job crafting an overarching approach · pdf filesummary of phd - job crafting: an overarching...

FACULTY OF PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

JOB CRAFTING: AN OVERARCHING APPROACH

Supported by FWO Flanders Belgium under Grant POR-C4088-G.0954.12.

2017

Doctoral thesis offered to obtain the degree of Doctor in Psychology (PhD)

Els Vanbelle

Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Hans De Witte Prof. Dr. Anja Van den Broeck

RESEARCH UNIT OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL

PSYCHOLOGY AND PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

Cover designed by Anke Vanbelle Photograph taken by Els Vanbelle

i

Summary of PhD - Job Crafting: An Overarching Approach

Job crafting emerged in the early 2000s as a bottom-up perspective on job redesign in which

employees take an active role in customizing their job. It describes the self-initiated changes

employees make to their job in order to optimize their functioning. In this PhD project, the aims

were twofold. First, we aimed to clarify the concept of job crafting. We started from the two main

streams on job crafting (i.e. Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), compared

definitions, elaborated on similarities and differences, and built an overarching approach. In line

with our conceptualization, we developed an overarching job crafting scale. Second, we aimed to

expand our understanding of job crafting by exploring its nomological network, including both

antecedents and consequences in our overall model.

This PhD dissertation consists of six chapters. In Chapter 1, we introduce job crafting, elaborate

on the two central aims of this PhD project and structure the four empirical studies (Chapter 2-5)

in an overall model. In Chapter 2, we develop and validate the overarching job crafting scale

(OJCS). The scale consists of four items, and includes the two core elements of job crafting: (1) we

made abstraction of the specific type of changes employees make to their jobs and (2) we included

the inherently pro-self-focused purpose of job crafting, referring to optimizing one’s well-being,

meaning of the job, work identity and performance. We demonstrated reliability, construct

validity in relation to other job crafting scales, predictive validity, and incremental validity for

positive outcomes. In Chapter 3, we present a cross-sectional study among governmental

employees aged between 45 and 65 years in which we modelled active jobs as antecedents of job

crafting and the willingness to work until retirement age as outcome. In Chapter 4, we present a

daily diary study on the role of individual characteristics in relation to daily job crafting and daily

person-job fit. We found that active emotions positively relate to daily job crafting and daily

person-job fit. Furthermore, personal growth initiative showed to be a general personal strength

that positively relates to daily job crafting and that makes employees less dependent of daily

fluctuations in active emotions. In Chapter 5, we found a curvilinear relationship between

emotional exhaustion and job crafting, especially under the condition of high servant leadership.

In addition, servant leadership amplified the positive relationship between personal

accomplishment and job crafting. No significant results were found on cynicism. Finally, in Chapter

6, we look back on our findings and think ahead on future avenues for job crafting research.

In sum, within this PhD dissertation, we developed an overarching approach of job crafting and

validated an overarching job crafting scale. In addition, we explored the nomological network of

this overarching job crafting construct.

iii

Samenvatting van Doctoraat – Job Crafting: Een Overkoepelende Benadering

Job crafting is een recent onderzoeksthema binnen de arbeidspsychologie en biedt een bottom-

up perspectief op het herontwerpen van jobs. Het betreft de actieve rol die werknemers opnemen

in het aanpassen van hun job op maat van persoonlijke behoeften, interesses en capaciteiten. We

definiëren job crafting als de zelfgeïnitieerde veranderingen die werknemers aanbrengen in hun

job met de bedoeling hun functioneren te optimaliseren. Doorheen dit doctoraatsproject komen

we tegemoet aan twee doelstellingen. Ten eerste streven we naar een conceptverduidelijking van

job crafting. We starten vanuit de twee hoofdstromingen in de literatuur (i.e. Tims & Bakker, 2010;

Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), bestuderen gelijkenissen en verschillen, en ontwikkelen een

overkoepelende benadering. Daarbij aansluitend ontwikkelen we een overkoepelende schaal om

job crafting te bevragen. Ten tweede beogen we meer kennis te vergaren inzake het nomologische

netwerk van job crafting door zowel antecedenten als gevolgen op te nemen in ons model.

Deze dissertatie bestaat uit zes hoofdstukken. In Hoofdstuk 1 omschrijven we de doelstellingen

van het doctoraatsonderzoek en structureren we de vier empirische studies (Hoofdstuk 2-5) in

een overzichtelijk model. In Hoofdstuk 2 ontwikkelen en valideren we de Overkoepelende Job

Crafting Schaal (OJCS). Dit instrument omvat vier items die zijn opgebouwd volgens de twee

kernelementen van job crafting: (1) we maken abstractie van de diverse specifieke veranderingen

die werknemers kunnen maken en (2) verwijzen naar de inherente doelstelling van job crafting

om het persoonlijke welzijn te verbeteren, beter te kunnen presteren of de job beter te laten

passen bij wie men is en wat men belangrijk vindt. Onze studieresultaten geven aan dat de OJCS

betrouwbaar en valide is. We tonen constructvaliditeit in relatie tot andere job crafting schalen en

vinden dat de OJCS voorspellend is voor positieve uitkomsten. In Hoofdstuk 3 tonen we aan de

hand van een cross-sectionele studie dat 45-plussers hun job craften in de context van actieve jobs

en dat dit positief samenhangt met de bereidheid om langer te werken. In Hoofdstuk 4 bespreken

we een dagboekstudie en tonen we de rol van actieve emoties en doelgerichtheid in relatie tot job

crafting en persoon-job fit (i.e. de perceptie dat eigen behoeften en capaciteiten overeenstemmen

met wat de job te bieden heeft en vereist). Werknemers die hoog scoren op doelgerichtheid, een

persoonlijke sterkte, blijken minder afhankelijk te zijn van dagelijkse schommelingen in emoties.

In Hoofdstuk 5 onderzoeken we het verband tussen burnout en job crafting. De resultaten tonen

dat emotionele uitputting curvi-lineair (omgekeerde U-vorm) samenhangt met job crafting

wanneer werknemers een dienende leidinggevende hebben. Werknemers die hoog scoren op

persoonlijke bekwaamheid scoren hoger op job crafting en dit wordt versterkt door dienend

leiderschap. We vonden geen significante resultaten voor cynisme. In Hoofdstuk 6, tot slot, voeren

we een globale discussie van de bevindingen, bieden we suggesties voor toekomstig onderzoek en

bespreken we praktische implicaties. Samengenomen hanteren we in dit doctoraatswerk een

overkoepelende benadering van job crafting en exploreren we zowel antecedenten als gevolgen.

v

BEAUTIFUL THAT WAY – NOA

Smile, without a reason why

Love, as if you were a child

Smile, no matter what they tell you

Don’t listen to a word they say

'Cause life is beautiful that way

Tears, a tidal-wave of tears

Light that slowly disappears

Wait, before you close the curtain

There’s still another game to play

And life is beautiful that way

Here, in his eyes forever more

I will always be as close

as you remember from before.

Now, that you're out there on your own

Remember, what is real

and what we dream is love alone.

Keep the laughter in your eyes

Soon, your long awaited prize

We’ll forget about our sorrow

And think about a brighter day

'Cause life is beautiful that way

Music: Nicola Piovani

Lyrics: Noa & Gil Dor

“La Vitta e Bella”

Personal source of reflection

(August 2015 – March 2016)

vii

LET’S CRAFT! LET’S WALK! LET’S THANK!

Een memorabele boswandeling … …A memorable walk through the forest

Een deugddoende wandeling, ik kan het iedereen aanraden. Een frisse neus halen, nieuwe paden

bewandelen, mooie plekjes exploreren. Af en toe de weg wat moeten zoeken alvorens een

herkenningspunt te spotten en tot rust te komen.

An energizing walk, a true recommendation for each and every one of you. Getting outside for

some fresh air, exploring unknown pathways and beautiful sites. You might get lost from time to

time before you recognize that one spot that enables you to relax and enjoy.

De tocht naar de dag van vandaag, het behalen van mijn doctoraatsdiploma, was zonder twijfel dé

meest uitdagende, maar ook inspirerende en verrijkende wandeling die ik maakte de voorbije

jaren. Een heldere wandelkaart was er niet voor handen. Het is een wandeling die je niet gauw

even op een dagje klaart, maar waarbij zowel heldere zomerdagen als schemerdagen elkaar

afwisselen. Soms zie je door de bomen even het bos niet meer en op andere momenten ervaar je

dan weer een aangename wind in de rug die je meevoert en laat uitkijken naar nieuwe horizonten.

Het was een wandeling die ik gelukkig niet alleen maakte. Diverse wandelaars daagden me uit,

kruisten mijn pad en wezen me de weg of boden een houvast en wandelden een heel eind mee.

The walk towards this defense-day, was undoubtedly the most challenging, exciting and

inspiring walk of the past years. Even though there was no strict roadmap available, I could

count on many people during my journey that I would like to thank.

Sommigen moedigden me aan mijn inhoudelijke alsook persoonlijke grenzen uit te dagen

en op de proef te stellen. Ieder op zijn of haar eigenste wandelwijze.

Jury members: Prof. Dr. Peter Kuppens, Prof. Dr. Jari Hakanen, & Prof. Dr. Wilmar Schaufeli– Thank

you for reading and evaluating my PhD dissertation, for providing me with your helpful and

enlightening remarks. Thank you for lifting my work up to a higher level. Kiitos! Wilmar, een

bijzonder woord van dank richt ik graag naar jou. Dank voor je inhoudelijke en persoonlijke

interesse, bezorgdheid en open deur voor een helpende hand of luisterend oor. Special thanks

to Prof. Dr. Maria Tims for taking part in my mid-term committee. Not only as a job crafting

pioneer, but as a truly agreeable and warm-hearted person, you gave me the opportunity to

walk beside you and to meet the intriguing world and explorers of job crafting.

Anja - “Soms moet je tot de bodem gaan, om de top te bereiken” – dat was de boodschap die te

lezen stond op de tas die ik van je kreeg als welkomstgeschenk te Brussel. Ik wil jou in het

bijzonder danken voor je warme begrip en persoonlijke flexibiliteit de afgelopen periode. Ik

ben ontzettend dankbaar voor het contact dat we hadden de laatste maanden. Het betekent

oprecht meer voor me dan ik ooit kan verwoorden… Dankje!

Hans – Waar zal ik beginnen… Acht jaar geleden begon onze unieke samenwerking… Dankzij jou

kon ik proeven van de wondere wereld der wetenschappen en ging mijn hart sneller slaan bij

het kennis vergaren inzake theorie en empirie. Dankzij jou werd ik een arbeidspsychologe in

hart en nieren en koester ik de wens om de brug te slaan van wetenschap en pragmatiek naar

het dagelijkse praktijkveld. Dankzij jou vatte ik deze bijzondere wandeling aan en wist ik

uitdagende paden te trotseren. Als een onvoorwaardelijke steun en toeverlaat, bij momenten

alwaar mijn “professionele vaderfiguur”, wandelde je mee tot op de dag van vandaag. Dankje!

viii

Verschillende mensen kruisten mijn pad en wezen me de weg…

O2L – Thank you for sharing your smiles, for your companion during our endeavours and joy.

Nele, jij was mijn stagebegeleidster en coachte me doorheen mijn verdere werk en

persoonlijke ontwikkeling. Je houdt me de nodige spiegels voor en staat steeds paraat voor

advies of een gezellige lunch, dank. Kristien, dank om er steeds te zijn voor een luisterend oor,

helpende hand of moment van rust. Marc, dank voor je hart onder de riem en het

onvoorwaardelijk kunnen delen van ons verhaal. Bart, dank voor je vriendschap en prachtige

zangmomenten! Jana, dank om me steeds weer te verbazen en te laten lachen. Tijs, dank voor

je bevlogenheid. Katrien & Kathleen, dank voor jullie dagelijkse ondersteuning! Katrien,

Kristien, Ivana, Steffie, Anahí en Irina, hartelijke dank om mijn proefverdediging mogelijk te

maken. Each and every ex- and current O2L member, thank you for the little things.

Mijn kantoorgenootjes – Wendy, dank voor je warme onthaal en vele onvergetelijke momenten.

Irina, Beatrice, Salvatore, & Kaisa, thank you for creating a joyful, supportive and warm office-

climate. Julie, je was hét te gekste kantoorgenootje! Ivana & Ellen, oprechte dank voor jullie

dagelijkse glimlach, empathie, gekke & plagende-onderlinge-zelven, gezellige thee-delen,

ludieke kleenex-(balsem!)-momenten en onvoorwaardelijke steun.

HRRG | WOS – Thank you for being such a wonderful and welcoming research group.

Mijn masterproefstudenten – Dank voor de aangename samenwerking en verwezenlijkingen.

Deelnemers aan ons onderzoek – Zonder jullie was dit niet mogelijk. Hartelijke dank!

Professionele contacten die ik ontmoette onderweg – Dank!

Anderen wandelden een heel eind mee en zorgden voor dagelijkse herkenningspunten…

LUK & Tempo – Dank om deze wandeling al zingend of dansend een extra dimensie te bieden.

Psychologie-meiden – Fran, Heleen, Stef, Steve, Lisa, Sofie, Marie & Elien dank voor jullie interesse,

medeleven, warme vriendschap, nodige momenten van ontspanning en hart onder de riem.

De vrienden uit Halle & omstreken – Hartelijke dank voor jullie energie!

Yannick – Dank voor je inhoudelijke nieuwsgierigheid, statistische ondersteuning en vriendschap.

Jeroen – Dank om samen door gedeelde persoonlijke uitdagingen te wandelen. Dank voor de vele

momenten van reflectie, je begrip en je vriendschap.

Anne – Jij bent “Anne”! Niet zo maar een collega, maar een ware vriendin. Dank om wie je bent,

om me op tijd en stond een halt toe te roepen, houvast te bieden en mijn denken even over te

nemen. Woorden schieten te kort. Dankje om “Anne” te zijn!

Valérie – Dankjewel voor je luisterend oor, je verlossende EMDR-kunsten en je deskundigheid.

Dankjewel om er te zijn en me te vergezellen de voorbije 2 jaar en in het hier en nu.

Charite & Floriaan – Dank omdat jullie er steeds zijn en ik telkens weer op jullie kan rekenen.

Isabel & Davy – Thank you for your friendship, unconditional believe and for making me “metie”!

Katty & Geert – Dank om zowel mijn glimlach als traan telkens weer een plaatsje te bieden, voor

de vrijdagse opfleurtjes, jullie advies en de vele vrolijke, gezellige momenten samen.

Ama – Dank voor je dagelijkse portie muziek, energie en positivisme. Onbeschrijfelijk!

Alwientje – Dank voor je onvoorwaardelijke vriendschap, begrip en vasthoudendheid.

ix

Henny – Dank voor de talrijke boswandelingen. Je bent écht een top-wandelcoach!

Mieke – Dankje om te springen op moeilijke momenten, voor je openheid, goedlachse zelf, het

delen van persoonlijke spannende stappen en unieke vriendschap.

Mijn schoonfamilie – Mama Marlies, papa Freddy, Liesbeth, Ugo, Emma, Arthur, Grietje, Tim &

Fientje: dank voor jullie gastvrijheid, de zondagse energieboost met “wolfje!”, het vertrouwen,

steun en de vele vitamientjes. Dank om me mee op pad te nemen, dankzij jullie leerde ik echt

genieten van gastronomische, en misschien soms zelfs wat bourgondische, verwennerijen.

Ugo, dank voor je interesse en voor het nalezen van diverse hoofdstukken. Dank allemaal om

mij een tweede thuis te bieden en deel te laten voelen van jullie warme nest.

Mijn grootouders, dankje om er te zijn en voor de bijzondere momenten die we koesteren.

Memeke, dank voor de zaterdagse koffie en glimlach van geluk bij ieder samenzijn.

Anke & Kali – Dank voor jullie liefde. Lieve zus, een bijzondere dank voor jou van een heel erg fiere

“grote” zus om wie je bent, wat je doet en je vele talenten. Van onze prachtige kindertijd tot

deze nieuwsgierige twintiger-tijd verzamelden we reeds ontzettend mooie herinneringen. Ik

kijk op naar je doorzettingsvermogen en naar de wijze waarop je hevige waterstromen steeds

met klem weet te doorzwemmen. Het zijn ervaringen die je vormen tot de fantastische

persoon die je bent. Ik wil je ook in het bijzonder danken om dit boekje van layout en

persoonlijke touch te voorzien. Je wist de perfecte vertaalslag te maken van mijn soms wat

warrige hoofd via jouw creatieve hand naar een prachtig resultaat.

Mama & papa – Ik kan me geen beter ouderpaar voorstellen. Dank dat we mochten opgroeien in

jullie warme nest van liefde, openheid en vertrouwen. Dank voor de unieke kansen die ik

kreeg en voor het onvoorwaardelijke geloof in mijn kunnen. Dank om me op te vangen en te

beschermen, telkens weer. Papa, ik geniet ervan om met jou te kunnen praten en koester de

momenten die we samen beleven. Tal van muziekflarden roepen warme herinneringen op

aan de fantastische tijden die we als gezin beleefden. Mama, dat ene stukje van de wandeling

liep je wel heel erg letterlijk en figuurlijk mee. Dat ene stukje van onze wandeling, bracht ons

zonder enige twijfel nóg dichter bij elkaar. Woorden hebben we niet per se nodig, een blik of

gevoel zegt vaak genoeg. Een traan, een lach, passie en vuur, reflectie, rust alsook de

broodnodige gekke momenten helpen in onze persoonlijke queeste naar het balanceren van

bevlogenheid, plichtsbewustzijn en assertiviteit. Ik zie jullie bijzonder graag.

Pieter – Mijn trouwste steun en toeverlaat, mijn ware rots in de branding. Woorden schieten te

kort om recht te doen aan wat jij voor mij doet en betekent. Je biedt me een heerlijke thuis. Je

voelt aan wat goed voor me is en waar valkuilen op de loer liggen. Je neemt mijn denken van

me over op momenten dat dat nodig is en tilt me telkens weer een stapje hoger. Ik weet dat

het niet steeds even gemakkelijk voor je was de voorbije jaren en kan je niet voldoende

danken om het verlichten van de uitdagingen die we tegenkwamen. Jij bent mijn perfecte

complement, je haalt het beste in mij naar boven en bent een ware verrijking voor de persoon

die ik ben. Om het in jouw woorden te zeggen: “ik ben ontzettend blij dat jij in m’n team zit”!

De mooiste momenten beleef ik en zal ik beleven samen met jou, simpelweg omdat ik echt

zielsveel van je hou.

Dankjewel voor deze memorabele wandeling!

Thank you all for this memorable walk!

xi

TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER 1 – General Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

1. Once Upon A Time ................................................................................................................................ 3

2. Clarifying The Concept Of Job Crafting (Aim 1 – Proposition 1).......................................... 5

2.1. Job Crafting: Taking An Overarching Approach ............................................................................ 5

2.2. Situating Job Crafting Within the Proactivity Perspective on Job Redesign ...................... 9

2.3. From Conceptualization to the Added Value of an Overarching Scale of Job Crafting10

3. Exploring the Nomological Network of the Overarching Job Crafting Construct

(Aim 2 – Proposition 2 & 3) ................................................................................................................... 11

3.1. Job Crafting as an Individual Strategy in Relation to (Sub)optimal Functioning ......... 12

3.2. Personal and Contextual Factors and Opportunities to Craft ............................................... 14

3.3. From Propositions to Four Empirical Studies............................................................................. 15

4. Overview of Empirical Studies and Following Chapters ..................................................... 17

4.1. Chapter 2 - Study 1: Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS) ............... 17

4.2. Chapter 3 - Study 2: Job Crafting: Autonomy and Workload as Independent Variables

and the Willingness to Continue Working Until Retirement Age as Dependent Variable ....... 18

4.3. Chapter 4 - Study 3: Active Emotions and Personal Growth Initiative in Relation to

Employees’ Daily Job Crafting and Person-Job Fit: A Multilevel Study ............................................ 20

4.4. Chapter 5 - Study 4: Digging into the Linear and Curvilinear Relationship Between

Burnout and Job Crafting. Servant Leadership as Moderator .............................................................. 21

5. Taken Together.................................................................................................................................. 23

6. References ........................................................................................................................................... 24

CHAPTER 2 – Study 1: Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS)..................... 31

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 34

1.1. Job Crafting: Building an Overarching Approach....................................................................... 34

1.2. The Added Value of an Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS) ............................................ 35

2. Study 1: Scale Development and Reliability Analyses ......................................................... 36

2.1. Method......................................................................................................................................................... 37

2.2. Sample and Procedure. ......................................................................................................................... 38

xii

2.3. Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 38

2.4. Discussion Study 1 .................................................................................................................................. 40

3. Study 2: Construct validity of the OJCS ...................................................................................... 41

3.1. Method......................................................................................................................................................... 41

3.2. Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 42


4. Study 3: Predictive validity ............................................................................................................ 47

4.1. Method......................................................................................................................................................... 47

4.2. Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 49


5. Study 4: Incremental validity of OJCS above JCS and JCQ .................................................... 52

5.1. Method......................................................................................................................................................... 52

5.2. Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 53


6. General Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 55

6.1. Main contributions ................................................................................................................................. 55

6.2. Future research directions .................................................................................................................. 56

7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 58

8. References ........................................................................................................................................... 59

CHAPTER 3 – Study 2: Job Crafting: Autonomy and Workload as Independent Variables

and the Willingness to Continue Working Until Retirement Age as Dependent Variable .. 65

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 68

Job Crafting ................................................................................................................................................ 68

Job Crafting and the Willingness to Continue Working........................................................... 70

Active Jobs and Job Crafting................................................................................................................ 71

Indirect Relationships from Active Jobs to the Willingness to Continue Working via

Job Crafting ............................................................................................................................................................... 73

2. Method .................................................................................................................................................. 74

Sample and Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 74

xiii

Measures ..................................................................................................................................................... 75

3. Results ................................................................................................................................................... 76

Preliminary Results ................................................................................................................................ 76

Test of the Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................... 76

4. Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 81

Strengths, Limitations and Directions for Future Research .................................................. 83

5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 85

6. References ........................................................................................................................................... 86

CHAPTER 4 – Study 3: Active Emotions and Personal Growth Initiative in Relation to

Employees’ Daily Job Crafting and Person-Job Fit: A Multilevel Study ...................................... 93

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 96

1.1. Job Crafting ................................................................................................................................................ 98

1.2. Individual Characteristics and Job Crafting ................................................................................. 98

1.3. A Functional Classification Approach of Individual Characteristics to Job Crafting 100

1.4. Cross-level Interaction of Personal Growth Initiative and Work-Related Emotions101

1.5. Job Crafting and Person-Job Fit ...................................................................................................... 102

1.6. Indirect Relationships from Individual Characteristics to Person-Job Fit

via Job Crafting ..................................................................................................................................................... 102

2. Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 103

2.1. Procedure ................................................................................................................................................ 103

2.2. Sample ...................................................................................................................................................... 104

2.3. Measures .................................................................................................................................................. 104

2.4. Analyses ................................................................................................................................................... 105

3. Results ................................................................................................................................................. 106

3.1. Descriptive results ............................................................................................................................... 106

3.2. Confirmatory Factor Analyses ........................................................................................................ 106

3.3. Hypotheses Testing ............................................................................................................................. 109

4. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 111

4.1. Main Contributions ............................................................................................................................. 112

xiv

4.2. Limitations and Future Research .................................................................................................. 113

4.3. Implications ............................................................................................................................................ 115

5. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 116

6. References ......................................................................................................................................... 117

CHAPTER 5 – Study 4: Digging Into the Linear and Curvilinear Relationship Between

Burnout and Job Crafting: The Moderating Role of Servant Leadership ................................ 123

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 126

Burnout and Job Crafting .................................................................................................................. 127

1.1.1. Emotional exhaustion and job crafting. ............................................................................ 128

1.1.2. Cynicism and job crafting. ....................................................................................................... 129

1.1.3. Personal accomplishment and job crafting. .................................................................... 130

Servant Leadership and Job Crafting ........................................................................................... 131

1.2.1. Servant leadership as a moderator of the burnout-job crafting relationship. .. 131

2. Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 133

Procedure and Sample ....................................................................................................................... 133

Measures .................................................................................................................................................. 134

Analyses ................................................................................................................................................... 135

3. Results ................................................................................................................................................. 136

Confirmatory Factor Analysis ......................................................................................................... 136

Hypotheses Testing ............................................................................................................................. 136

4. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 141

Main Contributions ............................................................................................................................. 141

4.1.1. The burnout-job crafting relationship. .............................................................................. 141

4.1.2. Job crafting as a socially embedded phenomenon. ...................................................... 143

4.1.3. COR as a relevant theoretical framework. ....................................................................... 144

Limitations and Future Research Avenues ............................................................................... 145

Conclusion and Practical Implications ........................................................................................ 147

5. References ......................................................................................................................................... 149

xv

CHAPTER 6: General Discussion: Time To Look Back and To Think Ahead ......................... 155

1. Time to Look Back and to Think Ahead .................................................................................. 157

2. Looking Back: Our Main Findings in the Light of Two Aims and

Three Propositions ................................................................................................................................. 157

2.1. The Concept of Job Crafting: Taking an Overarching Approach

(Aim 1 - Proposition 1) .......................................................................................................................... 158

2.1.1. Job crafting includes a broad range of work-related changes. ................................ 159

2.1.2. Job crafting includes a pro-self-focused purpose. ......................................................... 160

2.1.3. Job crafting and positive outcome variables. .................................................................. 161

2.2. Job Crafting and (Sub)optimal Functioning (Aim 2 - Proposition 2) ............................ 162

2.2.1. Job crafting modelled as an antecedent of (sub)optimal functioning. ................. 162

2.2.2. (Sub)optimal functioning modelled as an antecedent of job crafting. ................. 165

2.3. Contextual and Personal Factors (Aim 2 - Proposition 3) ................................................ 166

2.3.1. Main effects of personal and contextual factors (antecedents). ............................. 166

2.3.2. Personal and contextual factors as opportunities to craft (moderators). .......... 169

2.4. Theoretical Considerations: Taken Together ....................................................................... 169

2.4.1. Aim 1: Clarifying the concept of job crafting. .................................................................. 170

2.4.2. Aim 2: Exploring the nomological network of job crafting. ...................................... 171

2.4.3. Some final theoretical considerations. .............................................................................. 171

2.5. Methodological Considerations ................................................................................................. 173

2.5.1. The Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS). ..................................................................... 173

2.5.2. Samples........................................................................................................................................... 174

2.5.3. Study design, causality and dynamics. .............................................................................. 175

2.5.4. Self-reports. .................................................................................................................................. 176

3. Thinking Ahead: Remaining Issues on Job Crafting ............................................................ 177

3.1. The Concept of Job Crafting and the Matter of Time .......................................................... 178

3.2. Un(der)-investigated Paths in our Overall Model: Job Crafting in Relation to Optimal

Functioning, and Personal and Contextual factors ..................................................................... 179

3.2.1. Job crafting and optimal functioning: only a bright side?.......................................... 180

xvi

3.2.2. The role of personal and contextual factors: an interactionist perspective. ..... 181

3.2.3. Explaining the positive outcomes of job crafting. ......................................................... 182

3.2.4. Job crafting as a moderator. ................................................................................................... 183

4. Job Crafting in Practice.................................................................................................................. 183

5. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 187

6. References ......................................................................................................................................... 188

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................... 197

xvii

LIST OF TABLES

Chapter 1 – General Introduction

Table 1. Overview of propositions and studies. ................................................................... 16

Chapter 2 – Study 1

Table 1. Descriptives and exploratory factor analyses (NT1=423). ............................... 39

Table 2. Fit statistics for the models based on confirmatory factor analyses

(N=637). .............................................................................................................................. 45

Table 3. Latent correlations between job crafting factors (N=637). ............................ 46

Table 4. Means, standard deviations and latent correlations between OJCS and

outcomes. ............................................................................................................................ 51

Table 5. Hierarchical regression of outcomes on job crafting measures (N=358). 54


Table 1. Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations and reliabilities (Cronbach’s

alphas in parentheses (N=1168). .............................................................................. 78

Table 2. Results of the analysis for simple mediation using the SPSS PROCESS macro

of Hayes (2013) (N=1168). .......................................................................................... 79


Table 1. Means, standard deviations, zero-order and person-centered correlations .

................................................................................................................................................ 107

Table 2. Fit statistics for the models based on confirmatory facto analyses

(Nindividuals=116; Nobservations=341) .............................................................................. 108


Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, means, standard deviations and correlations

(N=603). ............................................................................................................................ 138

Table 2. Hierarchical regression analyses of job crafting on each burnout

component as independent variable (IV), servant leadership as moderator,

quadratic effects of the IV, interaction and moderated quadratic effects

(N=583). ............................................................................................................................ 139

Chapter 6 – General Discussion

xviii

LIST OF FIGURES

Chapter 1 – General Introduction

Figure 1. The overall model of this PhD project based on three propositions.............. 5

Figure 2. Developing an overarching approach on job crafting building on two

pioneering streams ............................................................................................................ 8

Figure 3. Situating job crafting within the proactive perspective on job redesign

(based on Grant & Parker, 2009) .............................................................................. 10

Figure 4. Schematic overview of the studies in an overall model ................................... 17

Figure 5. Hypothesized model of Study 2 .................................................................................. 19





Figure 1. Hypothesized research model based on the simple mediation model

explained by Preacher & Hayes (2008) and further suggestions by Hayes

(2012). .................................................................................................................................. 77

Figure 2. Final model. ....................................................................................................................... 80


Figure 1. Hypothesized multilevel moderated mediation model.

Notes. Full lines represent expected positive relationships and dashed

lines represent expected negative relationships. ............................................... 97

Figure 2. Estimated paths in the full multilevel moderated mediation model.

Notes. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001. Dotted lines indicate non-significant

relationships. ................................................................................................................... 110

Figure 3. Cross-level interaction of personal growth initiative and positive active

emotions in relation to daily job crafting. ........................................................... 110

Figure 4. Cross-level interaction of personal growth initiative and negative active

emotions in relation to daily job crafting. ........................................................... 111

xix


Figure 1. Moderating effect of servant leadership on the curvilinear relationship

between emotional exhaustion and job crafting, controlling for educational

level (two-way quadratic interaction with continuous moderator) ........ 140

Figure 2. Moderating effect of servant leadership on the relationship between

personal accomplishment and job crafting, controlling for educational

level (two-way interaction) ....................................................................................... 140

Chapter 6 – General Discussion

Figure 1. Schematic overview of the studies in an overall model ................................. 158

Figure 2. The overall model of this PhD project (dark lines) expanded with avenues

for future research (grey lines) ............................................................................... 179

Figure 3. 9 tips on job crafting in practice from an employee- and employer

perspective ....................................................................................................................... 187

1

CHAPTER 1 – GENERAL INTRODUCTION

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

2


3

1. Once Upon A Time

Job crafting emerged as a new perspective on job redesign within the field of contemporary

occupational health psychology in the early 2000s (Oldham & Fried, 2016). It refers to a bottom-

up perspective in which employees take an active role in “[shaping, moulding and redefining their

jobs]” to create different jobs for themselves (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p.180).

Job crafting is especially promising in times of change arising from economic, technological

and demographic trends in the contemporary world of work (Grant & Parker, 2009; Peeters, Taris,

& de Jonge, 2014). Two broad trends challenge top-down job design and shed light on the added

value of bottom-up approaches such as job crafting (Demerouti, 2014). First, the workforce is

becoming increasingly diverse in terms of gender, ethnicity, educational background and age,

bringing along different needs, values, skills and preferences to meet. In the upcoming years, for

instance, it will be especially important to encourage the aging workforce to continue working

until retirement age and to manage the workforce diversity.

Second, the nature and organisation of work is becoming increasingly complex and intense,

implying new job characteristics for both employers and employees to deal with (Oldham & Fried,

2016; Peeters et al., 2014). We shifted from a predominantly manufacturing economy to a vast

increase of a knowledge and service economy, bringing along new psychosocial risks such as

emotional, social and cognitive demands (Grant & Parker, 2009; Peeters et al., 2014). In addition,

rapid developments in information technology influence the organisation of work in terms of how,

when and where work is conducted. Although this brings along opportunities for flexible work

arrangements (e.g. flexibility in timing and place of work, working together in virtual ways, etc.),

it also creates challenges to balance work and non-work domains (Peeters et al., 2014). These new

work arrangements might furthermore impact job characteristics such as enhanced autonomy

and less monitoring at work, creating opportunities to engage in job crafting (Oldham & Fried,

2016). Finally, the mutual expectations of employer and employee also changed. Whereas an

organisation used to be a place for lifelong employment, it now offers a means to strengthen one’s

employability, to use and develop one’s skills, competencies and abilities (Grant & Parker, 2009),

and to strive for meaningful jobs and careers (Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2013). Flexibility,

employability, and self-regulation are key words in the current psychological contract (Peeters, et

al., 2014). Taken together, jobs, traditionally conceived as merely predesigned sets of specific

tasks to be conducted in specified ways with specified others at fixed workhours and a vast

workplace, pave the way for more uncertain, dynamic and flexible entities (Oldham & Hackman,

2010).

In the light of these trends, it becomes increasingly challenging to design jobs and work

conditions that are beneficial for work-related well-being, motivation and performance for each


4

and every employee in a merely top-down way (Demerouti, 2014). Especially job crafting is

promising in this realm as it refers to the changes employees initiate to customize the job

according to personal needs and abilities, and to personally keep up with the contemporary world

of change. Taking a proactive stance to job redesign such as job crafting might be helpful in

creating enriching, resourceful jobs as well as in facing up to demanding work aspects (Grant &

Parker, 2009; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).

Since 2012, job crafting has become an increasingly popular and blossoming research topic.

At the start of this PhD project, there were only about 15 publications on job crafting of which the

majority were qualitative studies. In February 2017, the topic of job crafting results in 109 hits of

contributions on Web of Science (of which 57 articles referred to job crafting in the title). For an

overview of these articles, see Appendix I.

The trends and new topics also find their way to practitioners and policymakers. In the past

few years, we elaborated on what job crafting has to offer for HR practice, presented about job

crafting at seminars and contributed to handbooks directed at HR practitioners and scholars (see

Appendix II and Appendix III for two contributions on job crafting in Dutch). Job crafting might

also be valuable in the realm of work-related policies and legislation. In Belgium, more specifically,

three legislative initiatives shed light on the need of new approaches of work to keep up with

recent societal developments. As from 2013, a nationally binding Collective Labour Agreement

(CLA) obliges companies with more than 20 employees to develop an employment policy to retain

and create jobs for older employees, i.e. employees aging between 45 and 65 (cf. “CAO 104” in

Dutch)i. In 2014, the legislation on well-being at work was extended in terms of psychosocial risks

at workii. In March 2017, the government approved a labour law concerning “workable and agile

work” (i.e. “Werkbaar en Wendbaar Werk” in Dutch) to enable more flexible work arrangements

for both employers and employeesiii. At this moment, the Ministry of public health debates on

recognizing burnout as a work-related syndrome to be able to subsidize prevention- and

reintegration initiativesiv. Job crafting as an individual strategy provides a potential interface with

each of these legislative initiatives as it might add to successful aging, dealing with psychosocial

risks at work and creating customized, workable and agile work.

In the current PhD dissertation on job crafting, the aims are twofold. First, we aim to clarify

the concept of job crafting. What is this concept about? At the beginning of this project in 2012,

only a few theoretical contributions in the literature did shed light on the concept of job crafting

in a diverging way (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Therefore, we start from

the two main streams on job crafting, compare definitions, elaborate on similarities and

differences to build an overarching definition of job crafting and a new measurement scale.

Second, we aim to expand our understanding of this overarching job crafting construct by

exploring its nomological network, including both antecedents and consequences in our overall


5

research model. Job crafting sounds like a promising concept but is job crafting indeed associated

with a better person-job fit, motivation to work and positive states of well-being? Can it also be an

individual strategy to respond to negative states of well-being such as burnout? What is the role

of personal and contextual aspects in relation to job crafting? In what follows, we elaborate on

these questions and formulate three propositions (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The overall model of this PhD project based on three propositions.

2. Clarifying The Concept Of Job Crafting (Aim 1 – Proposition 1)

The first aim of this PhD project concerns clarifying the concept of job crafting. In what follows,

we first build on the extant literature to develop an overarching conceptualisation of job crafting.

Second, we situate job crafting within the proactivity perspective on job design. Third, we

elaborate on the added value to develop and validate a new overarching job crafting scale in order

to explore the nomological network of our overarching job crafting construct (proposition 1).

2.1. Job Crafting: Taking An Overarching Approach

The literature on job crafting mainly draws on two views. On the one hand, Wrzesniewski

and Dutton (2001) introduced the term ‘job crafting’ as “the physical and cognitive changes

individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their job” (p.179). They distinguish three

types of job crafting. By means of task crafting, employees can change the number (quantity), the

scope and type of tasks (quality) they conduct. Employees can for instance choose to allocate more

or less time, energy and attention to specific tasks or explore different ways to conduct them (Berg


6

et al., 2013). By means of relational crafting, employees make changes in both the amount and the

quality of interactions at work. Employees can invest in building new relationships, reframe or

strengthen extant interactions or opt to avoid specific demanding relationships. By means of

cognitive crafting employees alter the way they perceive their job. Employees might for instance

view their job “either as a set of discrete work tasks or as an integrated whole” (Wrzesniewski &

Dutton, 2001, p.186) and hence, cultivate meaningfulness and purpose (Berg et al., 2013).

According to Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), “job crafters create different jobs for themselves,

within the context of defined jobs” (p.180). More specifically, employees craft their job in order to

give meaning to what they do at work and to create a work identity capturing who they are at

work. The pioneering work of Wrzesniewski and Dutton in 2001 especially led to qualitative

research on job crafting (e.g. Leana, Appelbaum, & Shevchuk, 2009; Lyons, 2008).

On the other hand, Tims and Bakker (2010) frame job crafting within the job demands-

resources model (JD-R model; Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014) and define it as the actual

changes employees make in “their levels of job demands and job resources in order to align them

with their own abilities and preferences” (p.4). In line with recent developments of the JD-R model

(Crawford, Lepine & Rich, 2010; Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, De Witte, & Vansteenkiste, 2010),

they specifically argue that employees can decrease their level of job hindrances (e.g. cognitive

and emotional demands), increase job challenges (e.g. workload) and increase structural (e.g.

autonomy, skill utilization) and social job resources (e.g. feedback, coaching). Currently, scholars

refer to so-called “expansive/enhancement job crafting”, including increasing job resources and

challenges, and “avoidance/protective job crafting”, including decreasing job hindrances

(Hakanen, Seppälä, & Peeters, 2017; Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015; Vogt, Hakanen,

Brauchli, Jenny, & Bauer, 2016). Importantly, Tims and Bakker (2010) explicitly opt to only

investigate actual changes employees may make. Hence, they do not include the cognitive crafting

dimension which, in their opinion, rather refers to coping with specific circumstances instead of

actively shaping job boundaries. Conceptually, the task and relational crafting dimensions of

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) can be fitted into the JD-R perspective on job crafting (Tims &

Bakker, 2010). By means of seeking structural resources (e.g. increasing skill utilization and

development), seeking challenges (e.g. take on extra tasks), and reducing hindrances (e.g.

reducing cognitive and emotional demands) employees might alter task boundaries of their job.

Relational crafting can be found in seeking social resources at work such as investing in social

contacts as well as in reducing hindrances when avoiding emotionally intense interactions for

instance (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Notably, Tims and Bakker (2010) emphasize feedback-, advice-

and coaching-seeking as specifications of seeking social resources whereas relational crafting

might also be about organising social events at work, making effort to get to know people well at

work, taking initiative to mentor new employees, etc. (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). In line with


7

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), job crafting is emphasized as a means for employees to

“enhance or benefit their own goals” (Tims & Bakker, 2010, p.1). By means of the four job crafting

types employees are more specifically assumed to thrive for a better person-job fit and enhanced

work engagement (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Tims, Bakker, and Derks (2012) were the first to

develop and validate a job crafting scale, which boosted quantitative research on job crafting.

Even though these two main views present different definitions and focus on specific types

of job crafting, they share two crucial elements: job crafting is about (1) employees making self-

initiated changes to their job with (2) a pro-self-focused purpose (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013,

Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). In Figure 2, we provide a schematic

overview of the two main streams on job crafting, which formed the starting point for developing

our overarching approach on job crafting. We define job crafting in an overarching way as the self-

initiated changes employees make to their job in order to optimize their functioning (Vanbelle,

Van den Broeck, & De Witte, 2013). In doing so, we approach job crafting more broadly than

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) - who only account for task, relational and cognitive crafting -,

and less specific than Tims and colleagues (2012) - who only investigate changes in particular job

demands (e.g. workload, emotional and cognitive demands) and resources (e.g. autonomy, skill

utilization, feedback). Furthermore, we account for the multiple reasons to craft, such as creating

meaning and work identity (Berg et al., 2013; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), enhancing one’s

person-job fit and well-being (Tims & Bakker, 2010) and foster one’s performance (Demerouti,

Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015; Oldham & Fried, 2016), as we refer to the overarching purpose of

optimizing one’s functioning in terms of well-being, attitudes or behaviour.


8

Figure 2. Developing an overarching approach on job crafting building on two pioneering streams.


9

2.2. Situating Job Crafting Within the Proactivity Perspective on Job Redesign

In their review on redesigning work design theories, Grant and Parker (2009) introduce the

rise of the proactive perspective on job design. This proactive perspective emphasizes the growing

importance of the active role of employees in (re)designing their job in order to be able to deal

with the contemporary world of work. Job crafting can be situated within this proactive

perspective, next to related but different proactive constructs like role and individual innovation,

personal initiative, organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB), task revision (Grant & Parker,

2009), voice and idiosyncratic deals (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).

In general, proactive behaviour can be defined as “taking initiative in improving current

circumstances or creating new ones; it involves challenging the status quo rather than passively

adapting to present conditions” (Crant, 2000, p.436). Parker, Bindl and Strauss (2010) describe

proactive action as self-initiated change to bring about a different future. Building on the

proactivity literature (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Grant & Parker, 2009; Parker et al., 2010) we

distinguish two dimensions to categorize job (re)design behaviour and to situate job crafting

(Figure 3). The first dimension focuses on the initiator of the job redesign. Here, Grant and Parker

(2009) distinguish three dominant perspectives. The first perspective builds on the traditional

point of view on job (re)design and suggests that managers or supervisors initiate changes and

redesign jobs for employees. The second perspective involves employees taking the initiative to

negotiate and agree on personalized job agreements with the supervisor. Examples are

idiosyncratic deal making and role negotiation. The third perspective studies job redesign

approaches initiated by the employees themselves such as job crafting.

The second dimension involves the primary target of impact of job redesign behaviour, and

focuses on the future employees aim to bring about (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Grant & Parker, 2009;

Parker et al., 2010). The primary target of impact may be the organisation: employees improve

work methods for example by means of personal initiative or task revision, or engage in

organizational citizenship behaviour. The primary target could also be the optimization of

employees’ functioning, for instance through job crafting. Especially this aspect is what makes job

crafting unique and different from other individual proactive behaviours. Job crafting focuses on

“the changes employees make in their jobs to enhance or benefit their own goals (such as a better

person-job fit, more enjoyable work, better well-being, less work-home conflict, etc.)” (Tims &

Bakker, 2010, p.1). By means of job crafting, employees seek meaningfulness (Berg et al., 2013;

Tims, Derks, & Bakker, 2016) and customize the job to fit personal needs, values, interests, skills,

and abilities (Oldham & Fried, 2016; Tims & Bakker, 2010).

Taken together, job crafting can be understood as a specific form of proactive behaviour, and

has to be distinguished from other proactive work behaviours in two ways (Wrzesniewski &


10

Dutton, 2001; Tims & Bakker, 2010): it is initiated by the employee without the necessary

involvement of the supervisor and is primarily aimed at benefitting oneself rather than others or

the organization.

Figure 3. Situating job crafting within the proactive perspective on job redesign (based on

Grant & Parker, 2009)

2.3. From Conceptualization to the Added Value of an Overarching Scale of Job Crafting

We develop a new overarching job crafting scale to be able to conduct empirical studies on

the nomological network of our overarching job crafting construct. Since 2012, researchers start

to recognize the need to investigate job crafting in a quantitative way in order to gain a better

understanding of the construct and to set the stage for future research (Tims et al., 2012). Next to

some preliminary scales (e.g. Leana et al., 2009; Kroon, Kooij, & van Veldhoven, 2013), so far, at

least four different job crafting measurements have been validated (Tims et al., 2012; Nielsen &

Abildgaard, 2012; Niessen, Weseler, & Kostova, 2016; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). In this PhD

project, we discuss the added value of a new overarching job crafting scale based on three

arguments.

First, we believe it is important to explore the range of possible changes employees might

make to their jobs in order to optimize their functioning. As job crafting is about self-initiated

change to do good for oneself, many changes can be made that contribute to one’s functioning. The

existing measurements, however, seem to prime employees with a predetermined selection of

particular job crafting types. Tims and colleagues (2012) and Nielsen and Abildgaard (2012) for

example, ask employees to indicate to what extent they decrease specific job hindrances, increase

job challenges and increase job resources. Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (2013) and Niessen et al.

(2016) follow Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and also focus on specific job crafting types as

they tap into the extent to which employees craft their tasks, relations or cognitions. Being so

specific, these scales may miss out on important additional changes employees may make to their

job (Oldham & Fried, 2016). Leana et al. (2009) for instance also included “rearranging equipment


11

or furniture in the play areas of your classroom”, hinting at so-called context crafting (Van Vuuren

& Dorenbosch, 2011) which is not included in other measurements. Therefore, we aim for an

overarching job crafting scale in which we make abstraction of the type of changes employees

might make, to leave room for employees’ personal interpretation of which specific personally

relevant changes they make.

A second argument for the development of a new job crafting scale is that, to date, the popular

scales do not specify the purpose of job crafting. Only some scales integrate the purpose in a few

of their items (e.g. Kroon et al., 2013; Leana et al., 2009; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013) and very

recently, Niessen et al. (2016) developed and validated a new scale in which they explicitly

address the pro-self-focused nature of job crafting. More specifically, they asked participants to

what extent they engage in task, relational and cognitive crafting “so the job they do suits them”.

Including the purpose is relevant, given that job crafting is argued to be a change-oriented and

goal-directed, proactive behaviour (Grant & Parker, 2009; Tims & Bakker, 2010). The inherently

self-serving purpose of job crafting is one of the crucial elements to distinguish job crafting from

other proactive job redesign behaviours (Grant & Parker, 2009; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001;

see also Figure 2). To be truly proactive and to be able to make a distinction with other forms of

individual-level changes at work, we aim for an overarching job crafting scale in which the

purpose of job crafting is included, i.e. reference is made to optimizing one’s well-being, meaning

and identity, and behaviour at work.

Third, we aim to develop a short questionnaire to measure job crafting in an overarching way

to foster its practical merits. In addition, this overarching job crafting scale might provide an

alternative measurement to examine a general construct of job crafting and its surrounding

mechanisms (Tims et al., 2016; Vogt et al., 2016).

Proposition 1: A new overarching job crafting scale adds to the understanding of job crafting in

two ways: (1) it accounts for a broad range of relevant changes employees may

make to the job; (2) it measures job crafting as a truly proactive job redesign

behaviour by including the inherent self-serving purpose.

3. Exploring the Nomological Network of the Overarching Job Crafting Construct

(Aim 2 – Proposition 2 & 3)

The second aim of this PhD project concerns exploring the nomological network of our

overarching job crafting construct. In what follows, we build proposition 2 and proposition 3

which, together with proposition 1, will provide a framework for the empirical studies of this PhD

project. First, we elaborate on the role of job crafting in relation to both optimal and suboptimal

functioning (proposition 2). Second, we tap into contextual and personal factors that might


12

provide opportunities to craft (proposition 3; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Third, we translate

the three propositions into four empirical studies.

3.1. Job Crafting as an Individual Strategy in Relation to (Sub)optimal Functioning

Job crafting arose within the field of positive (occupational) psychology, which includes the

study of employees’ optimal functioning (Bakker & Derks, 2010; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2014).

The concept of “optimal functioning” is increasingly used in the realm of positive psychology

research. Interestingly, however, hardly any contribution provides a clear definition. Whereas

some scholars use optimal functioning to refer to well-being related outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 2001;

Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2014), others especially refer to performance outcomes (De Cuyper et al.,

2014). Within this PhD project, we use the concept of optimal functioning as umbrella concept to

refer to a range of individual outcome variables including work-related well-being (Peeters, De

Cuyper, & De Witte, 2016; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2014) as well as traditional outcomes such as

performance (De Cuyper et al., 2014) and other psychological outcomes like person-job fit and

motivation (Grant & Parker, 2009; Oldham & Fried, 2016). We roughly group the range of

individual outcomes in terms of well-being, attitudes and behaviour. Well-being refers to both

hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Hedonic well-being focuses on happiness and pleasure such

as positive versus negative affect. Eudaimonic well-being focuses on mental health, personal

growth and vitality such as work engagement (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2014). Attitudes, strictly

speaking, include the employees’ beliefs, feelings and behavioural intentions towards a person, an

event or situation (Greenberg & Baron, 2008). Typical work-related attitudes are job satisfaction

and organizational commitment. In line with some other scholars, however, we also use the

heading of attitudes to refer to other psychological outcomes such as person-job fit, motivation

(Grant & Parker, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2001) and turnover intentions. Person-job fit then refers to

the employees’ evaluation and beliefs concerning the alignment of the job with personal needs

and abilities whereas the motivation to do something includes the employees’ evaluation and

behavioural intentions. Behavioural outcomes include aspects such as in-role and extra-role

performance (Oldham & Fried, 2016). Although there might be some overlap between well-being,

attitudinal and behavioural aspects of employee functioning, we see optimal functioning as a

useful umbrella concept that describes “the ultimate outcome, [namely] a human being’s maximal

level of development [or “doing well”], operationalized using [well-being, attitudinal and

behavioural] indicators” (adapted from Gagné & Vansteenkiste, 2013, p. 63).

Following our overarching approach, optimal functioning is a core concept in the realm of job

crafting. In accordance, Wrzesniewski, LoBuglio, Dutton and Berg (2013) note that “job crafting

helps to illuminate the job-related actions that employees engage in to move themselves toward

more optimal functioning” (p. 282). We want to emphasize two underlying assumptions within


13

the job crafting literature concerning the job crafting – optimal functioning relationship. The first

important assumption is that job crafting is an antecedent of optimal functioning. So far, extant

empirical evidence seems to converge and indeed shows that job crafting yields diverse positive

consequences for employees. Job crafting relates to work engagement (Nielsen & Abildgaard,

2012; Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, & Hetland, 2012), person-job fit (Chen, Yen, & Tsai,

2014; Lu, Wang, Lu, Du, & Bakker, 2014), meaningfulness (Tims et al., 2016), basic need

satisfaction and psychological well-being (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2014), job satisfaction,

organizational commitment and job effectiveness (Ghitulescu, 2007) and performance (Bakker,

Tims, & Derks, 2012; Demerouti et al., 2015; Solberg & Wong, 2016; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2015).

Within this PhD project, we strengthen the understanding of our overarching job crafting

construct modelled as an antecedent of work engagement, autonomous motivation, work

enjoyment, the willingness to continue working until retirement age and daily person-job fit. More

specifically, we elaborate on the role of job crafting in the realm of contemporary challenges to

encourage employees to continue working and to take responsibility in their job in order to

enhance fit with personal needs and abilities.

The second fundamental, albeit more implicit, assumption underlying the job crafting theory

is that employee functioning is an antecedent of job crafting (Bakker et al., 2014; Tims & Bakker,

2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Theorizing on job crafting implicitly suggests that

employees craft their job starting from (sub)optimal functioning. Optimal functioning, and hence

positive indicators might trigger job crafting to strive for an equally well (“those who feel good,

strive to maintain this”) or even higher level of functioning (“those who feel good, strive for even

better”). Alternatively, suboptimal functioning or malfunctioning, and hence negative indicators

might trigger job crafting to recover or restore employee functioning (“those who are

malfunctioning, strive to recover and to feel good”). Only a few studies tapped into this reversed

relationship. Lu et al. (2014) and Tims et al. (2015) for instance demonstrated work engagement

as an antecedent of job crafting. Petrou et al. (2015) found that employees who experience feelings

of exhaustion engage in hindrance crafting. Very recently, two studies were published on the

relationship between both positive (i.e. work engagement) and negative (i.e. workaholism,

burnout, job boredom) well-being and job crafting (Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2017; Harju,

Hakanen, & Schaufeli, 2017). Especially the relationships between job crafting and indicators of

suboptimal functioning remain puzzling. To contribute, we dig into the puzzling relationship

between burnout and job crafting. This is important because it sheds light on individual strategies

to deal with adversity in the current world of work (Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2008;

Demerouti, 2015; Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2017).


14

Proposition 2: Job crafting relates to both optimal and suboptimal functioning such that (a) job

crafting is an antecedent of (sub)optimal functioning and (b) (sub)optimal

functioning is an antecedent of job crafting.

3.2. Personal and Contextual Factors and Opportunities to Craft

Not every employee in every context may feel inclined to make changes to his or her job.

Hence, personal characteristics as well as contextual factors are assumed to be antecedents of job

crafting (Bakker et al., 2012; Lyons, 2008; Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2014). Expanding our

understanding on antecedents is important because it sheds light on the circumstances in which

job crafting takes place and on how job crafting can be stimulated in practice.

Previous research hints at the role of personal factors in relation to job crafting. Lyons (2008)

was one of the first to demonstrate the role of individual differences in self-image, perceived

control and readiness to change in relation to job crafting. To date, empirical studies provide

evidence for the role of proactive personality (Bakker et al., 2012), daily self-efficacy (Tims et al.,

2014; Weseler & Niessen, 2016), and regulatory focus (Brenninkmeijer & Hekkert-Koning, 2015;

Petrou & Demerouti, 2015) as antecedents of job crafting. In this PhD project, we take into account

personal resources which are malleable individual characteristics, namely personal growth

initiative (PGI) and work-related active emotions. To our knowledge, we are the first to include

these personal resources in relation to job crafting. Especially PGI is a promising individual

strength given that it conceptually aligns with the envisioning and planning aspects of the process

model of proactive behaviour (Parker et al., 2010). It includes the individuals intentional

engagement in the process towards personal growth and hence job crafting, a specific form of

proactive behaviour. Furthermore, we expect daily active emotions to urge employees to engage

in daily job crafting. Malleable resources are changeable and developable and hence, shed light on

practical implications.

Next to personal characteristics, also contextual factors may play a role. Extant studies

demonstrate the antecedent-role of job characteristics such as autonomy or discretion (Leana et

al., 2009; Niessen et al., 2016), active jobs (Petrou et al., 2012), job demands (i.e. work pressure,

cognitive and emotional demands) and job resources (social support, feedback and leadership;

Gordon, Demerouti, Le Blanc, & Bipp, 2015), job enlargement (Berdicchia, Nicolli, & Masino, 2016)

as well as broader contextual aspects such as the impact of organizational change (Petrou et al.,

2015). We include active jobs and the role of managers as contextual factors in relation to job

crafting. Active jobs, characterized by high amounts of workload and autonomy (see also Petrou

et al., 2012), can be expected to activate employees towards new growth-related behaviour and

hence, we expect a positive relationship with job crafting (Karasek, 1989; Petrou et al., 2012). In

addition, we examine job crafting as a socially embedded behaviour by including the role of


15

managers. Although some scholars already argued the important role of managers in facilitating

beneficial job crafting (Berg et al., 2008; Demerouti, 2014; Hakanen & Mutanen, 2014), this

remains under-investigated. More specifically, we argue that servant leadership may foster a

supportive context for job crafting given that servant leaders care about the followers’ personal

problems and well-being, empower them to take initiative and help them reaching their full

potential (Hakanen & Mutanen, 2014; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008).

Within this PhD project, we examine both the antecedent and moderator function of personal

and contextual characteristics. Next to directly relate to job crafting, personal and contextual

factors may also moderate the relationship between indicators of (sub)optimal functioning and

job crafting (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Wrzesniewksi and Dutton

(2001) model personal and job characteristics as moderators of the relationship between the

motivation to craft (i.e. need for control, positive self-image, and human connection with others)

and job crafting. They argue that job features such as autonomy and task independence might

create opportunities to craft for employees. Similarly, Tims and Bakker (2010) include personal

and job characteristics as moderators of the relationship between person-job misfit and job

crafting. Despite theoretical assumptions, however, empirical evidence on this moderating role is

scarce (Berdicchia et al., 2016; Petrou et al., 2012; Weseler & Niessen, 2016). We expect that

personal and contextual resources (i.e. PGI, autonomy and servant leadership) are especially

valuable moderators in the context of demanding situations (e.g. job demands, negative emotions

or feelings of burnout) given that they provide employees necessary resources at hand to be

translated into job crafting (Berg et al., 2008). Taken together:

Proposition 3: Both contextual and personal factors relate to job crafting such that (a) personal

factors can be modelled as antecedents of job crafting, (b) contextual factors can

be modelled as antecedents of job crafting, (c) personal factors moderate the

relationship between (sub)optimal conditions and job crafting, and (d) contextual

factors moderate the relationship between (sub)optimal conditions and job

crafting.

3.3. From Propositions to Four Empirical Studies

Our aims and propositions give raise to four empirical studies (Table 1). In Study 1, in

response to proposition 1, we defined job crafting and validated an overarching job crafting scale

(OJCS). In Study 2 to 4, we elaborate on the nomological network of job crafting (i.e. proposition 2

& 3). In Study 1 to 3, we test whether job crafting indeed relates to indicators of optimal

functioning (i.e. work engagement, autonomous motivation, willingness to continue working until

retirement age, daily person-job fit, burnout; proposition 2). In Study 2 and 3, we look at


16

contextual (i.e. autonomy and workload) and personal factors (i.e. personal growth initiative and

emotions) in relation to job crafting (proposition 3). In Study 4, we examine the relationship

between suboptimal functioning (i.e. emotional exhaustion, cynicism and personal

accomplishment) and job crafting (proposition 2). Moreover, we include servant leadership as a

contextual opportunity that may play a moderating role (proposition 3).

Tabel 1. Overview of propositions and studies

Study

1

Study

2

Study

3

Study

4

Proposition 1:

A new overarching job crafting scale adds to the

understanding of job crafting in two ways: (1) it accounts

for a broad range of possible personally relevant changes

employees might make to the job; (2) it measures job

crafting as a truly proactive job redesign behaviour by

including the inherent self-serving purpose.

Proposition 2:

Job crafting relates to both optimal and suboptimal

functioning such that:

(a) Job crafting is an antecedent of (sub)optimal

functioning

(b) (Sub)optimal functioning is an antecedent of job

crafting

Proposition 3:

Both contextual and personal factors relate to job crafting

such that:

(a) Personal factors can be modelled as antecedents of

job crafting

(b) Contextual factors can be modelled as antecedents of

job crafting

(c) Personal factors moderate the relationship between

(sub)optimal conditions and job crafting

(d) Contextual factors moderate the relationship

between (sub)optimal conditions and job crafting


17

4. Overview of Empirical Studies and Following Chapters

In what follows, we will outline the four empirical studies which will be described in the

following chapters. Figure 4 presents a schematic overview. Throughout the studies, we used six

different samples (See Appendix IV for an overview).

