a role–resource approach–avoidance model of job crafting ...€¦ · the self-management...

r Academy of Management Journal2018, Vol. 61, No. 2, 499–522.https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0604

A ROLE–RESOURCE APPROACH–AVOIDANCE MODEL OFJOB CRAFTING: A MULTIMETHOD INTEGRATION AND

EXTENSION OF JOB CRAFTING THEORY

PATRICK F. BRUNINGUniversity of New Brunswick at Fredericton

MICHAEL A. CAMPIONPurdue University

Job crafting refers to changes to a job that workers make with the intention of improvingthe job for themselves. It may include structural (i.e., physical and procedural), social,and cognitive forms. We draw on two studies to develop a role–resource approach–avoidance taxonomy that integrates and extends the dominant role- and resource-basedperspectives of job crafting according to characteristics of approach and avoidance.Study 1 used both qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze job crafting activitiesdescribed during employee interviews to understand the nature and outcomes of spe-cific job crafting activities. Study 2 provides quantitative support for the specific jobcrafting types emerging from Study 1, and further explores job crafting outcomes. Ap-proach role crafting includes role expansion and social expansion, while avoidance rolecrafting includes work-role reduction. Role crafting outcomes include: increased en-richment, increased engagement, and decreased strain through changes in work roleboundaries. Approach resource crafting includes work organization, adoption, andmetacognition, while avoidance resource crafting includes withdrawal crafting. Re-source crafting outcomes include: increased performance, increased engagement, andreduced strain through the development, acquisition, and conservation of resources.Avoidance crafting positively relates to work withdrawal and tends to have fewer re-lationships with positive outcomes compared to approach crafting.

Work is changing as organizational structuresflatten and the responsibility for productivity im-provements and stress management relies more onemployees’ proactivity and self-management (Grant& Parker, 2009; Stewart, Courtright, & Manz, 2011).The self-management practice of job crafting, or the

changes that employees make to their jobs, helpsexplain how employees develop strategies to copewith work demands to increase enrichment, perfor-mance, andwell-being (Tims, Bakker, &Derks, 2012;Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).

Job crafting represents individually initiated job(re)design and can be explained by role- andresource-based perspectives. Research adopting therole-based perspective defines job crafting in terms ofindividuals’work roles and the changes they make tothe boundaries of the task, aswell as the relational andcognitive domains of work (e.g., Berg, Wrzesniewski,& Dutton, 2010b; Lu, Wang, Lu, Du, & Bakker, 2014;Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). The resource-basedperspective draws on the job demands-resourcesmodel of burnout (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, &Schaufeli, 2001), explaining job crafting as an indi-vidual proactive strategy used to seek resources andavoid demands (Tims et al., 2012; Tims, Bakker, &Derks, 2013). Both models explain important out-comes (e.g., Berg et al., 2010b; Leana, Appelbaum, &Shevchuk, 2009; Tims et al., 2012).

This paper is based on the first author’s dissertation re-searchcompleted inpartial fulfillmentof his doctoral degreeat Purdue University. We would like to thank committeemembersBrad J.Alge,BenjaminB.Dunford, andChristineL.Jackson, aswell as colleaguesDeidra J. Schleicher andMariaTims, for their helpful comments on earlier versions of themanuscript. We would also like to thank Joshua Austin,Edward R. Bruning, Marcelo Castillo, and Christopher J.Hartwell for their assistance in the development of themanuscript.Wewould further like to thank theUniversity ofNew Brunswick’s Faculty of Business Administration fortheir financial support for portions of the research, sixanonymous organizations for their support in the collectionof the data, the participants in the various stages of the re-search, our associate editor Riki Takeuchi, and the anony-mous reviewers who helped us refine the manuscript.

499

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s expresswritten permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0604

However, our current understanding of job craft-ing is incomplete, suggesting the need for a morecomprehensive and coherent dimensional structureof job crafting that will identify new forms of jobcrafting and better explain how specific types of jobcrafting relate to unique outcomes such as team-work, work–home conflict, process improvement,andworkwithdrawal. For example, recent empiricalevidence has suggested that job crafting could differaccording to patterns of approach and avoidance(Bipp & Demerouti, 2015).

We hope to contribute by providing a comprehen-sive taxonomy of job crafting activities that incorpo-rates the role-based and resource-based theoreticalperspectives, as well as the approach and avoidancethemes of job crafting. We also hope to further assessthe outcomes of job crafting. In this effort, we draw ontwo independent studies to develop and test an in-tegrative taxonomy of job crafting. Study 1 draws onthe job crafting literature and a multisource, multi-method primary dataset to develop and test an ex-panded taxonomyof jobcrafting.Througha taxonomicapproach, we hope to bring parsimony, order, andexplanatory power to the job crafting literature, just asthis approach has done in other domains (e.g., humanabilities) (Fleishman, 1984). The study will involvetwo distinct sets of analyses that will integrate priortheorywith qualitative data to identify and explain thedifferent types of job crafting and test hypotheses pre-dicting outcomes of job crafting. Study 2 uses surveydata to support the dimensional structure and betterunderstand the outcomes of the job crafting activitiesidentified in Study 1. Job crafting research has a rela-tively short, yet robust, history of both qualitative(e.g., Berg, Grant, & Johnson 2010a; Berg et al., 2010b)and quantitative research (e.g., Leana et al., 2009; Timset al., 2012). However, the use of particular methodsmight have contributed to a misalignment betweenperspectives. The role-based perspective has beenlargely developed through qualitative research, whilethe resource-based perspective has relied almost ex-clusively on quantitative methodologies. Our use ofcomplementarymethods shouldhelp integrate the twoperspectives on job crafting to facilitate more compre-hensive (and nuanced) job crafting theory.

DEVELOPING A TAXONOMY OF JOB CRAFTING

A review of the job crafting literature and 42 pre-liminary pilot interviews1 were used to understand

the definition and conceptualization of job crafting,as well as refine our methodological protocol. In-tegrating prior definitions of job crafting (e.g., Timset al., 2012;Wrzesniewski &Dutton, 2001),wedefinejob crafting as, the changes to a job that workersmake with the intention of improving the job forthemselves. These changes can take structural(i.e., physical and procedural), social, and cognitiveforms. Job crafting activities have important definingcharacteristics. First, they are self-targeted andintended to benefit the individual crafter (Tims et al.,2012; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Second, theyare volitional and represent conscious and inten-tional changesmade to one’s work (Tims et al., 2012;Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Third, job craftingrelates to significant and noticeable deviations fromthe precrafted job and usually represents a mean-ingful change in task and social activities (e.g., Berget al., 2010b) or behavioral and cognitive processes(e.g., Berg et al., 2010b; Leana et al., 2009). Fourth,job crafting is characterized by permanent or semi-permanentchangesmade to the job, asopposedtoone-time or temporary changes. Fifth, job crafting occurswithin the work role, distinguishing it from craftingleisure time (Berg et al., 2010a). Finally, it must occurwithin a job with a clear description and specifiedtasks, as per an organizational job description or oc-cupational database (e.g., O*NET, an archive of jobdescriptions) (Petersonetal., 2001).Thisdistinguishesjob crafting from more general behaviors engaged inby people working in self-created jobs, such as self-employed food truck owners, consultants, or otherentrepreneurial activities.

Role and Resource Crafting

Jobcrafting represents employee-initiated jobdesign(e.g., Grant & Parker, 2009). Comprehensive perspec-tiveson jobdesignhaveconsideredmultiple functions,such as work specialization and simplification, workmotivation and enrichment, social and contextualfactors, human perceptual motor requirements, andphysical demands (Campion, 1988; Campion &Thayer, 1985; Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson,2007). Job design has a variety of outcomes, with cat-egories including satisfaction and enrichment, effi-ciency and performance (including error reduction),and reduced strain and improved engagement.

Employee-centric perspectives on job design (i.e.,job crafting) have evolved to consider two over-lapping, yet distinct, theoretical perspectives: a role-based perspective that explains how employeesenrich their intrinsic need–supply fit with their

1 Details of the pilot research available upon requestfrom the authors.

500 AprilAcademy of Management Journal

work, and a resource-based perspective that ex-plains how individuals seek resources and managetheir demands. The role-based perspective has de-veloped to focus on the motivational perspectivesof job design (e.g., Berg et al., 2010a; Sturges, 2012;Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). The resource-basedperspective draws primarily from the job design lit-erature focused on resource management (e.g., Timset al., 2012, 2013). Research has suggested that bothrole and resource crafting relate to general outcomesof enrichment, performance, strain, and engage-ment (Leana et al., 2009; Tims et al., 2012, 2013;Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). However, there arealso fundamental differences between the two per-spectives that relate to the focus onhow jobcontent ischanged (e.g., changing boundaries versus resourcesor demands) and a focus on enrichment versusefficiency.

Role crafting.Role crafting involves changingone’srole in terms of what one does and who one interactswith atwork to improve intrinsic benefits. The originalperspective of job crafting proposed by Wrzesniewskiand Dutton (2001) takes a motivational (and social)perspective of work design to explain how workerscontinuously shape the boundaries in their task andrelational work domains to improve the meaning andidentification they receive from their work. This formof job crafting specifically involves people makingphysical and cognitive changes to the boundaries ofthe tasks and relationships involved in their work.It represents an employee-centric adaptation ofCampion’s (Campion, 1988; Campion & Thayer, 1985)motivational function of job design given its focus onmeaning, identification, andwork enrichment, as wellas the social work characteristics of motivational jobdesign (Morgeson&Humphrey, 2006). This role-basedmodel of job crafting has been supported across dif-ferent jobs andhierarchical levels (Berg et al., 2010b). Ithas also been extended to explain how individualscraft a balance between their work and home roles(Sturges, 2012), fulfill the intrinsic needs neglected byunanswered career motives (Berg et al., 2010a), andincrease their needs–supply fit (Lu et al., 2014). Thisperspectiveconsiders jobcraftingasadynamicprocessof continual modification (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,2001), and involves activities of both expansion andreduction (Berg et al., 2010a, 2010b; Sturges, 2012;Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).

Resource crafting. The resource-based perspec-tive explains job crafting through themanagement ofwork demands and strain reduction (Nielsen &Abildgaard, 2012; Tims et al., 2012). This formof job crafting involves changing the structural

components of one’s job by acquiring new resourcesor reconfiguring the resources within one’s job toreduce job demands and their negative implications.Tims and colleagues (2012) extended the jobdemands–resource model of burnout (Demeroutiet al., 2001) to present a model of job crafting thatexplains different ways in which individuals canchange their jobs to increase resources and reducedemands. These changes are goal directed, engagedto increase job resources to minimize person–jobmisfit, involve increasing job resources and reducingjob demands, and ultimately improve the employee’swork experience and performance. Resource craftingismore focused on external goals than role crafting, asit involves acquiring resources and reducingdemandsto help people meet their work requirements. It canalso be considered as an employee-focused mecha-nistic (i.e., efficiency-oriented) approach to managingjob demands (Campion & Thayer, 1985).

Approach and avoidance themes of job crafting.Theory and research has also suggested the pres-ence of two general themes of job crafting activitiesbased on motivations of approach or avoidance(e.g., Bipp & Demerouti, 2015; Elliot, 1999; Lazarus& Folkman, 1984). In describing this, Elliot (1999)succinctly stated that human behavior can be mo-tivated by the possibility of obtaining desirablegoals or the threat of negative outcomes. Principlesof approach and avoidance are also manifest inother, broader theories. Transactive theories assertthat individuals cope with potential threats inboth approach and avoidant manners (Lazarus &Folkman, 1984), suggesting that individuals canconfront demands as challenges or avoid them asthreats (e.g., LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005).Recent job crafting discussions have also consid-ered that job crafting can take forms that align withconcepts of approach and avoidance (e.g., Berget al., 2010b; Bipp & Demerouti, 2015; Tims et al.,2012). We propose that job crafting can take ap-proach and avoidance forms.

