being might
lack the needed energy or resources to invest in job crafting, resulting in a negative relationship.
We explored this explanation and found a marginally curvilinear (inverted U-shaped) relationship
between emotional exhaustion and job crafting (cf. Study 4). A second reason might be the role of
conditional factors in establishing or pronouncing a significant relationship. For instance, we
demonstrated that the curvilinear relationship between emotional exhaustion and job crafting
was more pronounced under conditions of high servant leadership. Hence, it seems to be
especially challenging to look for ways to stimulate employees experiencing severe levels of ill-
being to engage in job crafting. Future research could further explore curvilinear relationships
and the impact of conditional factors such as contextual (e.g. servant leadership) as well as
personal factors (e.g. self-efficacy, psychological capital). A third way to dig into these
relationships might be to adopt a person-centred approach. It could be interesting to identify
latent subgroups of employees (“profiles”) with similar mean levels and mean-level changes in
occupational well-being (e.g. work engagement, burnout) and to investigate whether these
subgroups differ with respect to available resources and job crafting. The work of Perko,
Kinnunen, Tolvanen and Feldt (2016) might inspire future research on such a person-centred
approach.
In addition to the bright side of job crafting including its potential benefits, future research
should also elaborate more deeply on a potentially dark side of job crafting. The current literature,
more specifically, sheds light on potential negative (side) effects of individual job crafting
behaviour for the individual as well as for colleagues (e.g. colleague burnout; Tims et al. 2015b)
and the larger organisation (e.g. counterproductive behaviour; Demerouti, Bakker, & Halbesleben,
2015). At the individual level, job crafting occasionally may cause additional stress or intermittent
regret (Berg et al., 2008). We could assume that challenging crafting might bring along negative
side effects when employees do not have sufficient resources to deal with the extra challenges.
Workaholics, for instance, “take up challenges and tasks, irrespective of the resources they may
draw upon”, which give raise to negative outcomes such as burnout in the long run (Hakanen,
Peeters & Schaufeli, 2017, p.4). Furthermore, despite the initial theoretical expectation that
GENERAL DISCUSSION
181
reducing hindrances would benefit individuals, empirical evidence so far hints at a more complex
relationship. Extant findings show that reducing hindrances can be associated with lower levels
of work engagement (Petrou et al., 2012; Demerouti, Bakker, & Gevers, 2015), and even with
higher levels of burnout (Petrou et al., 2015). Avoiding demanding aspects at work not only
prevents employees to feel engaged but also strengthens feelings of burnout. In addition,
hindrance crafting might also imply negative consequences for others: it enhances colleague
burnout because of an increase in workload and role conflict and it has been associated with lower
task performance (Demerouti, Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015; Gordon et al., 2015). Future research
should investigate whether reducing hindrances is always negative for the individual and when
this type of job crafting might be constructive. Petrou and colleagues (2015) suggest that
hindrance crafting might be positive when it happens in a constructive and skilful way, for
instance in the context of time management or as a temporary way to deal with demanding
circumstances. Presumably, managers have an important role to play in ensuring that hindrance
crafting is constructive for the individual as well as for the direct colleagues and the organisation.
In addition, we raise the question which type of hindrance crafting is captured in our overarching
approach. Given that we include the purpose of optimizing one’s functioning, that it is to enhance
well-being, meaning and identity of work, as well as performance, we would expect to capture
constructive forms of hindrance crafting. This assumption finds preliminary support in our
qualitative data in which employees reported to set priorities, to delegate some tasks according
to personal strengths and abilities and to alter some collaborations when they do not feel
comfortable. In sum, future research should elaborate on whether and when employees may craft
hindrances in a constructive way and how this constructive form can be best measured.
3.2.2. The role of personal and contextual factors: an interactionist perspective.
A second avenue for future research includes the interaction of personal and contextual
factors in stimulating job crafting. Both personal and contextual factors might reinforce
employees’ opportunities or abilities to invest in job crafting (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Niessen et
al. (2016) for instance showed that employees with an unsatisfied need for human connection
were only able to cope with these feelings by means of job crafting when they felt capable to meet
the challenges at work (i.e. interaction between need for human connection and self-efficacy).
Berdicchia, Nicolli, and Masino (2016) showed that employees scoring high on self-competence
were less likely to seek social resources in the context of job enlargement (i.e. interaction between
job enlargement and self-competence). In our research, we found that employees’ daily job
crafting was less prone to daily fluctuations in active emotions when employees knew what goals
they aimed for and when they made concrete plans for goal achievement (i.e. interaction between
active emotions and personal growth initiative). Also contextual factors might install conditions
GENERAL DISCUSSION
182
that enable employees to craft. Petrou et al. (2012) demonstrated for instance that on days that
employees experienced a high amount of workload in their job, they were more likely to craft their
job when they had the autonomy to do so. Unfortunately, our findings did not replicate this
interaction. However, we showed that servant leadership can provide employees with additional
resources to invest in job crafting in early stages of emotional exhaustion. In addition, servant
leadership amplified the positive relationship between feeling of personal accomplishment and
job crafting. Hence, future research might expand our understanding of the enactment of job
crafting by taken into account both the main effects and interactions of personal and contextual
factors.
3.2.3. Explaining the positive outcomes of job crafting.
As a third avenue, future research might expand the empirical understanding of the
explanatory mechanisms underlying the positive relationship between job crafting and positive
outcomes. More specifically, at least three explanatory aspects could be explored: (1) contextual
changes, i.e. effective changes in job design, (2) personal changes, i.e. changes in feelings of control
or agency, and (3) a better alignment between context and person, i.e. an enhanced person-job fit.
First, job crafting might positively relate to favourable outcome variables because of effective
changes in job design (Tims, et al., 2013a). Second, the positive relationship might also be
explained by an accumulation of personal resources. Personal resources refer to “psychological
characteristics or aspects of the self that are generally associated with resiliency and that refer to
the ability to control and impact one’s environment successfully” (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014, p.49).
Job crafting might enhance people’s feelings of control over the environment (Tims & Bakker,
2010), increase employees’ psychological capital (Vogt et al., 2016) or contribute to psychological
need satisfaction (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013), which in turn might lead to positive outcomes
(Bakker, 2010; Bakker et al., 2014). By means of job crafting “employees seem to create or
mobilize their own personal and job resources” which fosters optimal functioning over time
(Bakker, 2010, p. 238). Third, taking an interactionist perspective, a better person-job fit might
also explain positive relationships. Some scholars demonstrated the mediating role of person-job
fit in the relationship between job crafting and individual outcomes such as work engagement
(Chen et al., 2014) and meaningfulness (Tims et al., 2016). Furthermore, by increasing person-job
fit employees give meaning to the job and hence, foster the internalization of the motivation to
work (i.e. autonomous motivation; SDT, Gagné & Panaccio, 2014). Future research could explore
the underlying mechanisms of SDT, including internalization and need satisfaction (Slemp & Vella-
Brodrick, 2014), to advance the understanding of the relationship between job crafting and
optimal functioning.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
183
3.2.4. Job crafting as a moderator.
A fourth avenue for future research includes the role of job crafting as a moderator of the
relationship between personal and contextual factors and optimal functioning. More specifically,
job crafting might influence the relationship from both resourceful and challenging circumstances
to optimal functioning. This function of job crafting has recently been investigated by Hakanen,
Seppälä, and Peeters (2017). They showed that job crafting buffered the negative relationship
between job demands and occupational well-being (Hakanen, Seppälä, & Peeters, 2017). Given
that job crafting is a behaviour especially aimed at enhancing resources, employees might benefit
from engaging in job crafting in challenging circumstances. Similarly, Demerouti, Bakker, and
Leiter (2014) found that adaptive strategies, namely behavioural strategies that might be
comparable to job crafting, influence employees’ ability to maintain their performance when
experiencing burnout. Hence, in future research, job crafting might also be modelled as an
individual strategy that might influence employees’ functioning in specific circumstances. In
addition, future research could tap into the role of job crafting in the development of burnout. We
ran some exploratory analyses, not reported in this PhD, and found that job crafting indeed
buffered the positive relationship between emotional exhaustion and cynicism. Employees who
engaged in job crafting, were less likely to be cynical despite feelings of emotional exhaustion.
4. Job Crafting in Practice
In this section, we elaborate on the practical implications of this PhD’s findings. Job crafting
emerges as a promising construct in the contemporary world of work in which employees are
increasingly expected to take responsibility in optimizing their functioning (Peeters et al., 2014).
Practitioners can build on three aspects that characterize the complexity of job crafting. First, by
means of job crafting, employees can initiate a diversity of changes to their jobs, ranging from
small alterations to more structural adaptations. Increasing awareness on what job crafting is and
helping employees to think-out-of-the box when reflecting on relevant changes to make, might
stimulate job crafting. Second, even though scholars assume that every employee would to be able
to craft in every context in some way, both personal and contextual resources could be
strengthened in order to stimulate employees to craft (Demerouti, 2014). Third, although in
general job crafting yields positive consequences, it can have potential negative side effects for the
job crafter, such as an increase in emotional exhaustion (Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015),
as well as for the environment such as an increase in counterproductive behaviour (Demerouti,
Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015) or colleague burnout (Tims et al., 2015b). Consequently, a challenge
for practice includes fostering so-called “beneficial” job crafting (Berg et al., 2008, p.7) for both
GENERAL DISCUSSION
184
the individual job crafter and the environment. Our findings indeed emphasize the complementary
role of employers and employees in establishing job crafting.
In what follows, we draw the attention to traditional top-down job (re)design as a
fundamental base for job crafting (e.g. an active and resourceful environment) and to the role of
supervisors (e.g. servant leadership might install a supportive environment). Additionally, we
advise to enhance employees’ personal resources including personal growth initiative and
employees’ feelings of personal accomplishment. Finally, job crafting can be stimulated by means
of day-to-day interactions and experiences, as well as through interventions including coaching,
mentoring, training, career counselling and workshops.
Traditional top-down job (re)design provides a fundamental context for job crafting because
it indicates the boundaries of a pre-designed job which can be altered (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,
2001). More specifically, an active, and especially resourceful and supportive environment creates
the necessary ingredients for employees to craft their job in a constructive way. Employers can
invest in active jobs, providing sufficient autonomy for employees to deal with challenging
aspects, which will stimulate learning, growth related behaviours such as job crafting, and
motivation (e.g. willingness to continue working until retirement age). Especially autonomy, or
the sense of freedom, control and responsibility employees experience in their job, is advocated
as a core antecedent of job crafting because it shapes the opportunity to craft (Wrzesniewski &
Dutton, 2001). Our findings particularly illuminate the added value of autonomy at work in the
light of current demographical challenges. We found that autonomy directly as well as indirectly
through job crafting, positively relates to the willingness of employees of 45 years and older to
continue working until retirement age.
In addition, supervisors or managers might play an essential role in installing a resourceful
and supportive environment (Berg et al., 2008; Demerouti, 2014; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).
In this PhD project, we demonstrated the role of servant leadership in encouraging employees to
craft and in helping them to translate early feelings of emotional exhaustion into job crafting.
Employers could train leaders to become more servant by developing some core competencies
such as emotional healing (i.e. caring about followers’ well-being), empowering (i.e. entrusting
followers with autonomy and responsibility), helping subordinates grow and succeed (i.e.
uncovering the full potential of each follower), and putting subordinates first (i.e. prioritizing
meeting the needs of followers) (Liden et al., 2008; Liden et al., 2015). Similarly, Spears (2004)
extracted some characteristics central to the development of servant leaders such as listening,
empathy, and being committed to the growth of people. Van Dierendonck (2011, p.1245) stresses
the importance of self-determination as “an essential condition to be able to act as a servant
leader”. Self-determination can be enhanced through the fulfilment of the basic psychological
needs of autonomy, relatedness and competence (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Self-determined leaders in
GENERAL DISCUSSION
185
turn are more likely to “provide others with the opportunity to become self-determined as well”
(Van Dierendonck, p.1245), for instance through job crafting, and hence to optimize one’s
functioning. In line with this reasoning, Schaufeli (2015) recently introduced the added value of
engaging leadership in preventing employees from burnout and in stimulating work engagement
and positive outcomes. Engaging leaders inspire, strengthen and connect employees, helping
them to become more self-determined, and hence to engage in job crafting. Even though managers
are not “able to affect when and to what extent job crafting occurs” (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,
2001), they might enhance both contextual opportunities as well as personal resources such as
goal-setting capacities and self-efficacy (van Dam, Nikolova, & van Ruysseveldt, 2013). Therefore,
practitioners could train supervisors to create and sustain a supportive environment for job
crafting and hence, employees’ functioning.
Next to optimizing contextual factors in stimulating job crafting, practitioners could also
reinforce employees’ personal resources. Following our findings, we recommend to develop
employees’ personal growth initiative (PGI) and feelings of personal accomplishment or self-
efficacy. PGI is, given its state-like nature, an excellent construct to focus on in coaching,
mentoring, training and other forms of intervention (Robitschek, 1998). Practitioners could
enhance employees’ PGI by stimulating both cognitive (i.e. goal setting) and behavioural aspects
(i.e. goal implementation). Stimulating reflection and awareness on both the current situation –
what does my job and work environment look like? - and on personal interests, abilities and values
– who am I? – might help employees to envision and set personal goals, and therefore strengthen
the cognitive aspects of PGI. In addition, employees might be coached in developing a realistic and
time-bounded action plan to foster goal implementation and achievement, and therefore impacts
the behavioural aspects of PGI (Parker et al., 2010; van den Heuvel et al., 2015). Strengthening
these self-regulatory processes might enhance the proactivity process towards job crafting and
positive outcomes (Parker et al., 2010).
Practitioners should also draw their attention to employees’ feelings of personal
accomplishment which is argued to “reflect a personal characteristic similar to employees’ self-
efficacy” (Demerouti et al., 2001, p.500). Self-efficacy concerns the employees’ beliefs of the
personal capacities to conduct work and to successfully impact the environment, for instance by
means of job crafting (Tims et al., 2014; van den Heuvel et al., 2015). Self-efficacy beliefs might be
fostered through at least three sources of information: (1) mastery experiences including personal
job crafting initiatives inform employees on how they can successfully act upon the environment,
(2) verbal persuasion through feedback and encouragement from others such as colleagues and
supervisors, and (3) vicarious learning or role modelling by learning from effective job crafting
behaviours of others (Bandura, 1997; van den Heuvel et al., 2015). These sources of information
could be more explicitly included in the daily work environment and interactions with others as
GENERAL DISCUSSION
186
well as in the development of job crafting interventions. First of all, providing relevant resources
at work strengthens employees’ efficacy, and hence prevents a reduction of personal
accomplishment (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). For instance, the amount of skill utilisation
and development might enable employees to experience mastery in conducting and crafting work.
In addition, colleagues and supervisors might be role models, provide employees with feedback
and encourage job crafting behaviour. Building self-efficacy can also be incorporated in job
crafting interventions in which employees reflect on opportunities to craft, set job crafting goals
and learn from each other (van den Heuvel et al., 2015).
In sum, job crafting might be subject to interventions as coaching, training, workshops and
career counselling. To date, at least five (group) intervention studies on job crafting were
published (Kooij, van Woerkom, Wilkenlok, Dorenbosch, & Denissen, 2016; Sakuraya, Shimazu,
Imamuri, Narba, & Kawakami, 2016; van den Heuvel et al., 2015; van Wingerden, Derks, Bakker,
& Dorenbosch, 2013; van Wingerden, Derks, & Bakker, 2017) and might inspire practitioners in
developing job crafting interventions. Elaborating on this PhD project and the current literature,
two key factors should be included to stimulate job crafting, namely strengthening awareness and
resourcefulness. Job crafting interventions might start with clarifying the concept of job crafting
and elaborating on the broad range of changes employees may initiate with the pro-self-focussed
purpose of optimizing one’s functioning. Hence, employees become more aware of what job
crafting is, and of the extent to which, when, and why they engage in job crafting. In addition,
employees might be coached in exploring their needs and opportunities to craft. A task-,
environment- and person-analysis can provide the input to develop a personal crafting plan based
on SMART-formulated goals. Finally, reflecting on the process of goal-setting and job crafting
initiatives might enhance employees personal resources and future job crafting behaviour.
Job crafting increasingly finds its way to practitioners. Following my PhD’s findings, I would
especially like to encourage practitioners to take a complementary perspective on job crafting,
going beyond its merely individual-level nature, and taking into account the potential role
employers, supervisors and other coaches have in making beneficial job crafting happen.
Therefore, I summarize some tips from both an employee- and employer-perspective in Figure 3.
For a more extensive elaboration on this view on job crafting in practice, albeit in Dutch, see
Appendix II and Appendix III.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
187
Figure 3. 9 tips on job crafting in practice from an employee- and employer perspective
5. Conclusion
Throughout this PhD project, we took an overarching approach on job crafting. By means of
four empirical, mainly cross-sectional, studies we clarified the overarching concept of job crafting
and explored its nomological network, including both antecedents and consequences in the
hypothesized models. We defined job crafting in an overarching way as the self-initiated changes
employees make to their job in order to optimize their functioning. Thereby, we emphasized that
job crafting can include a broad range of personally relevant changes, going beyond the job
crafting types described in the current literature, and that employees initiate these changes with
a pro-self-focused purpose. In addition, our findings demonstrate that job crafting is indeed
associated with optimal functioning, indicated by work engagement, work enjoyment,
autonomous motivation, the willingness to continue working and person-job fit. Notably, job
crafting occurred both in positive and negative conditions, hinting at its added value in helping
employees to deal with adversity (e.g. burnout). Finally, job crafting seems to be about
resourcefulness and to be able to take advantage of both personal (i.e. active emotions, personal
growth initiative and personal accomplishment) and contextual (i.e. active jobs, servant
leadership) factors. Hence, even though job crafting is an individual-level construct, the
complementary interplay between self-regulation and regulation, in which both employees- and
employers job (re)design-initiatives are mutually reinforced, constitutes the key to success.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
188
6. References
Bakker, A. B. (2010). Engagement and “job crafting”: engaged employees create their own great
place to work. In: S.L. Albrecht (Ed.). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives,
issues, research and practice. (p. 229-244). UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. (2014). Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD-R
Approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1,
389-411. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235
Bakker, A.B., & Costa, P.L. (2014). Chronic job burnout and daily functioning: A theoretical
analysis. Burnout Research, 1(3), 112-119. DOI: 10.1016/j.burn.2014.04.003
Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2010). Positive Occupational Health Psychology. In: S., Leka, & J.,
Houdmont (Eds.). Occupational Health Psychology (pp.194-224). UK: John Wiley & Sons
Ltd.