Note that if we use causal language throughout the following chapters, we do so from a

theoretical perspective having our hypothesized model in mind. Although our overall model

suggests that the investigated relationships are causal in nature, the correlational methods and

data that we use throughout the four empirical studies do not allow us to make causal inferences

or conclusions.

Figure 4. Schematic overview of the studies in an overall model

4.1. Chapter 2 - Study 1: Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS)

In the first empirical article, we present the development and validation of the Overarching

Job Crafting Scale (OJCS). We discuss the added value of a new overarching job crafting scale based

on three arguments. First, as the understanding of job crafting is still rather limited, we believe it

is important to explore the range of possible changes employees may make to their jobs in order

to optimize their functioning. Therefore, we need a broad, overarching scale which does not limit

changes to specific job crafting types. Second, to date, the majority of job crafting scales do not

specify the purpose of job crafting (for an exception; see Niessen et al., 2016). To be truly

proactive, we aim for an overarching job crafting scale in which the purpose of job crafting is


18

included, e.g. reference is made to optimizing one’s functioning in terms of well-being (i.e. to feel

better), attitudes (i.e. to increase meaning and identity) or behaviour (i.e. to perform better).

Third, we develop a short questionnaire to further contribute to the practical merits of the scale.

Starting from the job crafting literature (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton,

2001), we developed four items starting from job crafting definitions in which scholars assume

that employees engage in job crafting to foster well-being, meaning, identity and performance (cf.

Appendix V). The scale was tested using both cross-sectional and longitudinal data. We addressed

reliability and validity issues by means of four substudies, using different samples (cf. Appendix

IV, Sample A-C). First, we developed the OJCS and demonstrated its reliability and content validity.

More specifically, we examined psychometric properties and conducted exploratory factor

analyses. In addition, we conducted a qualitative pilot study to examine the content validity of the

OJCS, namely to check whether our items indeed account for a broad range of personally relevant

changes employees may make to their job and whether employees make this changes with a pro-

self-focused purpose. Second, we investigated construct validity of the OJCS in relation to other

job crafting measurements, namely the job crafting scale of Tims et al. (JCS; 2012) and the job

crafting questionnaire of Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (JCQ; 2013). Third, we tested predictive

validity of the OJCS for indicators of both optimal functioning (i.e. vigour, dedication, autonomous

motivation and performance) and malfunctioning (i.e. exhaustion, cynicism and turnover

intentions) within a time period of six months. Fourth, we examined incremental validity of the

OJCS in the prediction of indicators of both optimal functioning (i.e. work enjoyment and

autonomous motivation) and suboptimal functioning (i.e. need for recovery and turnover

intentions) in addition to the JCS and JCQ over a time period of three months.

4.2. Chapter 3 - Study 2: Job Crafting: Autonomy and Workload as Independent Variables

and the Willingness to Continue Working Until Retirement Age as Dependent

Variable

In the second study, we investigate the role of job crafting in relation to 45-plussers’

willingness to continue working in an active work environment. Changes in demographics imply

that the workforce will increasingly consist of more older and fewer younger workers and

numbers of the OECD show that many employees take early retirement (2011). Consequently,

both political and scientific initiatives are needed to enhance older workers’ willingness to

continue working. Next to the importance of job characteristics (Schreurs, Van den Broeck,

Notelaers, van der Heijden, & De Witte, 2012; van Dam, van der Vorst, & van der Heijden, 2009),

also the employee has an impact on the employees’ willingness to continue working (Kooij, Tims,

& Kanfer, 2014). Until recently, however, no empirical research seemed to focus on the active role

of the employee in this process (Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2016). In this study, we expected that


19

the work environment may stimulate 45-plussers to craft their job, which then relates to their

willingness to work longer. We aim to shed light on this issue from the perspective of two theories:

The selective optimization and compensation theory (SOC-theory; Baltes & Dickson, 2001)

focussing on the associations from job crafting to the willingness to work longer and the job

demands control model, which allows to examine the associations from the work context to job

crafting (Karasek, 1979).

First, SOC assumes that employees use adaptive strategies to help them balancing their work

environment with age-related changes in personal needs and goals (Baltes & Dickson, 2001). Kooij

et al. (2014) argue that by means of job crafting older employees might increase their ability and

motivation to continue working. We aimed to contribute to the empirical evidence on this

assumption and hypothesized that employees who craft their job will experience a stronger

willingness to continue working. Until recently, the association between job crafting and older

employees’ willingness to continue working remained to be empirically tested (Lichtenthaler &

Fischbach, 2016).

Second, the activation hypothesis of Karasek’s job demands control model (JDC-model; 1979)

states that an active work environment, characterized by autonomy and workload, will stimulate

learning and new growth related behaviour. In line with this assumption, Petrou et al. (2012)

showed that active jobs play an important role in the prediction of job crafting. Against this

background, we investigated whether 45-plussers in active jobs are likely to craft their job (i.e., a

growth related outcome) and - as a result - are more willing to continue working (i.e., a

motivational outcome). Job crafting can be modelled as a growth related outcome of an active

environment given that it refers to individuals’ efforts in optimizing their functioning in specific

circumstances. Hypotheses were tested using Sample D (cf. Appendix IV). The hypothesized model

is presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Hypothesized model Study 2.


20

4.3. Chapter 4 - Study 3: Active Emotions and Personal Growth Initiative in Relation to

Employees’ Daily Job Crafting and Person-Job Fit: A Multilevel Study

In this multilevel study we strengthen the nomological network of job crafting in two ways:

(1) we modelled active emotions and personal growth initiative (PGI) as personal antecedents of

daily job crafting and (2) we included daily person-job fit as a consequence. First, we expand on

individual characteristics as potential antecedents of job crafting. Several authors argued that the

importance of the active role of employees in shaping their environment according to personal

needs and preferences has increased (Grant & Parker, 2009; Oldham & Fried, 2016; Wrzesniewski

& Dutton, 2001). Therefore, it is relevant to investigate malleable, e.g. developable individual

characteristics that stimulate employees to take responsibility on a daily basis, i.e. by means of

daily job crafting. In response, building on a functional classification perspective (Wu, Parker, &

Bindl, 2013), we expect within-person differences in active emotions and between-person

differences in PGI to relate to daily job crafting. Emotions are those individual characteristics that

are situated on the malleable and very changeable extreme of the trait-state continuum of

Luthans, Avolio, Avey, and Norman (2007). Emotions include the momentary, elementary feelings

of pleasure or displeasure and of activation or deactivation (Russell, 1980). They can be described

within a circumplex, as an integral blend of two dimensions, valence and activation (Warr, Bindl,

Parker, & Inceoglu, 2014). PGI is defined as the active, intentional engagement in the process of

personal growth, including both cognitive and behavioural components of self-efficacy

(Robitschek, 1998).

We advance that daily fluctuations in active work-related emotions and personal growth

initiative (PGI) relate to daily fluctuations in job crafting via two main mechanisms, namely energy

and human agency. At the within-person level, we expect that daily fluctuations in active (both

positive and negative) work-related emotions energize employees to engage in daily job crafting

level (Wu, et al., 2013; Harmon-Jones, Gable, & Price, 2013). At the between-person level, we argue

that PGI positively relates to daily job crafting as it triggers employees’ agency (e.g. envisioning,

thinking, and mastering) to actively encounter the environment (Robitschek, 1998). In addition

to the main effects, we expect daily fluctuations in active emotions and overall PGI to interact in

the prediction of daily job crafting. More specifically, building on the idea of resource caravans

(Hobfoll, 1989), we expect PGI to boost the relationships between both positive and negative

active emotions and job crafting.

Second, we provide further insights in the relationship between job crafting and person-job

fit at the daily level. Person-job fit describes the employees’ perceived alignment between one’s

job demands and personal abilities, and between one’s personal needs and job supplies. As job

crafting is primarily about making changes to the job to optimize their functioning, especially

person-job fit might be a relevant outcome to examine. Job crafting scholars seem to agree that


21

striving for a better person-job fit is an inherent purpose of job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,

2001; Tims & Bakker, 2010). In this study, we hypothesize positive associations between job

crafting and both demands-abilities and needs-supplies fit at a within-person level. To complete

our research model, we expect indirect relationships from PGI and daily active emotions, via daily

job crafting to both daily demands-abilities and daily needs-supplies fit. Figure 6 gives an

overview of the hypothesized model. To test our hypotheses, we conducted a daily diary study (cf.

Appendix IV, Sample E).

Figure 6. Hypothesized model of Study 3.

4.4. Chapter 5 - Study 4: Digging into the Linear and Curvilinear Relationship Between

Burnout and Job Crafting. Servant Leadership as Moderator

The aims of the fourth study are twofold: (1) examining burnout in relation to job crafting

and (2) including servant leadership as moderator. First, we investigate burnout in relation to job

crafting. To date, the majority of job crafting studies models well-being and performance

indicators as consequences of job crafting. Much less is known about (sub)optimal functioning as

an antecedent of job crafting (Bakker et al., 2014). Only a few studies provide empirical evidence

suggesting that engaged employees more often craft their job (Lu, et al., 2014; Tims et al., 2015).

Petrou et al. (2015) demonstrated that employees who experience feelings of exhaustion engage

in hindrance crafting. Very recently, two studies on the reversed relationships between well-being


22

and job crafting were published (Harju et al., 2016; Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2017). Hakanen,

Peeters and Schaufeli (2017) showed that work engagement, workaholism and burnout relate to

job crafting over time. They conclude that the well-being – job crafting relationship may be more

complex than initially assumed. In addition, whereas the findings on positive indicators of optimal

functioning such as work engagement seem to be straightforward, especially the relationship

between job crafting and suboptimal functioning such as burnout remains unclear. Extant studies

reveal mixed results suggesting that the relationship is more complex.

We dig into the burnout-job crafting relationship for the three burnout components, namely

emotional exhaustion, cynicism and personal accomplishment to provide a more nuanced

investigation of the burnout-job crafting relationship. In doing so, we expect emotional exhaustion

and job crafting to show a curvilinear relationship, and cynicism and personal accomplishment to

linearly relate to job crafting in a respectively negative and positive way. We draw on the

conservation of resources theory to build hypotheses (Hobfoll, 1989; Ng & Feldman, 2012).

Second, we tap into the role of servant leadership in this burnout-job crafting relationship

(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Managers are assumed to play an essential role in creating a

resourceful context that fosters job crafting (Berg et al., 2008; Demerouti, 2014). We argue that

especially servant leadership may be a relevant leadership style in relation to job crafting because

servant leaders care about the followers’ personal problems and well-being, empower them to

take initiative and help them reaching their full potential (Hakanen & Mutanen, 2014; Liden et al.,

2008). In addition to its main effect, we expect that servant leadership has a moderating effect,

helping employees to engage in job crafting when experiencing feelings of emotional exhaustion,

cynicism and personal accomplishment. More specifically, we expect stronger relationships

among burnout and job crafting under conditions of high servant leadership. We tested our

hypotheses in a cross-sectional dataset (cf. Appendix IV, Sample F). An overview of the hypotheses

is displayed in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Hypothesized model of Study 4.


23

5. Taken Together

In sum, within this PhD project, we take an overarching approach and conceptualize job

crafting as the self-initiated changes employees make to their job in order to optimize their

functioning in terms of well-being (e.g. work engagement), attitudes (e.g. person-job fit,

willingness to continue working) and behaviour (e.g. performance). We aim to contribute to the

job crafting literature in two ways. First, we aim to clarify the concept of job crafting. More

specifically, we build on the two pioneering streams on job crafting to introduce an overarching

approach including the development and validation of an overarching job crafting scale

(Proposition 1 - Chapter 2). Second, we explore the nomological network of a general job crafting

construct and (mainly cross-sectionally) investigate both antecedents and consequences (Chapter

2-4). In doing so, we tap into the relationship between job crafting and indicators of both optimal

and suboptimal functioning (Proposition 2). In addition, we examine the role of both personal and

contextual factors (Proposition 3). In Chapter 6, we discuss our overall findings and return to our

three propositions. We shed light on the theoretical, methodological and practical implications of

the presented studies and elaborate on remaining avenues for future research in the realm of the

job crafting literature.


24

6. References

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. (2014). Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD-R

Approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1,

389-411. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235

Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2010). Positive Occupational Health Psychology. In: S., Leka, & J.,

Houdmont (Eds.). Occupational Health Psychology (pp.194-224). UK: John Wiley & Sons

Ltd.

Bakker, A.B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of

job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65(10), 1359-1378. DOI:

10.1177/0018726712453471

Baltes, B.B., & Dickson, M.W. (2001). Using Life-Span Models in Industrial-Organizational

Psychology: The Theory of Selective Optimization With Compensation. Applied

Developmental Science, 5(1), 51-62.

Berdicchia, D., Nicolli, F., & Masino, G. (2016). Job enlargement, job crafting and the moderating

role of self-competence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 318-330. DOI:

10.1108/JMP-01-2014-0019

Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2008). What is job Crafting and Why Does It Matter?

University of Michigan: Centre of Positive Organizational Scholarship.

Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work. In: B.J. Dik,

Z.S. Byrne, & M.F. Steger (Eds). Purpose and Meaning in the Workplace (pp.81-104).

American Psychological Association.

Brenninkmeijer, V., & Hekkert-Koning, M. (2015). To craft our not to craft: the relationships

between regulatory focus, job crafting and work outcomes. Career Development

International, 20(2), 147-162. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-12-2014-0162.

Chen, C.Y., Yen, C.H., & Tsai, F.C. (2014). Job crafting and job engagement: The mediating role of

person-job fit. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, 21-28. DOI:

10.1016/j.JIHM.2013.10.006

Crant, J.M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462.

Crawford, E.R., LePine, J.A., & Rich, B.L. (2010). Linking Job Demands and Resources to Employee

Engagement and Burnout: A Theoretical Extension and Meta-Analytic Test. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834-848. DOI: 10.1037/a0019364

De Cuyper, N., Sulea, C., Philippaers, K., Fischmann, G., Iliescu, D., & De Witte, H. (2014). Perceived

employability and performance : moderation by felt job insecurity. Personnel Review,

43(4), 536-552. DOI: 10.1108/PR-03-2013-0050


25

Demerouti, E. (2014). Design Your Own Job Through Job Crafting. European Psychologist. Advance

online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000188

Demerouti, E. (2015). Strategies used by individuals to prevent burnout. European Journal for

Clinical Investigation, 45(1), 1106-1112. DOI: 10.1111/eci.12494

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2015). Productive and counterproductive job

crafting: A daily diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online

publication. DOI: 10.1037/a0039002

Gagné, M., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2013). Self-Determination Theory’s Contribution to Positive

Organizational Psychology. In: A.B. Bakker (Ed.). Advances in Positive Organizational

Psychology. Volume 1. (p.61-82). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Ghitulescu, B. E. (2007). Shaping tasks and relationships at work: Examining the antecedents and

consequences of employee job crafting (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh).

Gordon, H.J., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P.M., & Bipp, T. (2015). Job crafting and performance of Dutch

and American health care professionals. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14(4), 192-202.

DOI: 10.1027/1866/a000138

Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in

organizational behavior, 28, 3-34.

Grant, A.M., & Parker, S.K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and

proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317-375. DOI:

10.1080/19416520903047327

Greenberg, J., & Baron, R.A. (2008). Behavior in Organizations. Ninth Edition. Pearson Education

International: New Jersey.

Hakanen, J., & Mutanen, P. (2014). Does servant leadership boost work engagement via job crafting?

An individual and team level study. Paper presented at the 11th conference of the European

Association of Occupational Health Psychology (EAOHP), London, April, 2014.

Hakanen, J.J., Peeters, M.C.W., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2017, February 13). Different types of employee

well-being across time and their relationships with job crafting. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000081

Hakanen, J.J., Seppälä, P., & Peeters, M.C.W. (2017). High job demands, still engaged and not burned

out? The role of job crafting. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. DOI:

10.1007/s12529-017-9638-3

Harju, L., Hakanen, J.J., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2016). Can job crafting reduce job boredeom and

increase work engagement? A three-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 95-96, 11-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2016.07.001

Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P.A., & Price, T.F. (2013). Does negative affect always narrow and positive

affect always broaden the mind? Considering the influence of motivational intensity on


26

cognitive scope. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 301-307. DOI:

10.1177/0963721413481353

Hobfoll, S.E. (1989). Conservation of Resources. A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress.

American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.

Karasek, R.A. (1979). Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job

Redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285-308.

Kooij, D.T.A.M., Tims, M., & Kanfer, R. (2014). Successful aging at work: the role of job crafting. In

P.M. Bal, D.T.A.M. Kooij, & D.M. Rousseau (Eds.), Aging workers and the employee-employer

relationship, 145-162. Springer

Kroon, B., Kooij, D.T.A.M., & van Veldhoven, M.J.P.M. (2013). Job crafting en bevlogenheid. Zijn er

verschillen tussen teams met een restrictieve dan wel onbegrensde werkcontext? Gedrag

en organisatie, 26, 46-65.

Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work process and quality of care in early

childhood education: the role of job crafting. The Academy of Management Journal, 52(6),

1169-1192.

Lichtenthaler, P.W., & Fischbach, A. (2016). Job crafting and motivation to continue working

beyond retirement age. Career Development International, 21(5), 477-497. DOI:

10.1108/CDI-01-2016-0009.

Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Zao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a

multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161-

177.

Lu, C.Q., Wang, H.J., Lu, J.J., Du, D.Y., & Bakker, A.B. (2014). Does work engagement increase person-

job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84, 142-

152.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Avey, J.B., Norman, S.M. (2007). Positive psychological capital:

measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology,

60(3), 541-572.

Lyons, P. (2008). The crafting of jobs and individual differences. Journal of Business Psychology, 23,

25-36.

Ng, T.W.H., & Feldman, D.C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the

conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 216-234.

DOI: 10.1002/job.754

Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J.S. (2012). The development and validation of a job crafting measure

for use with blue-collar workers. Work & Stress, An International Journal of Work, Health


27

and Organisations, 26(4), 365-384. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.

733543

Niessen, C., Weseler, D., & Kostova, P. (2016). When and why do individuals craft their jobs? The

role of individual motivation and work characteristics for job crafting. Human relations,

69(6), 1287-1313. DOI: 10.1177/0018726715610642

OECD. (2011). Pensions at a Glance 2011. Retirement-income systems in OECD and G20 countries.

Available at: www.oecd.org/els/social/pensions/PAG.

Oldham, G.R., & Fried, Y. (2016). Job design research and theory: past, present and future.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 20-35. DOI:

10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.002

Oldham, G.R., & Hackman, J.R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: the future of job

design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3): 463-479. DOI:

10.1002/job.678

Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive

motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856.

Peeters, E., De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2016). Too employable to feel well?: Curvilinear

relationship between perceived employability and employee optimal functioning.

Psihologia Resurselor Umane Revista Asociaţiei de Psihologie Indusstrială şi

Organizaţională, 14(1), 35-44

Peeters, M.C.W., Taris, T.W., & de Jonge, J. (2014). Introduction. People at Work. In: M.C.W. Peeters,

J. de Jonge, & T.W. Taris (Eds.) An Introduction to Contemporary Work Psychology, (pp. 3-

30). UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Petrou, P., & Demerouti, E. (2015). Trait-level and week-level regulatory focus as a motivation to

craft a job. Career Development International, 2(2), 102-118. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-09-2014-

0124

Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M.C.W., Schaufeli, W.B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a job on a

daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1120-1141. DOI: 10.1002/job.1786

Petrou, P. Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Job crafting in changing organizations :

antecedents and implications for exhaustion and performance. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 20(4), 470-480. DOI: 10.1037/a0039003

Robitschek, C. (1998). Personal growth initiative: The construct and its measure. Measurement &

Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 30(4), p.183-198.

Russell, J.A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

39(6), 1161-1178.


28

Ryan, M.R., & Deci, E.L.(2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on

hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual review, 52, 141-166.

Schreurs, B., Van den Broeck, A., Notelaers, G., van der Heijden, B., & De Witte, H. (2012). De relatie

tussen werkeisen, energiebronnen, spanning en werkplezier: een kwestie van leeftijd?

Gedrag & Organisatie, 25(1), 5-27.

Slemp, G.R., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2013). The job crafting questionnaire: A new scale to measure

the extent to which employees engage in job crafting. International Journal of Wellbeing,

3(2), 126-146. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v3i2.1

Slemp, G.R., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2014). Optimising Employee Mental Health: The Relationship

Between Intrinsic Need Satisfaction, Job Crafting, and Employee Well-Being. Journal of

Happiness Studies, 15(4), 957-977. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-013-9458-3.

Solberg, E., & Wong, S.I. (2016). Crafting one’s job to take charge of role overload: When

proactivity requires adaptivity across levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 713-725. DOI:

10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.03.001

Tims, M., & Bakker, A. (2010). Job Crafting: towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA

Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), Art. #841, 9 pages, DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841

Tims, M., Bakker, A., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173-186. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy – performance

relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 490-505. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-05-

2012-0148

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2015). Job crafting and job performance: A longitudinal study.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 914-928. DOI:

10.1080/1359432X.2014.969245

Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person-job fit and

meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92(1), 44-53. DOI:

10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007

Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2013). Development and Validation of a General

Job Crafting Scale. Poster presentation at the 6th International Seminar on Positive

Occupational Health Psychology, Leuven.

van Dam, K., van der Vorst, J.D.M., & van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. (2009). Employees’ Intentions to

Retire Early. A Case of Planned Behavior and Anticipated Work Conditions. Journal of

Career Development, 35(3), 265-289. DOI: 10.1177/0894845308327274


29

Van den Broeck, A., De Cuyper, N., De Witte, H., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2010). Not all job demands

are equal: Differentiating job hindrances and job challenges in the Job Demands-Resources

model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(6), 735-759. DOI:

10.1080/13594320903223839

Van Vuuren, M., & Dorenbosch, L. (2011). Mooi werk. Naar een betere baan zonder weg te gaan.

Handboek job crafting. Uitgeverij Boom, Amsterdam.

Vogt, K., Hakanen, J. J., Brauchli, R., Jenny, G. J., & Bauer, G. F. (2016). The consequences of job

crafting: A three-wave study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

25(3), 353-362. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2015.1072170

Warr, P., Bindl, U.K., Parker, S.K., & Inceoglu, I. (2014). Four-quadrant investigations of job-related

emotions and behaviours. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(3),

342-363. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.744449

Weseler, D., & Niessen, C. (2016). How job crafting relates to task performance. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 31(3), 672-685. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-05-2012-0148

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of

their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.

Wrzesniewski, A., LoBuglio, N., Dutton, J. E., & Berg, J. M. (2013). Job crafting and cultivating

positive meaning and identity in work. Advances in positive organizational

psychology, 1(1), 281-302. DOI:10.1108/S2046-410X(2013)0000001015

Wu, C., Parker, S., & Bindl, U.K. (2013). Who is proactive and why? Unpacking individual

differences in employee proactivity. In A.B. Bakker (Ed.), Advances in Positive

Organizational Psychology, Volume 1 (pp. 261-280). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald

Group Publishing Limited.

References of the relevant Belgian legislative documents (in Dutch, see also http://www.werk.belgie.be):

i KB van 24 oktober 2012 waarbij algemeen verbindend wordt verklaard de collectieve

arbeidsovereenkomst nr. 104 van 27 juni 2012, gesloten in de Nationale Arbeidsraad, betreffende de

invoering van een werkgelegenheidsplan oudere werknemers in de onderneming, BS 8 november 2012.

ii Wet van 28 februari 2014 tot aanvulling van de wet van 4 augustus 1996 betreffende het welzijn van de

werknemers bij de uitvoering van hun werk wat de preventie van psychosociale risico’s op het werk betreft,

waaronder inzonderheid geweld, pesterijen en ongewenst seksueel gedrag op het werk, BS 28 april 2014;

Wet van 28 maart 214 tot wijziging van het Gerechtelijk Wetboek en de wet van 4 augustus 1996

betreffende het welzijn van de werknemers bij de uitvoering van hun werk wat de gerechtelijke procedures

betreft, BS 28 april 2014; KB van 10 april 2014 betreffende de preventie van psychosociale risico’s op het

werk, BS 28 april 2014.

iii Wet van 5 maart 2017 betreffende werkbaar en wendbaar werk, BS 15 maart 2017.

iv Ontwerp van algemene uitgavenbegroting voor het begrotingsjaar 2017, Advies over sectie 24 (partim:

Sociale Zaken), Parl.St. Kamer 2016-2017, nr. 54K2109/033.

http://www.werk.belgie.be/


30

31

CHAPTER 2 – STUDY 1

VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE (OJCS)1.

.

1 Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016). Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting

Scale. Manuscript in review.

STUDY 1: VALIDATION OF THE OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE

32


33

Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS)

Abstract

We developed and validated an overarching job crafting scale (OJCS) through four studies.

We define job crafting as the self-initiated changes employees make to their job in order to

optimize their functioning in terms of well-being, attitudes and behaviour. In Study 1, we first

developed the OJCS, a short questionnaire consisting of four items and demonstrated its reliability

and content validity. In Study 2, we established the construct validity of the OJCS in relation to

other job crafting measurements, namely the job crafting scale of Tims, Bakker and Derks (JCS;

2012) and the job crafting questionnaire of Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (JCQ; 2013). In Study 3, the

OJCS showed to be predictive for the positive outcomes vigour and autonomous motivation within

a time period of six months. In Study 4, the OJCS demonstrated incremental validity in the

prediction of the positive outcomes work enjoyment and autonomous motivation in addition to

the JCS and JCQ over a time period of three months. The OJCS did not contribute to the prediction

of negative outcomes (i.e. emotional exhaustion, cynicism and turnover intention). Taken

together, we demonstrated the validity of a short questionnaire to measure job crafting in an

overarching way which might be especially be relevant to establish the nomological network of

the general concept of job crafting.


34

1. Introduction

Job crafting is about the employees’ active role in shaping and customizing their job (Berg,

Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2008; Grant & Parker, 2009). It emerges as a bottom up approach

complementing the traditional top down perspective on job (re)design. In the current study, we

build on the pioneering work of both Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and Tims and Bakker

(2010) to take an overarching approach of both the conceptualization and operationalization of

job crafting. We develop and validate an overarching job crafting scale (OJCS) in which we (1)

make abstraction of the type of changes employees make to their job and (2) take the purpose of

job crafting, as a pro-self-focused proactive behaviour, into account. In addition, by means of a

short questionnaire we further contribute to the practical merits of the scale when investigating

antecedents, consequences and underlying mechanisms that matter to job crafting in general,

instead of to specific job crafting behaviours.

After elaborating on the current conceptual approaches and measurements of job crafting,

we present four studies in which we address reliability and validity issues of the OJCS. In the first

study, we tap into the scale development and examine the (test-retest) reliability of the OJCS. In

the second study, we examine the construct validity by examining the OJCS next to other validated

job crafting measurements. In the third study, we investigate the predictive or criterion validity

and in the fourth study, we demonstrate the incremental validity of the OJCS over other job

crafting measures in the prediction of indicators of optimal functioning.

1.1. Job Crafting: Building an Overarching Approach

The literature on job crafting mainly draws on two perspectives. On the one hand,

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) introduced the term ‘job crafting’ as “the physical and cognitive

changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their job” (p.179). By means of

making changes in the boundaries of their job, employees strive to achieve meaning and identity

at work. On the other hand, starting from the job demands-resources model (JD-R model; Bakker,

Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014), Tims and Bakker (2010) define job crafting as employees

making actual changes in the levels of job demands and job resources in order to fit the job with

one’s personal abilities and preferences to increase work motivation. In addition, the latter

perspective aims to focus on employees’ actual behaviour in modifying their job design to enhance

their work motivation. Consequently, they do not include the cognitive dimension of job crafting.

In line with recent developments of the JD-R model (Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, De Witte, &

Vansteenkiste, 2010), they specifically argue that employees can decrease their level of job

hindrances (e.g. making the work less intense), increase job challenges (e.g. proactively

participating in new projects) and increase structural (e.g. developing one’s capabilities) and

social job resources (e.g. asking colleagues or the supervisor for advice).


35

Even though the two main views present different definitions and focus on diverse types of

job crafting, they share two crucial elements: job crafting is about (1) employees making self-

initiated changes to their job with (2) a pro-self-focused purpose. We expand these communalities

and define job crafting in an overarching way as the self-initiated changes employees make to

their job in order to optimize their functioning in terms of well-being, attitudes or behaviour

(Vanbelle, Van den Broeck, & De Witte, 2013). We make abstraction of the specific type of changes

employees may make to their job (i.e. first element). Hence, we approach job crafting more

broadly than Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) - who only account for task, relational and

cognitive crafting -, and less specific than Tims and colleagues (2012) - who only investigate

changes in specific job demands and resources. Furthermore, we refer to the overarching purpose

of optimizing one’s functioning in terms of well-being, attitudes or behaviour to account for the

multiple pro-self-focused reasons to craft, such as creating meaning and work identity (Berg et al.,

2008; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) or enhancing one’s person-job fit (Tims & Bakker, 2010).

The intent behind individually redesigning the job is thus not to promote the good of the others

and the organization (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), but rather to enhance personal

(work)outcomes in the first place (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Hence, as we define job crafting as a

purposeful behaviour, we aim to measure it as a truly proactive behaviour by taking the purpose

of job crafting into account in the OJCS.

1.2. The Added Value of an Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS)

Increasingly, researchers start to recognize the need to investigate job crafting in a

quantitative way in order to gain a better understanding of the construct and to set the stage for

future research (Tims et al., 2012). Since 2012, at least four validation studies of different job

crafting measurements have been published (Tims et al., 2012; Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2013; Slemp

& Vella-Brodrick, 2013; Niessen, Weseler, & Kostova, 2016).

In this study, we examine the added value of an overarching job crafting scale (OJCS) based

on three arguments. First, despite the steep increasing interest in job crafting as a research topic,

a thorough understanding of this construct in general is still in its infancy. The existing

measurements seem to prime employees with a predetermined selection of specific job crafting

types. Tims and colleagues (2012) and Nielsen and Abildgaard (2013) for example, ask employees

to indicate to what extent they decrease specific job hindrances, increase job challenges and

increase job resources. Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (2013), and similarly Niessen et al. (2016), build

on Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and also focus on specific job crafting types as they tap into

the extent to which employees craft their tasks, relations or cognitions. Being so specific, these

scales may miss out on important additional changes employees may make to their job such as for

instance when and where they work and how they install their physical workplace (Van Vuuren


36

& Dorenbosch, 2011). We argue it is important to explore and account for the range of possible

changes employees may make to their jobs in order to optimize their functioning. Therefore, we

aim for an overarching job crafting scale in which we make abstraction of the type of changes

employees may make, to leave room for employees’ personal interpretation of specific personally

relevant changes.

A second argument for the development of a new overarching job crafting scale is that the

current used scales do not specify the purpose of job crafting. This is interesting given that job

crafting scholars all include the pro-self-focused function of the self-initiated changes in their

definition of job crafting. Some preliminary scales on job crafting only integrate the purpose in a

few of their items, such as “I introduce new approaches to improve my work” (Slemp & Vella-

Brodrick, 2013; and comparably Leana, Appelbaum, & Shevchuk, 2009), “I introduce new work

tasks that I think better suit my skills or interests” (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013) or “I change

my job to make it more fun” (Kroon, Kooij, & van Veldhoven, 2013). Only very recently, Niessen et

al. (2016) developed and validated a new scale in which they explicitly address the pro-self-

focused nature of job crafting. More specifically, they ask participants to what extent they engage

in task, relational and cognitive crafting so the job they do suits them.

We state that including the purpose or target of job crafting is relevant given that job crafting

is argued to be a change-oriented and goal-directed, proactive behaviour (Grant & Parker, 2009;

Tims & Bakker, 2010). Moreover, the inherently pro-self-focused purpose of job crafting is one of

the crucial elements to distinguish job crafting from other proactive job redesign behaviours

(Grant & Parker, 2009; Niessen et al., 2016; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). In distinguishing

proactive behaviours, not only the initiator (i.e. the individual alone or in collaboration with the

employer/supervisor) and the content of the behaviour matter (Parker & Collins, 2010), but also

the target of the behaviour should be taken into account (Belschak & den Hartog, 2010). Hence,

we develop the OJCS in which the purpose of job crafting is included, i.e. reference is made to

optimizing one’s functioning in terms of well-being, attitudes or behaviour.

Third, we aim to develop a short questionnaire to measure job crafting in an overarching way

to foster its practical merits. In addition, this overarching job crafting scale might provide an

alternative measurement to examine a general construct of job crafting and its mechanisms (Tims,

Derks, & Bakker, 2016; Vogt, Hakanen, Brauchli, Jenny, & Bauer, 2016).

2. Study 1: Scale Development and Reliability Analyses

In Study 1, we first deductively develop the Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS). Second, we

rely on quantitative data to test psychometric properties such as the item descriptives, factorial

validity (i.e. EFA) and reliability of the OJCS. Third, we inspect the content validity by means of a

qualitative pilot study consisting of two parts. In the first part, before showing the items of the


37

OJCS, we ask participants to elaborate (1) on the changes they make to their job as well as (2) on

the underlying purpose of these changes. In the second part of this qualitative study, we ask

participants to provide examples for each of the four items of the OJCS. We specifically expect that

the type of changes participants come up with will outreach the seven job crafting dimensions

operationalized in the current literature. Employees may for instance also alter their physical

space at work or the temporal dimensions of work (Leana et al., 2009; Wrzesniewski & Dutton,

2001). Furthermore, we expect (in the first part) that the underlying reasons for making changes

in one’s job mainly concern personal goals, namely optimizing one’s functioning in terms of well-

being, attitudes and behaviour (i.e. job crafting), but might also tap into more external reasons

(i.e. other forms of proactive behaviour). Hence, to be sure that employees initiate changes to their

job to do good for themselves, we highlight the added value of taking the purpose of job crafting

into account in its measurement.

2.1. Method

Scale development. The items of the OJCS were developed in a deductive way (Hinkin,

1995). Given our interest in the overarching concept of job crafting, we aimed to account for the

two unique elements that are needed to define job crafting (e.g. self-initiated changes and

optimization of functioning) and to distinguish it from other proactive behaviours in generating

the items. Consequently, we formulated four double-barrelled items that include both the

behavioural change element and the pro-self-focused purpose element of job crafting (Table 1).

What concerns the change element, we opted to make abstraction of the specific type of

changes employees initiate in order to leave room for personal interpretation. We started the

items with ‘I make changes in my job’ or ‘I change my job’ to enable employees to think of personally

relevant changes that may not be captured in other job crafting measurements. What concerns

the purpose element of job crafting, scholars agree that employees make changes in their job to

enhance personal benefits. Building on the job crafting literature, we make reference to optimizing

one’s functioning in terms of well-being (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013), attitudes such as person-

job fit (Chen, Yen, & Tsai, 2014; Tims, et al., 2016) and behaviour such as performance (Bakker,

Tims & Derks, 2012). In this way, we approach optimal functioning as an umbrella concept that

describes “the ultimate outcome, [namely] a human being’s maximal level of development [or

“doing well”], operationalized using [well-being, attitudinal and behavioural] indicators” (adapted

from Gagné and Vansteenkiste, 2013, p.63).

We generated the following four items: ‘I make changes in my job to feel better’ (i.e. well-

being), ‘I change my job so it would better fit with who I am’ (i.e. identity; person-job fit) , ‘I make

changes in my job to perform better’ (i.e. behaviour), ‘I change my job so it would better fit with what

I think is important’ (i.e. meaning; person-job fit). These items were preceded by the following


38

stem: Some people make changes in their job, others do not. To what extent do you shape your job?

Please register to what extent you agree with the following statements. The items were rated on a

5 point Likert scale ranging from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree.

2.2. Sample and Procedure.

Psychometric properties in a quantitative study. We used the first two waves of a three

wave study on the experience of work in a health care organization with 518 employees. During

our data collection, the organization went through organizational change which involved the

merger of the three departments. The first wave was collected in May 2013 (pre-change), the

second wave in December 2013 (during change). We invited all 518 employees to participate in

our online questionnaire. We invited the majority of employees by e-mail with a personalized link

to the questionnaire, 60 employees received the link and a unique code by post to get access to

the online questionnaire. Of the 518 employees, 423 employees completed the first wave

(response rate 82%). The average age of the participants was 39 years (SD=11.15) and the sample

consisted of 28.8% men. The majority of the participants (83.9%) had a higher education degree

of which 25.6% a university degree and 16% a primary or secondary school degree. The first wave

of data was used to derive psychometric properties of the OJCS, to conduct exploratory factor

analysis and reliability analysis. We used the data collected at T1 and T2, completed by 313

employees (response rate 60%) to examine test-retest reliability.

Content validity in a qualitative pilot study. We invited our personal network through

social media to contribute to our understanding of job crafting by means of an online

questionnaire that mainly consisted of open questions. In the first part of the questionnaire, we

tapped into the changes they make in their job in general and the underlying reasons for these

changes. In the second part of the questionnaire, we asked them to elaborate on the four items of

the OJCS. In total, 26 participants completed our questionnaire of which 52% were men. The

average age of the respondents was 35.56 years. The majority (80%) held a university degree,

56% worked as professional, 20% in an administrative position and 24% in a middle management

position.

2.3. Results

Psychometric properties in a quantitative study. The means of all items ranged from 3.19

to 3.46 and the standard deviations ranged from .76 to .83. The values of skewness (ranged from

-.35 to -.03, SD=.12) and kurtosis (ranged from -.58 to -.11, SD=.24) tended to be (slightly) negative

which indicate more high scores and a rather flat distribution, respectively (Field, 2013).

Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that all four items loaded on one factor, with item

loading ranging from .82 to .90, exceeding the recommended .40 (Hinkin, 1995; Table 1).


39

Table 1

Descriptives and exploratory factor analysis (NT1=423).

Sample 1 (T1)

M SD 1

(1) I make changes in my job

to feel better 3.46 .77 .86

(2) I change my job so it would better fit

with who I am 3.26 .80 .90

(3) I make changes in my job

to perform better 3.42 .76 .86

(4) I change my job so it would better fit

with what I think is important 3.19 .83 .82

Note. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree. All

items were administered in Dutch, English translations for communication purposes.

Reliability. The inter-item correlations, Cronbach’s alpha and scale score correlations over

time demonstrate the reliability of the OJCS (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991). The inter-

item correlations ranged from .57 to .72 at both T1 and T2 which can be considered as exemplary

(Robinson et al., 1991). Internal consistency analyses show satisfying Cronbach’s alpha’s both at

T1 (αT1=.88) and T2 (αT2=.89). Finally, given our time lag of 6 months between T1 and T2, our

correlation of .47 (p<.01) between the job crafting scores at T1 and T2 exceeds the criterion of

>.40 for test-retest reliability (Robinson et al., 1991). Similar to the findings of Nielsen and

Abildgaard (2013), who found Pearson correlations ranging between .47 and .77, our results

suggested that job crafting is somewhat variable over time.

Content validity in a qualitative pilot study. First, as expected for both parts of the study,

the type of changes participants came up with went beyond the job crafting items measured in the

literature (Tims et al., 2012; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). Changes concerning the job content

such as “come up with new ideas”, “making changes in my tasks” or “redistributing tasks” (i.e. task

crafting, increasing structural resources, increasing challenging demands, reducing hindering

demands) as well as changes in work methods such as “implementing new ways of conducting

work” or “requesting training opportunities” (i.e. increasing structural resources) were mentioned.

Furthermore, respondents crafted social aspects of their job as they “ask colleagues or the

supervisor for advice when getting stuck”, “communicate and reflect on interpersonal interaction

and collaboration”, “determine the frequency/quantity of social contacts”, “seek for new people to

work with” and “invest in the quality of social interactions”. Furthermore, they “divide tasks


40

according to each other’s strengths and capacities” and “exchange and vary tasks among colleagues”,

pointing at team or collaborative forms of crafting (Leana et al., 2009; Tims, Bakker, Derks, & Van

Rhenen, 2013).

Although less frequently, respondents hinted at cognitive crafting as they “set priorities”,

“reflect at lunch on what they need to feel happy (get some fresh air or schedule a meeting)” or “think

about the alignment of their job with their vision and the importance of the identification with one’s

job”. In addition, employees “create more structure” in their job, “test alternative work methods

according to personal preferences” and “focus on small changes to perceive greater personal

control”. Finally, respondents also engaged in the so called context crafting (Van Vuuren &

Dorenbosch, 2011), they “adapt their work hours in function of their work life balance”, “work from

home” and “reorganize their physical work environment”.

Second, strengthening our job crafting approach, respondents indicated in the first part of the

study that they make changes in their job in order to optimize their functioning in terms of well-

being (e.g. “to monitor their resilience”, “to invest in their work-life balance”), attitudes (e.g. “to keep

their job interesting”, “to divide workload according to personal competencies”, “to reach person-job

fit”) and behaviour (e.g. “to work more efficiently”). Notably, although less frequently mentioned,

individuals also make changes to their job for “external reasons”, “because they have to” or “to solve

(technical) problems” hinting at other types of proactive behaviour that primarily target the

organization or others instead of the self.

2.4. Discussion Study 1

In Study 1, we developed the OJCS, demonstrated its psychometric properties in a

quantitative study and discussed the content validity in a qualitative study. The results of the

qualitative part strengthen our job crafting approach. First, as intended, the OJCS captures a

variety of changes employees might make in their job in order to optimize their functioning in

terms of well-being, attitudes and behaviour. Although especially enhancing content related work

aspects seem to be subject to job crafting, which is in line with previous research (e.g. Lyons,

2008), employees also indicate to craft hindering demands, relational aspects, physical work

environment, work hours as well as planning and reflection aspects (Van Wingerden, Derks,

Bakker, & Dorenbosch, 2013). Second, our findings demonstrate that the target of changing work

aspects might be both pro-self and pro-others focused (Belschak & den Hartog, 2010). Therefore,

taken the pro-self-focused purpose of job crafting into account in the measurement of job crafting

enables the distinction with other forms of proactive behaviour.


41

3. Study 2: Construct validity of the OJCS

In Study 2, we examine the construct validity of the OJCS in relation to two other job crafting

measurements, namely the job crafting scale of Tims et al. (JCS; 2012) and the job crafting

questionnaire of Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (JCQ; 2013). The aim is twofold.

First, we expect the OJCS to be different from the specific JCS-factors and JCQ-factors because

it captures a wider range of changes employees may make and because it takes the purpose of job

crafting into account. We therefore expect an eight factor model (M1), consisting of the OJCS, four

dimensions of the JCS (i.e. increasing structural resources, increasing social resources, increasing

challenging demand and reducing hindering demands; Tims et al., 2012) and three dimensions of

the JCQ (i.e. task crafting, cognitive crafting and relational crafting; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013),

to fit the data best in comparison with seven alternative models in which the OJCS load onto one

factor together which each of the other seven scales.

Second, although we expect the OJCS to differ from the other specific job crafting factors, we

also expect them to positively correlate given that they all aim to be an index of an underlying job

crafting concept. Whereas previous studies on the convergent validity of job crafting

measurements demonstrated relationships between job crafting and other proactivity constructs

such as personal initiative and proactive personality (Tims et al., 2012), and organizational

citizenship behaviour (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013), we add to the literature by associating

different job crafting measures to establish convergent validity.

3.1. Method

Sample and Procedure. We used the first wave of a larger two wave dataset collected among

governmental employees. The first wave was collected in November – December 2014, the second

wave of data in March – April 2015. Our study on job crafting was announced via the intranet of

the organization. In total, we invited 2505 employees by e-mail to participate in our electronic

questionnaire. We communicated on the content, stressed that participation was voluntary and

could be terminated at any point of time and we provided the contact of both the research

responsible in case of questions and the ethical committee in case of complaints.

Of the 2505 invited employees, 637 participants completed the questionnaire at T1 (response

rate of 26%). The average age of the participants was 44.41 years (SD=10.28). The sample

consisted of 53% men. In terms of job position, 39% of the respondents worked in a job for which

a master degree is required (job position A), 23% in a job that requires a bachelor degree (job

position B), 28% in a job that demands a high school degree (job position C) and 10% in a job for

which no degree is needed (job position D). The participants worked on average 11.90 years (SD=

10.28) in their current job.


42

Measures. Three scales were used to measure job crafting, namely the newly developed

overarching job crafting scale (OJCS; see Table 1), the job crafting scale of Tims et al. (JCS; 2012),

and the job crafting questionnaire of Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (JCQ; 2013).

The Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS), subject to validation in this manuscript, consisted

of four items (Table 1). In contrast to Study 1, the items were rated on a 7-point frequency scale

ranging from (1) never or seldom to (7) daily2. The reliability of the OJCS was satisfying (α=.93).

Job Crafting Scale (JCS). The JCS measures four dimensions of job crafting and consists of 21

items, rated on a 5-point frequency scale ranging from (1) never to (5) often (as often as possible

at work) (Tims et al., 2012). The reliabilities were satisfying: increasing structural resources

(STRUCTJCS; α=.77); increasing social resources (SOCJCS; α=.79), increasing challenging job

demands (CHALLJCS; α=.78); and reducing hindering job demands (HINDJCS; α=.76). Example

items are respectively ‘I try to develop my capabilities’, ‘I ask my supervisor to coach me’, ‘When an

interesting project comes along, I offer myself proactively as project co-worker’, and ‘I make sure

that my work is mentally less intense’.

Job Crafting Questionnaire (JCQ). The JCQ measures three dimensions of job crafting and

consists of 15 items (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013), rated on a 5-point frequency scale ranging

from (1) never to (5) often (as often as possible at work). The reliabilities were satisfying: task

crafting (TASKJCQ; α=.79); cognitive crafting (COGNJCQ; α=.87); and relational crafting (RELJCQ.

α=.81). We reformulated the original items to “I-statements”. Example items are respectively ‘I

introduce new approaches to improve my work’, ‘I think about how my job gives my life purpose’, and

‘I make an effort to know people well at work’.

3.2. Results

To examine the construct validity of the OJCS, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) in MPLUS 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2015) in which we included 8 latent factors, namely

the OJCS which is subject to validation, the four dimensions of the JCS (STRUCTJCS, SOCJCS,

CHALLJCS, HINDJCS; Tims et al., 2012) and the three dimensions of the JCQ (TASKJCQ, COGNJCQ,

2In contrast to Study 1 and 3, in which we used a 5 point Likert scale from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree, we used a 7 point frequency scale from (1) seldom or never to (7) daily in Study 2 and 4. In this way, we wanted to allow participants to use more scale points to rate their behaviour, thereby enhancing information richness (Weijters, Baumgartner, & Anseel, 2016). Furthermore, similar to Kroon et al. (2013), this frequency scale is also used in the measurement of burnout (Schaufeli, & van Dierendonck, 2000) and work engagement (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006) and intends to measure actual behaviour instead of attitudes. Using a frequency scale allows a different interpretation of the scores given that it enables to report on the extent to which respondents engage in job crafting instead of on their level on agreement with the items (Van Parys, 2016). Hence, a frequency scale allows to measure job crafting as a true behaviour, which might vary among situations, instead of as a general behavioural tendency of individuals over situations (Van Parys, 2016).


43

RELJCQ; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). In conducting the CFA, we applied the robust maximum

likelihood estimator MLM to account for the non-normal distribution of the observed variables

(Byrne, 2012). Based on the modification indices indicated in the initial results, we included four

theoretical relevant correlations post hoc to improve the model fit to the data3 (Schreiber, Stage,

King, Nora, & Barlow, 2006).

We evaluated the model fit of the eight factor model based on the root mean square error of

approximation (RMSEA=.04; 90% CI=[.041; .047], comparative fit index (CFI=.92), the Tucker-

Lewis index (TLI=.91), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR=.06). We

compared the Satorra-Bentler Chi Square (S-X²) of this eight factor model to the S-X² of alternative

seven factor models in which we modelled the OJCS to load onto one latent factor together with

each of the specific job crafting scales. Based on the recommendations of Schreiber et al. (2006),

the eight factor model offered a good and significantly better fit to the data in comparison with

the alternative models (Table 2). The factor loadings of the four items of the OJCS were significant

and ranged from .85 to .89 which exceeded the recommended .40 (Hinkin, 1995). The items of the

other job crafting factors also showed significant loadings on their respective factor, but were

slightly lower than the factor loadings of the OJCS-items.

After evaluating the model fit of this eight factor model and the factor loadings, we

investigated the convergent validity of the OJCS by inspecting the correlations between the OJCS

and the other job crafting factors. The results showed moderate to high positive latent

correlations of the OJCS with all other job crafting factors (Field, 2013; Table 3). The highest latent

correlations were found between OJCS and STRUCTJCS (r=.42, p<.001), CHALLJCS (r=.47, p<.001),

and TASKJCQ (r=.54, p<.001). The lowest latent correlation was found between OJCS and HINDJCS

(r=.18, p<.001). In sum, as expected, we demonstrated that the OJCS measured a different but

highly related construct to the other job crafting measurements.

In addition, especially the task related types of job crafting showed high latent correlations:

TASKJCQ with CHALLJCS (r=.91 (p<.001), TASKJCQ with STRUCTJCS (r=.72, p<.001) and

CHALLJCS with STRUCTJCS (r=.86, p<.001). Remarkably, the latent correlations between HINDJCS

and the other specific factors were rather small (i.e. ranging between -.12 and .18) or

nonsignificant (i.e. with CHALLJCS, TASKJCQ and RELJCQ).

3We included the following four theoretically relevant inter-item correlations post hoc, based on the modification indices indicated in the initial results: 1) the JCQ-item ‘I take on additional tasks at work’ with the JCS-item ‘I regularly take on extra tasks even though I do not receive extra salary for them’, 2) the JCQ-items ‘I remind myself of the importance of my work for the broader community’ and ‘I remind myself about the significance my work has for the success of the organization’, 3) the JCS-items ‘I ask my supervisor to coach me’ and ‘I look to my supervisor for inspiration’, and 4) the JCQ-items ‘I organize special events in the workplace (e.g., celebrating a co-worker’s birthday)’ and ‘I organize or attend work related social functions’.


44


In Study 2, we demonstrated the construct validity of the OJCS in two ways. First, we

conducted confirmatory factor analysis to differentiate the job crafting construct measured by the

OJCS from job crafting constructs measured by the validated JCS (Tims et al., 2012) and JCQ (Slemp

& Vella-Brodrick, 2013). More specifically, the OJCS could not be equaled to one of the other

specific job crafting scales and thus contributes to our understanding of job crafting. Second, the

OJCS showed to be convergent valid given its moderate to high latent correlations with the specific

job crafting factors. Employees who more frequently engage in job crafting in general, as

measured by the OJCS, are more likely to engage in the variety of specific job crafting behaviours.

Hence, our findings support the argument that the changes employees make through job crafting

might be both behavioural and cognitive (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). Taken together, the OJCS

demonstrated both convergent and discriminant validity. Presumably, the change- and purpose-

element integrated in the OJCS respectively accounts for the association with and differentiation

from the specific job crafting factors which especially (or only) measure the change-element of

job crafting (see also Little, 2013).


45

Table 2

Fit statistics for the models based on confirmatory factor analyses (N=637).

Models S-χ2 (df) BIC RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR Comparison T Δdf p

M1 8 latent factors 1570.98 (708) 66878.08 .04 .92 .91 .06

M2 7 latent factors 2553.36 (715) 67932.48 .06 .83 .81 .09 M2-M1 982.38 7 <.001







Note: Best-fitting model in italics. M1: OJCS, STRUCTJCS, SOCJSC, CHALLJCS, HINDJCS, TASKJCQ, COGNJCQ and RELJCQ load onto eight separate latent

factors. M2: OJCS and STRUCTJCS load onto one latent factor; SOCJSC, CHALLJCS, HINDJCS, TASKJCQ, COGNJCQ and RELJCQ load onto six separate

latent factors. M3: OJCS and SOCJCS load onto one latent factor; STRUCTJSC, CHALLJCS, HINDJCS, TASKJCQ, COGNJCQ and RELJCQ load onto six

separate latent factors. M4: OJCS and CHALLJCS load onto one latent factor; STRUCTJSC, SOCJCS, HINDJCS, TASKJCQ, COGNJCQ and RELJCQ load onto

six separate latent factors. M5: OJCS and HINDJCS load onto one latent factor; STRUCTJSC, SOCJCS, CHALLJCS, TASKJCQ, COGNJCQ and RELJCQ load

onto six separate latent factors. M6: OJCS and TASKJCQ load onto one latent factor; STRUCTJCS, SOCJSC, CHALLJCS, HINDJCS, COGNJCQ and RELJCQ

load onto six separate latent factors. M7: OJCS and COGNJCQ load onto one latent factor; STRUCTJCS, SOCJSC, CHALLJCS, HINDJCS, TASKJCQ and

RELJCQ load onto six separate latent factors. M8: OJCS and RELJCQ load onto one latent factor; STRUCTJCS, SOCJSC, CHALLJCS, HINDJCS, TASKJCQ

and COGNJCQ load onto six separate latent factors.


46

Table 3

Latent correlations between job crafting factors (N=637).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. OJCS -

2. STRUCTJCS .42*** -

3. SOCJCS .33*** .51*** -

4. CHALLJCS .47*** .86*** .59*** -

5. HINDJCS .18*** -.12* .18*** -.04ns -

6. TASKJCQ .54*** .72*** .54*** .91*** .06ns -

7. COGNJCQ .33*** .45*** .37*** .49*** .13** .51*** -

8. RELJCQ .29*** .48*** .47*** .54*** -.08ns .48*** .49*** -

*p<.05; **p<.01;***p<.001;ns=nonsignificant.


47

4. Study 3: Predictive validity

We examine the predictive or criterion-related validity of the OJCS in relation to optimal

functioning (Wrzesniewski, LoBuglio, Dutton, & Berg, 2013). More specifically, we relate job

crafting to work engagement and burnout (i.e. well-being), autonomous motivation and turnover

intentions (i.e. motivation and attitudes), and in-role performance (i.e. behaviour).

First, we expect job crafting to positively relate to work engagement and negatively to

burnout. Work engagement is a positive motivational state characterized by feelings of vigour,

dedication and absorption (Bakker et al., 2014). By means of job crafting, employees mobilize

their resources at hand (Berg, et al., 2008) which may install further resources gains (Hobfoll,

1989) and hence, feelings of work engagement (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013a). Burnout, on the

contrary, is a negative well-being state characterized by emotional exhaustion, cynicism and lack

of personal accomplishment. We expect employees who engage in job crafting, to mobilize and

accumulate resources which might help them to deal with job demands and prevent them from

resource depletion and hence, burnout (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012; Tims et al., 2013a).

Second, we expect job crafting to positively enhance the autonomous motivation to work and

to decrease turnover intentions. Employees who redesign their job through job crafting make the

job more consistent with one’s goals, values, and preferences (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).

This fosters the internal regulation for conducting the job, and hence increases autonomous work

motivation (Gagné & Panaccio, 2014). In addition, job crafting might serve as a means by which

employees diminish turnover intentions. Employees who craft their job create a resourceful work

environment according to personal preferences, abilities and needs, which in turn will enhances

the motivational enhancement process towards positive organizational outcomes and hence, a

decrease in turnover intentions (Bakker et al., 2014; Wrzesniewski et al., 2013).

Third, we expect a positive relationship between job crafting and in-role performance.

Although job crafting does not per se have to align with organizational goals (Wrzesniewski &

Dutton, 2001), to date, empirical findings demonstrated that job crafting positively associates to

performance (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2015). By means of job

crafting, employees mobilize and accumulate job resources, which enhances the motivational

process towards in-role performance (Demerouti, Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015; Petrou,

Demerouti, Schaufeli, 2015; Tims et al., 2015).

4.1. Method

Sample and Procedure. In Study 3, we used the second and third wave of the sample

described in Study 1. The procedure of collecting the second and third wave of data was equal to

the first wave of data collection (See Study 1 for a description). Of the 518 employees, 350

employees completed the second questionnaire (response rate 68%) and 298 employees


48

completed both the second and third questionnaire (response rate 58%). Of the 298 employees,

30.5% were men. The average age was 38.96 years (SD=11.03). The majority (62.4%) had a higher

education degree, 21.8% a university degree and 15.7% a primary or secondary degree.

Measures.

Job crafting. We measured job crafting with the newly developed 4 item OJCS (see Table 1).

The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally

agree. The reliability of the scale was satisfying (α=.88).

Work engagement. We used the dimensions vigour and dedication of the short 9-item

version of the Dutch Utrecht Work Engagement Scale to measure work engagement (UWES;

Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanavo, 2006). Each dimension was measured with three items rated on a

7-point Likert Scale ranging from (1) never to (7) always/every day. The reliabilities at T2 and T3

were satisfying for both vigour (αT2=.88, αT3=.89 ) and dedication (αT2=.88, αT3=.93). Example items

are: ‘At work, I feel bursting with energy’, ‘I am enthusiastic about my job’.

Burnout. We used the dimensions emotional exhaustion and cynicism of the Dutch Utrecht

Burnout Scale to measure burnout (UBOS; Schaufeli & van Dierendonck, 2000). Emotional

exhaustion was measured with five items such as ‘I feel emotionally drained from my work”.

Cronbach’s alpha’s were satisfying, both at T2 (α=.89) and T3 (α=.92). Cynicism was measured

with four items such as ‘I have become less enthusiastic about my work’. Cronbach’s alpha’s were

satisfying, both at T2 (α=.89) and T3 (α=.91). Items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging

from (0) never to (6) always/every day.

Autonomous motivation. We measured autonomous motivation as a combination of two

dimensions of the Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale of Gagné et al. (2015). Identified

regulation was measured with three items such as ‘I put effort in my current job because I

personally consider it important to put efforts in this job’. Intrinsic motivation was measured with

three items such as ‘I put effort in my job because I have fun doing my job’. Cronbach’s alpha’s were

satisfying, both at T2 (α=.91) and T3 (α=.92). Items were rated on a scale from (1) not at all to (7)

completely.

Turnover intentions. We measured turnover intentions with the following single item: ‘To

what extent do you plan to look for a job outside this organization?’, from the Dutch “Questionnaire

on the Experience and Evaluation of Work” (QEEW; van Veldhoven, Meijman, Broersen, & Fortuin,

2002). The item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally

agree.

In-role performance. We measured in-role performance with the subscale individual task

proficiency of Griffin, Neal, and Parker (2007), consisting of three items such as ‘I carried out the

core parts of my job well’. The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) totally


49

disagree to (5) totally agree. We only measured in-role performance at T3, reliability was

satisfying (α=.86).