Approach crafting activities are active, effortful,motivated, and directed toward problem-focusedand improvement-based goals. They likely resultfrom the interpretation and acceptance of chal-lenge stressors, attempts to increase resources, ora desire for improved work experience. The conceptof approach crafting aligns with the increasing re-sources and challenging job demands of job craft-ing dimensions (Bipp & Demerouti, 2015; Petrou,Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015; Tims et al., 2012) anddirect problem focused coping (Lazarus & Folkman,1984). Avoidance crafting serves the purpose of

2018 501Bruning and Campion

evading, reducing, or eliminating part of one’s work.It relates to avoidant and prevention-oriented traits(Bipp & Demerouti, 2015; Petrou et al., 2015) andreflects reducing hindering and social demands(Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012; Tims et al., 2012), re-duction in one’s task and social boundaries at work(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), and systematicforms of work withdrawal (Hanisch & Hulin, 1990).

A Role–Resource Approach–AvoidancePerspective of Job Crafting

There are clear differences and unique contribu-tions offered by the role and resource perspectives.Role crafting is specifically concerned with the taskand social boundaries of work, while resourcecrafting involves modifying work to increase re-sources (including resource value) and decrease de-mands. Role crafting is also much more a process ofincreasing personal enrichment, while resourcecrafting is predominantly focused on increasing ef-ficiency through resource acquisition and conser-vation, as well as reducing strain derived fromunmanageable work demands. Furthermore, rolecrafting is concerned with personal need-based mo-tives (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), while resourcecrafting incorporates personalwork goals that can bemore closely aligned with externally imposed de-mands (Tims et al., 2012).

The role-based and resource-based perspectiveshave developed in a relatively parallel manner,yet there is some conceptual overlap. Both formsof job crafting are likely to involve both expansion(i.e., approach crafting) and reduction (i.e., avoid-ance crafting), but each involves different types ofchanges. For example, avoidance crafting from therole-based perspective likely involves formal re-duction in one’s work role. Avoidance crafting fromthe resource-based perspective likely involvesavoiding non-role-based demands, such as annoyingcoworkers, customers, or environmental conditions,that can inefficiently consume resources. We pro-pose that the distinctions between role and resourcecrafting, as well as approach and avoidance crafting,will interact to create a 2 3 2 categorization of jobcrafting that can organize specific job crafting activ-ities and aid in outcome prediction. The result isa role–resource approach–avoidance model of jobcrafting comprised of four general categories: ap-proach role crafting, approach resource crafting,avoidance role crafting, and avoidance resourcecrafting. The detailed content of these categorieswillbe identified in Study 1.

Outcomes of Job Crafting

We expect considerable differentiation in theoutcomes of the four general types of job craftingaccording to distinctions of role–resource andapproach–avoidance job crafting. Role crafting willprimarily serve to improve an individual’s fit withtheir work and subsequent work enrichment (Luet al., 2014; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), whileresource crafting will concurrently increase re-sources and reduce demands to increase engage-ment, work efficiency, and performance (Tims et al.,2012, 2013). We attempt to identify the full range ofgeneralized outcome categories for job crafting andmake predictions for each.

Enrichment involves improving the intrinsicvalue of a job and is a central outcome of role crafting(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Role crafting islikely to improve the crafter’s work experiencethrough increases in personally relevant task andsocial characteristics, enriching their work throughidiosyncratic modifications to align their tasks andsocial relationships with their personal needs, mo-tives, and identities (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).It could also involve changing task and socialboundaries to increase one’s control over the work.By expanding the task boundaries of the job, an in-dividual will likely increase the control, participa-tory decisionmaking, andpossible rewards involvedin their work. Increasing the social boundaries of thejob could also increase valuable social ties that canprovide beneficial sources of feedback and support,as well as other social benefits (Humphrey et al.,2007).

Hypothesis 1. Role crafting will positively relate toenrichment.

Both role and resource crafting are expected topositively relate to engagement. Role crafting is ex-pected to improve the engaging elements of one’swork characteristics through changes inwork design(Humphrey et al., 2007; Wrzesniewski & Dutton,2001). Resource crafting is expected to benefitengagement through the reduction of distractinghindrances that waste one’s resources and the ac-quisition anddevelopment of resources that give onecontrol and assist focus. Individuals will use re-source crafting to manage their work demands andtheir capacity to be engaged in and focused on theirwork. This resource management will involve sys-tematic attempts to develop structural resourceswithin their job and work procedures through pro-cesses of acquisition and modification (Tims et al.,


2012). These activities will also involve the re-duction of hindering task and social demands(Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012; Tims et al., 2012).Generally, resource crafting will involve attempts tomaximize the resources available to one’s job whileminimizing the systematic demands associatedwiththe job by conserving resources to optimize focus,decrease boredom (vanHooff &vanHooft, 2014), andincrease engagement (Tims et al., 2012, 2013).

Hypothesis 2. Role and resource crafting will bothpositively relate to engagement.

We expect that resource crafting will positivelyrelate to performance. Resource crafting involvesprocesses engaged tomanageworkdemands throughthe reduction of demands via task completion,through the acquisition of resources to help onemeetdemands in amore efficient and effectiveway, or theconservation of resources (Tims et al., 2012). Effi-cient and effective work is likely to improve perfor-mance by enabling better resource accumulation,demand reduction, and resource conservation toallow enhanced cognitive or emotional resource in-vestment into one’s work. Individuals will also useresource crafting to acquire resources such as feed-back, job control, and support to directly improveperformance (Tims et al., 2012), which could benefitperformance over a more aggregated time period(Demerouti et al., 2015). Role crafting is unlikely tobe definitively positively or negatively related toperformance, as it primarily emphasizes idiosyncraticand personal needs of the job crafter (Wrzesniewski &Dutton, 2001), and these needs and motives couldconflict with one’s work requirements.

Hypothesis 3. Resource crafting will positively relateto performance.

Both role and resource crafting are expected to re-duce the aversive work demands that cause strain.Strain represents reactions to workplace demandsthat threaten one’s well-being (Cooper, Dewe, &O’Driscoll, 2001). Role crafting is likely to reducestrain through the inclusion of desirable job contentthat increases fit, or the reduction of aversive charac-teristics or troubling tasks associated with job misfit,such as an unmanageable workload (Wrzesniewski &Dutton, 2001), unnecessary activities (Berg et al.,2010b), or inefficient time and energy usages thatcould impact different life domains (Sturges, 2012).Role crafting could also increase one’s control overa situation or integrate healthy activity into one’sroutines. Resource crafting involves increasing re-sources or integrating them into the job while also

conserving resources through a reduction in demands(Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012; Tims et al., 2012). In-creasing resources through the creation of personalcontrol, rewards, and job-derived feedback from thejob into one’s work could help individuals bettermanage their work demands and reduce their strain(Demerouti et al., 2001, 2015).

Hypothesis 4. Role and resource crafting willnegatively relate to strain.

We expect that avoidance job crafting will posi-tively relate to work withdrawal. Work withdrawalinvolves distancing oneself from the work or anelement of the work and includes aspects such aspsychological withdrawal, bored behavior, lateness,absenteeism, turnover intentions, and turnover(Hanisch & Hulin, 1990; Hirschman, 1970; Johns,2001; van Hooff & van Hooft, 2014). Individuals canrespond to dissatisfaction by neglecting or exitingthe situation (Hirschman, 1970; Johns, 2001), andminor forms of psychological and behavioralwithdrawal are suggested to escalate in severity(Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006; Johns, 2001).Given the general reduction and avoidant focus ofavoidance crafting (Bipp & Demerouti, 2015; Timset al., 2012; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), we ex-pect that avoidance crafting will positively relate tominor forms of (psychological) withdrawal, such asbored behavior and work neglect, as individualsavoidundesirable aspects of the job. It is also likely topredict more severe forms of work withdrawal, suchas turnover and turnover intentions, given the evi-dence of progression from minor to major forms ofwork withdrawal (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006;Johns, 2001) as hindrances are ineffectively reduced(Tims et al., 2013).

Hypothesis 5. Avoidance crafting will positively re-late to work withdrawal for both role and resourceforms of avoidance crafting.

For other outcomes, approach and avoidancecrafting may operate in different ways for role andresource crafting. Approach role crafting is expectedto increase one’s fit with the job through expansion,while avoidance resource crafting will decreaseone’s misfit with the job through reduction of aver-sive work characteristics (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,2001). Approach resource crafting will increaseresources and avoidance resource crafting will de-crease demands in order to increase efficiency andbenefit performance. However, research on copingand withdrawal has suggested that approach-oriented problem-focused coping (or voice) can


address a problematic source of stress (Lazarus &Folkman, 1984) or dissatisfaction (Hirschman, 1970)more directly and effectively compared to avoidantstrategies. The more proximal parallels in resourcecrafting have also suggested that avoidance craftingmight be a less effective mode of enrichment andengagement compared to approach crafting (Timset al., 2012, 2013). We interpret these findings toapply to both role and resource crafting. We expectthat for outcomes other than work withdrawal, ap-proach crafting will be more consistently related topositive outcomes than will avoidance crafting fora given type of job crafting.

Hypothesis 6. Approach forms of a given type of jobcrafting will be more effective than avoidance formsof the same type of job crafting for outcomes of strainreduction, enrichment, engagement, andperformance.

In the following studies, Hypotheses 1, 3, and 4 aretested in Study 1 to establishwhether the occurrenceof certain types of job crafting is related to outcomesof enrichment, strain, and performance. Hypotheses1, 2, and 5 are then tested in Study 2 to evaluate therelationship between the frequency of specific jobcrafting activities and psychological outcomes ofenrichment, engagement, and work withdrawal.Hypothesis 6 is evaluated by comparing the re-lationships that approach and avoidance craftinghave with outcomes across both studies.

STUDY 1 METHODS

Participants and Procedures

Werecruited a sampleofworkers fromawide rangeof jobs andwork contexts. To collect the data, the firstauthor conducted and recorded semistructured in-terviews separately with employees and their super-visors, documented via audio recordings and fieldnotes.2 The dataset involved 246 interviews that in-cluded 50 supervisors, 196 employees, and 433 de-scriptions of job crafting activities from employeesworking in five organizations, six industries, and 58jobs. In total, 206 in-person and 40 telephone in-terviews were conducted (employee interviews av-eraged 43.12 min.; supervisor interviews averaged22.23 min.). A diverse sample was used to make thetaxonomy more representative of a variety of jobsbecause job crafting likely differs across jobs (Nielsen& Abildgaard, 2012; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).

Jobs represent all the major occupational categoriesincluding managerial, professional, craft, sales, cleri-cal, skilled, semi-skilled, and labor. The sample rep-resented the major sectors of manufacturing, service,agriculture, education, artistic, and technology in-dustries. Matched data came from interviews withemployees, supervisors, and the O*NET database for181 of the 196 employees. Participants (56% femalewith an average of 12 years of organizational tenure)were recruited according to whether they worked forparticipating supervisors. The final matched sampleused for tests of relationships between job craftingand outcomes was 158 employees working for 35 su-pervisors. Power ranged between 82 and 86% to de-tect r5 .20 (two-tailed) across analyses using p, .05,and between 90 and 92% todetect r5 .10 (two-tailed)using p, .10 (Cohen, 1988).

Measures

Job crafting. We presented participants withthe definition and defining characteristics of jobcrafting. The job crafting concept was clarifieduntil participants clearly understood its meaning.Because job crafting can have both positive andnegative implications (Demerouti, Bakker, &Halbesleben, 2015; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001),participants were asked to provide at least one ex-ample of job crafting they had initiated to “improvetheir efficiency and effectiveness” and one exampleof job crafting initiated to “reduce their stress.” Therange of job crafting examples provided suggest thatrespondents were not constrained or predisposedby these instructions, other than encouraging bothpositive and negative examples. Due to our focus onthe dimensional structure of job crafting activities,wewanted to ensure that the activities capturedwereactual examples of job crafting according to the def-inition presented. As a check on the validity of em-ployees’ responses, the interviewer assessed thecompliance of each examplewith the six definitionalcharacteristics of general job crafting during the in-terview via checklist, and asked follow-up probes asneeded. Compliance with the definitional charac-teristics was also checked via post hoc ratings madeindependently by the first author and a secondtrained coder based on the interview transcript (98%intercoder agreement).

