Presentation for the 31st ICP congress, 24 to 29 July, 2016, Yokohama, Japan

Marjan Gorgievski, Jason Gawke, Tom Junker

Changes in the world of work have increased

demands for self-direction and worker initiative (e.g.,

Crant, 2000; Grant & Parker, 2009; Sullivan & Baruch,

2009).

This has led to an increased need to understand the

how and why of pro-active worker behavior.

This study aimed to understand the motives for and

outcomes of pro-active work behavior (job crafting and

employee intrapreneurship) from a kaleidoscope

career perspective.

PA Work and P-E fit behavior

Strategic and venturingbehavior

“self-initiated, anticipatory action that aims to change and improve the situation or oneself.” Parker & Collins, 2010, pp. 635

Basic assumption: Career patterns change throughout the life span, with the emphasis shifting between:

Challenge – seeking career advancement and personal growth through stimulating work experiences.

Balance – desire to balance work and private life.

Authenticity – need for work activities to be congruent with personal values and beliefs.

Based on the KCM we expect:

H1 - Need for challenge and authenticity (not balance) predict pro-active work behavior (crafting challenge demands and resources and employee intrapreneurship)

H2 - Corporate entrepreneurial behavior additionally predicts job crafting (more challenge demands and resources).

H3 - Crafting challenges, crafting resources and corporate entrepreneurial behavior predicts fulfillment of need for authenticity and need for challenge.

H4 - Crafting challenge demands, crafting resources and corporate entrepreneurial behavior predicts work engagement

Needs Action Fulfilment and engagement

H1

H2

H4

H3

Longitudinal study with a 12 week time lag N = 641 civil servants, 59.8 % male, 80% higher

educated (bachelor)

Measures T1 and T2◦ KCM needs (Maniero & Sullivan, 2005) ◦ KCM Need fulfilment, developed for this study◦ Job crafting (Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2012)◦ Employee Intrapreneurship (Gawke, Gorgievski, Bakker,

2015)◦ Work engagement, 9 item version (Schaufeli, Bakker &

Salanova, 2006)

Method: SmartPLS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1 gender

2 age 0,23

Time 1

3 Need for autonomy -0,01 -0,05 0,72

4 Need for balance -0,07 -0,13 0,28 0,81

5 Need for challenge -0,03 -0,12 0,37 0,21 0,77

6 autonomy fulfilment 0,06 -0,05 0,47 0,20 0,27 0,78

7 balance fulfilment 0,03 -0,08 0,12 0,45 0,13 0,45 0,86

8 challenge fulfilment 0,05 -0,03 0,11 0,13 0,37 0,59 0,36 0,81

9 crafting challenges -0,07 -0,16 0,33 0,03 0,54 0,19 0,01 0,17 0,77

10 crafting resources -0,05 -0,16 0,28 0,14 0,51 0,27 0,07 0,35 0,69 0,74

11 intrapreneurship 0,17 0,03 0,30 -0,02 0,42 0,19 -0,04 0,24 0,54 0,54 0,89

12 work engagement 0,06 0,04 0,14 0,01 0,33 0,46 0,17 0,54 0,33 0,42 0,29 0,92

Time 2

13 autonomy fulfilment 0,06 -0,08 0,31 0,14 0,20 0,64 0,35 0,46 0,14 0,24 0,17 0,41 0,76

14 balance fulfilment 0,01 -0,09 0,08 0,33 0,07 0,27 0,69 0,21 0,02 0,04 -0,04 0,10 0,38 0,85

15 challenge fulfilment 0,08 -0,07 0,09 0,11 0,31 0,49 0,30 0,72 0,18 0,32 0,24 0,50 0,59 0,30 0,81

16 crafting challenges -0,01 -0,17 0,29 0,03 0,54 0,17 0,02 0,16 0,73 0,56 0,50 0,23 0,17 0,05 0,20 0,76

17 crafting resources -0,02 -0,17 0,28 0,10 0,52 0,23 0,04 0,29 0,64 0,75 0,52 0,35 0,26 0,01 0,35 0,71 0,76

18 intrapreneurship 0,19 0,02 0,23 0,00 0,39 0,20 0,01 0,27 0,46 0,47 0,80 0,24 0,16 0,01 0,28 0,56 0,55 0,88

19 work engagement 0,04 0,03 0,11 -0,03 0,29 0,42 0,15 0,52 0,24 0,34 0,23 0,79 0,46 0,15 0,58 0,28 0,40 0,26 0,92

Career needs T1 Behaviour T1

H1 ? H2-4 ?

Need for

balance

Need for

authenticity

Need for

Challenge

Crafting

resources

Crafting

Challenges

Employee

Intrapreneurship

Crafting

resources

Crafting

Challenges

Employee

intrapreneurship

KC

M N

eeds

Pro

acti

ve w

ork

behavio

rPro

activ

e w

ork

behavio

rPartial support Hypothesis 1, Need for challenge (not authenticity) predicts pro-active work behaviorFull support Hypothesis 2, intrapreneurship predicts craftingresources and challenges

,07 (.03)

,15 (.03)

,20 (.03)

,14 (.03)

,12 (.03)

No vice versa.

Proactive behavior did not predict need fulfilment nor workengagement.

Only work engagement predicted KCM need fulfillment.

Balance

Fulfilment T1

Authenticity

Fulfilment T1

Challenge

Fulfilment T1

Work

Engagement

Work

Engagement

Balance

Fulfilment T2

Authenticity

Fulfilment T2

Challenge

Fulfilment T2

KC

M N

eed

fulf

ilm

ent

KC

M N

eed

fulfilm

ent

,15 (.04)

,15 (.04)

Wave 1 Wave 2

The engaged and challengeseeking intrapreneur….

Limiting factor: time frame. ◦ Too long to capture relationships between behavior

and work engagement?

◦ To short to capture changes in employee intrapreneurship and need fulfilment?

Could work engagement be a mediator?

Self-reports: ◦ Do other people agree with the subjective reports

of employee behavior?

Practical relevance KCM?

Limiting factor: time frame. ◦ Too long to capture relationships between behavior

and work engagement?

◦ To short to capture changes in employee intrapreneurship and need fulfilment?

Could work engagement be a mediator?

Self-reports: ◦ Do other people agree with the subjective reports

of employee behavior?

Practical relevance KCM?Thank you!