4.2. Results

Prior to investigating the predictive validity of OJCS, we conducted confirmatory factor

analysis to exclude potential overlap between job crafting and the outcomes. We applied the

robust maximum likelihood estimator MLM to account for the non-normal distribution of the

observed variables (Byrne, 2012). The results showed that the seven-factor model at T2 (job

crafting, vigour, dedication, emotional exhaustion, cynicism, autonomous motivation and

turnover intention) and the eight-factor model at T3 (job crafting, vigour, dedication, emotional

exhaustion, cynicism, autonomous motivation, turnover intention and in-role performance)

yielded a good fit to the data (Schreiber et al., 2006): the root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEAT2=.05; RMSEAT3=.06), comparative fit index (CFIT2=.96; CFIT3=.94), the Tucker-Lewis

index (TLIT2=.95; TLIT3=.93), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMRT2=.05;

SRMRT3=.05).

Furthermore, we compared these hypothesized models at T2 and T3 respectively, with

alternative models in which the OJCS loaded onto one latent factor together with each of the

positive outcomes. We only modelled job crafting and each of the positive outcomes together in

the alternative models because the OJCS explicitly entails the personal goal of optimizing one’s

functioning in the items. Therefore, it is especially relevant to exclude potential overlap between

job crafting and the positive outcomes. We compared the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) –

which represents the balance between the number of parameters (i.e. model complexity) and the

fit of the model to the data (Aiken, West, & Reno, 1991). As expected, the hypothesized seven-

factor model at T2 (BICT2=18383.17) and eight-factor model at T3 (BICT3=19528.64)

demonstrated the lowest BIC-value and thus revealed a better fit to the data in comparison with

the alternative models in which job crafting loaded onto one factor with autonomous motivation

(BICT2=18932.46; BICT3=20218.24), vigour (BICT2=19179.50; BICT3=20392.15), dedication

(BICT2=19258.05; BICT3=20647.34) and performance (BICT3=19941.79). These results support

the construct validity of the OJCS.

In Table 4, to investigate the predictive validity of the OJCS, we present the correlations

between job crafting at T2 and the outcome variables at T3 below the diagonal. In addition, we

provide the correlations between job crafting and the outcomes, both measured at T2, above the

diagonal. As expected, our results show positive correlations between job crafting at T2 and the

outcomes work engagement, but only the vigour part (r=.15, p<.05), and autonomous motivation

at T3 (r=.18; p<.01). We did not found significant results for the correlations between job crafting

at T2 and the outcomes dedication, emotional exhaustion, cynicism, turnover intentions and in-


50

role performance at T3. Notably, at T2, we found a negative correlation between job crafting and

cynicism (r=-.16, p<.05) but not with exhaustion. Furthermore, job crafting at T2 positively

correlated with both vigour (r=.16, p<.05) and dedication at T2 (r=.18; p<.05), as well as with

autonomous motivation at T2 (r=.20; p<.01). No significance results were found for the

relationship with turnover intentions at T2. In-role performance was not measured at T2.


In Study 3, we first conducted confirmatory factor analyses of the constructs at T2 and at T3,

to exclude potential overlap between job crafting and outcomes. Furthermore, our results

demonstrate that although job crafting is a means to proactively optimizing one’s functioning, it

cannot be equaled to these envisioned outcomes (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010). Therefore, it is

especially valuable to investigate the relationships between job crafting and optimal functioning.

We examined the predictive validity of the OJCS by inspecting correlations between job

crafting and the outcomes vigour, dedication, emotional exhaustion, cynicism, autonomous

motivation, turnover intention and in-role performance. As expected, the OJCS positively

correlated over time (time lag of six months) with vigour and autonomous motivation. Notably,

we found that job crafting associated, positively and negatively respectively, with the outcomes

dedication and cynicism cross-sectionally at T2. These findings are similar to the results of Tims

et al. (2012) who found negative cross-sectional relationships of seeking resources and seeking

challenges with cynicism.

Contrary to the expectations, we did not find significant relationships between job crafting

and the outcomes turnover intentions and in-role performance. Four aspects might shed light on

these findings. First, outcomes such as turnover intentions and in-role performance might be

more distal outcomes of job crafting. Previous studies suggest for example that job crafting

indirectly relates to performance via work engagement (Bakker et al., 2012; Demerouti, Bakker,

& Gevers, 2015; Tims et al., 2015). Second, the specific change context of our sample may have

influenced the results. Given that our surveys took place during and just after the merger of

different departments, employees’ job crafting might rather be “targeted at finding appropriate

ways of responding to, dealing with, or coping with [the] new situation” (Petrou et al., 2015,

p.471), rather than targeted at seeking resources and challenges to contribute to performance.

Third, Weseler and Niessen (2016) state that a positive link between proactivity and performance

cannot be taken for granted, especially not for pro-self-focused proactive behaviour, such as job

crafting. Fourth, counterbalancing processes may underlie nonsignificant relationships between

job crafting, as measured by the OJCS, and outcomes. To date, empirical evidence shows mixed

results on the outcomes of job crafting, depending on the type of job crafting (Demerouti, Bakker,

& Halbesleben, 2015; Tims et al., 2013a).


51

Table 4

Means, standard deviations and latent correlations between OJCS and outcomes.

M (SD)

T2

M (SD)

T3

1(T2) 2 (T2) 3(T2) 4(T2) 5(T2) 6(T2) 7(T2) 8(T2)

1. OJCS (T2) 3.28 (.65) - - .16* .18* -.05 ns -.16* .20** -.05ns -

2. Vigour (T3) 5.32 (1.17) 5.14 (1.22) .15* - .91*** -.55*** -.66*** .56*** -.41*** -

3. Dedication (T3) 5.61 (1.20) 5.41 (1.28) .11 ns .88*** - -.51*** -.76*** .73*** -.53*** -

4. Emotional exhaustion (T3) 2.68 (1.07) 2.98 (1.25) -.04 ns -.45*** -.31*** - .66*** -.35*** .32*** -

5. Cynicism (T3) 2.10 (1.18) 2.29 (1.29) -.07 ns -.68*** -.69*** .68*** - -.55*** .58*** -

6. Autonomous motivation

(T3)

3.31 (.74) 3.66 (.74) .18** .63*** .71*** -.34*** -.55*** - -.41*** -

7. Turnover intentions (T3) 2.09 (1.04) 2.18 (1.13) -.04 ns -.43*** -.51*** .32*** .58*** -.43*** - -

8. In-role performance (T3) - 3.93 (.64) .02ns .19* .17* -.20** -.16* .13 ns -.03 ns -

*p<.05; **p<.01. Correlations between OJCS T2 and outcomes T2 (N=350) above the diagonal, OJCS T2 and outcomes T3 (N=298) below the

diagonal.


52

5. Study 4: Incremental validity of OJCS above JCS and JCQ

In Study 4, we add to both Study 2 and Study 3 as we examine the incremental validity of the

OJCS in the prediction of optimal functioning indicators over and above the JCS (Tims et al., 2012)

and the JCQ (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). Specifically, we conduct hierarchical regression

analyses of work enjoyment, need for recovery, autonomous motivation and turnover intentions

on both specific job crafting types and our overarching job crafting construct. We expect job

crafting to positively contribute to positive indicators (i.e. work enjoyment and autonomous

motivation) and negative to negative indicators (i.e. need for recovery and turnover intentions).

In addition, we expect the OJCS to explain variance in the outcome variables in addition to the

specific job crafting dimensions.

5.1. Method

Sample and Procedure. In addition to Study 2, in Study 4, we used the two wave dataset

collected among governmental employees. The procedure of collecting the second wave was equal

to the first wave of data collection. Of the 2505 invited employees, 358 completed the electronic

questionnaire at T1 and T2 (response rate of 14.29%). The average age was 44.43 years

(SD=10.33). The sample consisted of 54.2% men. In terms of job position, 40.8% of the

respondents worked in a job requiring a master degree (job position A), 22.3% in a job requiring

a bachelor degree (job position B), 26.8% in a job demanding a high school degree (job position

C) and 10.1% in a job for which no degree is needed (job position D).

Measures.

Job crafting. Three scales were used to measure job crafting, namely the newly developed

OJCS (see Table 1), the JCS of Tims et al. (2012), and the JCQ of Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (2013).

The reliabilities of all job crafting factors were satisfying, namely: OJCS (α=.92), STRUCTJCS

(α=.77), SOCJCS (α=.80), CHALLJCS (α=.78), HINDJCS (α=.77), TASKJCQ (α=.77), COGNJCQ (α=.88)

and RELJCQ (α=.81). See Study 2 for a detailed description of these job crafting measurements.

Work enjoyment. We used the subscale “work enjoyment” of the Short Inventory to Monitor

Psychosocial Hazards (SIMPH; Notelaers, De Witte, Van Veldhoven et al., 2007). The scale

consisted of 5 items such as ‘I enjoy my work’ and were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging

from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree. The reliability was satisfying (α=.91).

Need for recovery. We used the subscale “need for recovery” of the SIMPH (Notelaers, et al.,

2007). The scale consisted of 5 items that were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from (1)

totally disagree to (5) totally agree. A sample item is ‘I find it hard to relax at the end of the workday’.

The reliability was satisfying (α=.89).


53

Autonomous motivation. We measured autonomous motivation with two dimensions of the

Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale of Gagné et al. (2015). Identified regulation was

measured with three items such as ‘I put effort in my current job because I personally consider it

important to put efforts in this job’. Intrinsic motivation was measured with three items such as ‘I

put effort in my job because I have fun doing my job’. Items were rated on a scale from (1) not at all

to (7) completely. The reliability of the scale was satisfying (α=.93).

Turnover intentions. We measured turnover intentions with the single item: ‘To what extent

do you plan to leave your job?’, adopted from the QEEW (van Veldhoven, et al., 2002). The item was

rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree.

5.2. Results

We conducted hierarchical regression analyses of work enjoyment, need for recovery,

autonomous motivation and turnover intentions on job crafting. In Table 5, we present the results

of the third step of the analysis in which we added the OJCS to the JCS-dimensions and JCQ-

dimension as predictors. The OJCS significantly contributed to the prediction of work enjoyment

(β=.14, p<.01) and autonomous motivation (β=.14, p<.01) in addition to increasing social

resources (β=.12, p<.05), increasing challenging demands (β=.17, p<.05) and reducing hindering

demands (β=-.32, p<.001) for work enjoyment, and in addition to increasing challenging demands

(β=.15, p<.05), reducing hindering demands (β=-.30, p<.001) and cognitive crafting (β=.21,

p<.001) for autonomous motivation. Contrary to our expectations, the OJCS did not add to the

prediction of need for recovery and turnover intentions.


The OJCS significantly contributed to the positive indicators work enjoyment and

autonomous motivation in addition to the specific job crafting scales, which supports the

incremental validity of the OJCS. Contrary to the expectations, however, the OJCS did not predict

the negative outcomes need for recovery and turnover intentions. Interestingly, only reducing

hindering demands enhanced need for recovery. Furthermore, only reducing hindering demands

and seeking social resources related to turnover intention. In previous studies, reducing hindering

demands is argued to resemble avoidance coping (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012), and to be an

inefficient strategy that might have unwarranted consequences (Petrou et al., 2015) and further

withdrawal manifestations such as turnover intention (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006; Krausz,

Koslowsky, & Eiser, 1998). Seeking social resources at work seems to be a better strategy. By

means of this job crafting strategy employees may seek the needed advise or information (Soltis,

Agneessens, Sasovova, & Labianca, 2013), may seek support in dealing with demanding aspects of


54

work (Pomaki, DeLongis, Frey, Short, & Whoehrle, 2010) and hence be less likely to experience

turnover intentions.

Similar to the results of Study 3, the OJCS does not contribute to the understanding of negative

indicators of optimal functioning. The relationship between job crafting and negative outcomes

seems to be more complex and might depend on different underlying mechanisms than the

relationship with positive outcomes. Moreover, extant studies suggest different processes for the

increasing and reducing types of job crafting as measured by the JCS (Tims et al., 2012). Given that

the OJCS positively related to both increasing and reducing forms of job crafting (see Study 2), it

is possible that counterbalancing processes filter each other out. Taken together, OJCS showed

incremental validity for the positive, but not for the negative indicators of optimal functioning in

addition to the JCS and JCQ dimensions.

Table 5.

Hierarchical regressions of outcomes on job crafting measures (N=358).

Work

enjoyment T2

β

Need for

recovery T2

β

Autonomous

motivation T2

β

Turnover

intention (job)

T2

β

JCS T1

STRUCTJCS .04 -.02 .10 -.11

SOCJCS .12* .01 .05 -.14*

CHALLJCS .17* .07 .15* .12

HINDJCS -.32*** .12** -.30*** .12*

JCQ T1

TASKJCQ -.02 -.09 -.04 .04

COGNJCQ .07 .12 .21*** -.02

RELJCQ -.001 -.08 .04 .03

OJCS T1 .14** -.03 .14** .01

R² .24 .05 .30 .04

ΔR² .02** .00 .01** .00

*p<.05; **p<.01; ΔR² = change in R² in comparison with model without OJCS


55

6. General Discussion

Building on the literature, we define job crafting in an overarching way as the self-initiated

changes employees make to their job to optimize their well-being, attitudes and behaviour.

Accordingly, we developed a short overarching job crafting scale in which we (1) make abstraction

of the specific changes individuals may make in their job to leave room for personal interpretation

and (2) in which we take the pro-self-focused purpose into account. We demonstrate reliability

and validity of the OJCS through four studies using different datasets. In what follows, we discuss

four main contributions and provide future research directions.

6.1. Main contributions

First, the OJCS showed to be a reliable instrument to measure job crafting in an overarching

way. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was satisfying among the different samples investigated.

Furthermore, the correlation of job crafting over six months’ time indicated test-retest reliability

(Robinson et al., 1991) and revealed that job crafting is somewhat variable over time (Study 1;

Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012).

Second, both the qualitative (Study 1) and quantitative results (Study 2) demonstrated the

construct validity of the OJCS. Strengthening the content validity of the OJCS, the qualitative study

in which we asked participants to reflect upon the OJCS revealed that employees engage in diverse

ways of job crafting. As expected, the examples of job crafting went beyond the specific job crafting

types measured in the extant literature. In addition, in Study 2, we demonstrated that the OJCS is

distinct from but related to all specific job crafting dimensions measured by the JCS of Tims et al.

(2012) and the JCQ of Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (2013). Employees who engaged in job crafting

as measured through the OJCS, scored especially higher on task crafting, increasing challenging

demands and increasing structural resources. These findings indicate the prominent role of

“enhancing” task or content-related changes employees might make when crafting their job (see

also Lyons, 2008; Tims et al., 2012; Van Wingerden et al., 2013). To a lesser extent, employees

scoring high on the OJCS also scored higher on cognitive crafting, on the relational job crafting

types, and on reducing hindering demands. The OJCS thus includes a short overarching scale that

captures diverse ways of crafting, going beyond the specific job crafting types defined within the

literature.

Third, the OJCS measures job crafting as a truly proactive behaviour because it captures the

pro-self-focused purpose of optimizing one’s functioning into the items. Importantly, our results

support that the underlying construct measured through the OJCS is different from indicators of

optimal functioning (Study 3). Even though employees thus make changes to their job in order to

optimize their functioning, it is still relevant to investigate whether employees actually succeed in

achieving a different situation (Parker et al., 2010).


56

Fourth, the OJCS seems to be predictive for positive indicators of optimal functioning such as

work engagement, work enjoyment and autonomous motivation (Study 3 and Study 4). By means

of job crafting employees invest in the energizing aspects of work such as job resources and

challenging demands which, in turn, is helpful in establishing person-job fit (Chen et al., 2014),

attaining goals, fostering personal development and hence, adding to work enjoyment and work

engagement (Tims et al., 2013a). In addition, by means of job crafting, employees invest in the

meaning of their job (Tims et al., 2016). Employees reshape their job so it becomes more

consistent with their goals and values (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), which promotes the

process of internalization and hence, autonomous motivation (Gagné & Panaccio, 2014).

Moreover, the OJCS shows to be incremental valid in addition to the JCS and JCQ in relation to work

enjoyment and autonomous motivation (Study 4).

6.2. Future research directions

First, future research might strengthen the convergent and discriminant validity among the

job crafting factors by means of an alternative analytic approach such as a (pseudo) multitrait-

multimethod (MTMM) framework. The work on aggressive behaviour described by Little (2013)

might be inspiring in this realm. Comparable to the aggressive behaviour literature, we could

distinguish the job crafting approach which typifies (or operationalizes) job crafting in terms of

the specific types of changes employees make (i.e. Tims et al., 2012) from an approach in which

also the functional purpose of making changes to the job is included (i.e. the current study; see

also Niessen et al., 2016). Using a MTMM might be helpful to disentangle and demonstrate the

different sources of variance in the OJCS items (Little, 2013).

Second, future research might explore the role of time in the context of job crafting. Within

the job crafting literature, research designs vary from daily diary studies to longitudinal studies

with time lags of 12 month (Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, & Hetland, 2012; Petrou et al.,

2015). In the current study, we used cross-sectional data as well as longitudinal data with time

lags of three and six months. However, to date, it is not clear which time perspective is most

appropriate in conducting research on job crafting. More specifically, job crafting might be both

relevant in relation to optimal functioning in the short run and in the long run (Daniels, 2011, in

Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012). Additionally, the role of time might also shed light on the dynamic

relationships between job crafting and outcomes. In our study, for example, job crafting only

cross-sectionally related to dedication and cynicism. Perhaps, job crafting might deal with

cynicism in the short run but not in the long run. Alternatively, our findings might hint at a

reversed relationship in which employees who experience feelings of cynicism are less likely to

engage in job crafting, whereas dedicated people are more likely to craft their job.


57

Third, future research might dig into the different underlying processes that seem to play a

role in the relation between job crafting and negative outcomes such as burnout, need for recovery

and turnover intentions in comparison with positive outcomes such as work engagement, work

enjoyment and autonomous motivation. Whereas the OJCS is positively related to positive

indicators of optimal functioning, we found no significant relationships with negative well-being

indicators. One explanation lies in the fact that job crafting is a positively framed construct that

arose in the realm of positive psychology (Bakker & Derks, 2010) and might especially operate in

positive well-being spirals. Employees might primarily craft their job in order to enhance positive

outcomes (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013), rather than to avoid negative outcomes. In line with

the literature, our results show that job crafting especially plays a role within the motivational

process of the JD-R model towards positive indicators of optimal functioning. Even though these

positively valued indicators might in turn negatively relate to negatively valued indicators

(Schaufeli & Taris, 2014), the direct relationship of job crafting with negative outcomes seems to

be more complex and might be subject to future research.

In addition, the level of optimal functioning and the use of different types of job crafting might

matter in the differential processes towards positive versus negative outcomes. Although job

crafting theory suggests that all types of job crafting, including reducing hindering demands,

should enhance well-being and performance outcomes, empirical evidence shows mixed results

(Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2013b). Within the motivational process, employees might experience a

higher level of optimal functioning in the first place. They might already possess a certain level of

job resources to invest in resource or challenge crafting (Berg et al., 2008) which might install an

accumulation of positive consequences. Furthermore, increasing job resources and job challenges

is motivational in nature (Petrou et al., 2012). In contrast, it might be more difficult for employees

already experiencing negative states of well-being or negative attitudes, such as feelings of

cynicism, to invest the limited level of resources they have to optimize their functioning by means

of job crafting (Hobfoll, 1989; Demerouti, Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015). Within the health-

impairment process, employees might experience a lack of resources, be more likely to avoid

further depletion and well-being deterioration and hence, to engage in protective strategies or

avoidance coping strategies, such as crafting hindrances (Petrou et al., 2015). However, these

protective strategies might rather relate to a progressive withdrawal process when ineffective

and thus even increase negative outcomes (Study 4; Krausz et al., 1998; Petrou et al., 2015; Tims

et al., 2013). It is argued that reducing hindrances might be an active coping strategy to prevent

oneself from experiencing negative outcomes when “enacted in constructive and skillful ways”

(Petrou et al., 2015, p.477). Notably, the OJCS is also positively related to hindrances crafting, as

measured by Tims et al. (2012). Building on our approach, future research might investigate the


58

role of a “deliberate” form of crafting by making the function or purpose of reducing hindering

demands more explicit (Petrou et al., 2012, p.1123).

7. Conclusion

We developed and validated a short scale to measure job crafting in an overarching way and

by taking its underlying pro-self-focused purpose into account. We demonstrated construct

validity (Study 1-3), predictive validity (Study 3) and incremental validity over and above specific

job crafting types (Study 4) in relation to positive indicators of optimal functioning. The OJCS

might be a good alternative when one is interested in investigating a general job crafting construct

and its surrounding mechanisms (Tims et al., 2016; Vogt et al., 2016).


59

8. References

Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., & Reno, R.R. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting

interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.






Ltd.



10.1177/0018726712453471

Belschak, F.D., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of

proactive behaviour: differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 83, 475-498. DOI: 10.1348/096317909X439208



Byrne, B.M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus. Basis concepts, application, and

programming. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.



10.1016/j.JIHM.2013.10.006

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Gevers, J.M.P. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: the role

of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87-96. DOI:





Field, A., (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPPS Statistics. London: Sage.

Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspecli, A.K., … &

Halvari, H. (2015). The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale: Validation evidence in

seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 24(2), 178-196

Gagné, M., & Panaccio, A. (2014). The motivational power of job design. In: M. Gagné (Ed.). The

Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039002


60

(pp.165-180). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199794911.

013.012






10.1080/19416520903047327

Griffin, M.A., Neal, A., & Parker, S.K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: positive

behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal,

50(2), 327-347.

Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A., & Roth, P.L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic

comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. The Academy of

Management Journal, 49(2), 305-325. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159765

Hinkin, T.R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organization. Journal

of management, 21(5), 967-988.



Krausz, M., Koslowsky, M., & Eier, A. (1998). Distal and proximal influences on turnover intentions

and satisfaction: support for a withdrawal progression theory. Journal of Vocational

behavior, 52, 59-71.






1169-1192.

Little, T.D. (2013). Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.

Lyons, P. (2008). The Crafting of Jobs and Individual Differences. Journal of Business Psychology,

23, 25-36. doi: 10.1007/s10869-008-9080-2

Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2015). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA:

Muthén & Muthén



and Organisations, 26(4), 365-384. DOI: 10.1080/02678373.2012.733543

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159765

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.733543


61



69(6), 1287-1313. DOI: 10.1177/0018726715610642

Notelaers, G. D., De Witte, H., Van Veldhoven, M. et al. (2007). Construction and validation on the

Short Inventory to Monitor Psychosocial Hazards. Arbeidsgezondheidszorg en

Ergonomie,44, 11-17.



Parker, S.K., & Collins, C.G. (2010). Taking Stock: Integrating and Differentiating Multiple Proactive

Behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633-662. doi: 10.1177/0149206308321554







Pomaki, G., DeLongis, A., Frey, D., Short, K., & Woehrle, T. (2010). When the going gets tough:

Direct, buffering and indirect effects of social support on turnover intention. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 26, 1340-1346. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.03.007

Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation.

In: J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.). Measures of personality and social

psychological attitudes (pp. 1-16). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with

a short questionnaire. Educational and psychological measurement, 66(4), 701-716. DOI:

10.1177/001316-4405282471

Schaufeli, W.B., & Taris, T.W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands-resources model:

implication for improving work and health. In: G.F. Bauer, & O. Hämmig (Eds.). Bridging

Occupational, Organizational and Public Health: A Transdisciplinary Approach (pp.43-68).

The Netherlands: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-5640-3_4

Schaufeli, W., & van Dierendonck, D. (2000). Utrechtse Burnout Schaal. Handleiding. Nederland,

Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.

Schreiber, J.B., Stage, F.K, King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E.A. (2006). Reporting structural equation

modelling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational

Research, 99(6), 323-337. DOI: 10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338


62




Soltis, S.M., Agneessnes, F., Sasovova, Z., & Labianca, G. J. (2013). A social network perspective on

turnover intentions : the role of distributive justice and social support. Human Resource

Management, 52(4), 561-584. DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21542





Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173-186. DOI:


Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D. (2013a). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources,

and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 230-240. DOI:

10.1037/a0032141

Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D. (2013b). De job demands-resources benadering van job crafting.

Gedrag en organisatie, 26, 16-31.

Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D., & van Rhenen, W. (2013). Job crafting at the team and individual

level: implications for work engagement and performance. Group & Organization

Management, 38(4), 427-454. DOI: 10.1177/1059601113492421



10.1080/1359432X.2014.969245



10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007







http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320903223839

Van Parys, L. (2016). On the street-level implementation of ambiguous activation policy. How

caseworkers reconcile responsibility and autonomy and affect their clients' motivation

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Leuven, KU Leuven.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v3i2.1


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320903223839


63

Van Veldhoven, M., Meijman, T.F., Broersen, J.P.J., & Fortuin, R.J. (2002). Handleiding VBBA.

Amsterdam: SKB Vragenlijst Services.



Van Wingerden, J., Derks, D., Bakker, A.B., & Dorenbosch, L. (2013). Job crafting in het speciaal

onderwijs: een kwalitatieve analyse. Gedrag & organisatie, 26, 85-103.



25(3), 353-362. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2015.1072170

Weijters, B., Baumgartner, H., & Anseel, F. (2016). Designing Better Questionnaires: A multi-

disciplinary review of recent findings. Manuscript in preparation.









64

65


JOB CRAFTING: AUTONOMY AND WORKLOAD AS INDEPENDENT VARIABLES AND

THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING UNTIL RETIREMENT AGE

AS DEPENDENT VARIABLE4,5.

4 Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Emily Degraeve, Evelien Rombaut, Koen Van der

dood and Laurens Van Tichelen for their contribution in collecting the data.

5 Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (accepted). Job Crafting: Autonomy and Workload

as Antecedents and the Willingness to Continue Working Until Retirement Age as a Positive

Outcome. Psychology of Human Resources Journal (Psihologia Resurselor Umane), 15(1), 25-41.

DOI: 10.24837/pru.2017.1.3

STUDY 2: JOB CRAFTING IN ACTIVE JOBS AND THE WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE WORKING

66


67

Job Crafting: Autonomy and Workload as Independent Variables and the Willingness to

Continue Working Until Retirement Age as Dependent Variable

Abstract

This study focuses on job crafting and models autonomy and workload as antecedents and

the willingness to continue working until retirement age as a positive outcome of job crafting in a

population of employees aged between 45 and 65 years6. We define job crafting as making

changes in one’s job in order to optimize one’s functioning in terms of well-being, work-related

attitudes or behaviour. Building on the selective optimization compensation theory, we expect job

crafting to be a successful aging strategy which positively relates to the willingness to continue

working. Furthermore, starting from the activation hypothesis of Karasek, we expect that

employees in active jobs (i.e., a combination of high autonomy and workload) will craft their jobs

to a higher extent. Results among 1168 governmental employees generally confirmed our

hypotheses. An active work environment, in terms of high autonomy and high workload

associated indirectly with an enhanced willingness to continue working via job crafting. Results

and steps forward are discussed.

Keywords: Job crafting; Active Jobs; Willingness to Continue Working Until Retirement Age

6 If we use terms such as ‘antecedent(s)’, ‘consequence(s)’, ‘outcome(s)’ or other words that might implicitly hint at causal relationships throughout this chapter, no inferences about causal relationships are intended. We use these terms from a theoretical perspective, having our hypothesized model in mind.


68

1. Introduction

In this study, we investigate job crafting among older employees in relation to both a positive

motivational outcome, i.e. willingness to continue working until retirement age, and the context

in which job crafting might take place, i.e. active jobs as antecedents. Instead of passively

undergoing changes at work, employees are increasingly expected to also be active agents who

craft their job (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012). They then make

changes in their job in order to optimize their functioning in terms of well-being, work-related

attitudes or behaviour (Vanbelle, Van den Broeck, & De Witte, 2013; 2016). First, starting from

the selective optimization and compensation theory (SOC-theory) which assumes that employees

do use adaptive strategies to help them balancing their work environment with age-related

changes in personal needs and goals (Baltes & Dickson, 2001), we expect job crafting to positively

associate with the employees’ willingness to continue working until retirement age. Second, using

the activation hypothesis of Karasek’s job demands control model (JDC-model; 1979), we analyse

whether an active work environment, characterized by autonomy and workload, will stimulate

job crafting as well as the willingness to continue working.

Taken together, we investigate whether older employees in active jobs are likely to craft their

job and - as a result - are more willing to continue working until retirement age (i.e., a motivational

outcome), which we also refer to as the willingness to continue working or to work longer (i.e.

until retirement age instead of taking early retirement options). In the following paragraphs, we

first introduce the topic of job crafting and then link it to the outcome variable, namely the

willingness to continue working. Next, we examine the role of active jobs in stimulating job

crafting and therefore also the willingness to continue working.

Job Crafting

Whereas job design theory traditionally focuses on the top down (re)design of jobs, research

increasingly adopts the complementary bottom up view in which employees are considered to be

proactive agents changing their jobs themselves. By means of job crafting, employees take an

active role in customizing their job in order to do good for themselves (Tims et al., 2012; Vanbelle

et al., 2013; 2016).

Currently, the literature on job crafting mainly draws on two views, which differ in their

definition and methodological approach but overlap concerning the purpose and assumed

consequences of job crafting. First, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) introduced the term “job

crafting” as ‘the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational

boundaries of their job’ (p.179). Employees craft their job in order to achieve meaning and identity

at work. More specifically, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) advance that employees make


69

changes in the task (e.g. introducing new approaches to improve work), relational (e.g. making

efforts to know people well at work) or cognitive boundaries (e.g. thinking about the job’s purpose

and meaningfulness) of their job. Second, starting from the job demands - resources model (JD-R

model; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), Tims et al. (2012) define job crafting as employees making

actual changes in the levels of job demands and job resources in order to fit the job with one’s

personal abilities and preferences. In line with recent developments of the JD-R model (Crawford,

Lepine & Rich, 2010; Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, De Witte, & Vansteenkiste, 2010), they

specifically argue that employees can increase their level of structural and social job resources

(e.g. trying to develop one’s capabilities, asking for coaching or advise), increase job challenges

(e.g. proactively participate in new projects) and decrease job hindrances (e.g. making the job

mentally less intense, avoid emotionally demanding aspects of the job).

Building on these two perspectives, we distinguish two crucial elements of job crafting: Job

crafting is about (1) employees making self-initiated changes to their job with (2) a self-serving

purpose. More specifically, we define job crafting as the changes employees make in their job in

order to optimize their functioning in terms of well-being, work-related attitudes or behaviour

(Vanbelle et al., 2013; 2016). Hence, building on the work of Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and

Tims et al. (2012), we present an overarching definition of job crafting. As a result, we approach

job crafting more broadly than Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) - who only account for task,

relational and cognitive crafting -, and less specific than Tims and colleagues (2012) - who

investigate changes in specific job demands and resources. Taking an overarching approach of job

crafting adds to the literature in at least three ways. First, it gives employees the freedom to give

personal meaning and content to which changes they make to thrive for optimal functioning. This

is relevant given that people know their needs, values and goals best and may act upon these

themselves by means of job crafting. Second, the overarching approach accounts for the multiple

pro-self-focussed reasons to craft assumed previously (e.g. meaning, work identity, person-job fit,

etc.) by referring to the overarching concept of functioning in terms of well-being, attitudes or

behaviour. Taking this pro-self-focussed purpose into account is an added value because it is one

of the crucial elements to define job crafting and to distinguish it from other proactive behaviours

such as personal initiative and i-deals (for a more thorough elaboration on the differences with

other proactive behaviours, see Tims & Bakker, 2010). Third, by means of an overarching

approach we are able to study the general concept of job crafting and its mechanisms. Moreover,

Vanbelle et al. (2016) demonstrated that the overarching approach of job crafting significantly

relates to all specific job crafting types described in the literature and explains incremental

variance in motivational outcomes. In this study, we expand the growing research on job crafting

by investigating whether job crafting contributes to older workers’ willingness to continue


70

working in the context of an active work environment, characterized by high workload and high

autonomy.

Job Crafting and the Willingness to Continue Working

Changing demographics imply that the workforce will increasingly consist of more elderly

and less younger workers. Furthermore, in the Belgian context, many older employees choose

early retirement options. Given these current changes on the labour market, it becomes

increasingly relevant to keep older employees motivated or willing to work longer (Truxillo,

Cadiz, Rineer, Zaniboni, & Fraccaroli, 2012). In response, research is expanding on aging at work

in general (Bal, Kooij, & Rousseau, 2015; Iweins, Desmette, & Yzerbyt, 2012; Schalk et al., 2010)

and on age-related differences in work motivation more specifically (Gaillard & Desmette, 2010;

Inceoglu, Segers, & Bartram, 2012; Stamov-Roβnagel & Hertel, 2010). Scholars have for example

studied early retirement intentions (Schreurs, Van Emmerik, De Cuyper, Notelaers, & De Witte,

2011), employees’ focus on work opportunities (Zacher & Frese, 2011), the ability and willingness

to continue working (Oude Hengel, Blatter, Geuskens, Koppes, & Bongers, 2012; Schalk &

Desmette, 2015). In this study, we include the willingness to continue working until retirement

age as a positive outcome of job crafting and draw on the selective optimization and compensation

theory to build hypotheses (SOC-theory; Baltes & Dickson, 2001).

The SOC-theory is a lifespan development theory which builds upon two assumptions that

enlighten the relevance of job crafting among older employees. The first assumption is that people

in different life stages experience different expectations, needs and personal goal orientations

which determine their motivation and behaviour (Truxillo et al., 2012). While aging, the reference

point of older employees changes: they increasingly prefer to perform in domains that

demonstrate their mastery and expertise (Stamov-Roβnagel & Hertel, 2010). It thus seems that

“older employees are not less motivated but – on average – motivated by different job features”

(Inceoglu et al., 2012, p. 324). Moulding the job environment by means of job crafting can

therefore be beneficial to restore the balance between the employees’ needs and their job

supplies.

The second assumption more explicitly concerns the active role of employees in dealing with

these age-related changes. More specifically, the SOC-theory advances that people may use several

adaptive strategies (Baltes & Dickson, 2001): People select which goals and outcomes they want

to pursue and then, by allocating their resources and efforts towards these selected domains, they

optimize their performance and goal achievement. When faced with losses, they furthermore

adopt compensation strategies to maintain a certain level of functioning in specific domains

(Baltes & Dickson, 2001; Truxillo et al., 2012). Employees thus engage in successful aging

strategies which involve “self-regulatory actions that help individuals to achieve a positive


71

balance between age-related personal changes and their (work) environment” (Robson &

Hansson, 2007, in Zacher & Frese, 2011, p. 292).

These successful aging strategies furthermore align with the idea of job crafting because by

means of making changes to one’s job, employees try to balance the work environment with their

personal needs and abilities to optimize their functioning (Tims et al., 2012; Vanbelle et al., 2013).

Robson, Hansson, Abalos, and Booth (2006) also implicitly hint at job crafting as they

operationalize successful aging strategies at work as the adjustments people make to their job in

function of what they want to do and still can do. Their results indicate that successful aging

strategies are positively related to self-perception of successful aging. Employees who engaged in

successful aging strategies indicated for example that they adjusted to age-related changes on the

job and that they retained control over their work-life.

In this study, we therefore expect a positive relationship between job crafting and the

willingness to work longer. By means of job crafting, employees are able to perform tasks that add

to their reference point and values and in turn, they will become more motivated (Stamov-

Roβnagel, & Hertel, 2010). Tasks which allow older employees to demonstrate mastery and

experience for example, will add to their motivation. People who craft their job, in order to

improve or restore their person- job fit, will thus not only increase their ability but also their

willingness to continue working (Kooij, Tims, & Kanfer, 2015). To date, however, this relationship

remains to be empirically tested. Therefore, in this study, we expect that employees who craft

their job will experience high levels of work motivation, reflected in a strong willingness to

continue working. In short, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1. Job crafting is positively associated with the willingness to continue working.

Active Jobs and Job Crafting

Several work stress models describe the impact of the work environment on employees’ well-

being. Especially relevant in this study is the JDC-model (Karasek, 1979) and more specifically, its

activation hypothesis which states that active jobs yield positive consequences for employees’

learning, motivation and engagement in new growth related behaviours. Active jobs are

characterized by both high job control (i.e. autonomy) and high job demands (i.e. workload). De

Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, and Bongers (2003) note that these joint effects can be

interpreted in two ways, namely as an additive effect (e.g. combination of the main effects) or as

a multiplicative effect (e.g. interaction). In what follows, we elaborate on autonomy and workload

as characteristics of active jobs and tap into their hypothesized relationship with proactive

behaviour and hence, job crafting.


72

Previous research on the activation hypothesis mainly focused on outcomes such as job

satisfaction, job commitment, self-efficacy, mastery and job challenge (Taris, Kompier, De Lange,

Schaufeli, & Schreurs, 2003). Recently, the activation hypothesis has been examined with respect

to behavioural outcomes such as proactivity (Ohly & Fritz, 2010; Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009) and

personal initiative and i-deals (Hornung, Rousseau, Glaser, Angerer, & Weigl, 2010). Especially

relevant for this study are the results of Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, and Hetland (2012)

who show that active jobs also positively associate with job crafting on a daily level: on days on

which employees experience high levels of autonomy and workload, they seek more resources

and reduce demands.

The link between autonomy and job crafting is theoretically supported. More specifically,

autonomy is advocated as one of the main antecedents of job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,

2001; Ghitulescu, 2006; Tims & Bakker, 2010). Autonomy involves a sense of freedom, control

and responsibility in the job which enhances the perceived opportunity to craft the job. Perceived

job control stimulates employees to proactively thrive for more control and to innovate their roles

according to their personal preferences (Ashforth & Saks, 2000). Ghitulescu (2006) comment that

‘discretion over work enables an individual to adapt work elements to his or her skills and

preferences’ (p. 67). Therefore, we expect the following:

Hypothesis 2a. Autonomy is positively related to job crafting.

A positive relationship between workload and proactive behaviour may also be expected.

Workload can trigger employees to proactively deal with their environment and to ensure goal

achievement (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009; Van den Broeck et al., 2010). Job demands might lead to

activation, which in turn positively relates to favourable outcomes such as proactive behaviour

(Ohly & Fritz, 2010). Hence, we hypothesize that employees will initiate changes in their job to

optimize their functioning when they experience a high amount of workload.

Hypothesis 2b. Workload is positively related to job crafting.

Besides accounting for the main effects of autonomy and workload (i.e. additive effect), we

also expect them to interact (i.e. multiplicative effect) in the prediction of job crafting (De Lange

et al., 2003). More specifically, we hypothesize that the presence of a high amount of autonomy

will boost the positive relationship between workload and job crafting. Specifically, starting from

the activation hypothesis (Karasek, 1979), we argue that particularly in active jobs, i.e. contexts

in which employees face many demands but also have high levels of autonomy, they both have a

reason and the possibility to actively deal with the environment and thrive. Moreover, autonomy

might be necessary to translate feelings of activation, elicited by job demands, into behaviour

(Ohly and Fritz, 2010). In sum, analogous to De Lange et al. (2003), we thus consider both additive


73

and multiplicative effects of autonomy and workload to support the activation hypothesis. We

formulate the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2c. Autonomy and workload interact in the prediction of job crafting such that

autonomy boosts the positive relation between workload and job crafting.

Indirect Relationships from Active Jobs to the Willingness to Continue Working via

Job Crafting

Previous studies support the importance of the work environment in enhancing older

employees’ motivation to work longer (e.g., Desmette & Gaillard, 2008; Schreurs et al., 2011; Oude

Hengel et al., 2012; van Dam, van der Vorst, & van der Heijden, 2009). We add to this line of work

as we suggest that not only the environment, but also the active role of the employees themselves

through job crafting has an impact. Specifically, we argue that autonomy and workload will jointly

activate employees to craft their job towards a stronger willingness to work longer.

First, we expect that autonomy will add to employees’ willingness to continue working as it

enables them to craft their job according to their needs and expectations. Building on the SOC-

theory, we expect employees to optimally use the resources available to them. Moreover, we

advance that employees will allocate their resources, such as autonomy, to those aspects of work

that give energy, and craft their job to function optimally and hence, experience an increased

willingness to continue working. Given that autonomy, and thus job control, becomes even more

important with age (Inceoglu et al., 2012), the availability of autonomy and hence, the opportunity

to craft the job, adds to the expectation of an increased willingness to continue working (Desmette

& Gaillard, 2008). Furthermore, Schreurs, van den Broeck, Notelaers, van der Heijden and De

Witte (2012, p. 20) argue that with age, employees themselves not only increasingly seek and

enhance their motivation to work but that available resources can feed this process. Autonomy

thus enables employees to craft their job to better fit their changing needs (Truxillo & colleagues,

2012). Making changes to their job will in turn optimize their functioning and motivation to work

longer. In sum, we expect that autonomy will create the opportunity to make changes in one’s job

according to personal needs and abilities, which will contribute to employees’ willingness to

continue working.

Hypothesis 3a. Autonomy will indirectly associate with the willingness to continue working

through job crafting: autonomy will positively associate with job crafting which will in turn

positively associate with the willingness to continue working.

Second, employees’ job crafting might be a means to adapt or manage the amount of job

demands (i.e. workload) to restore the balance with personal needs and capacities, which will


74

enhance employees’ optimal functioning. Given that a mismatch between work conditions and

individual needs and capacities might enhance employees’ intentions to retire early (van Dam et

al., 2009), job crafting might function as an individual adaptive strategy to resist or counter early

retirement intentions and to positively impact their willingness to continue working. By means of

job crafting, employees can thus adapt the amount of workload to a manageable and challenging

level, which fits their personal needs, and hence contribute to their willingness to work longer.

Hypothesis 3b. Workload will indirectly associate with the willingness to continue working

through job crafting: workload will positively associate with job crafting, which in turn will

positively associate with the willingness to continue working.

Taken together, we expect that employees working in active jobs will be more willing to

continue working because they take the opportunity to craft their job. Investigating both the

additive and multiplicative effect of autonomy and workload (De Lange et al., 2003), we also

examine the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3c. Autonomy and workload will interactively associate with the willingness to

continue working through job crafting; workload will stimulate employees to craft their job,

especially when autonomy is high, which will in turn positively associate with the willingness to

continue working.

2. Method

Sample and Procedure

This study was part of a larger study on attracting and retaining older employees in the

Flemish government in Spring 2013. Following January 2013, the Belgian legislation obliges

organizations to develop an employment policy to retain and create jobs for older employees, i.e.

employees aging between 45 and 65. In line with the demographical trends in Europe (Ybema &

Giesen, March 2016), the Flemish government also has to deal with both an aging workforce and

a declining proportion of younger workers entering their workforce (Vanmullem & Hondeghem,

2005). In 2014, 48% of the workforce belonged to the 45-plus group (Cijfers demografische

gegevens, n.d.). In implementing their age-related personnel policy, the Flemish government

wanted to examine the acquaintance and use of several initiatives they launched to increase the

motivation and willingness to work longer among employees aging between 45 to 65 years. For

the current study, we focused on the role of autonomy, workload and job crafting in this realm.

We invited 6177 governmental employees by internal mailing to participate in an electronic

questionnaire. The organization sent the invitation to fill out the survey to 6177 older employees,

stressing that participation was voluntary and the answers would be kept confidential. Of the


75

1884 employees starting our questionnaire, 1168 provided complete responses and were

retained for the study (response rate of 19%). This response rate remains within the expected

range for the internal mailing distribution method described by Baruch and Holtom (2008).

The mean age in the sample was 53 years (SD=4.9): 56% of the participants aged between 45

and 54 years, 32% ranged between 55 and 59 years and 11% were 60 years or older. Fifty seven

per cent of the respondents were men. In terms of job position, 34% of the respondents worked

in a job with a master degree required (job position A), 18% in a job that requires a bachelor

degree (job position B), 35% in a job that demands a high school degree (job position C) and 13%

in a job for which no degree is needed (job position D). Finally, 80% worked on a full-time basis

and the sample included 25% supervisors.

Measures

Job crafting. Job crafting was measured with the overarching job crafting scale (OJCS) of

Vanbelle et al. (2013; Vanbelle et al., 2016), consisting of four items. More specifically we asked

the participants the following: Some people make changes in their job, others do not. To what extent

do you shape your job? Please register to what extent you agree with the following statements.

Example items are: ‘I make changes in my job to feel better’, ‘I change my job so it would better fit

with who I am’. The items were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree)

to 5 (totally agree). Vanbelle et al. (2016) demonstrated construct validity, convergent and

discriminant validity in relation to specific job crafting scales, and predictive validity of the OJCS.

Autonomy. We used the subscale “autonomy” of the Short Inventory to Monitor Psychosocial

Hazards (SIMPH; Notelaers, De Witte, Van Veldhoven et al., 2007). The scale consisted of three

items that were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally

agree). A sample item is ‘I can interrupt my work when necessary’.

Workload. Three items to measure workload were taken from the SIMPH (Notelaers et al.,

2007). An example is ‘I have to work fast in my job’. The items were rated on a five-point Likert

scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).

Willingness to continue working. Based on Oude Hengel et al (2012), this outcome variable

was measured using a single item: ‘I am willing to work until the maximum retirement age’. It was

rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) tot 5 (totally agree). Despite

some drawbacks, the use of one-scale can be equally good as the use of multiple items (Gardner,

Cummings, Dunham, & Pierce, 1998; Loo, 2001).

Control variables. We controlled for age, and job position (job position A = reference group)

in testing the hypotheses. Previous research showed that both age and job position might have an

impact on the willingness to continue working (Schalk & Desmette, 2015; Schreurs et al., 2011;

Schreurs et al., 2012). Employees working in different job positions may experience different


76

types of demands (e.g. mentally versus physically demanding jobs) which may influence the

intention to retire early and the willingness to continue working (Schalk & Desmette, 2015).

Furthermore, both job position and age might relate to the amount of autonomy one has in the job

which in turn may impact both the ability to engage in job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001)

and the willingness to continue working (Schreurs et al., 2012).

3. Results

Preliminary Results

Table 1 represents the means, standard deviations, intercorrelations and Cronbach alphas of

all variables. Autonomy correlated positively with both job crafting and the willingness to

continue working. Workload was unrelated to job crafting and correlated negatively with the

willingness to continue working. As expected, job crafting correlated positively with the

willingness to continue working.

Test of the Hypotheses

To test Hypothesis 1, in which we expected a positive relationship between job crafting and

the willingness to continue working, we first conducted linear regression analyses (SPSS 23). As

expected, the results revealed a positive relationship between job crafting and the willingness to

continue working (B=.29, p<.001, 95%CI[.17;.41]). Hypothesis 1 was supported. Following the

recommendations of Becker (2005), we only reported the results without control variables given

that hierarchical regression analysis in which we entered age and job position as control variables

in the first step, led to the same conclusion concerning Hypothesis 1.

Furthermore, we employed the PROCESS macro of Hayes (2012, 2013) to test our

hypothesized model (Figure 1) using bootstrapping (5000) (model 7; Hayes, 2012). Given that our

full hypothesized model concerns a moderated mediation model or conditional indirect effect

model, we specified ‘model 7’ to conduct the analysis. The interaction term was the product of the

centered scores of autonomy and workload. The first part of the model 7 output allows us to test

Hypotheses 2a, 2b and 2c7. To investigate whether active jobs, characterized by autonomy and

workload, stimulate job crafting (Hypothesis 2a, b & c), we looked at the results of the a-paths.

These paths represent the direct effects of the independent variables and the interaction term on

job crafting, after controlling for age, job position and for each other. We found significant results

for the main effects of autonomy (b=.47, SE= .02, 95%CI[.42;.52]) and workload (b=.07, SE=.02,

7 Note that the first part of the model 7 output reveals the same results as whether you would specify a model 4

in which you enter the product of the centered scores of autonomy and workload. However, we opted to start

with specifying a model 7 to test our moderated mediation model in more straightforward way.


77

95%CI[.03;.12]) on job crafting. As expected, high levels of autonomy and workload contributed

to job crafting. The interaction term did not relate to job crafting over and above the main effects

of workload and autonomy and the demographics (b=-.03, SE=.02, 95%CI[-.07;.02]). Hypothesis 2

was therefore only partially confirmed.

Figure 1. Hypothesized research model, based on the PROCESS model explained by

Preacher & Hayes (2008) and further suggestions by Hayes (2012).

Hypothesis 3 stated that an active work environment indirectly associated with the

willingness to continue working via job crafting. Given that the interaction of autonomy and

workload in relation to job crafting was not significant, we turned to model 4 analyses to test for

the indirect effects (ab paths; Hypothesis 3). We used a bootstrapping sampling method (5000)

and calculated bias-corrected confidence intervals (Hayes, 2012, 2013). We included autonomy

and workload as the independent variable in two separate analyses (i.e. autonomy/workload),

while controlling for the other independent variable (i.e. workload/autonomy) and the

demographics age and job position. The results are displayed in Table 2.

b-path (H1)

a-path (H2)

IV1

(age, job position,

autonomy, workload &

autonomy*workload)

Job crafting

Willingness to

continue

working c’-path (remaining direct

effect)


78

Table 1

Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations and reliabilities (Cronbach’s alphas in parentheses) (N=1168).

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Age 53.43 4.86 -

2. Job position Ba .18 - -.06* -

3. Job position Ca .35 - .04 -.35** -

4. Job position Da .13 - .03 -.18** -.28** -

5. Autonomy 3.57 .72 .07* -.06* .05 -.07* (.68)

6. Workload 3.07 .83 -.11** .01 -.04 -.19** -.20** (.76)

7. Job Crafting 3.27 .68 .01 .04 -.09** -.05 .48** .001 (.81)

8. Willingness to

continue working 2.92 1.42 .10** -.01 -.02 -.08** .16** -.06* .15** -

*p<.05; **p<.01; aReference group = Job position A (employees who worked in a job for which a master degree is required).


79

Table 2

Results of the analyses for indirect effects1 using the SPSS PROCESS macro of Hayes (2013).

Results of the indirect effects with control variables (Nwith controls = 1168)

Coefficient SE 95%CI

Direct effect2 of job crafting (M) on the DV (b-path)

Job crafting .21 .07 [.07;.34]

Effect of independent variables (IV’s) to M (a-paths)

Autonomy .47 .02 [.42;.52]

Workload .08 .02 [.03;.12]

Partial effects of age and gender on DV

Age .03 .01 [.01; .04]

Job position B3 -.17 .12 [-.40; .06]

Job position C3 -.22 .10 [-.41; -.02]

Job position D3 -.48 .14 [-.75; -.21]

Effect Boot SE Bootstrap 95% CI

Indirect effects of IV1 of DV through M1 (ab-path) (Hypothesis 3a)

Autonomy

Remaining direct effect (c’-path)

.09

.16

.03

.07

[.04;.17]

[.03; .29]

Indirect effects of IV2 of DV through M1 (ab-path) (Hypothesis 3b)

Workload

Remaining direct effect (c’-path)

.02

-.10

.007

.05

[.005; .03]

[-.21; -.001]

Model R2 .05*

Note. IV=Independent Variable; DV=Dependent Variable=willingness to continue working;

M=Mediator. 1We ran two times this PROCESS macro (model 4) as we included two

independent variables in our model, the interaction term of autonomy and workload was not

significant in previous analyses and therefore excluded from this model. Each time we

included one IV as IV and the other IV as covariate (as suggested by Hayes, 2012). 2Although

we used the term ‘effect’, no inferences about causal relationships are intended. 3Reference

group = Job position A (employees who worked in a job for which a master degree is

required). *p<.001.


80

The results confirmed an indirect effect of autonomy on the willingness to continue working

through job crafting (b=.09, bootSE=.03, 95%CI[.04;.17]), thereby supporting Hypothesis 3a. After

controlling for this indirect effect, autonomy still related directly and positively to the willingness

to work longer (c’ path; b=.16, SE=.07; 95%CI[.03;.29]). Furthermore, results show a significant

indirect effect of workload on the willingness to continue working through job crafting (b=.02,

bootSE=.007, 95%CI[.005;.03]), providing evidence for Hypothesis 3b. After controlling for this

indirect effect, a negative direct effect remained (c’ path; b=-.10, SE=.05; 95%CI[-.21;-.001]).

However, although this remaining direct path is significant, the upper limit of the 95% confidence

interval is very close to zero8. Given that the interaction of autonomy and workload in relation to

job crafting was not significant, there was no moderated mediation and we could not confirm

Hypothesis 3c. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was only partially supported. The final model is displayed

in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Final model

In the previous analyses to test our hypotheses, we included age as a control variable.

However, given that the willingness to continue working might be different at different ages

(Schalk & Desmette, 2015), we ran an additional PROCESS analysis to exclude that age acting as a

moderator of the relationship between job crafting and the willingness to continue working

(model 1; Hayes, 2012; 2013). The interaction term was the product of the centered scores of job

crafting and age. Results indicated that age did not moderate this relationship (b=-.004, SE=.01,

95%CI [-.03; .02]), which suggests that job crafting had the same positive relationship with the

willingness to continue working until retirement age for employees between 45 and 65 years. Age

however positively related to the willingness to continue working after controlling for job crafting

(b=.03, SE=.01, 95%CI[.01; .04]).

8 We conducted the analyses both with and without control variables. Given that the analyses yielded similar results, we opted to display only the results of the analyses with control variables. Note that the remaining direct effect of workload on the willingness to continue working was not significant in the model without controlling for age and job position.


81

4. Discussion

In this study, we investigated job crafting in relation to both a positive outcome (i.e.

willingness to continue working) and antecedents (i.e. active jobs). Building on the dominant

approaches on job crafting, we define this phenomenon as making changes to one’s job in order

to optimize one’s functioning. We more specifically displayed job crafting as a valuable individual

strategy to optimize one’s functioning in terms of the willingness to continue working in the

context of active jobs, characterized by a high amount of autonomy and workload.

Enhancing older employees’ motivation or willingness to continue working becomes

increasingly relevant given the expected demographical changes and the current tendency to take

early retirement (OECD, 2011). Recent Belgian legislation moreover obliges employers to plan

actions to motivate older employees (i.e. from 45 years on) to continue working instead of retiring

early. As expected, our results show that employees who craft their job, display a higher

willingness to continue working. By means of job crafting employees adapt their job to meet their

expectations and preferences which might in turn enhance positive outcomes, such as an

increased willingness to continue working. Drawing on a SOC-theory perspective, job crafting

seems to be a successful aging strategy as by means of job crafting, employees balance their work

environment with their age-related personal capabilities, needs and goals which positively relates

to their motivation to continue working (Zacher & Frese, 2011; Kooij et al., 2015). Although

longitudinal research is necessary to further explore the causality of these relations, our study

provides a first empirical contribution on the relationship between job crafting and the

willingness of older employees to continue working.

Next, we modelled autonomy and workload as antecedents of job crafting starting from an

activation hypothesis perspective (Karasek, 1979). The activation hypothesis was highly relevant

in this view as it assumes a positive relationship from active jobs to learning, motivation and new

growth related behaviour (De Lange et al., 2003; Petrou et al., 2012). Given that previous studies

of the activation hypothesis mainly focused on learning and attitudinal outcomes (Taris et al.,

2003), we added to the JDC-literature by showing that employees in active jobs are more likely to

craft their job, which is a behavioural outcome.

Furthermore, the more employees perceived autonomy and workload, the more they

reported to make changes in their jobs and the more they were willing to continue working.

Results confirmed that employees who perceived high levels of autonomy in their job, engaged

more in job crafting and were indirectly more willing to continue working. Interestingly,

autonomy also directly enhanced the willingness to continue working after taking job crafting into

account. On the one hand, this points at the direct importance of job design, i.e. autonomy, in

relation to older employees’ work motivation (Desmette & Gaillard, 2008). On the other hand, this

remaining direct effect of autonomy suggests that also other indirect or mediating processes come


82

into play. Autonomy might, for example, enable older employees to demonstrate their mastery

and expertise which might in turn add to their work motivation (Scheurs et al., 2012; Stamov-

Roβnagel & Hertel, 2010; Taris & Kompier, 2005) and more specifically, to their willingness to

continue working. Besides autonomy, also workload indirectly added to the willingness to

continue working, through job crafting. It thus seems that workload activates employees to be

proactive and to look for ways to deal with the work environment, which in turn relates to positive

outcomes such as an increased willingness to continue working (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009). After

controlling for age, job position, autonomy, and job crafting, workload showed a remaining

negatively direct effect on the willingness to continue working.

Notably, our results point at differential mechanisms from job resources and job demands to

motivational outcomes, via job crafting. Whereas autonomy shows positive direct and indirect

relationships, workload negatively relates to the willingness to continue working in a direct way

and positively in an indirect way through job crafting. Although job demands such as workload

might thus trigger employees to craft their job to deal with the potential costs or challenges

associated with the demands to some extent, our results seem to suggest that there might remain

a negative relationship between job demands and motivational outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti,

2007). Employees might perceive job demands rather as ‘givens’, and therefore as job

characteristics that are harder to change and that have a negative impact on one’s functioning

(Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013). Our results further support the beneficial and strong effects of

autonomy in stimulating job crafting and positive outcomes (i.e. willingness to continue working),

and support a weak but significant relation from job demands. These findings align with previous

findings of Gordon, Demerouti, Le Blanc, and Bipp (2015) who found that job demands positively

related to seeking resources, whereas autonomy related to all types of job crafting. Job crafting

thus especially seems to be an enhancement strategy stimulated through job resources such as

autonomy, but might also function as a proactive coping strategy triggered by job demands

(Ouwehand, De Ridder, & Bensing, 2007; Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015). Extant literature

on these differential mechanisms from job demands and job resources to job crafting is scarce and

might be a valuable direction for future research.

Our results supported the main effects of autonomy and workload in the prediction of job

crafting, but not their interaction effect. Although some studies showed a significant interaction

in investigating the activation hypothesis in relation to job crafting (Petrou et al., 2012), our

findings are in line with the majority of studies in the realm of the JDC-model providing evidence

for the main and additive effects of autonomy and workload only (de Lange et al., 2003). In this

study, the combination of autonomy and workload – but not their interaction – thus positively

related to older employees’ willingness to continue working indirectly through job crafting.


83

Strengths, Limitations and Directions for Future Research

A first remark concerns the scales used in the study, and more specifically the scales of

autonomy and job crafting. The reliability of the autonomy measure was just below the threshold

of .70 in the current study. Future research might include a more reliable measurement of

autonomy or strive to increase the reliability of this scale. In addition, we want to comment on

both the strength and possible limitation of the scale used to measure job crafting (Vanbelle et al.,

2016). Given that people know best their needs, values and goals and may act upon these

themselves by means of job crafting, we opted for an overarching operationalization of job

crafting: the OJCS. This scale investigates whether employees make changes in their job in order

to feel better, to perform better or to enhance their person-job fit –whatever the specific changes

may be. The strength of this operationalization is that it gives employees the freedom to give

personal meaning and content to the items, and more specifically to which changes they make to

thrive for optimal functioning. A possible limitation, however, might be that the OJCS is a general

job crafting scale that does not specify concrete changes. Although the OJCS thus might be a good

alternative when one is interested in the general construct of job crafting, future research might

use more specific operationalisations of job crafting (e.g. Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012; Tims et al.,

2012; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013) to investigate whether the relationships hold for different

job crafting types. Recent developments in the job crafting literature for instance suggest that

whereas crafting job resources yield positive outcomes, crafting job hindrances might be rather

detrimental for employees’ functioning instead of beneficial (Demerouti, 2014).