Domain and taxonomic coding was used to cate-gorize job crafting activities, whereby similar exam-ples were identified and labeled according tounderlying domains that parsimoniously and com-pletely described all instances of job crafting

2 Supplemental methodological details are availablefrom the authors.


(Saldana, 2013). The first author reviewed thefield notes and interview transcripts to create a listof simple themes. He then organized them accord-ing to higher-level domains until all examples ofjob crafting were included in a theme and all the-mes were included in an appropriate domain. Do-mains were revised until they were inclusive of allverified examples of job crafting. In Phase 2, theauthor and a trained coder reassigned job craftingactivities to a domain to back-translate the codingusing a standardized protocol (95% intercoderagreement). This phase also involved both codersassessing each example’s compliance with the sixdefinitional characteristics. Simultaneous coding intomultiple domains was allowed (Miles, Huberman, &Saldana, 2014) due to possible correlations be-tween dimensions (Tims et al., 2012). The sevenspecific types (domains) of job crafting were rep-resented by dichotomous codes in the quantitativeanalyses.

Enrichment. Enrichment was assessed as workmeaning and job satisfaction. Work meaning wasmeasured with three items (a 5 .73). Two wereadapted from Spreitzer (1995) and one, more ex-treme, item was added to reduce the impact of itemsocial desirability and range restriction that couldcome from participants wanting to present a morepositive and professional image of themselves. Jobsatisfaction was assessed using one item fromCammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1983). Asingle item for general job satisfaction was appro-priate based on its simplicity and comprehensibility(Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997) and helped avoidparticipant fatigue. Each measure used five-pointagreement scales (1 5 “Strongly disagree” to 5 5“Strongly agree”).

Performance. Data were collected using methodsemployed in previous interview-based job designresearch using supervisor rank data (Campion &Thayer, 1985). Supervisors ranked employees onaspects of efficiency, teamwork, and work improve-ments using three single-item rank measures. Su-pervisor rankings were used to gather data froma valid source independent of employee self-reports.When supervisors had over 10 employees, theyweregiven the option of only ranking the top 10 em-ployees for each category to save time. Employeesnot in the top 10were given the rank of 10, the lowestscore possible. Scores were standardized by meancentering the variables and adjusting the standarddeviation to 1 to account for the different group sizes.They were also reversed so higher values would re-flect higher rankings.

Strain. Strain was captured by assessing supervi-sor observed strain and work–home conflict. Su-pervisors ranked employees on their “level of stress”to obtain a measure of observed strain, which wasmeasured in the same manner as performance.Work–home conflict was self-rated by employeesusing five items (a 5 .87) taken from a scale byBacharach, Bamberger, and Conley (1991). Itemsused a five-point frequency scale ranging from“never” to “extremely often.”

Controls. We evaluated the incremental predic-tion of job crafting on its outcomes, controlling forpossible alternative explanations derived from per-sonal, environmental, andmethodological variables.Gender (Male 5 1, Female 5 2) was controlled forin all analyses as it had significant relationshipswith both job crafting and its outcomes. Organiza-tional tenure, captured as a continuous measure ofemployee-reported years working in the organiza-tion, was controlled for in the analyses because ex-perience has been shown to have conditional effectson the outcomes of job crafting (i.e., job performance)(Leana et al., 2009). We controlled for whether in-terviews were conducted face-to-face or over thetelephone and the number of employees ranked ingroup-level models predicting supervisor rankedoutcomes because members of groups with 10 ormore people were more likely to get the lowest pos-sible scores.

We also controlled for a range of environmentalvariables that may create a situational contextthat influences job crafting and its outcomes(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Job designmeasuresof job autonomy and job complexity were based onthe job information in O*NET. Jobs were matchedwith O*NET data by the first author and a trainedcoder according to their job title (90% intercoderagreement). Four items each were used to measurejob autonomy (a5 .81) and job complexity (a5 .94),selected from Morgeson and Humphrey (2006).Items were scaled from 0–100 with regard to theamount of the job design dimension for the job.Group opportunity and goals were rated by the in-terviewer based on supervisors’ responses to open-ended questions using anchored rating scales asinterviews were being conducted. Group opportu-nity was assessed by five questions (a 5 .89) thatcaptured scheduling autonomy, decision-makingautonomy, work methods autonomy, monitoring, andoverall opportunity to job craft. Group goals wereassessed using two questions (a 5 .76) addressinggoals to innovate and whether workers werecompensated for innovation. Proactive personality


was assessed using four items (a 5 .67) based onBateman andCrant’s (1993)measure using a five-pointscale (1 5 “strongly disagree” to 5 5 “stronglyagree”).

We assessed and controlled for participants’ jobcrafting motives because prior theory and our pilotresearch suggested thatworkers’ orientations towardjob crafting and job crafting outcomes are at leastpartially driven by the specific motives one has tomake a change to their job (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,2001). To assess job crafting motives, employeespresented and described up to three of their mostimportant work-related motives in response to theopen-ended question, “Could you describe up tothree things you most want to get out of your work?”A multiphase coding system similar to that used tounderstand the structure of job crafting wasemployed. The pilot research suggested that in-dividuals had job crafting motives that generally re-lated to performance, development, and personalwell-being. Coding began with these three generalcategories and the procedures accounted for un-expected insights (Miles et al., 2014; Saldana, 2013).All motives were coded into the three establishedcategories by the first author. The first author anda trained coder then independently assignedmotivesto the general categories via 14 emergent sub-categories. There was strong agreement for general(95%) and specific (sub)categories (90%). Disagree-mentswere resolved throughdiscussion (Miles et al.,2014). We assessed one’s prevalence for each type ofmotive to quantify job crafting motives. Scorescounted the number of goals of a given type andranged from 0 (lowest) to 4 (highest) and were thendivided by 4 to represent a proportion of the totalgoals.

STUDY 1 RESULTS

Qualitative Descriptive Results

Results revealed that role and resource craftinghave seven specific domains. Table 1 lists the do-mains and sample quotations to describe their con-tent.3 The results suggested that the generalcategories of role and resource crafting, as well asapproach and avoidance crafting, explained differ-ences in the domains of job crafting (see Figure 1).Overall, 62% of employees (n 5 121) described

engaging in role crafting and 72% of employees (n5142) described engaging in resource crafting. A totalof 60% of employees (n 5 119) only presented ex-amples of approach job crafting, while 37% (n5 74)presented at least one example of approach jobcrafting and one example of avoidance job crafting.A total of 3% (n 5 5) only presented examples ofavoidance job crafting.

The current taxonomy meets the requirementsthat differentiate a taxonomy from a simple list ora typology (Fleishman, 1984). First, the taxonomyattempts to be an exhaustive description of the rangeof types of job crafting. Second, each domain thatemerged from the analysis was conceptually in-dependent from the other domains. Finally, eachdomain that emerged also had a substantial theoret-ical grounding within the job crafting literature.All domains of job crafting involve one or more ofthe dimensions of job crafting from the role-basedperspective (e.g., Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) orthe resource-based perspective (e.g., Tims et al.,2012). Furthermore, new specific forms of job craft-ing emerged from these analyses to extend our un-derstanding of job crafting domains. All themesthat emerged complied with the defining character-istics of general job crafting. Three domains alignwith role crafting and four domains align with re-source crafting.

Approach role crafting—Work role expansion.Work role expansion involves the self-initiated en-largement of the incumbent’s work role to includeelements of work and related activities not originallyin the formal job description. It represents a form ofrole crafting as it involves altering the task bound-aries around one’s work to modify one’s role. It canalso involve the behavioral integration of one’s per-sonal andwork domains, as someworkers expandedtheir work activities to improve their well-being.This form of job crafting specifically addressesthe elements of changing task boundaries and in-creasing challenges (Tims et al., 2012;Wrzesniewski& Dutton, 2001). Assuming that a given behaviorcomplies with the definitional characteristics ofjob crafting, work role expansion can also be re-flected in concepts of general proactivity (e.g.,Morrison & Phelps, 1999), role expansion (Grant &Hofmann, 2011), or proactive manifestations of at-tempts to enlarge andenrich their jobs (e.g., Campion&McClelland, 1993). A total of 61 examples (14% ofthe total sample) were provided.

Approach role crafting—Social expansion. So-cial expansion occurs within the social domain ofwork and involves changing the scope, number, and

3 Comprehensive descriptions of job crafting categories,specific themes of job crafting examples, and descriptiveresults are available from the authors.


nature of social relationships within one’s work. Itrepresents a form of role crafting as it involves ac-tively changing the boundaries around social activ-ity through expansion and can also involve workerstaking on self-adopted team roles or changing howthey interact with others. It represents changes to thesocial characteristics of work (e.g., Berg et al., 2010b;Tims et al., 2012; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) andcollaborative crafting (e.g., Leana et al., 2009). Socialexpansion can also involve activities of systematicfeedback seeking (Ashford, 1986), or approach ele-ments of relational boundary management (Trefalt,2013) when the defining characteristics of job

crafting are met. A total of 55 examples (13% of thetotal sample) were provided.

Avoidance role crafting—Work role reduction.Work role reduction involves consciously, proac-tively, and systematically reducing the work role,work requirements, effort expenditures, or task ac-countability. It is a form of role crafting as it involvesthe active and systematic reduction of one’s formalwork role. This dimension captures active re-ductions in tasks, responsibilities, or interactions(Berg et al., 2010b; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001)and distributing responsibility (e.g., Leana et al.,2009). If a given activity complies with the

TABLE 1Study 1 Taxonomy of Job Crafting

Job Crafting Definitions and Sample Quotations

Approach Role CraftingWork RoleExpansion

Definition: Involves the self-initiated enlargement of the incumbent’s work role to include elements of work andrelated activities not originally in the formal job description.

Illustrative Quotations:During the day I would have frequent interruptions. They are good interruptions. They are work related. They arefrom my peers and people who work for me, either asking questions, clarification, or working on a projecttogether . . . I feel like I can’t get my own work done as the day goes on . . . So what I’ve done is I’ve actuallystarted doing some of my tasks outside of regular work hours . . . I had it set up a while ago so that I can accessmy e-mail from home and so there have been occasions where rather than stress out about getting e-mailsduring the day I just go home and take an hour to do my e-mails. (Cultural Organization Management)

I have taken the time to memorize my members’ names. First and last names. I have kind of a good memory forstuff like that, but realized that it made me a more efficient service representative . . .Makes them feel much morecomfortable and it allows me to be more successful. (Animal Nutrition Company)

Social Expansion Definition: Occurs within the social domain of work and involves the proactive use of social resources orcontribution of resources to another organizational member or collective.

Illustrative Quotations:A big part of my job is communicating work as instructions and forming relationships. You need to provide thoseinstructions too in learning how to communicate. Finding a way to relate to them [employees] is sometimesnot always just in words, it’s done by getting to know them. You know? Knowing their history, sometimesdressing down. Like one of the things I’ve done is wear a shop floor shirt . . . I’m just a little bit more casual. I’vemaintained that over the years because when I first started, I did not wear fancy clothes, but I also found thatpeople who wear less are easier to talk to. They were more open and they disclosed things to me. (AerospaceManufacturing)

The best way to deal with stress is to just kind of laugh it off. In my opinion. You know, I’m probably the wildestloudest one here as far as that goes . . . Laughing makes me feel better. Telling a joke or something funny. Lookon the brighter side of things . . . Involve other people. We are a very close group. (Credit Union)

Avoidance Role CraftingWork RoleReduction

Definition: Consciously, proactively, and systematically reducing the work role, work requirements, effortexpenditures, or task accountability.