Bakker, A.B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of
job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65(10), 1359-1378. DOI:
10.1177/0018726712453471
Baltes, B.B., & Dickson, M.W. (2001). Using Life-Span Models in Industrial-Organizational
Psychology: The Theory of Selective Optimization With Compensation. Applied
Developmental Science, 5(1), 51-62.
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Belschak, F.D., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of
proactive behaviour: differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 83, 475-498. DOI: 10.1348/096317909X439208
Berdicchia, D., Nicolli, F., & Masino, G. (2016). Job enlargement, job crafting and the moderating
role of self-competence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 318-330. DOI:
10.1108/JMP-01-2014-0019
Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2008). What is job Crafting and Why Does It Matter?
University of Michigan: Centre of Positive Organizational Scholarship.
Bipp, T., & Demerouti, E. (2015). Which employees craft their jobs and how? Basic dimensions of
personality and employees’ job crafting behaviour. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 88, 631-655. DOI: 10.1111/joop.12089
Brenninkmeijer, V., & Hekkert-Koning, M. (2015). To craft our not to craft: the relationships
between regulatory focus, job crafting and work outcomes. Career Development
International, 20(2), 147-162. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-12-2014-0162.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
189
Byrne, B.M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus. Basis concepts, application, and
programming. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Chen, C.Y., Yen, C.H., & Tsai, F.C. (2014). Job crafting and job engagement: The mediating role of
person-job fit. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, 21-28. DOI:
10.1016/j.JIHM.2013.10.006
Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field
settings. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Demerouti, E. (2014). Design Your Own Job Through Job Crafting. European Psychologist. Advance
online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000188
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Gevers, J.M.P. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: the role
of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87-96. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.001
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2015). Productive and counterproductive job
crafting: A daily diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online
publication. DOI: 10.1037/a0039002
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Leiter, M. (2014). Burnout and Job Performance: The Moderating Role
of Selection, Optimization and Compensation Strategies. Journal of Occupational Health
Psycholoy, 19(1), 96-107. DOI: 10.1037/a0035062
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The Job Demands-Resources
Model of Burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512). DOI: 10.1037/0021-
9010.86.3.499
Dorenbosch, L., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & van Dam, K. (2013). Job crafting: de psychologie van
een baan op maat. Gedrag & Oranisatie,26(1), p.3-15.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Phil. Trans. R. Soc.
Lond. B, 359, 1367-1377. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1512
Fuller, B., & Marler, L.E. (2009). Change driven by nature : A meta-analytic review of the proactive
personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 329-345. DOI:
10.1016/j.jvb.2009.05.008
Gagne, M., & Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362. DOI: 10.1002/job.322
Gagné, M., & Panaccio, A. (2014). The motivational power of job design. In: M. Gagné (Ed.). The
Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory
(pp.165-180). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199794911.013.012
Gagné, M., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2013). Self-Determination Theory’s Contribution to Positive
Organizational Psychology. In: A.B. Bakker (Ed.). Advances in Positive Organizational
Psychology. Volume 1. (p.61-82). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
190
Grant, A.M., & Parker, S.K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and
proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317-375. DOI:
10.1080/19416520903047327
Gordon, H.J., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P.M., & Bipp, T. (2015). Job crafting and performance of Dutch
and American health care professionals. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14(4), 192-202.
DOI: 10.1027/1866/a000138
Hakanen, J.J., & Mutanen, P. (2014). Does servant leadership boost work engagement via job
crafting? An individual and team level study. Paper presented at the 11th conference of the
European Association of Occupational Health Psychology (EAOHP), London, April, 2014.
Hakanen, J.J., Peeters, M.C.W., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2017, February 13). Different types of employee
well-being across time and their relationships with job crafting. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000081
Hakanen, J.J., Seppälä, P., & Peeters, M.C.W. (2017). High job demands, still engaged and not burned
out? The role of job crafting. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. DOI:
10.1007/s12529-017-9638-3
Halbesleben, J.R.B., & Bowler, W.M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The
mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 93-106. DOI: 10.1037-
0021-9010.92.1.93
Harju, L., Hakanen, J.J., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2016). Can job crafting reduce job boredeom and
increase work engagement? A three-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 95-96, 11-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2016.07.001
Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P.A., & Price, T.F. (2013). Does negative affect always narrow and positive
affect always broaden the mind? Considering the influence of motivational intensity on
cognitive scope. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 301-307. DOI:
10.1177/0963721413481353
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989). Conservation of Resources. A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress.
American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.
Ilies, R., Scott, B.A., & Judge, T.A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced
states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. The Academy of Management
Journal, 49(3), 561-272. DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.2179467
Karasek, R.A. (1979). Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job
Redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285-308.
Kooij, D.T.A.M., Tims, M., & Kanfer, R. (2014). Successful aging at work: the role of job crafting. In
P.M. Bal, D.T.A.M. Kooij, & D.M. Rousseau (Eds.), Aging workers and the employee-employer
relationship, 145-162. Springer
GENERAL DISCUSSION
191
Kooij, D.T.A.M., van Woerkom, M., Wilkenloh, J., Dorenbosch, L.W., & Denissen, J.J.A. (2016). A job
crafting intervention: Increasing person-job fit of aging workers. The Gerontologist, 56,
Suppl.3., 295-295. DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnw162.1201
Kroon, B., Kooij, D.T.A.M., & van Veldhoven, M.J.P.M. (2013). Job crafting en bevlogenheid. Zijn er
verschillen tussen teams met een restrictieve dan wel onbegrensde werkcontext? Gedrag
en organisatie, 26, 46-65.
Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work process and quality of care in early
childhood education: the role of job crafting. The Academy of Management Journal, 52(6),
1169-1192.
Lichtenthaler, P.W., & Fischbach, A. (2016). Job crafting and motivation to continue working
beyond retirement age. Career Development International, 21(5), 477-497. DOI:
10.1108/CDI-01-2016-0009.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Meuser, J.D., Hu, J., Wu, J., & Liao, C. (2015). Servant leadership: Validation
of a short form of the SL-28. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 254-269. DOI:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.12.002
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Zao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a
multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161-
177.
Lievens, F., Van Geit, P., & Coetsier, P. (1997). Identification of transformational leadership
qualities: An examination of potential biases. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 6(4), 415-430.
Little, T.D. (2013). Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
Lu, C.Q., Wang, H.J., Lu, J.J., Du, D.Y., & Bakker, A.B. (2014). Does work engagement increase person-
job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84, 142-
152.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C., M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of
Management, 33(3), 321-349 DOI: 10.1177/0149206307300814
Lyons, P. (2008). The crafting of jobs and individual differences. Journal of Business Psychology, 23,
25-36.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job Burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,
397-422
McMurray, A.J., Pirola-Merlo, A., Sarros, J.C., & Islam, M.M. (2010). Leadership, climate,
psychological capital, commitment, and wellbeing in a non-profit organization. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 31(5), 436-457. DOI: 10.1108/01437731011056452
Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J.S. (2012). The development and validation of a job crafting measure
for use with blue-collar workers. Work & Stress, An International Journal of Work, Health
GENERAL DISCUSSION
192
and Organisations, 26(4), 365-384. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.
733543
Niessen, C., Weseler, D., & Kostova, P. (2016). When and why do individuals craft their jobs? The
role of individual motivation and work characteristics for job crafting. Human relations,
69(6), 1287-1313. DOI: 10.1177/0018726715610642
Oldham, G.R., & Fried, Y. (2016). Job design research and theory: past, present and future.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 20-35. DOI:
10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.002
Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive
motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856.
Peeters, M.C.W., Arts, R., & Demerouti, E. (2016). The crossover of job crafting between coworkers
and its relationship with adaptivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 25(6), 819-832. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1160891
Peeters, M.C.W., Taris, T.W., & de Jonge, J. (2014). Introduction. People at Work. In: M.C.W. Peeters,
J. de Jonge, & T.W. Taris (Eds.) An Introduction to Contemporary Work Psychology, (pp. 3-
30). UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Perko, K, Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., & Feldt, T. (2016). Investigating occupational well-being and
leadership from a person-centred longitudinal approach: congruence of well-being and
perceived leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(1),
105-119. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2015.1011136
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Häfner, M. (2015). When fit matters more : The effect of regulatory fit
on adaptation to change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(1),
126-142. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2013.832209
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M.C.W., Schaufeli, W.B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a job on a
daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1120-1141. DOI: 10.1002/job.1786
Petrou, P. Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Job crafting in changing organizations:
antecedents and implications for exhaustion and performance. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 20(4), 470-480. DOI: 10.1037/a0039003
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-
569. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Robitschek, C. (1998). Personal growth initiative: The construct and its measure. Measurement &
Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 30(4), 183-198.
Russell, J.A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
39(6), 1161-1178.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
193
Ryan, M.R., & Deci, E.L.(2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on
hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual review, 52, 141-166.
Sakuraya, A., Shimazu, A., Imamura, K., Namba, K. & Kawakami, N. (2016). Effects of a job crafting
intervention program on work engagement among Japanese employees: a pretest-posttest
study. BMC Psychology, 4(1), 49-58. DOI: 10.1186/s40359-016-0157-9
Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Engaging leadership in the job demands-resources model. Career
Development International, 20(5), 446-463. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-02-2015-0025
Schaufeli, W.B., & Taris, T.W. (2005). The conceptualization and measurement of burnout:
Common ground and worlds apart. Work & Stress, 19(3), 256-262. DOI:
10.1080/02678370500385913
Schaufeli, W.B. & Taris, T.W. (2014). A critical review of the Job Demands-Resources Model:
Implications for improving work and health. In G. Bauer & O. Hämmig (Eds), Bridging
occupational, organizational and public health (pp. 43-68). Dordrecht: Springer.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear,
quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456-476. DOI:
10.1177/1094428109351241
Slemp, G.R., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2013). The job crafting questionnaire: A new scale to measure
the extent to which employees engage in job crafting. International Journal of Wellbeing,
3(2), 126-146. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v3i2.1
Slemp, G.R., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2014). Optimising Employee Mental Health: The Relationship
Between Intrinsic Need Satisfaction, Job Crafting, and Employee Well-Being. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 15(4), 957-977. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-013-9458-3.
Solberg, E., & Wong, S.I. (2016). Crafting one’s job to take charge of role overload: when proactivity
requires adaptivity across levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 713-725. DOI:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.03.001
Solomon, E.E. (1986). Private and Public Sector Managers: An Empirical Investigation of Job
Characteristics and Organizational Climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 247-259.
Spears, L. (2004). Practicing Servant-Leadership. Leader to Leader, 34(Fall 2004), 7-11.
Stamov-Roβnagel, C., & Hertel, G. (2010). Older workers’ motivation: against the myth of general
decline. Management decision, 48(6), 894-906. DOI: 10.1108/00251741011053451
Tims, M., & Bakker, A. (2010). Job Crafting: towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), Art. #841, 9 pages, DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841
Tims, M., Bakker, A., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173-186. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
GENERAL DISCUSSION
194
Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D. (2013a). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources,
and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 230-240. DOI:
10.1037/a0032141
Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D. (2013b). De job demands-resources benadering van job crafting.
Gedrag en organisatie, 26, 16-31.
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy – performance
relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 490-505. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-05-
2012-0148
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2015a). Job crafting and job performance: A longitudinal study.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 914-928. DOI:
10.1080/1359432X.2014.969245
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2015b). Examining job crafting from an interpersonal
perspective: Is employee job crafting related to the well-being of colleagues? Applied
Psychology, 64(4), 727-753. DOI: 10.1111/apps.12043
Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person-job fit and
meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92(1), 44-53. DOI:
10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007
Travaglianti, F., Babic, A., & Hansez, I. (2016). The role of work-related needs in the relationship
between job crafting, burnout and engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 42(1),
a1308. DOI: 10.4102/saijip.v42i1.1308
van Dam, K. (2013). Employee adaptability to change at work: A multidimensional, resource-
based framework. In: S. Oreg, A. Michel, & R.T. By (Eds.), The psychology of organizational
change: Viewing change from the employee’s perspective (pp.123-142). Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
van Dam, K., Nikolova, I., & van Ruysseveldt, J. (2013). Het belang van ‘leader-member exchange’
(LMX) en situationele doeloriëntatie als voorspellers van job crafting. Gedrag &
Organisatie, 26(1), 66-84.
van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M.C.W. (2015). The job crafting intervention: Effects
on job resources, self-efficacy, and affective well-being. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 88, 511-532. DOI: 10.1111/joop.12128
Van Dierendonck, D., (2011). Servant leadership: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Management,
37(4), 1228-1261. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310380462
Van Parys, L. (2016). On the street-level implementation of ambiguous activation policy. How
caseworkers reconcile responsibility and autonomy and affect their clients' motivation
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Leuven, KU Leuven.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
195
Van Vuuren, M., & Dorenbosch, L. (2011). Mooi werk. Naar een betere baan zonder weg te gaan.
Handboek job crafting. Uitgeverij Boom, Amsterdam.
van Wingerden, J., Derks, D., Bakker, A.B., & Dorenbosch, L. (2013). Job crafting in het speciaal
onderwijs: een kwalitatieve analyse. Gedrag & Organisatie, 26(1), 85-103.
van Wingerden, J., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2017). The longitudinal impact of a job crafting
intervention. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(1), 107-119.
DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1224233
Vogt, K., Hakanen, J. J., Brauchli, R., Jenny, G. J., & Bauer, G. F. (2016). The consequences of job
crafting: A three-wave study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
25(3), 353-362. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2015.1072170
Wang, H. (2017). Leadership, Job Crafting and Work Outcomes: Can Leaders Cultivate Well-
Performing Job Crafters? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Eindhoven, Eindhoven
University of Technology.
Weijters, B., Baumgartner, H., & Anseel, F. (2016). Designing Better Questionnaires: A multi-
disciplinary review of recent findings. Manuscript in preparation.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of
their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.
Wrzesniewski, A., LoBuglio, N., Dutton, J. E., & Berg, J. M. (2013). Job crafting and cultivating
positive meaning and identity in work. Advances in positive organizational
psychology, 1(1), 281-302. DOI:10.1108/S2046-410X(2013)0000001015
Wu, C., Parker, S., & Bindl, U.K. (2013). Who is proactive and why? Unpacking individual
differences in employee proactivity. In A.B. Bakker (Ed.), Advances in Positive
Organizational Psychology, Volume 1 (pp. 261-280). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2011). Maintaining a focus on opportunities at work: The interplay
between age, job complexity, and the use of selection, optimization, and compensation
strategies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 291-318; DOI: 10.1002/job.683
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
1
Appendix I. Overview of studies on job crafting (2001 – February 2017)
a. Overview of studies on job crafting
Table 1. Overview of articles referring to job crafting in the title
Reference Main Stream Type of Study Job Crafting questionnaire
Core Variables
1
20
01
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Theoretical
/ /
2
20
03
Wrzesniewski, A. (2003). Finding positive meaning in work. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Theoretical
/ /
3
20
08
Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2008). What is job Crafting and Why Does It Matter? University of Michigan: Centre of Positive Organizational Scholarship.
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Theoretical
/ /
4 Lyons, P. (2008). The crafting of jobs and individual differences. Journal of Business Psychology, 23, 25-36.
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Qualitative
Interview surveys
/ Job crafting, opportunities to craft, work factors & personal
factors
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
2
5
20
09
Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work process and quality of care in early childhood education: the role of job crafting. The Academy of Management Journal, 52(6), 1169-1192.
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
qualitative & quantitative
interview /
Cross-Sectional (CS) study
Leana et al. (2009) Discretion, interdependence, orientation, supportive
supervision, social ties, status, Individual & collaborative
crafting, quality of care, organisational commitment,
turnover intentions, job satisfaction
6 Kira, M., van Eijnatten, F.M., & Balkin, D.B. (2010). Crafting sustainable work: development of personal resources. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(5), 616-632. DOI: 10.1108/ 09534811011071315
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Theoretical
/ /
7
20
10
Berg, J.M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2010). Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 158-186. DOI: 1002/job.645
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Qualitative Job Crafting: motives, outcomes, facilitators,
challenges
8 Tims, M., & Bakker, A. (2010). Job Crafting: towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), Art. #841, 9 pages, DOI: 10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Theoretical
/ /
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
3
9
20
12
Tims, M., Bakker, A., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173-186. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Validation study
CS study
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Job crafting, proactive personality, personal initiative,
cynicism, work engagement, employability, job performance
10 Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J.S. (2012). The development and validation of a job crafting measure for use with blue-collar workers. Work & Stress, An International Journal of Work, Health and Organisations, 26(4), 365-384. DOI: 10.1080/ 02678373.2012.733543
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Validation study
CS + Longitudinal (L)
surveys
Job Crafting Scale for Blue-Collar
Workers (Nielsen & Abildgaard,
2012)
Job crafting, job satisfaction, work engagement, burnout
11 Bakker, A.B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65(10), 1359-1378. DOI: 10.1177/ 0018726712453471
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
multisource study: dyads of colleagues CS
study
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Proactive personality, job crafting, work engagement, in-
role performance
12 Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M.C.W., Schaufeli, W.B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1120-1141. DOI: 10.1002/job.1786
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
Daily diary study
Petrou et al. (2012) – adapted from Tims et al.
(2012)
Daily job crafting, day-level autonomy, day-level workload,
day-level work engagement
13
20
13
Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work. In: B.J. Dik, Z.S. Byrne, & M.F. Steger (Eds).
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Theoretical
/ /
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
4
Purpose and Meaning in the Workplace (pp.81-104). American Psychological Association.
14 2
01
3
Slemp, G.R., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2013). The job crafting questionnaire: A new scale to measure the extent to which employees engage in job crafting. International Journal of Wellbeing, 3(2), 126-146. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v3i2.1
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Validation study
CS study
Job Crafting Questionnaire
(Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013)
Job crafting, strength use, intrinsic goal setting, OCB, job
satisfaction, work contentment, work enthusiasm, work-specific
positive and negative affect
15 Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D. (2013). De job demands-resources benadering van job crafting. Gedrag en organisatie, 26, 16-31.
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Overview
/ /
16 Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Breevaart, K. (2013). Job crafting als sleutel tot succesvolle organisatieverandering. Gedrag en organisatie, 26, 32-45.