Second, although longitudinal research designs are necessary to make inferences about

causal relationships between the study variables, we contribute to the job crafting literature as

we investigated job crafting in relation to both an active work environment and a specific positive

outcome, namely the willingness to continue working. In this study, we started from traditional

job design and the activation hypothesis of Karasek (1979) to hypothesize that autonomy and

workload are associated with older employees’ job crafting, which in turn is related to a higher

willingness to continue working. Alternatively however, one could also hypothesize reversed

causation in which employees who are willing to continue working may engage more in job

crafting and as a result, experience more autonomy and workload.

Third, given our interest in the employees’ perception of their amount of autonomy and

workload in their job, of their job crafting behaviour and their willingness to continue working,

all measurements were based on self-reports. Although common method bias might still

artificially have inflated or deflated the strength of the observed relationships, we applied some

remedies to counter this bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). We did distant the

variables of interest in our questionnaire. The participants were first asked to indicate their

degree of willingness to continue working. Then, they had to evaluate some organization specific


84

initiatives for older employees that were not included in this study, after which all other items

were presented. Furthermore, the items of work characteristics and job crafting were mixed.

A fourth remark concerns the generalizability of our findings. Future research might aim to

replicate this study with a more heterogeneous sample such as non-public sector employees and

employees of a wider age span. Future research might tap into the role of differences in work

experience between public and private sector employees, as suggested in the extant literature. In

the Netherlands, private sector employees are found to face more physical demands, longer work

hours and a higher job insecurity (Smulders & Houtman, 2012). Similarly, in Belgium, public

sector employees seem to experience slightly more autonomy in their work, less job demands and

higher job security in comparison with non-public sector employees. They also showed higher

levels of work enjoyment and organizational commitment, and they showed less intention to quit

their job (De Witte, Vets, & Notelaers, 2010). Furthermore, Buelens and Van den Broeck (2007)

demonstrated different motivational patterns between public and private sector employees. It is

plausible that differences in job characteristics and work motivation did influence our study

results. To exclude the confounding role of third variables, future research might examine

whether and to what extent differences between public and non-public employees influence our

findings.

Future studies might also include younger employees. At first sight, working until retirement

age may seem especially relevant for older employees as they are the ones who need to be

motivated to work longer than initially expected. However, the willingness to continue working,

as an indicator of work motivation, might also prove relevant for younger employees. An age-

related HRM policy should target younger employees (i.e. proactive dimension), employees

between 40 and 55 years old (i.e. protective dimension) as well as employees of 55 years and older

(i.e. corrective dimension; Vanmullem & Hondeghem, 2006). Our extra analyses, showing that age

did not moderate the relationship between job crafting and the willingness to continue working

until retirement age, support the idea that stimulating job crafting might be beneficial for all

employees between 45 and 65 years (Schreurs et al., 2012). Nevertheless, investigating the

current research model more thoroughly at different ages would be an added value.

Fifth, in the current study, we used the core dimensions of the job demands control model of

Karasek (1979), i.e., autonomy and workload as a starting point to investigate the role of work

characteristics in relation to job crafting. In future research, however, it seems valuable to

integrate other work characteristics of this model such as social support and skill variety

(Zaniboni, Truxillo, & Fraccaroli, 2013; Kooij, Jansen, Dikkers, & De Lange, 2010), or draw on other

– also broader – work stress models such as the JD-R model of Bakker and Demerouti (2007;

Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014).


85

5. Conclusion

To conclude, this study contributed to the literature in at least three ways. First, we add to

the job crafting literature by modelling autonomy and workload as antecedents of job crafting and

the willingness to continue working as a positive outcome in the context of older employees.

Second, this study adds to the age-related literature by stating that both an active work

environment and an active role of employees by means of job crafting relate to the willingness to

continue working. More specifically, job crafting can be seen as a successful aging strategy that

helps employees to adapt their work environment according to their personal preferences, needs

and goals. Furthermore, in addition to the indirect effect of autonomy and workload via job

crafting, autonomy also has a remaining direct positive effect on the willingness to continue

working. Third, our findings are valuable for practice, e.g. personnel management. Creating an

active work environment, with especially a sufficient amount of autonomy, seems to be a valuable

way to stimulate older employees to customize their job according to their own needs as well as

to increase their willingness to continue working until retirement age.


86

6. References

Ashforth, B.E., & Saks, A.M. (2000). Personal Control in Organizations: A Longitudinal

Investigation with Newcomers. Human Relations, 53(3), 311-339. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726700533002

Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art. Journal

of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115




Bal, P.M., Kooij, D.T.A.M., & Rousseau, D.M. (2015) Aging Workers and the Employee-Employer

Relationship (pp. 187- 201). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08007-9




Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B.C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational

research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139-1160. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726708094863

Becker (2005). Potential problem in the statistical control of variables in organizational research:

a qualitative analysis with recommendation. Organizational Research Methods, 8(3), 274-

289. DOI: 10.1177/1094428105278021

Buelens, M., & Van den Broeck, H. (2007). An Analysis of Differences in Work Motivation between

Public and Private Sector Organizations. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 65-74.

Cijfers demografische gegevens: leeftijd. (n.d.). Retrieved September 26, 2016, from

https://overheid.vlaanderen.be/bedrijfsinformatie/cijfers-demografische-gegevens-

leeftijd

Crawford, E.R., LePine, J.A., & Rich, B.L. (2010). Linking Job Demands and Resources to Employee

Engagement and Burnout: A Theoretical Extension and Meta-Analytic Test. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834-848. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019364

De Lange, A.H., Taris, T.W., Kompier, M.A.J., Houtman, I.L.D., & Bongers, P.M. (2003). “The Very Best

of the Millennium”: Longitudinal Research and the Demand-Control-(Support) Model.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 282-305. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.282



http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726708094863

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.282


87

Desmette, D., & Gaillard, M. (2008). When a “worker” becomes an “older worker”: The effects of

age related social identity on attitudes towards retirement and work. Career Development

International, 13(2), 168-185. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620430810860521

De Witte, H., Vets, C., & Notelaers, G. (2010). Werken in Vlaanderen: Vermoeiend of plezierig?

Resultaten van 10 jaar onderzoek naar de beleving en beoordeling van arbeid. Leuven/Den

Haag: Acco.

Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of Day-Level Proactive Behavior: A Look at Job

Stressors and Positive Affect During the Workday? Journal of Management, 35(1), 94-111.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308911

Gaillard, M., & Desmette, D. (2010). (In)validating Stereotypes About Older Workers Influences

Their Intentions To Retire Early and to Learn and Develop. Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, 32(1), 86-98. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1010/01973530903435763

Gardner, D.G., Cummings, L.L., Dunham, R.B., & Pierce, J.L. (1998). Single-item versus multiple-

item measurement scales: an empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 58(6), 898-915.



DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000138

Ghitulescu, B.E. (2006). Shaping tasks and relationships at work: Examining the antecedents and

consequences of employee job crafting. University of Pittsburgh.

Hayes, A.F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,

moderation, and conditional process modelling. [white paper]. Retrieved from

http://www.afhayes.com/

Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A

regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

http://www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

Hornung, S., Rousseau, D.M., Glaser, J., Angerer, P., & Weigl, M. (2010). Beyond top-down and

bottom-up work redesign: Customizing job content through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 31, 187-215. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.625

Inceoglu, I., Segers, J., & Bartram, D. (2012). Age-related differences in work motivation. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 300-329. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02035.x

Iweins, C., Desmette, D., & Yzerbyt, V. (2012). Ageism at work: What happens to older workers

who benefit from preferential treatment? Psychologica Belgica, 52(4), 327-349. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pb-52-4-327

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620430810860521

http://www.guilford.com/p/hayes3


88



Kooij, D.T.A.M., Jansen, P.G.W., Dikkers, J.S.E., & de Lange, A.H. (2010). The influence of age on the

associations between HR practices and both affective commitment and job satisfaction: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 1111-1136. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.666

Kooij, D.T.A.M., Tims, M., & Kanfer, R. (2015). Successful aging at work: the role of job crafting. P.M.

Bal, D.T.A.M. Kooij, & D.M. Rousseau (eds.). Aging Workers and the Employee-Employer

Relationship (pp. 145-161). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08007-9_9

Loo, R. (2001). A caveat on using single-item versus multiple-item scales. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 17(1), 68-75. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940210415933



and Organisations, 26(4), 365-384. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.733543

Notelaers, G. D., De Witte, H., Van Veldhoven, M. et al. (2007). Construction and validation on the

Short Inventory to Monitor Psychosocial Hazards. Arbeidsgezondheidszorg en

Ergonomie,44, 11-17.

OECD. (2011). Pensions at a Glance 2011. Retirement-income systems in OECD and G20 countries.

Available at: www.oecd.org/els/social/pensions/PAG.

Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity and proactive

behavior: A multi-level study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 543-565. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.633

Oude Hengel, K.M., Blatter, B.M., Geuskens, G.A., Koppes, L.L.J., & Bongers, P.M. (2012). Factors

associated with the ability and willingness to continue working until the age of 65 in

construction workers. International archives of occupational and environmental health,

85(7), 783-790. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00420-011-0719-3

Ouwehand, C., de Ridder, D.T.D., & Bensing, J.M. (2007). A review of successful aging models:

Proposing proactive coping as an important additional strategy. Clinical Psychology

Review, 27, 873-884. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2006.11.003



Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1120-1141. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1786

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.733543

http://www.oecd.org/els/social/pensions/PAG


89




Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and

comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3),

879-891.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2012). Sources of Method Bias in Social Science

Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. Annual Review of Psychology, 63,

539-569. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Robson, S.M., Hansson, R.O., Abalos, A., & Booth, M. (2006). Successful Aging. Criteria for Aging

Well in the Workplace. Journal of Career Development, 33(2), 156-177. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894845306292533

Schalk, R., & Desmette, D. (2015). In: P.M. Bal, D.T.A.M. Kooij, & D.M. Rousseau (eds.). Aging

Workers and the Employee-Employer Relationship (pp. 187-201). Switzerland: Springer

International Publishing. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08007-9_11

Schalk, R., van Veldhoven, M., de Lange, A.H., De Witte, H., Kraus, K., Stamov-Roβnagel, C., Tordera,

N., van der Heijden, B., Zappalà, S., Bal, M., Bertrand, F., Claes, R., Crego, A., Dorenbosch, L.,

de Jonge, J., Desmette, D., Gellert, F.J., Hansez, I., Iller, C., Kooij, D., Kruipers, B., Linkola, P.,

van den Broeck, A., van der Schoot, E., & Zachter, H. (2010). Moving European research on

work and ageing forward: Overview and agenda. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 76-101. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320802674629

Schreurs, B., Van Emmerik, H., De Cuyper, N., Notelaers, G., & De Witte, H. (2011). Job demands-

resources and early retirement intention: Differences between blue- and white-collar

workers. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 32(1), 47-68. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0143831X10365931

Schreurs, B., Van den Broeck, A., Notelaers, G., van der Heijden, B., & De Witte, H. (2012). De relatie

tussen werkeisen, energiebronnen, spanning en werkplezier: een kwestie van leeftijd?

Gedrag & Organisatie, 25(1), 5-27.




Smulders, P., & Houtman, I. (2012). Arbeid in publieke en private sectoren vergeleken. Tijdschrift

voor Arbeidsvraagstukken, 28(3), 268-287.


90

Stamov-Roβnagel, C., & Hertel, G. (2010). Older workers’ motivation: against the myth of general

decline. Management decision, 48(6), 894-906. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741011053451

Taris, T.W., & Kompier, M.A.J. (2005). Job characteristics and learning behavior: Review and

psychological mechanisms. Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being, 4, 127-166.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/1016/S1479-3555(04)04004-1

Taris, T.W., Kompier, M.A.J., de Lange, A.H., Schaufeli, W.B., & Schreurs, P.J.G. (2003). Learning new

behaviour patterns: a longitudinal test of Karasek’s active learning hypothesis among

Dutch teachers. Work & Stress, 17(1), 1-20. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267837031000108149





Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173-186. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009

Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources,


10.1037/a0032141

Truxillo, D.M., Cadiz, D.M., Rineer, J.R., Zaniboni, S., & Fraccaroli, F. (2012). A lifespan perspective

on job design: Fitting the job and the worker to promote job satisfaction, engagement, and

performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(4), 340-360. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2041386612454043




Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016). Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting

Scale (OJCS). Manuscript in review.

van Dam, K., van der Vorst, J.D.M., & van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. (2009). Employees’ Intentions to

Retire Early. A Case of Planned Behavior and Anticipated Work Conditions. Journal of

Career Development, 35(3), 265-289. DOI: 10.1177/0894845308327274




http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320903223839

Vanmullem, K., & Hondeghem, A. (2005). Een leeftijdsbewust personeelsbeleid: stand van zaken

binnen het Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Leuven: Steunpunt BOV.



91

Vanmullem, K., & Hondeghem, A. (2006). Het Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap op weg

naar een leeftijdsbewust personeelsbeleid. Tijdschrift voor HRM, 1, 54-87.



Ybema, J.F., & Giesen, F. (2016, March 2). Older workers. Retrieved September 26, 2016, from

https://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Older_workers

Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2011). Maintaining a focus on opportunities at work: The interplay

between age, job complexity, and the use of selection, optimization, and compensation

strategies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 291-318; DOI: 10.1002/job.683

Zaniboni, S., Truxillo, D.M., & Fraccaroli, F. (2013). Differential effects of task variety and skill

variety on burnout and turnover intentions for older and younger workers. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(3), 306-317. DOI:

10.1080/1359432X.2013.782288


92

93


ACTIVE EMOTIONS AND PERSONAL GROWTH INITIATIVE IN RELATION TO

EMPLOYEES’ DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT: A MULTILEVEL STUDY 9,10.

9 Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Jill Vandervoort for her contribution in collecting

the data.

10 Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., Griep, Y., & De Witte, H. (2016). Active emotions and personal

growth initiative fuel employees’ daily job crafting and person-job fit: A multilevel study.

Manuscript in review.

STUDY 3: INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO DAILY JOB CRAFTING AND PERSON-JOB FIT

94


95

Active Emotions and Personal Growth Initiative in Relation to Employees’ Daily Job

Crafting and Person-Job Fit: A Multilevel Study11

Abstract

In this multilevel study we strengthen the nomological network of job crafting in two ways.

First, we expand on the role of individual characteristics in relation to job crafting. Building on a

functional classification perspective, we expect within-person differences in active emotions and

between-person differences in personal growth initiative (PGI) to positively associate with daily

job crafting. Second, we provide further insights in the relationship between job crafting and

person-job fit on the daily level. Using multilevel data from 116 employees (341 observations),

collected by means of a daily diary study, our results showed that fluctuations in positive active

emotions (PAE), negative active emotions (NAE) and overall PGI positively related to daily job

crafting. Furthermore, job crafting depended less on daily PAE and NAE when employees have a

high overall PGI. Next, daily job crafting positively related to daily person-job fit. Finally, we found

indirect effects from NAE and PGI, via job crafting to person-job fit. No indirect effect was found

for PAE.

Keywords: active emotions; personal growth initiative; job crafting; person-job fit; multilevel

11 If we use causal language throughout this chapter, no inferences about causal relationships are intended. We use these terms from a theoretical perspective, having our hypothesized model in mind.


96

1. Introduction

Job crafting emerges as a promising individual behaviour in the contemporary world of work

which is increasingly characterized by change, uncertainty, and the call for flexibility (Grant &

Parker, 2009). By means of job crafting, employees shape their own job to align their job demands

and resources with their personal abilities and needs (Tims & Bakker, 2010). As a consequence,

employees enhance their person-job fit and are more likely to experience work engagement

(Chen, Yen, & Tsai; 2014; Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, & Hetland, 2012) and (indirectly)

performance (Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012). Although research on job crafting is on the raise,

several theoretical and methodological questions remain.

From a methodological point of view, the majority of the empirical studies on job crafting

accounts for between-person differences in job crafting and examines between-person correlates.

However, job crafting does not only differ between individuals, but also shows within-person

variation, for example from day to day (Petrou et al., 2012; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013;

Demerouti, Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015). In the current multilevel study, we therefore include

job crafting as a day-level behaviour and thus account for its dynamic nature.

From a theoretical point of view, we strengthen the nomological network on job crafting in

two ways. First, we enlarge our understanding of the role of individual characteristics as

antecedents of daily fluctuations in job crafting. Although job crafting happens “all around us”

(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, p. 180), not all employees may feel inclined to make changes to their job.

Particular individual characteristics might make it more likely that employees will craft their job.

Previous research for instance demonstrated the role of proactive personality (Bakker et al.,

2012), self-efficacy (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2014; Niessen, Weseler, & Kostova, 2016), regulatory

focus (Brenninkmeijer & Hekkert-Koning, 2015; Petrou & Demerouti, 2015), and work

engagement (Lu, Wang, Lu, Du, & Bakker, 2014) in relation to job crafting.

In the current multilevel study, we broaden the functional trait-perspective in relation to

proactive behaviour (Wu, Parker, & Bindl, 2013) and argue that also malleable individual

characteristics (i.e., state and state-like characteristics) fulfil necessary functions to engage in

proactive behaviour. We advance that daily fluctuations in active work-related emotions at the

within-person level and personal growth initiative (PGI) at the between-person level relate to

daily fluctuations in job crafting via two main mechanisms, namely energy and human agency. At

the within-person level, we expect that daily fluctuations in active (both positive and negative)

work-related emotions energize employees to engage in job crafting at the daily level (Wu et al.,

2013). At the between-person level, we argue that PGI positively relates to daily job crafting as it

triggers employees’ agency (e.g. envisioning, thinking, and mastering) to actively encounter the


97

environment (Robitschek, 1998). In addition to the main effects, we expect daily fluctuations in

active emotions and overall PGI to interact in the prediction of daily job crafting.

Second, we investigate whether daily fluctuations in job crafting also contribute to daily

fluctuations in person-job fit at a within-person level. Job crafting theoretically entails the purpose

of thriving for an optimal person-job fit (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Tims & Bakker, 2010) and

contributes empirically to a better alignment between person and job (Chen et al., 2014; Lu et al.,

2014; Tims, Derks, & Bakker, 2016). Investigating whether these dynamics also hold at the daily

level is relevant given that they may serve as a pathway from job crafting to work engagement

(Chen et al., 2014) and meaningfulness (Tims et al., 2016).

In what follows, we first present the concept of job crafting. Second, we detail the roles of

work-related emotions at the within-person level and PGI at the between-person level in relation

to daily fluctuations in job crafting. Third, we elaborate on the relationship between daily

fluctuations in job crafting and person-job fit. Finally, we present the overall research model by

also including the indirect relationships from daily fluctuations in work-related emotions and

overall PGI to daily fluctuations in person-job fit via daily fluctuations in job crafting. Our

hypothesized model can be summarized as outlined in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Hypothesized multilevel moderated mediation model. Full lines represent expected

positive relationships and dashed lines represent expected negative relationships.


98

1.1. Job Crafting

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) introduced the term job crafting as the changes employees

make in the task, relational, and cognitive boundaries of the job to achieve meaning and identity

at work. Tims and Bakker (2010) embed job crafting in the job demands-resources model and

conceptualize it as the actual changes employees make in the levels of job demands and job

resources in order to fit the job with one’s personal abilities and preferences. Although both

perspectives spurred quite some research, they also include some limitations. First, these

approaches limit job crafting to the employees’ changes in tasks, relations, cognitions, job

demands or job resources. However, employees might, for example, also craft their work context

such as work hours, and physical work environment. Second, they define different purposes of job

crafting, namely to create meaning and work identity (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) or to

enhance one’s person-job fit (Tims & Bakker, 2010). However, employees may craft their job for

multiple pro-self-focused reasons that refer to optimizing one’s functioning. To account for the

variety of aspects employees may craft, as well as the diverse purposes for which employees

engage in job crafting, we tie in with recent developments approaching job crafting in an

overarching way. We define job crafting as the self-initiated changes employees make to their job

to optimize their functioning in terms of well-being, attitudes and behaviour (Vanbelle, Van den

Broeck, & De Witte, 2016). Additionally, we include job crafting as a day-level behaviour and

account for its within-individual variations (Petrou et al., 2012).

1.2. Individual Characteristics and Job Crafting

Individual characteristics play a role in the prediction of job crafting (Bakker et al., 2012;

Brenninkmeijer & Hekkert-Koning, 2015). In the hypothesized model, we include two (relatively)

malleable person-related antecedents of daily job crafting, namely active emotions at the within-

person level, which are momentary and very changeable states, and PGI at the between-person

level, which concerns a relatively malleable and open to development state-like characteristic.

Both characteristics are situated at the malleability side of the trait-state continuum described by

Luthans and Youssef (2007).

Active emotions. Emotions, to be situated at the right-hand extreme of the trait-state

continuum (Luthans & Youssef, 2007), are dynamic, show high levels of variation within the same

person and are highly sensitive to external stimuli which make them especially relevant to be

studied at a within-person level, e.g. within the same person on a daily basis (Van der Heijden, van

Dam, Xanthopoulou, & de Lange, 2014; Luthans et al., 2007). Traditionally, emotions are described

within a circumplex, varying alongside the dimensions of valence and activation (Warr, Bindl,

Parker, & Inceoglu, 2014). Activation refers to a sense of mobilization or energy and ranges from


99

passive to active. Valence refers to the pleasantness of the emotions and ranges from negative or

positive. The combination of these dimensions leads to four kinds of emotions: 1) positive active

emotions (PAE; e.g., enthusiastic), 2) negative active emotions (NAE; e.g., angry), 3) positive

passive emotions (PPE; e.g., contented), and 4) negative passive emotions (NPE; e.g., dejected). In

the current study, we focus on active emotions.

Personal growth initiative (PGI). PGI can be categorized as a state-like characteristic on the

trait-state continuum (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). State-like characteristics are relatively

malleable and might be influenced through training, but they do not momentarily change.

Therefore, they are most relevant at a between-person level to explain differences between

persons (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). PGI refers to the active, intentional engagement in the process

of personal growth, including both cognitive and behavioural aspects. It “can be thought of as a

metacognitive construct, an awareness and control of intentional engagement in growth

enhancing cognitions and behaviours in all areas of life” (Robitschek, 1998, p.184). Although PGI

shares some resemblance with other state-like individual characteristics such as self-efficacy and

hope, it is distinct. For instance, PGI adds to the self-efficacy concept by focusing not only on

knowing what to strive for and how to strive for it, but also on implementing a broader growth-

related perspective (e.g., “having a good sense of where I am headed in my life”) into behavioural

aspects (e.g., “having an action plan to help one reaching personal goals”). Furthermore, both PGI

and hope involve cognitive agency, personal goal-setting, and the development of pathways

toward personal goals. However, whereas hope is relevant with regard to global positive outcome

expectancies, PGI might be a better choice to investigate outcomes related to specific individually

change-oriented behaviour, such as job crafting.

PGI may also be closely related to proactive personality and promotion regulatory focus,

other growth-oriented characteristics that showed to influence job crafting (Bakker et al., 2012;

Brenninkmeijer & Hekkert-Koning, 2015; Petrou & Demerouti, 2015). A promotion regulatory

focus implies a general orientation towards growth, development and maximization of positive

outcomes at work (Brenninkmeijer & Hekkert-Koning, 2015). Employees with a proactive

personality have the general tendency to scan their environment on opportunities to change, they

anticipate on the future, take action and persevere to bring about meaningful change (Crant,

2000). In contrast, PGI particularly reflects the level of intentional engagement in the goal-setting

process towards personal growth. It taps into self-regulatory processes such as envisioning and

planning (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010) which precede proactive behaviour.


100

1.3. A Functional Classification Approach of Individual Characteristics to Job Crafting

Besides a malleability classification alongside the trait-state continuum, individual

characteristics can also be categorized according to their function or the way they influence

behaviour, which is referred to as a functional classification approach (Buss & Finn, 1987). Buss

and Finn (1987) distinguish three types of traits that fulfil three distinct functions: cognitive traits

enhance employees’ thinking and envisioning; affective traits energize employees, and

instrumental traits foster employees’ mastering, planning, and behavioural intentions. This

functional classification approach has already been used to understand the role of traits in the

prediction of proactivity (Wu et al., 2013). Building on this, we argue that active emotions and PGI

also fulfil the functions needed enact job crafting. We integrate the functions into two underlying

mechanisms, namely energy and human agency, to derive our hypotheses.

The first mechanism, energy, fulfils the energizing function of affective individual

characteristics. At a daily basis, active emotions urge employees to behaviourally respond in the

short run (Parker et al., 2010). They entail a high motivational intensity which indicates

employees’ readiness for action (Bindl, Parker, Totterdell, & Hagger-Johnson, 2012). Active

emotions trigger focus and goal-directedness (Harmon-Jones, Gable, & Price, 2013), and may

relate to job crafting at a daily level. Additionally, employees are aroused to translate active

emotions into behaviour, regardless of the valence. Both PAE and NAE thus may trigger proactive

behaviour, either to pursuit personal goals in case of PAE, or to react on a negative stimulus in

case of NAE (Bindl et al., 2012, Parker et al., 2010; Warr et al., 2014).

PAE broadens though-action repertoires, enhances the ability to generate distinct, creative

ideas and to come up with diverse solutions to deal with specific situations which is beneficial to

proactivity, and hence job crafting (Fredrickson, 2004; Fritz & Sonnentag 2009; Parker et al.,

2010). In addition, and despite previous findings on the relationship between negative affect and

proactivity (Fay & Sonnentag, 2012), we also expect daily NAE to energize employees to engage

in job crafting that same day for three reasons. First, NAE may trigger employees’ desire to relieve

negative feelings and to reduce the discrepancy between the actual and desired emotional state

(Parker et al., 2010). NAE actively signals an undesirable situation and urges employees to craft

their job (Yu, 2009). As individuals are motivated to feel good, negative emotions might spur them

to change personal or environmental aspects (Yu, 2009). Second, the high activation of NAE

enables employees to translate discrete emotions into immediate behavioural reactions (Harmon-

Jones et al., 2013). People can deal with the amount of energy they feel through job crafting. Third,

studies on the affect-proactivity relationship focused on proactive behaviours targeting others or

the organization such as taking charge or organizational citizenship behaviour (Fay & Sonnentag,

2012; Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009; Ilies, Scott, & Judge, 2006). However, in the short run, NAE might


101

especially trigger forms of proactivity such as job crafting, targeted to positively impact the own

optimal functioning.

Hypothesis 1. Daily fluctuations in PAE positively related to daily fluctuations in job crafting.

Hypothesis 2. Daily fluctuations in NAE positively related to daily fluctuations in job crafting.

Next to energy, also human agency is likely to relate to job crafting. This second

mechanism entails both functions of cognitive (i.e., thinking and envisioning) and instrumental

(i.e., mastering and planning) individual characteristics. Proactive behaviour, and hence job

crafting, relies on the employees’ ability to encounter the work environment, to take initiative and

to engage in self-regulation which is referred to as human agency (Van der Heijden et al., 2014;

Wu et al., 2013). Given that PGI addresses both cognitive (i.e., knowing what goals to reach and

which pathways to follow) and instrumental functions (i.e., making plans to reach the goals), we

expect PGI to positively relate to daily job crafting.

Hypothesis 3. PGI has a direct positive cross-level relationship with daily fluctuations in job

crafting such that individuals scoring high on PGI engage more in daily job crafting.

1.4. Cross-level Interaction of Personal Growth Initiative and Work-Related Emotions

Daily fluctuations in emotions may relate differently to daily fluctuations in behaviour

depending on general personal resources (Mischel & Shoda, 1998). Building on the idea of

resource caravans (Hobfoll, 1989), we expect active emotions and PGI to positively interact in

relation to daily job crafting given that their functions might reinforce each other. The more

resources employees have at hand, the more likely they will be to invest these resources to engage

in further resources gain through job crafting (Hobfoll, 1989). We include PGI as a cross-level

moderator of the within-person relationship between active emotions and job crafting.

Consequently, we expect that employees who experience PAE and score high on PGI, will craft

their job most. Moreover, as PGI entails an awareness and control of personal goals, we expect PGI

to provide employees with agency and persistence, and to strengthen the ability to engage in daily

job crafting, even when having a bad day (i.e. NAE).

Hypothesis 4. PGI moderates the within-person relationship between daily fluctuation in PAE

and daily fluctuations in job crafting such that for those who score high on PGI, experiencing PAE

will more strongly positively relate to job crafting.


102

Hypothesis 5. PGI moderates the within-person level relationship between daily fluctuations in

NAE and daily fluctuations in job crafting such that for those who score high on PGI, experiencing

NAE will more strongly positively relate to job crafting.

1.5. Job Crafting and Person-Job Fit

Striving for a better person-job fit aligns with the inherent purpose of job crafting (Tims &

Bakker, 2010). Job crafters “act upon the job to create a better fit” (Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2001,

p.188), they “customize [their job] to fit their own sense of what the job should be” (p.185). By

means of job crafting “employees seek to ‘make jobs fit’ by proactively modifying their jobs to

match their values, skills and preferences” (Grant & Parker, 2009, p. 347). Despite the agreement

on the inherent connection between job crafting and person-job fit, the positive empirical

relationship between these constructs has only rarely been demonstrated at the between-person

level (Chen et al., 2014; Lu et al., 2014). Recently, Tims et al. (2016) demonstrated this relationship

at a weekly within-person level. Because job crafting may also occur on a daily basis (Petrou et al.,

2012), we add to the literature by hypothesizing positive associations between job crafting and fit

at a daily level. In this perspective, two types of fit are relevant. On the one hand, employees who

make changes to their job in order to optimize their functioning, may aim for a greater perceived

congruence between their knowledge, skills and abilities, and the demands of the job (i.e.,

demands-abilities fit; DA-fit). On the other hand, they may shape their job to achieve a better

perceived congruence between their needs, preferences and desires, and what the job has to offer

(i.e., needs-supplies fit; NS-fit; Cable & DeRue, 2002). We hypothesize:

Hypothesis 6. Daily fluctuations in job crafting positively related to daily fluctuations in (a) DA-

fit and (b) NS-fit.

1.6. Indirect Relationships from Individual Characteristics to Person-Job Fit via Job

Crafting

Although the realm of person-environment fit research focuses on work-related emotions as

outcomes of person-job fit, both PAE and NAE may indirectly relate to person-job fit because they

provide employees with energy and information to actively manage and optimize person-job fit

(Yu, 2009). On the one hand, a growth-oriented view on human nature, implies that “feeling good”

not only “signals optimal functioning [but rather stimulates people to build or] produces optimal

functioning” (Fredrickson, 2004, p.1367). Lu et al. (2014) support this assumption and showed

that work engagement, a positive and highly active affect, has an indirect effect on changes in DA-

fit and NS-fit through changes in physical and relational job crafting respectively. On the other

hand, people are also vulnerable to malfunctioning and to experience negative affect, which may


103

signal a suboptimal fit and trigger behaviours such as job crafting to reduce the discrepancy

between the current and ideal person-job fit (Edwards, 1992; Yu, 2009). Both PAE and NAE may

thus be beneficial for person-job fit via job crafting:

Hypothesis 7. Daily fluctuations in PAE positively related to daily fluctuations in (a) DA-fit and

(b) NS-fit through daily fluctuations in job crafting.

Hypothesis 8. Daily fluctuations in NAE positively related to daily fluctuations in (a) DA-fit and

(b) NS-fit fit through daily fluctuations in job crafting.

Finally, we expect PGI to relate indirectly with daily fluctuations in person-job fit, via daily

fluctuations in job crafting. State-like resources such as PGI include human agency to act upon the

environment (i.e. by means of job crafting) and, as a result, relate to positive outcomes such as a

stronger person-job alignment (van Dam, 2013). Therefore, we expect PGI not only to trigger job

crafting but as a result to also relate indirectly to increased person-job fit.

Hypothesis 9. PGI positively associates with daily fluctuations in (a) DA-fit and (b) NS-fit,

through daily fluctuations in job crafting.

2. Methods

2.1. Procedure

We conducted a multilevel study, which consisted of a general questionnaire and diary

questionnaires for five consecutive work days. We invited 166 employees via email to take part in

an online questionnaire. A limited amount of employees who did not have access to a computer at

work, received paper-and-pencil questionnaires and a stamped envelope to send their completed

questionnaires directly to the research centre. We used a process of translation and back-

translation in our preparation of the surveys. Of the 166 invited employees, 120 completed the

general questionnaire and at least one diary questionnaire (response rate: 72.29%), all online.

Based on the information on the exact date and point of time of participation, we excluded four

respondents because they filled out several daily questionnaires on the same day. Because the

unit of analysis is “daily surveys” rather than “respondents” (Conway & Briner, 2002) for all

within-person hypotheses, the effective sample size was 341 observations (116 respondents x

daily surveys), or an average of 2.94 daily surveys per person. Of the 116 respondents, 19

employees (16.4%) completed all five diary questionnaires, 21 persons four (18.1%), 32 persons

three (27.6%), 22 persons two (19%) and 22 persons only one diary questionnaire (19%). For the

cross-level interactions (between-person moderator on a within-person relationship), the unit of

analyses is both “respondents” and “daily surveys”. Maas and Hox (2005) found that Level 2


104

(respondents) sample sizes exceeding 30 in a multilevel framework, resulted in an accurate

estimation of standard errors. Hence, we concluded that our sample of 116 respondents has

satisfactory power and accuracy. Finally, to avoid the exclusion of respondents who dropped out

because of missing data (i.e., traditionally referred to as listwise deletion), we relied on the Full

Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) method to reduce response bias (Duncan, Duncan, &

Strycker, 2006). We conducted logistic regression analyses to estimate differences between our

final sample and dropouts. None of the demographic characteristics or variables under study

could explain dropout.

2.2. Sample

Our respondents were on average 38 years old (SD=10.33), 63.8% were female, 42.2% held

a university degree, 36.2% a higher education degree and 21.6% a high school degree. They

mainly worked in three different health-care organizations: 34.5% in organization A, 19.0% in

organization B, 26.7% in organization C and 19.8% worked in other organizations.

2.3. Measures

General questionnaire. We used a general questionnaire to collect demographical data (i.e.

gender, age and educational level) and the between-persons variable PGI. We included the original

Personal Growth Initiative Scale of Robitschek (1998) to assess PGI. Respondents were asked to

rate 9-items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).

Example items are: “I know how to change specific things that I want to change in my life” and “I

have a specific action plan to help me reach my goals” ( = .79).

Daily questionnaire. Consistent with recommendations for diary studies (e.g., Ohly,

Sonnentag, Niessen, & Zapf, 2010), we used short scales to ensure a reasonable length and to avoid

endangering the compliance of respondents. To reinforce the daily nature of the survey all items

were worded such that they (1) included “today”, and (2) used the past tense. Level-specific

composite reliability (i.e. level-specific ω) was tested using the multilevel confirmatory factor

analysis approach advocated by Geldhof, Preacher, and Zyphur (2014).

Positive and negative emotions were assessed building on the Positive and Negative Affect

Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), Russell’s (1980) four dimensional circumplex and the

work of Warr and colleagues (2014). We asked participants: “To what extent did you experience

the following emotions at work today?”. Positive active emotions (PAE) were measured using the

following five items: “enthusiastic”, “cheerful”, “inspired”, “energetic”, and “determined”. Based on

the confirmatory factor analysis results, we excluded the fifth item “determined”. The within-

person omega reliability coefficient was .81. Positive passive emotions (PPE) were measured with

five items, namely “happy”, “contented”, “calm”, “relieved”, and “relaxed” (ω=.68). Negative active


105

emotions (NAE) were measured with seven items: “angry”, “frustrated”, “irritated”, “anxious”,

“guilty”, “ashamed”, and “tense” (ω=.79). Negative passive emotions (NPE) were measured with six

items, namely “despondent”, “dejected”, “depressed”, “sad”, “bored”’, and “fatigued” (ω=.69). All

emotions were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (I did not) tot 5 (I did).

Job crafting was measured using the Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS), a new job crafting

measure which has been developed and extensively validated in Vanbelle, et al. (2016). The OJCS

operationalizes the general concept of job crafting instead of specific job crafting types. It enables

respondents to think of personally relevant changes and it accounts for diverse pro-self-focused

reasons to craft. Vanbelle et al. (2016) demonstrated construct validity, convergent and

discriminant validity in relation to specific job crafting scales (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012; Slemp,

& Vella-Brodrick, 2013), and showed predictive validity of the OJCS in relation to positive

outcomes. The four items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to

5 (totally agree) and where rephrased from a daily level perspective. More specifically we asked

the following: Some people make changes in their job, others do not. To what extent did you shape

your job today? Please register to what extent you agree with the following statements: “Today, I

made changes in my job to feel better”; “Today, I changed my job so it would better fit with who I

am”; “Today, I made changes in my job to perform better”; “Today, I changed my job so it would

better fit with what I think is important” (ω=.78).

Person-job fit was measured with Cable and DeRue’s (2002) demands-abilities (DA) and

need-supplies (NS) scales. An example item of daily DA fit is “Today, my personal abilities and

education provided a good match with the demands that my job places on me” and of NS fit: “Today,

there was a good fit between what my job offered me and what I am looking for in a job”. Each

subscale had three items rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally

agree). The reliabilities of both DA (ω=.81) and NS fit (ω=.86) were satisfying.

2.4. Analyses

We used Mplus 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 2013) to conduct confirmatory factor analyses and to

test our hypothesized multilevel moderated mediation path model. We applied the full

information maximum likelihood (FIML) algorithm for handling missing data and relied on the

TWOLEVEL RANDOM option in Mplus to assess the cross-level interaction (Hox, 2010). In the

estimated model, the indirect effects were tested using the product-of-coefficients approach (the

product of each a-path with each b-path; see Figure1). More specifically, we calculated ten indirect

effects, each consisting of the product of the regression coefficient of the association between an

antecedent and job crafting (a-paths) and the regression coefficient of the association between job

crafting and one of both fit outcomes (b-paths). To facilitate the comparability of these indirect

and direct effects, we will report the 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for all effects when


106

discussing the results. Furthermore, we allowed for correlations between (1) the positive and

negative emotions, and (2) the outcomes. We did not include any control variables at the between-

person level (e.g., age, gender, education), because these do not directly influence the within-

person effects.

To assess the added value of a multilevel modelling approach, we estimated the intraclass

correlation coefficient (ICC) for PAE, PPE, NAE, NPE, job crafting, DA-fit, and NS-fit (Hox, 2010).

We did not estimate an ICC of personal growth initiative (PGI) because this variable was only

measured at a between-persons level. The results indicated that a substantial proportion of the

variance (ICC values are .52, .48, .43, .42, .48, .48, and .46, respectively) is attributable to within-

person fluctuations. Given that all ICC’s at the day-level were higher than .05, we are confident

that our data had a nested structure and that investigating the variables at a within-persons level

is warranted (Marcoulides & Schumacker, 2009).

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive results

Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, zero-order and person-centered correlations of

study variables.

3.2. Confirmatory Factor Analyses

The fit statistics for eight CFA models (M) are presented in Table 2. The first measurement

model (M1) is the hypothesized model, including the following eight latent factors: PAE, PPE, NAE,

NPE, PGI, job crafting, DA-fit, and NS-fit. Seven alternative CFA models were estimated: one

alternative model comprised the same eight latent factors and a common method factor (M1*),

three alternative models comprised seven latent variables (M2, M3, M4), one model consisted of

six latent factors (M5), one model consisted of five latent variables (M6), and one model included

four latent variables (M7). A model was considered to offer a good fit to the data when CFI and

TLI values were in the mid .90’s or higher, and when RMSEA and SRMR values were 0.08 or less

(Schreiber, Stage, King, Nora, & Barlow, 2006). The hypothesized model (M1) had an acceptable

fit with the data. In addition, we used a χ2-difference test to compare competing models (M1*-M6)

to our theoretical model (M1) which indicated that M1 fitted the data significantly better. When

comparing the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) -which represents the balance between the

number of parameters (i.e. model complexity) and model fit (Aiken, West, & Reno, 1991)- the

hypothesized model showed the lowest BIC-value and thus the best fit to the data. Hence, M1 will

guide our hypotheses testing.


107

Table 1

Means, standard deviations, zero-order and person-centered correlations

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Positive active emotions (PAE) 3.61 .63 - .52*** -.29*** -.32*** - .08* .35*** .40***

2. Positive passive emotions (PPE) 3.54 .58 .67*** - -.49*** -.41*** - .07 .24*** .31***

3. Negative active emotions (NAE) 1.84 .64 -.44*** -.66*** - .58*** - .11* -.14* -.23***

4. Negative passive emotions (NPE) 1.74 .57 -.45*** -.43*** .68*** - - -.04 -.09 -.25***

5. Personal Growth Initiative (PGI) 3.60 .42 .17* .25** -.12 -.18* - - - -

6. Job crafting 2.86 .68 .28** .21* .01 -.07 .31*** - .02 -.03

7. Demands-Abilities fit (DA-fit) 3.64 .41 .58*** .37*** -.22* -.35*** .25** .30*** - .68***

8. Needs-Supplies fit (NS-fit) 3.42 .68 .64*** .52*** -.39*** -.43*** .21* .28** .79*** -

Notes. Zero-order correlations are presented below the diagonal (N=116). Person-centered correlations are presented above the diagonal (N=341). Means and standard deviations are presented at the between-person level. We did not estimate person-centered correlations for the between-person variable PGI. *: p<.05. **: p<.01. ***: p<.001


108

Table 2

Fit statistics for the models based on confirmatory factor analyses (Nindividuals=116; Nobservations=341).

Models χ2 (df) BIC RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR Comparison Δχ² Δdf p

M1 8 latent factors 1759.73 (751) 32580.94 .05 .90 .89 .07

M1* 8 latent factors

with CMF

2041.35 (771) 32861.71 .05 .75 .74 .10 M1*-M1 281.62 20 <.001







Note: CMF = common method factor. Best-fitting model in italics. M1: Positive active emotions, positive passive emotions, negative active emotions, negative passive emotions, PGI, job crafting, need-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit load onto eight separate latent factors. M1*: Positive active emotions, positive passive emotions, negative active emotions, negative passive emotions, PGI, job crafting, need-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit load onto eight separate latent factors + one higher-order common method factor. M2: Positive active emotions and positive passive emotions load onto one latent factor; negative active emotions, negative passive emotions, PGI, job crafting, need-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit load onto six separate latent factors. M3: Negative active emotions and negative passive emotions load onto one latent factor; positive active emotions, positive passive emotions PGI, job crafting, need-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit load onto six separate latent factors. M4: Need-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit load onto one latent factor; positive active emotions and positive passive emotions load onto one latent factor; negative active emotions, negative passive emotions, PGI, and job crafting load onto six separate latent factors. M5: Positive active emotions and negative active emotions load onto one latent factor; positive passive emotions and negative passive emotions load onto one latent factor, PGI, job crafting, need-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit load onto four separate latent factors. M6: Positive active emotions, positive passive emotions, negative active emotions, negative passive emotions load onto one latent factor; PGI, job crafting, need-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit load onto four separate latent factors. M7: Positive active emotions, positive passive emotions, negative active emotions, negative passive emotions load onto one latent factor; need-supplies fit and demands-abilities fit load onto one latent factor; PGI, and job crafting load onto two separate latent factors.


109

3.3. Hypotheses Testing

Prior to presenting the results, we assessed whether the full or partial multilevel moderated

mediation model fit the data best. The BIC and sample-size adjusted BIC value identified the full

multilevel moderated mediation model as the one that fits the data best (BIC=10391.40; sample-

size adjusted BIC=10216.93) compared to the partial multilevel moderated mediation model

(BIC=10716.59; sample-size adjusted BIC=10567.38). Hence the full multilevel moderated

mediation model will guide hypotheses testing.

The estimated paths are presented in Figure 2. As hypothesized, both daily fluctuations in

PAE (95%CI = [.09; .93]) and in NAE (95%CI = [.09; .68]) positively related to daily fluctuations in

job crafting at the within-person level. Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 were thus supported. As

expected, we did not find significant results concerning the relationship between PPE and job

crafting (95%CI = [-.02; .63]) or for the relationship between NPE and job crafting (95%CI = [-.57;

.36]). Next, we found a positive cross-level relationship between PGI and daily fluctuations in job

crafting (95%CI = [.04; .83]), supporting Hypothesis 3. Furthermore, we found two significant

cross-level interactions for PGI and PAE (95%CI = [-.27; -.01]) and for PGI and NAE (95%CI = [-

.20; -.003]) in relation to daily fluctuations in job crafting. We want to note that the 95%CI of both

interaction effects are close to zero.

PGI seems to buffer the positive relationships between PAE/NAE and daily job crafting. Both

Figure 3 and 4 demonstrate that the strength of the relationship between daily fluctuations in

PAE/NAE and daily fluctuations in job crafting was smaller for employees scoring high on PGI in

comparison to employees scoring low on PGI. Put differently, daily job crafting was less dependent

on daily fluctuations in PAE and NAE when employees had a high PGI. Hypothesis 4 and 5 are thus

not supported because we found the opposite moderating impact of PGI than initially expected;

namely a buffering effect of PGI on the relationships between both positive and negative active

emotions and job crafting instead of a boosting effect.

Furthermore, our results showed that daily fluctuations in job crafting positively related to

daily fluctuations in DA-fit (95%CI = [.06; .66]) and NS-fit (95%CI = [.01; .81]), thereby providing

support for Hypotheses 6a and 6b. Finally, we found significant indirect effects from daily

fluctuations in NAE to both daily fluctuations in DA-fit (95%CI = [.01; .27]) and NS-fit (95%CI =

[.01; .31]) via daily fluctuations in job crafting, thereby providing support for Hypothesis 8. Our

results also supported Hypothesis 9 as they showed indirect effects from PGI to both daily

fluctuations in DA-fit (95%CI = [.04; .28]) and in NS-fit (95%CI = [.03; .32]) via daily fluctuations

in job crafting. Hypothesis 7 was not supported as we did not find significant indirect relationships

from daily fluctuations in PAE to daily fluctuations in DA-fit (95%CI = [-.11; .48]) and NS-fit

(95%CI = [-.15; .57]) via daily fluctuations in job crafting.


110

Figure 2. Estimated paths in the full multilevel moderated mediation model.

Notes. Dotted lines indicate non-significant relationships. *: p<.05. **: p<.01. ***: p<.001.

Figure 3. Cross-level interaction of personal growth initiative and positive active emotions

in relation to daily job crafting.

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Low PAE High PAE

Dail

y J

ob

Cra

ftin

g

Low PGI

High PGI


111

Figure 4. Cross-level interaction of personal growth initiative and negative active emotions

in relation to daily job crafting.

4. Discussion

The current study expands both our methodological and theoretical understanding on job

crafting. From a methodological point of view, we investigated job crafting at a within-person level

to account for its dynamic nature. From a theoretical point of view, we examined daily job crafting

in relation to both between- (i.e., PGI) and within-person level correlates (i.e. active emotions and

person-job fit). Our findings support the hypothesis that daily fluctuations in job crafting are

positively associated with daily fluctuations in person-job fit. Furthermore, individual

characteristics related both in a direct and interactive way to daily fluctuations in job crafting.

More specifically, our results demonstrated that the within-person level differences in both PAE

and NAE, as well as the between-person level differences in PGI positively related to daily

fluctuations in job crafting. Contrary to our expectations, we found buffering cross-level

interaction effects of PGI on the relationships between daily fluctuations in PAE/ NAE and daily

fluctuations in job crafting. Notably, we only found indirect relationships from PGI and daily

fluctuations in NAE to both daily fluctuations in DA- and NS-fit, via daily fluctuations in job

crafting. In what follows, we will discuss the main contributions of the current study.

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Low NAE High NAE

Dail

y J

ob

Cra

ftin

gLow PGI

High PGI


112

4.1. Main Contributions

We contributed to the literature of job crafting in at least five ways. First, we modelled job

crafting as a within-person level behaviour to account for its dynamic nature and intra-individual

variation. The extent to which employees engage in job crafting not only differs at the between-

person level, but also differs within a particular employee as that employee moves through daily

life (Demerouti et al., 2015; Petrou et al., 2012; Tims et al., 2013).

Second, job crafting positively associated to both DA- and NS-fit at a within-person level.

Although the enhancement of person-job fit is commonly agreed to be an inherent purpose of job

crafting, this empirical association has only rarely been addressed (Chen et al., 2014; Lu et al.,

2014; Tims et al., 2016). We add to extant findings by associating daily fluctuations in job crafting

with daily fluctuations in both DA- and NS-fit. Employees who crafted their job on a particular day

were more likely to experience person-job fit that same day compared to days on which they did

not, or to a lesser extent, engaged in job crafting.

Third, we used a multilevel study to examine both within- and between-person level

individual characteristics and their interaction to understand daily job crafting. Active emotions

(i.e., PAE and NAE) and individual differences in PGI related to daily fluctuations in job crafting.

Broadening the functional classification perspective on traits in relation to proactive behaviour

(Wu et al. 2013), we reason that active emotions and PGI trigger job crafting because they provide

employees with the needed energy and human agency, respectively.

At the within-person level, active emotions (i.e., PAE and NAE) fulfil the energizing function

(Parker et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2013). The high motivational intensity of active emotions is

beneficial for effective goal striving and accomplishment, and hence job crafting, regardless of

their valence (Harmon-Jones et al., 2013). Employees experiencing passive emotions seem to lack

the energy and goal-directedness to engage in job crafting behaviour in the short run (i.e., the

same day). In contrast to previous studies on the affect-proactivity relationship (Fay, & Sonnentag,

2012; Fritz, & Sonnentag, 2009), we found a positive relationship from NAE to job crafting.

Perhaps, NAE does not tend to stimulate employees to engage in proactive behaviours such as

taking charge (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009), or helping behaviour (Fay & Sonnentag, 2009) because

these behaviours are primarily targeted to positively impact others. Because job crafting is

primarily targeted to impact the self (Tims & Bakker, 2010), it might be a good way to cope with

NAE. The finding that job crafting also seems to be a strategy to deal with NAE adds to the

proactivity literature in which job crafting is merely considered to be part of a positive spiral in

which well-being increase the likelihood that employees improve their jobs through job crafting

which in turn further adds to their well-being (Bakker & Costa, 2014). Active emotions thus seem

to be so salient at the very moment that they urge people to behaviourally respond in the short


113

run, either to pursuit unsatisfied goals in case of PAE, or to react on a negative stimulus in case of

NAE (Edwards, 1992).

At the between-personal level, PGI acted as a cross-level antecedent of daily job crafting.

Building on the functional classification approach of individual characteristics, we argue that PGI

includes human agency as it entails both the cognitive functions of envisioning and thinking (i.e.,

knowing what goals and how to reach them) and the instrumental functions of mastering and

planning behavioural enactment (Robitschek, 1998). These functions involve key self-regulatory

processes that precede the implementation of proactive behaviour (Wu et al., 2013; Parker et al.,

2010). In line with Van Dam’s (2013) criteria of state-like personal resources, PGI (a) includes

agency to actively encounter the environment by means of daily job crafting, (b) is relatively

malleable and open to development and training (Robitschek, 1998), and (c) indirectly relates to

positive outcomes like daily DA- and NS-fit (Van Dam, 2013).

Fourth, within- and between-person processes tend to interact in relation to daily behaviour

(Mischel & Shoda, 1998). Contrary to our expectations, we found a buffering impact of PGI. PGI

thus seems to be a general personal strength of employees that not only directly stimulates

employees to craft their job on a daily basis but also might make employees’ daily job crafting less

dependent on daily experienced emotions. Comparably, Ilies et al. (2006) found that employees

who scored high on trait agreeableness engaged more in daily organisational citizenship

behaviours and were less dependent on daily experienced positive affect. Furthermore, despite a

buffering interaction effect of PGI, employees who score high on both PGI and PAE/NAE seem to

craft their job most. The combination of daily active emotions and scoring high on PGI is thus

beneficial for job crafting, but these individual characteristics seem to interact in a compensating

instead of boosting way. In sum, taking both within- and between-person level individual

characteristics and their interactions into account adds to the understanding of daily individual

behaviour (Ilies et al., 2006; Mischel & Shoda, 1998).

Fifth, contrary to our expectations, we found an indirect relationship with person-job fit

through job crafting for NAE, but not for PAE. A possible explanation is that employees

experiencing NAE craft their job to ameliorate a suboptimal situation and enhance person-job fit

at the very moment, whereas employees experiencing PAE perhaps engage in job crafting to strive

for the optimization of person-job fit in the longer run as demonstrated in Lu et al. (2014).

4.2. Limitations and Future Research

Notwithstanding the merits of this study, at least five aspects deserve further attention and

include suggestions for future research. First, the use of self-reports might raise concerns about

social desirability and common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012).

Although it would be advisable to use other-rated (e.g. supervisor, colleague, etc.) measures to


114

overcome the issue of social desirability, we relied on self-reported measurements because

employees themselves are probably the best persons to report on personal goal-related

constructs like PGI as well as on daily fluctuations in emotions, job crafting behaviour, and

perceptions of person-job fit (Tims et al., 2013; Demerouti et al., 2015). Given that job crafting is

an individually initiated and motivated behaviour, it might be difficult—or even impossible—for

others to decide whether the observed changes can be labelled as job crafting behaviour or as

other types of proactive behaviour (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). We aimed to minimize risks

owing to social desirability by guaranteeing confidentiality and by relying on discretionary

participation. To overcome the risks of common method bias, we tested an alternative model in

which we included a common method factor which did not fit the data better than the

hypothesized model. In addition, Siemsen, Roth, and Oliveira (2010) argued that common method

bias cannot explain nor distort interaction effects (i.e., PGI as a cross-level moderator).

Second, our theoretical model could be tested in a longitudinal way to strengthen the

empirical evidence on the hypothesized directionality of the relationship between, for example,

daily fluctuations in job crafting and daily fluctuations in person-job fit. Although our study design

does not allow us to make causal assumptions, theoretical arguments (Grant & Parker, 2009; Tims

& Bakker, 2010) and Lu and colleagues’ (2014) empirical longitudinal findings suggest that job

crafting should precede a better person-job fit. However, it might also be the other way around

such that employees experiencing person-job fit on a particular day might be more likely to engage

in job crafting that same day.

Third, we found that employees who experienced NAE were more likely to craft their job and

in turn were more likely to experience a higher person-job fit on that particular day. However, one

may question whether job crafting, triggered by NAE always entails positive consequences both

for and beyond the individual, such as for the direct colleagues or the organisation. Although

employees intend to craft their job for their own sake, recent findings indicate that job crafting

not necessarily results in positive consequences for themselves and others. Demerouti et al.

(2015) found that daily reducing demands diminished engagement and exhaustion for the

employee, and was detrimental for daily task performance and altruism. Moreover, Tims, Bakker,

and Derks (2015) showed that job crafting might increase colleagues’ risk for burnout due to an

increased workload and role conflicts. Even though NAE might trigger employees to craft their job

at the very moment which might relate to a better person-job fit, it is important to explore possible

distinct consequences for both individual and others.

Fourth, although our findings provide new insights to the literature, it is warranted to

replicate these findings given that the confidence intervals of some effects were close to zero.

Finally, it might be interesting to combine or compare diary survey studies with event-related

sampling studies in which employees are also requested to report about their behaviour and


115

experiences every time they craft their job. Researchers would then need to introduce job crafting,

to explain specific expectations in the realm of the study, and to follow up the data-gathering

process more closely (Bolger, Davis, & Rafaeli, 2003).

4.3. Implications

The current study yields some practical implications. The most important one includes the

development of PGI which, given its state-like nature, is an excellent construct to focus on in

coaching, mentoring, training, or other forms of interventions (Robitschek, 1998). Practitioners

can enhance employees’ PGI by stimulating both cognitive (i.e., goal setting) and behavioural

aspects (i.e., goal implementation). Cognitive aspects of PGI can be strengthened through

reflection on personal interests, abilities, and values which might enhance employees’ goal setting

in a “SMART” way. In addition, employees might be coached in developing a realistic and time-

bounded action plan to reach their personal goals which in turn would enhance their goal

implementation capacities, and therefore the behavioural elements of PGI. Increasing employees’

awareness of their personal goals (cognitive component) and supporting them in planning the

implementation of these goal strivings (behavioural component), may stimulate them to engage

in job crafting (Van den Heuvel, Demerouti, & Peeters, 2015). This in turn adds to positive

outcomes such as person-job fit. Moreover, when employees have a stronger PGI, they may be less

dependent of affective fluctuations to engage in daily job crafting. PGI might thus be

comprehended as a state-like personal resource which helps employees to actively encounter the

environment and its accompanied emotions. Supervisors might have a valuable role to take and

can be trained to stimulate employees’ personal growth and development, goal-setting and -

striving, and to communicate on the employees’ well-being.

In addition, employers should create work conditions that induce PAE as these emotions

positively associate to job crafting. Strengthening employees’ job resources such as the amount of

autonomy, skill utilization, and social support would be especially relevant to enhance positive

active states (Bakker et al., 2014). Furthermore, supporting employees who experience NPE such

as sadness or depression is recommended as these employees may not find the needed energy

themselves to actively encounter their environment by means of job crafting. Similarly, employees

who experience PPE such as contentment and calmness should be energized to craft their job

towards an optimal person-job fit.


116

5. Conclusion

The findings of this multilevel study can be summarized into three main messages. First,

especially the activation dimension of emotions may have an important within-person role in

relation to job crafting. Active emotions provide energy to initiate changes in the work

environment to optimize functioning, regardless of their valence. Second, in addition to daily

affective states, PGI seem to provide employees with agency to engage in job crafting (positive

relationship) and reduces their dependency of affective fluctuations to craft. Third, we expand the

empirical understanding of the relationship between job crafting and person-job fit at a within-

person level. Employees who craft their job on a particular day, also experience an increased

person-job fit that day.


117

6. References



Bakker, A.B., & Costa, P.L. (2014). Chronic job burnout and daily functioning: A theoretical

analysis. Burnout Research, 1(3), 112-119. DOI: 10.1016/j.burn.2014.04.003



10.1177/0018726712453471

Bindl, U.T., Parker, S.K., Totterdell, P., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the self-starter: how

mood related to proactive goal regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 134-150.

DOI: 10.1037/a0024368.

Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived. Annual review

of psychology, 54, 579-616.