Illustrative Quotations:Because of how repetitive my job [has been] from day one, I’ve learned how to handle operations. I alwayslook for better ways to improve them and cut time back without having a detriment to the team or mysurroundings . . . I found ways to have shortcuts in the formulas that have not damaged any product . . . theyhave been changed in a manner to help time constraints . . . Researching them I found that three or four of thesteps can easily be removed and we still have the same effectiveness in the formula without using themaximum time to get it accomplished. (Animal Nutrition Company)

I am given a lot of little searches I have to do like land titles and car registration and things like that. I push itdown onto an assistant we have here . . . This work kind of falls on being able to delegate down to the assistant.(Credit Union)

Notes: n 5 196 employees.


TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)Study 1 Taxonomy of Job Crafting

Job Crafting Definitions and Sample Quotations

Approach Resource CraftingWorkOrganization

Definition: The active design of systems and strategies to organize the tangible elements of work, which can involvemanaging behavior or physical surroundings.

Illustrative Quotations:Just being prepared and going from one job to the next job to make sure I have all my tooling laid out in front of me andeverything is organized. That’s always a big thing . . . being organized. I try to be organized each time with the toolsand the procedures that I have. (Aerospace Manufacturing)

I always try to set deadlines on myself at least a week in advance before the actual deadline ends. That way I’m nothaving to pay for putting work on hold. It hurts my personal life. I used to do that. I used to be kind of, I wouldn’t saytotally unorganized, but I used to procrastinate a lot. So I kind of tried to change in every aspect of my life, especiallywork . . . I do a presentation coming up on Monday morning and the deadline for the delay just passed Mondaymorning on the fifth. And now I’ve had kind of like a whole week to kind of just review and prepare and start planningthe last slides . . . Before doing this, I would work on it and worry about it all weekend. (Animal Nutrition Company)

Adoption Definition: The active and goal-directed use of technology and other sources of knowledge to alter the job and enhancea work process.

Illustrative Quotations:I learned Doodle, how to work with Doodle. Doodle really helped a lot because I’m dealing with other people all overcampus so it’s kind of like instead of sending e-mail to 22 faculty members in the department I can send them a linkand they can go and answer all the questions that they need to do on the survey instead . . . it’s just making lifeeasier . . . if you are missing parts it’s easier to go back and get those parts instead of trying to get the whole thing.(Higher Education Administration)

Recently, I went online to look for software that would help me organize myself and organize how I track information,and follow up and organize tasks and things like that along the way. So no one asked me to do that. I just wanted tofind a way to be more efficient. I did find some software . . . One of my favorites is called Evernote. It is a program thatis set up for you to track notetaking and one of the reasons I really like it is that it is easy to access on any computer.So it’s an online software program and it is easy to access on Macs or PCs which I have access to. (CulturalOrganization Management)

Metacognition Definition: The autonomous task-related cognitive activity involving organization, sensemaking, and the manipulationof one’s own psychological states.

Illustrative Quotations:I have been an entrepreneur and so I always look for opportunities of improving the business and taking initiative onmy own to make that happen. I actually had my own business for 10 years . . . I added in a mentor role as well. Myrole is primarily process operations and that was my main focus, but I used past business experience that I have tomake sure that as we grow, that we are putting things in place both skills wise and infrastructure to be able to supportthat growth. (Animal Nutrition Company)

Our job tends to be one where you’re talking to somebody and they are upset . . . Actually the principal came from mywork . . . Focus on the issue not the person . . . Originally that meant if you are having an interaction and somebodysays something you don’t like, you know, you’re supposed to focus on the situation, not the person. So I kind of tookthat broadened because I thought well that makes sense for everything, especially in our job. So when someone’s madat you don’t focus on the fact that they’re mad, don’t focus on the fact that they’re gonna call you names, or those sortsof things. Focus on, “OK, I understand that. I’m really sorry. I’m here to try to correct that. What can I do to begingetting us on the path of correcting the problem?” Once you let people vent and lead them back to that, that’s whenthe real problem solving begins. And to be honest, I think if I hadn’t done something like that, this job would driveme nuts. (Information Technology)

Avoidance Resource CraftingWithdrawalCrafting

Definition: The systematic removal of oneself, either mentally or physically, from a person, situation, or event throughchanges to one’s job.

Illustrative Quotations:I just don’t do my job on my own and if something comes up that is not right, I take a walk so that I think about what Ineed to do next or if I need to consult somebody. Like somebody calls you, they have an issue with their accountsbeing charged for something different or the person will go out of country and take out an air card and they are beingcharged a lot of money because they used an out of country provider . . . Taking a walk listening to music or talking tomy coworker for a little bit. (Information Technology)

Some of my prospects, they are not, let’s say, the greatest people in the world. They’re not the nicest people in theworld. They’re not the friendliest people. In my mind, I get very stressed out by that because I think they don’t likeme, or they’re judging me for X number of reasons. Anyway, they just cause a lot of stress in my job and one way Ikind of job craft on that is maybe the infrequent visits I do have . . . I don’t try to meet with them frequently. (AnimalNutrition Company)

Notes: n 5 196 employees.


definitional characteristics of job crafting, workrole reduction can also involve delegation(Leana, 1986) and surrogacy (Galvin, Balkundi, &Waldman, 2010). While delegation is often con-sidered a managerial activity, it often occurs in-formally when managers have more critical ordesirable tasks that they wish to prioritize (Yukl,2013). Work role reduction is not delegation inthe traditional sense from the perspective of theleadership participation literature because workrole reduction involves managers giving awaytasks and roles that were the manager’s formalresponsibility prior to delegation. They give thework away to avoid a task. It is not work role re-duction if a manager distributes work originallyintended for the group. For an activity to be workrole reduction, an individual must delegate theirown work. Surrogacy captures the degree towhich another person acts on behalf of an indi-vidual within a set of social (leadership) in-teractions, thereby complementing delegation.Surrogacy involves getting someone else to takeone’s place in the social domain. A total of 47examples (11% of the total sample) wereprovided.

Approach resource crafting—Work organization.Workorganization involves theactivedesignof systemsand strategies to organize the tangible elements of workand can involve managing behavior or physical sur-roundings. It is a formof resource crafting, as it does notformally involve changing an individual’s task bound-aries. It involves systematic changes to one’s currentwork to get more resource value out of the set of tasksone currently has, possibly through increases in feed-back from the job, increases inone’s jobcontrol, or othermeans. Work organization can also involve organizing

other individuals’ behaviors through the creation ofbehavioral protocols and regulations, but it does notinvolve the active management of interactions in-volving the job crafter and another individual. Thiswould be social expansion. The use of technology andoutside knowledge only supplements the implementa-tion of structure, as its direct use would represent an-other form of job crafting: adoption (described next).Work organization represents a specific task-focusedform of increasing structural job resources (Tims et al.,2012). Assuming that the definitional characteristicsof job crafting are met, this form of job crafting repre-sents a specific and systematic manifestation of taskstrategies (Campion & Lord, 1982), process innovation(Scott & Bruce, 1994), or behavioral self-management(Stewart et al., 2011). While task revision (Staw &Boettger, 1990) has been distinguished from rolecrafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), the resource-based perspective aligns more with this concept byinvolving the maximization of one’s capabilities andprocess customization (Timset al., 2012).A total of 130examples (30% of the total sample) were provided.

Approach resource crafting—Adoption. Adop-tion involves the active and goal-directed use oftechnology and other sources of knowledge to alterthe job and enhance a work process. It representsa form of resource crafting as it involves adopting,importing, or integrating environmental technology-or knowledge-based resources into one’s formalwork role. These activities focus on specific tech-nologies or knowledge bases. It does not involve theuse of technology to remove one’s self from the sit-uation, such as using e-mail instead of face-to-facecommunication to avoid undesirable human con-tact. The fundamental difference between adoptionand work organization is that adoption involves the

FIGURE 1Role–Resource Approach–Avoidance Model of Job Crafting

ApproachCrafting

RoleCrafting

AvoidanceCrafting

ResoureCrafting

Work Role ExpansionSocial Expansion

Work OrganizationAdoption

Metacognition

Work Role Reduction Withdrawal


acquisition of external resources either through ac-tively increasing one’s knowledge or adoptinga specific technology that complements one’s work,while work organization involves restructuring andmodifying the use of one’s current resources. It rep-resents a specific form of increasing structural re-sources (Tims et al., 2012). When a set of activitiescomplies with the definitional characteristics ofjob crafting, these activities can be manifest inemployees’ self-directed knowledge enlargement(Campion & McClelland, 1993) or adoption-basedprocess innovation (Scott & Bruce, 1994). A total of55 examples (13% of the total sample) wereprovided.

Approach resource crafting—Metacognition.Metacognition is the autonomous task-related cog-nitive activity involving organization, sensemaking,and the manipulation of one’s own psychologicalstates. It represents a form of resource crafting as itinvolves the autonomous creation ofmeaning, sense,identity, responsibility, priorities, and organizationwithin the crafter’s mind. It differs from other formsof job crafting in that it is purely cognitive, does notinvolvevisible behavioral changes to the tasks, and ischaracterized by increasing cognitive activity in-stead of psychological withdrawal or reduction.Metacognition represents active cognitive changesindividuals make to their jobs (Wrzesniewski &Dutton, 2001). While cognitive forms of job craftingtend to be applications of role crafting (e.g., Berget al., 2010a, 2010b; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001),our results suggested that most of the examplesmoreclosely aligned with a purely cognitive form of workorganization. The combination of its predominanceof cognitive activity and goal-directed nature dis-tinguishes it from other job crafting activities andsuggests that it operates in a manner more reflectiveof resource crafting. Given the compliance with thedefining characteristics of job crafting, meta-cognition can be reflected in cognitive forms of self-management (Carver & Scheier, 1981; Stewart et al.,2011), metacognitive activity (Ford, Smith,Weissbein,Gully,&Salas, 1998), or activeemotion-focusedcoping(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). A total of 35 examples(8% of the total sample) were provided.

Avoidance resource crafting—Withdrawal craft-ing. Withdrawal crafting involves the systematicremoval of oneself either mentally or physicallyfrom a person, situation, or event through changes toone’s job. Withdrawal crafting is not a one-timeavoidance of a situation, as it must be fairly perma-nent and systematic to be job crafting. It cannot be anaccidental occurrence either, as it must be volitional.

It is also not a formalized change to one’s task orsocial role, as those more formal changes to one’swork roles and boundaries represent work role re-duction. While examples involve distancing oneselffrom the environment, it is not by definition negative.Employees also appeared to engage in facilitativeforms of withdrawal crafting that were intended tohelp them focus on a more important or pressing taskor interaction. This form of job crafting representssystematic yet avoidance-oriented forms of job craft-ing, and aligns with reducing social and hinderingdemand dimensions of resource crafting (Nielsen &Abildgaard, 2012; Tims et al., 2012). When the activ-ity complies with the defining characteristics of jobcrafting, this dimension can capture other activities,such as avoidance-based relational boundary man-agement (Trefalt, 2013); systematic forms ofshirking, social loafing, and neglect (Hirschman,1970; Kidwell & Bennett, 1993); systematic andvolitional bored behavior (van Hooff & van Hooft,2014); work withdrawal (e.g., Hanisch & Hulin,1990); or passive forms of systematic emotion-focused coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). A totalof 50 examples (12% of the total sample) wereprovided.

Quantitative Results and Hypothesis Tests

Preliminary analyses supported the constructvalidity of the quantitative measures. Results ofconfirmatory factor analyses conducted on em-ployee self-reported and supervisor-reported mea-sures support the expected seven factors, includingmeasures of organizational tenure, proactive per-sonality, work meaning, job satisfaction, supervisorobserved strain, work–home conflict, and overallperformance (x2(117) 5 167.07, CFI 5 .96, IFI 5 .96RMSEA 5 .05) over alternative models includinga single-factor model (x2(135) 5 912.28, CFI 5 .34,IFI 5 .36, RMSEA 5 .18) and alternative six-factormodels that combined job satisfaction and mean-ingful work into the same overall enrichment factor(x2(122)5 183.79, CFI5 .95, IFI5 .95, RMSEA5 .05;x2 difference test significant at p , .01) and thatcombined supervisor observed strain and work–home conflict onto the same strain factor (x2(122) 5268.69,CFI5 .89, IFI5 .88, RMSEA5 .08).We testedHypothesis 3 using a composite measure that cap-tured the average standardized performance rankingacross the three indices to measure overall perfor-mance. The measure displayed strong internal con-sistency (a5 .92), adequate loadings onto a commonlatent factor (Mean l5 .87; Range of l5 .06), and an


adequate average variance explained (AVE 5 .75).We also report on specific performance dimensions.