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Theoretical
/ /
17 Kroon, B., Kooij, D.T.A.M., & van Veldhoven, M.J.P.M. (2013). Job crafting en bevlogenheid. Zijn er verschillen tussen teams met een restrictieve dan wel onbegrensde werkcontext? Gedrag en organisatie, 26, 46-65.
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
CS study
Kroon et al. (2013) –
challenging crafting and
reducing workload
Job crafting, autonomy, task independence (restrictive vs unrestrictive teams), work
engagement
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
5
18
20
13
van Dam, K., Nikolova, I., & van Ruysseveldt, J. (2013). Het belang van ‘leader-member exchange’ (LMX) en situationele doeloriëntatie als voorspellers van job crafting. Gedrag & Organisatie, 26(1), 66-84.
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
CS study
Preliminar version of Job Crafting
Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
LMX, situational performance and learning goals, job crafting
19 van Wingerden, J., Derks, D., Bakker, A.B., & Dorenbosch, L. (2013). Job crafting in het speciaal onderwijs: een kwalitatieve analyse. Gedrag & Organisatie, 26(1), 85-103.
Tims & Bakker (2010)
intervention study +
qualitative
interviews
/ /
20 van Ruitenbeek, G.M.C., Mulder, M.J.G.P., Zijlstra, F.R.H., Nijhuis, & Mulders, H.P.G. (2013) Een alternatieve benadering voor herontwerp van werk. Ervaringen met de methode Inclusief Herontwerp Werkprocessen. Gedrag en Organisatie, 26, 104-122.
/ Theoretical / /
21
20
13
Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 230-240. DOI: 10.1037/a0032141
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
L study - 3-waves (time lag
1 month)
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Job crafting, Δ structural resources, Δ social resources, Δ
challenges, Δ hindrances, work
engagement, job satisfaction, burnout
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
6
22
20
13
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., Derks, D., & van Rhenen, W. (2013). Job Crafting at the Team and Individual Level: Implications for Work Engagement and Performance. Group & Organization Management, 38(4), 427-454. DOI: 10.1177/1059601113492421
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
multilevel study
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Team and individual job crafting, team and individual work engagement, and team and individual performance
23
20
14
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy – performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 490-505. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-05-2012-0148
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
diary study
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012) adapted to “days”
Daily self-efficacy, daily job crafting, daily work enjoyment,
daily performance
24 Demerouti, E. (2014). Design Your Own Job Through Job Crafting. European Psychologist. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000188
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Overview
/ /
25 Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A.B. (2014). Job crafting. In: M.C.W. Peeters, J. de Jonge, & T.W. Taris (Eds.) An Introduction to Contemporary Work Psychology, (pp. 414-433). UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Overview
/ /
26
20
14
Chen, C.Y., Yen, C.H., & Tsai, F.C. (2014). Job crafting and job engagement: The mediating role of person-job fit. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, 21-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.JIHM.2013.10.006
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
CS study
Adapted from Leana et al. (2009)
Individual and collaborative crafting, person-job fit, work
engagement
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
7
27
20
14
Lu, C.Q., Wang, H.J., Lu, J.J., Du, D.Y., & Bakker, A.B. (2014). Does work engagement increase person-job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84, 142-152.
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Quantitative
L survey - 2 waves
(timelag = 3 months)
Two dimensions of the expansion-
oriented job crafting scale
(Laurence, 2010)
Work engagement, Δ physical job crafting,
Δ relational job crafting, Δ person-job fit
28 Slemp, G.R., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2014). Optimising Employee Mental Health: The Relationship Between Intrinsic Need Satisfaction, Job Crafting, and Employee Well-Being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(4), 957-977. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-013-9458-3.
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Quantitative
CS study
Job Crafting Questionnaire
(Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013)
Job crafting, intrinsic need satisfaction, subjective well-
being, psychological well-being
29 Van Hooff, M.L.M., & van Hooft, E.A.J. (2014). Boredom at Work: Proximal and Distal Consequences of Affective Work-Related Boredom. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(3), 348-359 DOI: 10.1037/ a0036821
Tims & Bakker, (2010)
Quantitative
CS study
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Job crafting, boredom, Bored behaviour, depression, distress, counterproductive
work behaviour
30 Wrzesniewski, A. (2014). Engage in job crafting. In G. M. Spreitzer & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), How to be a Positive Leader: Small Actions, Big Impact. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Theoretical / /
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
8
31
20
15
Brenninkmeijer, V., & Hekkert-Koning, M. (2015). To craft our not to craft: the relationships between regulatory focus, job crafting and work outcomes. Career Development International, 20(2), 147-162. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-12-2014-0162.
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
CS study
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Regulatory focus, job crafting, work engagement, perceived
employability
32 Petrou, P., & Demerouti, E. (2015). Trait-level and week-level regulatory focus as a motivation to craft a job. Career Development International, 2(2), 102-118. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-09-2014-0124
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
two studies: CS survey + weekly
diary study 3 weeks
Petrou et al. (2012)
1. Regulatory focus, job crafting
2. Week-level regulatory focus, trait-level regulatory focus,
week-level job crafting
33 Gordon, H.J., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P.M., & Bipp, T. (2015). Job crafting and performance of Dutch and American health care professionals. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14(4), 192-202. DOI: 10.1027/1866/a000138
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
CS study
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Job demands (work pressure, cognitive & emotional
demands), job resources (social support, feedback, LMX), job crafting, task performance,
creative performance
34
20
15
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2015). Job crafting and job performance: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 914-928. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2014.969245
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
L study - 3 waves (timelag= 1
month)
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Job crafting intentions, actual job crafting (“last month”), work engagement, in-role
performance, OCBI
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
9
35
20
15
2
01
5
Mattarelli, E., & Tagliaventi, M.R. (2015). How Offshore Professionals’ Job Dissatisfaction Can Promote Further Offshoring: Organizational Outcomes of Job Crafting. Journal of Management Studies, 52(5), 585-620. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01088.x
/ Qualitative
Case studies, semi-structured
interviews
/ /
36 Slemp, G.R., Kern, M.L., & Vella-Brodrick, D. (2015). Workplace Well-Being: The Role of Job Crafting and Autonomy Support. Psychology of Well-Being, 5:7. DOI: 10.1186/s13612-015-0034-y
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Quantitative
CS study
Slemp & Vella-Brodrick (2012)
Perceived autonomy support, job crafting, workplace well-
being
37 van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M.C.W. (2015). The job crafting intervention: Effects on job resources, self-efficacy, and affective well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88, 511-532. DOI: 10.1111/joop.12128
Tims & Bakker (2010)
intervention study +
quantitative
Pre-post intervention measures +
weekly diary
Petrou et al. (2012)
Opportunities for development, LMX, self-efficacy, positive and
negative affect
38 Petrou, P. Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Job crafting in changing organizations : antecedents and implications for exhaustion and performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(4), 470-480. DOI: 10.1037/a0039003
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
cross-lagged L study - 2 waves
(timelag = 12 months)
Petrou et al. (2012)
Impact of changes, willingness to change, job crafting,
exhaustion, task performance
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
10
39
20
15
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2015). Productive and counterproductive job crafting: A daily diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1037/a0039002
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
daily diary study
Petrou et al. (2012)
Daily job crafting, work pressure, autonomy, work
engagement, exhaustion, task performance, altruism,
counterproductive work behaviour
40 Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2015b). Examining job crafting from an interpersonal perspective: Is employee job crafting related to the well-being of colleagues? Applied Psychology, 64(4), 727-753. DOI: 10.1111/apps.12043
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
multisource study: dyads of colleagues CS
study
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Hindrance crafting person 1 & person 2, workload person 1 & person 2, conflict person 1 and person 2, exhaustion person 1 and person 2, disengagement
person 1 and person 2
41 Chinelato, R.S.C., Ferreira, M.C., & Valentini, F. (2015). Evidence of Validity of the Job Crafting Behaviors Scale, Paidéia, 25(62), 325-332. DOI: 10.1590/1982-43272562201506
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
validation study
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
In Brazilian context
Job crafting, positive psychological capital, work engagement, positive and
negative affect, in-role performance, neuroticism
42 Bipp, T., & Demerouti, E. (2015). Which employees craft their jobs and how? Basic dimensions of personality and employees’ job crafting behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88, 631-655. DOI: 10.1111/joop.12089
Tims & Bakker (2010)
quantitative (2 studies)
CS + L (2wave)
study (timelag =
two weeks)
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Approach and avoidance temperament, approach and avoidance goals condition, approach temperament x approach goals, approach temperament x avoidance
goals, job crafting intention, job crafting
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
11
43
20
15
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Gevers, J.M.P. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: the role of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.001
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
multisource study: dyads of
employees & supervisor CS
study
Petrou et al. (2012)
Job crafting, work engagement, flourishing, supervisor-rated creativity, supervisor-rated
contextual performance
44 Kooij, D.T.A.M. (2015). Successful Aging at Work: The Active Role of Employees. Work aging and retirement, 1(4), 309-319. DOI: 10.1093/worker/wav018
/ / / /
45
20
16
Bakker, A.B., Rodriguez-Muñoz, A., & Sanz Vergel, A.I. (2016). Modelling job crafting behaviours: Implications for work engagement. Human Relations, 69(1), 169-189. DOI: 10.1177/0018726715581690
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
multisource study: dyads of colleagues CS
study
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Job crafting, work engagement
46 Berdicchia, D., Nicolli, F., & Masino, G. (2016). Job enlargement, job crafting and the moderating role of self-competence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 318-330. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-01-2014-0019
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
CS survey
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Job enlargement (task & skill variety), self-competence, job
crafting
47
20
16
Weseler, D., & Niessen, C. (2016). How job crafting relates to task performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(3), 672-685. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-05-2012-0148
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Quantitative multisource
study: dyads of employees & supervisor CS
study
Niessen et al. (2016)
extending and reducing task crafting, extending and
reducing relational crafting, cognitive crafting, self- &
supervisor-rated task performance
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
12
48
20
16
Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person-job fit and meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92(1), 44-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
Weekly diary study - 3 weeks
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
composite
Weekly job crafting, weekly person-job fit, weekly
meaningfulness
49 Vogt, K., Hakanen, J. J., Brauchli, R., Jenny, G. J., & Bauer, G. F. (2016). The consequences of job crafting: A three-wave study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(3), 353-362. DOI: 10.1080/ 1359432X.2015.1072170
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
L study - 3 waves (cross lagged)
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Petrou et al. (2012)
composite
Job crafting, work engagement, psycap
50 Niessen, C., Weseler, D., & Kostova, P. (2016). When and why do individuals craft their jobs? The role of individual motivation and work characteristics for job crafting. Human relations, 69(6), 1287-1313. DOI: 10.1177/0018726715610642
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
quantitative - validation study
CS + L study
(timelag= 2weeks)
Niessen et al. (2016)
Job autonomy, task interdependence, work
experience (tenure), self-efficacy (can do), & need for
control, human connection and positive self-image (reason to)
51 Kooij, D.T.A.M., Tims, M. & Akkermans, J. (2016). The influence of future time perspective on work engagement and job performance: the role of job crafting. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1209489
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
L study – 2 waves (1 year)
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Future time perspective, job crafting, work engagement, job
performance
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
13
52
20
16
Makikangas, A., Aunola, L., Seppälä, P., & Hakanen, J. (2016). Work engagement-team performance relationship: shared job crafting as a moderator. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, DOI: 10.1111/joop.12154
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
Multilevel study (employees –
teams)
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Individual work engagement, team work engagement, team
member’s perceived team performance, job crafting
53 Plomp, J., Tims, M., Akkermans, J., Khapova, S.N., & Jansen, P.G.W. (2016). Career competencies and job crafting. How proactive employees influence their well-being. Career Development International, 21(6), 587-602. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-08.2016-0145
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
CS Study
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Proactive personality, job crafting, career competencies,
job satisfaction, perceived health
54 Travaglianti, F., Babic, A., & Hansez, I. (2016). The role of work-related needs in the relationship between job crafting, burnout and engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 42(1), a1308. DOI: 10.4102/saijip.v42i1.1308
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
cross-sectional
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Job crafting, specific needs-supplies fit, global needs-
supplies fit, work engagement, burnout
55 Peeters, M.C.W., Arts, R., & Demerouti, E. (2016). The crossover of job crafting between coworkers and its relationship with adaptivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(6), 819-832. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.116089
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
Daily diary study + dyads
(employee + colleague)
Petrou et al. (2012)
(only seeking challenges &
seeking resources)
General-level job crafting, general-level team member
adaptivity, general-level empathy
Day-level job crafting, day-level team member adaptivity (self-
& other-rated)
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
14
56
20
16
de Beer, L.T., Tims, M., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). Job Crafting and its Impact on Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction in Mining and Manufacturing. SAJEMS NS, 19(4), 400-412. DOI: 10.17159/2222-3436/2016/v19n3a7
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
CS study
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
(Composite)
Job crafting, work engagement, job satisfaction
57 Lichtentaler, P.W., & Fischbach, A. (2016). The Conceptualization and Measurement of Job Crafting. Validation of a German Version of the Job Crafting Scale. Zeitschrift fur arbeits-und organisationspsychologie, 60(4), 173-186. DOI: 10.1026/0932-4089/a000219
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Validation Study Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012) – German Version
Job crafting, work engagement, emotional exhaustion
58 Lichtenthaler, P.W., & Fischbach, A. (2016). Job crafting and motivation to continue working beyond retirement age. Career Development International, 21(5), 477-497. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-01-2016-0009.
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
CS study
Lichtenthaler, P.W., & Fischbach, A. (2016): German version of Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Promotion focused job crafting, prevention focused job crafting,
work sense of coherence, burnout, motivation to continue
working after retirement age
59 Kossek, E.E., Piszczek, M.M., McAlpine, K.L., Hammer, L.B., & Burke, L. (2016). Filling the holes: work schedulers as job crafting of employment practice in long-term health care. ILR Review, 69(4), 961-990. DOI: 10.1177/0019793916642761
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Qualitative
interviews
/ /
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
15
60
20
16
Harju, L.K., Hakanen, J., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2016). Can job crafting reduce job boredom and increase work engagement? A three-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 95-96, 11-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2016.07.001
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
L study 2 waves
(timelag= 3year)
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Job boredom, work engagement, increasing
structural resources, increasing social resources, increasing
challenges
61 Solberg, E., & Wong, S.I. (2016). Crafting one’s job to take charge of role overload: when proactivity requires adaptivity across levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 713-725. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.03.001
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Quantitative
L study 2 waves
(timelag= 6months)
Multisource (leaders &
employees)
Wrzesniewski, Bartel, &
Wiesenfeld (working paper)
Perceived role overload, perceived adaptivity, job crafting, leaders’ need for
structure,
62 Vogel, R.M., Rodell, J.B., & Lynch, J.W. (2016). Engagement and productive misfits: How job crafting and leisure activity mitigate the negative effects of value incongruence. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1561-1584. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2014.0850
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Quantitative
L study 3 waves
(timelag= 3 weeks)
Multisource (employees + supervisor)
Leana et al. (2009) Value incongruence, job crafting, leisure activity, job
engagement, task performance, citizenship behavior
63 Cheng, J.C., Chen, C.Y., Ten, H.Y., & Yen, C.H. (2016). Tour leaders’ job crafting and job outcomes: The moderating role of perceived organizational support. Tourism management perspectives, 20, 19-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.tmp.2016.06.001
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Quantitative
CS study
Leana et al. (2009) Job crafting, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job
performance, perceived organizational support,
distributive justice,
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
16
64
20
16
Sakuraya, A., Shimazu, A., Imamura, K., Namba, K. & Kawakami, N. (2016). Effects of a job crafting intervention program on work engagement among Japanese employees: a pretest-posttest study. BMC Psychology, 4(1), 49-58. DOI: 10.1186/s40359-016-0157-9
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Quantitative
Intervention study
Baseline, post-intervention and
one-month follow up
measurement
Sekiguchi, Jie, Hosomi (2014
job crafting, work engagement, psychological distress
65 Kooij, D.T.A.M., van Woerkom, M., Wilkenloh, J., Dorenbosch, L.W., & Denissen, J.J.A. (2016). A job crafting intervention: Increasing person-job fit of aging workers. The Gerontologist, 56, Suppl.3., 295-295. DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnw162.1201
/ Quantitative
Intervention study
Baseline & post-intervention
measurement. Experimental & control group
/ Job crafting, person-job fit
66 Lin, B., Law, K.S., & Zhou, J. (2014). Why is underemployment related to creativity and OCB? A task crafting explanation of the curvilinear moderated relations. Academy of Management Journal (revision).
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
Quantitative
Two studies: 3-wave cross-
lagged study + field study
Leana et al. (2009) 1. Objective underemployment, perceived underemployment, organizational identification,
task crafting, OCBO 2. Objective underemployment,
perceived underemployment, task crafting
67 Roczniewska, M., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). Who Seeks Job Resources and Who Avoids Job Demands? The Link Between Dark Personality Traits and Job Crafting. The Journal of Psychology, 150(8), 1026-1045. DOI: 10.1080/00223980.2016.1235537
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
Two CS studies
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
– Polish version
1. Extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism, job crafting
2. Narcissism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, job
crafting
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
17
68
20
16
Sakuraya, A., Shimazu, A., Eguchi, H., Kamiyama, K., Hara, Y., Namba, K., & Kawakami, N. (2017). Job crafting, work engagement, and psychological distress among Japanese employees: a cross-sectional study
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
CS study
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012) – Japanese version
Job crafting, work engagement, psychological distress
69
20
17
2
01
7
20
17
Esteves, T., & Lopes, M.P. (2017). rafting a Calling: The mediating Role of a Calling Between Challenging Job Demands and Turnover Intention. Journal of Career Development, 44(1), 34-48. DOI: 10.1177/0894845316633789
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
CS study
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Increasing challenges, increasing structural resources,
calling, turnover intention
70 Van Wingerden, J., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2017). The Longitudinal Impact of a Job Crafting Intervention. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(1), 107-119. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1224233
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)
and Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
Intervention study: baseline,
post-intervention
(9weeks after baseline), 1 year
follow-up
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Job crafting, workload, emotional demands,
performance feedback, opportunities for professional development, resilience, self-
efficacy, work engagement, in-role performance
71 Hakanen, J.J., Seppälä, P., & Peeters, M.C.W. (2017). High Job Demands, Still Engaged and Not Burned Out? The Role of Job Crafting. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. Published online. DOI: 10.1007/s12529-017-9638-3
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
CS study
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
– expansive dimensions
Job crafting, work engagement, burnout, job demands
(workload, physical demands, work contents, emotional
dissonance)
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
18
72
20
17
Hakanen, J.J., Peeters, M.W.C., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2017). Different Types of Well-Being Across Time and Their Relationships With Job Crafting. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000081
Tims & Bakker (2010)
Quantitative
L study 2 waves
(timelag= 4 years)
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)
Work engagement, job satisfaction, workaholism,
burnout, job crafting
73
20
17
2
01
7
Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (accepted). Job Crafting: Autonomy and Workload as Antecedents and the Willingness to Continue Working Until Retirement Age as a Positive Outcome. Psychology of Human Resources Journal (Psihologia Resurselor Umane)
Vanbelle, Van den Broeck, & De
Witte (2016)
Quantitative
CS study
The Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS; Vanbelle et
al., 2016)
Autonomy, workload, job crafting, willingness to continue
working until retirement age
74 Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016) Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS). Manuscript in revision.