Buss, A.H., & Finn, S.E. (1987). Classification of personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 52(2), 432-444. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.2.432

Cable, D.M., & DeRue, D.S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit

perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884. DOI: 10.1037//0021-

9010.87.5.875



10.1016/j.JIHM.2013.10.006

Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., & Conway, M. (1994). Affective causes and consequences of social

information processing. In: R.S. Wyer, & T.K., Srull (Eds.), Handbook of Social Cognition,

Second Edition: Volume 1: Basic Processes (pp. 323-417). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Conway, N., & Briner, R.B. (2002). A daily diary study of affective responses to psychological

contract breach and exceeded promises. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 287-

302. DOI: 10.1002/job.139

Crant, J.M. (2000). Proactive Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462.




http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.52.2.432

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039002


118

Duncan, S. C., Duncan, T. E., & Strycker, L. A. (2006). Alcohol use from ages 9 to 16: A cohort-

sequential latent growth model. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 81(1), 71-81. DOI:

10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.06.001

Edwards, F.R. (1992). A cybernetic theory of stress, coping and well-being in organizations.

Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 238-274. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1992.4279536

Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (2012). Within-person fluctuation of proactive behavior: How affect and

experienced competence regulate work behavior. Human Performance, 25(1), 72-93. DOI:

10.1080/08959285.2011.631647

Fredrickson, B.L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical

transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological science, 359, 1367-1377.

DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1512

Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A Look at job

stressors and positive emotions during the workday. Journal of Management, 35(1), 94-

111. DOI: 10.1177/0149206307308911

Gelfhof, G.J., Preacher, K.J., & Zyphur, M.J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel

confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 72-91. DOI:

10.1037/a0032138



10.1080/19416520903047327




10.1177/0963721413481353

Hobfoll, S.E. (1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American

Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524.

Hox, J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Publishers.

Ilies, R., Scott, B.A., & Judge, T.A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced

stated on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. The Academy of Management

Journal, 49(3), 561-272. DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.2179467


job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(2),

142-152. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.12.004

Luthans, F., & Youssef, C., M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of

Management, 33(3), 321-349 DOI: 10.1177/0149206307300814

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.drugalcdep.2005.06.001



119

Maas, C. J., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3),

86-92. DOI: 10.1027/1614-1881.1.3.86

Marcoulides, G.A., & Schumacker, R.E. (2009). New developments and techniques in structural

equation modelling. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions.

Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229-258. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.229

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2013). Mplus User’s Guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén &

Muthén.

Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research: An

introduction and some practical recommendations. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(2),

79-93. DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000009


motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310363732




Petrou, P., & Demerouti, E. (2015). Trait-level and week-level regulatory focus as a motivation to

craft a job. Career Development International, 20(2), 102-118. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-09-2014-

0124

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science

research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-

569. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452


Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 30(4), 183-198.


39(6), 1161-1178.

Schreiber, J.B., Stage, F.K, King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E.A. (2006). Reporting structural equation

modelling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational

Research, 99(6), 323-337. DOI: 10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338

Shorey, H.S., Little, T.D., Snyder, C.R., Kluck, B., & Robitschek, C. (2007). Hope and personal growth

initiative: A comparison of positive, future-oriented constructs. Personality and Individual

Differences, 43(7), 1917-1926. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.O6.011






120

Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear,

quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456-476. DOI:

10.1177/1094428109351241

Tims, M., & Bakker, A.B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign.

South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1-9. DOI: 10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841





2012-0148

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2015). Examining job crafting from an interpersonal

perspective: Is employee job crafting related to the well-being of colleagues? Applied

Psychology: An International Review, 64(4), 727-753. DOI: 10.1111/apps.12043



10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007

Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016). Validation of the overarching job crafting

scale (OJCS). Manuscript in review.

van Dam, K. (2013). Employee adaptability to change at work: A multidimensional, resource-

based framework. In: S. Oreg, A. Michel, & R.T. By (Eds.), The psychology of organizational

change: Viewing change from the employee’s perspective (pp.123-142). Cambridge, United

Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M.C.W. (2015). The job crafting intervention: Effects

on job resources, self-efficacy, and affective well-being. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 88, 511-532. DOI: 10.1111/joop.12128

Van der Heijden, B., van Dam, K., Xanthopoulou, D., & de Lange, A.H. (2014). Individual

characteristics and work-related outcomes. In: M.C.W. Peeters, J. de Jonge, & T.W. Taris

(Eds.), An introduction to contemporary work psychology (pp. 243-266). Hoboken, NJ: John

Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


emotions and behaviours. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(3),

342-363. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.744449

Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of

positive and negative emotions: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.



121


their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201. DOI:

10.5465/AMR.2001.4378011





Yu, K.Y.T. (2009). Affective influences in person-environment fit theory: Exploring the role of

emotions as both cause and outcome of P-E fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1210-

1226. DOI: 10;1037/a0016403


122

123


DIGGING INTO THE LINEAR AND CURVILINEAR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BURNOUT

AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP12,13.

12 Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Marie Casier and Lena De Meulenaere for their

contribution in collecting the data.

13 Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., Camps, J., & De Witte, H. (2017). Digging into the linear and

curvilinear relationship between burnout and job crafting. The moderating role of servant

leadership. Manuscript in preparation.

STUDY 4: BURNOUT AND JOB CRAFTING. THE MODERATING ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP.

124


125

Digging into the Linear and Curvilinear Relationship Between Burnout and Job Crafting. The Moderating Role of Servant Leadership14

Abstract

Job crafting, to date, has been especially related to positive employee outcomes. However, the

reversed relationship between suboptimal functioning and job crafting remains to be put to test.

We tap into the question whether employees at risk for burnout engage in job crafting and

whether servant leadership might provide a supportive and facilitating context in this realm. More

specifically, the aims of this study are twofold. First, we examine the relationships between the

three burnout components and job crafting. From a conservation of resources perspective, we

expect a curvilinear relationship between emotional exhaustion and job crafting in an inverted-U

shaped manner, a negative relationship between cynicism and job crafting, and a positive

relationship between personal accomplishment and job crafting. Second, we investigate the

moderating role of servant leadership. We tested our hypotheses in a dataset of 583 Dutch-

speaking employees. Our results show that emotional exhaustion displays a curvilinear

relationship with job crafting only under conditions of high servant leadership. When servant

leadership is low, the relationship between emotional exhaustion and job crafting is more modest.

Contrary to expectations, no significant results were found for cynicism. As expected, personal

accomplishment positively relates to job crafting. This positive relationship is amplified by

servant leadership. Finally, next to its moderating effect, servant leadership has a direct positive

relationship with job crafting. In all, this study suggests that different components of burnout

might relate to job crafting in a different way. In addition, the context (e.g. servant leadership) of

employees at risk for burnout, might play an important role to play in stimulating employees to

engage in job crafting.

14 If we use causal language throughout this chapter, no inferences about causal relationships are intended. We use these terms from a theoretical perspective, having our hypothesized model in mind.


126

1. Introduction

Job crafting emerged in the literature as a proactive approach of job redesign (Grant & Parker,

2009). It describes the bottom-up changes or adjustments employees make to their job in order

to optimize their functioning (Vanbelle, Van den Broeck, & De Witte, 2016). Optimal functioning

is used as an umbrella concept, referring to a range of individual outcome variables in terms of

well-being, attitudes and behaviour (Gagné & Vansteenkiste, 2013). To date, the majority of extant

empirical evidence supports the assumption that job crafting yields diverse positive

consequences for employees’ functioning. By means of job crafting, employees assign meaning to

their work (Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2013; Tims, Derks, & Bakker, 2016; Wrzesniewski &

Dutton, 2001), enhance person-job fit (Tims et al., 2016) and work engagement (Chen, Yen, & Tsai,

2014; Tims & Bakker, 2010), and serve productivity-purposes (Demerouti, Bakker, &

Halbesleben, 2015; Solberg & Wong, 2016; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2015).

So far, much less is known about the reversed relationship including optimal functioning as

an antecedent of job crafting (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014). Only a few studies provide

empirical evidence suggesting that engaged employees craft their job more often (Lu, Wang, Lu,

Du, & Bakker, 2014; Tims et al., 2015). Whereas the findings with regards to optimal functioning

(e.g. work engagement) seem straightforward, the relationship between suboptimal functioning

(e.g. burnout) and job crafting remains unclear. To our knowledge, only one study demonstrated

that employees who experience feelings of exhaustion engage in hindrance crafting (Petrou,

Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015). Although scholars theoretically suggest that job crafting is a

strategy to face suboptimal functioning such as feelings of burnout, this assumption remains to be

empirically tested.

In response, our general aim is to dig into the puzzling relationship between burnout and job

crafting in two ways. First, we tap into this relationship for the three components of burnout,

namely emotional exhaustion, cynicism and personal accomplishment to provide a more nuanced

investigation of the burnout-job crafting relationship. In doing so, we draw on the conservation of

resources theory to explore both linear and curvilinear relationships between burnout

components and job crafting (Hobfoll, 1989). More specifically, we expect emotional exhaustion

and job crafting to show a curvilinear relationship in an inverted U-shaped manner, and cynicism

and personal accomplishment to linearly relate to job crafting in a respectively negative and

positive way. Second, we introduce servant leadership as a moderator of the burnout-job crafting

relationship. Some scholars emphasize the role that managers have to play in creating a context

that fosters job crafting (Berg, Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2008; Demerouti, 2014). We argue that

servant leaders in particular might fulfil this role because of their primary focus on bringing out

the best in their followers (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Servant leaders “rely on one-to-one


127

communication to understand the abilities, needs, desires, goals and potential” of their followers

(Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; p.162). They care about their followers’ personal

problems and well-being, empower them to take initiative and help them reaching their full

potential (Liden et al., 2008). Building on Berg et al. ‘s (2008) assumption that job crafting is about

“taking advantage of the resources at hand” (p.5), we expect employees at risk for burnout to take

advantage of having a servant leader in order to craft their job.

Taken together, this study contributes to the literature in at least two ways: (1) by

investigating the reversed relationship between burnout and job crafting, and (2) by including the

role of servant leadership in helping employees translating feelings of burnout into job crafting.

Burnout and Job Crafting

Burnout is a work-related psychological syndrome characterized by feelings of emotional

exhaustion, cynicism and reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001).

Emotional exhaustion and cynicism are the core dimensions of the burnout phenomenon

(Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Schaufeli & Taris, 2005). Emotional

exhaustion involves feelings of drained energy and depleted resources. Cynicism (or

depersonalization) reflects a negative, callous and distant attitude towards work. It is a specific

kind of withdrawal or mental distancing reflected in disengagement concerning work (Demerouti

et al., 2001). The third dimension, reduced personal accomplishment (or the experience of

professional inefficacy) refers to a negative self-evaluation, to feelings of incompetence and a lack

of achievement and productivity (Maslach et al., 2001). It is mainly investigated as the opposite or

reversed form of personal accomplishment or efficacy. The reduction of personal accomplishment

is believed to develop independently of emotional exhaustion and cynicism (Lee & Ashforth,

1996). In the current study, we examine whether (and when) employees at risk for burnout (i.e.

high on emotional exhaustion and cynicism, and low on personal accomplishment) engage in job

crafting (Bakker & Costa, 2014).

We define job crafting as a bottom-up approach of job redesign in which employees initiate

changes to their job in order to optimize their functioning (Vanbelle et al., 2016). By means of job

crafting employees may seek to increase job resources or reduce job demands to a manageable

level in order to enhance the alignment with personal needs and capacities (Tims, & Bakker, 2010;

Petrou et al., 2015). In this study, we consider job crafting as a global concept instead of

distinguishing specific types of job crafting (see also Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012; Vogt, Hakanen,

Brauchli, Jenny, & Bauer., 2016; Travaglianti, Babic, & Hansez, 2016). In doing so, we take a

positive stance on job crafting as a constructive means to optimize one’s functioning.

Theoretically, suboptimal functioning can thus be framed as an antecedent of job crafting.

Theorizing on job crafting implicitly suggests that employees craft their job starting from a


128

suboptimal situation, for instance when experiencing person-job-misfit (Tims & Bakker, 2010), or

when feeling the need to assert more control, to establish a positive self-image or to be connected

to others (Wzresniewski & Dutton, 2001; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2014). In addition, Bakker et al.

(2014) frame job crafting within the recent version of the JD-R model as the missing link in the

reversed causal path from burnout and engagement to job demands and job resources suggesting

that (sub)optimal functioning constitutes an antecedent of job crafting. Wrzesniewski and Dutton

(2001) assert that “the motivation to craft most often will result from situations in which

employees feel that their needs are not being met in their job as it is currently designed” (p.183).

In addition, Tims and Bakker (2010) argue that employees might craft their job when job demands

exceed one’s capabilities, a precedent of burnout.

Empirically, however, the relationship between suboptimal functioning such as burnout and

job crafting remains puzzling and demonstrates mixed findings. Whereas some results indicate a

positive relationship (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012; Petrou et al., 2015), other findings reveal a

negative relationship (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013; Demerouti et

al., 2015) or no relationship at all (Tims et al., 2013; Demerouti et al., 2015). Clarifying the

burnout-job crafting relationship is important as it taps into the active role of employees in

dealing with overload and burnout symptoms.

In what follows, we build separate hypotheses for the three burnout components. This is

relevant given that these components show to differentially associate with employees’

behavioural tendency to withdraw or to seek control (Lee & Ashorth, 1996). More specifically, Lee

and Ashforth (1996, p.130) suggest that “whichever response (either withdrawing or seeking

control) predominates may depend on the relative strengths of emotional exhaustion and

personal accomplishment”. Cynicism is argued to be a consequence of emotional exhaustion and

entails the tendency to withdraw and distance oneself from work. We build our hypotheses based

on the conservation of resources theory (COR; Hobfoll, 1989; Ng & Feldman, 2012; Qin, Direnzo,

Xu, & Duan, 2014). The basic premise of COR is that “people strive to retain, protect, and build

resources and that what is threatening to them is the potential or actual loss of these valued

resources” (p.516). In addition, COR implies two tenets, namely resource conservation and

resource accumulation or acquisition – and hence, job crafting – in relation to resource loss – and

hence, feelings of burnout (Ng & Feldman, 2012).

1.1.1. Emotional exhaustion and job crafting.

Emotional exhaustion might associate with job crafting in both a positive and negative way,

which may hint at a curvilinear relationship. We are not the first to explore a curvilinear

relationship between negative conditions and proactive behaviour. Qin et al. (2014) for instance,

demonstrated a U-shaped curvilinear relationship between emotional exhaustion and voice.


129

Similarly, Chen, Zhang, and Zhao (2015) showed a U-shaped curvilinear relationship between

challenge stressors and voice behaviour in condition of high leader-member-exchange.

Alternatively, other studies found an inverted U-shaped curvilinear relationship of job demands

such as time pressure (Baer & Oldham, 2006), role stress in conditions of high support (Leung,

Huang, Su, & Lu, 2011), and underemployment (Lin, Law, & Zhou, 2014) in relation to proactive

constructs such as creativity, innovative performance and task crafting.

In this study, we hypothesize an inverted U-shaped relationship between emotional

exhaustion, which results from a long-term exposure to excessive job demands, and job crafting.

On the one hand, emotional exhaustion may positively relate to job crafting. Feelings of emotional

exhaustion signal a suboptimal situation and represent resource depletion (Halbesleben &

Bowler, 2007). This might trigger employees to engage in job crafting to deal with these feelings,

to recover from job demands and to prevent further resource loss and eventually, burnout. In

addition, COR theory suggests that employees facing resource loss will carefully select the manner

in which they use remaining resources (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007). We argue that job crafting

might be a way to do so. Employees who feel exhausted may for instance plan their work

differently, ask colleagues for temporary help with specific (demanding) tasks, chose to work from

home one day a week or adapt work hours. This might help them to deal with symptoms of

emotional exhaustion. On the other hand, however, emotional exhaustion may negatively relate

to job crafting. We argue that a positive relationship might especially be the case when lowly

exhausted employees still have sufficient energy and resources to invest in job crafting (Ng &

Feldman, 2012). Above a certain threshold, however, we expect that emotional exhaustion will

not translate into job crafting anymore because of severe resource depletion and inactivity

(Bakker & Derks, 2010). At high level of emotional exhaustion, employees may not have sufficient

energy to translate feelings of emotional exhaustion into job crafting, which might result in

negative associations. Taken together, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1a. Emotional exhaustion relates to job crafting in an inverted U-shaped manner. At

low levels of emotional exhaustion, an increase in emotional exhaustion positively associates with

job crafting, whereas at high levels of emotional exhaustion, a further increase in emotional

exhaustion negatively associates with job crafting.

1.1.2. Cynicism and job crafting.

We expect cynicism to negatively relate to job crafting (Tims et al., 2012). Cynicism indicates

depersonalization and withdrawal, an inactive, distant and indifferent attitude towards work

(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Maslach et al. (2001) assume that exhausted and discouraged

employees cognitively and emotionally distance themselves from work. Cynicism is presented as


130

the immediate reaction to emotional exhaustion. Employees who are confronted with cynicism

lack the willingness or motivation (Schaufeli & Taris, 2005) to invest further effort in work. In

addition, feelings of cynicism lack the motivational intensity needed to engage in behaviour, and

hence job crafting (Harmon-Jones, Gable, & Price, 2013). From a COR perspective, we expect

cynicism to relate to resource conservation instead of resource acquisition to prevent further

resource loss. Hence, we expect cynical employees to be less likely to engage in job crafting. The

available empirical evidence indeed supports a negative relationship between positively framed

job crafting behaviours and cynicism (Tims et al., 2012). Employees scoring high on cynicism

showed to be less likely to invest in resources seeking and challenges seeking, and to be more

likely to engage in avoidance coping (Tims et al., 2012; Tims et al., 2013). We hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1b. Cynicism negatively associates with job crafting.

1.1.3. Personal accomplishment and job crafting.

We expect a positive relationship between personal accomplishment and job crafting. Recent

developments in the literature suggest that reduced personal accomplishment might be either

seen as a consequence of emotional exhaustion and cynicism or as a lacking personal resource

(Demerouti, et al., 2001; Schaufeli, & Taris, 2005). In the current study, we include the positive

construct of personal accomplishment (Schaufeli, & van Dierendonck, 2000). According to COR

theory, personal accomplishment as a personal resource might relate to resources acquisition or

accumulation, for instance by means of job crafting. Personal accomplishment is theoretically

similar to the self-efficacy concept of Bandura (1986; Demerouti et al., 2001), which includes the

agency to actively encounter the environment to bring along positive outcomes (Van Dam, 2013).

Self-efficacy is about the beliefs employees have of their personal capacities to conduct work and

to have a successful impact (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2014). Employees who are self-efficacious are

more likely to expend effort in managing challenges at work and to persevere in the face of

obstacles and difficulties. Personal accomplishment is also strongly related to control coping and

might therefore be especially relevant in the realm of job crafting (Lee & Ashforth, 1996). Given

that outcomes stemming from personal accomplishment reflect the desire to seek control (Lee &

Ashforth, 1996) and that job crafting is described as an individual strategy to assert some control

over one’s work environment, we expect a positive relationship between personal

accomplishment and job crafting. Tims et al. (2014) indeed showed that daily self-efficacy

positively related to daily job crafting. We hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1c. Personal accomplishment positively associates with job crafting.


131

Servant Leadership and Job Crafting

Servant leadership might add to the contextual opportunities that enable and stimulate

employees to engage in job crafting. More specifically, we argue that servant leaders create a

resourceful environment that fosters employees job crafting. Servant leadership is defined as a

multidimensional construct (Liden et al., 2015; Van Dierendonck, 2011). Servant leaders care

about employees’ well-being, they put subordinates first and empower them to use their

autonomy, to take initiative and to make decisions. They help followers to reach their full potential

and to function optimally. In doing so, they use one-to-one communication to clarify individual

needs, interests, and values (Liden et al., 2008). These core features of servant leadership

strengthen the relevance of linking servant leadership to behavioural employee outcomes such as

job crafting. Previous research for instance demonstrated the added value of servant leadership

in relation to both in-role (Liden et al., 2008) and extra-role performance (Liden et al., 2008;

Malingumu, Stouten, Euwema, & Babyegeya, 2016), to creativity and innovation (Liden et al.,

2008; Yoshida, Sendjaya, Hirst, & Cooper, 2014), and to turnover intentions and disengagement

(Hunter et al., 2013). In this study, we expect that employees evaluating their supervisor as high

on servant leadership will more often engage in job crafting. The role of managers in fostering a

resourceful environment that triggers beneficial forms of job crafting remains under-investigated

(Demerouti, 2014). We hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2. Servant leadership positively associates with job crafting.

1.2.1. Servant leadership as a moderator of the burnout-job crafting relationship.

Next to a positive direct relationship, we include servant leadership as a moderator of the

burnout-job crafting relationship. Schaufeli and Greenglass (2001) note that people who provide

social support might “alleviate burnout because they provide important informational, practical,

and emotional benefits to workers” (p.505). Social support may come from many resources,

including leaders. Some studies pointed at the particular importance of servant leadership for

employees’ psychological health in terms of emotional exhaustion and cynicism or

depersonalization (Hunter et al., 2013; Rivkin, Diestel, & Schmidt, 2014; Tang, Kwan, Zhang, &

Zhu, 2016). While in these studies servant leadership was shown to reduce feelings of emotional

exhaustion and cynicism, in the current study, we investigate servant leadership as a moderator

of the relationship between the burnout components and job crafting. More specifically, we argue

that servant leaders may provide a social context that amplifies the likelihood that employees at

risk of burnout engage in resource acquisition by means of job crafting. Based on job crafting

theory and building on COR theory, we expect employees to take advantage of servant leadership

in the face of burnout symptoms (Berg et al., 2008; Hobfoll, 1989). Therefore, next to its role as an


132

antecedent of job crafting, we also expect servant leadership to facilitate, and hence moderate the

relationship between burnout and job crafting. Servant leaders’ pre-occupation with and primary

focus on the follower instead of the organization, makes servant leaders especially relevant in the

realm of job crafting which concerns an individual strategy to optimize personal goals. Given that

servant leaders care about personal problems and the well-being of employees, they might help

employees in recognizing burnout symptoms and stimulate them to act upon these in order to

recover from demands or to acquire resources. They provide employees with the needed

autonomy and empowerment to initiate changes to the job in order to optimize their functioning

(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). To, Fisher and Ashkanasy (2015) recently supported the

assumption that a negative mood is most strongly and positively related to creativity among

employees who perceive that they are empowered.

We expect high servant leadership to pronounce the inverted U-shaped association between

emotional exhaustion and job crafting. More specifically, building on COR-theory, we argue that

servant leadership is especially relevant at the early stage of emotional exhaustion. At that stage,

employees might still be able and willing to invest their time and energy in order to protect, retain

and accumulate resources. In addition, we expect high servant leadership to increase the

threshold above which a further increase of emotional exhaustion results in a decline in job

crafting. At high levels of emotional exhaustion, we assume that employees’ energy is severely

depleted to such an extent that even servant leaders cannot mitigate the consequences. Taken

together, we expect:

Hypothesis 3a. Servant leadership moderates the curvilinear relationship between emotional

exhaustion and job crafting such that the inverted U-shaped relationship is more pronounced

when servant leadership is high.

Furthermore, we expect servant leadership to buffer the negative relationship between

cynicism and job crafting. Through one-to-one communication, servant leadership might help

employees to put things into perspective (Hobfoll, 1989) and might encourage them to actively

and constructively cope with feelings of cynicism. Through changing task and cognitive

boundaries of work for instance, employees might enhance meaning to their work (Wrzesniewski,

& Dutton, 2001). From a COR perspective, servant leaders might help and allow employees to deal

with cynicism in a more constructive way by means of job crafting (Demerouti, 2014; Lee &

Ashforth, 1996; Petrou et al., 2015). In sum:

Hypothesis 3b. Servant leadership buffers the negative relationship between cynicism and job

crafting.


133

Finally, we expect servant leadership to boost the positive relationship between personal

accomplishment and job crafting. Servant leaders help employees to grow, succeed and achieve

their full potential (Liden et al., 2008). In addition, when employees are not experiencing strain,

they will be motivated to gain and accumulate resources and therefore, they call on available

resources (COR; Hobfoll, 1989). Servant leaders might reinforce the positive relationship between

feelings of personal accomplishment and job crafting as they strengthen employees by granting

them autonomy and challenge them to bring out the best of themselves (Schaufeli, 2015; Van

Dierendonck, 2011). Hence, we expect:

Hypothesis 3c. Servant leadership boosts the positive relationship between personal

accomplishment and job crafting.

2. Methods

Procedure and Sample

We collected data among Belgian employees in Autumn 2016 to test our hypotheses. By

means of a flyer on job crafting we convinced 14 organizations to participate in our data collection.

A week before launching our first questionnaire, we announced our study via a general email. We

invited 2223 employees to fill out our online survey through a personalised email (16.15%) or via

a general link to the survey that was distributed by the organizations if we did not have access to

the email addresses (83.85%). We informed participants on the content of the questionnaire,

emphasized that participation was voluntary and could be terminated at any point of time. We

also provided contact information of both the research responsible in case of questions and the

ethical committee in case of complaints.

Of the 2223 employees, 675 started our questionnaire15 (response rate: 30.36%). The final

sample included 603 employees of which 583 employees provided complete data. The average

age of the participants was 38.85 years (SD=10.97). The sample consisted of 26% men. The

participants worked on average 10.16 years (SD= 9.72) in their current job. The majority yielded

a bachelor or master degree (70%). They worked in diverse sectors such as the health care sector,

public service sector, retail services, financial services and education.

15 We provided the questionnaire both in Dutch and French for five organizations because they included also native French speaking employees. Respondents could choose between the two languages when starting the questionnaire. The Dutch questionnaire was translated into French by means of a translation-back translations process in collaboration with the translation department of one of the organizations. We did not establish measurement invariance of the study variable scores across the two language groups. Therefore, we excluded the 72 native-French speaking employees from the sample to avoid bias due to language differences.


134

Measures

Burnout. We used the 14-item Dutch Utrecht Burnout Scale (UBOS; Schaufeli & van

Dierendonck, 2000) to measure the three components of burnout. Emotional exhaustion measures

feelings of energy depletion by means of five items. Example item: “I feel emotionally drained from

my work”. Cronbach’s alpha was satisfactory (α=.91). Cynicism measures feelings of

disengagement and depersonalization from one’s work by means of four items (α=.89) such as ‘I

have become less enthusiastic about my work’. Personal accomplishment reflects feelings of efficacy

to conduct work (5 items; α=.79). An example item is “I can effectively handle job related

problems”. All items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (0) never to (6)

always/every day.

Servant leadership. We measured servant leadership using the SL-7 of Liden et al. (2015). The

SL-7 is a short global measure of overall servant leadership that captures each of the seven

dimensions of the original SL-28 scale (Liden et al., 2008) with seven items such as “My leader can

tell if something work-related is wrong” and “My leader gives me the freedom to handle difficult

situations in the way that I feel is best” (α=.83). The English items were translated to Dutch via a

translation-back translation process. This Dutch scale was previously used in Malingumu et al.

(2016). The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) Disagree to (5) Agree.

Job crafting. Job crafting was measured with the overarching job crafting scale (OJCS) of

Vanbelle et al. (2016), consisting of four items. More specifically, we asked the participants: Some

people make changes in their job, others do not. By means of the following statements, we want to

investigate to what extent you shape your job. Please register to what extent you do the following: ‘I

make changes in my job to feel better’, ‘I change my job so it would better fit with who I am’, ‘I make

changes in my job to perform better’, and ‘I change my job so it would better suit with what I think

is important’. The items were rated on a 7-point frequency scale ranging from (1) never or seldom

to (7) daily. Vanbelle, et al. (2016) demonstrated construct validity, convergent and discriminant

validity in relation to specific job crafting scales, and predictive validity of the OJCS.

Control variables. To date, no clear impact of demographics on job crafting has been shown,

Nevertheless, we measured educational level, age, tenure and gender as potential control

variables. Employees with a higher educational level might report higher scores on job crafting

given that they are more likely to hold jobs with higher levels of autonomy, and therefore higher

opportunities to craft (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). However, there is also evidence that blue

collar workers engage in job crafting (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012). In addition, extant studies

reveal mixed arguments regarding age and tenure in relation to job crafting. On the one hand,

older employees and employees with a longer tenure are assumed to more often craft their job as

they might be more aware of both the possibilities to craft and their own needs and interests

(Berdicchia, Nicolli, & Masino, 2016). On the other hand, long tenured employees might be used


135

to their job and perceive it as a fixed entity, and hence less often craft their job (Berdicchia et al.,

2016). Previous research does not suggest that men or women craft their job more often.

Educational level was dummy-coded such that ‘0’ represented employees who attained a primary

or secondary school degree (i.e. low- and middle-educated) and ‘1’ employees who attained a

bachelor or master degree (i.e. high-educated). Gender was dummy-coded such that ‘0’

represented women and ‘1’ men. After inspecting the correlation matrix (Table 1), we decided

only to include educational level as a control variable for hypotheses testing. Age, tenure and

gender did not significantly correlate with job crafting and were therefore excluded from further

analyses (Becker et al., 2015).

Analyses

Prior to testing our hypotheses, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Mplus

7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2015) to test whether the hypothesized five factor model (emotional

exhaustion, cynicism, personal accomplishment, servant leadership and job crafting) fitted our

data. In addition, we tested two alternative models in which we fitted components of burnout on

two and one latent factors respectively. We compared these models with the hypothesized model

based on the AIC and BIC, which represents the balance between the number of parameters (i.e.

model complexity) and model fit (Aiken, West, & Reno, 1991).

To test our hypotheses, we conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses in MPlus

7.4 (Muthén, & Muthén, 1998-2015), in line with previous studies on curvilinear relationships and

interactions (Janssen, 2001; Lin et al., 2014; Qin et al., 2014). As recommended by Dawson (2014),

we mean-centered the control, independent and moderator variables before entering them in the

analyses. We created the linear interaction terms by multiplying the mean-centred independent

variables with the moderator variable servant leadership. We multiplied the predictor-squared

variables with the moderator to create the curvilinear interaction terms. Then, we conducted the

analyses in a hierarchical manner, following Janssen (2001), as we subsequently introduced the

control variable (Step 1), independent variable(s) (IV; Step 2), IV-squared variables to test for the

quadratic effect (Step 3), moderator (Step 4), linear interaction term (Step 5), and curvilinear

interaction term to test for the moderated curvilinear effect (Step 6). We first ran the series of

analyses for emotional exhaustion, cynicism and personal accomplishment separately. To ensure

that cynicism and personal accomplishment did not relate to job crafting in a curvilinear way, we

also entered their quadratic forms into the regressions. In addition, we ran the series of analyses

(Step 1-6) for the three components simultaneously. Here, we only entered the significant

curvilinear and moderated curvilinear effects derived from the separate analyses. In all analyses,

we applied the robust maximum likelihood estimator MLR to account for the non-normal

distribution of the observed variables (Byrne, 2012).


136

3. Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

According to the results of the CFA, the hypothesized five factor model with emotional

exhaustion, cynicism, personal accomplishment, servant leadership and job crafting

demonstrated a good fit to our data and will guide our hypotheses testing (χ²=657.07, df=265,

scaling correction factor=1.16; RMSEA=.05; CFI=.94; TLI=.94; SRMR=.05; AIC=44031.51;

BIC=44405.68). In addition, the five factor model provided a better fit than the alternative four

factor model in which emotional exhaustion and cynicism loaded on one latent factor (χ²=1427.13,

df=269, scaling correction factor=1.15; RMSEA=.08; CFI=.83; TLI=.82; SRMR=.07; AIC=44902.16;

BIC=45258.71) and the alternative three factor model in which the three burnout components

loaded on one factor (χ²=2101.29, df=272, scaling correction factor=1.14; RMSEA=.11; CFI=.74;

TLI=.71; SRMR=.10; AIC=45658.61; BIC=46001.96).

Hypotheses Testing

In Table 1, we present the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, means, standard deviations and

correlations of all studied variables. We ran a series of separate analyses for respectively

emotional exhaustion, cynicism and personal accomplishment to test our hypotheses. Following

Janssen (2001; see also Baer & Oldham, 2006; Leung et al., 2011), we displayed the standardized

regression coefficients (β) of both the model at the indicated step (“entry β”) and the full model

(“final β”) in Table 2. To test our hypotheses, we interpret the standardized regression coefficients

at the relevant step (Petrocelli, 2003).

Our first set of analyses concerned the relationship between each burnout component and

job crafting. More specifically, we expected emotional exhaustion to relate to job crafting in an

inverted U-shaped manner (Hypothesis 1a), cynicism to negatively relate to job crafting

(Hypothesis 1b) and personal accomplishment to positively relate to job crafting (Hypothesis 1c).

Contrary to expectations, emotional exhaustion positively associated with job crafting. The

quadratic effect of emotional exhaustion was only marginally significant in the “entry model” (β=-

.12, p=.07, 95%CI=[-.25;.01]) after controlling for educational level16. The results did not

corroborate Hypothesis 1a. In addition, we expected a negative relationship between cynicism

and job crafting. Contrary to expectations, cynicism did not relate to job crafting (β=-.04, p>.05).

Therefore, Hypothesis 1b was rejected. As expected, personal accomplishment was positively

associated with job crafting (β=.27, p<.001), confirming Hypothesis 1c. To ensure that cynicism

16Remarkably, if we do not control for educational level, the quadratic effect is significant in the “entry model” (β=-.15, p<.05, 95%CI=[-.28;-.02]).


137

and personal accomplishment did not relate to job crafting in a curvilinear way, we entered their

quadratic terms in Step 3 of the analyses. These quadratic terms were not significant.

In Hypothesis 2, we hypothesized that servant leadership would positively relate to job

crafting. A separate regression analysis revealed that servant leadership positively related to job

crafting over and above educational level (β=.20; R²=.06, p<.01), confirming Hypothesis 2. In

addition, the results showed a positive main effect of servant leadership in addition to emotional

exhaustion (β=.22, p<.001; ΔR²=.04), cynicism (β=.22, p<.001; ΔR²=.04), personal accomplishment

(β=.14, p<.001; ΔR²=.02) and the respective quadratic terms.

In a third set of analyses, we introduced servant leadership as a moderator of the relationship

between the burnout components and job crafting. First, we expected the curvilinear inverted U-

shaped relationship between emotional exhaustion and job crafting to be more pronounced when

servant leadership was high. Our results supported the hypothesis that servant leadership

moderated the curvilinear relationship between emotional exhaustion and job crafting (β=-.27,

p<.01, ). We used the unstandardized regression coefficients to interpret the interaction plot

(Dawson, 2014). As expected, Figure 1 shows a steeper increase in job crafting in moving from

low to medium levels of emotional exhaustion under conditions of high servant leadership. Above

a certain threshold of emotional exhaustion, however, a further increase only associates with a

slight, less clear-cut, decrease in job crafting. Hence, servant leadership especially pronounces the

sharp increase in job crafting when moving from low to medium emotional exhaustion. For low

servant leadership, the relationship between emotional exhaustion and job crafting is far more

modest and almost linear in nature. Our results provide support for Hypothesis 3a. The

relationship between emotional exhaustion and job crafting is curvilinear in nature under

conditions of high servant leadership.

Servant leadership did not moderate the relationship between cynicism and job crafting (β=-

.07, p>.05; ΔR²=.00), thereby rejecting Hypothesis 3b. Finally, we expected servant leadership to

boost the positive relationship between personal accomplishment and job crafting such that

employees experiencing personal accomplishment will craft their job more often under

conditions of a high servant leader. Our results revealed a significant linear interaction of servant

leadership with personal accomplishment in relation to job crafting (β=.11, p<.01; ΔR²=.01). The

interaction plot (Figure 2), based on unstandardized regression coefficients, showed that for high

servant leadership, personal accomplishment more strongly relates to job crafting. At low levels

of personal accomplishment, however, the difference in servant leadership seems to matter less

in relation to job crafting scores. Hypothesis 3c was supported.


138

Table 1

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, means, standard deviations and correlations (N=603)

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Tenure 10.12 9.72 -

2. Age 38.92 10.97 .66*** -

3. Gendera .26 .44 .16*** .25*** -

4. High-educatedb .70 .46 -.06 .08 .09* -

5. Exhaustion 2.50 1.37 .01 -.09* .01 .05 (.91)

6. Cynicism 1.97 1.29 .002 -.05 .07 .07 .56*** (.89)

7. Personal

accomplishment 5.40 1.07 .12** .17*** .03 -.05 -.21*** -.36*** (.79)

8. Servant leadership 3.43 .74 -.11*** -.10* -.09* -.15*** -.25*** -.39*** .22*** (.83)

9. Job crafting 3.01 1.64 -.006 .06 .03 .15** .11* -.03 .26*** .16*** (.94)

Note. aDummy-coded: 1= men, 0 = women. bDummy-coded: 1= Bachelor or Master degree, 0=primary or secondary school degree.

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001


139

Table 2

Hierarchical regression analyses of job crafting on each burnout component as independent variable

(IV), servant leadership as moderator, quadratic effects of the IV, interaction and moderated

quadratic effects (N=583).

Job crafting (DV)

Emotional exhaustion

(IV)

Cynicism (IV) Personal

accomplishment (IV)

Variablesa “entry”

β

“final”

β

ΔR² “entry”

β

“final”

β

ΔR² “entry”

β

“final”

β

ΔR²

Step 1

High-

educatedb .15*** .16** .02 .15*** .18*** .02 .15*** .18*** .02

Step 2

IV .10* .22*** .01 -.04 .13† .00 .27*** .23*** .08

Step 3

IV-squared

-.12† -.17* .01 -.09 -.10 .01 .04 .07 .00

Step 4

Servant

leadership .22*** .33*** .04 .22*** .22*** .04 .14** .14** .02

Step 5

IV x Servant

leadership -.04 .13 .01 -.07 - .00 .11** .11** .01

Step 6

IV-squared x

Servant

leadership -.27** -.27** .01 .06 - .00 .07 - .00

R² .10*** .07*** .13***

Note. Standardized regression coefficients (β) of the model at the indicated step (entry β) and

the full model (final β) are displayed. Given that Step 5 and Step 6 did not add to Step 4 for the

analyses with cynicism and Step 6 did not add to Step 5 for the analyses with personal

accomplishment, we display the coefficients of Step 4 and Step 5 respectively. aControl

variables, predictors and the moderator were mean-centered. bDummy-coded: 1= Bachelor or

Master degree, 0=primary or secondary school degree. †p<.10; *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001


140

Figure 1. Moderating effect of servant leadership on the curvilinear relationship between

emotional exhaustion and job crafting, controlling for educational level (two-way quadratic

interaction with continuous moderator)

Figure 2. Moderating effect of servant leadership on the relationship between personal

accomplishment and job crafting, controlling for educational level (two-way interaction)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low Emotional exhaustion High Emotional exhaustion

Job

cra

ftin

g

Low

Servant

leadership

High

Servant

leadership

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

Low Personal

accomplishment

High Personal

accomplishment

Job

cra

ftin

g

Low Servant

leadership

High Servant

leadership


141

In addition to the separate regression analyses for emotional exhaustion, cynicism and

personal accomplishment, we ran the stepwise analyses for the three components simultaneously

to present a more strict test of our hypotheses. The results were similar to the separate analyses,

except for the linear interaction between personal accomplishment and servant leadership which

was only marginally significant.

4. Discussion

The overall aim of this study was to dig into the puzzling relationship between burnout and

job crafting in two ways. First, we explored both linear and curvilinear associations of the three

burnout components with job crafting. Second, we introduced servant leadership both as an

antecedent of job crafting and as a moderator of the burnout-job crafting relationship. In what

follows, we elaborate on the main contributions of our findings to the literature.

Main Contributions

The current study contributes to the literature in at least three ways: (1) we investigated the

burnout-job crafting relationship and made a distinction between the three burnout components

to explore both linear and curvilinear relationships with job crafting, (2) we conceived job crafting

as a social embedded behaviour as we included servant leadership, and (3) we used COR as a

relevant theoretical framework.

4.1.1. The burnout-job crafting relationship.

We expanded the understanding of the burnout-job crafting relationship. So far, burnout has

been scarcely related to job crafting in different ways (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012; Hakanen,

Seppälä, & Peeters, 2017; Tims et al., 2013; Petrou et al., 2015). Nielsen and Abildgaard (2012)

and Tims et al. (2013) modelled burnout as a consequence of job crafting. To date, only Petrou

and colleagues (2015) included the reversed path and showed that emotional exhaustion also

tends to increase protective job crafting strategies. Some scholars model job crafting as a

moderator (Hakanen et al., 2017; Demerouti, Bakker, & Leiter, 2014). Hakanen et al. (2017), for

instance, recently demonstrated that “expansive job crafting”, a job crafting construct that only

refers to resources and challenges seeking, can be efficient in preventing burnout in the face of

demanding or stressful situations. Similarly, Demerouti, et al. (2014) hint at the moderating role

of job crafting in the burnout-performance relationship. They demonstrated that the employee’s

engagement in selection, optimization and compensation (SOC) strategies might buffer the

negative consequences of burnout symptoms on performance. Whereas these studies hint at a

buffering role of job crafting in preventing negative outcomes of burnout (Demerouti et al., 2014)

or in preventing job demands to result in burnout, we took another stance and probed whether


142

and when employees at risk of burnout will engage in job crafting. This adds to the extant

literature in which job crafting is mainly examined as an individual strategy in relation to optimal

functioning.

In addition, we included the three burnout dimensions to conduct a nuanced investigation of

the burnout-job crafting relationship (Maslach et al., 2001). Our findings add to the assumption

that different burnout dimensions reveal different relationships with behavioural outcomes (Lee

& Ashforth, 1996). The distinction between the inability and unwillingness to describe the core

dimensions of burnout, made by Schaufeli and Taris (2005), might shed light on our findings.

Emotional exhaustion, especially resulting from long-term exposure to excessive demands, refers

to the depletion of energy and hence, the inability to invest energy. Cynicism or disengagement on

the other hand, resulting from lacking resources, refers to the unwillingness to invest energy. We

argue that professional efficacy or personal accomplishment reflects the belief that one is able to

conduct work effectively and therefore is rather related to ability than to willingness.

Interestingly, we only found significant burnout-job crafting relationships and interaction effects

of servant leadership for the “ability-related” components, namely emotional exhaustion and

personal accomplishment. More specifically, our results suggest that a certain amount of “ability”

is needed in order to craft.

Contrary to our expectations, the results revealed a positive linear (only marginally

curvilinear) association between emotional exhaustion and job crafting after controlling for

educational level if we do not consider the moderating role of servant leadership. One explanation

for not finding the expected curvilinear effect might concern power-issues. It is possible that we

obtained too few data points at the upper level of the scale, a common finding in burnout research

(Demerouti et al., 2014), to observe the inverted U-shaped curvilinear relationship of emotional

exhaustion and job crafting. Notably, we did establish a significant curvilinear association when

we did not control for educational level, suggesting that educational level and emotional

exhaustion shared some variance in explaining job crafting. This finding calls for further

investigation in future research. An alternative explanation for the nonsignificant curvilinear

relationship includes the need for facilitating conditional factors to establish or pronounce a

significant relationship, such as having a servant leader as we demonstrated in the current study.

At low levels of servant leadership, the relationship between emotional exhaustion and job

crafting was modest, and rather linear in nature. At high levels of servant leadership, however, we

found a curvilinear relationship between emotional exhaustion and job crafting. Emotional

exhaustion may signal a suboptimal situation or resource loss, which may trigger employees to

craft a more desirable situation. However, employees seem to be able to craft only at initial levels

of exhaustion (i.e. low to medium), presumably because they still have sufficient resources (e.g.

energy) to invest in crafting. However, when employees become too exhausted, resource or


143

energy depletion is more severe which might disable them to engage in job crafting. After a

threshold of emotional exhaustion, job crafting might stagnate and even tend to decrease. Next to

emotional exhaustion, personal accomplishment can be conceived as an indication of employees

ability to engage in job crafting. We expected and found that personal accomplishment positively

relates to job crafting in a direct linear way. The lower the level of personal accomplishment – or

the higher reduced personal accomplishment which indicates burnout –, the lower employees’

beliefs about their ability to conduct work, and hence the lower their job crafting.

The difference between emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment in relation to job

crafting might be theoretically framed in COR. Emotional exhaustion indicates potential loss of

resources which might urge employees to craft at initial levels of exhaustion. The initial threat of

emotional exhaustion might energize employees to craft, but the actual loss (at medium or higher

levels) would refrain employees from further resource investment in job crafting (Hobfoll, 1989),

hinting at a curvilinear relationship. Personal accomplishment, to the contrary, is a positively

framed construct which adds to the available resources employees have to invest in crafting,

hinting at a positive linear relationship. The more resources employees have at hand, the more

likely they will be to invest these resources to protect or gain future resources (Hobfoll, 1989).

Our findings did not support the negative relationship between cynicism, the component

related to unwillingness and withdrawal, and job crafting. The nonsignificant relationship might

again hint at more complex relationships. Given that cynical employees are highly resistant and

unwilling in putting any effort in their work, it might be especially challenging to motivate

employees to deal with cynicism in constructive ways. On the other hand, cynical employees may

have engaged in constructive job crafting attempts in the past but opted to abandon this strategy

because of ineffectiveness (Lee & Ashforth, 1996). In addition, future research could investigate

whether other contextual or personal resources might be more helpful in helping employees to

translate feelings of cynicism into job crafting behaviour.

4.1.2. Job crafting as a socially embedded phenomenon.

We model job crafting as a socially embedded phenomenon (Solberg & Wong, 2016).

Although job crafting is an individual-oriented construct, it also benefits from a supportive

environment which might be installed by a servant leader (Berg et al., 2008; Demerouti, 2014;

Liden et al., 2008). Our findings reveal that servant leadership directly relates to job crafting. In

addition, servant leadership seems to act as a valuable resource that helps employees to engage

in job crafting in the face of burnout (i.e. emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment). At

high levels of servant leadership, emotional exhaustion showed the expected inverted U-shaped

curvilinear relationship. Especially at an early stage of emotional exhaustion, servant leaders thus

seem to help employees to translate feelings of emotional exhaustion into job crafting. Similarly,


144

servant leadership amplified the positive relationship between personal accomplishment and job

crafting. Servant leaders empower employees and stimulate them to growth and succeed (Liden

et al., 2008) which might reinforce employees’ likelihood to invest feelings of accomplishment into

job crafting. In the current study, servant leadership did not moderate the cynicism-job crafting

relationship. Cynical employees hold a negative attitude towards work which is reflected in a

detached response to their work and to the individuals with whom employees interact (Bakker &

Costa, 2014). Hence, it is possible that cynical employees distance themselves from their leaders

too.

4.1.3. COR as a relevant theoretical framework.

COR theory demonstrated to be a relevant theoretical framework in studying the burnout-job

crafting relationship. COR holds the main premise that “people strive to retain, protect, and build

resources” and that the “potential or actual loss of valued resources” threatens humans most

(Hobfoll, 1989, p.516). In the current study, personal accomplishment and servant leadership

might be framed as resources. Emotional exhaustion and cynicism can be seen as indications of

potential or actual resource loss. Job crafting can be framed as a strategy to enable oneself to gain

resources, to buffer stress and to restore energy levels to prevent resource depletion (Hakanen et

al., 2017).

According to COR, resource loss might trigger two relevant processes, namely resource

conservation and resource acquisition (Qin et al., 2014). Resource conservation implies that

employees will be unlikely to invest time and energy in order to protect remaining resources,

relating to withdrawal behaviour. Resource acquisition is needed to gain additional resources, to

face and recover from losses and to protect against future loss. Experiencing loss can “serve as a

prompt for employees to create and initiate tactics that assure their functioning despite their

resource shortfall” (Demerouti et al., 2014, p.98). Emotional exhaustion represents resource loss

and might therefore trigger employees to deal with it by means of job crafting (Halbesleben &

Bowler, 2007). However, investing in resource gain through job crafting requires a certain amount

of energy or other resources (e.g. job resources, social resources, personal resources) to invest,

implying that employees need a minimum amount of resources in order to be able to craft. We

provide empirical evidence for the assumption that the supervisor has an important role to play

in creating positive conditions to engage in job crafting (Demerouti, 2014; Petrou et al.; 2015; Qin

et al., 2014). More specifically, servant leadership is a valuable resource as it helps employees to

invest available resources in job crafting behaviour. This in turn might help employees to acquire

resources, to recover from job demands or to prevent further resource loss (Ng & Feldman, 2012).

Future research should investigated whether job crafting in this realm indeed leads to positive

consequences and decreases feelings of initial emotional exhaustion. In addition, personal


145

accomplishment may be conceived as a personal strength to invest in job crafting, and might be

expected to acquire additional resources. Lee and Asfhorth (1996) refer to a mutually reinforcing

mechanism between personal accomplishment and forms of control coping such as job crafting.

This also aligns with the so-called concept of resource caravans (Hobfoll, 1989).

Whereas on the one hand, initial resource loss might trigger employees to prevent additional

loss by means of resource acquisition such as job crafting, on the other hand we may also suggest

that more severe conditions of resource loss, for instance cynicism, will result in more selective

resource investment or resource conservation. Cynical employees are typically unwilling to invest

any effort into work and might be more likely to engage in withdrawal behaviour and resource

conservation. Demerouti et al. (2014) for instance argue that cynical employees will be more likely

to focus on core tasks. In the current study, servant leadership did not seem to provide cynical

employees with the necessary resources to engage in job crafting. However, future research might

explore other job-, climate-based or personal resources that might help cynical employees to

recover from loss and to restore their willingness to put effort into work.

Limitations and Future Research Avenues

We want to discuss five aspects to shed light on strengths and limitations of the current study

and to direct future research avenues. First, the cross-sectional design might be addressed as a

potential limitation of the current study because we cannot make assumptions on the temporal

precedence of the studied variables. However, in the current study we were especially interested

in the immediate, linear or curvilinear, association between burnout components and job crafting

to examine whether and when employees at risk of burnout engage in job crafting. Our results

might probe different process models in which these study variables relate in a dynamic way.

Future research might investigate the optimal time lag to include in-between measurements of

our study variables, ranging from several hours to days (Tims et al., 2014), several weeks (Tims

et al., 2013), a couple of months (Lu et al., 2014) or even a year (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012;

Petrou et al., 2015).

Second, we collected data from a single source which may yield the risk of social desirable

answers and inflated relationships due to common-method bias. To avoid or reduce this risk, it is

recommended to collect multi-source data, for instance self-reports and colleague- or supervisor-

reports (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). However, we relied on self-reported

measurements because employees themselves are probably the best persons to report on their

feelings of emotional exhaustion, cynicism and personal accomplishment, as well as on job crafting

(Tims et al., 2013; Demerouti et al., 2015; Liden et al., 2013). Employees’ perceptions, well-being

and behaviours are central to all our study variables and are difficult to be correctly evaluated by

others. Although servant leadership might also be measured through supervisor-reports, we


146

argue that especially the employees’ subjective experience of their supervisor as being a servant

leader matters in influencing their behaviour. We aimed to minimize risks owing to social

desirability by guaranteeing confidentiality and by relying on discretionary participation.

Third, our sample included a large proportion high-educated (70%) and female (74%)

employees which might limit the heterogeneity of the data, and therefore the generalizability of

our findings. We entered educational level as a control variable in our analyses showing that

higher educated employees more often engaged in job crafting. A possible explanation for this

positive association is that high educated employees are more likely to hold jobs with high levels

of autonomy and thus might perceive higher opportunities to craft (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,

2001). In addition, high educated employees might score high in cognitive ability, resulting in

stronger self-regulatory capabilities and a stronger involvement in the goal-setting process

(Parker, Bindl & Strauss, 2010). Future research could include the educational level more

explicitly in the hypothesized model and investigate its role in relation to job crafting (Becker et

al., 2015). In addition, future research should examine whether the association between

educational level and job crafting is influenced by the measurement of job crafting, which might

be less suited for low-educated employees (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012). Gender did not relate

significantly to job crafting in the current study.

Fourth, we conducted the analyses with manifest variables (Maslowsky, Jager, & Hemken,

2015) and used MLR, a robust estimator to deal with non-normal data. Future research could

strive for more power and invest in data collection among employees ranging for low-risk to high-

risk of burnout. Motivating employees running intermediate-risk and high-risk of burnout to

participate in survey research, might be especially challenging because of two reasons. First,

employees with excessive levels on exhaustion and cynicism are plausibly absent from work or

about to drop out. Second, employees scoring high on exhaustion, are assumed to be more

selective in the tasks they conduct and might choose to focus on formal tasks to fulfil their job

requirements instead of doing extra’s such as filling out surveys (Demerouti et al., 2014; Ng &

Feldman, 2012). In future data collections, participating in a questionnaire on work-related well-

being and work-related demands and resources, might be presented as a means to enact voice.

However, this might only work under specific, supportive conditions (Qin et al., 2014). Previous

research showed that employees scoring high on emotional exhaustion might engage in

prohibitive voice under the condition of job security and a high interactional justice climate.

Exhausted employees might be encouraged to express their concerns and difficulties, for instance

by completing a questionnaire (Qin et al., 2014), when they believe that supervisors and

management will listen to the results and act upon it by initiating attempts to create additional

resources and reduce exhausting factors (Qin et al., 2014). A bigger sample size and more data-

points at the right hand side of the burnout continuum would enable more advanced statistical


147

analyses such as structural equation modelling including latent interaction and quadratic effects

(Marsh, Wen, Hau, & Nagengast, 2013). Nevertheless, our results reveal a first contribution on the

burnout-job crafting relationships and the role of servant leadership and call for further

investigation. More specifically, our findings suggest future research to investigate the linear and

curvilinear relationships between burnout components and job crafting, and to include the

moderating role of both contextual and personal resources (Leung et al., 2011).

Finally, in the current study, our specific interest was to dig into the relationship from

burnout to job crafting. Nevertheless, alternative or additional models might be subject for future

investigation. Future research could investigate the dynamic relationships among our study

variables. For instance, one should examine whether job crafting as a response to emotional

exhaustion also brings along the expected consequences, namely an optimization of one’s

functioning. In addition, one could further invest boundary conditions that stimulates job crafting

benefitting both employees and employers (Demerouti et al., 2014; Petrou et al., 2015). Another

avenue for future research might be to explore the role of job crafting in the process of burnout.

For instance, assuming that emotional exhaustion causes cynicism (Maslach et al., 2001), one

could investigate whether job crafting might buffer the relationship from exhaustion to cynicism

and therefore aid in preventing employees to burn out.

Conclusion and Practical Implications

In sum, our findings demonstrated significant relationships between two burnout

dimensions, namely emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment, and job crafting. Job

crafting might thus be relevant in demanding situations and in case of suboptimal functioning. In

addition, high servant leadership showed to be a positive condition for enacting job crafting at the

early stages of emotional exhaustion and amplifies the positive relationship between personal

accomplishment and job crafting.

To conclude, our study sheds light on two practical implications. First of all, our results show

that employees are not always able or willing to engage in job crafting. Moreover, when there is

high emotional exhaustion, cynicism and reduced personal accomplishment, more formal or top-

down approaches are needed to install the necessary circumstances for energy recovery. This

brings us to emphasize the importance of qualitative traditional, top-down job design aimed at

preventing burnout and enhancing work engagement by providing a good balance between job

demands and job resources. Job crafting should be conceived as a complementary bottom-up

redesign approach to optimize one’s functioning. Second, our findings emphasize the important

role of supervisors. Organisations might for instance train leaders to act as true servants (Liden

et al., 2008). This might increase the likelihood that employees at early stages of burnout are

encouraged to deal with it and prevent further deterioration. In addition, servant leadership might


148

help employees to set job crafting goals and grant them the needed empowerment and support to

persevere in goal striving, even when facing difficulties or adversity.


149

5. References



Baer, M., & Oldham, G.R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time

pressure and creativity: moderating effects of openness to experience and support for

creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 963-970. DOI: 10.1037/0021-

9010.91.4.963

Bakker, A.B., & Costa, P.L. (2014). Chronic job burnout and daily functioning: a theoretical analysis.

Burnout Research. DOI: 10.1016/j.burn.2014.04.003

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A.I. (2014). Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD-R


389-411. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091235.



Ltd.



10.1177/0018726712453471

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social

and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373.

Becker, T.E., Atinc, G., Breaugh, J.A., Carlson, K.D., Edwards, J.R., & Spector, P.E. (2015). Statistical

control in correlational studies: 10 essential recommendations for organizational

researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(2), 157-167. DOI: 10.1002/job.2053



10.1108/JMP-01-2014-0019



Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work. In: B.J. Dik,

Z.S. Byrne, & M.F. Steger (Eds). Purpose and Meaning in the Workplace (pp.81-104).

American Psychological Association.





10.1016/j.JIHM.2013.10.006


150

Chen, L., Zhang, L., & Zhao, N. (2015). Exploring the nonlinear relationship between challenge

stressors and employee voice: The effects of leader-member exchange and organisation-

based self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 24-30. DOI:

10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.043

Dawson, J. (2014). Moderation in Management Research: What, Why, When, and How. Journal of

Business Psychology, 29, 1-19. DOI: 10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7






Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Leiter, M. (2014). Burnout and Job Performance: The Moderating Role

of Selection, Optimization and Compensation Strategies. Journal of Occupational Health

Psycholoy, 19(1), 96-107. DOI: 10.1037/a0035062

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The Job Demands-Resources

Model of Burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512). DOI: 10.1037/0021-

9010.86.3.499






10.1080/19416520903047327

Hakanen, J., Seppälä, P;, & Peeters, M.C.W. (2017). High Job Demands, Still Engaged and Not Burned

Out? The Role of Job Crafting. International Journal for Medicine. DOI: 10.1007/s12529-

017-9638-3

Halbesleben, J.R.B., & Bowler, W.M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The

mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 93-106. DOI: 10.1037-

0021-9010.92.1.93




10.1177/0963721413481353



http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000188


151

Hunter, E.M., Neubert, M.J., Perry, S.J., Witt, L.A., Penney, L.M., & Weinberger, E. (2013). Servant

leadership inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the

organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 316-331. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001

Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between

job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal,

44(5), 1039-1050.

Lee, R.T., & Ashforth, B.A. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three

dimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 123-133.

Leung, K., Huang, K., Su, C., & Lu, L. (2011). Curvilinear relationships between role stress and

innovative performance: Moderating effects of perceived support for innovation. Journal

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 741-758. DOI:

10.1348/096317910X520421

Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Meuser, J.D., Hu, J., Wu, J., & Liao, C. (2015). Servant leadership: Validation

of a short form of the SL-28. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 254-269. DOI:

10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.12.002



177.

Lin, B., Law, K.S., & Zhou, J. (2014). Why is underemployment related to creativity and OCB? A task

crafting explanation of the curvilinear moderated relations. Academy of Management

Journal (revision).



152.

Malingumu, W., Stouten, J., Euwema, M;, & Babyegeya, E. (2016). Servant leadership,

Organisational Citizenship Behavior and Creativity: The Mediating Role of Team-Member

Exchange. Psychologica Belgica, 56(4), 342-356. DOI: 10.5334/pb.326

Marsh, H.W., Wen, Z., Hau, K-T., Nagengast, B. (2013). Structural equation models of latent

interaction and quadratic effects. In G.R. Hancock & R.O. Mueller (Eds.). Structural equation

modeling: A second course, 2nd Edition (pp. 267-308). Charlotte, NC: Information Age

Publishing

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job Burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,

397-422

Maslowsky, J., Jager, J., & Hemken, D. (2015). Estimating and interpreting latent variable

interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method.