We used both multilevel modeling and ordinaryleast squares (OLS) regression to testHypotheses 1, 3,and 4. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations areshown inTable 2 and results ofmultivariate analysesinTable 3.Analyticmodelswere selecteddependingon the level and significance of group effects withinthe multi-level null model. For all analyses, the .1significance level (using a two-tailed test) is used tobalance types 1 and 2 error. Due to nonsignificantgroup-level effects, OLS regression was used to testrelationships between job crafting and independentenrichment elements of work meaning and job sat-isfaction. Multilevel analyses were used to test re-lationships between job crafting and work–homeconflict, supervisor observed strain, overall perfor-mance, efficiency, teamwork, and process improve-ment due to their significant group-level effects.Level 2 variables accounted for substantial pro-portional increases in explained variance beyondthat accounted for by the nullmodels for all variables(Table 3). The large increases in the level 2 pro-portion of variance explained across supervisorrankedmeasures could be at least partially attributedto the differing group sizes.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that role crafting wouldpositively relate to enrichment.Work role expansionwas positively related to work meaning (b 5 .21,p , .10) but not job satisfaction (b 5 2.12, n.s.). So-cial expansion also had a significant positive re-lationshipwith bothworkmeaning (b5 .22, p, .10)and job satisfaction (b 5 .30, p , .05). Work rolereduction did not have a significant relationshipwithworkmeaning (b52.09, n.s.) or job satisfaction(b52.08, n.s.). Thus,Hypothesis 1hadpartial support.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that resource craftingwould positively relate to performance. Overallperformance was positively related to both adoption(b 5 .56, p , .05) and work organization (b 5 .32,p , .10), but not withdrawal crafting (b 5 .21, n.s.).Withdrawal crafting did have a significant positiverelationship with efficiency (b 5 .32, p , .10).Adoption also had positive relationships with effi-ciency (b5 .55, p, .10), teamwork (b5 .56, p, .05),and process improvements (b 5 .67, p , .01). Workorganization had significant positive relationshipswith both efficiency (b 5 .43, p , .05) and processimprovement (b 5 .39, p , .05). Thus, Hypothesis 3received relatively strong overall support.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that role and resourcecrafting would negatively relate to strain. Work–homeconflict didnot significantly relate towork role

expansion (b5 .09, n.s.), social expansion (b52.07,n.s.), orwork role reduction (b5 .20, n.s.). Supervisorobserved strain had significant negative relation-ships with work role expansion (b 5 2.47, p , .05)and social expansion (b 5 2.34, p , .1). Supervisorobserved strain did not relate to work role reduction(b52.31, n.s.). Adoption had a significant negativerelationshipwithwork–home conflict (b52.22,p,.1). Work–home conflict did not have a significantrelationship with work organization (b52.19, n.s.),metacognition (b 5 2.02, n.s.), or withdrawal craft-ing (b5 .07, n.s.). Supervisor observed strainwas notrelated to work organization (b 5 2.11, n.s.), adop-tion (b52.07, n.s.), metacognition (b5 .09, n.s.), orwithdrawal crafting (b 5 2.10, n.s.). Thus, Hypoth-esis 4 was partially supported for both role and re-source crafting. Hypothesis 6will be evaluated basedon tests from both studies and presented with theStudy 2 results.

STUDY 2 METHODS

The overall purpose of Study 2 was to cross-validate the dimensional structure in a new samplethat was not involved in the development of thetaxonomy, and to replicate and extend the tests of thehypotheses with semicontinuous measures of jobcrafting and additional outcomes of engagement(Hypothesis 2) and work withdrawal (Hypothesis 5).Specifically, it was intended to provide quantitativeempirical support for the dimensional structure thatemerged from the qualitative analyses in Study 1, toprovide supporting evidence for our predictionthat role crafting positively relates to enrichment(Hypothesis 1), to provide a primary test for ourpredictions that both role and resource craftingpositively relate to engagement (a positive contrast tostrain [Timset al., 2013]Hypothesis 2), to support theidea that avoidance crafting will positively relate towork withdrawal (Hypothesis 5), and to provideadditional support for our prediction that approachcrafting will be more effective in predicting specificoutcomes compared to avoidance crafting (Hypoth-esis 6).

Participants and Procedures

Our sample of working adults from the U.S. (n 5323) was collected with the assistance of Study-Response (Stanton & Weiss, 2002), a nonprofit aca-demic recruitment service that has been used inpreviousorganizational behavior research (Piccolo&Colquitt, 2006). Their staff recruits and compensates


participants from their panel to take online surveys.The sample was 52% male (with an average 5.81years of job tenure and 10.23 years of organizationaltenure) and held jobs in managerial, professional,craft, health, clerical, skilled, semiskilled, and laboroccupations. Power ranged between 89 and 97%to detect r 5.20 (two-tailed) across analyses usingp , .05, and between 94 and 99% to detect r 5.10(two-tailed) using p , .10 (Cohen, 1988).

Measures

Job crafting. Our measure of job crafting was de-veloped based on the qualitative analyses conductedin Study 1. It captured all seven subdimensions,including work role expansion (a 5 .83), socialexpansion (a5 .85), work role reduction (a5 .83),work organization (a 5 .79), adoption (a 5 .88),metacognition (a 5 .84), and withdrawal crafting(a 5 .72). Items were assessed with a five-pointfrequency scale (1 5 “Never” and 5 5 “All of theTime”), and are presented in Appendix 1.

Job crafting outcomes. We assessed a range ofoutcomes in Study 2 to broadly capture outcomes

of enrichment, engagement, and work withdrawal.Enrichment wasmeasuredwith three-item scales forboth perceived work meaning (a 5 .86) and per-ceived work impact (a 5 .84) (Spreitzer, 1995). En-gagementwasmeasuredwith items for bothphysicalengagement (three items, a 5 .72) and cognitive en-gagement (five items,a5 .90) fromRich, LePine, andCrawford (2010). Work withdrawal was assessedusing six bored behavior items (a 5 .93) from vanHooff and van Hooft’s (2014) scale, general neglectusing three items (a5 .90) fromFarrell’s (1983) scale,and turnover intentions using four items (a 5 .93)from Kelloway, Gottlieb, and Barham’s (1999) scale.All items were assessed using five-point agreementscales (1 5 “Strongly disagree” to 5 5 “Stronglyagree”).

Controls. We controlled for demographic charac-teristics of gender, age, organizational tenure, andjob tenure as each correlated with at least one of thejob crafting outcomes assessed. Participants self-reported their gender. Age was measured accordingto responses of “18 years or less,” “19–25 years,”“26–35 years,” “36–45 years,” “46–55 years,” and“greater than 55 years.” Organizational and job

TABLE 2Study 1 Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Face-to-Face Interview 0.80 0.402. Gender (M 5 0; F 5 1) 0.56 0.50 –0.103. Organizational Tenure 12.13 9.91 0.18 –0.134. Group Opportunity 0.58 1.03 0.33 –0.28 0.15 (0.89)5. Group Goals 0.59 1.00 –0.08 –0.22 –0.02 –0.01 (0.76)6. Job Autonomy 0.60 10.71 0.21 –0.36 0.19 0.40 0.18 (0.81)7. Job Complexity 0.61 8.93 0.17 –0.43 0.15 0.38 0.27 0.83 (0.94)8. Proactive Personality 0.62 0.54 0.06 –0.08 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.03 (0.67)9. Performance Motives 0.37 0.28 –0.10 –0.09 0.06 –0.06 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.01

10. Development Motives 0.27 0.29 –0.04 0.17 –0.19 –0.09 –0.02 –0.25 –0.16 –0.02 –0.4711. Well-Being Motives 0.26 0.28 0.11 –0.14 0.06 0.19 0.03 0.25 0.22 0.03 –0.39 –0.3912. Work Role Expansion 0.28 0.45 –0.05 –0.04 0.01 –0.01 –0.04 0.08 0.02 0.00 –0.04 –0.0713. Social Expansion 0.23 0.42 –0.04 –0.12 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.00 0.06 –0.04 0.04 0.0114. Work Role Reduction 0.22 0.42 0.07 –0.04 –0.03 0.17 0.05 0.30 0.26 0.16 –0.02 0.0815. Work Organization 0.53 0.50 –0.09 0.18 –0.10 –0.18 –0.08 –0.23 –0.20 0.02 0.03 –0.0716. Adoption 0.26 0.44 0.12 0.02 –0.07 0.19 0.03 0.16 0.15 –0.02 –0.00 0.1417. Meta-Cognition 0.16 0.36 0.03 –0.08 –0.00 –0.16 0.09 –0.01 –0.01 –0.02 0.06 –0.1118. Withdrawal 0.23 0.42 –0.01 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.03 –0.05 –0.07 –0.17 0.01 –0.1119. Overall Performance 0.02 0.91 0.02 –0.18 0.04 0.03 0.33 0.15 0.24 0.05 0.07 0.0120. Efficiency 0.02 0.99 –0.01 –0.18 0.10 0.00 0.31 0.13 0.18 0.04 0.04 0.0121. Teamwork 0.01 1.00 –0.00 –0.13 0.03 –0.00 0.27 0.10 0.16 0.04 0.03 0.0622. Work Improvements 0.01 1.00 0.05 –0.21 0.02 0.05 0.24 0.18 0.28 0.10 0.12 –0.0423. Meaningful Work 3.97 0.59 –0.07 –0.09 0.05 –0.04 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.36 0.08 –0.0824. Job Satisfaction 4.09 0.68 0.09 0.12 –0.03 0.06 –0.09 0.02 –0.10 0.16 0.05 –0.0725. Work/Home Conflict 2.32 0.80 –0.15 –0.15 0.00 0.18 0.27 0.20 0.32 0.20 0.02 0.0226. Observed Strain 0.02 0.99 –0.04 –0.17 0.14 –0.01 0.31 0.13 0.21 0.05 0.08 –0.03


tenure were captured via continuous measures ask-ing, “How long have you worked for this organiza-tion?” and “How long have you worked this specificjob?” We measured (moralistic) social desirabilityusing nine items (a 5 .88) from Kovacic, Galic, andJerneic (2014), to reduce the threat of commonmethod bias.

STUDY 2 RESULTS

We conducted confirmatory factor analyses to testthe dimensional structure of both the job crafting andoutcomemeasures. Results suggested that the seven-factor model of job crafting had an adequate fit withthe data (x2(384) 5 886.42, CFI 5 .90, IFI 5 .91,RMSEA 5 .06). This model also had a superior fitwith the data when compared to both a one-factormodel (x2(406) 5 2523.79, CFI 5 .59, IFI 5 .60,RMSEA5 .13) andanyof the six-factormodels tested(best fitting six-factormodel: x2(390)5 932.68, CFI5.90, IFI 5 .90, RMSEA 5 .07; x2 difference test sig-nificant at p, .01). Results also suggested that the19-factormodel that included all outcome variables had

an adequate fit with the data (x2(2178) 5 3581.02,CFI5 .90, IFI5 .90, RMSEA5 .05). This model alsohad a superior fit with the data compared to botha one-factor model (x2(2345) 5 11620.90, CFI 5 .31,IFI 5 .31, RMSEA 5 .11) and the best fitting alterna-tive model, an 18-factor model that combined cogni-tive and physical engagement (x2(2196) 5 3619.39,CFI 5 .89, IFI 5 .90, RMSEA 5 .05; x2 difference testsignificant at p, .01).