Vanbelle, Van den Broeck, & De
Witte (2016)
Quantitative
CS study + L Survey (time lag= 3 and 6
month)
The Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS; Vanbelle et
al., 2016)
Job crafting, work engagement, autonomous motivation, work
enjoyment, turnover intentions, burnout, performance, need for
recovery
75 Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., Griep, Y., & De Witte, H. (2016) Active Emotions and Personal Growth Initiative Fuel Employees’ Daily Job Crafting and Person-Job Fit: A Multilevel Study. Manuscript in revision.
Vanbelle, Van den Broeck, & De
Witte (2016)
Quantitative
Multi-level study Daily diary study
The Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS; Vanbelle et al., 2016) adapted
to “days”
Personal Growth Initiative, day-level emotions, day-level job
crafting, day-level person-job fit
APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES
19
76
20
17
Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., Camps, J., & De Witte, H. (2016) Digging into the linear and curvilinear relationships between burnout and job crafting. The moderating role of servant leadership. Manuscript in preparation.
Vanbelle, Van den Broeck, & De
Witte (2016)
Quantitative
CS study
The Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS; Vanbelle et
al., 2016)
Burnout, job crafting, servant leadership
b. Job crafting items published per year (Web of Science, retrieved on 2017, February 25th)
Figure 1. Published items on the topic of job crafting in each year (Web of Science)
Appendix II
Job crafting: Een nieuwe kijk op job (re)design
Van een passieve naar een actieve rol van werknemers in het vormgeven van hun job1
1 Vanbelle, E., De Witte, & Van den Broeck, A. (2016). Job crafting: Een nieuwe kijk op job (re)design. Van een passieve naar een actieve rol van werknemers in het vormgeven van hun job. In: J. Schenning, R., Simons, &, T., Besieux (Eds.). Mensenorganisaties: 24 evoluties onder de loep. Weet wat er speelt bij strategisch HRD. Zaltbommel: Thema, uitgeverij van Schouten & Nelissen.
31Job crafting: een nieuwe kijk op job (re)design
Els Vanbelle, Hans De Witte, Anja Van den Broeck
2 JOB CRAFTING: EEN NIEUWE KIJK OP JOB (RE)DESIGNVAN EEN PASSIEVE NAAR EEN ACTIEVE ROL VAN WERKNEMERS IN HET VORMGEVEN VAN HUN JOB
PERSOONLIJKE VERBINDING
OOK KLEINE VERANDERINGEN KUNNEN BETEKENISVOL VOOR JE ZIJN
Eenzelfde functie kan een variatie aan betekenissen krijgen en op uiteenlopende wijzen concreet ingevuld worden. Ook al werken we binnen de grenzen van een specifieke orga-nisatie en krijgen we vaak een vooropgesteld takenpakket, toch zijn er aspecten binnen jouw job die je anders vorm kunt geven zodat jouw job beter aansluit bij jouw behoeften, voorkeuren en interesses. Het hoeft daarbij heus niet altijd te gaan om grote veranderin-gen zoals het opnemen van nieuwe projecten of het organiseren van sociale evenementen. Ook kleine, dagelijkse aanpassingen kunnen betekenisvol voor je zijn en een positieve im-pact hebben op je werkbeleving, je attitude ten aanzien van het werk en je werkgedrag. Het kunnen zelfs zulke kleine veranderingen zijn dat anderen ze misschien niet eens opmerken. Met ‘job crafting’ breng je op eigen initiatief veranderingen aan in jouw job om jouw func-tioneren te optimaliseren.
Wij zijn niet de enige die getriggerd worden door de aantrekkelijke, veelbelovende term ‘job crafting’. Niet alleen in academische kringen maar ook in de praktijk wint job crafting aan populariteit. Hoewel kwantitatief onderzoek naar job crafting pas echt in opmars is sinds 2012, ging de term in de praktijk tegelijkertijd al gauw een eigen leven leiden en wer-den allerhande omschrijvingen gehanteerd. Aan het begin van Els’ promotieonderzoek eind 2012 was het streven naar conceptverduidelijking op basis van de beperkt voorhan-den literatuur dan ook een eerste grote uitdaging. Want ook al kunnen we job crafting als een nieuwe hype bestempelen en wegdromen bij wat dit fenomeen kan betekenen in de
Mensenorganisaties | Evoluties van het individu32
huidige maatschappij, toch rijzen bij een kritische lezer een aantal vragen die in dit hoofd-stuk aan bod komen. We starten met het beschrijven van job crafting. Waar komt dit begrip vandaan? Hoe kaderen we job crafting in het licht van maatschappelijke tendensen en uit-dagingen? Waar gaat het nu echt over? Vervolgens gaan we dieper in op de wetenschappe-lijke onderbouwing van antecedenten en gevolgen. Beschikt iedereen in elke context over de mogelijkheid om zijn/haar job te craften? Welke persoonskenmerken en omgevingsken-merken spelen een rol? Wat zijn de gevolgen van job crafting voor de werknemer, collega’s en organisatie? Is het een louter positief verhaal? Tot slot zoomen we in op uitdagingen die verbonden zijn aan het stimuleren van job crafting en reflecteren we op hoe zowel HRD’ers als individuele werknemers hiermee in de praktijk aan de slag kunnen gaan.
BESCHRIJVING VAN DE EVOLUTIE
WAAR GAAT HET NU ECHT OVER?
Job crafting is een recent onderzoeksthema binnen de arbeidspsychologie dat een nieuwe kijk biedt op job (re)design. Daar waar arbeidspsychologisch onderzoek volgens de klas-sieke job-designtheorie aan de hand van werkstressmodellen de impact van werkkenmer-ken op de arbeidsbeleving bestudeert, biedt job crafting een complementair perspectief waarbij werknemers een actieve rol spelen in het vormgeven van hun job in functie van hun werkbeleving en performance. Met andere woorden: met job crafting kunnen werk-nemers zelf een actieve rol opnemen in het streven naar optimaal functioneren en dit in termen van zowel welzijn, attitudes als gedrag.
De behoefte aan complementaire benaderingen van job (re)design, zoals job crafting, wordt duidelijk in het licht van enkele maatschappelijke en economische tendensen (Peeters, Taris & De Jonge, 2014). Ten eerste worden de jobs van vandaag steeds complexer. Zo draagt reorganisatie van het werk, bijvoorbeeld de intrede van zelfsturende teams en virtuele teams, bij tot een grotere complexiteit. Ook zien we een alsmaar snellere tech-nologische vooruitgang die enerzijds ruimte creëert voor flexibele werkarrangementen, maar anderzijds ook uitdagingen inhoudt voor het managen van ieders evenwicht tussen werk en niet-werk. Het wordt steeds moeilijker om niet altijd bereikbaar te (moeten) zijn. Ten tweede neemt de diversiteit binnen de huidige werkpopulatie toe. Niet alleen kennen we een toenemende diversiteit in termen van leeftijd (ontgroening versus vergrijzing), ge-slacht, opleidingsachtergrond en afkomst op de werkvloer, ook moeten we omgaan met diverse behoeften, interesses en voorkeuren van individuele werknemers.
Deze tendensen impliceren dat het lastig is om gunstige jobs en werkcondities te creëren die voor een verscheidenheid aan functies en functiebekleders zorgen voor een optimale werkbeleving, motivatie en performance (Demerouti, 2014). Functies van een groep werk-nemers op maat ‘maken’ wordt een steeds grotere uitdaging en het erkennen (of stimule-ren) van een complementaire actieve rol van de individuele werknemer in dit proces kan dan ook soelaas bieden.
33Job crafting: een nieuwe kijk op job (re)design
Werknemers starten in een job met een vooropgesteld takenpakket in een specifieke werkomgeving. Toch zal een zeker herontwerp of redesign van de job noodzakelijk zijn om blijvend te kunnen inspelen op specifieke behoeften van werknemers en maatschap-pelijke veranderingen. Traditioneel gaat job redesign of herontwerp dan uit van een top-down perspectief waarbij werkgevers aanpassingen doorvoeren in de job, de taken of werk omstandigheden om het welzijn en de performance van werknemers te bevorderen (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Werknemers worden in dit traditionele perspectief beschouwd als passieve ontvangers van hun job. Men lijkt ervan uit te gaan dat doorgevoerde verande-ringen door de werkgever voor iedere werknemer hetzelfde effect zullen hebben (‘one-size-fits-all’). Echter, elke job lijkt steeds vaker te bestaan uit een unieke samenstelling van werkaspecten, arrangementen, persoonlijke achtergrond en behoeften (Demerouti & Bak-ker, 2014). Dat maakt een louter klassieke benadering van job redesign moeilijk houdbaar. Er is dus behoefte aan complementaire benaderingen van job redesign, zoals job crafting, waarbij werknemers niet langer een louter passieve, maar een (pro)actieve rol opnemen in het vormgeven van hun job. Wanneer werknemers aan job crafting doen, brengen zij op eigen initiatief veranderingen aan in hun job die beter aansluiten bij hun persoonlijke be-hoeften, voorkeuren en interesses, en streven zij een beter gevoel, een betere prestatie en optimale persoon-job-fit na (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Job crafting maakt maatwerk mogelijk.
In de literatuur kan een onderscheid worden gemaakt tussen twee grote stromingen die elk een andere concrete invulling geven aan job crafting. Ze verschillen in de precieze de-finiëring van job crafting, in de types die ze onderscheiden en in de wijze waarop ze job crafting onderzoeken. De Amerikaanse onderzoekers Wrzesniewski en Dutton beschreven in 2001 voor het eerst de term job crafting. Zij definiëren job crafting als de fysieke en cog-nitieve veranderingen die werknemers aanbrengen in hun taken en relaties om hun job meer betekenis te geven en hun werkidentiteit vorm te geven. Volgens deze pioniers kun-nen werknemers hun job ‘craften’ aan de hand van drie technieken:
1 Door taak crafting kunnen werknemers kiezen voor meer of minder taken (kwantiteit), of er juist voor kiezen hun taken inhoudelijk beter af te stemmen op hun persoonlijke interesses en voorkeuren (kwaliteit).
2 Relationele crafting omvat alle veranderingen die te maken hebben met de relationele verhoudingen op het werk. Iemand kan investeren in nieuwe contacten of juist niet, maar kan ook belastende relaties uit de weg gaan (kwantiteit) of juist extra investeren in bestaande contacten (kwaliteit).
3 Cognitieve crafting betreft de veranderingen die werknemers aanbrengen in hun per-ceptie en betekenisgeving van hun job. Eenzelfde functie kan voor verschillende per-sonen een andere betekenis krijgen. Een voorbeeld is dat van twee schoonmakers in een ziekenhuis. De een omschrijft zijn functie als ‘ik zorg ervoor dat de vloeren netjes en hygiënisch zijn’, terwijl de ander vertelt ‘ik ben mede verantwoordelijk voor de gezond-heid van onze patiënten’. De eerste schoonmaker beleeft zijn functie dan veel beperk-ter, terwijl de tweede zijn verantwoordelijkheden en meerwaarde kadert binnen een groter geheel.
Mensenorganisaties | Evoluties van het individu34
In navolging van het pionierswerk van Wrzesniewski en Dutton (2001) verschenen voor-namelijk kwalitatieve onderzoeken naar job crafting. Een opmars van empirisch onderzoek naar job crafting laat echter op zich wachten tot de eerste kwantitatieve vragenlijstontwik-keling en -validatie in 2012.
De tweede stroming werd in 2010 gelanceerd door onze Nederlandse collega’s Tims en Bak-ker. Zij kaderen job crafting binnen het job demands-resources model (JD-R-model; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) en creëren zo een theoretische basis voor het toen nog vage fenomeen. Vanuit het JD-R-model definiëren zij job crafting als ‘de zelf-geïnitieerde veranderingen die werknemers aanbrengen om hun werkeisen en werkhulpbronnen af te stemmen met hun persoonlijke mogelijkheden en behoeften’ (Tims & Bakker, 2010, p. 4). Werkhulpbronnen verwijzen naar alle werkaspecten die energie geven en werkeisen naar werkaspecten die energie vergen van werknemers. Op basis van recente ontwikkelingen van het JD-R-model wordt een onderscheid gemaakt tussen vier mogelijke job crafting types. Ten eerste zullen werknemers structurele hulpbronnen zoals autonomie, vaardigheidsbenutting en ontplooi-ingsmogelijkheden proberen te vermeerderen. Ten tweede zullen zij ook investeren in sociale hulpbronnen zoals het krijgen van feedback, coaching en sociale steun. Uit onderzoek blijkt immers dat hulpbronnen op het werk niet alleen positief bijdragen aan uitkomsten zoals bevlogenheid en persoonlijke groei, maar ook een beschermende rol vervullen in re-latie tot negatieve uitkomsten zoals burn-out. Voor het derde en vierde type wordt een on-derscheid gemaakt tussen respectievelijk uitdagende en belemmerende taakeisen. Uitda-gende taakeisen zoals werkdruk, het aangaan van nieuwe projecten en cognitief uitdagend werk vragen niet alleen energie, maar kunnen ook positieve gevolgen inhouden voor de werkmotivatie van werknemers. Belemmerende taakeisen daarentegen, zoals rolconflict (tegenstrijdige verwachtingen), rolonduidelijkheid (onduidelijke verwachtingen) en emoti-onele belasting houden steevast negatieve gevolgen in. Om die reden zullen werknemers geneigd zijn uitdagende taakeisen te vermeerderen en belemmerende taakeisen te verminderen. Binnen deze tweede stroming wordt er bewust voor gekozen cognitieve crafting achterwege te laten. Kwantitatief onderzoek naar job crafting kent een opmars sinds de vragenlijstontwikkeling van Tims, Bakker en Derks in 2012.
Hoewel de twee stromingen verschillen in hun concrete definitie, typering en onderzoek, is er volgens ons toch eenzelfde kern. Beide stromingen gaan ervan uit dat werknemers op eigen initiatief veranderingen aanbrengen in werkgerelateerde aspecten. Veranderingen die anderen niet noodzakelijk hoeven te zien. Veranderingen die niet noodzakelijk positief of negatief zijn voor de omgeving. Veranderingen op lange termijn, maar ook veranderin-gen om in te spelen op dagelijkse omstandigheden. Veranderingen die werknemers helpen persoonlijke doelen na te streven, van het creëren van meer betekenis tot het optimalise-ren van de werkbeleving en een betere persoon-job-fit.
Maar, is dit het dan?, zou je je kunnen afvragen. Of zijn er ook andere job crafting types relevant? Aangezien job crafting gaat over persoonlijk relevante veranderingen zou het best kunnen dat ook andere types veranderingen een meerwaarde inhouden. Zo wordt door Mark van Vuuren en Luc Dorenbosch in hun handboek Mooi werk: Naar een betere
35Job crafting: een nieuwe kijk op job (re)design
baan zonder weg te gaan ook gesproken over context crafting. Job crafting kan dan ook van toepassing zijn op de werkplek, de werkomgeving en de werktijd. In onze benadering bouwen we verder op de beschikbare literatuur en hanteren we een overkoepelende bena-dering van job crafting. Daarin laten we open welke veranderingen werknemers concreet aanbrengen. Dit kan variëren van cognitieve crafting tot het craften van specifieke werk-kenmerken en het aanpassen van de werkcontext en -tijd.
Wij definiëren job crafting aan de hand van twee kernelementen als een specifieke vorm van proactief gedrag waarbij werknemers (1) zelf, op eigen initiatief veranderingen aan-brengen in hun job om (2) goed te doen voor zichzelf. Aansluitend bij de definitie ontwik-kelden we een instrument om job crafting op een overkoepelende manier te meten aan de hand van vier items (Vanbelle, Van den Broeck & De Witte, 2013). Deze twee kernelementen maken ook het verschil met andere proactieve gedragingen inzichtelijk, zie Figuur 1. Job crafting werd al door Parker, Bindl en Strauss (2010) omschreven als specifiek proactief gedrag dat gericht is op het verbeteren van de persoon-job-fit. Verder moet job crafting onderscheiden worden van i-deals (individuele afspraken met de werkgever) en persoon-lijk initiatief. Hoewel i-deals ook wel gericht zijn op een betere situatie creëren voor het individu, houden deze een overeenkomst in tussen de werknemer en werkgever. Persoon-lijk initiatief gebeurt dan wel weer op eigen initiatief van de werknemer, maar is in eerste instantie gericht op het verbeteren van werkmethoden en de organisationele werking. In tabel 1 (pagina 36) vind je een overzicht van de verschillende job crafting-benaderingen.
Job cra�ing
Persoonlijkinitiatief
Extra-rolgedrag
I-dealsRolnegotiatie
Collectieve cra�ing
Goed doenvoor zichzelf
Veranderingen binnen de jobgeïnitieerd door de
werknemer samen metanderen (werkgever, collega’s)
Veranderingen binnen de jobgeïnitieerd door de werknemer
Goed doen vooranderen (organisatie,
collega’s, klanten)
RolinnovatieTaakherziening
Figuur 1 Job crafting gekaderd binnen een proactief perspectief op job redesign.
Mensenorganisaties | Evoluties van het individu36
Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001) Onze benadering Tims, Bakker & Derks
(2010)
Wat? Wat? Wat?
Job crafting als de fysieke en cognitieve veranderingen die werknemers aanbrengen in hun job …
… om meer betekenis te creëren en hun werkidenti-teit vorm te geven.