Methods and Measures, 39(1), 87-96. DOI: 10.1177/0165025414552301


152

Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2015). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA:

Muthén & Muthén

Ng, T.W.H., & Feldman, D.C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the

conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 216-234.

DOI: 10.1002/job.754



and Organisations, 26(4), 365-384. DOI: 10.1080/02678373.2012.733543






Petrocelli, J.V. (2003). Hierarchical multiple regression in counseling research: common problems

and possible remedies. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 36, 9-

22.




Qin, X., Direnzo, M.S., Xu, M., & Duan, Y. (2014). When do emotionally exhausted employees speak

up? Exploring the potential curvilinear relationship between emotional exhaustion and

voice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 1018-1041. DOI: 10.1002/job.1984

Rivkin, W., Diestel, S., & Schmidt, K.H. (2014). The positive relationship between servant

leadership and employees‘ psychological health: A multi-method approach. Zeitschrift für

Personalforschung, 28, 1-21. DOI: 10.1688/ZfP-2014-01-Rivkin

Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Engaging leadership in the job demands-resources model. Career

Development International, 20(5), 446-463. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-02-2015-0025

Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with

burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,

293-315. DOI: 10.1002/job.248

Schaufeli, W.B., & Greenglass, E.R. (2001). Introduction to special issue on burnout and health.

Psychology and Health, 16(5), 501-510. DOI: 10.1080/08870440108405523

Schaufeli, W.B., & Taris, T.W. (2005). The conceptualization and measurement of burnout:

Common ground and worlds apart. Work & Stress, 19(3), 256-262. DOI:

10.1080/02678370500385913

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.733543


153

Schaufeli, W., & van Dierendonck, D. (2000). Utrechtse Burnout Schaal. Handleiding. Nederland,

Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger B.V.



3(2), 126-146. DOI: 10.5502/ijw.v3i2.1




Solberg, E., & Wong, S.I. (2016). Crafting one’s job to take charge of role overload: when proactivity

requires adaptivity across levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 713-725. DOI:

10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.03.001

Tang, G., Kwan, H.K., Zhang, D., & Zhu (2016). Work-family effects of servant leadership: the roles

of emotional exhaustion and personal learning. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 285-297.

DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2559-7






Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources,


10.1037/a0032141



2012-0148



10.1080/1359432X.2014.969245



10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007

To, M., Fisher, C.D., & Ashkanasy N.M. (2015). Unleashing angst: Negative mood, learning goal

orientation, psychological empowerment and creative behaviour. Human Relations,

68(10), 1601-1622. DOI: 10.1177/0018726714562235




154

Travaglianti, F., Babic, A., & Hansez, I. (2016). The role of work-related needs in the relationship

between job crafting, burnout and engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 42(1),

a1308. DOI: 10.4102/sajip.v42i1.1308

Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016). Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting

Scale (OJCS). Manuscript submitted for publication.





Van Dierendonck, D., (2011). Servant leadership: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Management,

37(4), 1228-1261. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310380462



25(3), 353-362. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2015.1072170





Yoshida, D.T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014). Does servant leadership foster creativity

and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality.

Journal of Business Research, 67, 1395-1404. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.013

155

CHAPTER 6 – GENERAL DISCUSSION

TIME TO LOOK BACK AND TO THINK AHEAD

GENERAL DISCUSSION

156

GENERAL DISCUSSION

157

1. Time to Look Back and to Think Ahead

Job crafting refers to the self-initiated changes employees make to their job in order to

optimize their functioning. It emerges as a bottom-up perspective on job redesign in which

employees are conceived as active agents who customize their job according to personal needs

and abilities (Tims & Bakker, 2010) and to enhance meaning and identity (Wrzesniewski &

Dutton, 2001). As a specific form of proactive behaviour, job crafting is especially promising in the

light of the contemporary world of work in which aspects as self-regulation, employability and

flexibility of employees become increasingly important (Grant & Parker, 2009; Peeters, Taris, &

de Jonge, 2014). In addition, job crafting provides a potential interface with recent Belgian

legislative initiatives as it may offer a means for employees to establish customized, workable and

agile work, to deal with psychosocial risks at work, and to enhance one’s willingness to continue

working.

Especially the past five years, job crafting has become a blossoming topic within the field of

occupational health psychology. At the beginning of this PhD project, in 2012, there were only

about 15 contributions on job crafting of which the majority were qualitative studies. Following

the publication of the job crafting scale of Tims, Bakker, and Derks in 2012, more than 50

quantitative studies have been published, referring to job crafting in the title (Web of Science,

February 2017). The majority of these studies were published the past two years (14 in 2015 and

25 in 2016; cf. Appendix I.b). Some of the studies of this PhD project align with recently published

studies, demonstrating the convergence of ideas concerning this recent research topic. In this

concluding chapter, the general discussion of this PhD dissertation, we start from the two aims

and three propositions formulated in the general introduction (cf. Chapter 1) to look back on what

we have learned throughout this PhD and to think ahead on future research directions. We end

this Chapter with some practical implications and a brief conclusion.

2. Looking Back: Our Main Findings in the Light of Two Aims and Three Propositions

The aims of this PhD project were twofold. First, we aimed to clarify the concept of job crafting

(Proposition 1 – Study 1). Second, we aimed to explore the nomological network of job crafting in

general and our overarching job crafting construct in particular by including both antecedents and

consequences in our overall model17 (Proposition 2 & 3 – Study 1-4). As displayed in Figure 1,

across studies, we modelled optimal functioning as an outcome (e.g. willingness to continue

working, daily person-job fit) and suboptimal functioning as an antecedent (i.e. burnout) of job

17 Although our overall model suggests that the investigated relationships are causal in nature, the correlational methods and data that we used throughout the four empirical studies do not allow us to make causal inferences or conclusions. Hence, terms such as “antecedents” and “outcomes” are used having our overall hypothesized model in mind and do not refer to causal conclusions.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

158

crafting (Proposition 2). Additionally, we related both personal (i.e. personal growth initiative,

active emotions) and contextual (i.e. autonomy, workload, servant leadership) factors to job

crafting in our model (Proposition 3). In what follows, we discuss our findings in the light of these

aims and propositions.

Figure 1. Schematic overview of the studies in an overall model

2.1. The Concept of Job Crafting: Taking an Overarching Approach

(Aim 1 - Proposition 1)

Pioneering theoretical studies shed light on two different streams on job crafting, referring

to diverse definitions and types (Demerouti, 2014; Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton,

2001). In response, in Study 1, we opted to take an overarching approach. We define job crafting

as the self-initiated changes employees make to their jobs in order to optimize their functioning.

We use optimal functioning as an umbrella concept to refer to a wide range of individual outcomes

including work engagement, burnout, person-job fit, motivation and performance (Gagné &

Vansteenkiste, 2013; Oldham & Fried, 2016). In addition, to substantiate our overarching

conceptualization and to enable quantitative research on its nomological network, we developed

and validated the Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS). The development and validation of the

OJCS merits the literature because it (1) accounts for a broad range of relevant changes employees

may make to the job, and (2) it measures job crafting as a truly proactive behaviour by including

the inherent pro-self-focused purpose (Proposition 1). We showed that our overarching job

crafting construct can be reliably measured by means of four items, referring to making changes

to the job in order to enhance well-being, meaning, identity and performance. In line with

Proposition 1, our results demonstrated construct validity, convergent and discriminant validity

GENERAL DISCUSSION

159

of the OJCS in relation to other job crafting measurements (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013; Tims et

al., 2012). In addition, the OJCS showed to be predictive and incrementally valid in relation to

positive well-being and motivational outcomes. More specifically, the findings of Study 1,

described in Chapter 2, contribute to the underpinning of our overarching approach on job

crafting in three ways. First, our findings support the assumption that job crafting can include a

broad range of work-related changes. Second, we elaborate on the pro-self-focused purpose of job

crafting. Third, job crafting shows to be different from but related to positive individual outcome

variables. We elaborate on these three contributions and theoretical implications in the following

sections.

2.1.1. Job crafting includes a broad range of work-related changes.

Our findings shed light on the broad range of changes employees may make to their job by

means of job crafting. In the literature, scholars distinguish different types of job crafting including

crafting task, relational and cognitive boundaries of the job (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) as

well as crafting specific job demands and job resources (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Although job

crafting scholars acknowledge that many features of work may be subject to job crafting

(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), existing job crafting measurements prime employees with a

predetermined selection of specific changes (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick,

2013; Tims et al., 2012).

In our overarching approach, and in developing the OJCS, we made abstraction of these

specific job crafting types to leave room for personal interpretation of relevant job-related

alterations. Our qualitative pilot study displayed that the OJCS captures a diversity of changes. In

line with previous research (Lyons, 2008), especially task- or content-related alterations seemed

to be prominently subject to job crafting. Employees for instance implement new work methods,

request training opportunities and make changes in the amount and distribution of tasks. In

addition, employees indicated to craft relational aspects, cognitive boundaries through planning

and reflection as well as the physical work environment and temporal dimensions of work. Our

quantitative findings demonstrated convergence between the OJCS and the specific types of job

crafting measured by means of the job crafting scale of Tims et al. (2012) and the job crafting

questionnaire of Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (2013). In line with the qualitative findings, the largest

correlations were shown between the OJCS and task crafting, seeking challenging demands and

seeking structural resources. Importantly, although to a lesser extent, the OJCS also positively

related to hindrance crafting (e.g. redistributing or delegating tasks to deal with high workload,

simplify work methods) and cognitive crafting (e.g. reflecting on one’s person-job alignment or on

what one needs to feel good at work).

GENERAL DISCUSSION

160

Taken together, our overarching approach seems to capture behavioural as well as cognitive

forms of job crafting. This is in contrast with the JD-R approach of Tims et al. (2012) who focus

solely on actual or physical changes in the level of job demands or job resources. They conceive

the cognitive dimension rather as coping, referring to inner processes by means of which

individuals cognitively redefine their job or tasks (Demerouti, 2014). Following the argument of

Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (2013) our findings show that although “many types of job crafting

behaviours are indeed attempts to increase job resources and decrease demands…”, “…cognitive

crafting permits another avenue from which to exert some influence over one’s job” (p.128). In

addition, our approach also accounts for so-called context crafting, concerning alterations of the

physical work environment and of the timing and place of work (Van Vuuren & Dorenbosch,

2011). Hence, our results suggest that existing job crafting scales might miss out on many ways in

which employees craft their job. Accordingly, van den Heuvel, Peeters and Demerouti (2015)

noticed that employees may initiate numerous specific changes that might be so small and specific

that they are not captured by the current job crafting scales. We opted to develop an overarching

job crafting scale that leaves room for personal interpretation of personally relevant changes. A

potential limitation of our measurement, however, is that it does not allow to make a distinction

between concrete types of job crafting. Alternatively, future research could broaden the range of

personally relevant changes employees make to their job through job crafting, by developing

specific measurement scales. Although Chapter 2 provides a first step, additional qualitative

research could give raise to a more comprehensive categorization of the type of changes that

constitutes job crafting.

2.1.2. Job crafting includes a pro-self-focused purpose.

Job crafting can be conceived as a specific form of proactive behaviour including a pro-self-

focused purpose. Although job crafting scholars theoretically agree that the intent behind job

crafting is to “create different jobs for themselves” (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p.180) and to

“enhance personal (work) outcomes in the first place” (Tims & Bakker, 2010, p.2), this pro-self-

focussed purpose is hardly included in quantitative measurements. In the extant literature, only

some (preliminary) scales on job crafting integrate the purpose in a few of their items, such as “I

introduce new approaches to improve my work” (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013; and similarly

Leana, Appelbaum, & Shevchuk, 2009), “I introduce new work tasks that I think better suit my

skills or interests” (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013) or “I change my job to make it more fun”

(Kroon, Kooij, & van Veldhoven, 2013). The findings of our qualitative pilot study supported that

to be able to distinguish proactive behaviours, also the target of the behaviour should be taken

into account in addition to the initiator (i.e. the employee) and content (i.e. making changes to the

job; Belschak & den Hartog, 2010). When we inquired the target of merely changing work aspects,

GENERAL DISCUSSION

161

employees referred both to the self (e.g. “to monitor their resilience”, “to keep the job interesting”,

“to work more efficiently”) and to external reasons (e.g. “to solve technical problems”, “because they

have to”). These findings provide evidence for the importance to also include the pro-self-focused

purpose of job crafting in the OJCS, i.e. reference is made to optimizing one’s well-being, meaning,

identity and performance. Especially this pro-self-focused element is what makes job crafting

unique and different from other individual proactive behaviours such as personal initiative and

organizational citizenship behaviour (Demerouti, 2014; Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski &

Dutton, 2001).

Consequently, especially the included pro-self-focused element makes the OJCS unique in

comparison with other job crafting scales which especially focus on the change element. Following

our findings of Study 1, future research should investigate whether and to what extent the change-

element in the OJCS - also included in other scales - accounts for the convergent validity, and the

pro-self-focused purpose - unique for the OJCS - accounts for the discriminant validity of the OJCS

with other scales (e.g. Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013; Tims et al., 2012). In addition, it would be

relevant to include the recently validated scale of Niessen, Weseler and Kostova (2016), which

also explicitly addresses the pro-self-focused nature of job crafting. Notwithstanding some

differences, we would expect the OJCS to converge more strongly with Niessen et al.’s (2016) scale.

Whereas we refer to optimizing one’s well-being, meaning, identity and performance, they include

a more general purpose as they refer to “so the job suits me better”. In addition, we made

abstraction of the specific type of changes in the OJCS, whereas they ask participants to what

extent they engage in task, relational and cognitive crafting. Taken together, future research could

explore the added value of including a similar “so the job suits me better” (i.e. Niessen et al., 2016)

or referring to “optimizing one’s functioning in terms of well-being, meaning of work, fit of the job

with personal needs and abilities, or performance” (i.e. OJCS) in existing job crafting scales.

Additionally, measurements focusing solely (or mainly) on the change-element of job crafting (e.g.

Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013; Tims et al., 2012) could be compared to (new) measurements

including both the change- and purpose element.

2.1.3. Job crafting and positive outcome variables.

In the context of validating the OJCS, it is important to investigate whether the OJCS differs

from and is predictive for optimal functioning. The findings of Study 1 demonstrated that although

we include the purpose of optimizing one’s functioning in the OJCS, the measured construct

differed from optimal functioning indicated by positive outcomes such as work engagement,

enjoyment, autonomous motivation and in-role performance. Hence, even though employees

make changes with the intent to optimize their functioning, it is still relevant to investigate

whether job crafters actually experience optimal functioning (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010).

GENERAL DISCUSSION

162

In addition, the OJCS was predictive for positive outcomes (i.e. optimal functioning) such as

work engagement, enjoyment and autonomous motivation. An exception was the nonsignificant

relationship with in-role performance, which was contrary to our expectations based on previous

studies (e.g. Bakker, Tims & Derks, 2012). In line with recent literature, our findings suggest that

the relationships between job crafting and positive outcomes are -in general- more

straightforward, whereas the relationships between job crafting and negative outcomes seem to

be more complex. We did not find any significant relationship over time with negative outcomes

(i.e. suboptimal functioning), but we did find some cross-sectional relationships between burnout

and job crafting. We more thoroughly elaborate on these findings in the next section of this

chapter on job crafting and (sub)optimal functioning.

2.2. Job Crafting and (Sub)optimal Functioning (Aim 2 - Proposition 2)

The second proposition of this PhD project concerned the relationships between job crafting

and (sub)optimal functioning such that (1) job crafting is modelled as an antecedent of

(sub)optimal functioning and (2) (sub)optimal functioning is modelled as an antecedent of job

crafting.

2.2.1. Job crafting modelled as an antecedent of (sub)optimal functioning.

Job crafting and optimal functioning. Throughout Study 1 to Study 3, our findings

demonstrate positive relationships between job crafting and optimal functioning in different

samples. We used optimal functioning as an umbrella concept and found that job crafting related

to positive indicators of well-being (e.g. work engagement, work enjoyment) and work-related

attitudes (e.g. person-job fit, autonomous motivation, willingness to continue working)

longitudinally and/or cross-sectionally, but not to performance. Our findings might be explained

in different ways.

First, by means of job crafting employees invest in energizing or motivating aspects of work

which fosters goal attainment, personal growth and hence, establishes feelings of work

engagement and work enjoyment (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel,

2014). Our findings in Study 1 contribute to the positive relationship between job crafting and

work engagement which is posited to be “the most consistent finding in job crafting research”

(Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2017, p.1). It has been found in cross-sectional (Brenninkmeijer,

& Hekkert-Koning, 2015; Chen, Yen, & Tsai, 2014; Demerouti, Bakker, & Gevers, 2015; Tims et al.,

2012), longitudinal (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013a; Harju, Hakanen,

& Schaufeli, 2016; Vogt, Hakanen, Brauchli, Jenny, & Bauer, 2016) as well as in within-person level

studies (Demerouti, Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015; Petrou, Demerouti, Peeteres, Schaufeli, &

Hetland, 2012; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2014).

GENERAL DISCUSSION

163

Second, by means of job crafting employees invest in the alignment of their jobs with personal

needs, preferences, values and abilities (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2001) and

hence, contribute to person-job fit and motivational outcomes. The alignment is expressed in a

positive relationship with person-job fit, and - contributing to previous studies (Chen et al., 2014;

Lu, Wang, Lu, Du, & Bakker, 2014; Tims, Derks, & Bakker, 2016) - even on a daily basis as

demonstrated in Study 3.

Third, the investment in the person-job alignment might shed light on the positive relationship

between job crafting and motivational indicators such as the willingness to continue working

(Study 2) and autonomous motivation (Study 1). In Study 2, 45 plus-aged-employees who engaged

in job crafting, were more likely to be willing to continue working until retirement age. Building

on the selective optimization and compensation theory (Baltes & Dickson, 2001), job crafting

might be conceived as a successful aging strategy by means of which employees seek job features

that fit age-related needs, preferences and interests (Stamov-Roβnagel & Hertel, 2010) and hence

balance the work environment with age-related changes (Robson & Hansson, 2007, in Zacher &

Frese, 2011). Hence, job crafting can be a way to meet the needs of the specific workforce of

45plus-employees (Demerouti, 2014). The publication of recent studies establishing relationships

between job crafting and the motivation of older employees to continue working also illustrates

its relevance (Kooij, Tims, & Kanfer, 2015; Lichtenthaler, & Fischbach, 2016). Furthermore, job

crafting is a way to give meaning to the job through aligning the job with personal needs, values

and goals (Tims et al., 2016; Wrzesniewski, LoBuglio, Dutton, & Berg, 2013), and hence promotes

the process of internalization establishing autonomous motivation (Gagné, & Panaccio, 2014). To

our knowledge, no other research is published on job crafting in relation to autonomous

motivation. Some studies do tap into basic need satisfaction of Self-Determination Theory (SDT;

see for example Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2014). Exploring the underlying mechanisms of SDT,

including internalization and need satisfaction, might enhance our understanding of the

relationship between job crafting and specific types of motivation and optimal functioning.

We did not find a relationship between job crafting and in-role performance in Study 1.

However, given that job crafting can be a way to enable better performance (cfr. one of the items

of the OJCS: “I make changes in my job in order to perform better”), to be more efficient or to make

one’s job more interesting (cfr. qualitative pilot study, Chapter 1), we expected a positive

relationship (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2015a). At least three aspects contribute to our

understanding of this nonsignificant finding. First, in-role performance could be a more distal

outcome of job crafting. Only some quantitative studies established direct relationships (Gordon,

Demerouti, Le Blanc, & Bipp, 2015; Leana et al., 2009; Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015; Slemp

& Vella-Brodrick, 2013). The majority of previous studies on the job crafting-performance

relationship, however, showed that job crafting indirectly related to job performance via work

GENERAL DISCUSSION

164

engagement (Bakker et al., 2012; Demerouti, Bakker, & Gevers, 2015; Demerouti, Bakker, &

Halbesleben, 2015; Tims, et al., 2015a). Hence, it is possible that the positive relationship between

job crafting and in-role performance especially exists via work engagement. This assumption

should be further investigated in future research. Second, the specific change context of the

sample might have influenced the relationship between job crafting and performance in our data.

Given that our measurements took place during and just after the merger of different

departments, employees’ job crafting might rather be “targeted at finding appropriate ways of

responding to, dealing with, or coping with [the] new situation” (Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli,

2015, p.471). Hence, adaptivity to change might have been a more appropriate outcome variable

in this sample (Peeters, Arts, & Demerouti, 2016; Petrou, Demerouti, & Häfner, 2015). Third, both

positive and negative processes may underlie the nonsignificant relationship between job

crafting, as measured by the OJCS, and performance. On the one hand, organisational change might

trigger employees to seek additional resources to be able to maintain performance (Petrou,

Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015). On the other hand, however, organisational change of high impact,

such as the merger of departments in our sample, may exhaust or threaten employees resources.

This might trigger employees to conserve resources and to deploy protective strategies such as

(temporally) reducing the scope of tasks or distancing themselves from the demanding situation

(Gordon et al., 2015; Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015), which could impede their task

performance. In addition, exhausted employees appeared to be more likely to invest their limited

resources in seeking social support, enhancing other types of performance such as interpersonal

extra role behaviour (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007) or altruism (Demerouti, & Bakker, &

Halbesleben, 2015) instead of in-role performance. These counterbalancing (i.e. positive and

negative) processes might have cancelled each other out.

Job crafting and suboptimal functioning. Although job crafting has been consistently

related to positive outcomes, the relationship with negative outcomes provides more mixed

results and seems to be more complex. Within this PhD project, we only established a negative

correlation between job crafting and cynicism. One explanation is that job crafting is a positively

framed construct that arose within positive psychology (Bakker & Derks, 2010) and might

especially operate in positive spirals. Employees might mainly craft their job in order to enhance

positive outcomes (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013), rather than to avoid negative outcomes.

Second, job crafting might relate to negative outcomes in both a positive and negative way,

resulting in nonsignificant or small effects. By means of job crafting employees might for example

take on extra tasks with the intent to make their job more challenging or interesting. Whereas in

some cases this job crafting behaviour might indeed counter negative outcomes such as turnover,

in other cases this might bring unintended negative experiences such as an increase in demands

and additional stress (Berg, Dutton & Wrzesniewski, 2008). Alternatively, the mixed results may

GENERAL DISCUSSION

165

hint at more complex relationships such as curvilinear relationships, as explored in Study 4 or at

the role of personal and contextual factors (will be discussed in Section 1.3.). Finally, the potential

bi-direction of the relationship might bring about nonsignificant cross-sectional results: job

crafting may lead to less negative outcomes (negative relationship), while negative outcomes may

motivate job crafting (positive relationship), at least to some extent or under specific conditions.

We elaborate on this reversed (sub)optimal functioning – job crafting relationship in the following

section.

2.2.2. (Sub)optimal functioning modelled as an antecedent of job crafting.

So far, the reversed relationship, namely from (sub)optimal functioning to job crafting,

received less research attention. On the one hand, optimal functioning (i.e. positive indicators)

might trigger job crafting to maintain or improve optimal functioning (Tims et al., 2015a;

Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2017). On the other hand, suboptimal functioning or

malfunctioning (i.e. negative indicators) might trigger job crafting to fulfil unsatisfied needs

(Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2001), and to recover from or to avoid further resource loss (Hobfoll,

1989).

Overall, our findings, albeit investigated cross-sectionally, seem to suggest that employees

might engage in job crafting starting from both optimal and suboptimal functioning, but they need

a minimum of resources, in the form of energy (i.e. active emotions), personal characteristics (i.e.

personal growth initiative) or contextual factors (i.e. servant leadership), to be able to do so. This

idea aligns with the basic premise of the Conservation of Resources Theory (COR, Hobfoll, 1989)

positing that people’s conservation and acquisition of resources are influenced by the amount of

resources employees have at hand (i.e. “resource backups”; Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2017,

p.11). Our findings showed for instance that employees experiencing active emotions on a specific

day are more likely to engage in job crafting that day. Active emotions, regardless of their valence,

entail a high amount of motivational intensity which might energize or urge them to translate

these emotions into behaviour, such as job crafting18. In addition, at early stages of emotional

exhaustion, employees who are confronted with feelings of emotional exhaustion are more likely

to engage in job crafting. At relatively low levels of emotional exhaustion, employees might still

have sufficient energy to invest in job crafting. However, this seems to be the case up to a certain

level. Above that threshold, energy might be depleted and hence, employees become unable to

craft their job (Hobfoll, 1989). Essentially, these findings were more pronounced in the condition

of high servant leadership (i.e. contextual resource) emphasizing the importance of contextual

18 We posited affective states as individual characteristics in Study 3, but affect might also be conceived as an indication of employees’ functioning (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). The results may thus also inform us about the (sub)optimal functioning – job crafting relationship.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

166

factors in amplifying resource backups, and hence facilitating job crafting in demanding

conditions. We will elaborate on the role of contextual factors in the next section (cfr. Section 1.3.).

Contrary to our expectations, we did not find significant relationships between cynicism and

job crafting. Perhaps, counterbalancing underlying mechanisms provide an explanation for this

non-significant finding. On the one hand, cynicism and job crafting could be expected to relate

negatively. Cynicism is characterized by the unwillingness to invest any effort in work (Schaufeli

& Taris, 2005), which might discourage employees to engage in job crafting, and hence, might

result in negative relationships. In previous studies, cynical employees were more likely to

withdraw from work and to engage in protective or avoiding job crafting such as reducing the

scope of tasks or avoiding cognitive and emotional demanding aspects at work (i.e. hindrance

crafting; Tims et al., 2012). On the other hand, cynicism and job crafting could be expected to relate

positively because cynicism might signal an undesirable situation, triggering employees to craft a

better one. However, building on COR, we assume that cynical employees would only be able to

craft when they have sufficient – and also relevant – resources at hand. In our study, servant

leadership did not succeed in helping employees to translate feelings of cynicism into job crafting.

In sum, future research is needed to dig into the reversed relationships between (sub)optimal

functioning and job crafting which so far have hardly been investigated in the extant literature.

Only recently, Harju et al. (2016) and Hakanen, Peeters and Schaufeli (2017) examined the

relationships between different types of well-being and job crafting across time. They found that

different types of well-being relate to job crafting, albeit in different ways. Based on our findings,

we concluded that in order to expand our understanding of the relationship between (sub)optimal

functioning and job crafting, it seems to be important to take into account the resources

employees have at hand. Hakanen, Peeters and Schaufeli (2017, p.11) refer to “different backups

of resources”. In the specific case of burned-out employees, the environment may need to provide

additional job resources as demonstrated in Study 4. We elaborate on this in the following section.

2.3. Contextual and Personal Factors (Aim 2 - Proposition 3)

The third and final proposition included that both personal and contextual factors relate to

job crafting such that both (a) personal and (b) contextual factors can be modelled as antecedents

of job crafting and that both (c) personal and (d) contextual factors moderate the relationship

between (sub)optimal functioning and job crafting.

2.3.1. Main effects of personal and contextual factors (antecedents).

Although job crafting happens “all around us” (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p.180), not

every employee may feel inclined to make changes to their job in every context. Our results indeed

showed that both personal and contextual factors positively related to job crafting. More

GENERAL DISCUSSION

167

specifically, our findings shed light on the importance of three personal (i.e. active emotions and

personal growth initiative in Study 3, personal accomplishment in Study 4) and two contextual

factors (i.e. active jobs in Study 2, servant leadership in Study 4).

Personal factors. First, daily active emotions positively related to daily job crafting. On days

when employees experienced positive or negative active emotions they were more likely to craft

their job (i.e. within-person level analysis). Both negative and positive active emotions are

momentary individual states that include a high level of motivational intensity. They seem to

energize people to enact job crafting, regardless of the emotions’ valence (Harmon-Jones, Gable,

& Price, 2013). Our results highlight the importance of the activation dimension of the circumplex

model of affect (Russell, 1980).

Second, broadening the functional classification perspective on individual characteristics, we

demonstrated that individuals who scored on personal growth initiative (PGI) were more likely

to engage in daily job crafting compared to individuals who scored low on PGI. PGI can thus be

conceived as a personal strength that includes human agency which enables individuals to act

upon the environment and hence, engage in job crafting (Luthans & Youssef, 2007; van Dam,

2013). Employees who intentionally engage in the process towards personal growth, are more

likely to be proactive, and hence to craft their job (Parker et al., 2010) because they know what

goals to aim for and how to reach them (i.e. thinking & envisioning) and plan behavioural

enactment (i.e. planning & mastering) (Robitschek, 1998). Furthermore, we found that PGI

indirectly relates to daily person-job fit via daily job crafting. A stronger intentional engagement

in the goal-setting process might enhance the likelihood that employees act upon their

environment by means of job crafting and hence, establish positive outcomes such as person-job

fit (Parker et al., 2010; van Dam, 2013).

Third, employees experiencing feelings of personal accomplishment were more likely to

engage in job crafting (Study 4). Theoretically, this component is similar to the concept of self-

efficacy (Bandura, 1986; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001), including human

agency that helps employees to actively encounter the environment for example by means of job

crafting (Tims et al., 2014). Hence, personal accomplishment can be conceived as a personal

resource that enables employees to craft. Reduced feelings of personal accomplishment constitute

the third component of burnout.

Contextual factors. In this PhD project, active jobs characterized by autonomy and workload

(Study 2) and servant leadership (Study 4) were found to be contextual factors that positively

related to job crafting. First, in Study 2, we contributed to the literature on the activation

hypothesis of Karasek (1979) by showing that active jobs yield positive relationships with the

behavioural outcome job crafting. Our results are in line with previous research of Petrou et al.

(2012) who demonstrated positive relationships between active jobs and job crafting at a daily

GENERAL DISCUSSION

168

level. Different from Petrou et al.’s (2012) findings, our results only established positive main

effects.

Second, in Study 4, we shed light on the social embeddedness of job crafting and

demonstrated the positive role of servant leadership in relation to job crafting. Although job

crafting is an individual-oriented construct, it also benefits from a supportive environment

installed by a servant leader (Berg et al., 2008; Demerouti, 2014; Liden, Wayne, Zao, & Henderson,

2008). We argue that especially servant leadership is relevant in supporting job crafting because

of their preoccupation with and primary focus on bringing out the best in their followers (Van

Dierendonck, 2011). Servant leaders care about employees’ well-being, they put subordinates

first and empower them to use their autonomy, to take initiative and to make decisions. They help

followers to reach their full potential and to function optimally (Liden et al., 2008) and hence, may

encourage job crafting. Although many job crafting scholars hint at the supportive role of the

supervisor (Berg et al., 2008; Demerouti, 2014; Hakanen, Peeters & Schaufeli., 2017), empirical

evidence on this relationship remains scarce (Hakanen & Mutanen, 2014; Lyons, 2008; Solberg &

Wong, 2016) and deserves future research attention.

Indirect effects. Our results of Study 2 and Study 3 also tap into the indirect effects of positive

conditions (i.e. autonomy, positive active emotions) versus negative conditions (i.e. workload,

negative active emotions) via job crafting to individual outcomes19. More specifically, our findings

hint at different mechanisms for positive versus negative conditions. Especially the relationships

starting from the negative conditions merit further elaboration. Workload and negative active

emotions showed to negatively relate to outcomes such as the willingness to continue working

and daily person-job fit, respectively. However, they also showed to have positive indirect

relationships with these outcomes through job crafting. Job crafting thus showed to be a strategy

to constructively deal with negative conditions. For example, although employees who experience

a high amount of workload in their job are less willing to continue working until retirement age,

they might be triggered to actively deal with the amount of workload, for example by seeking

additional resources, which in turn might positively relate to their willingness to continue

working. Similarly, even though employees are less likely to experience person-job fit on days

when they experience negative active emotions, they might be urged or energized to actively deal

with these emotions, for example by changing their initial work schedule in order to solve the

issue, which in turn might positively relate to their perceived daily person-job fit. Hence, it might

be interesting to increase our understanding on how employees experiencing negative conditions

can be helped to actively deal with these conditions by means of job crafting. In doing so, given

19 Given that daily fluctuations in work-related emotions are assumed to result from daily situations at work (Affective Events Theory; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), we group emotions under the heading of “conditions” to elaborate on our findings concerning the indirect relationships starting from emotions and job characteristics via job crafting to individual outcomes.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

169

that job crafting consumes energy, it might be necessary to provide employees with extra

resources to enable crafting in highly demanding circumstances (Hakanen, Peeters & Schaufeli,

2017). We tapped into this by demonstrating the moderating role of PGI (Study 3) and servant

leadership (Study 4).

2.3.2. Personal and contextual factors as opportunities to craft (moderators).

In addition to their main effects in relation to job crafting, PGI and servant leadership also

moderated the relationship between (sub)optimal functioning and job crafting. In Study 3,

employees scoring high on PGI were less dependent on daily fluctuations in their emotions to craft

their job. This finding is similar to Ilies, Scott and Judge (2006) who found that employees who

scored high on trait agreeableness engaged more in daily organisational citizenship behaviours

and were less dependent on daily experienced positive affect. Again, employees with the largest

resource pools, namely employees who score high on PGI and high on active emotions, seemed to

craft their job most.

In Study 4, servant leadership boosted the relationship of two burnout components (i.e.

emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment) with job crafting. Especially at early stages

of emotional exhaustion, servant leadership seems to help employees to translate feelings of

emotional exhaustion into job crafting. However, when employees become too exhausted, job

crafting stagnates and even tends to slightly decrease, even when they have a servant leader. In

addition, empowering employees and stimulating them to growth and succeed (i.e. servant

leaders, Liden et al., 2008) reinforces employees’ likelihood to invest feelings of accomplishment

into job crafting. We did not find significant effects for the relationship between cynicism and job

crafting. An explanation might be that cynical employees distance themselves from their leaders

because they hold a negative attitude toward work which is reflected in a detached response to

their work and to the individuals with whom employees interact (Bakker & Costa, 2014). Future

research could investigate whether other resources such as personal resources or non-work

resources can help cynical employees to engage in job crafting.

Building on the conservation of resources theory, the findings suggest that PGI and servant

leadership provide employees with extra resources that might be invested in job crafting in both

resourceful and demanding circumstances. In all, “job crafting is about resourcefulness” and about

“taking advantage of the resources at hand” (Berg et al., 2008, p.5).

2.4. Theoretical Considerations: Taken Together

Throughout this PhD project, we added to the literature by clarifying the concept of job

crafting (aim 1) and by exploring the nomological network of job crafting including both

GENERAL DISCUSSION

170

antecedents and consequences in our overall model (aim 2). In what follows, we summarize what

we have learned.

2.4.1. Aim 1: Clarifying the concept of job crafting.

We clarified the concept of job crafting building an overarching approach, developing an

overarching job crafting scale and investigating reliability and validity issues in preliminary

qualitative data and quantitative data. Within this PhD project, we positioned job crafting as a

specific form of proactive behaviour that captures a broad range of changes employees may

initiate to their job with a pro-self-focused purpose. Our approach offers an alternative lens on job

crafting to the literature and might be especially relevant to investigate a general job crafting

construct and its surrounding mechanisms (see some studies using a composite, general job

crafting construct: Tims et al., 2016; Vogt et al., 2016; Travaglianti, Babic, & Hansez, 2016).

Future research could examine the relative importance of the change-element and purpose-

element of job crafting. Although we emphasize the need of both elements to define, investigate,

and distinguish job crafting from other proactive behaviours, not all scholars agree with this view.

Only recently, Niessen et al. (2016) also take the pro-self-focused purpose into account. The

existence of different traditions and approaches of behaviour is not that uncommon. Little (2013)

for instance elaborates on two research traditions within the literature on aggression: a tradition

which typifies aggression in terms of specific behavioural acts (i.e. overt behaviour versus

relational behaviour) and a tradition which includes the functional purpose of these behavioural

acts (i.e. instrumental versus reactive function). Whereas the first tradition attempts to broaden

the understanding about the kinds of aggressive behaviours, the second tradition seeks to

understand the underlying motives that give rise to the behaviour in the first place. However,

whereas in the case of aggression, it is rather clear that concrete behaviours are acts of aggression,

we argue it is less evident to state that the concrete changes employees make to their job are per

definition acts of job crafting and not refer to other proactive behaviours such as personal

initiative or organizational citizenship behaviour. Although there might be some overlap between

these proactive behaviours, the intent behind it is different (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), and

hence including the intent is an added value. For example, employees engaging in personal

initiative, might initiate changes in work methods or raise ideas to primarily solve problems and

improve the organization’s functioning. An avenue for future research would be to examine how

different approaches might strengthen each other and hence, expand our understanding of job

crafting. The pro-self-focused purpose could for instance be added to the job crafting scale of Tims

et al. (2012), similarly to Niessen et al. (2016). Alternatively, scholars may develop new

measurements of job crafting including a broad arrange of changes (e.g. based on qualitative or

GENERAL DISCUSSION

171

intervention research; for an example see van den Heuvel et al., 2015) and making the inherent

pro-self-focused purpose explicit.

2.4.2. Aim 2: Exploring the nomological network of job crafting.

We showed that job crafting especially related to positive individual outcomes, namely work

engagement, enjoyment, autonomous motivation, the willingness to continue working until

retirement age and person-job fit. In addition, our findings suggest that employees might engage

in job crafting starting from both optimal and suboptimal functioning, and in both positive and

negative conditions. Employees however need a minimum of resources in terms of energy, human

agency, or a supportive environment, to be able to do so. Optimal functioning can be conceived as

a resourceful state, indicating that people possess resources to invest in resource maintenance

and resource gain, by means of job crafting. Active emotions energize employees to craft in the

short run, namely on a daily level. The high motivational intensity provides energy to immediately

invest in job crafting. PGI includes a general personal strength that provides employees with

human agency to actively encounter the environment and to intentionally engage in the process

towards personal growth, and hence job crafting (Robitschek, 1998). Moreover, PGI made

employees less subject of daily fluctuations in active emotions to engage in daily job crafting

behaviour. Furthermore, servant leadership provides a supportive environment for employees’ job

crafting. We argued that especially servant leadership is a relevant leadership style to relate to job

crafting because of the primary focus on employees’ well-being and development. Finally, in the

case of emotional exhaustion, indicating resource loss or depletion, employees benefitted from

having a servant leader. More specifically, servant leaders enabled employees at early stages of

emotional exhaustion to translate these feelings into job crafting. Servant leadership also

reinforced the positive relationship between personal accomplishment (the reversed third

component of burnout) and job crafting. Whereas personal accomplishment, comparable to the

personal resource self-efficacy, fosters employees’ human agency, servant leadership installs a

supportive environment for the employee, accumulating resources to invest, and amplifying the

positive relationship between personal accomplishment and job crafting.

In this PhD project, we found mixed results concerning the relationship between cynicism

and job crafting. Perhaps, we did not include the vital resources cynical employees needed to

engage in job crafting. Future research might explore personal resources as well as contextual

resources that might help employees to translate feelings of cynicism in constructive job crafting.

2.4.3. Some final theoretical considerations.

Throughout this PhD, we used several theoretical frameworks to build hypotheses and

explain our findings. Although these theoretical frameworks include different nuances, they have

GENERAL DISCUSSION

172

in common that they tap into the employees’ reason and/or available resources to invest in job

crafting. In Study 2, we build on the selective optimization and compensation theory (Baltes &

Dickson, 2001) as well as on the activation hypothesis (Karasek, 1989) to introduce job crafting

as a successful aging strategy in the context of active jobs. In Study 3, we broadened the functional

classification perspective on individual characteristics in relation to proactive behaviour (Wu,

Parker, & Bindl, 2013) and argued that also relatively malleable individual characteristics (i.e. PGI

and active emotions) fulfil the needed functions to engage in job crafting via the mechanisms of

energy and human agency. In Study 4, we used the conservation of resources theory to elaborate

on the relationships between burnout which indicates resource loss, servant leadership as an

available resource, and job crafting which refers to resource acquisition or conservation (COR;

Hobfoll, 1989). In this section, we summarize how COR provides a relevant overall framework for

future research on job crafting and we briefly introduce a short research note on the affect-

proactivity relationship (see Appendix VI).

First, in discussing the overall findings within this PhD project, COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989)

showed to be a relevant theoretical framework to further examine the relationships between job

crafting and both positive and negative circumstances. COR holds the main premise that “people

strive to retain, protect, and build resources” and that the “potential or actual loss of valued

resources’ threatens humans most (p. 516). Positive circumstances can be conceived as resources,

while negative circumstances as indications of potential or actual loss. Job crafting can be framed

as a strategy to enable oneself to gain resources, to buffer stress and to restore energy levels to

prevent resource depletion (Hakanen, Peeters & Schaufeli, 2017). However, employees seem to

need resources in the form of job characteristics (i.e. autonomy, servant leadership), personal

characteristics (i.e. PGI, personal accomplishment), or energy (i.e. active emotions) to be able to

craft. Therefore, providing sufficient resources and installing so-called resource caravans or

“back-ups” (Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2017, p.11), enhances the likelihood that employees

engage in job crafting to optimize their functioning. A challenging question for future research

might be how employees who lack the necessary resources to craft still can be supported in

finding their way to job crafting, and optimizing their functioning.

Second, our study on the relationship between emotions and job crafting motivated us to

elaborate on the broader affect-proactivity relationship in a short research note (see Appendix

VI). Affect can be described within a circumplex, as an integral blend of two dimensions, namely

the valence dimension ranging from negative to positive, and the activation dimension ranging

from passive to active. We started from the literature in which, to date, there are two main streams

making predictions on the impact of affect or emotions on proactive behaviour, namely the

broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2004) and the motivational intensity perspective

(Harmon-Jones et al., 2013). Whereas the broaden-and-build perspective stresses the importance

GENERAL DISCUSSION

173

of the valence of emotions because of a broadened attentional scope when experiencing positive

emotions, the motivational intensity perspective stresses the importance of the activation

dimension of affect in stimulating proactive behaviour because of narrowed attentional scope

when experiencing active emotions. However, although at first sight these perspectives might

seem contradictious, we argue (theoretically) that the current literature on the affect-proactivity

literature might benefit from an integration of the broaden-and-build and motivational intensity

perspectives. Both approaches foster our understanding on the function of affect in relation to

both cognitive and behavioural elements of proactivity, but presumably at another level within

another timeframe. At a general level, investigated by means of cross-sectional or longitudinal

studies, we expect the valence dimension to have a dominant impact on proactivity. At a daily

level, however – as demonstrated in this PhD project –, the activation dimension might become

especially relevant in translating discrete experienced emotions into immediate behavioural

reactions, regardless of the valence of the emotion. Future research could elaborate on our

findings and on our theoretical thoughts described in Appendix VI.

2.5. Methodological Considerations

In this section, we want to address four methodological considerations which are important

to take into account when interpreting our results.

2.5.1. The Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS).

We formulated four double-barrelled items in a deductive way. Building on the literature, we

argued that job crafting consists of two core elements that we wanted to include in the

measurement. More specifically, we ask employees to what extent they initiate changes to their

job in order to feel better, to perform better, so the job would better suit who they are and fit with

what they think is important. One could raise the concern that the OJCS includes the underlying

purpose of optimizing one’s functioning which might bias research on its consequences. However,

intending to optimize functioning is not necessarily equal to actually succeeding in experiencing

or achieving optimal functioning (Parker et al., 2010). Although we could exclude overlap in our

studies by means of confirmatory factor analyses, we recommend future research to test for this

when using the OJCS in relation to positive outcomes. A second potential limitation of the OJCS is

that it does not allow to make a distinction between concrete types of job crafting. Hence, the OJCS

may especially be relevant when one is interested in the general concept of job crafting (e.g. Tims

et al., 2016; Vogt et al., 2016). A final aspect that should be considered when using the OJCS is the

choice of answering scale on which respondents have to rate the items. Throughout our studies

we used both a 5-point Likert scale from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree and a 7-point

frequency scale from (1) seldom or never to (7) daily. In the data samples collected at a later point

GENERAL DISCUSSION

174

within the PhD project, we opted to use a frequency scale. That allowed us to measure job crafting

as a true behaviour – instead of a general tendency – and to compare our overarching construct

with job crafting measured by means of other job crafting measurements using a frequency scale.

In addition, by means of a 7-point scale we wanted to allow participants to use more scale points

to rate their behaviour, thereby enhancing information richness (Weijters, Baumgartner, &

Anseel, 2016). A potential limitation of using a frequency scale, however, concerns the distribution

of job crafting which tends to be skewed such that more data points are collected at the lower side

of the scale. To deal with this non-normality, we used robust estimators in testing our hypotheses

(Byrne, 2012). We would recommend future research using the OJCS to carefully reflect on the

type of information one aims to collect, namely information on the general behavioural tendency

to engage in job crafting (i.e. individuals’ agreement with the items) or on the extent to which

employees engage in job crafting (i.e. frequency of individuals’ engagement in what the items

describe; Van Parys, 2016).

2.5.2. Samples.

We collected six different samples to test our hypotheses (Appendix IV). Sample A, a three-

wave dataset, was collected in a health care organisation and represented 82% of the employees

of the organisation (Study 1; NT1=423, NT1T2=313, NT2T3= 298). We used this dataset in validating

the OJCS. Important to note, during our data collection the organisation went through

organizational change which involved the merger of the three departments. This change context

might have influenced our findings on the predictive validity of the OJCS and more specifically the

nonsignificant relationship with in-role performance. Future research might aim to explore the

role of job crafting in different contexts (e.g. change context). Sample B was collected in our

personal network and consisted of 26, mainly high-educated, respondents (Qualitative pilot study

– Study 1). Sample C (Study 1, NT1=637, NT1T2=358) and D (Study 2, N=1168) were collected among

governmental employees. In Sample C, a two-wave dataset, we investigated the construct and

incremental validity of the OJCS in relation to other job crafting measurements. Sample D only

included employees aged between 45 and 65 years (Study 2). Future research might aim to

replicate these studies with a more heterogeneous sample such as non-public sector employees

(Study 1 & 2) and employees of a wider age span (Study 2). In Sample E, we conducted a daily

diary study among employees working in different organisations (N=116, observations=341).

Sample F (N=583) consisted of employees working in 14 different organisations. This sample

included a large proportion high-educated (70%) and female employees which might limit the

heterogeneity of the data and hence, the generalizability of the findings. We controlled for the

educational level in testing the hypotheses, showing that higher educated employees more often

engaged in job crafting. Until now, our knowledge on the impact of demographics in relation to

GENERAL DISCUSSION

175

job crafting is limited. Based on our findings in Study 4, future research could tap into the role of

educational level more thoroughly by including it more explicitly in the hypothesized model.

2.5.3. Study design, causality and dynamics.

We used different study designs throughout this PhD dissertation. Except for Study 1, we used

cross-sectional designs to test our hypotheses. Hence, we cannot be sure that the presumed

independent variables temporally preceded the dependent variables. It would be interesting to

tap into the dynamics and plausible reciprocal relationships between job crafting, optimal

functioning and opportunities to craft in future research. Extant empirical research for instance

seems to suggest that job crafting can be an antecedent (Tims et al., 2013a; Vogt et al., 2016) as

well as a consequence of (sub)optimal functioning (Hakanen, Peeters & Schaufeli, 2017; Harju et

al., 2016; Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015), a perspective we corroborate in this dissertation

too. Although we build our hypotheses based on theory, in Study 2, for example, one could

additionally hypothesize the reversed relationship, namely that willingness to continue working

would also motivate employees to craft their job towards more activating and stimulating jobs.

Despite theoretical, and first empirical, support for our hypothesized relationships, the

replication in longitudinal studies or experiments is warranted to provide empirical evidence on

the directionality of the relationships between the studied variables (Cook & Campbell, 1979).

Nevertheless, in the current dissertation, the cross-sectional designs allowed us to provide a first

answer on our research questions. Perhaps, in some studies within this dissertation, a longitudinal

design was not really necessary. In both Study 3 and Study 4 for instance, we were especially

interested in the concurrent association of active emotions and burnout with job crafting which

could be established by means of cross-sectional designs at a between-person (Study 4) or within-

person level (Study 3). In Study 3 and Study 4, we modelled daily active emotions and burnout

components respectively, as antecedents of job crafting. Future research could consider the use

of very short time-intervals, for instance two or three measurements within one day, to replicate

Study 3 and Study 4 taking the temporal precedence into account, or could test similar hypotheses

over the course of longer time intervals. So far, it remains unclear which time-interval would be

relevant. Longitudinal research on job crafting is still relatively scarce and extant studies use

diverse time-lags including one week (e.g. Tims et al., 2016), two weeks (Bipp & Demerouti, 2015),

one month (Tims et al., 2013a; Tims et al., 2015a), three months (e.g. Vogt et al., 2016), one year

(Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012; Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015) to even three (Harju et al.,

2016) or four years (Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2017). We would recommend future

researchers to take into account the potential meaning and value of different time lags given the

variety of job crafting behaviours. Diverse job crafting behaviours might require different

research designs with different timeframes in order to be investigated in a meaningful way.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

176

Whereas rather big, structural changes such as taking on new projects might require longer

timeframes for instance, small adaptations might need research designs with shorter timeframes

to demonstrate their impact. We elaborate more thoroughly on this matter of time in Section 3.1.

In addition, future research could take into account some third variable explanations to

exclude the possibility that the established relationships are just spurious (Cook & Campbell,

1979). Both organizational factors (e.g. public versus private sector, organizational climate,

leadership) and personal factors (proactive personality, conscientiousness) might relate to job

crafting and the investigated correlates. Future research could for instance explore potential

differential relationships among employees working in the public versus private sector (Solomon,

1986). Research in Belgium indicated that public sector employees experience slightly more

autonomy, less job demands, higher job security, higher levels of work enjoyment and lower levels

of turnover intention (De Witte, Vets, & Notelaers, 2010). Hence, in Study 1, public sector might

have been a third variable increasing the presence of active jobs, job crafting and the willingness

to continue working, without these variables causing each other. In addition, a supportive work

climate and leadership are argued to have an important role in relation to job crafting (Demerouti,

2014; Petrou et al., 2015) but might also enhance employees’ functioning (Gagné & Deci, 2005;

McMurray, Pirola-Merlo, Sarros, & Islam, 2010). Next to organizational factors, also personal

factors might have an impact. Proactive personality, for instance, showed to positively relate to

job crafting (Bakker et al., 2012) but also relates to a range of motivation-related outcomes and

indicators of career success (Fuller & Marler, 2009). It might be that proactive employees will not

only craft their job to a higher extent, but also are more willing to continue working and more

likely to experience person-job fit. In addition, Parker et al. (2010) advance conscientiousness as

a predictor of proactive person-environment fit behaviours, and hence job crafting. They argue

that conscientious employees not only would be more likely to engage in proactive behaviour, but

would more specifically strive to achieve a good fit. It would be interesting to investigate the role

of personality traits in the relationship between job crafting and its hypothesized correlates more

thoroughly as this, so far, remains under-investigated. In the current dissertation, we opted to

include more malleable individual characteristics that can be trained or developed in practice.

In sum, the use of longitudinal and experimental designs, along with the study of third

variables may allow future research to establish the causality of the relationships proposed in this

dissertation.

2.5.4. Self-reports.

All variables were measured by means of self-reports, yielding the risk of social desirability

and inflated relationships due to common-method bias. To avoid or reduce this risk, it is

recommended to collect multi-source data, for instance using additional colleague- or supervisor-

GENERAL DISCUSSION

177

reports (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). However, we relied on self-reports given our

interest in employees’ perceptions, well-being and job crafting behaviour. These aspects are

difficult to be correctly evaluated by others. It might for instance be difficult – or even impossible

– for others to decide whether observed changes employees made in their job can be labelled as

job crafting behaviour (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Moreover, job crafting acts can be so small

and specific that they are not necessarily visible for others (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; van

den Heuvel et al., 2015). In all our studies, we aimed to minimize risks owing to social desirability

by guaranteeing confidentiality and by relying on discretionary participation. Social desirability

might especially be an issue regarding more delicate outcomes such as burnout or organisation-

related evaluations such as leadership (Lievens, Van Geit, & Coetsier, 1997). Furthermore,

organisations might differ in their belief that job crafting is a desirable behaviour, potentially

influencing employees to give social desirable answers. In addition, we applied some remedies to

counter potential common method bias. In Study 2, we distant the variables of interest in the

questionnaire. The participants were first asked to report on their willingness to continue

working. Then, they had to evaluate some organization specific initiatives for older employees

that were not included in this study. Finally, the items to measure autonomy, workload and job

crafting were mixed. In Study 3, we tested an alternative model in which we included a common

method factor which did not fit the data better than the hypothesized model. Finally, Siemsen,

Roth, and Oliveira (2010) argued that common method bias cannot explain nor distort interaction

effects. Hence, notwithstanding the merits of multi-source data, we are relatively confident that

our results were minimally influenced by common-method bias. Nevertheless, future research

could combine self-report with other-reports to strengthen hypothesized models and minimize

potential common-method bias. This might especially be relevant to examine the role of

contextual aspects (e.g. leadership, team-related aspects, etc.) in relation to job crafting as

previously shown in some studies (Bakker et al., 2012; Demerouti, Bakker, & Gevers, 2015; Tims,

Bakker, & Derks, 2015b; Wang, 2017).

3. Thinking Ahead: Remaining Issues on Job Crafting

In this second part of the General Discussion, we think ahead on remaining issues in the job

crafting literature. First, we elaborate on the concept of job crafting and the matter of time in job

crafting research. Second, we tap into the remaining need to provide empirical evidence on the

dynamic interplay between job crafting and its surrounding mechanisms. In doing so, we build on

the overall model of this PhD project and draw the attention to some un(der)-investigated paths,

providing avenues for future job crafting research.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

178

3.1. The Concept of Job Crafting and the Matter of Time

Job crafting is a fairly complex concept that brings along challenges in conducting quantitative

research. It is described as a dynamic process that unfolds over time (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,

2001) and that continues to cycle as individuals move through daily life (Berg et al., 2008).

Wrzesniewski and colleagues refer to an ongoing process that individuals engage in as they move

through four stages, namely the motivation to craft, the identification of crafting opportunities

followed by job crafting behaviour, and outcomes for the job crafter which in turn trigger further

motivations to craft (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Berg et al., 2008). Within the current job

crafting literature, however, the dynamic interplay between job crafting, optimal functioning, and

both personal and contextual factors remains to be empirically tested. We need multiple

measurements across time to test assumptions on the temporal precedence and reciprocal

relationships between job crafting and indicators of optimal functioning. However, so far, it

remains rather unclear which time-interval would be the best to include (Hakanen, Peeters &

Schaufeli, 2017; Harju et al., 2016).

We assume that diverse job crafting behaviours might require different research designs with

different timeframes in order to be investigated in a meaningful way. More specifically, our

findings shed light on a diversity of changes employees may initiate by means of job crafting

including small as well as big, and momentary as well as (relatively) permanent changes to

optimize their functioning in the short- or long-run. Job crafting can be conceived as a way to make

more structural changes such as taking on a new project together with some colleagues as well as

a strategy for making day to day adaptations to meet daily circumstances such as seeking advice

from a colleague or using flexible work arrangements (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013b). Job crafting

behaviours such as more structural, perhaps more deliberate, changes may especially have an

impact in the long run and hence, may require research designs with a longer timeframe to

examine its effect. However, job crafting behaviours might also include small changes to benefit

temporary needs and preferences (Dorenbosch, Bakker, Demerouti, & van Dam, 2013), requiring

short timeframes. In addition, it can be an ad hoc strategy to deal with experienced well-being in

the short run. Hence, the effects of some job crafting behaviours might be more immediate or

concurrent (Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012), requiring research designs such as daily diary or week

book studies. We assume that job crafting can but does not per se needs to fulfil long-term goals.

It would be interesting for future research to think through and take into account the

potential meaning and value of different time lags given the variety of job crafting behaviours.

How does “time” matter in the investigation of the relationships between job crafting, optimal

functioning, personal and context factors? For instance, what is the meaning of a relationship

between job crafting and optimal functioning over a time period of one year or longer? How does

this meaning differ when a time period of one day or even a couple of hours is used? How does the

GENERAL DISCUSSION

179

process of job crafting, starting with day to day adaptations, unfolds over time adding to long-term

meaningful relationships? Is it an ongoing process individuals engage in by altering their job on a

daily basis or do small changes stimulate employees to also engage in more structural changes

over time? In addition, as previously suggested by Leana et al. (2009), future research might tackle

the question whether individual job crafting may be preferably conceptualized and studied at the

within-individual level of analysis instead of the between-level of analysis to be able to account

for intra-individual variation.

In sum, the complex, dynamic, individual-level but also situated nature of job crafting raises

“methodological challenges for how to best study the practices, forms, and outcomes of job

crafting” by means of quantitative research (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p.196). Future

research might tackle the question which timeframe and study design expand our understanding

of a diversity of job crafting behaviours and its surrounding mechanisms in a meaningful way.

3.2. Un(der)-investigated Paths in our Overall Model: Job Crafting in Relation to

Optimal Functioning, and Personal and Contextual factors

In this section, we return to the overall model we presented to structure the empirical studies

within this PhD dissertation to think ahead on some future research avenues. More specifically,

we elaborate on four aspects in the model which are to date un(der)-investigated and might

provide avenues for future research (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The overall model of this PhD project (dark lines) expanded with avenues for

future research (grey lines)

GENERAL DISCUSSION

180

3.2.1. Job crafting and optimal functioning: only a bright side?

First, future research might further tap into the (reciprocal) relationships between well-being

and job crafting. Whereas the relationships between job crafting and work engagement seem to

be positive and straightforward, especially the burnout – job crafting relationship remains

puzzling. There might be at least three explanations for the mixed results. One reason, as

mentioned before, might be that the relationship can be both negative and positive, resulting in

counterbalancing mechanisms. On the one hand, negative well-being might signal a suboptimal

situation and might motivate employees to craft their job to optimize their well-being, resulting

in a positive relationship. On the other hand, employees experiencing negative well-being might

lack the needed energy or resources to invest in job crafting, resulting in a negative relationship.

We explored this explanation and found a marginally curvilinear (inverted U-shaped) relationship

between emotional exhaustion and job crafting (cf. Study 4). A second reason might be the role of

conditional factors in establishing or pronouncing a significant relationship. For instance, we

demonstrated that the curvilinear relationship between emotional exhaustion and job crafting

was more pronounced under conditions of high servant leadership. Hence, it seems to be

especially challenging to look for ways to stimulate employees experiencing severe levels of ill-

being to engage in job crafting. Future research could further explore curvilinear relationships

and the impact of conditional factors such as contextual (e.g. servant leadership) as well as

personal factors (e.g. self-efficacy, psychological capital). A third way to dig into these

relationships might be to adopt a person-centred approach. It could be interesting to identify

latent subgroups of employees (“profiles”) with similar mean levels and mean-level changes in

occupational well-being (e.g. work engagement, burnout) and to investigate whether these

subgroups differ with respect to available resources and job crafting. The work of Perko,

Kinnunen, Tolvanen and Feldt (2016) might inspire future research on such a person-centred

approach.