Table 4 presents the correlations and descriptivestatistics. Correlations show that many of the jobcrafting dimensions are moderately to highly corre-lated. While similar in some ways, their differencesalso highlight the nuanced nature of job crafting ac-tivities and outcomes. Table 5 presents the results ofthe OLS regression analyses. Job crafting explainedmeaningful incremental variance in outcomes be-yond that accounted for by personal characteristicsand social desirability. The .1 significance level(using a two-tailed test) was used to balance types 1and 2 error for directional hypothesis tests.

The three types of role crafting predicted at leastone measure of enrichment. Impact was positively

TABLE 2(Continued)

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

0.10–0.03 –0.170.13 –0.04 –0.20

–0.07 –0.23 –0.04 0.200.00 –0.15 –0.06 –0.01 –0.430.04 –0.03 –0.20 0.12 –0.06 –0.120.02 –0.09 –0.12 –0.17 –0.22 0.00 –0.160.02 –0.07 –0.01 0.02 –0.08 0.15 0.06 –0.00 (0.92)0.03 –0.10 –0.04 0.00 –0.02 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.91

–0.02 –0.04 0.01 0.01 –0.10 0.12 0.07 0.00 0.91 0.720.03 –0.04 –0.02 0.03 –0.08 0.21 –0.00 –0.06 0.92 0.76 0.770.08 0.16 0.12 –0.05 –0.06 0.04 –0.01 –0.06 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.02 (0.73)

–0.04 –0.12 0.14 –0.02 0.18 –0.08 –0.06 –0.02 0.00 0.01 0.11 –0.04 0.340.14 –0.01 0.01 0.17 –0.11 0.01 –0.08 0.07 –0.05 –0.05 –0.07 –0.07 0.03 –0.25 (0.87)

–0.04 –0.14 –0.01 0.01 –0.11 0.04 0.12 0.00 0.67 0.58 0.53 0.65 –0.02 –0.10 0.04

Notes: n 5 181. Correlations of .15 or higher are significant at p , .05 (two-tailed).


TABLE3

Study1Ord

inaryLea

stSqu

ares

andHierarchical

Linea

rMod

elingOutcom

esof

JobCrafting

WorkEnrich

men

tStrain

Perform

ance

Variable

Work

Mea

ning

Job

Satisfaction

Work–Hom

eCon

flict

Observe

dStrain

Com

posite

Perform

ance

Efficiency

Tea

mwork

Proce

ssIm

prove

men

t

Con

trols

GroupOpportunity

0.10

(0.07)

–0.05

(0.07)

–0.00

(0.07)

–0.00

(0.07)

–0.05

(0.08)

–0.05

(0.07)

GroupGoa

ls0.09

(0.08)

0.14

(0.12)

0.13

(0.11)

0.12

(0.10)

0.09

(0.11)

0.05

(0.10)

#of

Mem

bers

Ran

ked

–0.06

(0.01)**

–0.10

(0.01)**

–0.10

(0.01)**

–0.10

(0.02)**

–0.10

(0.01)**

Fac

e-to-Fac

eInterview

–0.10

(0.13)

0.19

(0.15)

–0.57

(0.15)**

–0.21

(0.18)

–0.19

(0.16)

–0.22

(0.19)

–0.31

(0.18)

†–0.10

(0.15)

Gen

der

0.01

(0.11)

0.14

(0.13)

0.11

(0.12)

–0.11

(0.16)

–0.03

(0.14)

–0.18

(0.13)

–0.06

(0.22)

–0.16

(0.15)

Organ

izational

Ten

ure

0.00

(0.01)

–0.01

(0.01)

0.00

(0.00)

0.01

(0.01)

†0.00

(0.01)

0.01

(0.01)*

0.00

(0.01)

0.00

(0.01)

Proactive

Personality

0.44

(0.08)

0.18

(0.10)

†0.24

(0.12)

†0.12

(0.13)

0.28

(0.17)

0.26

(0.14)

†0.26

(0.18)

0.41

(0.23)

†

Autonom

y0.00

(0.01)

0.02

(0.01)

†–0.04

(0.01)**

–0.01

(0.01)

–0.00

(0.01)

0.01

(0.01)

0.00

(0.01)

–0.01

(0.01)

Com

plexity

–0.00

(0.01)

–0.02

(0.01)*

0.05

(0.01)**

0.02

(0.02)

0.01

(0.01)

–0.00

(0.01)

0.01

(0.01)

0.03

(0.01)*

GroupOpportunity

–0.03

(0.05)

0.07

(0.06)

GroupGoa

ls0.01

(0.05)

–0.04

(0.06)

Perform

ance

Motives

0.33

(0.26)

0.14

(0.31)

0.53

(0.30)

†–0.25

(0.43)

0.20

(0.49)

0.07

(0.38)

0.19

(0.58)

0.39

(0.58)

Dev

elop

men

tMotives

0.16

(0.27)

–0.09

(0.32)

0.54

(0.23)*

–0.31

(0.48)

0.21

(0.53)

0.32

(0.40)

0.35

(0.69)

0.22

(0.62)

Personal

Motives

0.33

(0.25)

–0.08

(0.30)

0.57

(0.33)

†–0.27

(0.49)

0.47

(0.53)

0.48

(0.45)

0.35

(0.66)

0.60

(0.58)

Leve

l1Approac

hRole

Crafting

WorkRoleExp

ansion

0.21

(0.13)

†–0.12

(0.15)

0.09

(0.12)

–0.47

(0.19)*

–0.12

(0.18)

–0.20

(0.18)

–0.08

(0.25)

–0.01

(0.18)

Soc

ialE

xpan

sion

0.22

(0.13)

†0.30

(0.15)*

–0.07

(0.14)

–0.34

(0.19)

†–0.05

(0.24)

–0.13

(0.24)

0.08

(0.29)

–0.06

(0.25)

Leve

l1Avo

idan

ceRole

Crafting

WorkRoleRed

uction

–0.09

(0.14)

–0.08

(0.17)

0.20

(0.17)

–0.31

(0.20)

–0.08

(0.22)

–0.02

(0.21)

–0.01

(0.25)

–0.06

(0.23)

Leve

l1Approac

hResou

rceCrafting

WorkOrgan

ization

–0.04

(0.14)

0.25

(0.17)

–0.19

(0.13)

–0.11

(0.18)

0.32

(0.18)

†0.43

(0.21)*

0.34

(0.22)

0.39

(0.17)*

Adop

tion

–0.01

(0.14)

–0.02

(0.16)

–0.22

(0.13)

†–0.07

(0.22)

0.56

(0.26)*

0.55

(0.29)

†0.56

(0.26)*

0.67

(0.24)**

Metacog

nition

0.02

(0.15)

–0.00

(0.18)

–0.02

(0.14)

0.09

(0.21)

–0.01

(0.18)

0.12

(0.20)

0.04

(0.21)

–0.15

(0.20)

Leve

l1Avo

idan

ceResou

rceCrafting

Withdrawal

Crafting

0.02

(0.15)

0.05

(0.17)

0.07

(0.20)

–0.10

(0.15)

0.21

(0.17)

0.32

(0.19)

†0.24

(0.26)

0.23

(0.18)

Lev

el2ICC

0.00

0.00

0.37

**0.26

**0.36

**0.30

**0.28

**0.25

**R2

0.22

0.19

PseudoR2Lev

el2;Lev

el1

0.40

;0.08

0.71

;0.03

0.87

;0.05

0.75

;0.11

0.77

;0.05

0.10

0;0.09

Notes:n

515

8,35

grou

ps.Unstan

dardized

coefficien

tswithstan

darderrors

included

inparen

theses.P

seudoR2va

lues

compared

toba

selinemod

elwithnopredictors

for

outcom

eswithmeaningfulg

roupeffects.R2va

lues

werepresentedforan

alyses

that

had

nogrou

peffects.

†p#

.1(two-tailed

test)

*p#

.05(two-tailed

test)

**p#

.01(two-tailed

test)


TABLE4

Study2Descriptive

Statisticsan

dIntercorrelation

s

Mea

nSD

N1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

1.Gen

der

(15

M;

25

F)

1.48

0.50

301

2.Age

3.38

1.08

302

0.20

3.Organ

izationa

lTen

ure

10.23

7.63

297

–0.07

0.44

4.JobTen

ure

5.81

5.80

296

0.01

0.25

0.58

5.Soc

ial

Desirab

ility

2.64

0.86

292

0.12

–0.25

–0.17

–0.11

(0.88)

6.W

orkRole

Exp

ansion

3.31

0.75

315

–0.04

–0.13

0.01

0.09

–0.14

(0.83)

7.Soc

ial

Exp

ansion

3.46

0.75

316

0.09

–0.04

0.05

0.10

–0.20

0.75

(0.85)

8.W

orkRole

Red

uction

2.28

0.91

318

–0.34

–0.29

–0.05

0.05

0.23

0.37

0.26

(0.83)

9.W

ork

Organ

ization

3.79

0.76

314

0.19

0.10

–0.02

0.00

–0.23

0.52

0.51

–0.05

(0.79)

10.A

dop

tion

3.35

0.85

309

0.00

–0.15

0.01

0.03

–0.17

0.76

0.71

0.34

0.42

(0.88)

11.M

etacog

nition

3.56

0.72

316

0.15

0.05

–0.06

0.01

–0.20

0.66

0.74

0.18

0.66

0.58

(0.84)

12.W

ithdrawal

Crafting

2.51

0.86

296

–0.22

–0.26

–0.12

0.01

0.40

0.14

–0.01

0.60

–0.06

0.11

0.04

(0.72)

13.M

eaning

3.95

0.78

302

0.01

0.12

0.15

0.10

–0.27

0.39

0.42

0.00

0.31

0.38

0.34

–0.11

(0.86)

14.Impac

t3.52

1.00

303

–0.18

–0.15

0.08

0.20

–0.10

0.42

0.36

0.31

0.18

0.31

0.20

0.07

0.46

(0.84)

15.P

hysical

Enga

gemen

t4.05

0.68

301

0.12

0.14

0.09

0.04

–0.20

0.26

0.31

–0.10

0.36

0.29

0.35

–0.08

0.54

0.28

(0.72)

16.C

ognitive

Enga

gemen

t4.16

0.66

296

0.15

0.17

0.03

–0.01

–0.26

0.24

0.32

–0.18

0.43

0.28

0.30

–0.21

0.63

0.26

0.75

(0.90)

17.B

ored

Beh

avior

2.04

0.89

298

–0.12

–0.34

–0.15

–0.06

0.60

–0.04

–0.10

0.34

–0.19

–0.03

–0.10

0.44

–0.30

–0.06

–0.33

–0.43

(0.93)

18.N

eglect

1.71

0.91

301

–0.22

–0.34

–0.12

–0.05

0.46

0.04

–0.05

0.44

–0.24

0.05

–0.09

0.45

–0.21

0.03

–0.31

–0.42

0.77

(0.90)

19.T

urnov

erIntention

s2.52

1.24

304

–0.21

–0.22

–0.19

–0.15

0.34

0.13

–0.06

0.38

–0.05

0.05

–0.03

0.43

–0.20

–0.01

–0.11

–0.20

0.45

0.49

(0.93)

Notes:n

532

3.Scale

reliab

ilitiesarepresentedin

thediago

nals.Allva

lues

of.12or

higher

aresign

ifican

tatp

,.05.


related to bothwork role expansion (b5 .22, p, .05)and work role reduction (b 5 .35, p , .01), whilesocial expansion positively related to meaning (b 5.23, p, .05). Results of the analyses suggest that bothapproach and avoidance role crafting positively re-late to work enrichment, yet different forms of rolecrafting relate to different aspects of enrichment.Hypothesis 1 is supported for all specific types of rolecrafting. Two unpredicted findings are that with-drawal crafting had a negative relationship withperceived impact (b 5 2.22, p , .01), and work or-ganization had a positive relationship with per-ceived impact (b 5 .17, p , .05).