Job crafting als het op eigen initiatief veranderingen aanbrengen in de job …
… om het eigen functione-ren in termen van welzijn, attitudes en gedrag te optimaliseren.
Job crafting als de zelf-ge-initieerde (actuele) veran-deringen die werknemers aanbrengen in hun job …
… om hun werkeisen en werkhulpbronnen af te stem-men op hun persoonlijke mogelijkheden en behoeften.
Types Types Types
1 Taakcrafting2 Relationele crafting3 Cognitieve crafting
We laten open welke concrete veranderingen werknemers aanbrengen zodat werknemers zelf kun-nen invullen welke verande-ringen in de job relevant zijn voor hun functioneren.
1 Verhogen van structurele werkhulpbronnen
2 Verhogen van sociale werkhulpbronnen
3 Verhogen van uitdagende werkeisen
4 Verlagen van belemme-rende werkeisen
Onderzoeksbenadering Onderzoeksbenadering Onderzoeksbenadering
Voornamelijk kwalitatief,Sinds 2013 ook kwantitatief meetinstrument beschik-baar
Kwantitatief onderzoek aan de hand van de overkoepe-lende job crafting-schaal
Kwantitatief onderzoek aan de hand van de job crafting-schaal
Tabel 1 Overzicht job crafting-benaderingen.
WETENSCHAPPELIJKE ONDERBOUWING
EEN NIEUW ONDERZOEKSTHEMA IN OPMARS
Job crafting komt als onderzoeksthema steeds sterker in de schijnwerpers te staan. Hoe-wel de theoretische bijdragen van Wrzesniewski en Dutton in 2001 en Tims en Bakker in 2010 aanzet gaven tot heel wat onderzoeksvragen, is kwantitatief onderzoek naar job craf-ting pas de laatste jaren in opmars. Zo verschenen er tussen 2001 en 2011 slechts 15 publi-caties over voornamelijk kwalitatief onderzoek naar job crafting, terwijl er tussen 2012 en eind 2015 maar liefst 33 kwantitatieve studies werden gepubliceerd, waarvan 23 in 2014 en
37Job crafting: een nieuwe kijk op job (re)design
2015. Het merendeel van de studies situeert zich binnen de tweede job crafting-stroming. Deze gaat ervan uit dat werknemers hun job craften vanuit de behoefte aan bepaalde werk kenmerken en meer structurele en sociale hulpbronnen, meer uitdagende werkeisen en minder belemmerende werkeisen nastreven. In wat volgt, gaan we dieper in op onder-zochte antecedenten en gevolgen van job crafting.
ANTECEDENTEN: WELKE PERSOONS- EN OMGEVINGSKENMERKEN STIMULEREN JOB CRAFTING?Hoewel theoretisch wordt verondersteld dat iedereen in elke context in bepaalde mate aan job crafting kan doen, blijken zowel persoons- als omgevingskenmerken een beïnvloe-dende rol te spelen (voor een overzicht: Demerouti & Bakker, 2014; Demerouti, 2014). Op persoonlijk vlak komen een proactieve persoonlijkheid, het geloof in het eigen kunnen en het type doelgerichtheid naar voren als antecedenten van job crafting. Werknemers met een sterke proactieve persoonlijkheid zetten vooral in op het vermeerderen van hulpbron-nen en uitdagingen in hun job. Zij zijn van nature geneigd om bewust en doelgericht hun omgeving te scannen op zinvolle veranderingen en deze te vertalen naar proactief gedrag, waaronder dus job crafting. Job crafting blijkt ook op dagelijkse basis relevant. Zo blijkt uit onderzoek dat op dagen dat werknemers een sterk geloof in het eigen kunnen (zelf-effectivi-teit) ervaren, zij hoger scoren in job crafting dan op dagen wanneer dit geloof minder sterk is. Ook wij vonden recent dat werknemers die weten wat ze willen bereiken, geloven dat ze het kunnen bereiken en hiertoe plannen maken, hoger scoren in dagelijkse job crafting (Vanbelle, Van den Broeck & De Witte, 2016b). Job crafting sluit dan ook mooi aan bij het idee van zelfsturing, een proces waarbij mensen niet alleen zelfsturend gedrag vertonen (zoals job crafting), maar waarbij ze ook beschikken over metacognitieve vaardigheden als het vergaren van zelfkennis, reflecteren op de eigen persoon en de omgeving, concretise-ren van doelen en evalueren van gedragsuitkomsten. Tot slot blijkt dat werknemers die gericht zijn op persoonlijke groei en ontwikkeling vooral zullen inzetten op hulpbronnen en uitdagingen, terwijl werknemers die gericht zijn op zekerheid eerder belemmerende as-pecten op het werk proberen te vermijden.
Op werkvlak komt de mate waarin men autonomie of beslissingsruimte ervaart naar voren als een van de belangrijkste antecedenten van job crafting. Werknemers die het gevoel hebben zelf hun werk te kunnen plannen en uitvoeren zoals ze willen, maken meer ge-bruik van deze beslissingsruimte om te craften. Op het niveau van de job blijken ook taakonafhankelijkheid, werkdruk en taakcomplexiteit job crafting positief te stimuleren. Verder blijkt er ook een stimulerende rol voor de leidinggevende te zijn weggelegd en lijken werk-nemers ook te craften in tijden van organisatieverandering. Kortom, ‘job crafting gebeurt zowel in veeleisende, hulpbronrijke als veranderende werkomgevingen door proactieve werknemers die streven naar persoonlijke groei of die een misfit ervaren tussen persoonlij-ke motieven en de werkomgeving’ (Demerouti, 2014, p. 5). Er blijven echter nog vele vragen onbeantwoord over de beïnvloedende factoren van job crafting en bestaand onderzoek moet nog worden versterkt.
Mensenorganisaties | Evoluties van het individu38
GEVOLGEN VOOR INDIVIDU EN OMGEVINGAan de hand van job crafting streven werknemers in eerste instantie naar positieve ge-volgen voor zichzelf en onderzoek toont aan dat dit globaal genomen ook lukt. Zo blijkt job crafting positief bij te dragen tot persoon-job-fit, bevlogenheid, arbeidstevredenheid en performance (Demerouti, 2014). Uit ons onderzoek blijkt dat job crafting ook positief bijdraagt aan de bereidheid om langer te werken (Vanbelle, Van den Broeck & De Witte, 2016a). Echter, men is het er theoretisch over eens dat job crafting niet noodzakelijk in lijn ligt met de organisatiedoelen of anderen ten goede komt. Intussen verschenen zelfs enke-le empirische studies die een louter positief verhaal wat nuanceren. De positieve gevolgen van job crafting blijken vooral te gelden wanneer werknemers ‘op een positieve manier craften’, met name door meer hulpbronnen en uitdagingen te creëren in hun werk. Het uit de weg gaan van belemmerende werkeisen lijkt eerder negatieve gevolgen te hebben, zowel voor het individu als voor de omgeving. Zo werd het vermijden van belemmerende werkeisen gerelateerd aan minder bevlogenheid en verminderde performance van het individu zelf (Demerouti, Bakker & Halbesleben, 2015), maar ook aan meer uitputting en verminderde performance bij collega’s (Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2015). Deze eerste bevin-dingen lijken te suggereren dat er andere processen spelen voor verschillende types job crafting en dat vooral het inzetten op hulpbronnen en uitdagingen positieve gevolgen met zich meebrengt. Verder vermoeden we dat job crafting deel uitmaakt van een dynamisch proces. Zo is bevlogenheid bijvoorbeeld niet enkel een positieve uitkomst maar ook een beïnvloedende factor. Onderzoek hiernaar staat echter nog in de kinderschoenen. Toe-komstig onderzoek zal deze processen nog grondiger moeten bestuderen voordat hier harde conclusies en implicaties aan kunnen worden gekoppeld.
EVOLUTIE IN DE PRAKTIJK ONDER DE LOEP
BALANS TUSSEN STURING EN ZELFSTURING
Hoewel we kunnen wegdromen bij wat job crafting zou kunnen betekenen in de huidige maatschappij, zijn er twee belangrijke bedenkingen. Ten eerste moeten we job crafting beschouwen als complementair aan klassiek job (re)design. Ook al worden werknemers steeds meer aangemoedigd zelf hun verantwoordelijkheid te nemen en een actieve rol te spelen in hun job, toch neemt dit niet weg dat een klassiek goed job (re)design waarbij gestreefd wordt naar een optimale persoon-job-fit door de werkgever moet gebeuren. Job crafting kan daarbovenop echter dat extraatje betekenen voor het optimaal functioneren van de individuele werknemer. Sturing en zelfsturing gaan met andere woorden idealiter hand in hand. Job crafting valt als het ware te beschouwen als een ‘finetuning’ van het klassieke job (re)design.
Ten tweede komen we voor een erg belangrijke uitdaging te staan: Hoe kunnen we job crafting stimuleren zodat dit zowel positief effect heeft op de individuele werknemer als op zijn omgeving? Het kan immers niet de bedoeling zijn dat individuele job crafting ten
39Job crafting: een nieuwe kijk op job (re)design
koste gaat van het welzijn van anderen. Ook hier kan het hand in hand gaan van zelfstu-ring en sturing soelaas brengen. Zowel de context als het individu zijn immers bepalend voor job crafting en de gevolgen ervan. Job crafting in een positieve werkcontext zal wel-licht eerder positieve gevolgen met zich meebrengen voor individu en omgeving. Een goed job design is dan ook een cruciaal uitgangspunt omdat het een kader biedt waarbinnen werknemers aan de slag kunnen. Verder is een ondersteunend organisatieklimaat essenti-eel, een klimaat waarin men openstaat voor een actieve rol van werknemers, investeert in open communicatie, gehoor geeft aan individuele behoeften, interesses en bekommernis-sen en werknemers coacht naar een beter welzijn. Een belangrijke rol lijkt hierbij wegge-legd voor de leidinggevende en HRD’er. Op individueel niveau schuiven we het belang van bewustwording naar voren, zowel van de job als van zichzelf. Zo helpt het om stil te staan bij de huidige job en de mogelijkheden om te craften. Verder is het goed om meer inzicht te verkrijgen in de eigen persoonlijke waarden, sterktes en doelen.
Dit zijn overigens ook aspecten die men kan meenemen naar het ontwikkelen van prak-tijkinterventies. Hoewel nog erg beperkt, zijn er toch al enkele toepassingen omtrent job crafting in de praktijk bekend. Het gaat dan voornamelijk om groepsinterventies waarin men eerst een introductie op job crafting geeft, daarna overgaat tot een taakanalyse, ruim-te inbouwt voor persoonlijke reflectie en, al dan niet in groep, werkt aan een persoonlijk job crafting-plan. Van den Heuvel, Demerouti en Peeters (2012) onderzochten de effecten van een dergelijke groepstraining bij een Nederlands politiekorps. Zij concludeerden dat deze positief bijdraagt tot de persoonlijke effectiviteit van deelnemers, en meer positieve en minder negatieve emoties met zich meebrengt. Ook worden dergelijke groepsinterven-ties soms op teamniveau georganiseerd en wordt op die manier de stap naar ‘team crafting’ gezet. Hierbij worden dan bijvoorbeeld verschillende taken en activiteiten op tafel gelegd en onderling herverdeeld, rekening houdend met persoonlijke voorkeuren en interesses.
ZELF AAN DE SLAG
Hier zetten we nog enkele tips om zelf aan de slag te gaan met job crafting op een rijtje, zowel vanuit een werkgevers- of HRD’er-perspectief als vanuit een werknemersperspectief.
VANUIT EEN WERKGEVERS-OF HRD’ER-PERSPECTIEF: HOE JOB CRAFTING STIMULEREN?Ook al gebeurt job crafting op initiatief van de individuele werknemer, toch kunnen de werkgever en HRD’er dit gedrag ook positief stimuleren. Zo is het belangrijk te investeren in klassiek goed job design. Een werkomgeving die van nature veel hulpbronnen aanreikt om met de aanwezige uitdagingen en belemmeringen aan de slag te gaan, is een essenti-ele voedingsbodem voor job crafting. Hierbij kan de direct leidinggevende als sleutelfiguur fungeren in het mede creëren van een gunstige werkomgeving, maar ook in het bewust-maken van job crafting-mogelijkheden. Daarnaast kan job crafting explicieter gestimuleerd worden doorheen praktijkinterventies als loopbaanbegeleiding, coaching, training in per-
Mensenorganisaties | Evoluties van het individu40
soonlijke ontwikkeling, teambuildingsactiviteiten enzovoort. Figuur 2 geeft weer welke as-pecten typisch aan bod komen in dergelijke interventies.
4. Opvolgingen evaluatie
Welke veranderingenbracht je aan? Welkeimpact hadden dezeveranderingen? Sloot
dat aan bij jouwsterktes eninteresses?
3a. Naar eenpersoonlijk job
cra�ing plan Wat kun je anders doen? Hoe maak je dit concreet?3b. Naar een team job cra�ing plan Wat zouden jullie
anders kunnen doen?
2. Taakanalyseen persoonlijke
reflectieHoe ziet jouw functieeruit? Wat zijn jouw
taken en activiteiten?Welke aspectenzouden anders
kunnen?
1. Introductieinzake job cra�ingWaarover gaat jobcra�ing? Welke jobcra�ing types zijn
denkbaar?
Een klassiek goed job design en ondersteunend organisatieklimaat als voedingsbodem voor job cra�ing
Job cra�ing expliciet stimuleren binnen de grenzen van de organisatie en concrete functies:rol van de leidinggevende, loopbaanbegeleiding, coaching, groepstraining, enz.
Figuur 2 Job crafting stimuleren vanuit het perspectief van de werkgever en HRD’er.1
VANUIT EEN WERKNEMERSPERSPECTIEF: WERKEN AAN EEN PERSOONLIJK JOB CRAFTING-PLANJob crafting kun je zien als puzzelen. Voor je begint te puzzelen, is het wenselijk om je ver-schillende puzzelstukken te verzamelen. Je bewust worden van hoe je job er momenteel uit ziet, hoe jij daar tegenover staat en hoe die aansluit bij jouw persoonlijke waarden, be-hoeften, sterktes en interesses, kan je helpen om concrete job crafting-doelen te formule-ren en na te streven. Concreet werken we volgens het volgende stappenplan2 dat je zowel rustig zelf kunt doornemen als samen met een coach.
4. Naar eenpersoonlijk job
cra�ing planWat kan ik doen om
mijn job beter te latenaansluiten bij wie ik ben
en wat ik nodig heb?‘Think SMART’
3. Persoonlijkereflectie
Wie ben ik? Wat vindik belangrijk in mijnjob/in mijn leven?
Waar ben ik goed in?Wat motiveert mij
om te werken?
2. Energie-gevers en -vretersWelke aspecten van
het werk geven mij energie?
Welke aspecten vragen energie?
1. TaakanalyseHoe ziet mijn job
eruit? Welke taken enactiviteiten heb ik? Wat doen die taken met mijn
energiepeil? Geven zeenergie? Vreten zeenergie? Of eerder
neutraal?
Figuur 3 Stap voor stap naar een persoonlijk job crafting-plan.
1 Geïnspireerd op Van den Heuvel e.a. (2012) en Van Vuuren en Dorenbosch (2011).2 Geïnspireerd op Van Vuuren en Dorenbosch (2011).
41Job crafting: een nieuwe kijk op job (re)design
De volgende tips kunnen extra helpen:
• Taakanalyse. Start vanuit tien concrete taken en activiteiten binnen jouw functie. Dit is een gemakkelijkere opstap om naderhand energiegevers en energievreters te exploreren.
• Persoonlijke reflectie. Inzicht in wat je belangrijk vindt, waar je goed in bent en wat je motiveert om te werken, zal je helpen om aspecten binnen je werk op te sporen die je kunt veranderen of anders kunt aanpakken.
• Zet in op energiegevers. Probeer veranderingen te initiëren vanuit een positieve mind-set. Hoe kun je je job aanpassen zodat hij je meer energie geeft en je er meer plezier uithaalt?
• Think out-of-the-box. Job crafting hoeft heus niet altijd te gaan over grote verande-ringen. Ook kleine veranderingen in het wat, hoe, hoe lang, met wie, waar en wanneer kunnen betekenisvol zijn.
• Think SMART! Check of je doelen SMART zijn: specifiek, meetbaar, aanvaardbaar, rea-listisch en tijdsgebonden. Deze doelen uiten zich immers veel sneller in concreet gedrag dan vage, algemene doelen.
• Kosten/batenanalyse. Door op voorhand na te denken over kosten en baten voor jezelf, voor je collega’s en de organisatie, anticipeer je op mogelijke ongewenste gevolgen.
Reflectievragen om werk te maken van je persoonlijke job crafting-plan:
• Wat betekent job crafting voor jou? Hoe geef jij vorm aan jouw job zodat deze beter bij je zou passen?
• Hoe ziet jouw huidige job eruit? Wat betekent jouw job voor jou? Welke activiteiten staan centraal en hoe zou je deze omschrijven in termen van wat, hoe, wanneer, met wie en waar?
• Welke energiegevers en energievreters ervaar je hierbij? Wat maakt dat bepaalde aspec-ten energiegevend, dan wel energievretend voor je zijn?
• Als je zou dromen van de ideale job, hoe zou die er dan uitzien? Wat zou er anders zijn? Aan welke kleine, energiegevende aspecten zou je extra aandacht besteden?
• Hoe staat jouw werkomgeving tegenover job crafting? Welke moeilijkheden ervaar je en hoe zou je hier zelf mee aan de slag kunnen gaan met collega’s, leidinggevenden of anderen? Wat zou je helpen?
Mensenorganisaties | Evoluties van het individu42
MEER WETEN?
De volgende twee praktijkboeken werden geschreven om werknemers in de eerste plaats informatie en oefeningen aan te reiken om zelf aan de slag te gaan met job crafting. Daar-naast kunnen deze boeken echter ook als inspiratiebron dienen voor HRD’ers in het onder-steunen van werknemers bij het vormgeven van hun job.
• Van Vuuren, M. & Dorenbosch, L. (2011). Mooi werk. Naar een betere baan zonder weg te gaan. Handboek job crafting. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Boom.
• Spruyt, M. & Dekker, M. (2014). Aan de slag met job crafting. Meer plezier en energie in je werk. Utrecht: Kessels & Smit.
VEEL JOB CRAFTING-PLEZIER!