In addition to the bright side of job crafting including its potential benefits, future research

should also elaborate more deeply on a potentially dark side of job crafting. The current literature,

more specifically, sheds light on potential negative (side) effects of individual job crafting

behaviour for the individual as well as for colleagues (e.g. colleague burnout; Tims et al. 2015b)

and the larger organisation (e.g. counterproductive behaviour; Demerouti, Bakker, & Halbesleben,

2015). At the individual level, job crafting occasionally may cause additional stress or intermittent

regret (Berg et al., 2008). We could assume that challenging crafting might bring along negative

side effects when employees do not have sufficient resources to deal with the extra challenges.

Workaholics, for instance, “take up challenges and tasks, irrespective of the resources they may

draw upon”, which give raise to negative outcomes such as burnout in the long run (Hakanen,

Peeters & Schaufeli, 2017, p.4). Furthermore, despite the initial theoretical expectation that

GENERAL DISCUSSION

181

reducing hindrances would benefit individuals, empirical evidence so far hints at a more complex

relationship. Extant findings show that reducing hindrances can be associated with lower levels

of work engagement (Petrou et al., 2012; Demerouti, Bakker, & Gevers, 2015), and even with

higher levels of burnout (Petrou et al., 2015). Avoiding demanding aspects at work not only

prevents employees to feel engaged but also strengthens feelings of burnout. In addition,

hindrance crafting might also imply negative consequences for others: it enhances colleague

burnout because of an increase in workload and role conflict and it has been associated with lower

task performance (Demerouti, Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015; Gordon et al., 2015). Future research

should investigate whether reducing hindrances is always negative for the individual and when

this type of job crafting might be constructive. Petrou and colleagues (2015) suggest that

hindrance crafting might be positive when it happens in a constructive and skilful way, for

instance in the context of time management or as a temporary way to deal with demanding

circumstances. Presumably, managers have an important role to play in ensuring that hindrance

crafting is constructive for the individual as well as for the direct colleagues and the organisation.

In addition, we raise the question which type of hindrance crafting is captured in our overarching

approach. Given that we include the purpose of optimizing one’s functioning, that it is to enhance

well-being, meaning and identity of work, as well as performance, we would expect to capture

constructive forms of hindrance crafting. This assumption finds preliminary support in our

qualitative data in which employees reported to set priorities, to delegate some tasks according

to personal strengths and abilities and to alter some collaborations when they do not feel

comfortable. In sum, future research should elaborate on whether and when employees may craft

hindrances in a constructive way and how this constructive form can be best measured.

3.2.2. The role of personal and contextual factors: an interactionist perspective.

A second avenue for future research includes the interaction of personal and contextual

factors in stimulating job crafting. Both personal and contextual factors might reinforce

employees’ opportunities or abilities to invest in job crafting (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Niessen et

al. (2016) for instance showed that employees with an unsatisfied need for human connection

were only able to cope with these feelings by means of job crafting when they felt capable to meet

the challenges at work (i.e. interaction between need for human connection and self-efficacy).

Berdicchia, Nicolli, and Masino (2016) showed that employees scoring high on self-competence

were less likely to seek social resources in the context of job enlargement (i.e. interaction between

job enlargement and self-competence). In our research, we found that employees’ daily job

crafting was less prone to daily fluctuations in active emotions when employees knew what goals

they aimed for and when they made concrete plans for goal achievement (i.e. interaction between

active emotions and personal growth initiative). Also contextual factors might install conditions

GENERAL DISCUSSION

182

that enable employees to craft. Petrou et al. (2012) demonstrated for instance that on days that

employees experienced a high amount of workload in their job, they were more likely to craft their

job when they had the autonomy to do so. Unfortunately, our findings did not replicate this

interaction. However, we showed that servant leadership can provide employees with additional

resources to invest in job crafting in early stages of emotional exhaustion. In addition, servant

leadership amplified the positive relationship between feeling of personal accomplishment and

job crafting. Hence, future research might expand our understanding of the enactment of job

crafting by taken into account both the main effects and interactions of personal and contextual

factors.

3.2.3. Explaining the positive outcomes of job crafting.

As a third avenue, future research might expand the empirical understanding of the

explanatory mechanisms underlying the positive relationship between job crafting and positive

outcomes. More specifically, at least three explanatory aspects could be explored: (1) contextual

changes, i.e. effective changes in job design, (2) personal changes, i.e. changes in feelings of control

or agency, and (3) a better alignment between context and person, i.e. an enhanced person-job fit.

First, job crafting might positively relate to favourable outcome variables because of effective

changes in job design (Tims, et al., 2013a). Second, the positive relationship might also be

explained by an accumulation of personal resources. Personal resources refer to “psychological

characteristics or aspects of the self that are generally associated with resiliency and that refer to

the ability to control and impact one’s environment successfully” (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014, p.49).

Job crafting might enhance people’s feelings of control over the environment (Tims & Bakker,

2010), increase employees’ psychological capital (Vogt et al., 2016) or contribute to psychological

need satisfaction (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013), which in turn might lead to positive outcomes

(Bakker, 2010; Bakker et al., 2014). By means of job crafting “employees seem to create or

mobilize their own personal and job resources” which fosters optimal functioning over time

(Bakker, 2010, p. 238). Third, taking an interactionist perspective, a better person-job fit might

also explain positive relationships. Some scholars demonstrated the mediating role of person-job

fit in the relationship between job crafting and individual outcomes such as work engagement

(Chen et al., 2014) and meaningfulness (Tims et al., 2016). Furthermore, by increasing person-job

fit employees give meaning to the job and hence, foster the internalization of the motivation to

work (i.e. autonomous motivation; SDT, Gagné & Panaccio, 2014). Future research could explore

the underlying mechanisms of SDT, including internalization and need satisfaction (Slemp & Vella-

Brodrick, 2014), to advance the understanding of the relationship between job crafting and

optimal functioning.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

183

3.2.4. Job crafting as a moderator.

A fourth avenue for future research includes the role of job crafting as a moderator of the

relationship between personal and contextual factors and optimal functioning. More specifically,

job crafting might influence the relationship from both resourceful and challenging circumstances

to optimal functioning. This function of job crafting has recently been investigated by Hakanen,

Seppälä, and Peeters (2017). They showed that job crafting buffered the negative relationship

between job demands and occupational well-being (Hakanen, Seppälä, & Peeters, 2017). Given

that job crafting is a behaviour especially aimed at enhancing resources, employees might benefit

from engaging in job crafting in challenging circumstances. Similarly, Demerouti, Bakker, and

Leiter (2014) found that adaptive strategies, namely behavioural strategies that might be

comparable to job crafting, influence employees’ ability to maintain their performance when

experiencing burnout. Hence, in future research, job crafting might also be modelled as an

individual strategy that might influence employees’ functioning in specific circumstances. In

addition, future research could tap into the role of job crafting in the development of burnout. We

ran some exploratory analyses, not reported in this PhD, and found that job crafting indeed

buffered the positive relationship between emotional exhaustion and cynicism. Employees who

engaged in job crafting, were less likely to be cynical despite feelings of emotional exhaustion.

4. Job Crafting in Practice

In this section, we elaborate on the practical implications of this PhD’s findings. Job crafting

emerges as a promising construct in the contemporary world of work in which employees are

increasingly expected to take responsibility in optimizing their functioning (Peeters et al., 2014).

Practitioners can build on three aspects that characterize the complexity of job crafting. First, by

means of job crafting, employees can initiate a diversity of changes to their jobs, ranging from

small alterations to more structural adaptations. Increasing awareness on what job crafting is and

helping employees to think-out-of-the box when reflecting on relevant changes to make, might

stimulate job crafting. Second, even though scholars assume that every employee would to be able

to craft in every context in some way, both personal and contextual resources could be

strengthened in order to stimulate employees to craft (Demerouti, 2014). Third, although in

general job crafting yields positive consequences, it can have potential negative side effects for the

job crafter, such as an increase in emotional exhaustion (Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015),

as well as for the environment such as an increase in counterproductive behaviour (Demerouti,

Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015) or colleague burnout (Tims et al., 2015b). Consequently, a challenge

for practice includes fostering so-called “beneficial” job crafting (Berg et al., 2008, p.7) for both

GENERAL DISCUSSION

184

the individual job crafter and the environment. Our findings indeed emphasize the complementary

role of employers and employees in establishing job crafting.

In what follows, we draw the attention to traditional top-down job (re)design as a

fundamental base for job crafting (e.g. an active and resourceful environment) and to the role of

supervisors (e.g. servant leadership might install a supportive environment). Additionally, we

advise to enhance employees’ personal resources including personal growth initiative and

employees’ feelings of personal accomplishment. Finally, job crafting can be stimulated by means

of day-to-day interactions and experiences, as well as through interventions including coaching,

mentoring, training, career counselling and workshops.

Traditional top-down job (re)design provides a fundamental context for job crafting because

it indicates the boundaries of a pre-designed job which can be altered (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,

2001). More specifically, an active, and especially resourceful and supportive environment creates

the necessary ingredients for employees to craft their job in a constructive way. Employers can

invest in active jobs, providing sufficient autonomy for employees to deal with challenging

aspects, which will stimulate learning, growth related behaviours such as job crafting, and

motivation (e.g. willingness to continue working until retirement age). Especially autonomy, or

the sense of freedom, control and responsibility employees experience in their job, is advocated

as a core antecedent of job crafting because it shapes the opportunity to craft (Wrzesniewski &

Dutton, 2001). Our findings particularly illuminate the added value of autonomy at work in the

light of current demographical challenges. We found that autonomy directly as well as indirectly

through job crafting, positively relates to the willingness of employees of 45 years and older to

continue working until retirement age.

In addition, supervisors or managers might play an essential role in installing a resourceful

and supportive environment (Berg et al., 2008; Demerouti, 2014; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).

In this PhD project, we demonstrated the role of servant leadership in encouraging employees to

craft and in helping them to translate early feelings of emotional exhaustion into job crafting.

Employers could train leaders to become more servant by developing some core competencies

such as emotional healing (i.e. caring about followers’ well-being), empowering (i.e. entrusting

followers with autonomy and responsibility), helping subordinates grow and succeed (i.e.

uncovering the full potential of each follower), and putting subordinates first (i.e. prioritizing

meeting the needs of followers) (Liden et al., 2008; Liden et al., 2015). Similarly, Spears (2004)

extracted some characteristics central to the development of servant leaders such as listening,

empathy, and being committed to the growth of people. Van Dierendonck (2011, p.1245) stresses

the importance of self-determination as “an essential condition to be able to act as a servant

leader”. Self-determination can be enhanced through the fulfilment of the basic psychological

needs of autonomy, relatedness and competence (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Self-determined leaders in

GENERAL DISCUSSION

185

turn are more likely to “provide others with the opportunity to become self-determined as well”

(Van Dierendonck, p.1245), for instance through job crafting, and hence to optimize one’s

functioning. In line with this reasoning, Schaufeli (2015) recently introduced the added value of

engaging leadership in preventing employees from burnout and in stimulating work engagement

and positive outcomes. Engaging leaders inspire, strengthen and connect employees, helping

them to become more self-determined, and hence to engage in job crafting. Even though managers

are not “able to affect when and to what extent job crafting occurs” (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,

2001), they might enhance both contextual opportunities as well as personal resources such as

goal-setting capacities and self-efficacy (van Dam, Nikolova, & van Ruysseveldt, 2013). Therefore,

practitioners could train supervisors to create and sustain a supportive environment for job

crafting and hence, employees’ functioning.

Next to optimizing contextual factors in stimulating job crafting, practitioners could also

reinforce employees’ personal resources. Following our findings, we recommend to develop

employees’ personal growth initiative (PGI) and feelings of personal accomplishment or self-

efficacy. PGI is, given its state-like nature, an excellent construct to focus on in coaching,

mentoring, training and other forms of intervention (Robitschek, 1998). Practitioners could

enhance employees’ PGI by stimulating both cognitive (i.e. goal setting) and behavioural aspects

(i.e. goal implementation). Stimulating reflection and awareness on both the current situation –

what does my job and work environment look like? - and on personal interests, abilities and values

– who am I? – might help employees to envision and set personal goals, and therefore strengthen

the cognitive aspects of PGI. In addition, employees might be coached in developing a realistic and

time-bounded action plan to foster goal implementation and achievement, and therefore impacts

the behavioural aspects of PGI (Parker et al., 2010; van den Heuvel et al., 2015). Strengthening

these self-regulatory processes might enhance the proactivity process towards job crafting and

positive outcomes (Parker et al., 2010).

Practitioners should also draw their attention to employees’ feelings of personal

accomplishment which is argued to “reflect a personal characteristic similar to employees’ self-

efficacy” (Demerouti et al., 2001, p.500). Self-efficacy concerns the employees’ beliefs of the

personal capacities to conduct work and to successfully impact the environment, for instance by

means of job crafting (Tims et al., 2014; van den Heuvel et al., 2015). Self-efficacy beliefs might be

fostered through at least three sources of information: (1) mastery experiences including personal

job crafting initiatives inform employees on how they can successfully act upon the environment,

(2) verbal persuasion through feedback and encouragement from others such as colleagues and

supervisors, and (3) vicarious learning or role modelling by learning from effective job crafting

behaviours of others (Bandura, 1997; van den Heuvel et al., 2015). These sources of information

could be more explicitly included in the daily work environment and interactions with others as

GENERAL DISCUSSION

186

well as in the development of job crafting interventions. First of all, providing relevant resources

at work strengthens employees’ efficacy, and hence prevents a reduction of personal

accomplishment (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). For instance, the amount of skill utilisation

and development might enable employees to experience mastery in conducting and crafting work.

In addition, colleagues and supervisors might be role models, provide employees with feedback

and encourage job crafting behaviour. Building self-efficacy can also be incorporated in job

crafting interventions in which employees reflect on opportunities to craft, set job crafting goals

and learn from each other (van den Heuvel et al., 2015).

In sum, job crafting might be subject to interventions as coaching, training, workshops and

career counselling. To date, at least five (group) intervention studies on job crafting were

published (Kooij, van Woerkom, Wilkenlok, Dorenbosch, & Denissen, 2016; Sakuraya, Shimazu,

Imamuri, Narba, & Kawakami, 2016; van den Heuvel et al., 2015; van Wingerden, Derks, Bakker,

& Dorenbosch, 2013; van Wingerden, Derks, & Bakker, 2017) and might inspire practitioners in

developing job crafting interventions. Elaborating on this PhD project and the current literature,

two key factors should be included to stimulate job crafting, namely strengthening awareness and

resourcefulness. Job crafting interventions might start with clarifying the concept of job crafting

and elaborating on the broad range of changes employees may initiate with the pro-self-focussed

purpose of optimizing one’s functioning. Hence, employees become more aware of what job

crafting is, and of the extent to which, when, and why they engage in job crafting. In addition,

employees might be coached in exploring their needs and opportunities to craft. A task-,

environment- and person-analysis can provide the input to develop a personal crafting plan based

on SMART-formulated goals. Finally, reflecting on the process of goal-setting and job crafting

initiatives might enhance employees personal resources and future job crafting behaviour.

Job crafting increasingly finds its way to practitioners. Following my PhD’s findings, I would

especially like to encourage practitioners to take a complementary perspective on job crafting,

going beyond its merely individual-level nature, and taking into account the potential role

employers, supervisors and other coaches have in making beneficial job crafting happen.

Therefore, I summarize some tips from both an employee- and employer-perspective in Figure 3.

For a more extensive elaboration on this view on job crafting in practice, albeit in Dutch, see

Appendix II and Appendix III.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

187

Figure 3. 9 tips on job crafting in practice from an employee- and employer perspective

5. Conclusion

Throughout this PhD project, we took an overarching approach on job crafting. By means of

four empirical, mainly cross-sectional, studies we clarified the overarching concept of job crafting

and explored its nomological network, including both antecedents and consequences in the

hypothesized models. We defined job crafting in an overarching way as the self-initiated changes

employees make to their job in order to optimize their functioning. Thereby, we emphasized that

job crafting can include a broad range of personally relevant changes, going beyond the job

crafting types described in the current literature, and that employees initiate these changes with

a pro-self-focused purpose. In addition, our findings demonstrate that job crafting is indeed

associated with optimal functioning, indicated by work engagement, work enjoyment,

autonomous motivation, the willingness to continue working and person-job fit. Notably, job

crafting occurred both in positive and negative conditions, hinting at its added value in helping

employees to deal with adversity (e.g. burnout). Finally, job crafting seems to be about

resourcefulness and to be able to take advantage of both personal (i.e. active emotions, personal

growth initiative and personal accomplishment) and contextual (i.e. active jobs, servant

leadership) factors. Hence, even though job crafting is an individual-level construct, the

complementary interplay between self-regulation and regulation, in which both employees- and

employers job (re)design-initiatives are mutually reinforced, constitutes the key to success.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

188

6. References

Bakker, A. B. (2010). Engagement and “job crafting”: engaged employees create their own great

place to work. In: S.L. Albrecht (Ed.). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives,

issues, research and practice. (p. 229-244). UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.




Bakker, A.B., & Costa, P.L. (2014). Chronic job burnout and daily functioning: A theoretical

analysis. Burnout Research, 1(3), 112-119. DOI: 10.1016/j.burn.2014.04.003



Ltd.



10.1177/0018726712453471




Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social

and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Belschak, F.D., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of

proactive behaviour: differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 83, 475-498. DOI: 10.1348/096317909X439208



10.1108/JMP-01-2014-0019



Bipp, T., & Demerouti, E. (2015). Which employees craft their jobs and how? Basic dimensions of

personality and employees’ job crafting behaviour. Journal of Occupational and





GENERAL DISCUSSION

189





10.1016/j.JIHM.2013.10.006

Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field

settings. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.



Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Gevers, J.M.P. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: the role

of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87-96. DOI:





Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Leiter, M. (2014). Burnout and Job Performance: The Moderating Role

of Selection, Optimization and Compensation Strategies. Journal of Occupational Health

Psycholoy, 19(1), 96-107. DOI: 10.1037/a0035062

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The Job Demands-Resources

Model of Burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512). DOI: 10.1037/0021-

9010.86.3.499

Dorenbosch, L., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & van Dam, K. (2013). Job crafting: de psychologie van

een baan op maat. Gedrag & Oranisatie,26(1), p.3-15.

Fredrickson, B.L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Phil. Trans. R. Soc.

Lond. B, 359, 1367-1377. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1512

Fuller, B., & Marler, L.E. (2009). Change driven by nature : A meta-analytic review of the proactive

personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 329-345. DOI:

10.1016/j.jvb.2009.05.008

Gagne, M., & Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362. DOI: 10.1002/job.322

Gagné, M., & Panaccio, A. (2014). The motivational power of job design. In: M. Gagné (Ed.). The

Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory

(pp.165-180). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199794911.013.012




http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000188


GENERAL DISCUSSION

190



10.1080/19416520903047327



DOI: 10.1027/1866/a000138

Hakanen, J.J., & Mutanen, P. (2014). Does servant leadership boost work engagement via job

crafting? An individual and team level study. Paper presented at the 11th conference of the

European Association of Occupational Health Psychology (EAOHP), London, April, 2014.

Hakanen, J.J., Peeters, M.C.W., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2017, February 13). Different types of employee

well-being across time and their relationships with job crafting. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000081

Hakanen, J.J., Seppälä, P., & Peeters, M.C.W. (2017). High job demands, still engaged and not burned

out? The role of job crafting. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. DOI:

10.1007/s12529-017-9638-3

Halbesleben, J.R.B., & Bowler, W.M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The

mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 93-106. DOI: 10.1037-

0021-9010.92.1.93

Harju, L., Hakanen, J.J., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2016). Can job crafting reduce job boredeom and

increase work engagement? A three-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 95-96, 11-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2016.07.001




10.1177/0963721413481353



Ilies, R., Scott, B.A., & Judge, T.A. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced

states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. The Academy of Management

Journal, 49(3), 561-272. DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2006.2179467



Kooij, D.T.A.M., Tims, M., & Kanfer, R. (2014). Successful aging at work: the role of job crafting. In

P.M. Bal, D.T.A.M. Kooij, & D.M. Rousseau (Eds.), Aging workers and the employee-employer

relationship, 145-162. Springer

GENERAL DISCUSSION

191

Kooij, D.T.A.M., van Woerkom, M., Wilkenloh, J., Dorenbosch, L.W., & Denissen, J.J.A. (2016). A job

crafting intervention: Increasing person-job fit of aging workers. The Gerontologist, 56,

Suppl.3., 295-295. DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnw162.1201






1169-1192.

Lichtenthaler, P.W., & Fischbach, A. (2016). Job crafting and motivation to continue working

beyond retirement age. Career Development International, 21(5), 477-497. DOI:

10.1108/CDI-01-2016-0009.

Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Meuser, J.D., Hu, J., Wu, J., & Liao, C. (2015). Servant leadership: Validation

of a short form of the SL-28. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 254-269. DOI:

10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.12.002



177.

Lievens, F., Van Geit, P., & Coetsier, P. (1997). Identification of transformational leadership

qualities: An examination of potential biases. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 6(4), 415-430.

Little, T.D. (2013). Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.



152.

Luthans, F., & Youssef, C., M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of

Management, 33(3), 321-349 DOI: 10.1177/0149206307300814

Lyons, P. (2008). The crafting of jobs and individual differences. Journal of Business Psychology, 23,

25-36.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job Burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,

397-422

McMurray, A.J., Pirola-Merlo, A., Sarros, J.C., & Islam, M.M. (2010). Leadership, climate,

psychological capital, commitment, and wellbeing in a non-profit organization. Leadership

& Organization Development Journal, 31(5), 436-457. DOI: 10.1108/01437731011056452



GENERAL DISCUSSION

192

and Organisations, 26(4), 365-384. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.

733543



69(6), 1287-1313. DOI: 10.1177/0018726715610642

Oldham, G.R., & Fried, Y. (2016). Job design research and theory: past, present and future.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 20-35. DOI:

10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.002



Peeters, M.C.W., Arts, R., & Demerouti, E. (2016). The crossover of job crafting between coworkers

and its relationship with adaptivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 25(6), 819-832. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1160891


J. de Jonge, & T.W. Taris (Eds.) An Introduction to Contemporary Work Psychology, (pp. 3-

30). UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Perko, K, Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., & Feldt, T. (2016). Investigating occupational well-being and

leadership from a person-centred longitudinal approach: congruence of well-being and

perceived leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(1),

105-119. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2015.1011136

Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Häfner, M. (2015). When fit matters more : The effect of regulatory fit

on adaptation to change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(1),

126-142. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2013.832209




Petrou, P. Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Job crafting in changing organizations:







Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 30(4), 183-198.


39(6), 1161-1178.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

193

Ryan, M.R., & Deci, E.L.(2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on

hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual review, 52, 141-166.

Sakuraya, A., Shimazu, A., Imamura, K., Namba, K. & Kawakami, N. (2016). Effects of a job crafting

intervention program on work engagement among Japanese employees: a pretest-posttest

study. BMC Psychology, 4(1), 49-58. DOI: 10.1186/s40359-016-0157-9

Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Engaging leadership in the job demands-resources model. Career

Development International, 20(5), 446-463. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-02-2015-0025

Schaufeli, W.B., & Taris, T.W. (2005). The conceptualization and measurement of burnout:

Common ground and worlds apart. Work & Stress, 19(3), 256-262. DOI:

10.1080/02678370500385913

Schaufeli, W.B. & Taris, T.W. (2014). A critical review of the Job Demands-Resources Model:

Implications for improving work and health. In G. Bauer & O. Hämmig (Eds), Bridging

occupational, organizational and public health (pp. 43-68). Dordrecht: Springer.

Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear,

quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456-476. DOI:

10.1177/1094428109351241







Solberg, E., & Wong, S.I. (2016). Crafting one’s job to take charge of role overload: when proactivity

requires adaptivity across levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 713-725. DOI:

10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.03.001

Solomon, E.E. (1986). Private and Public Sector Managers: An Empirical Investigation of Job

Characteristics and Organizational Climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 247-259.

Spears, L. (2004). Practicing Servant-Leadership. Leader to Leader, 34(Fall 2004), 7-11.

Stamov-Roβnagel, C., & Hertel, G. (2010). Older workers’ motivation: against the myth of general

decline. Management decision, 48(6), 894-906. DOI: 10.1108/00251741011053451






http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/411.pdf




GENERAL DISCUSSION

194

Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D. (2013a). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources,


10.1037/a0032141

Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D. (2013b). De job demands-resources benadering van job crafting.

Gedrag en organisatie, 26, 16-31.



2012-0148

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2015a). Job crafting and job performance: A longitudinal study.


10.1080/1359432X.2014.969245

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2015b). Examining job crafting from an interpersonal

perspective: Is employee job crafting related to the well-being of colleagues? Applied

Psychology, 64(4), 727-753. DOI: 10.1111/apps.12043



10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007

Travaglianti, F., Babic, A., & Hansez, I. (2016). The role of work-related needs in the relationship

between job crafting, burnout and engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 42(1),

a1308. DOI: 10.4102/saijip.v42i1.1308





van Dam, K., Nikolova, I., & van Ruysseveldt, J. (2013). Het belang van ‘leader-member exchange’

(LMX) en situationele doeloriëntatie als voorspellers van job crafting. Gedrag &

Organisatie, 26(1), 66-84.

van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M.C.W. (2015). The job crafting intervention: Effects

on job resources, self-efficacy, and affective well-being. Journal of Occupational and


Van Dierendonck, D., (2011). Servant leadership: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Management,

37(4), 1228-1261. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310380462

Van Parys, L. (2016). On the street-level implementation of ambiguous activation policy. How

caseworkers reconcile responsibility and autonomy and affect their clients' motivation

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Leuven, KU Leuven.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

195



van Wingerden, J., Derks, D., Bakker, A.B., & Dorenbosch, L. (2013). Job crafting in het speciaal

onderwijs: een kwalitatieve analyse. Gedrag & Organisatie, 26(1), 85-103.

van Wingerden, J., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2017). The longitudinal impact of a job crafting

intervention. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(1), 107-119.

DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1224233



25(3), 353-362. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2015.1072170

Wang, H. (2017). Leadership, Job Crafting and Work Outcomes: Can Leaders Cultivate Well-

Performing Job Crafters? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Eindhoven, Eindhoven

University of Technology.

Weijters, B., Baumgartner, H., & Anseel, F. (2016). Designing Better Questionnaires: A multi-

disciplinary review of recent findings. Manuscript in preparation.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the

structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.










Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2011). Maintaining a focus on opportunities at work: The interplay

between age, job complexity, and the use of selection, optimization, and compensation

strategies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 291-318; DOI: 10.1002/job.683

GENERAL DISCUSSION

196

197

APPENDICES

Appendix I

Overview Job Crafting Articles

APPENDIX 1.A. OVERVIEW JOB CRAFTING ARTICLES: REFERENCE MAIN STREAM TYPE OF STUDY JOB CRAFTING MEASUREMENT CORE VARIABLES

1

Appendix I. Overview of studies on job crafting (2001 – February 2017)

a. Overview of studies on job crafting

Table 1. Overview of articles referring to job crafting in the title

Reference Main Stream Type of Study Job Crafting questionnaire

Core Variables

1

20

01

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.

Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001)

Theoretical

/ /

2

20

03

Wrzesniewski, A. (2003). Finding positive meaning in work. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.


Theoretical

/ /

3

20

08

Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2008). What is job Crafting and Why Does It Matter? University of Michigan: Centre of Positive Organizational Scholarship.


Theoretical

/ /

4 Lyons, P. (2008). The crafting of jobs and individual differences. Journal of Business Psychology, 23, 25-36.


Qualitative

Interview surveys

/ Job crafting, opportunities to craft, work factors & personal

factors


2

5

20

09

Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work process and quality of care in early childhood education: the role of job crafting. The Academy of Management Journal, 52(6), 1169-1192.


qualitative & quantitative

interview /

Cross-Sectional (CS) study

Leana et al. (2009) Discretion, interdependence, orientation, supportive

supervision, social ties, status, Individual & collaborative

crafting, quality of care, organisational commitment,

turnover intentions, job satisfaction

6 Kira, M., van Eijnatten, F.M., & Balkin, D.B. (2010). Crafting sustainable work: development of personal resources. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(5), 616-632. DOI: 10.1108/ 09534811011071315


Theoretical

/ /

7

20

10

Berg, J.M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2010). Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 158-186. DOI: 1002/job.645


Qualitative Job Crafting: motives, outcomes, facilitators,

challenges

8 Tims, M., & Bakker, A. (2010). Job Crafting: towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), Art. #841, 9 pages, DOI: 10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841

Tims & Bakker (2010)

Theoretical

/ /



3

9

20

12

Tims, M., Bakker, A., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173-186. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009


Validation study

CS study

Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)

Job crafting, proactive personality, personal initiative,

cynicism, work engagement, employability, job performance

10 Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J.S. (2012). The development and validation of a job crafting measure for use with blue-collar workers. Work & Stress, An International Journal of Work, Health and Organisations, 26(4), 365-384. DOI: 10.1080/ 02678373.2012.733543


Validation study

CS + Longitudinal (L)

surveys

Job Crafting Scale for Blue-Collar

Workers (Nielsen & Abildgaard,

2012)

Job crafting, job satisfaction, work engagement, burnout

11 Bakker, A.B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65(10), 1359-1378. DOI: 10.1177/ 0018726712453471


Quantitative

multisource study: dyads of colleagues CS

study


Proactive personality, job crafting, work engagement, in-

role performance

12 Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M.C.W., Schaufeli, W.B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1120-1141. DOI: 10.1002/job.1786


Quantitative

Daily diary study

Petrou et al. (2012) – adapted from Tims et al.

(2012)

Daily job crafting, day-level autonomy, day-level workload,

day-level work engagement

13

20

13

Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work. In: B.J. Dik, Z.S. Byrne, & M.F. Steger (Eds).


Theoretical

/ /


4

Purpose and Meaning in the Workplace (pp.81-104). American Psychological Association.

14 2

01

3

Slemp, G.R., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2013). The job crafting questionnaire: A new scale to measure the extent to which employees engage in job crafting. International Journal of Wellbeing, 3(2), 126-146. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v3i2.1


Validation study

CS study

Job Crafting Questionnaire

(Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013)

Job crafting, strength use, intrinsic goal setting, OCB, job

satisfaction, work contentment, work enthusiasm, work-specific

positive and negative affect

15 Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D. (2013). De job demands-resources benadering van job crafting. Gedrag en organisatie, 26, 16-31.


Overview

/ /

16 Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Breevaart, K. (2013). Job crafting als sleutel tot succesvolle organisatieverandering. Gedrag en organisatie, 26, 32-45.


Theoretical

/ /

17 Kroon, B., Kooij, D.T.A.M., & van Veldhoven, M.J.P.M. (2013). Job crafting en bevlogenheid. Zijn er verschillen tussen teams met een restrictieve dan wel onbegrensde werkcontext? Gedrag en organisatie, 26, 46-65.


Quantitative

CS study

Kroon et al. (2013) –

challenging crafting and

reducing workload

Job crafting, autonomy, task independence (restrictive vs unrestrictive teams), work

engagement


5

18

20

13

van Dam, K., Nikolova, I., & van Ruysseveldt, J. (2013). Het belang van ‘leader-member exchange’ (LMX) en situationele doeloriëntatie als voorspellers van job crafting. Gedrag & Organisatie, 26(1), 66-84.


Quantitative

CS study

Preliminar version of Job Crafting

Scale (Tims et al., 2012)

LMX, situational performance and learning goals, job crafting

19 van Wingerden, J., Derks, D., Bakker, A.B., & Dorenbosch, L. (2013). Job crafting in het speciaal onderwijs: een kwalitatieve analyse. Gedrag & Organisatie, 26(1), 85-103.


intervention study +

qualitative

interviews

/ /

20 van Ruitenbeek, G.M.C., Mulder, M.J.G.P., Zijlstra, F.R.H., Nijhuis, & Mulders, H.P.G. (2013) Een alternatieve benadering voor herontwerp van werk. Ervaringen met de methode Inclusief Herontwerp Werkprocessen. Gedrag en Organisatie, 26, 104-122.

/ Theoretical / /

21

20

13

Tims, M., Bakker, A., Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 230-240. DOI: 10.1037/a0032141


Quantitative

L study - 3-waves (time lag

1 month)


Job crafting, Δ structural resources, Δ social resources, Δ

challenges, Δ hindrances, work

engagement, job satisfaction, burnout


6

22

20

13

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., Derks, D., & van Rhenen, W. (2013). Job Crafting at the Team and Individual Level: Implications for Work Engagement and Performance. Group & Organization Management, 38(4), 427-454. DOI: 10.1177/1059601113492421


Quantitative

multilevel study


Team and individual job crafting, team and individual work engagement, and team and individual performance

23

20

14

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy – performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 490-505. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-05-2012-0148


Quantitative

diary study

Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012) adapted to “days”

Daily self-efficacy, daily job crafting, daily work enjoyment,

daily performance

24 Demerouti, E. (2014). Design Your Own Job Through Job Crafting. European Psychologist. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000188


Overview

/ /

25 Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A.B. (2014). Job crafting. In: M.C.W. Peeters, J. de Jonge, & T.W. Taris (Eds.) An Introduction to Contemporary Work Psychology, (pp. 414-433). UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


Overview

/ /

26

20

14

Chen, C.Y., Yen, C.H., & Tsai, F.C. (2014). Job crafting and job engagement: The mediating role of person-job fit. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, 21-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.JIHM.2013.10.006


Quantitative

CS study

Adapted from Leana et al. (2009)

Individual and collaborative crafting, person-job fit, work

engagement


7

27

20

14

Lu, C.Q., Wang, H.J., Lu, J.J., Du, D.Y., & Bakker, A.B. (2014). Does work engagement increase person-job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84, 142-152.


Quantitative

L survey - 2 waves

(timelag = 3 months)

Two dimensions of the expansion-

oriented job crafting scale

(Laurence, 2010)

Work engagement, Δ physical job crafting,

Δ relational job crafting, Δ person-job fit

28 Slemp, G.R., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2014). Optimising Employee Mental Health: The Relationship Between Intrinsic Need Satisfaction, Job Crafting, and Employee Well-Being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(4), 957-977. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-013-9458-3.


Quantitative

CS study

Job Crafting Questionnaire

(Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013)

Job crafting, intrinsic need satisfaction, subjective well-

being, psychological well-being

29 Van Hooff, M.L.M., & van Hooft, E.A.J. (2014). Boredom at Work: Proximal and Distal Consequences of Affective Work-Related Boredom. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(3), 348-359 DOI: 10.1037/ a0036821

Tims & Bakker, (2010)

Quantitative

CS study


Job crafting, boredom, Bored behaviour, depression, distress, counterproductive

work behaviour

30 Wrzesniewski, A. (2014). Engage in job crafting. In G. M. Spreitzer & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), How to be a Positive Leader: Small Actions, Big Impact. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.


Theoretical / /


8

31

20

15

Brenninkmeijer, V., & Hekkert-Koning, M. (2015). To craft our not to craft: the relationships between regulatory focus, job crafting and work outcomes. Career Development International, 20(2), 147-162. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-12-2014-0162.


Quantitative

CS study


Regulatory focus, job crafting, work engagement, perceived

employability

32 Petrou, P., & Demerouti, E. (2015). Trait-level and week-level regulatory focus as a motivation to craft a job. Career Development International, 2(2), 102-118. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-09-2014-0124


Quantitative

two studies: CS survey + weekly

diary study 3 weeks

Petrou et al. (2012)

1. Regulatory focus, job crafting

2. Week-level regulatory focus, trait-level regulatory focus,

week-level job crafting

33 Gordon, H.J., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P.M., & Bipp, T. (2015). Job crafting and performance of Dutch and American health care professionals. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14(4), 192-202. DOI: 10.1027/1866/a000138


Quantitative

CS study


Job demands (work pressure, cognitive & emotional

demands), job resources (social support, feedback, LMX), job crafting, task performance,

creative performance

34

20

15

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2015). Job crafting and job performance: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 914-928. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2014.969245


Quantitative

L study - 3 waves (timelag= 1

month)


Job crafting intentions, actual job crafting (“last month”), work engagement, in-role

performance, OCBI


9

35

20

15

2

01

5

Mattarelli, E., & Tagliaventi, M.R. (2015). How Offshore Professionals’ Job Dissatisfaction Can Promote Further Offshoring: Organizational Outcomes of Job Crafting. Journal of Management Studies, 52(5), 585-620. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01088.x

/ Qualitative

Case studies, semi-structured

interviews

/ /

36 Slemp, G.R., Kern, M.L., & Vella-Brodrick, D. (2015). Workplace Well-Being: The Role of Job Crafting and Autonomy Support. Psychology of Well-Being, 5:7. DOI: 10.1186/s13612-015-0034-y


Quantitative

CS study

Slemp & Vella-Brodrick (2012)

Perceived autonomy support, job crafting, workplace well-

being

37 van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M.C.W. (2015). The job crafting intervention: Effects on job resources, self-efficacy, and affective well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88, 511-532. DOI: 10.1111/joop.12128


intervention study +

quantitative

Pre-post intervention measures +

weekly diary


Opportunities for development, LMX, self-efficacy, positive and

negative affect

38 Petrou, P. Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Job crafting in changing organizations : antecedents and implications for exhaustion and performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(4), 470-480. DOI: 10.1037/a0039003


Quantitative

cross-lagged L study - 2 waves

(timelag = 12 months)


Impact of changes, willingness to change, job crafting,

exhaustion, task performance


10

39

20

15

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2015). Productive and counterproductive job crafting: A daily diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1037/a0039002


Quantitative

daily diary study


Daily job crafting, work pressure, autonomy, work

engagement, exhaustion, task performance, altruism,

counterproductive work behaviour

40 Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2015b). Examining job crafting from an interpersonal perspective: Is employee job crafting related to the well-being of colleagues? Applied Psychology, 64(4), 727-753. DOI: 10.1111/apps.12043


Quantitative


study


Hindrance crafting person 1 & person 2, workload person 1 & person 2, conflict person 1 and person 2, exhaustion person 1 and person 2, disengagement

person 1 and person 2

41 Chinelato, R.S.C., Ferreira, M.C., & Valentini, F. (2015). Evidence of Validity of the Job Crafting Behaviors Scale, Paidéia, 25(62), 325-332. DOI: 10.1590/1982-43272562201506


Quantitative

validation study


In Brazilian context

Job crafting, positive psychological capital, work engagement, positive and

negative affect, in-role performance, neuroticism

42 Bipp, T., & Demerouti, E. (2015). Which employees craft their jobs and how? Basic dimensions of personality and employees’ job crafting behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88, 631-655. DOI: 10.1111/joop.12089


quantitative (2 studies)

CS + L (2wave)

study (timelag =

two weeks)


Approach and avoidance temperament, approach and avoidance goals condition, approach temperament x approach goals, approach temperament x avoidance

goals, job crafting intention, job crafting


11

43

20

15

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Gevers, J.M.P. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: the role of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.001


Quantitative

multisource study: dyads of

employees & supervisor CS

study


Job crafting, work engagement, flourishing, supervisor-rated creativity, supervisor-rated

contextual performance

44 Kooij, D.T.A.M. (2015). Successful Aging at Work: The Active Role of Employees. Work aging and retirement, 1(4), 309-319. DOI: 10.1093/worker/wav018

/ / / /

45

20

16

Bakker, A.B., Rodriguez-Muñoz, A., & Sanz Vergel, A.I. (2016). Modelling job crafting behaviours: Implications for work engagement. Human Relations, 69(1), 169-189. DOI: 10.1177/0018726715581690


Quantitative


study


Job crafting, work engagement

46 Berdicchia, D., Nicolli, F., & Masino, G. (2016). Job enlargement, job crafting and the moderating role of self-competence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 318-330. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-01-2014-0019


Quantitative

CS survey


Job enlargement (task & skill variety), self-competence, job

crafting

47

20

16

Weseler, D., & Niessen, C. (2016). How job crafting relates to task performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(3), 672-685. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-05-2012-0148


Quantitative multisource

study: dyads of employees & supervisor CS

study

Niessen et al. (2016)

extending and reducing task crafting, extending and

reducing relational crafting, cognitive crafting, self- &

supervisor-rated task performance



12

48

20

16

Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person-job fit and meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92(1), 44-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007


Quantitative

Weekly diary study - 3 weeks


composite

Weekly job crafting, weekly person-job fit, weekly

meaningfulness

49 Vogt, K., Hakanen, J. J., Brauchli, R., Jenny, G. J., & Bauer, G. F. (2016). The consequences of job crafting: A three-wave study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(3), 353-362. DOI: 10.1080/ 1359432X.2015.1072170


Quantitative

L study - 3 waves (cross lagged)



composite

Job crafting, work engagement, psycap

50 Niessen, C., Weseler, D., & Kostova, P. (2016). When and why do individuals craft their jobs? The role of individual motivation and work characteristics for job crafting. Human relations, 69(6), 1287-1313. DOI: 10.1177/0018726715610642


quantitative - validation study

CS + L study

(timelag= 2weeks)

Niessen et al. (2016)

Job autonomy, task interdependence, work

experience (tenure), self-efficacy (can do), & need for

control, human connection and positive self-image (reason to)

51 Kooij, D.T.A.M., Tims, M. & Akkermans, J. (2016). The influence of future time perspective on work engagement and job performance: the role of job crafting. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1209489


Quantitative

L study – 2 waves (1 year)


Future time perspective, job crafting, work engagement, job

performance


13

52

20

16

Makikangas, A., Aunola, L., Seppälä, P., & Hakanen, J. (2016). Work engagement-team performance relationship: shared job crafting as a moderator. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, DOI: 10.1111/joop.12154


Quantitative

Multilevel study (employees –

teams)


Individual work engagement, team work engagement, team

member’s perceived team performance, job crafting

53 Plomp, J., Tims, M., Akkermans, J., Khapova, S.N., & Jansen, P.G.W. (2016). Career competencies and job crafting. How proactive employees influence their well-being. Career Development International, 21(6), 587-602. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-08.2016-0145


Quantitative

CS Study


Proactive personality, job crafting, career competencies,

job satisfaction, perceived health

54 Travaglianti, F., Babic, A., & Hansez, I. (2016). The role of work-related needs in the relationship between job crafting, burnout and engagement. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 42(1), a1308. DOI: 10.4102/saijip.v42i1.1308


Quantitative

cross-sectional


Job crafting, specific needs-supplies fit, global needs-

supplies fit, work engagement, burnout

55 Peeters, M.C.W., Arts, R., & Demerouti, E. (2016). The crossover of job crafting between coworkers and its relationship with adaptivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(6), 819-832. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.116089


Quantitative

Daily diary study + dyads

(employee + colleague)


(only seeking challenges &

seeking resources)

General-level job crafting, general-level team member

adaptivity, general-level empathy

Day-level job crafting, day-level team member adaptivity (self-

& other-rated)


14

56

20

16

de Beer, L.T., Tims, M., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). Job Crafting and its Impact on Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction in Mining and Manufacturing. SAJEMS NS, 19(4), 400-412. DOI: 10.17159/2222-3436/2016/v19n3a7


Quantitative

CS study


(Composite)

Job crafting, work engagement, job satisfaction

57 Lichtentaler, P.W., & Fischbach, A. (2016). The Conceptualization and Measurement of Job Crafting. Validation of a German Version of the Job Crafting Scale. Zeitschrift fur arbeits-und organisationspsychologie, 60(4), 173-186. DOI: 10.1026/0932-4089/a000219


Validation Study Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012) – German Version

Job crafting, work engagement, emotional exhaustion

58 Lichtenthaler, P.W., & Fischbach, A. (2016). Job crafting and motivation to continue working beyond retirement age. Career Development International, 21(5), 477-497. DOI: 10.1108/CDI-01-2016-0009.


Quantitative

CS study

Lichtenthaler, P.W., & Fischbach, A. (2016): German version of Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012)

Promotion focused job crafting, prevention focused job crafting,

work sense of coherence, burnout, motivation to continue

working after retirement age

59 Kossek, E.E., Piszczek, M.M., McAlpine, K.L., Hammer, L.B., & Burke, L. (2016). Filling the holes: work schedulers as job crafting of employment practice in long-term health care. ILR Review, 69(4), 961-990. DOI: 10.1177/0019793916642761


Qualitative

interviews

/ /


15

60

20

16

Harju, L.K., Hakanen, J., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2016). Can job crafting reduce job boredom and increase work engagement? A three-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 95-96, 11-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2016.07.001


Quantitative

L study 2 waves

(timelag= 3year)


Job boredom, work engagement, increasing

structural resources, increasing social resources, increasing

challenges

61 Solberg, E., & Wong, S.I. (2016). Crafting one’s job to take charge of role overload: when proactivity requires adaptivity across levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 713-725. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.03.001


Quantitative

L study 2 waves

(timelag= 6months)

Multisource (leaders &

employees)

Wrzesniewski, Bartel, &

Wiesenfeld (working paper)

Perceived role overload, perceived adaptivity, job crafting, leaders’ need for

structure,

62 Vogel, R.M., Rodell, J.B., & Lynch, J.W. (2016). Engagement and productive misfits: How job crafting and leisure activity mitigate the negative effects of value incongruence. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1561-1584. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2014.0850


Quantitative

L study 3 waves

(timelag= 3 weeks)

Multisource (employees + supervisor)

Leana et al. (2009) Value incongruence, job crafting, leisure activity, job

engagement, task performance, citizenship behavior

63 Cheng, J.C., Chen, C.Y., Ten, H.Y., & Yen, C.H. (2016). Tour leaders’ job crafting and job outcomes: The moderating role of perceived organizational support. Tourism management perspectives, 20, 19-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.tmp.2016.06.001


Quantitative

CS study

Leana et al. (2009) Job crafting, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job

performance, perceived organizational support,

distributive justice,


16

64

20

16

Sakuraya, A., Shimazu, A., Imamura, K., Namba, K. & Kawakami, N. (2016). Effects of a job crafting intervention program on work engagement among Japanese employees: a pretest-posttest study. BMC Psychology, 4(1), 49-58. DOI: 10.1186/s40359-016-0157-9


Quantitative

Intervention study

Baseline, post-intervention and

one-month follow up

measurement

Sekiguchi, Jie, Hosomi (2014

job crafting, work engagement, psychological distress

65 Kooij, D.T.A.M., van Woerkom, M., Wilkenloh, J., Dorenbosch, L.W., & Denissen, J.J.A. (2016). A job crafting intervention: Increasing person-job fit of aging workers. The Gerontologist, 56, Suppl.3., 295-295. DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnw162.1201

/ Quantitative

Intervention study

Baseline & post-intervention

measurement. Experimental & control group

/ Job crafting, person-job fit

66 Lin, B., Law, K.S., & Zhou, J. (2014). Why is underemployment related to creativity and OCB? A task crafting explanation of the curvilinear moderated relations. Academy of Management Journal (revision).


Quantitative

Two studies: 3-wave cross-

lagged study + field study

Leana et al. (2009) 1. Objective underemployment, perceived underemployment, organizational identification,

task crafting, OCBO 2. Objective underemployment,

perceived underemployment, task crafting

67 Roczniewska, M., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). Who Seeks Job Resources and Who Avoids Job Demands? The Link Between Dark Personality Traits and Job Crafting. The Journal of Psychology, 150(8), 1026-1045. DOI: 10.1080/00223980.2016.1235537


Quantitative

Two CS studies


– Polish version

1. Extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism, job crafting

2. Narcissism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, job

crafting


17

68

20

16

Sakuraya, A., Shimazu, A., Eguchi, H., Kamiyama, K., Hara, Y., Namba, K., & Kawakami, N. (2017). Job crafting, work engagement, and psychological distress among Japanese employees: a cross-sectional study


Quantitative

CS study

Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012) – Japanese version

Job crafting, work engagement, psychological distress

69

20

17

2

01

7

20

17

Esteves, T., & Lopes, M.P. (2017). rafting a Calling: The mediating Role of a Calling Between Challenging Job Demands and Turnover Intention. Journal of Career Development, 44(1), 34-48. DOI: 10.1177/0894845316633789


Quantitative

CS study


Increasing challenges, increasing structural resources,

calling, turnover intention

70 Van Wingerden, J., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2017). The Longitudinal Impact of a Job Crafting Intervention. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(1), 107-119. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1224233


and Tims & Bakker (2010)

Quantitative

Intervention study: baseline,

post-intervention

(9weeks after baseline), 1 year

follow-up


Job crafting, workload, emotional demands,

performance feedback, opportunities for professional development, resilience, self-

efficacy, work engagement, in-role performance

71 Hakanen, J.J., Seppälä, P., & Peeters, M.C.W. (2017). High Job Demands, Still Engaged and Not Burned Out? The Role of Job Crafting. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. Published online. DOI: 10.1007/s12529-017-9638-3


Quantitative

CS study


– expansive dimensions

Job crafting, work engagement, burnout, job demands

(workload, physical demands, work contents, emotional

dissonance)


18

72

20

17

Hakanen, J.J., Peeters, M.W.C., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2017). Different Types of Well-Being Across Time and Their Relationships With Job Crafting. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000081


Quantitative

L study 2 waves

(timelag= 4 years)


Work engagement, job satisfaction, workaholism,

burnout, job crafting

73

20

17

2

01

7

Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (accepted). Job Crafting: Autonomy and Workload as Antecedents and the Willingness to Continue Working Until Retirement Age as a Positive Outcome. Psychology of Human Resources Journal (Psihologia Resurselor Umane)

Vanbelle, Van den Broeck, & De

Witte (2016)

Quantitative

CS study

The Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS; Vanbelle et

al., 2016)

Autonomy, workload, job crafting, willingness to continue

working until retirement age

74 Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016) Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS). Manuscript in revision.


Witte (2016)

Quantitative

CS study + L Survey (time lag= 3 and 6

month)


al., 2016)

Job crafting, work engagement, autonomous motivation, work

enjoyment, turnover intentions, burnout, performance, need for

recovery

75 Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., Griep, Y., & De Witte, H. (2016) Active Emotions and Personal Growth Initiative Fuel Employees’ Daily Job Crafting and Person-Job Fit: A Multilevel Study. Manuscript in revision.


Witte (2016)

Quantitative

Multi-level study Daily diary study

The Overarching Job Crafting Scale (OJCS; Vanbelle et al., 2016) adapted

to “days”

Personal Growth Initiative, day-level emotions, day-level job

crafting, day-level person-job fit


19

76

20

17

Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., Camps, J., & De Witte, H. (2016) Digging into the linear and curvilinear relationships between burnout and job crafting. The moderating role of servant leadership. Manuscript in preparation.


Witte (2016)

Quantitative

CS study


al., 2016)

Burnout, job crafting, servant leadership

b. Job crafting items published per year (Web of Science, retrieved on 2017, February 25th)

Figure 1. Published items on the topic of job crafting in each year (Web of Science)

Appendix II

Job crafting: Een nieuwe kijk op job (re)design

Van een passieve naar een actieve rol van werknemers in het vormgeven van hun job1

1 Vanbelle, E., De Witte, & Van den Broeck, A. (2016). Job crafting: Een nieuwe kijk op job (re)design. Van een passieve naar een actieve rol van werknemers in het vormgeven van hun job. In: J. Schenning, R., Simons, &, T., Besieux (Eds.). Mensenorganisaties: 24 evoluties onder de loep. Weet wat er speelt bij strategisch HRD. Zaltbommel: Thema, uitgeverij van Schouten & Nelissen.

31Job crafting: een nieuwe kijk op job (re)design

Els Vanbelle, Hans De Witte, Anja Van den Broeck

2 JOB CRAFTING: EEN NIEUWE KIJK OP JOB (RE)DESIGNVAN EEN PASSIEVE NAAR EEN ACTIEVE ROL VAN WERKNEMERS IN HET VORMGEVEN VAN HUN JOB

PERSOONLIJKE VERBINDING

OOK KLEINE VERANDERINGEN KUNNEN BETEKENISVOL VOOR JE ZIJN

Eenzelfde functie kan een variatie aan betekenissen krijgen en op uiteenlopende wijzen concreet ingevuld worden. Ook al werken we binnen de grenzen van een specifieke orga-nisatie en krijgen we vaak een vooropgesteld takenpakket, toch zijn er aspecten binnen jouw job die je anders vorm kunt geven zodat jouw job beter aansluit bij jouw behoeften, voorkeuren en interesses. Het hoeft daarbij heus niet altijd te gaan om grote veranderin-gen zoals het opnemen van nieuwe projecten of het organiseren van sociale evenementen. Ook kleine, dagelijkse aanpassingen kunnen betekenisvol voor je zijn en een positieve im-pact hebben op je werkbeleving, je attitude ten aanzien van het werk en je werkgedrag. Het kunnen zelfs zulke kleine veranderingen zijn dat anderen ze misschien niet eens opmerken. Met ‘job crafting’ breng je op eigen initiatief veranderingen aan in jouw job om jouw func-tioneren te optimaliseren.

Wij zijn niet de enige die getriggerd worden door de aantrekkelijke, veelbelovende term ‘job crafting’. Niet alleen in academische kringen maar ook in de praktijk wint job crafting aan populariteit. Hoewel kwantitatief onderzoek naar job crafting pas echt in opmars is sinds 2012, ging de term in de praktijk tegelijkertijd al gauw een eigen leven leiden en wer-den allerhande omschrijvingen gehanteerd. Aan het begin van Els’ promotieonderzoek eind 2012 was het streven naar conceptverduidelijking op basis van de beperkt voorhan-den literatuur dan ook een eerste grote uitdaging. Want ook al kunnen we job crafting als een nieuwe hype bestempelen en wegdromen bij wat dit fenomeen kan betekenen in de

Mensenorganisaties | Evoluties van het individu32

huidige maatschappij, toch rijzen bij een kritische lezer een aantal vragen die in dit hoofd-stuk aan bod komen. We starten met het beschrijven van job crafting. Waar komt dit begrip vandaan? Hoe kaderen we job crafting in het licht van maatschappelijke tendensen en uit-dagingen? Waar gaat het nu echt over? Vervolgens gaan we dieper in op de wetenschappe-lijke onderbouwing van antecedenten en gevolgen. Beschikt iedereen in elke context over de mogelijkheid om zijn/haar job te craften? Welke persoonskenmerken en omgevingsken-merken spelen een rol? Wat zijn de gevolgen van job crafting voor de werknemer, collega’s en organisatie? Is het een louter positief verhaal? Tot slot zoomen we in op uitdagingen die verbonden zijn aan het stimuleren van job crafting en reflecteren we op hoe zowel HRD’ers als individuele werknemers hiermee in de praktijk aan de slag kunnen gaan.

BESCHRIJVING VAN DE EVOLUTIE

WAAR GAAT HET NU ECHT OVER?

Job crafting is een recent onderzoeksthema binnen de arbeidspsychologie dat een nieuwe kijk biedt op job (re)design. Daar waar arbeidspsychologisch onderzoek volgens de klas-sieke job-designtheorie aan de hand van werkstressmodellen de impact van werkkenmer-ken op de arbeidsbeleving bestudeert, biedt job crafting een complementair perspectief waarbij werknemers een actieve rol spelen in het vormgeven van hun job in functie van hun werkbeleving en performance. Met andere woorden: met job crafting kunnen werk-nemers zelf een actieve rol opnemen in het streven naar optimaal functioneren en dit in termen van zowel welzijn, attitudes als gedrag.

De behoefte aan complementaire benaderingen van job (re)design, zoals job crafting, wordt duidelijk in het licht van enkele maatschappelijke en economische tendensen (Peeters, Taris & De Jonge, 2014). Ten eerste worden de jobs van vandaag steeds complexer. Zo draagt reorganisatie van het werk, bijvoorbeeld de intrede van zelfsturende teams en virtuele teams, bij tot een grotere complexiteit. Ook zien we een alsmaar snellere tech-nologische vooruitgang die enerzijds ruimte creëert voor flexibele werkarrangementen, maar anderzijds ook uitdagingen inhoudt voor het managen van ieders evenwicht tussen werk en niet-werk. Het wordt steeds moeilijker om niet altijd bereikbaar te (moeten) zijn. Ten tweede neemt de diversiteit binnen de huidige werkpopulatie toe. Niet alleen kennen we een toenemende diversiteit in termen van leeftijd (ontgroening versus vergrijzing), ge-slacht, opleidingsachtergrond en afkomst op de werkvloer, ook moeten we omgaan met diverse behoeften, interesses en voorkeuren van individuele werknemers.

Deze tendensen impliceren dat het lastig is om gunstige jobs en werkcondities te creëren die voor een verscheidenheid aan functies en functiebekleders zorgen voor een optimale werkbeleving, motivatie en performance (Demerouti, 2014). Functies van een groep werk-nemers op maat ‘maken’ wordt een steeds grotere uitdaging en het erkennen (of stimule-ren) van een complementaire actieve rol van de individuele werknemer in dit proces kan dan ook soelaas bieden.


Werknemers starten in een job met een vooropgesteld takenpakket in een specifieke werkomgeving. Toch zal een zeker herontwerp of redesign van de job noodzakelijk zijn om blijvend te kunnen inspelen op specifieke behoeften van werknemers en maatschap-pelijke veranderingen. Traditioneel gaat job redesign of herontwerp dan uit van een top-down perspectief waarbij werkgevers aanpassingen doorvoeren in de job, de taken of werk omstandigheden om het welzijn en de performance van werknemers te bevorderen (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Werknemers worden in dit traditionele perspectief beschouwd als passieve ontvangers van hun job. Men lijkt ervan uit te gaan dat doorgevoerde verande-ringen door de werkgever voor iedere werknemer hetzelfde effect zullen hebben (‘one-size-fits-all’). Echter, elke job lijkt steeds vaker te bestaan uit een unieke samenstelling van werkaspecten, arrangementen, persoonlijke achtergrond en behoeften (Demerouti & Bak-ker, 2014). Dat maakt een louter klassieke benadering van job redesign moeilijk houdbaar. Er is dus behoefte aan complementaire benaderingen van job redesign, zoals job crafting, waarbij werknemers niet langer een louter passieve, maar een (pro)actieve rol opnemen in het vormgeven van hun job. Wanneer werknemers aan job crafting doen, brengen zij op eigen initiatief veranderingen aan in hun job die beter aansluiten bij hun persoonlijke be-hoeften, voorkeuren en interesses, en streven zij een beter gevoel, een betere prestatie en optimale persoon-job-fit na (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Job crafting maakt maatwerk mogelijk.