Three of the four types of resource crafting andsocial expansion (role crafting) predicted engage-ment. Physical engagement was positively related tometacognition (b 5 .23, p , .05) and work organi-zation (b 5 .21, p , .01). Cognitive engagementwas positively related to social expansion (b 5 .18,p , .1), work organization (b 5 .37, p , .01) andadoption (b 5 .17, p , .1). Withdrawal crafting wasnot related toeitherphysical (b52.04,n.s.) orcognitive

engagement (b 5 2.06, n.s.). Thus, Hypothesis 2 issupported for approach role crafting and partially sup-ported for approach resource crafting, but not sup-ported for avoidance role or resource crafting.

Both types of avoidance crafting had significantpositive relationships with work withdrawal. Spe-cifically, bored behavior was positively related toboth work role reduction (b 5 .13, p , .1) and with-drawal crafting (b 5 .14, p , .05), general neglectwas positively related to both work role reduction(b 5 .17, p , .05) and withdrawal crafting (b 5 .15,p , .05), and turnover intentions were positivelyrelated to both work role reduction (b5 .23, p, .01)and withdrawal crafting (b 5 .16, p , .05). Theseresults support Hypothesis 5. Two significant un-expected findingswere thatwork role expansionhada significant positive relationship with turnover in-tentions (b5 .29, p, .01), and that social expansionhad a significant negative relationshipwith turnoverintentions (b 5 2.30, p , .01).

Results from both studies also suggest consider-able differences between approach and avoidance

TABLE 5Study 2 OLS Outcomes of Job Crafting

Enrichment Engagement Work Withdrawal

VariableWork

MeaningWorkImpact

PhysicalEngagement

CognitiveEngagement

BoredBehavior

GeneralNeglect

TurnoverIntentions

ControlsGender –0.08 –0.11† 0.04 –0.00 0.07 –0.02 0.03Age 0.12† –0.12† 0.07 0.13* –0.20** –0.17** 0.08Organizational Tenure 0.05 0.08 0.07 –0.02 0.01 0.00 –0.07Job Tenure 0.04 0.23* 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 –0.13*Social Desirability –0.10 –0.08 –0.04 –0.01 0.45** 0.31** 0.24**

Approach Role CraftingWork Role Expansion 0.07 0.23* –0.00 –0.07 –0.00 0.04 0.29**Social Expansion 0.22* 0.15 –0.01 0.18† –0.08 –0.06 –0.30**

Avoidance Role CraftingWork Role Reduction –0.02 0.35** –0.05 –0.14 0.13† 0.17* 0.23**

Approach Resource CraftingWork Organization 0.09 0.17* 0.21** 0.37** –0.01 –0.11 0.12Adoption 0.11 –0.13 0.14 0.17† –0.02 0.04 0.04Metacognition 0.05 –0.08 0.23* –0.03 –0.05 –0.03 –0.12

Avoidance Resource CraftingWithdrawal Crafting –0.09 –0.22** –0.04 –0.06 0.14* 0.15* 0.16*

R2 0.28** 0.34** 0.28** 0.33** 0.46** 0.38** 0.33**

Notes: n5 238, standardized coefficients. P values of .1 were considered significant as we used one-tailed significance tests for directionalhypotheses. All incremental R2 values for the models with job crafting variables included were significant, suggesting that as a set job craftingexplained a meaningful portion of the variance in employees’ subjective work experiences above and beyond personal characteristics andsocial desirability:Meaning:DR25 .18; Impact:DR25 .20; Physical Engagement:DR25 .20; Cognitive Engagement:DR25 .25; BoredBehavior:DR2 5 .05; Neglect: DR2 5 .08; Turnover Intentions: DR2 5 .16.

†p# .1 (two-tailed test)*p# .05 (two-tailed test)

**p# .01 (two-tailed test)


forms of role and resource crafting. Across bothstudies, 76% (13 of 17) of the relationships assessedaccording to our hypothesis tests were at least par-tially supported for approach crafting, while only29% (2 of 7) of the relationships assessed accordingto our hypothesis tests were at least partially sup-ported for avoidance crafting. Moreover, the 29%indicates a significant relationship between with-drawal crafting and efficiency, which serves as sup-port for Hypothesis 6. Only 14% were supportedwhen using the overall performance measure as theonly performance outcome of interest. These resultsprovide relatively strong support that, in general,avoidance role or resource crafting is less effectivecompared to approach-oriented forms of the sametype of job crafting. Thus, Hypothesis 6 is supported.

DISCUSSION

We sought to develop a taxonomy of job craftingactivities with three functional purposes: integratingthe role-based and resource-based literatures andapplying the approach and avoidance themes to thisintegration; identifying, clarifying, and describingany new specific types of job crafting not previouslyknown; and showing that these specific types of jobcrafting relate to different outcomes. Our resultsachieve each of these three purposes. First, theysuggest that role- and resource-based perspectivesare different and that both have approach and avoi-dant components. Second, our taxonomy highlightsnew specific dimensions of job crafting not yetclearly outlined in the literature. Prior job craftingresearch has outlined aspects of task and challengeexpansion, social expansion, resource use, and cog-nitively based job crafting. However, the currentstudy clarified our understanding of avoidancecrafting by distinguishing between work role re-duction and withdrawal crafting. The study alsoclarified the category of approach resource craftingby distinguishing between work organization andadoption, and better specifying (quantifying) meta-cognition. Finally, our analyses suggest that role andresource crafting, as well as approach and avoidancecrafting, can relate to outcomes of enrichment(e.g., empowerment dimensions of meaning andidentity), work–home conflict, work efficiency,teamwork, process improvements, and work with-drawal (i.e., bored behavior, neglect, and turnoverintentions). More specific types of job crafting hadunique patterns of relationships with specific out-comes according to generalized predictions ofrole–resource and approach–avoidance crafting (as

summarized below). These specific activities mightbe relevant to different segments of the workforce.For example, adoption appears to be a form of jobcrafting effectively harnessed by (semi) autonomousknowledge workers, and work organization is one ofthe fewmodes of job crafting that can be beneficiallyemployed by more rank-and-file workers with morestandardized and regulated jobs. Similarly, changingwhat one does at work can differ considerably fromchangingwho one interacts with at work, dependingon whether social interactions are an importantcomponent of one’s job. The job crafting measuredeveloped in these studies could also help facilitatefuture research and the creation of more nuancedjob crafting theory.

Role Crafting

Work role expansion represents the self-initiatedexpansion of the incumbent’s work role to includeelements of work and related activities not originallyincluded in the formal work description. Work roleexpansion integrates previously discussed taskcrafting concepts and provides a synthesis of thisdomain. However, our qualitative results also sug-gest new content that should be considered, as re-sults show that people can add personally relevantcontent, such as exercise or other personal mainte-nance activities, to their jobs. Work role expansionappears to increase the meaning and impact peoplederive from their work and reduce their supervisor’sperceptions of the employee’s strain. It closely alignswith the propositions presented by Wrzesniewskiand Dutton (2001), and it appears to align with thegeneral predictions of their model. The unexpectedpositive relationship between work role expansionand turnover intentions might represent a proactiveresponse to dissatisfying work (Hirschman, 1970),whereby an individual expands their work role inpreparation for a future job change.

Social expansion occurs within the social domainof work and involves the proactive use of social re-sources or a contribution of resources from anotherorganizationalmemberor collective.Social expansionintegrates previously discussed social and collectiveforms of job crafting and provides a synthesis of thisdomain at the individual level of theory. While thegeneral premise of social expansion seems relativelywell established, our data revealed content yet to beformally considered within the social expansion do-main, including systematic developmental network-ing, systematic work process modifications focusedon communication improvements, and systematic


contributions to collective tasks andclimates. Benefitsof social expansion include higher work meaning,higher job satisfaction, higher cognitive engagement,and lower observable strain. The unexpected negativerelationship between social expansion and turnoverintentionsmight occur because enrichment interruptswithdrawal progression. Social expansion might befurther informed by literature on social networks andexchange.

Work role reduction involves consciously and pro-actively reducing the work role, work requirements,effort expenditures, or task accountability. Conceptsof work role reduction have been alluded to inrole-based theory and research when authors havediscussed people changing the number and scopeof tasks (e.g., Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), butthis type of job crafting has never been specificallydescribed as a unique form of task crafting. Wepresent it as a unique avoidance-focused form ofrole crafting that is distinct from approach role craft-ing (e.g., work role expansion). It is positively relatedto perceived impact andworkwithdrawal. Itmight beengaged by those with high demands in an effort toreduce the implications of these demands.

Workers seeking to enrich their jobs could expandboth theirwork roles and social networks, but shouldbe cautious with reducing their work roles. Whilethese activities might have apparent direct benefits,they are associated with work withdrawal and couldhave longer-term negative implications for ones’psychological attachment to their organization. Inaddition, approach role crafting generally had con-siderablymore positive, and less negative, outcomesthan did avoidance role crafting, suggesting thatapproach-oriented changes are superior options.

Resource Crafting

Work organization captures the active design ofsystems and strategies to organize the tangible ele-ments of work, and can involve managing behavioror physical surroundings. The resource-based liter-ature has presented concepts of increasing structural(or physical) resources. However, these discussionshave lacked specificity and tended to relate to theacquisition of resources, andmanyof thesemeasureshave put a disproportionate focus on learning andfeedback or advice seeking.We propose that throughwork organization individuals create additional re-source value for themselves through a reconfigura-tion of the current resources available to them intheir current jobs. Work organization is positivelyrelated to overall performance (including specific

dimensions of efficiency and work process improve-ment), perceived impact, and engagement.

Adoption represents the active and goal-directeduse of technology and other sources of knowledge toalter the job and enhance a work process. Like workorganization, adoption extends the discussions ofincreasing resources from the resource-based per-spective. However, adoption considers howworkersbring new resources into their jobs. While recentdiscussions on seeking resources have addressedthis general action, they have often failed to specifi-cally account for the fact that individuals will buildtangible resources into their job by adopting newtechnologies or implementing new knowledge.Through this additional specification, the concept ofadoption takes a much broader perspective on howworkers canbring resources into their jobs.Adoptionwas related to general performance (including ele-ments of efficiency, teamwork, and work improve-ment), reduced work–home conflict, and cognitiveengagement.

Metacognition represents the autonomous task-related cognitive activity involving organization,sensemaking, and the manipulation of one’s ownpsychological state. It draws on various concepts ofcognitive crafting.However, job crafting researchhasnot focused nearly as much attention on the cogni-tive forms of job crafting as it has on the task, re-lational, and resource-acquisition-based forms of jobcrafting. Our data suggest a considerable amount ofnew content that should be considered under thedomain of metacognition. This content includes af-fective or cognitive self-regulation, self-allowances,purposeful or proactive focus, systematic mentalapproaches to work, cognitive task mapping, andother systematic cognitive self-management prac-tices (e.g., problem solving, reprioritization, andmental preparation). The lack of a significant re-lationship between metacognition and outcomes inStudy 1 could suggest metacognition might be mostvaluable as a high-frequency activity, whereby itneeds to happen in volume to meaningfully relate tooutcomes. It is also possible that the outcomes ofmetacognition are more psychological and experi-ential compared to the strain outcomes we assessedin Study 1. Metacognition was positively related toemployees’ physical engagement in Study 2.

Withdrawal crafting involves the systematic re-moval of oneself, either mentally or physically, froma person, situation, or other form of stimuli throughchanges to one’s job. The resource-based literaturehaspresentedmultiple concepts of reduction thatwefeel can be integrated to represent a more general job


crafting activity of withdrawal. Through this inte-gration of both reductions of hindering demands,social demands, and cognitive demands we presenta unique avoidance form of resource crafting that isdistinct from the mere reduction of hindering or so-cial demands as a form of resource crafting. The jobcrafting research has yet to pay specific attention tothe systematic reduction of cognitive demands, andthese activities should be included in future quanti-tative measures of withdrawal crafting. Recent re-searchhas suggested that the outcomes of job craftinginvolving reduction, such as withdrawal craftingandwork role reduction, remain unclear (Demeroutiet al., 2015; Tims et al., 2012, 2013). Our resultssuggest that the effectiveness of avoidance craftingcould be conditional, as withdrawal crafting relatednegatively to perceived impact, and related posi-tively to both efficiency and work withdrawal.