43Job crafting: een nieuwe kijk op job (re)design
LITERATUUR
Bakker, A.B. & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328.
Demerouti, E. (2014). Design Your Own Job Through Job Crafting. European Psychologist. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000188.
Demerouti, E. & Bakker, A.B. (2014). Job crafting. In: M.C.W. Peeters, J. de Jonge & T.W. Taris (Eds.), An Introduction to Contemporary Work Psychology (pp. 414-433). Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B. & Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2015). Productive and Counterproductive Job Crafting: A Daily Diary Study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(4), 457-469.
Heuvel, M. van den, Demerouti, E. & Peeters, M. (2012). Succesvol job craften door middel van een groeps-training. In: J. de Jonge, M. Peeters, S. Sjollema & H. de Zeeuw (Eds.), Scherp in werk. 5 routes naar optimale inzetbaarheid (p. 24-49). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K. & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856.
Peeters, M.C.W., Taris, T.W. & Jonge, J. de (2014). Introduction. People at Work. In: M.C.W. Peeters, J. de Jonge & T.W. Taris (Eds.), An Introduction to Contemporary Work Psychology (pp. 3-30). Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Tims, M. & Bakker, A.B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 9. DOI: 10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173-186.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. & Derks, D. (2015). Examining Job Crafting from an interpersonal perspective: is employee job crafting related to the well-being of colleagues? Applied Psychology: An international review. DOI: 10.1111/ apps.12043.
Vanbelle, E., Broeck, A. van den & Witte, H. de (2013). Development and Validation of a General Job Crafting Scale. Poster presentation at the 6th International Seminar on Positive Occupational Health Psychology, Leuven.
Vanbelle, E., Broeck, A. van den & Witte, H. de (2016a). Job Crafting: Autonomy and Workload As Antecedents and the Willingness to Continue Working As a Positive Outcome. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Vanbelle, E., Broeck, A. van den & Witte, H. de (2016b). Active Emotions and Personal Growth Initiative Fuel Employees’ Daily job Crafting and Person-Job Fit: A Multilevel Study. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Vuuren, M. van & Dorenbosch, L. (2011). Mooi werk. Naar een betere baan zonder weg te gaan. Handboek job crafting. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Boom.
Wrzesniewski, A. & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.
Mensenorganisaties | Evoluties van het individu44
Els Vanbelle
BIOGRAFIE
Dra. Els Vanbelle is promovendus binnen de onderzoekseenheid Arbeids- en organi-satiepsychologie en professioneel leren aan de KU Leuven. Na iets langer dan een jaar werkzaam te zijn als onderzoeksmedewerker startte ze in november 2012 haar promotie-onderzoek rond job crafting onder begeleiding van prof. dr. Hans De Witte en prof. dr. Anja Van den Broeck. Haar wens is te komen tot een procesmodel van job crafting. Haar werk sluit aan bij haar ruimere interesse in welzijn, job design, motivatie, persoonlijke waarden en identiteit, coaching en het belangrijke evenwicht tussen werk en niet werk. Ze ziet het als een uitdaging ook de vertaalslag te maken naar praktijkimplicaties.
Job crafting: een nieuwe kijk op job (re)design 45
Hans De Witte
BIOGRAFIE
Prof. dr. Hans De Witte is hoogleraar Arbeidspsychologie aan de Faculteit Psychologie en pedagogische wetenschappen van de KU Leuven, en is verbonden aan de Onder-zoeksgroep Arbeids-, Organisatie- en PersoneelsPsychologie (WOPP), een onderdeel van de ruimere Onderzoekseenheid Arbeids- en Organisatiepsychologie en Opleidings-kunde (O2L). Hij is tevens verbonden aan de Optentia Research Focus Area, North-West University (Vanderbijlpark Campus), Zuid-Afrika. Zijn onderzoeksdomeinen omvatten: (a) de arbeidspsychologische benadering van arbeid, bijv. de beleving van arbeid, zowel positief (arbeidstevredenheid en bevlogenheid), als negatief (werkstress, burnout), (b) ge-volgen van jobonzekerheid, tijdelijk werk en herstructureringen, en (c) de beleving en gevol-gen van werkloosheid.
Mensenorganisaties | Evoluties van het individu46
Anja Van den Broeck
BIOGRAFIE
Prof. dr. Anja Van den Broeck is arbeids- en motivatiepsychologe en tewerkgesteld als hoofddocente aan de Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfswetenschappen aan de KU Leuven (Campus Brussel). In haar onderzoek bestudeert Anja hoe en onder welke omstandig-heden werknemers optimaal kunnen functioneren. Dat wil zeggen: zich goed voelen in hun vel, proactief zijn en goede prestaties neerzetten. Anja onderzoekt hierbij het samenspel tussen job design, welzijn en motivatie. Ze publiceert in gerenommeerde tijdschriften als Journal of Management en Journal of Vocational Behavior en deelt haar kennis door samen te werken met bedrijven en organisaties in de profit- en non-profitsector.
Appendix III
Job crafting anders belicht: de meerwaarde van coaching1
1 Vanbelle, E. (2017). Job crafting anders belicht: de meerwaarde van coaching. Boekbijdrage in: Haubourdin, S. (Ed.). The Corporate Well-Being Coach. Een holistische kijk op bedrijfswelzijn. Pelckmans Pro
1
Job crafting anders belicht: de meerwaarde van coaching
Els Vanbellei
“Natuurlijk geven werknemers zelf vorm aan hun job”. Waarom zouden ze het niet doen? Door zelf
initiatief te nemen en veranderingen aan te brengen in de job, wordt het immers mogelijk om de job
echt te laten passen bij de persoonlijke behoeften, waarden, talenten en interesses. Hierbij kan
gedacht worden aan grote veranderingen zoals een aangepast takenpakket of het mede organiseren
van sociale evenementen op het werk. Het kan echter ook gaan over kleine dagelijkse veranderingen
die het werken net wat aangenamer maken. Zo kan eenzelfde functie een variatie aan betekenissen
krijgen en op verscheidene manieren ingevuld worden door verschillende werknemers.
Dat klinkt als muziek in de oren, hoor ik u denken, maar hoe werkt dat dan en is dat voor iedereen
even vanzelfsprekend? Is het enkel een positief verhaal of is er ook een potentiële negatieve zijde aan
deze medaille? Wat kan ik als coach, werkgever of leidinggevende doen om van job crafting mee een
succesverhaal te maken?
Sinds 2012 kent het begrip ‘job crafting’ een ware opmars. Er is niet alleen een forse toename van
wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar dit proactieve gedrag, er verschijnen ook praktijkboeken voor
werknemers (Spruyt, & Dekker, 2014; Van Vuuren, & Dorenbosch, 2011), boekhoofdstukken
gericht naar HRD’ers (Vanbelle, De Witte, & Van den Broeck, 2016a) en praktijkseminaries binnen
het HR-veld waar job crafting een centrale plaats krijgt. De focus ligt hierbij terecht op de
individuele werknemer. In deze bijdrage gooi ik het echter toch even over een andere boeg en
belicht ik job crafting vanuit het perspectief van werkgevers, leidinggevenden,
loopbaanbegeleiders en andere coaches. Deze naaste (werk)omgeving van de individuele
werknemer heeft immers een meerwaarde te betekenen in het stimuleren van zogenaamde
‘positieve’ job crafting. Hoewel job crafting weldegelijk een veelbelovend individu-gericht concept
is, brengt het immers toch enkele uitdagingen met zich mee voor de dagelijkse praktijk. Aan de
hand van job crafting brengen werknemers op eigen initiatief veranderingen aan in hun job om
die voor zichzelf beter te maken. Deze veranderingen liggen dan ook niet noodzakelijk in lijn met
de organisatiedoelen. Verder draait job crafting niet altijd positief uit voor de werknemer, mede
afhankelijk van welke vorm job crafting aanneemt, en kunnen we dus ook ten aanzien van de job
crafter valkuilen en uitdagingen formuleren. De complementariteit van sturing en zelfsturing,
waarbij individuele job crafting en een open, ondersteunend en hulpbronrijk organisatieklimaat
hand in hand gaan, omvat dan ook een sleutel tot succes.
2
Ik bouw deze bijdrage over ‘job crafting’ op aan de hand van twee delen. In een eerste deel situeer
ik job crafting in het licht van enkele maatschappelijke tendensen en ga ik dieper in op wat het
concept inhoudt: waarover gaat het precies en wat is het niet? Ten tweede maak ik de brug van
wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar de praktijk van individuele werknemers, werkgevers,
leidinggevenden en coaches. Hierbij koppel ik een beknopt overzicht van antecedenten en
gevolgen van individuele job crafting aan wat u als werkgever, leidinggevende of coach kunt
betekenen in het tegemoet komen aan uitdagingen die job crafting met zich meebrengt voor zowel
de individuele job crafter als diens omgeving.
1. Job crafting: werknemers als actieve vormgevers van hun job
1.1. De nood aan complementaire benaderingen van klassiek job design
Tijden veranderen en werpen een nieuwe kijk op het huidige werken. Een louter traditionele visie
op job design waarbij men werknemers beschouwt als passieve ontvangers van een job en waarbij
veranderingen in de job enkel top-down worden doorgevoerd lijkt niet langer houdbaar in het
licht van enkele maatschappelijke en economische trends (Peeters, Taris, & de Jonge, 2014). Ten
eerste worden jobs alsmaar complexer. Een voortdurende reorganisatie van werk, het
samenwerken in zelfsturende teams, de opkomst van de dienstensector en meer ‘kennisjobs’,
alsook de snelle technologische vooruitgang brengen andere uitdagingen met zich mee voor het
huidige of ‘nieuwe werken’. Andere soorten jobs impliceren andere, zowel positieve als
uitdagende, werkkenmerken waarmee de werknemer dient om te gaan. Verder maken nieuwe
technologieën ruimte voor flexibele werkarrangementen, maar impliceren ze ook grotere
uitdagingen voor een gezonde work-life balans. Er wordt steeds meer beroep gedaan op de
cognitieve, sociale, emotionele en zelfsturende capaciteiten van werknemers om het hoofd te
bieden aan deze groeiende complexiteit. Ten tweede kent de huidige arbeidspopulatie een
toenemende diversiteit. Hierbij doelen we niet enkel op diversiteit in termen van demografische
kenmerken zoals geslacht, leeftijd (ontgroening en vergrijzing), opleidingsniveau en afkomst
maar ook diversiteit in termen van persoonlijke behoeften, voorkeuren, talenten en interesses.
Deze huidige trends maken het steeds uitdagender om jobs en arbeidscondities te creëren die
voor iedere werknemer positief bijdragen tot de arbeidsbeleving, -motivatie, en performance
(Demerouti, 2014). Ze belichten de behoefte aan complementaire, bottom-up benaderingen van
job redesign zoals job crafting waarbij de werknemer ook een actieve rol kan opnemen in het
vormgeven van de job.
3
1.2. Job crafting: Waarover gaat het?
Job crafting is een jong onderzoeksthema binnen de arbeidspsychologie, de stroming binnen de
psychologie die het werk-gerelateerd welzijn van de individuele werknemer centraal plaatst. Daar
waar men volgens de klassieke job design theorie de impact van een job op de werkbeleving van
werknemers bestudeert, biedt job crafting een nieuwe, complementaire benadering van job
redesign. Aan de hand van job crafting nemen werknemers immers het eigen heft mede in handen
en initiëren zij persoonlijk relevante veranderingen in hun job om een beter gevoel, een betere
persoon-job fit of een betere prestatie na te streven (Tims, & Bakker, 2010; Vanbelle, Van de
Broeck, & De Witte, 2016b).
Job crafting is met andere woorden een specifieke vorm van proactief gedrag waarbij werknemers
(1) op eigen initiatief veranderingen aanbrengen in hun job om (2) goed te doen voor zichzelf
(Vanbelle et al., 2016b). In het kader van mijn doctoraat ontwikkelden we een overkoepelende
benadering van job crafting en bieden we werknemers de ruimte om zelf invulling te geven aan
wat deze veranderingen voor hen kunnen zijn. We bouwen hiermee verder op specifieke
omschrijvingen van job crafting in de literatuur.
De Amerikaanse onderzoekers Amy Wrzesniewski en Jane Dutton lanceerden job crafting in 2001
als ‘het aanbrengen van fysieke of cognitieve veranderingen in de job om het werk meer betekenis
te geven en de eigen werkidentiteit te creëren’. Aan de hand van taak crafting gaan werknemers
op zoek naar nieuwe taken of nieuwe projecten, besteden ze andere taken liever uit (kwantiteit)
of hanteren ze nieuwe werkmethoden om hun manier van werken te verbeteren (kwaliteit).
Relationele crafting, omvat alle veranderingen die werknemers initiëren in de sociale interacties
op het werk. Men kan nieuwe relaties aangaan, belastende interacties vermijden (kwantiteit) of
net extra investeren in bestaande relaties (kwaliteit). Cognitieve crafting, betreft alle
aanpassingen in de perceptie en betekenisgeving van het werk. Zo kunnen verschillende
werknemers met eenzelfde functieomschrijving toch op een andere manier naar hun werk kijken
en er een specifieke betekenis aan koppelen. Daar waar de ene werknemer zal focussen op het tot
een goed einde brengen van specifieke taken (bv. de specifieke taak aan de lopende band, het
schoonmaken van de vloer, instaan voor de layout van bedrijfsdocumenten, etc), kan een andere
werknemer deze specifieke taken in een ruimer geheel plaatsen en er een meer omvattende
betekenis aan geven (bv. samen bouwen aan een veilige auto, instaan voor een hygiënische en
aangename omgeving, mede verantwoordelijk zijn voor de uitstraling van een organisatie, etc.).
Nederlandse collega’s Maria Tims, Arnold Bakker en Daantje Derks definiëren job crafting vanuit
het theoretische job demands – resources model als de ‘zelf-geïnitieerde veranderingen die
werknemers aanbrengen om hun werkeisen en werkhulpbronnen af te stemmen op de
4
persoonlijke capaciteiten en behoeften’ (Tims, & Bakker, 2010, p.4). Aan de hand van vier job
crafting types kunnen werknemers sleutelen aan hun werkeisen en werkhulpbronnen. De eerste
drie types van job crafting worden ook wel ‘bevorderende of positieve job crafting’ genoemd. Er
wordt geïnvesteerd in specifieke werkkenmerken.
Ten eerste kunnen werknemers structurele hulpbronnen verhogen. Ze zoeken naar mogelijkheden
om zich bij te scholen en streven naar meer autonomie of beslissingsruimte binnen hun job. Ten
tweede verhogen werknemers sociale hulpbronnen door advies te vragen aan collega’s of door
feedback en coaching op te zoeken bij de leidinggevende. Werkhulpbronnen of energiegevers
betreffen alle aspecten op het werk die energie geven, positief bijdragen tot bevlogenheid, maar
ook helpen om met moeilijke aspecten op het werk om te gaan. Ten derde gaan werknemers op
zoek naar uitdagende werkeisen in hun job door nieuwe projecten aan te gaan of extra taken op te
nemen. Uitdagende werkeisen kunnen zowel een positieve als een negatieve impact hebben op de
werkbeleving. Zo kan een bepaalde werkdruk uitdagend zijn en energie geven, terwijl een te grote
werkdruk net nefaste gevolgen kan inhouden. Ten vierde kunnen werknemers ook aan
zogenaamde ‘vermijdende of beschermende job crafting’ doen door belemmerende werkeisen van
de job te verlagen. Belemmerde werkeisen betreffen alle aspecten in het werk die energie vreten
en per definitie een negatieve impact hebben op de werkbeleving (bv. burnout) en prestatie van
werknemers. Voorbeelden zijn tegenstrijdige of onduidelijke verwachtingen van anderen,
belastende relaties met collega’s of cliënten en cognitief belastend werk.
Op basis van een kwalitatieve bevraging stelde ik vast dat werknemers weldegelijk allerlei
veranderingen initiëren in hun job. Het kan hierbij gaan over het craften van taken, relaties of
cognities (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), over het sleutelen aan specifieke werkeisen of
werkhulpbronnen (Tims & Bakker, 2010), maar bijvoorbeeld ook over veranderingen in de
context zoals het vormgeven aan flexibele werktijd- en plaats, het personaliseren van de werkplek
(Van Vuuren, & Dorenbosch, 2011) of het inlassen van pauzes in de buitenlucht. Aan de hand van
deze veranderingen in de job streven werknemers een beter gevoel na, bewaken ze hun work-life
balans, laten ze de job aansluiten bij wat ze belangrijk vinden, houden ze de job interessant,
stemmen ze hun job beter af op hun persoonlijke capaciteiten en voelen ze zich in staat efficiënter
te kunnen werken (Vanbelle, et al., 2016b). Werknemers craften hun job om een betere persoon-
job fit te ervaren en zo bevlogen aan het werk te kunnen (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Bevlogenheid is
het prototype van een positieve werkbeleving waarbij werknemers bruisen van energie, erg
toegewijd zijn en het gevoel hebben dat de tijd voorbij vliegt wanneer ze aan het werk zijn. Job
crafting is ook een manier om tegemoet te komen aan de behoefte aan een gevoel van controle, de
behoefte aan verbondenheid met anderen en de nood aan een positief zelfbeeld (Wrzesniewski &
Dutton, 2001). De frequentie waarmee individuen hun job craften varieert van dagelijks tot enkele
5
keren per jaar en doet vermoeden dat het zowel over grote, eenmalige als kleine, dagelijkse
aanpassingen kan gaan.
2. Job crafting anders belicht: De rol van werkgevers, leidinggevenden en coaches
2.1. Veranderende tijden en job crafting: een dubbele uitnodiging voor de coach in u
Het grondig exploreren en erkennen van de rol die voor u als werkgever, leidinggevende of andere
coach is weggelegd, is essentieel indien we van het huidige werken een succesverhaal wensen te
maken. Gezond aan het werk gaan en blijven, lijkt immers een steeds grotere uitdaging te worden
de dag van vandaag. Kranten en populaire media berichten steeds vaker over de druk die de
huidige maatschappij met zich meebrengt en de gevolgen voor zowel de fysieke als mentale
gezondheid. Werknemers worden steeds meer aangemoedigd hun verantwoordelijkheid op te
nemen voor hun job, maar ook voor hun welzijn, inzetbaarheid en loopbaan. Dit betekent echter
niet dat de verantwoordelijkheid of de rol van de werkgever of leidinggevende verliest aan belang.