The prediction of work process improvementssuggests a valuable new function of job crafting, as itappears to support individual innovation and couldbe a behavioral mechanism of total quality manage-ment and process innovation programs popularwithin contemporary organizations. The results alsoprovide quantitative evidence that adoption relatesto reductions in work–home conflict. Adoption andwork organization appear to be effective and acces-sible ways to acquire and develop resources withinone’s job to aid engagement and performance. Theseactivities might benefit organizations with em-ployees responsible for innovation as they representadoption and work organization related to processimprovements and engagement without any appar-ent negative implications. There also appear to besome performance efficiencies from withdrawalcrafting, which should be done sparingly due to itsnegative relationship with enrichment and positiverelationship toworkwithdrawal. Approach resourcecrafting generally had considerably more positive,and less negative, outcomes than did avoidance re-source crafting. Workers should consider approach-oriented crafting strategies whenever possible.

Limitations

There were potential limitations in the Study 1qualitative methods, where we requested examplesof job crafting engaged in to increase efficiency andeffectiveness and to decrease stress. Conversely, thespecific questions allowed us to understand the richcontent underlying specific types of job crafting, andreduced the possibility that participants would re-spond in a socially desirable manner. Concerns of

bias are also partially allayed by the supportive re-sults of Study 2.Apotential limitation of Study 2wasthe reliance on employee self-reports; however, thestudy was largely a replication of our findings fromStudy 1 and we did control for personal character-istics and social desirability. Therewere also limiteditems in some scales in both studies, as we tried toreduce respondents’ fatigue. Future research shouldseek multiple sources of data and more comprehen-sive scales. In both studies, we sampled a variety ofjobs. Future research should consider specific oc-cupations to reduce error associated with differentwork requirements and conditions.

REFERENCES

Ashford, S. J. 1986. Feedback-seeking in individual adap-tation: A resource perspective. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 29: 465–487.

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. 1991. Work-home conflict among nurses and engineers:Mediatingthe impact of role stress on burnout and satisfactionat work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12:39–53.

Bateman,T.S.,&Crant, J.M.1993.Theproactivecomponentof organizational behavior: A measure and correlates.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 103–118.

Berg, J. M., Grant, A. M., & Johnson, V. 2010a. When call-ings are calling: Craftingwork and leisure in pursuit ofunanswered occupational callings. OrganizationScience, 21: 973–994.

Berg, J. M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. 2010b. Per-ceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting atdifferent ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 158–186.

Bipp, T., & Demerouti, E. 2015. Which employees crafttheir jobs and how? Basic dimensions of personalityand employees’ job crafting behavior. Journal of Oc-cupational and Organizational Psychology, 88:631–655.

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. 1983.Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organiza-tional members. In S. Seashore, E. Lawler, P. Mirvis &C. Camman (Eds.),Assessing organizational change:A guide tomethods, measures and practices: 71–138.New York, NY: John Wiley.

Campion, M. A. 1988. Interdisciplinary approaches to jobdesign: A constructive replication with extension.The Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 467–481.

Campion, M. A., & Lord, R. G. 1982. A control systemsconceptualization of the goal-setting and changingprocess. Organizational Behavior and Human Per-formance, 30: 265–287.


Campion, M. A., & McClelland, C. L. 1993. Follow-up andextension of the interdisciplinary costs and benefits ofenlarged jobs. The Journal of Applied Psychology,78: 339–351.

Campion, M. A., & Thayer, P. W. 1985. Development andfield-evaluation of an interdisciplinarymeasure of jobdesign. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 70:29–43.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. 1981. Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to humanbehavior. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behav-ioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: AcademicPress.

Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & O’Driscoll, M. P. 2001. Organi-zational stress: A review and critique of theory, re-search, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Halbesleben, J. R. B. 2015.Productive and counterproductive job crafting: Adaily diary study. Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, 20: 457–469.

Demerouti,E.,Bakker,A.B.,Nachreiner,F.,&Schaufeli,W.B.2001. The job demands–resources model of burnout.The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 499–512.

Elliot, A. J. 1999. Approach and avoidance motivationand achievement goals. Educational Psychologist,34: 169–189.

Farrell, D. 1983. Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as re-sponses to job dissatisfaction: A multidimensionalscaling study. Academy of Management Journal,26: 596–607.

Fleishman, E. A. 1984. Taxonomies of human perfor-mance. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., &Salas, E. 1998. Relationships of goal orientation,metacognitive activity, and practice strategies withlearning outcomes and transfer. The Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 83: 218–233.

Galvin, B. M., Balkundi, P., & Waldman, D. A. 2010.Spreading the word: The role of surrogates in charis-matic leadership processes. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 35: 477–494.

Grant, A. M., & Hofmann, D. A. 2011. Role expansion asa persuasion process: The interpersonal influencedynamics of role redefinition. Organizational Psy-chology Review, 1: 9–31.

Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. 2009. 7 redesigning work de-sign theories: The rise of relational and proactiveperspectives. TheAcademy ofManagement Annals,3: 317–375.

Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. 1990. Job-attitudes and orga-nizational withdrawal: An examination of retirement

and other voluntary withdrawal behaviors. Journalof Vocational Behavior, 37: 60–78.

Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. 2006. Howimportant are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisonsof integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences.Academy of Management Journal, 49: 305–325.

Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Re-sponses to decline in firms, organizations, andstates. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. 2007.Integrating motivational, social, and contextual workdesign features: A meta-analytic test of the summaryand theoretical extension work design literature. TheJournal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1332–1356.

Johns, G. 2001. The psychology of lateness, absenteeism,and turnover. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones,H. P. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook ofindustrial work and organizational psychology,vol. 2: 232–252. London, U.K.: Sage.

Kelloway, E. K., Gottlieb, B. H., & Barham, L. 1999. Thesource, nature, and direction of work and familyconflict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 4: 337–346.

Kidwell, R. E., & Bennett, N. 1993. Employee propensity towithhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect threeavenues of research. Academy of Management Re-view, 18: 429–456.

Kovacic, M. P., Galic, Z., & Jerneic, Z. 2014. Social de-sirability scales as indicators of self-enhancement andimpression management. Journal of Personality As-sessment, 96: 532–543.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, appraisal, andcoping. New York, NY: Springer.

Leana, C. R. 1986. Predictors and consequences of dele-gation. Academy of Management Journal, 29: 754–774.

Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. 2009. Workprocess and quality of care in early childhood educa-tion: The role of job crafting. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 52: 1169–1192.

LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. 2005. Ameta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrancestressor framework: An explanation for inconsistentrelationships among stressors and performance.Academy of Management Journal, 48: 764–775.

Lu, C., Wang, H., Lu, J., Du, D., & Bakker, A. B. 2014. Doeswork engagement increase person-job fit? The role ofjob crafting and job insecurity. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 84: 142–152.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. 2014. Quali-tative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The work designquestionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validatinga comprehensivemeasure for assessing job design andthe nature of work. The Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 91: 1321–1339.

Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. 1999. Taking charge atwork: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change.Academy of Management Journal, 42: 403–419.

Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J. S. 2012. The developmentand validation of a job crafting measure for usewith blue-collar workers. Work and Stress, 26:365–384.

Peterson, N. G.,Mumford,M.D., Borman,W. C., Jeanneret,P. R., Fleishman, E. A., Levin . . . Dye, D. M. 2001.Understanding work using the Occupational Infor-mation Network (O*NET): Implications for practiceand research. Personnel Psychology, 54: 451–492.

Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. 2015. Jobcrafting in changing organizations: Antecedentsand implications for exhaustion and performance.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20:470–480.

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. 2006. Transformationalleadership and job behaviors: The mediating role ofcore job characteristics. Academy of ManagementJournal, 49: 327–340.

Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. 2010. Job en-gagement: Antecedents and effects on job perfor-mance. Academy of Management Journal, 53:617–635.

Saldana, J. 2013. The coding manual for qualitativeresearchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. 1994. Determinants of in-novative behavior: A path model of individual in-novation in theworkplace.AcademyofManagementJournal, 37: 580–607.

Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment inthe workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and vali-dation. Academy of Management Journal, 38:1442–1465.

Stanton, J. M., & Weiss, E. M. 2002. Online panels for so-cial science research: An introduction to the Study-Response project (Technical report no. 13001; www.studyresponse.com). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Univer-sity of Information Studies.

Staw, B. M., & Boettger, R. D. 1990. Task revision: Aneglected form of work performance. Academy ofManagement Journal, 33: 534–559.

Stewart, G. L., Courtright, S. H., & Manz, C. C. 2011. Self-leadership: A multilevel review. Journal of Manage-ment, 37: 185–222.

Sturges, J. 2012. Crafting a balance between work andhome. Human Relations, 65: 1539–1559.

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. 2012. Developmentand validation of the job crafting scale. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 80: 173–186.

Tims,M., Bakker, A. B., &Derks, D. 2013. The impact of jobcrafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,18: 230–240.

Trefalt, S. 2013.Betweenyouandme:Settingwork–nonworkboundaries in the context of workplace relationships.Academy of Management Journal, 86: 1802–1829.

van Hooff, M. L. M., & van Hooft, E. A. J. 2014. Boredom atwork: Proximal and distal consequences of affectivework-related boredom. Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology, 19: 348–359.

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. 1997. Overalljob satisfaction: How good are single-item measures?The Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 247–252.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. 2001. Crafting a job:Revisioning employees as active crafters of theirwork.Academy of Management Review, 26: 179–201.

Yukl, G. 2013. Leadership in organizations (8th ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Patrick F. Bruning ([email protected]) is an assis-tant professor in the Faculty of Business Administrationat the University of New Brunswick, Fredericton. He re-ceived his PhD from Purdue University’s Krannert Schoolof Management. His research generally considers howpeople think, behave, and relate to others in idiosyncraticways at work.

Michael A. Campion ([email protected]), PhD fromNorth Carolina StateUniversity, is theHermanC. KrannertProfessor of Management at Purdue University. Researchinterests include interviewing, testing, selection, workdesign, job analysis, teams, turnover, career development,and others. He is past president of the Society for Industrialand Organizational Psychology, and past editor of Per-sonnel Psychology.


http://www.studyresponse.com

http://www.studyresponse.com

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

APPENDIX AItems Used in the Role–Resource Approach–Avoidance Job Crafting Measure

Work Role Expansion

Expand my role by providing opinions on important issues.Expand my work activities to make sure I take care of myself.Expand my work activities to acquire resources that will help me do my job.Expand my work by adding activities to my job that ensure the quality of my deliverables.Expand my work by adding activities to my job that enhance safety or security.Social ExpansionActively initiate positive interactions with others at work.Actively work to improve my communication quality with others at work.Actively develop my professional network at my job.Actively work to improve the quality of group interactions.Work Role ReductionFind ways to get others to take my place in meetings.Find ways to outsource my work to others outside my group.Find ways to reduce the time I spend in meetings.Find ways to bypass time-consuming tasks.Work OrganizationCreate structure in my work processes.Create organization in my work environment.Create structure in my work schedule.Create plans and prioritize my work in an organized manner.AdoptionUse new knowledge or technology to enhance communication.On my own, seek training on new technology.On my own, seek training to improve my work.Use new knowledge or technology to automate tasks.Use new knowledge or technology to structure my work.MetacognitionUse my thoughts to put myself into a good mood at work.Use my thoughts to get me out of a bad mood at work.Use my thoughts to help me focus and be engaged at work.Use my thoughts to create a personal mental approach to work.Use my thoughts to help me prepare for future work I will be doing.WithdrawalWork in a way that allows me to avoid others at work.Work in a way that allows me to avoid interacting with people when working.Work in a way that allows me to avoid bothersome tasks involved in my work.

Notes: Items were assessed with a five-point frequency scale where 15 “Never” and 5 5 “All of the Time.”


a role–resource approach–avoidance model of job crafting ...€¦ · the self-management...

Documents