Integendeel, zowel de huidige maatschappelijke tendensen op zich als de intrede van ‘de
werknemer als actieve vormgever’ houden net een dubbele uitnodiging in voor de coach in u.
Doorheen coaching exploreren en optimaliseren coach en coachee gezamenlijk de cognitieve,
emotionele, sociale en zelfsturende vaardigheden van de werknemer die meer dan welkom zijn
de dag van vandaag. De coach in u biedt niet alleen een essentieel klankbord waarbij werknemers
hun ervaringen, bekommernissen, successen en moeilijkheden op tafel kunnen leggen ter
reflectie. Coaching fungeert ook als hefboom om deze input te vertalen naar persoonlijke groei-
en leermogelijkheden die men vervolgens kan vormgeven aan de hand van job crafting. Het
paradoxale van heel dit verhaal is dat coaching volgens mij des te belangrijker wordt, als men
zelfsturing van werknemers wil aanmoedigen. Een coach is immers iemand die mee op pad gaat
en werknemers stimuleert naar een optimaal welzijn, naar persoonlijke groei en zelfontplooiing.
Jef Clement omschrijft coaching als het ‘uitlokken en ondersteunen van leren’ (p.15). Leren dient
hierbij begrepen te worden in de brede zin van het woord. Doorheen coaching leert de coachee
bijvoorbeeld te reflecteren over specifieke situaties zoals de werkomgeving, leert hij persoonlijke
mogelijkheden en uitdagingen te exploreren, grenzen te verleggen, persoonlijke talenten te
ontdekken, in te zetten en te versterken, leert hij welke vaardigheden nodig zijn in bepaalde
situaties en leert hij persoonlijke doelstellingen scherp te stellen en na te streven. Coaching heeft
dan ook zowel een meerwaarde te betekenen in het stimuleren van ‘positieve job crafting’ als in
het proces voorafgaand aan job crafting.
6
2.2. Stimuleren van ‘positieve job crafting’ lijkt de grote uitdaging
We kunnen wegdromen bij wat job crafting kan betekenen voor zowel de individuele job crafter
als de omgeving. Doch het is belangrijk na te gaan of job crafting wel degelijk een louter positief
verhaal impliceert. Mogen we er zomaar van uitgaan dat job crafting alleen maar positieve
gevolgen teweegbrengt, zoals theoretisch wordt verondersteld, of zijn er ook valkuilen verbonden
aan dit veelbelovende gedrag?
Aan de hand van job crafting streven werknemers er in de eerste plaats naar om tegemoet te
komen aan de eigen behoeften, voorkeuren en belangen. Uit onderzoek blijkt dat dit globaal
genomen ook lukt. Job crafters zijn bevlogen in hun werk, ervaren een goede persoon-job fit en
brengen hun taken tot een goed einde. Hoewel job crafting per definitie niet noodzakelijk positief
hoeft te zijn voor de omgeving, toont onderzoek over het algemeen ook positieve gevolgen voor
de werkomgeving. Werknemers die bevlogen aan het werk zijn, presteren beter en zijn bovendien
bereid af en toe net dat extraatje te leveren (Demerouti, Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015). Uit mijn
doctoraatsonderzoek komt verder naar voren dat werknemers die craften een sterkere
bereidheid vertonen om langer aan het werk te blijven, een relevante bevinding in het licht van
de huidige vergrijzing (Vanbelle, Van den Broeck, & De Witte, 2016c).
Intussen verschenen echter enkele studies die deze positieve gevolgen voor zowel de individuele
werknemer als de omgeving wat nuanceren. Job crafting blijkt vooral gunstige gevolgen te hebben
bij ‘positieve job crafting’, de types van job crafting waarbij men investeert in werkhulpbronnen
en uitdagende werkeisen. De bevindingen omtrent ‘vermijdende job crafting’, of het vermijden
van belemmerende werkeisen, zijn minder eenduidig. Het uit de weg gaan van bepaalde taken of
het werk vereenvoudigen lijkt eerder een negatieve invloed te hebben op de individuele
taakperformantie, contraproductief gedrag in de hand te werken en zelfs het risico op burnout
van collega’s te vergroten (Demerouti et al., 2015; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2015). Het craften van
de belemmerende werkeisen toont ook negatieve gevolgen voor de werknemer zelf (Petrou,
Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015) aangezien het samenhangt met een hoger risico op burnout en
bevlogenheid reduceert.
Onderzoek omtrent de potentiële negatieve gevolgen van job crafting staat nog in de
kinderschoenen. De grootste uitdaging die ik hier wens te belichten, betreft hoe we job crafting
kunnen stimuleren zodat dit zowel voor de individuele werknemer als de omgeving een
succesverhaal wordt. Inzetten op energiegevers lijkt een belangrijke boodschap. Net hier
benadruk ik de complementaire verantwoordelijkheid van werknemer en diens omgeving en
nodig ik de coach in u uit om mee na te denken over dit uitdagend vraagstuk. Wat kan u als
7
werkgever, leidinggevende of andere coach betekenen in het vergroten van het succesverhaal van
job crafting?
2.3. Inspelen op antecedenten van job crafting: de rol van werkgever en coach
Hoewel theoretisch wordt verondersteld dat iedere werknemer in iedere context aan een zekere
mate van job crafting zou doen, toch zijn er zowel context- als persoonsfactoren die een
beïnvloedende impact hebben op job crafting (Demerouti, 2014). Dit zijn factoren waar zowel
werkgever, leidinggevende, loopbaanbegeleider als andere coaches actief mee aan de slag kunnen.
2.3.1. Klassiek goed job design als voedingsbodem voor job crafting
Onderzoek toont het belang van een klassiek goed job design, waarbij een job gecreëerd wordt
door de werkgever en die rijk is aan werkhulpbronnen. Autonomie of beslissingsruimte komt naar
voren als een van de belangrijkste antecedenten van job crafting. Ook het belang van een
leidinggevende die oog heeft voor het welzijn en potentieel van de werknemer, open
communicatie en een sfeer van vertrouwen en veiligheid worden naar voren geschoven als
belangrijke contextfactoren (Berg, Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2008; Demerouti, 2014). Wanneer
werknemers het gevoel hebben dat ze de ruimte krijgen om hun job vorm te geven, hierin
ondersteund worden en ervaren dat het organisatieklimaat openstaat voor job crafting, zullen zij
eerder een actieve rol opnemen in het vormgeven van hun job. Werkhulpbronnen dragen niet
alleen rechtstreeks bij tot een positieve werkbeleving, ze worden ook gehanteerd als
noodzakelijke brandstof voor werknemers om actief vorm te kunnen geven aan hun job en te
investeren in extra hulpbronnen of uitdagingen.
2.3.2. Bewustwording: inzetten op energiegevers en versterken van persoonlijke
vaardigheden
De coach in u gaat mee op stap met werknemers in hun persoonlijk groeiproces. Jef Clement
spreekt in zijn boek van een coachingsdans tussen coach en coachee aan de hand van vijf stappen
(GRROW; 2015, p.145). Ten eerste exploreert men de gewenste situatie (Goal). Ten tweede gaat
men dieper in op de huidige situatie (Reality). Ten derde gaat men op zoek naar hulpmiddelen en
krachtbronnen die kunnen helpen bij het bereiken van de gewenste situatie of persoonlijke
doelstelling (Resources). Ten vierde bedenkt men mogelijke opties om de huidige situatie aan te
pakken en het doel te realiseren (Options). Ten vijfde en ten slotte, werkt men aan een concreet
plan waarin beslissingen genomen worden en tot actie wordt overgegaan (Will). De uitdaging
bestaat er uit elk van deze stappen zo concreet mogelijk te maken. Hoe concreter, hoe groter de
bewustwording, hoe sterker concreet gedrag gestimuleerd wordt.
8
Deze coachingsdans maakt inzichtelijk dat een bewustwordingsproces vooraf kan gaan aan
concrete job crafting, de laatste stap in deze boeiende dans (Will), en dat coaching wel degelijk
een meerwaarde kan betekenen in het proces naar job crafting. Coaching kan werknemers helpen
bij het zich bewust worden van hoe de job er momenteel uitziet, hoe men daar tegenover staat en
hoe die aansluit bij persoonlijke waarden, behoeften, sterktes en interesses. Dit
bewustwordingsproces kan vervolgens bijdragen tot het exploreren van mogelijke job
craftingspistes en het opstellen van een persoonlijk job craftingsplan waarin men (kleine)
veranderingen in de job vooropstelt, nastreeft en opvolgt in functie van het persoonlijk
functioneren (Van den Heuvel, Demerouti, & Peeters, 2015). Doorheen coaching verzamelt men
met andere woorden essentiële puzzelstukken om een succesvolle job crafting puzzel te leggen.
Bewustwording van de eigen werkomgeving start bijvoorbeeld bij een taakanalyse waarin men
stilstaat bij welke taken deel uitmaken van de job. Voor elk van die taken kan men vervolgens
nagaan welke aspecten energie geven en welke aspecten energie vragen. Misschien zijn er wel
kleine veranderingen mogelijk die het vervullen van die taak net wat aangenamer maken. Zo kan
gedacht worden aan inhoudelijke aspecten die anders kunnen, samenwerkingsrelaties omtrent
de taak, de omgeving waar de taak wordt uitgevoerd en het tijdstip waarop, alsook veranderingen
die eerder betrekking hebben op de betekenis die men aan de taak geeft (Van Vuuren, &
Dorenbosch, 2011). Op basis van de huidige onderzoeksresultaten, lijkt het vooral belangrijk extra
energiegevers te creëren in het werk.
Behalve het reflecteren over de huidige werksituatie is het ook een meerwaarde even stil te staan
bij de eigen persoon. Niet iedere werknemer is van nature gericht op het initiëren van
veranderingen in de omgeving. Werknemers met een proactieve persoonlijkheid scannen
bijvoorbeeld voortdurend hun omgeving op aspecten die anders en beter kunnen, wat zich
vervolgens sneller zal vertalen in job crafting (Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012). Verder blijken
werknemers die eerder gericht zijn op groei, verandering en ontplooiing vooral in te zetten op
werkhulpbronnen en uitdagingen, terwijl werknemers die gericht zijn op stabiliteit en zekerheid
eerder belemmerende werkaspecten proberen te vermijden. Naast deze relatief stabiele
persoonskenmerken, tonen ook andere, meer veranderbare, persoonsgebonden factoren een
impact op job crafting waar men aan de hand van coaching kan aan werken. Job crafting sluit
bijvoorbeeld mooi aan bij het idee van zelfsturing, een proactief proces waarbij men reflecteert
over persoonlijke doelen en waarden, waarbij men de balans opmaakt tussen de huidige en de
gewenste situatie, en waarbij men het eigen gedrag stuurt en bijstuurt in functie van de
persoonlijke behoeften. Het gaat met andere woorden niet enkel over zelfsturend gedrag zoals job
crafting, maar ook over de metacognitieve vaardigheden die het eigen groeigericht proces in
goede banen leiden. Dit opent heel wat deuren voor coaching. Zo kan men persoonlijke talenten,
9
behoeften en waarden exploreren en scherpstellen. Wat doet men graag, waar is men goed in en
wat vindt men belangrijk? Dit zijn typische vraagstellingen waarop doorheen een coachingstraject
kan gewerkt worden en die kunnen vertaald worden naar persoonlijke job craftingsdoelen. Uit
ons onderzoek komt bijvoorbeeld naar voren dat personen die over het algemeen weten wat ze
willen bereiken, geloven dat ze het kunnen bereiken en hiertoe de nodige plannen maken, hoger
scoren inzake dagelijkse job crafting (Vanbelle, Van den Broeck, Griep, & De Witte, 2016d). Ook
het inzetten op persoonlijke hulpbronnen zoals zelf-effectiviteit of het geloof in de eigen
capaciteiten om met bepaalde situaties om te gaan, kan aan bod komen in coaching en positief
bijdragen tot job crafting (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013).
2.3.3. De eigen werkbeleving als uitgangspunt
Aan de hand van job crafting streven werknemers een optimale werkbeleving na. Dit impliceert
dat de huidige werkbeleving ‘beter kan’. Uit onderzoek blijkt dat dit niet noodzakelijk betekent
dat werknemers zich slecht moeten voelen vooraleer ze gaan craften. Integendeel, net de
werknemers die zich goed voelen en bevlogen aan het werk gaan, rapporteren vaker job crafting.
Een positieve werkbeleving en positieve vormen van job crafting houden met andere woorden
een positieve spiraal in stand.
Hoe zit dit dan voor werknemers waarmee het minder goed gaat en die bijvoorbeeld risico
lopen op burnout? Kan job crafting ook voor hen soelaas bieden? Hoewel deze vraag zowel
intuïtief als theoretisch een luide ‘ja natuurlijk’ oproepen, doen de huidige onderzoekscijfers
vermoeden dat job crafting in het kader van een negatieve werkbeleving net wat complexer werkt.
Gegeven de relevantie van deze vraagstelling, koos ik ervoor nader te onderzoeken of mensen die
risico lopen op emotionele uitputting, de kerncomponent van burnout, toch nog aan job crafting
kunnen doen en welke rol een dienende leidinggevende hierin kan spelen (Vanbelle, Van den
Broeck, & De Witte, 2017). Een dienende leidinggevende is een leidinggevende die werknemers
onder meer de autonomie biedt om zelf beslissingen te maken in het werk, oog heeft voor het
welzijn van werknemers en persoonlijke groei en ontwikkeling stimuleert. De resultaten
suggereren dat een toename van emotionele uitputting wel degelijk samenhangt met meer job
crafting, maar slechts tot op een bepaald niveau. Vanaf een zekere mate van emotionele uitputting
lijkt het alsof werknemers niet meer over de nodige energie beschikken om aan (positieve) job
crafting te doen. Verder tonen onze bevindingen dat werknemers met een dienende
leidinggevende gevoelens van emotionele uitputting sterker zullen vertalen naar job crafting.
Deze leidinggevenden vangen mogelijks sneller signalen op van wat niet goed loopt en stimuleren
werknemers om actief aan de slag te gaan met een suboptimale situatie. Hoewel deze studie
slechts een eerste opstap is naar het beter begrijpen van de rol van job crafting in het omgaan met
10
een negatieve werkbeleving, toch suggereert ze een belangrijke rol voor de coach in u als
werkgever, leidinggevende of andere naaste van de werknemer.
2.3.4. Tot slot: naar een persoonlijk job craftingsplan en een kosten-baten analyse
Gedrag wordt bewuster gesteld wanneer de onderliggende doelstellingen van dat gedrag duidelijk
zijn. Inzetten op bewustwording van de eigen (werk)omgeving en de eigen persoon helpt dan ook
om persoonlijke doelstellingen te formuleren en een persoonlijk job craftingsplan op te stellen.
Ook hier heeft u als coach een tweeledige meerwaarde. Ten eerste kan u als coach helpen bij het
concretiseren van job craftingsdoelen aan de hand van het SMART-principe. Doelen die specifiek
zijn, meetbaar, aanvaardbaar, realistisch en tijdsgebonden zullen eerder worden nagestreefd aan
de hand van concreet gedrag. Vragen die hierbij kunnen helpen zijn:
1. Specifieke doelen: Wat wil je precies bereiken? Wat/wie heb je daarvoor nodig? Welke
concrete verandering(en) in je job wil je daartoe realiseren? Waarom zou dat bijdragen
aan jouw gewenste situatie?
2. Meetbare doelen: Hoe zal je weten dat je je doel bereikt hebt? Welke tussenstappen
kunnen helpen?
3. Aanvaardbare doelen: Is er draagvlak voor wat je wilt doen?
4. Realistisch: Is de doelstelling in overeenstemming met andere zaken die je belangrijk
vindt? Is het mogelijk wat je wilt doen?
5. Tijdsgebonden: Wanneer ga je wat doen?
Ten tweede kan u vanuit de rol als coach de werknemer uitdagen een kosten/baten analyse
op te maken (Van Vuuren & Dorenbosch, 2011). Op voorhand stilstaan bij mogelijke kosten en
baten van job crafting voor zichzelf en voor de omgeving kan helpen om potentiële negatieve
gevolgen te voorkomen. Op basis van de huidige onderzoeksresultaten raden we aan een positieve
bril op te zetten en te investeren in wat energie geeft op het werk, ook wanneer het minder goed
gaat. Het hoeft daarbij heus niet om grote veranderingen te gaan om betekenisvol te zijn.
3. Conclusie
Job crafting biedt een complementaire benadering op job redesign waarbij werknemers een
actieve rol opnemen in het vorm geven van hun job. Dergelijke complementaire benaderingen
worden alsmaar relevanter en noodzakelijker in het licht van maatschappelijke tendensen en het
‘nieuwe werken’. Door een actieve rol op te nemen doet men als het ware aan finetunning van de
11
voorgeschreven job en wordt maatwerk mogelijk. Dit neemt echter niet weg dat er geen rol meer
is weggelegd voor de werkgever, leidinggevende of andere coach. Integendeel. Behalve het
creëren van hulpbronrijke jobs en een gezond organisatieklimaat, biedt job crafting tevens een
warme uitnodiging voor de coach in u. Doorheen deze bijdrage belichtte ik een aantal handvatten
waarmee men in coaching aan de slag kan. De grootste uitdaging betreft het stimuleren van job
crafting dat zowel de individuele werknemer als diens omgeving naar een optimaal niveau tilt. De
meerwaarde van coaching die aan bod kwam gaat van het teweegbrengen van een
bewustwordingsproces tot het opstellen en opvolgen van een persoonlijke job craftingsplan en
het anticiperen op zowel positieve als negatieve uitkomsten.
Ik wens u alvast veel coachings- en job craftingsplezier!
12
4. Referenties
Clement, J. (2015). Inspirerend coachen. De kunst van dynamisch en uitdagend communceren.
Leuven: Lannoo Campus.
Demerouti, E. (2014). Design Your Own Job Through Job Crafting. European Psychologist. Advance
online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000188
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2015). Productive and Counterproductive Job
Crafting: A Daily Diary Study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(4), p. 457-469.
Peeters, M.C.W., Taris, T.W., & de Jonge, J. (2014). Introduction. People at Work. In: M.C.W. Peeters,
J. de Jonge, & T.W. Taris (Eds.) An Introduction to Contemporary Work Psychology, (pp. 3-30).
UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Petrou, P. Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Job crafting in changing organizations :
antecedents and implications for exhaustion and performance. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 20(4), 470-480. DOI: 10.1037/a0039003
Spruyt, M., & Dekker, M. (2014). Aan de slag met job crafting. Meer plezier en energie in je werk.
Kessels & Smit: Utrecht.
Tims, M., & Bakker, A.B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign.
South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 9p. DOI: 10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2013). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy – performance
relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 490-505. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-05-2012-
0148
Tims, M., Bakker, A., & Derks, D. (2015). Examining Job Crafting from an interpersonal perspective:
is employee job crafting related to the well-being of colleagues? Applied Psychology: An
international review. DOI: 10.1111/apps.12043
Vanbelle, E., De Witte, & Van den Broeck, A. (2016a). Job crafting: Een nieuwe kijk op job (re)design.
Van een passieve naar een actieve rol van werknemers in het vormgeven van hun job. In: J.
Schenning, R., Simons, &, T., Besieux (Eds.). Mensenorganisaties: 24 evoluties onder de loep. Weet
wat er speelt bij strategisch HRD. Zaltbommel: Thema, uitgeverij van Schouten & Nelissen.
Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016b). Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting
Scale (OJCS). Manuscript in review.
13
Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016c). Job Crafting: Autonomy and Workload As
Antecedents and the Willingness to Continue Working As a Positive Outcome. Manuscript
accepted for publication.
Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016d). Active Emotions and Personal Growth
Initiative Fuel Employees’ Daily job Crafting and Person-Job Fit: A Multilevel Study. Manuscript
in review.
Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2017). What about the relationship between
negative indicators of optimal functioning and job crafting? Digging into the relationship
between burnout and job crafting. Paper presentation planned at the European Association of
Work and Organizational Psychology Conference, 17-20th of May, Dublin.
Van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M. (2012). Succesvol job craften door middel van een
groepstraining. In: J. de Jonge; M. Peeters, S. Sjollema, & H. de Zeeuw (Eds.). Scherp in Werk. 5
Routes naar Optimale Inzetbaarheid (p.24-49). Assen: Van Gorcum.
Van Vuuren, M., & Dorenbosch, L. (2011). Mooi werk. Naar een betere baan zonder weg te gaan.
Handboek job crafting. Uitgeverij Boom, Amsterdam.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of
their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.
__________________________________________
iEls Vanbelle is een doctoraatskandidate binnen de onderzoekseenheid arbeids- en
organisatiepsychologie en professioneel leren aan de KU Leuven. Na iets langer dan een jaar
werkzaam te zijn als onderzoeksmedewerker startte ze in november 2012 haar doctoraat rond
job crafting onder begeleiding van Prof. Dr. Hans De Witte en Prof. Dr. Anja Van den Broeck. Haar
wens is te komen tot een procesmodel van job crafting. Haar werk sluit aan bij haar ruimere
interesse in het welzijn, job design, motivatie, persoonlijke waarden en identiteit, coaching en het
belangrijk evenwicht tussen werk en niet werk. Ze ziet het als een uitdaging ook de vertaalslag te
maken naar praktijkimplicaties. Na het afronden van haar doctoraat in het voorjaar van 2017
wenst ze hiermee dan ook actief aan de slag te gaan.
Table 1. Overview of samples used across the four empirical studies
Sample A Sample B Sample C Sample D Sample E Sample F
Study Study 1 Study 1 Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4
Design Longitudinal study
3-wave dataset
Timelag of 6 months
Qualitative
pilot study
Longitudinal study
2-wave dataset
Timelag of 3 months
Cross-sectional study
Daily diary study
1 general survey +
5 consecutive
work days
Cross-sectional study
N NT1=423
NT1T2=313
NT2T2=298
N=26 NT1=637
NT1T2=358
N=1168 N=116
Observations=341
(2.94 per person)
N=583
Response rate 58-82% / 14-25% 19% 72.29% 30.36%
Time of data-
collection
May 2013
December 2013
May 2014
January 2014 November 2014
March 2015
Spring 2013 Spring 2013 Autumn 2016
Number of
organisations
1 Personal
network
sample
1 1 Organisation A=34.5%
Organisation B=19%
Organisation C=26.7%
Diverse=19.8%
14
Sector Healthcare Diverse Government Government Mainly healthcare Diverse
Demographics at T1
Male
Age
Tenure
Educational
level
28.8%
39 (SD=11.15)
/
83.9% bachelor or
master degree
16% primary or
secondary school
degree
52%
35.56
/
80% university
degree
53%
44.41 (SD=10.28)
11.90 (SD=10.28)
39% in job requiring
master degree (A)
23% in job requiring
bachelor degree (B)
10% in job requiring high
school degree (C)
10% in job requiring no
degree (D)
57%
53 (SD=4.9)
/
34% in job requiring
master degree (A)
18% in job requiring
bachelor degree (B)
35% in job requiring
high school degree (C)
13% in job requiring no
degree (D)
36.2%
38 (SD=10.33)
/
42.2% university
degree
36.2% higher
education degree
21.6% high school
degree
26%
38.85 (SD=10.97)
10.16 (SD=9.72)
70% bachelor or
master degree
OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE (OJCS)
4 ITEMS
OJCS English version
Job crafting is about the self-initiated changes employees make to their job in order to
optimize their functioning in terms of well-being, work-related attitudes or behaviour (Vanbelle,
Van den Broeck & De Witte, 2016).
Some people make changes in their job, others do not. To what extent do you shape your
job? Please register to what extent you do the following:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Seldom or
never A few
times a year or
less
Once a month or
less
A few of times a month
Once a week
A number of few a
week
Daily
1. I make changes in my job to feel
better 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I change my job so it would better
fit with who I am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I make changes in my job to
perform better 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I change my job so it would better
fit with what I think is important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Which changes do you make?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Reference: Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016). Validation of the Overarching
Job Crafting Scale. Manuscript in review.
OVERKOEPELENDE JOB CRAFTING SCHAAL (OJCS)
4 ITEMS
OJCS - Nederlandstalige versie
Job crafting gaat over de veranderingen die werknemers zelf aanbrengen in hun job om hun
functioneren in termen van welzijn, werk-gerelateerde attitudes of gedrag te optimaliseren
(Vanbelle, Van den Broeck & De Witte, 2016).
Sommige mensen brengen veranderingen aan in hun werk of in hun job, anderen niet. In
welke mate geeft u zelf vorm aan uw job? Gelieve aan te geven in welke mate u akkoord
gaat met de volgende uitspraken.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Zelden of
nooit Een aantal
keer per jaar of
minder
Eens per maand of
minder
Een aantal keer per maand
Eens per week
Een aantal keer per
week
Dagelijks
1. Ik breng zelf veranderingen aan in
mijn job zodat ik me beter voel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Ik pas mijn job aan zodat deze
beter past bij mij 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Ik breng zelf veranderingen aan in
mijn job zodat ik beter kan
presteren
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Ik pas mijn job aan zodat deze
beter aansluit bij wat ik belangrijk
vind
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Welke veranderingen brengt u dan aan?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Referentie: Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016). Validation of the Overarching
Job Crafting Scale. Manuscript in review.
Appendix VI
Short Research Note: Unravelling the affect-proactivity relationship: valence or
activation? Integrating contrasting perspectives1.
1 Based on: Vanbelle, E., Vranjes, I., De Witte, H., & Van den Broeck, A. (2016). Unravelling the affect-proactivity relationship: valence or activation? Integrating contrasting perspectives. Manuscript in preparation.
1
Unravelling the affect-proactivity relationship: valence or activation?
Integrating contrasting perspectives.
Problem statement
To date, the affect-proactivity relationship remains both theoretically and empirically unclear.
Research on this relationship often starts from the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2004)
to argue that especially positive affect is important in relation to proactive behaviour because
positive affect broadens thought-action repertoires (“broaden-and-build perspective”; Fay and
Sonnentag, 2012; Fritz and Sonnentag, 2009). However, recent calls explicitly argue that not the
positive valence but rather the motivational intensity or activation of affective emotions drives
goal-directed behaviour such as proactive behaviour (“motivational intensity perspective”;
Harmon-Jones, Gable & Price, 2013). Moreover, although hypotheses often involve predictions
concerning positive affect in general, only the active dimension of positive affect is measured in
terms of feeling excited, active or alert (The PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988; f.e. in Fay
and Sonnentag, 2012; Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009). Consequently, it remains theoretically as well as
empirically unclear whether it is the valence dimension – in line with the broaden-and-build
perspective –, or the activation dimension of affect – in line with the motivational intensity
perspective –, that determines employees’ proactive behaviour. Whereas both perspectives may
seem to be contradictious at first sight, we argue that both approaches foster our understanding
of affect in relation to different elements of the proactivity process (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss,
2010). More specifically, we argue that the theoretical reasoning underlying the affect-proactivity
relationship might benefit from an integration of the broaden-and-build and the motivational
intensity perspectives.
Unravelling the affect-proactivity relationship: an integrative approach
We are increasingly urged to be “proactive” or to take an active role in shaping and dealing
with our environment. Proactivity, however, goes beyond merely proactive behaviour (e.g.
personal initiative, Frese & Fay, 2001; job crafting, Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2001; etc.). It
concerns a goal-driven process in which employees envision or anticipate desired future
outcomes, make plans to achieve that envisioned future, purposively strive to accomplish
proactive goals (i.e. proactive behaviour) and reflect upon the consequences of the enacted
proactive behaviour (Parker et al., 2010).
Affect is assumed to motivate employees to engage in this proactivity process (Parker, et al.,
2010). The term affect is used as a superordinate category for various kinds of affective states
such as moods and emotions (Gross, & Thompson, 2007). It is seen as the core part of all emotion-
related concepts as it includes the momentary, elementary feelings of pleasure or displeasure and
2
of activation or deactivation (Russell, 2003; Seo, Barrett, & Bartunek, 2004). Affect can be
described within a circumplex, as an integral blend of two dimensions (Seo et al., 2004; Warr,
Bindl, Parker, & Inceoglu, 2014). The first dimension, the valence or pleasantness dimension,
ranges from negative/unpleasant to positive/pleasant. The second dimension, the activation or
motivational intensity dimension, refers to a sense of mobilization or energy and ranges from
passive to active (Barrett, & Russell, 1999). The combination of these dimensions leads to four
categories of affect: positive active (PAA), positive passive (PPA), negative active (NAA) and
negative passive affect (NPA).
We elaborate on two main perspectives on the relative importance of the valence (i.e.
broaden-and-build perspective) versus the activation dimension (i.e. motivational intensity
perspective) in relation to proactivity. The first perspective starts from the broaden-and-build
theory which assumes that positive affect such as contentment and joy broadens thought-action
repertoires (i.e. the attentional scope), such that one can more easily come up with alternative
solutions to behave in a particular way, and builds enduring personal resources (Fredrickson,
2004). In contrast, negative affect such as fear and anger narrows thought-action-repertoires and
interferes with identifying solutions to deal with the environment. The second perspective, the
motivational intensity perspective, argues that not the positive valence but rather the high
motivational intensity or activation is beneficial for proactive behaviour because it narrows the
attentional scope in the sense that one is focused on a desired goal which in turn enhances
effective goal-striving and accomplishment (Harmon-Jones et al., 2013). In contrast, a low
motivational intensity (i.e. passive emotions) broadens the cognitive scope, such that one is less
preoccupied with a certain goal or situation, which allow people to cognitively disengage from
negative stimuli, to envision new goal opportunities (Harmon-Jones et al., 2013) or to reflect upon
a positive achievement (Warr & Inceoglu, 2012). In contrast to the broaden-and-build perspective,
the motivational intensity perspective thus implies that both positive and negative emotions
might stimulate proactivity as long as they yield a high motivational intensity or activation.
Interestingly, both perspectives use the notion of “attentional scope” to build concrete
assumptions, though in a slightly different way. Whereas the broaden-and-build theory assumes
that a broadened attentional scope, when experiencing positive emotions, is beneficial because of
broadened thought-action repertoires (Fredrickson, 2004), a motivational intensity perspective
states that a narrowed attentional scope, when experiencing active emotions, is beneficial because
it implies a stronger focus on the object of the emotion which is helpful for effective goal striving
and accomplishment (Harmon-Jones et al., 2013). Despite this apparent contrast, we argue that
these two views are reconcilable. That is, we argue that both approaches foster our understanding
of the function of affect in relation to both cognitive and behavioural elements of proactivity, but
3
presumably at another level within another timeframe (e.g. general level in a cross-sectional or
longitudinal timeframe versus daily level in a daily timeframe).
At a general level, we expect the valence dimension to have a dominant impact on proactivity.
This is because positive affect installs broadened ways of envisioning and thinking (Fredrickson,
2004). According to the broaden-and-build theory, the “broadened attentional scope” involves the
ability to think broadly, to generate distinct ideas and to come up with diverse solutions to deal
with specific situations. These are all aspects which trigger the proactivity process. In addition to
broadening the thought-action repertoires, positive affect also builds enduring personal
resources over time which help dealing with the environment. Negative affect, in contrast,
narrows thought-action repertoires. People that experience negative affect such as sadness for
instance, are more likely to withdraw into oneself (Lazarus, 1991) and might rather get stuck in a
negative spiral of thinking. This is because sadness makes it more difficult to “think out of the box”
and to broaden horizons. It then might become a challenge to think in a constructive way and to
analyse discrepancies between actual and desired situations one can act upon (Bindl, Parker,
Totterdell, & Hagger-Johnson, 2012). In sum, following the broaden-and-build theory, we argue
that at a general level of analysis positive affect relates stronger to proactivity in comparison to
negative affect.
At a daily level, however, the activation dimension might become especially relevant in
translating discrete experienced emotions into immediate behavioural reactions, regardless of the
valence of the emotion. Active emotions are so salient at the very moment that they urge people
to behaviourally respond in the short run. People have to deal with the amount of energy they are
feeling, either to react on a negative situation or stimulus in case of negative active affect, or to act
upon the object of positive active affect (see f.e. Warr & Inceoglu, 2012). According to a
motivational intensity perspective, the “narrowed attentional scope” involves goal-directedness
instead of the inability to “think-out-of-the-box”. When experiencing active affect, one is energized
to direct behaviour towards a specific goal. Passive affect, on the contrary, allows people to
cognitively disengage from a specific goal or situation, to reflect on situations (Warr & Inceoglu,
2012) and to envision new goal opportunities (Harmon-Jones et al., 2013) which might precede
proactive behaviour (Parker et al., 2010). Passive emotions might need more time to be translated
into concrete proactive behaviour because they lack the needed energy. Consequently, it might be
more relevant to examine passive emotions in relation to proactivity at a general level, within a
longer timeframe . Furthermore, future research might tap into moderators that help individuals
experiencing passive affect to go beyond cognitive elements of the proactivity process and to
actively engage in proactive behaviour. For instance, making envisioned goals or the object of
passive emotions more salient may enhance the intensity of emotions which in turn increases the
likelihood of passive emotions being translated into behavioural actions (Brehm, 1999). In sum,
4
following the motivational intensity perspective, we reason that in the short run, active affect
stimulates people to go beyond the cognitive elements of proactivity and actually engage in
proactive behaviour.
Taken together, we assume that both the valence dimension (i.e. broaden-and-build
perspective) and the activation dimension (i.e. motivational intensity perspective) matter in the
affect-proactivity relationship. However, we also argue that their relative importance depends on
which specific element of the proactivity process is being influenced (i.e. cognitive versus
behavioural) and on what timeframe is being used to measure it (i.e. general level in a cross-
sectional or longitudinal timeframe versus daily level in a daily timeframe). In the short run, at a
daily or momentary level, both positive and negative active affect should enhance proactive
behaviour, as the high level of motivational intensity increases employees’ goal-directedness
needed to engage in proactive behaviour. In the long run, at a general level, especially positive
affect should entail more beneficial outcomes in terms of thought-action repertoires by
stimulating people to think and act constructively (Fredrickson, 2004). It might then be especially
challenging, though highly relevant for practice, to investigate how people experiencing passive
negative affect, such as feelings of burn-out for instance, might be encouraged and coached
towards proactivity. Building on both perspectives, negative passive emotions would be the most
difficult emotions to be translated into both cognitive and behavioural aspects of proactivity.
In conclusion, future affect-proactivity research might benefit from an integrated theoretical
approach which takes into account the underlying mechanisms behind the valence and activation
dimensions in relation to specific elements of proactivity. Furthermore, this integrated approach
might help to decide upon specific study designs, ranging from daily diary studies to longitudinal
interventions studies.
References
Barrett, F., L. & Russell, J.A. (1999). The structure of current affect: controversies and emerging
consensus. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 10-14. DOI: 10.1111/1467-
8721.00003
Bindl, U.K., Parker, S.K., Totterdell, P., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the Self-Starter: How
Mood Relates to Proactive Goal Regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 134-150.
DOI: 10.1037/a0024368.
Brehm, J.W. (1999). The Intensity of Emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(1), 2-
22. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_1
Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (2012). Within-Person Fluctuation of Proactive Behavior: How Affect and
Experienced Competence Regulate Work Behavior. Human Performance, 25(1), 72-93.
DOI: 10.1080/08959285.2011.631647
5
Fredrickson, B.L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Phil. Trans. R. Soc.
Lond. B, 359, 1367-1377. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1512
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21th
century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187.
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of Day-Level Proactive Behavior: A Look at Job
Stressors and Positive Affect During the Workday. Journal of Management, 35, 94-111.
DOI: 10.1177/0149206307308911Harmon-Jones, Gable, & Price (2013)
Gross, J.J., & Thompson, R.A. (2007). Emotional regulation: conceptual foundations. In J.J. Gross
(Ed.). Handbook of emotion regulation (pp.3-26). New York: Guilford Press.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Progress on a Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory of Emotion.
American Psychologist, 46(8), 819-834.
Russell, J.A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological
Review, 110(1), 145-172. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.145
Seo, M., Barrett, L.F., & Bartunek, J.M. (2004). The role of affective experience in work motivation.
The Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 423-439. DOI:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159052
Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive
motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856.
Warr, P., Bindl, U.K., Parker, S.K., & Inceoglu, I. (2014). Four-quadrant investigations of job-related
emotions and behaviours. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
23(3), 342-363. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.744449
Warr, P., & Inceoglu, I. (2012). Job Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Contrasting Associations with
Person-Job Fit. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(2), 129-138. DOI:
10.1037/a0026859
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and Validation of Brief Measures of
Positive and Negative Emotions: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of
their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.