In de literatuur kan een onderscheid worden gemaakt tussen twee grote stromingen die elk een andere concrete invulling geven aan job crafting. Ze verschillen in de precieze de-finiëring van job crafting, in de types die ze onderscheiden en in de wijze waarop ze job crafting onderzoeken. De Amerikaanse onderzoekers Wrzesniewski en Dutton beschreven in 2001 voor het eerst de term job crafting. Zij definiëren job crafting als de fysieke en cog-nitieve veranderingen die werknemers aanbrengen in hun taken en relaties om hun job meer betekenis te geven en hun werkidentiteit vorm te geven. Volgens deze pioniers kun-nen werknemers hun job ‘craften’ aan de hand van drie technieken:

1 Door taak crafting kunnen werknemers kiezen voor meer of minder taken (kwantiteit), of er juist voor kiezen hun taken inhoudelijk beter af te stemmen op hun persoonlijke interesses en voorkeuren (kwaliteit).

2 Relationele crafting omvat alle veranderingen die te maken hebben met de relationele verhoudingen op het werk. Iemand kan investeren in nieuwe contacten of juist niet, maar kan ook belastende relaties uit de weg gaan (kwantiteit) of juist extra investeren in bestaande contacten (kwaliteit).

3 Cognitieve crafting betreft de veranderingen die werknemers aanbrengen in hun per-ceptie en betekenisgeving van hun job. Eenzelfde functie kan voor verschillende per-sonen een andere betekenis krijgen. Een voorbeeld is dat van twee schoonmakers in een ziekenhuis. De een omschrijft zijn functie als ‘ik zorg ervoor dat de vloeren netjes en hygiënisch zijn’, terwijl de ander vertelt ‘ik ben mede verantwoordelijk voor de gezond-heid van onze patiënten’. De eerste schoonmaker beleeft zijn functie dan veel beperk-ter, terwijl de tweede zijn verantwoordelijkheden en meerwaarde kadert binnen een groter geheel.


In navolging van het pionierswerk van Wrzesniewski en Dutton (2001) verschenen voor-namelijk kwalitatieve onderzoeken naar job crafting. Een opmars van empirisch onderzoek naar job crafting laat echter op zich wachten tot de eerste kwantitatieve vragenlijstontwik-keling en -validatie in 2012.

De tweede stroming werd in 2010 gelanceerd door onze Nederlandse collega’s Tims en Bak-ker. Zij kaderen job crafting binnen het job demands-resources model (JD-R-model; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007) en creëren zo een theoretische basis voor het toen nog vage fenomeen. Vanuit het JD-R-model definiëren zij job crafting als ‘de zelf-geïnitieerde veranderingen die werknemers aanbrengen om hun werkeisen en werkhulpbronnen af te stemmen met hun persoonlijke mogelijkheden en behoeften’ (Tims & Bakker, 2010, p. 4). Werkhulpbronnen verwijzen naar alle werkaspecten die energie geven en werkeisen naar werkaspecten die energie vergen van werknemers. Op basis van recente ontwikkelingen van het JD-R-model wordt een onderscheid gemaakt tussen vier mogelijke job crafting types. Ten eerste zullen werknemers structurele hulpbronnen zoals autonomie, vaardigheidsbenutting en ontplooi-ingsmogelijkheden proberen te vermeerderen. Ten tweede zullen zij ook investeren in sociale hulpbronnen zoals het krijgen van feedback, coaching en sociale steun. Uit onderzoek blijkt immers dat hulpbronnen op het werk niet alleen positief bijdragen aan uitkomsten zoals bevlogenheid en persoonlijke groei, maar ook een beschermende rol vervullen in re-latie tot negatieve uitkomsten zoals burn-out. Voor het derde en vierde type wordt een on-derscheid gemaakt tussen respectievelijk uitdagende en belemmerende taakeisen. Uitda-gende taakeisen zoals werkdruk, het aangaan van nieuwe projecten en cognitief uitdagend werk vragen niet alleen energie, maar kunnen ook positieve gevolgen inhouden voor de werkmotivatie van werknemers. Belemmerende taakeisen daarentegen, zoals rolconflict (tegenstrijdige verwachtingen), rolonduidelijkheid (onduidelijke verwachtingen) en emoti-onele belasting houden steevast negatieve gevolgen in. Om die reden zullen werknemers geneigd zijn uitdagende taakeisen te vermeerderen en belemmerende taakeisen te verminderen. Binnen deze tweede stroming wordt er bewust voor gekozen cognitieve crafting achterwege te laten. Kwantitatief onderzoek naar job crafting kent een opmars sinds de vragenlijstontwikkeling van Tims, Bakker en Derks in 2012.

Hoewel de twee stromingen verschillen in hun concrete definitie, typering en onderzoek, is er volgens ons toch eenzelfde kern. Beide stromingen gaan ervan uit dat werknemers op eigen initiatief veranderingen aanbrengen in werkgerelateerde aspecten. Veranderingen die anderen niet noodzakelijk hoeven te zien. Veranderingen die niet noodzakelijk positief of negatief zijn voor de omgeving. Veranderingen op lange termijn, maar ook veranderin-gen om in te spelen op dagelijkse omstandigheden. Veranderingen die werknemers helpen persoonlijke doelen na te streven, van het creëren van meer betekenis tot het optimalise-ren van de werkbeleving en een betere persoon-job-fit.

Maar, is dit het dan?, zou je je kunnen afvragen. Of zijn er ook andere job crafting types relevant? Aangezien job crafting gaat over persoonlijk relevante veranderingen zou het best kunnen dat ook andere types veranderingen een meerwaarde inhouden. Zo wordt door Mark van Vuuren en Luc Dorenbosch in hun handboek Mooi werk: Naar een betere


baan zonder weg te gaan ook gesproken over context crafting. Job crafting kan dan ook van toepassing zijn op de werkplek, de werkomgeving en de werktijd. In onze benadering bouwen we verder op de beschikbare literatuur en hanteren we een overkoepelende bena-dering van job crafting. Daarin laten we open welke veranderingen werknemers concreet aanbrengen. Dit kan variëren van cognitieve crafting tot het craften van specifieke werk-kenmerken en het aanpassen van de werkcontext en -tijd.

Wij definiëren job crafting aan de hand van twee kernelementen als een specifieke vorm van proactief gedrag waarbij werknemers (1) zelf, op eigen initiatief veranderingen aan-brengen in hun job om (2) goed te doen voor zichzelf. Aansluitend bij de definitie ontwik-kelden we een instrument om job crafting op een overkoepelende manier te meten aan de hand van vier items (Vanbelle, Van den Broeck & De Witte, 2013). Deze twee kernelementen maken ook het verschil met andere proactieve gedragingen inzichtelijk, zie Figuur 1. Job crafting werd al door Parker, Bindl en Strauss (2010) omschreven als specifiek proactief gedrag dat gericht is op het verbeteren van de persoon-job-fit. Verder moet job crafting onderscheiden worden van i-deals (individuele afspraken met de werkgever) en persoon-lijk initiatief. Hoewel i-deals ook wel gericht zijn op een betere situatie creëren voor het individu, houden deze een overeenkomst in tussen de werknemer en werkgever. Persoon-lijk initiatief gebeurt dan wel weer op eigen initiatief van de werknemer, maar is in eerste instantie gericht op het verbeteren van werkmethoden en de organisationele werking. In tabel 1 (pagina 36) vind je een overzicht van de verschillende job crafting-benaderingen.

Job cra�ing

Persoonlijkinitiatief

Extra-rolgedrag

I-dealsRolnegotiatie

Collectieve cra�ing

Goed doenvoor zichzelf

Veranderingen binnen de jobgeïnitieerd door de

werknemer samen metanderen (werkgever, collega’s)

Veranderingen binnen de jobgeïnitieerd door de werknemer

Goed doen vooranderen (organisatie,

collega’s, klanten)

RolinnovatieTaakherziening

Figuur 1 Job crafting gekaderd binnen een proactief perspectief op job redesign.


Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001) Onze benadering Tims, Bakker & Derks

(2010)

Wat? Wat? Wat?

Job crafting als de fysieke en cognitieve veranderingen die werknemers aanbrengen in hun job …

… om meer betekenis te creëren en hun werkidenti-teit vorm te geven.

Job crafting als het op eigen initiatief veranderingen aanbrengen in de job …

… om het eigen functione-ren in termen van welzijn, attitudes en gedrag te optimaliseren.

Job crafting als de zelf-ge-initieerde (actuele) veran-deringen die werknemers aanbrengen in hun job …

… om hun werkeisen en werkhulpbronnen af te stem-men op hun persoonlijke mogelijkheden en behoeften.

Types Types Types

1 Taakcrafting2 Relationele crafting3 Cognitieve crafting

We laten open welke concrete veranderingen werknemers aanbrengen zodat werknemers zelf kun-nen invullen welke verande-ringen in de job relevant zijn voor hun functioneren.

1 Verhogen van structurele werkhulpbronnen

2 Verhogen van sociale werkhulpbronnen

3 Verhogen van uitdagende werkeisen

4 Verlagen van belemme-rende werkeisen

Onderzoeksbenadering Onderzoeksbenadering Onderzoeksbenadering

Voornamelijk kwalitatief,Sinds 2013 ook kwantitatief meetinstrument beschik-baar

Kwantitatief onderzoek aan de hand van de overkoepe-lende job crafting-schaal

Kwantitatief onderzoek aan de hand van de job crafting-schaal

Tabel 1 Overzicht job crafting-benaderingen.

WETENSCHAPPELIJKE ONDERBOUWING

EEN NIEUW ONDERZOEKSTHEMA IN OPMARS

Job crafting komt als onderzoeksthema steeds sterker in de schijnwerpers te staan. Hoe-wel de theoretische bijdragen van Wrzesniewski en Dutton in 2001 en Tims en Bakker in 2010 aanzet gaven tot heel wat onderzoeksvragen, is kwantitatief onderzoek naar job craf-ting pas de laatste jaren in opmars. Zo verschenen er tussen 2001 en 2011 slechts 15 publi-caties over voornamelijk kwalitatief onderzoek naar job crafting, terwijl er tussen 2012 en eind 2015 maar liefst 33 kwantitatieve studies werden gepubliceerd, waarvan 23 in 2014 en


2015. Het merendeel van de studies situeert zich binnen de tweede job crafting-stroming. Deze gaat ervan uit dat werknemers hun job craften vanuit de behoefte aan bepaalde werk kenmerken en meer structurele en sociale hulpbronnen, meer uitdagende werkeisen en minder belemmerende werkeisen nastreven. In wat volgt, gaan we dieper in op onder-zochte antecedenten en gevolgen van job crafting.

ANTECEDENTEN: WELKE PERSOONS- EN OMGEVINGSKENMERKEN STIMULEREN JOB CRAFTING?Hoewel theoretisch wordt verondersteld dat iedereen in elke context in bepaalde mate aan job crafting kan doen, blijken zowel persoons- als omgevingskenmerken een beïnvloe-dende rol te spelen (voor een overzicht: Demerouti & Bakker, 2014; Demerouti, 2014). Op persoonlijk vlak komen een proactieve persoonlijkheid, het geloof in het eigen kunnen en het type doelgerichtheid naar voren als antecedenten van job crafting. Werknemers met een sterke proactieve persoonlijkheid zetten vooral in op het vermeerderen van hulpbron-nen en uitdagingen in hun job. Zij zijn van nature geneigd om bewust en doelgericht hun omgeving te scannen op zinvolle veranderingen en deze te vertalen naar proactief gedrag, waaronder dus job crafting. Job crafting blijkt ook op dagelijkse basis relevant. Zo blijkt uit onderzoek dat op dagen dat werknemers een sterk geloof in het eigen kunnen (zelf-effectivi-teit) ervaren, zij hoger scoren in job crafting dan op dagen wanneer dit geloof minder sterk is. Ook wij vonden recent dat werknemers die weten wat ze willen bereiken, geloven dat ze het kunnen bereiken en hiertoe plannen maken, hoger scoren in dagelijkse job crafting (Vanbelle, Van den Broeck & De Witte, 2016b). Job crafting sluit dan ook mooi aan bij het idee van zelfsturing, een proces waarbij mensen niet alleen zelfsturend gedrag vertonen (zoals job crafting), maar waarbij ze ook beschikken over metacognitieve vaardigheden als het vergaren van zelfkennis, reflecteren op de eigen persoon en de omgeving, concretise-ren van doelen en evalueren van gedragsuitkomsten. Tot slot blijkt dat werknemers die gericht zijn op persoonlijke groei en ontwikkeling vooral zullen inzetten op hulpbronnen en uitdagingen, terwijl werknemers die gericht zijn op zekerheid eerder belemmerende as-pecten op het werk proberen te vermijden.

Op werkvlak komt de mate waarin men autonomie of beslissingsruimte ervaart naar voren als een van de belangrijkste antecedenten van job crafting. Werknemers die het gevoel hebben zelf hun werk te kunnen plannen en uitvoeren zoals ze willen, maken meer ge-bruik van deze beslissingsruimte om te craften. Op het niveau van de job blijken ook taakonafhankelijkheid, werkdruk en taakcomplexiteit job crafting positief te stimuleren. Verder blijkt er ook een stimulerende rol voor de leidinggevende te zijn weggelegd en lijken werk-nemers ook te craften in tijden van organisatieverandering. Kortom, ‘job crafting gebeurt zowel in veeleisende, hulpbronrijke als veranderende werkomgevingen door proactieve werknemers die streven naar persoonlijke groei of die een misfit ervaren tussen persoonlij-ke motieven en de werkomgeving’ (Demerouti, 2014, p. 5). Er blijven echter nog vele vragen onbeantwoord over de beïnvloedende factoren van job crafting en bestaand onderzoek moet nog worden versterkt.


GEVOLGEN VOOR INDIVIDU EN OMGEVINGAan de hand van job crafting streven werknemers in eerste instantie naar positieve ge-volgen voor zichzelf en onderzoek toont aan dat dit globaal genomen ook lukt. Zo blijkt job crafting positief bij te dragen tot persoon-job-fit, bevlogenheid, arbeidstevredenheid en performance (Demerouti, 2014). Uit ons onderzoek blijkt dat job crafting ook positief bijdraagt aan de bereidheid om langer te werken (Vanbelle, Van den Broeck & De Witte, 2016a). Echter, men is het er theoretisch over eens dat job crafting niet noodzakelijk in lijn ligt met de organisatiedoelen of anderen ten goede komt. Intussen verschenen zelfs enke-le empirische studies die een louter positief verhaal wat nuanceren. De positieve gevolgen van job crafting blijken vooral te gelden wanneer werknemers ‘op een positieve manier craften’, met name door meer hulpbronnen en uitdagingen te creëren in hun werk. Het uit de weg gaan van belemmerende werkeisen lijkt eerder negatieve gevolgen te hebben, zowel voor het individu als voor de omgeving. Zo werd het vermijden van belemmerende werkeisen gerelateerd aan minder bevlogenheid en verminderde performance van het individu zelf (Demerouti, Bakker & Halbesleben, 2015), maar ook aan meer uitputting en verminderde performance bij collega’s (Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2015). Deze eerste bevin-dingen lijken te suggereren dat er andere processen spelen voor verschillende types job crafting en dat vooral het inzetten op hulpbronnen en uitdagingen positieve gevolgen met zich meebrengt. Verder vermoeden we dat job crafting deel uitmaakt van een dynamisch proces. Zo is bevlogenheid bijvoorbeeld niet enkel een positieve uitkomst maar ook een beïnvloedende factor. Onderzoek hiernaar staat echter nog in de kinderschoenen. Toe-komstig onderzoek zal deze processen nog grondiger moeten bestuderen voordat hier harde conclusies en implicaties aan kunnen worden gekoppeld.

EVOLUTIE IN DE PRAKTIJK ONDER DE LOEP

BALANS TUSSEN STURING EN ZELFSTURING

Hoewel we kunnen wegdromen bij wat job crafting zou kunnen betekenen in de huidige maatschappij, zijn er twee belangrijke bedenkingen. Ten eerste moeten we job crafting beschouwen als complementair aan klassiek job (re)design. Ook al worden werknemers steeds meer aangemoedigd zelf hun verantwoordelijkheid te nemen en een actieve rol te spelen in hun job, toch neemt dit niet weg dat een klassiek goed job (re)design waarbij gestreefd wordt naar een optimale persoon-job-fit door de werkgever moet gebeuren. Job crafting kan daarbovenop echter dat extraatje betekenen voor het optimaal functioneren van de individuele werknemer. Sturing en zelfsturing gaan met andere woorden idealiter hand in hand. Job crafting valt als het ware te beschouwen als een ‘finetuning’ van het klassieke job (re)design.

Ten tweede komen we voor een erg belangrijke uitdaging te staan: Hoe kunnen we job crafting stimuleren zodat dit zowel positief effect heeft op de individuele werknemer als op zijn omgeving? Het kan immers niet de bedoeling zijn dat individuele job crafting ten


koste gaat van het welzijn van anderen. Ook hier kan het hand in hand gaan van zelfstu-ring en sturing soelaas brengen. Zowel de context als het individu zijn immers bepalend voor job crafting en de gevolgen ervan. Job crafting in een positieve werkcontext zal wel-licht eerder positieve gevolgen met zich meebrengen voor individu en omgeving. Een goed job design is dan ook een cruciaal uitgangspunt omdat het een kader biedt waarbinnen werknemers aan de slag kunnen. Verder is een ondersteunend organisatieklimaat essenti-eel, een klimaat waarin men openstaat voor een actieve rol van werknemers, investeert in open communicatie, gehoor geeft aan individuele behoeften, interesses en bekommernis-sen en werknemers coacht naar een beter welzijn. Een belangrijke rol lijkt hierbij wegge-legd voor de leidinggevende en HRD’er. Op individueel niveau schuiven we het belang van bewustwording naar voren, zowel van de job als van zichzelf. Zo helpt het om stil te staan bij de huidige job en de mogelijkheden om te craften. Verder is het goed om meer inzicht te verkrijgen in de eigen persoonlijke waarden, sterktes en doelen.

Dit zijn overigens ook aspecten die men kan meenemen naar het ontwikkelen van prak-tijkinterventies. Hoewel nog erg beperkt, zijn er toch al enkele toepassingen omtrent job crafting in de praktijk bekend. Het gaat dan voornamelijk om groepsinterventies waarin men eerst een introductie op job crafting geeft, daarna overgaat tot een taakanalyse, ruim-te inbouwt voor persoonlijke reflectie en, al dan niet in groep, werkt aan een persoonlijk job crafting-plan. Van den Heuvel, Demerouti en Peeters (2012) onderzochten de effecten van een dergelijke groepstraining bij een Nederlands politiekorps. Zij concludeerden dat deze positief bijdraagt tot de persoonlijke effectiviteit van deelnemers, en meer positieve en minder negatieve emoties met zich meebrengt. Ook worden dergelijke groepsinterven-ties soms op teamniveau georganiseerd en wordt op die manier de stap naar ‘team crafting’ gezet. Hierbij worden dan bijvoorbeeld verschillende taken en activiteiten op tafel gelegd en onderling herverdeeld, rekening houdend met persoonlijke voorkeuren en interesses.

ZELF AAN DE SLAG

Hier zetten we nog enkele tips om zelf aan de slag te gaan met job crafting op een rijtje, zowel vanuit een werkgevers- of HRD’er-perspectief als vanuit een werknemersperspectief.

VANUIT EEN WERKGEVERS-OF HRD’ER-PERSPECTIEF: HOE JOB CRAFTING STIMULEREN?Ook al gebeurt job crafting op initiatief van de individuele werknemer, toch kunnen de werkgever en HRD’er dit gedrag ook positief stimuleren. Zo is het belangrijk te investeren in klassiek goed job design. Een werkomgeving die van nature veel hulpbronnen aanreikt om met de aanwezige uitdagingen en belemmeringen aan de slag te gaan, is een essenti-ele voedingsbodem voor job crafting. Hierbij kan de direct leidinggevende als sleutelfiguur fungeren in het mede creëren van een gunstige werkomgeving, maar ook in het bewust-maken van job crafting-mogelijkheden. Daarnaast kan job crafting explicieter gestimuleerd worden doorheen praktijkinterventies als loopbaanbegeleiding, coaching, training in per-


soonlijke ontwikkeling, teambuildingsactiviteiten enzovoort. Figuur 2 geeft weer welke as-pecten typisch aan bod komen in dergelijke interventies.

4. Opvolgingen evaluatie

Welke veranderingenbracht je aan? Welkeimpact hadden dezeveranderingen? Sloot

dat aan bij jouwsterktes eninteresses?

3a. Naar eenpersoonlijk job

cra�ing plan Wat kun je anders doen? Hoe maak je dit concreet?3b. Naar een team job cra�ing plan Wat zouden jullie

anders kunnen doen?

2. Taakanalyseen persoonlijke

reflectieHoe ziet jouw functieeruit? Wat zijn jouw

taken en activiteiten?Welke aspectenzouden anders

kunnen?

1. Introductieinzake job cra�ingWaarover gaat jobcra�ing? Welke jobcra�ing types zijn

denkbaar?

Een klassiek goed job design en ondersteunend organisatieklimaat als voedingsbodem voor job cra�ing

Job cra�ing expliciet stimuleren binnen de grenzen van de organisatie en concrete functies:rol van de leidinggevende, loopbaanbegeleiding, coaching, groepstraining, enz.

Figuur 2 Job crafting stimuleren vanuit het perspectief van de werkgever en HRD’er.1

VANUIT EEN WERKNEMERSPERSPECTIEF: WERKEN AAN EEN PERSOONLIJK JOB CRAFTING-PLANJob crafting kun je zien als puzzelen. Voor je begint te puzzelen, is het wenselijk om je ver-schillende puzzelstukken te verzamelen. Je bewust worden van hoe je job er momenteel uit ziet, hoe jij daar tegenover staat en hoe die aansluit bij jouw persoonlijke waarden, be-hoeften, sterktes en interesses, kan je helpen om concrete job crafting-doelen te formule-ren en na te streven. Concreet werken we volgens het volgende stappenplan2 dat je zowel rustig zelf kunt doornemen als samen met een coach.

4. Naar eenpersoonlijk job

cra�ing planWat kan ik doen om

mijn job beter te latenaansluiten bij wie ik ben

en wat ik nodig heb?‘Think SMART’

3. Persoonlijkereflectie

Wie ben ik? Wat vindik belangrijk in mijnjob/in mijn leven?

Waar ben ik goed in?Wat motiveert mij

om te werken?

2. Energie-gevers en -vretersWelke aspecten van

het werk geven mij energie?

Welke aspecten vragen energie?

1. TaakanalyseHoe ziet mijn job

eruit? Welke taken enactiviteiten heb ik? Wat doen die taken met mijn

energiepeil? Geven zeenergie? Vreten zeenergie? Of eerder

neutraal?

Figuur 3 Stap voor stap naar een persoonlijk job crafting-plan.

1 Geïnspireerd op Van den Heuvel e.a. (2012) en Van Vuuren en Dorenbosch (2011).2 Geïnspireerd op Van Vuuren en Dorenbosch (2011).


De volgende tips kunnen extra helpen:

• Taakanalyse. Start vanuit tien concrete taken en activiteiten binnen jouw functie. Dit is een gemakkelijkere opstap om naderhand energiegevers en energievreters te exploreren.

• Persoonlijke reflectie. Inzicht in wat je belangrijk vindt, waar je goed in bent en wat je motiveert om te werken, zal je helpen om aspecten binnen je werk op te sporen die je kunt veranderen of anders kunt aanpakken.

• Zet in op energiegevers. Probeer veranderingen te initiëren vanuit een positieve mind-set. Hoe kun je je job aanpassen zodat hij je meer energie geeft en je er meer plezier uithaalt?

• Think out-of-the-box. Job crafting hoeft heus niet altijd te gaan over grote verande-ringen. Ook kleine veranderingen in het wat, hoe, hoe lang, met wie, waar en wanneer kunnen betekenisvol zijn.

• Think SMART! Check of je doelen SMART zijn: specifiek, meetbaar, aanvaardbaar, rea-listisch en tijdsgebonden. Deze doelen uiten zich immers veel sneller in concreet gedrag dan vage, algemene doelen.

• Kosten/batenanalyse. Door op voorhand na te denken over kosten en baten voor jezelf, voor je collega’s en de organisatie, anticipeer je op mogelijke ongewenste gevolgen.

Reflectievragen om werk te maken van je persoonlijke job crafting-plan:

• Wat betekent job crafting voor jou? Hoe geef jij vorm aan jouw job zodat deze beter bij je zou passen?

• Hoe ziet jouw huidige job eruit? Wat betekent jouw job voor jou? Welke activiteiten staan centraal en hoe zou je deze omschrijven in termen van wat, hoe, wanneer, met wie en waar?

• Welke energiegevers en energievreters ervaar je hierbij? Wat maakt dat bepaalde aspec-ten energiegevend, dan wel energievretend voor je zijn?

• Als je zou dromen van de ideale job, hoe zou die er dan uitzien? Wat zou er anders zijn? Aan welke kleine, energiegevende aspecten zou je extra aandacht besteden?

• Hoe staat jouw werkomgeving tegenover job crafting? Welke moeilijkheden ervaar je en hoe zou je hier zelf mee aan de slag kunnen gaan met collega’s, leidinggevenden of anderen? Wat zou je helpen?


MEER WETEN?

De volgende twee praktijkboeken werden geschreven om werknemers in de eerste plaats informatie en oefeningen aan te reiken om zelf aan de slag te gaan met job crafting. Daar-naast kunnen deze boeken echter ook als inspiratiebron dienen voor HRD’ers in het onder-steunen van werknemers bij het vormgeven van hun job.

• Van Vuuren, M. & Dorenbosch, L. (2011). Mooi werk. Naar een betere baan zonder weg te gaan. Handboek job crafting. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Boom.

• Spruyt, M. & Dekker, M. (2014). Aan de slag met job crafting. Meer plezier en energie in je werk. Utrecht: Kessels & Smit.

VEEL JOB CRAFTING-PLEZIER!


LITERATUUR

Bakker, A.B. & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328.

Demerouti, E. (2014). Design Your Own Job Through Job Crafting. European Psychologist. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000188.

Demerouti, E. & Bakker, A.B. (2014). Job crafting. In: M.C.W. Peeters, J. de Jonge & T.W. Taris (Eds.), An Introduction to Contemporary Work Psychology (pp. 414-433). Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B. & Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2015). Productive and Counterproductive Job Crafting: A Daily Diary Study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(4), 457-469.

Heuvel, M. van den, Demerouti, E. & Peeters, M. (2012). Succesvol job craften door middel van een groeps-training. In: J. de Jonge, M. Peeters, S. Sjollema & H. de Zeeuw (Eds.), Scherp in werk. 5 routes naar optimale inzetbaarheid (p. 24-49). Assen: Van Gorcum.

Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K. & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827-856.

Peeters, M.C.W., Taris, T.W. & Jonge, J. de (2014). Introduction. People at Work. In: M.C.W. Peeters, J. de Jonge & T.W. Taris (Eds.), An Introduction to Contemporary Work Psychology (pp. 3-30). Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Tims, M. & Bakker, A.B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 9. DOI: 10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841.

Tims, M., Bakker, A. & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173-186.

Tims, M., Bakker, A. & Derks, D. (2015). Examining Job Crafting from an interpersonal perspective: is employee job crafting related to the well-being of colleagues? Applied Psychology: An international review. DOI: 10.1111/ apps.12043.

Vanbelle, E., Broeck, A. van den & Witte, H. de (2013). Development and Validation of a General Job Crafting Scale. Poster presentation at the 6th International Seminar on Positive Occupational Health Psychology, Leuven.

Vanbelle, E., Broeck, A. van den & Witte, H. de (2016a). Job Crafting: Autonomy and Workload As Antecedents and the Willingness to Continue Working As a Positive Outcome. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Vanbelle, E., Broeck, A. van den & Witte, H. de (2016b). Active Emotions and Personal Growth Initiative Fuel Employees’ Daily job Crafting and Person-Job Fit: A Multilevel Study. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Vuuren, M. van & Dorenbosch, L. (2011). Mooi werk. Naar een betere baan zonder weg te gaan. Handboek job crafting. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Boom.

Wrzesniewski, A. & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.


Els Vanbelle

BIOGRAFIE

Dra. Els Vanbelle is promovendus binnen de onderzoekseenheid Arbeids- en organi-satiepsychologie en professioneel leren aan de KU Leuven. Na iets langer dan een jaar werkzaam te zijn als onderzoeksmedewerker startte ze in november 2012 haar promotie-onderzoek rond job crafting onder begeleiding van prof. dr. Hans De Witte en prof. dr. Anja Van den Broeck. Haar wens is te komen tot een procesmodel van job crafting. Haar werk sluit aan bij haar ruimere interesse in welzijn, job design, motivatie, persoonlijke waarden en identiteit, coaching en het belangrijke evenwicht tussen werk en niet werk. Ze ziet het als een uitdaging ook de vertaalslag te maken naar praktijkimplicaties.

Job crafting: een nieuwe kijk op job (re)design 45

Hans De Witte

BIOGRAFIE

Prof. dr. Hans De Witte is hoogleraar Arbeidspsychologie aan de Faculteit Psychologie en pedagogische wetenschappen van de KU Leuven, en is verbonden aan de Onder-zoeksgroep Arbeids-, Organisatie- en PersoneelsPsychologie (WOPP), een onderdeel van de ruimere Onderzoekseenheid Arbeids- en Organisatiepsychologie en Opleidings-kunde (O2L). Hij is tevens verbonden aan de Optentia Research Focus Area, North-West University (Vanderbijlpark Campus), Zuid-Afrika. Zijn onderzoeksdomeinen omvatten: (a) de arbeidspsychologische benadering van arbeid, bijv. de beleving van arbeid, zowel positief (arbeidstevredenheid en bevlogenheid), als negatief (werkstress, burnout), (b) ge-volgen van jobonzekerheid, tijdelijk werk en herstructureringen, en (c) de beleving en gevol-gen van werkloosheid.


Anja Van den Broeck

BIOGRAFIE

Prof. dr. Anja Van den Broeck is arbeids- en motivatiepsychologe en tewerkgesteld als hoofddocente aan de Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfswetenschappen aan de KU Leuven (Campus Brussel). In haar onderzoek bestudeert Anja hoe en onder welke omstandig-heden werknemers optimaal kunnen functioneren. Dat wil zeggen: zich goed voelen in hun vel, proactief zijn en goede prestaties neerzetten. Anja onderzoekt hierbij het samenspel tussen job design, welzijn en motivatie. Ze publiceert in gerenommeerde tijdschriften als Journal of Management en Journal of Vocational Behavior en deelt haar kennis door samen te werken met bedrijven en organisaties in de profit- en non-profitsector.

Appendix III

Job crafting anders belicht: de meerwaarde van coaching1

1 Vanbelle, E. (2017). Job crafting anders belicht: de meerwaarde van coaching. Boekbijdrage in: Haubourdin, S. (Ed.). The Corporate Well-Being Coach. Een holistische kijk op bedrijfswelzijn. Pelckmans Pro

1

Job crafting anders belicht: de meerwaarde van coaching

Els Vanbellei

“Natuurlijk geven werknemers zelf vorm aan hun job”. Waarom zouden ze het niet doen? Door zelf

initiatief te nemen en veranderingen aan te brengen in de job, wordt het immers mogelijk om de job

echt te laten passen bij de persoonlijke behoeften, waarden, talenten en interesses. Hierbij kan

gedacht worden aan grote veranderingen zoals een aangepast takenpakket of het mede organiseren

van sociale evenementen op het werk. Het kan echter ook gaan over kleine dagelijkse veranderingen

die het werken net wat aangenamer maken. Zo kan eenzelfde functie een variatie aan betekenissen

krijgen en op verscheidene manieren ingevuld worden door verschillende werknemers.

Dat klinkt als muziek in de oren, hoor ik u denken, maar hoe werkt dat dan en is dat voor iedereen

even vanzelfsprekend? Is het enkel een positief verhaal of is er ook een potentiële negatieve zijde aan

deze medaille? Wat kan ik als coach, werkgever of leidinggevende doen om van job crafting mee een

succesverhaal te maken?

Sinds 2012 kent het begrip ‘job crafting’ een ware opmars. Er is niet alleen een forse toename van

wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar dit proactieve gedrag, er verschijnen ook praktijkboeken voor

werknemers (Spruyt, & Dekker, 2014; Van Vuuren, & Dorenbosch, 2011), boekhoofdstukken

gericht naar HRD’ers (Vanbelle, De Witte, & Van den Broeck, 2016a) en praktijkseminaries binnen

het HR-veld waar job crafting een centrale plaats krijgt. De focus ligt hierbij terecht op de

individuele werknemer. In deze bijdrage gooi ik het echter toch even over een andere boeg en

belicht ik job crafting vanuit het perspectief van werkgevers, leidinggevenden,

loopbaanbegeleiders en andere coaches. Deze naaste (werk)omgeving van de individuele

werknemer heeft immers een meerwaarde te betekenen in het stimuleren van zogenaamde

‘positieve’ job crafting. Hoewel job crafting weldegelijk een veelbelovend individu-gericht concept

is, brengt het immers toch enkele uitdagingen met zich mee voor de dagelijkse praktijk. Aan de

hand van job crafting brengen werknemers op eigen initiatief veranderingen aan in hun job om

die voor zichzelf beter te maken. Deze veranderingen liggen dan ook niet noodzakelijk in lijn met

de organisatiedoelen. Verder draait job crafting niet altijd positief uit voor de werknemer, mede

afhankelijk van welke vorm job crafting aanneemt, en kunnen we dus ook ten aanzien van de job

crafter valkuilen en uitdagingen formuleren. De complementariteit van sturing en zelfsturing,

waarbij individuele job crafting en een open, ondersteunend en hulpbronrijk organisatieklimaat

hand in hand gaan, omvat dan ook een sleutel tot succes.

2

Ik bouw deze bijdrage over ‘job crafting’ op aan de hand van twee delen. In een eerste deel situeer

ik job crafting in het licht van enkele maatschappelijke tendensen en ga ik dieper in op wat het

concept inhoudt: waarover gaat het precies en wat is het niet? Ten tweede maak ik de brug van

wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar de praktijk van individuele werknemers, werkgevers,

leidinggevenden en coaches. Hierbij koppel ik een beknopt overzicht van antecedenten en

gevolgen van individuele job crafting aan wat u als werkgever, leidinggevende of coach kunt

betekenen in het tegemoet komen aan uitdagingen die job crafting met zich meebrengt voor zowel

de individuele job crafter als diens omgeving.

1. Job crafting: werknemers als actieve vormgevers van hun job

1.1. De nood aan complementaire benaderingen van klassiek job design

Tijden veranderen en werpen een nieuwe kijk op het huidige werken. Een louter traditionele visie

op job design waarbij men werknemers beschouwt als passieve ontvangers van een job en waarbij

veranderingen in de job enkel top-down worden doorgevoerd lijkt niet langer houdbaar in het

licht van enkele maatschappelijke en economische trends (Peeters, Taris, & de Jonge, 2014). Ten

eerste worden jobs alsmaar complexer. Een voortdurende reorganisatie van werk, het

samenwerken in zelfsturende teams, de opkomst van de dienstensector en meer ‘kennisjobs’,

alsook de snelle technologische vooruitgang brengen andere uitdagingen met zich mee voor het

huidige of ‘nieuwe werken’. Andere soorten jobs impliceren andere, zowel positieve als

uitdagende, werkkenmerken waarmee de werknemer dient om te gaan. Verder maken nieuwe

technologieën ruimte voor flexibele werkarrangementen, maar impliceren ze ook grotere

uitdagingen voor een gezonde work-life balans. Er wordt steeds meer beroep gedaan op de

cognitieve, sociale, emotionele en zelfsturende capaciteiten van werknemers om het hoofd te

bieden aan deze groeiende complexiteit. Ten tweede kent de huidige arbeidspopulatie een

toenemende diversiteit. Hierbij doelen we niet enkel op diversiteit in termen van demografische

kenmerken zoals geslacht, leeftijd (ontgroening en vergrijzing), opleidingsniveau en afkomst

maar ook diversiteit in termen van persoonlijke behoeften, voorkeuren, talenten en interesses.

Deze huidige trends maken het steeds uitdagender om jobs en arbeidscondities te creëren die

voor iedere werknemer positief bijdragen tot de arbeidsbeleving, -motivatie, en performance

(Demerouti, 2014). Ze belichten de behoefte aan complementaire, bottom-up benaderingen van

job redesign zoals job crafting waarbij de werknemer ook een actieve rol kan opnemen in het

vormgeven van de job.

3

1.2. Job crafting: Waarover gaat het?

Job crafting is een jong onderzoeksthema binnen de arbeidspsychologie, de stroming binnen de

psychologie die het werk-gerelateerd welzijn van de individuele werknemer centraal plaatst. Daar

waar men volgens de klassieke job design theorie de impact van een job op de werkbeleving van

werknemers bestudeert, biedt job crafting een nieuwe, complementaire benadering van job

redesign. Aan de hand van job crafting nemen werknemers immers het eigen heft mede in handen

en initiëren zij persoonlijk relevante veranderingen in hun job om een beter gevoel, een betere

persoon-job fit of een betere prestatie na te streven (Tims, & Bakker, 2010; Vanbelle, Van de

Broeck, & De Witte, 2016b).

Job crafting is met andere woorden een specifieke vorm van proactief gedrag waarbij werknemers

(1) op eigen initiatief veranderingen aanbrengen in hun job om (2) goed te doen voor zichzelf

(Vanbelle et al., 2016b). In het kader van mijn doctoraat ontwikkelden we een overkoepelende

benadering van job crafting en bieden we werknemers de ruimte om zelf invulling te geven aan

wat deze veranderingen voor hen kunnen zijn. We bouwen hiermee verder op specifieke

omschrijvingen van job crafting in de literatuur.

De Amerikaanse onderzoekers Amy Wrzesniewski en Jane Dutton lanceerden job crafting in 2001

als ‘het aanbrengen van fysieke of cognitieve veranderingen in de job om het werk meer betekenis

te geven en de eigen werkidentiteit te creëren’. Aan de hand van taak crafting gaan werknemers

op zoek naar nieuwe taken of nieuwe projecten, besteden ze andere taken liever uit (kwantiteit)

of hanteren ze nieuwe werkmethoden om hun manier van werken te verbeteren (kwaliteit).

Relationele crafting, omvat alle veranderingen die werknemers initiëren in de sociale interacties

op het werk. Men kan nieuwe relaties aangaan, belastende interacties vermijden (kwantiteit) of

net extra investeren in bestaande relaties (kwaliteit). Cognitieve crafting, betreft alle

aanpassingen in de perceptie en betekenisgeving van het werk. Zo kunnen verschillende

werknemers met eenzelfde functieomschrijving toch op een andere manier naar hun werk kijken

en er een specifieke betekenis aan koppelen. Daar waar de ene werknemer zal focussen op het tot

een goed einde brengen van specifieke taken (bv. de specifieke taak aan de lopende band, het

schoonmaken van de vloer, instaan voor de layout van bedrijfsdocumenten, etc), kan een andere

werknemer deze specifieke taken in een ruimer geheel plaatsen en er een meer omvattende

betekenis aan geven (bv. samen bouwen aan een veilige auto, instaan voor een hygiënische en

aangename omgeving, mede verantwoordelijk zijn voor de uitstraling van een organisatie, etc.).

Nederlandse collega’s Maria Tims, Arnold Bakker en Daantje Derks definiëren job crafting vanuit

het theoretische job demands – resources model als de ‘zelf-geïnitieerde veranderingen die

werknemers aanbrengen om hun werkeisen en werkhulpbronnen af te stemmen op de

4

persoonlijke capaciteiten en behoeften’ (Tims, & Bakker, 2010, p.4). Aan de hand van vier job

crafting types kunnen werknemers sleutelen aan hun werkeisen en werkhulpbronnen. De eerste

drie types van job crafting worden ook wel ‘bevorderende of positieve job crafting’ genoemd. Er

wordt geïnvesteerd in specifieke werkkenmerken.

Ten eerste kunnen werknemers structurele hulpbronnen verhogen. Ze zoeken naar mogelijkheden

om zich bij te scholen en streven naar meer autonomie of beslissingsruimte binnen hun job. Ten

tweede verhogen werknemers sociale hulpbronnen door advies te vragen aan collega’s of door

feedback en coaching op te zoeken bij de leidinggevende. Werkhulpbronnen of energiegevers

betreffen alle aspecten op het werk die energie geven, positief bijdragen tot bevlogenheid, maar

ook helpen om met moeilijke aspecten op het werk om te gaan. Ten derde gaan werknemers op

zoek naar uitdagende werkeisen in hun job door nieuwe projecten aan te gaan of extra taken op te

nemen. Uitdagende werkeisen kunnen zowel een positieve als een negatieve impact hebben op de

werkbeleving. Zo kan een bepaalde werkdruk uitdagend zijn en energie geven, terwijl een te grote

werkdruk net nefaste gevolgen kan inhouden. Ten vierde kunnen werknemers ook aan

zogenaamde ‘vermijdende of beschermende job crafting’ doen door belemmerende werkeisen van

de job te verlagen. Belemmerde werkeisen betreffen alle aspecten in het werk die energie vreten

en per definitie een negatieve impact hebben op de werkbeleving (bv. burnout) en prestatie van

werknemers. Voorbeelden zijn tegenstrijdige of onduidelijke verwachtingen van anderen,

belastende relaties met collega’s of cliënten en cognitief belastend werk.

Op basis van een kwalitatieve bevraging stelde ik vast dat werknemers weldegelijk allerlei

veranderingen initiëren in hun job. Het kan hierbij gaan over het craften van taken, relaties of

cognities (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), over het sleutelen aan specifieke werkeisen of

werkhulpbronnen (Tims & Bakker, 2010), maar bijvoorbeeld ook over veranderingen in de

context zoals het vormgeven aan flexibele werktijd- en plaats, het personaliseren van de werkplek

(Van Vuuren, & Dorenbosch, 2011) of het inlassen van pauzes in de buitenlucht. Aan de hand van

deze veranderingen in de job streven werknemers een beter gevoel na, bewaken ze hun work-life

balans, laten ze de job aansluiten bij wat ze belangrijk vinden, houden ze de job interessant,

stemmen ze hun job beter af op hun persoonlijke capaciteiten en voelen ze zich in staat efficiënter

te kunnen werken (Vanbelle, et al., 2016b). Werknemers craften hun job om een betere persoon-

job fit te ervaren en zo bevlogen aan het werk te kunnen (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Bevlogenheid is

het prototype van een positieve werkbeleving waarbij werknemers bruisen van energie, erg

toegewijd zijn en het gevoel hebben dat de tijd voorbij vliegt wanneer ze aan het werk zijn. Job

crafting is ook een manier om tegemoet te komen aan de behoefte aan een gevoel van controle, de

behoefte aan verbondenheid met anderen en de nood aan een positief zelfbeeld (Wrzesniewski &

Dutton, 2001). De frequentie waarmee individuen hun job craften varieert van dagelijks tot enkele

5

keren per jaar en doet vermoeden dat het zowel over grote, eenmalige als kleine, dagelijkse

aanpassingen kan gaan.

2. Job crafting anders belicht: De rol van werkgevers, leidinggevenden en coaches

2.1. Veranderende tijden en job crafting: een dubbele uitnodiging voor de coach in u

Het grondig exploreren en erkennen van de rol die voor u als werkgever, leidinggevende of andere

coach is weggelegd, is essentieel indien we van het huidige werken een succesverhaal wensen te

maken. Gezond aan het werk gaan en blijven, lijkt immers een steeds grotere uitdaging te worden

de dag van vandaag. Kranten en populaire media berichten steeds vaker over de druk die de

huidige maatschappij met zich meebrengt en de gevolgen voor zowel de fysieke als mentale

gezondheid. Werknemers worden steeds meer aangemoedigd hun verantwoordelijkheid op te

nemen voor hun job, maar ook voor hun welzijn, inzetbaarheid en loopbaan. Dit betekent echter

niet dat de verantwoordelijkheid of de rol van de werkgever of leidinggevende verliest aan belang.

Integendeel, zowel de huidige maatschappelijke tendensen op zich als de intrede van ‘de

werknemer als actieve vormgever’ houden net een dubbele uitnodiging in voor de coach in u.

Doorheen coaching exploreren en optimaliseren coach en coachee gezamenlijk de cognitieve,

emotionele, sociale en zelfsturende vaardigheden van de werknemer die meer dan welkom zijn

de dag van vandaag. De coach in u biedt niet alleen een essentieel klankbord waarbij werknemers

hun ervaringen, bekommernissen, successen en moeilijkheden op tafel kunnen leggen ter

reflectie. Coaching fungeert ook als hefboom om deze input te vertalen naar persoonlijke groei-

en leermogelijkheden die men vervolgens kan vormgeven aan de hand van job crafting. Het

paradoxale van heel dit verhaal is dat coaching volgens mij des te belangrijker wordt, als men

zelfsturing van werknemers wil aanmoedigen. Een coach is immers iemand die mee op pad gaat

en werknemers stimuleert naar een optimaal welzijn, naar persoonlijke groei en zelfontplooiing.

Jef Clement omschrijft coaching als het ‘uitlokken en ondersteunen van leren’ (p.15). Leren dient

hierbij begrepen te worden in de brede zin van het woord. Doorheen coaching leert de coachee

bijvoorbeeld te reflecteren over specifieke situaties zoals de werkomgeving, leert hij persoonlijke

mogelijkheden en uitdagingen te exploreren, grenzen te verleggen, persoonlijke talenten te

ontdekken, in te zetten en te versterken, leert hij welke vaardigheden nodig zijn in bepaalde

situaties en leert hij persoonlijke doelstellingen scherp te stellen en na te streven. Coaching heeft

dan ook zowel een meerwaarde te betekenen in het stimuleren van ‘positieve job crafting’ als in

het proces voorafgaand aan job crafting.

6

2.2. Stimuleren van ‘positieve job crafting’ lijkt de grote uitdaging

We kunnen wegdromen bij wat job crafting kan betekenen voor zowel de individuele job crafter

als de omgeving. Doch het is belangrijk na te gaan of job crafting wel degelijk een louter positief

verhaal impliceert. Mogen we er zomaar van uitgaan dat job crafting alleen maar positieve

gevolgen teweegbrengt, zoals theoretisch wordt verondersteld, of zijn er ook valkuilen verbonden

aan dit veelbelovende gedrag?

Aan de hand van job crafting streven werknemers er in de eerste plaats naar om tegemoet te

komen aan de eigen behoeften, voorkeuren en belangen. Uit onderzoek blijkt dat dit globaal

genomen ook lukt. Job crafters zijn bevlogen in hun werk, ervaren een goede persoon-job fit en

brengen hun taken tot een goed einde. Hoewel job crafting per definitie niet noodzakelijk positief

hoeft te zijn voor de omgeving, toont onderzoek over het algemeen ook positieve gevolgen voor

de werkomgeving. Werknemers die bevlogen aan het werk zijn, presteren beter en zijn bovendien

bereid af en toe net dat extraatje te leveren (Demerouti, Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015). Uit mijn

doctoraatsonderzoek komt verder naar voren dat werknemers die craften een sterkere

bereidheid vertonen om langer aan het werk te blijven, een relevante bevinding in het licht van

de huidige vergrijzing (Vanbelle, Van den Broeck, & De Witte, 2016c).

Intussen verschenen echter enkele studies die deze positieve gevolgen voor zowel de individuele

werknemer als de omgeving wat nuanceren. Job crafting blijkt vooral gunstige gevolgen te hebben

bij ‘positieve job crafting’, de types van job crafting waarbij men investeert in werkhulpbronnen

en uitdagende werkeisen. De bevindingen omtrent ‘vermijdende job crafting’, of het vermijden

van belemmerende werkeisen, zijn minder eenduidig. Het uit de weg gaan van bepaalde taken of

het werk vereenvoudigen lijkt eerder een negatieve invloed te hebben op de individuele

taakperformantie, contraproductief gedrag in de hand te werken en zelfs het risico op burnout

van collega’s te vergroten (Demerouti et al., 2015; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2015). Het craften van

de belemmerende werkeisen toont ook negatieve gevolgen voor de werknemer zelf (Petrou,

Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015) aangezien het samenhangt met een hoger risico op burnout en

bevlogenheid reduceert.

Onderzoek omtrent de potentiële negatieve gevolgen van job crafting staat nog in de

kinderschoenen. De grootste uitdaging die ik hier wens te belichten, betreft hoe we job crafting

kunnen stimuleren zodat dit zowel voor de individuele werknemer als de omgeving een

succesverhaal wordt. Inzetten op energiegevers lijkt een belangrijke boodschap. Net hier

benadruk ik de complementaire verantwoordelijkheid van werknemer en diens omgeving en

nodig ik de coach in u uit om mee na te denken over dit uitdagend vraagstuk. Wat kan u als

7

werkgever, leidinggevende of andere coach betekenen in het vergroten van het succesverhaal van

job crafting?

2.3. Inspelen op antecedenten van job crafting: de rol van werkgever en coach

Hoewel theoretisch wordt verondersteld dat iedere werknemer in iedere context aan een zekere

mate van job crafting zou doen, toch zijn er zowel context- als persoonsfactoren die een

beïnvloedende impact hebben op job crafting (Demerouti, 2014). Dit zijn factoren waar zowel

werkgever, leidinggevende, loopbaanbegeleider als andere coaches actief mee aan de slag kunnen.

2.3.1. Klassiek goed job design als voedingsbodem voor job crafting

Onderzoek toont het belang van een klassiek goed job design, waarbij een job gecreëerd wordt

door de werkgever en die rijk is aan werkhulpbronnen. Autonomie of beslissingsruimte komt naar

voren als een van de belangrijkste antecedenten van job crafting. Ook het belang van een

leidinggevende die oog heeft voor het welzijn en potentieel van de werknemer, open

communicatie en een sfeer van vertrouwen en veiligheid worden naar voren geschoven als

belangrijke contextfactoren (Berg, Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2008; Demerouti, 2014). Wanneer

werknemers het gevoel hebben dat ze de ruimte krijgen om hun job vorm te geven, hierin

ondersteund worden en ervaren dat het organisatieklimaat openstaat voor job crafting, zullen zij

eerder een actieve rol opnemen in het vormgeven van hun job. Werkhulpbronnen dragen niet

alleen rechtstreeks bij tot een positieve werkbeleving, ze worden ook gehanteerd als

noodzakelijke brandstof voor werknemers om actief vorm te kunnen geven aan hun job en te

investeren in extra hulpbronnen of uitdagingen.

2.3.2. Bewustwording: inzetten op energiegevers en versterken van persoonlijke

vaardigheden

De coach in u gaat mee op stap met werknemers in hun persoonlijk groeiproces. Jef Clement

spreekt in zijn boek van een coachingsdans tussen coach en coachee aan de hand van vijf stappen

(GRROW; 2015, p.145). Ten eerste exploreert men de gewenste situatie (Goal). Ten tweede gaat

men dieper in op de huidige situatie (Reality). Ten derde gaat men op zoek naar hulpmiddelen en

krachtbronnen die kunnen helpen bij het bereiken van de gewenste situatie of persoonlijke

doelstelling (Resources). Ten vierde bedenkt men mogelijke opties om de huidige situatie aan te

pakken en het doel te realiseren (Options). Ten vijfde en ten slotte, werkt men aan een concreet

plan waarin beslissingen genomen worden en tot actie wordt overgegaan (Will). De uitdaging

bestaat er uit elk van deze stappen zo concreet mogelijk te maken. Hoe concreter, hoe groter de

bewustwording, hoe sterker concreet gedrag gestimuleerd wordt.

8

Deze coachingsdans maakt inzichtelijk dat een bewustwordingsproces vooraf kan gaan aan

concrete job crafting, de laatste stap in deze boeiende dans (Will), en dat coaching wel degelijk

een meerwaarde kan betekenen in het proces naar job crafting. Coaching kan werknemers helpen

bij het zich bewust worden van hoe de job er momenteel uitziet, hoe men daar tegenover staat en

hoe die aansluit bij persoonlijke waarden, behoeften, sterktes en interesses. Dit

bewustwordingsproces kan vervolgens bijdragen tot het exploreren van mogelijke job

craftingspistes en het opstellen van een persoonlijk job craftingsplan waarin men (kleine)

veranderingen in de job vooropstelt, nastreeft en opvolgt in functie van het persoonlijk

functioneren (Van den Heuvel, Demerouti, & Peeters, 2015). Doorheen coaching verzamelt men

met andere woorden essentiële puzzelstukken om een succesvolle job crafting puzzel te leggen.

Bewustwording van de eigen werkomgeving start bijvoorbeeld bij een taakanalyse waarin men

stilstaat bij welke taken deel uitmaken van de job. Voor elk van die taken kan men vervolgens

nagaan welke aspecten energie geven en welke aspecten energie vragen. Misschien zijn er wel

kleine veranderingen mogelijk die het vervullen van die taak net wat aangenamer maken. Zo kan

gedacht worden aan inhoudelijke aspecten die anders kunnen, samenwerkingsrelaties omtrent

de taak, de omgeving waar de taak wordt uitgevoerd en het tijdstip waarop, alsook veranderingen

die eerder betrekking hebben op de betekenis die men aan de taak geeft (Van Vuuren, &

Dorenbosch, 2011). Op basis van de huidige onderzoeksresultaten, lijkt het vooral belangrijk extra

energiegevers te creëren in het werk.

Behalve het reflecteren over de huidige werksituatie is het ook een meerwaarde even stil te staan

bij de eigen persoon. Niet iedere werknemer is van nature gericht op het initiëren van

veranderingen in de omgeving. Werknemers met een proactieve persoonlijkheid scannen

bijvoorbeeld voortdurend hun omgeving op aspecten die anders en beter kunnen, wat zich

vervolgens sneller zal vertalen in job crafting (Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012). Verder blijken

werknemers die eerder gericht zijn op groei, verandering en ontplooiing vooral in te zetten op

werkhulpbronnen en uitdagingen, terwijl werknemers die gericht zijn op stabiliteit en zekerheid

eerder belemmerende werkaspecten proberen te vermijden. Naast deze relatief stabiele

persoonskenmerken, tonen ook andere, meer veranderbare, persoonsgebonden factoren een

impact op job crafting waar men aan de hand van coaching kan aan werken. Job crafting sluit

bijvoorbeeld mooi aan bij het idee van zelfsturing, een proactief proces waarbij men reflecteert

over persoonlijke doelen en waarden, waarbij men de balans opmaakt tussen de huidige en de

gewenste situatie, en waarbij men het eigen gedrag stuurt en bijstuurt in functie van de

persoonlijke behoeften. Het gaat met andere woorden niet enkel over zelfsturend gedrag zoals job

crafting, maar ook over de metacognitieve vaardigheden die het eigen groeigericht proces in

goede banen leiden. Dit opent heel wat deuren voor coaching. Zo kan men persoonlijke talenten,

9

behoeften en waarden exploreren en scherpstellen. Wat doet men graag, waar is men goed in en

wat vindt men belangrijk? Dit zijn typische vraagstellingen waarop doorheen een coachingstraject

kan gewerkt worden en die kunnen vertaald worden naar persoonlijke job craftingsdoelen. Uit

ons onderzoek komt bijvoorbeeld naar voren dat personen die over het algemeen weten wat ze

willen bereiken, geloven dat ze het kunnen bereiken en hiertoe de nodige plannen maken, hoger

scoren inzake dagelijkse job crafting (Vanbelle, Van den Broeck, Griep, & De Witte, 2016d). Ook

het inzetten op persoonlijke hulpbronnen zoals zelf-effectiviteit of het geloof in de eigen

capaciteiten om met bepaalde situaties om te gaan, kan aan bod komen in coaching en positief

bijdragen tot job crafting (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013).

2.3.3. De eigen werkbeleving als uitgangspunt

Aan de hand van job crafting streven werknemers een optimale werkbeleving na. Dit impliceert

dat de huidige werkbeleving ‘beter kan’. Uit onderzoek blijkt dat dit niet noodzakelijk betekent

dat werknemers zich slecht moeten voelen vooraleer ze gaan craften. Integendeel, net de

werknemers die zich goed voelen en bevlogen aan het werk gaan, rapporteren vaker job crafting.

Een positieve werkbeleving en positieve vormen van job crafting houden met andere woorden

een positieve spiraal in stand.

Hoe zit dit dan voor werknemers waarmee het minder goed gaat en die bijvoorbeeld risico

lopen op burnout? Kan job crafting ook voor hen soelaas bieden? Hoewel deze vraag zowel

intuïtief als theoretisch een luide ‘ja natuurlijk’ oproepen, doen de huidige onderzoekscijfers

vermoeden dat job crafting in het kader van een negatieve werkbeleving net wat complexer werkt.

Gegeven de relevantie van deze vraagstelling, koos ik ervoor nader te onderzoeken of mensen die

risico lopen op emotionele uitputting, de kerncomponent van burnout, toch nog aan job crafting

kunnen doen en welke rol een dienende leidinggevende hierin kan spelen (Vanbelle, Van den

Broeck, & De Witte, 2017). Een dienende leidinggevende is een leidinggevende die werknemers

onder meer de autonomie biedt om zelf beslissingen te maken in het werk, oog heeft voor het

welzijn van werknemers en persoonlijke groei en ontwikkeling stimuleert. De resultaten

suggereren dat een toename van emotionele uitputting wel degelijk samenhangt met meer job

crafting, maar slechts tot op een bepaald niveau. Vanaf een zekere mate van emotionele uitputting

lijkt het alsof werknemers niet meer over de nodige energie beschikken om aan (positieve) job

crafting te doen. Verder tonen onze bevindingen dat werknemers met een dienende

leidinggevende gevoelens van emotionele uitputting sterker zullen vertalen naar job crafting.

Deze leidinggevenden vangen mogelijks sneller signalen op van wat niet goed loopt en stimuleren

werknemers om actief aan de slag te gaan met een suboptimale situatie. Hoewel deze studie

slechts een eerste opstap is naar het beter begrijpen van de rol van job crafting in het omgaan met

10

een negatieve werkbeleving, toch suggereert ze een belangrijke rol voor de coach in u als

werkgever, leidinggevende of andere naaste van de werknemer.

2.3.4. Tot slot: naar een persoonlijk job craftingsplan en een kosten-baten analyse

Gedrag wordt bewuster gesteld wanneer de onderliggende doelstellingen van dat gedrag duidelijk

zijn. Inzetten op bewustwording van de eigen (werk)omgeving en de eigen persoon helpt dan ook

om persoonlijke doelstellingen te formuleren en een persoonlijk job craftingsplan op te stellen.

Ook hier heeft u als coach een tweeledige meerwaarde. Ten eerste kan u als coach helpen bij het

concretiseren van job craftingsdoelen aan de hand van het SMART-principe. Doelen die specifiek

zijn, meetbaar, aanvaardbaar, realistisch en tijdsgebonden zullen eerder worden nagestreefd aan

de hand van concreet gedrag. Vragen die hierbij kunnen helpen zijn:

1. Specifieke doelen: Wat wil je precies bereiken? Wat/wie heb je daarvoor nodig? Welke

concrete verandering(en) in je job wil je daartoe realiseren? Waarom zou dat bijdragen

aan jouw gewenste situatie?

2. Meetbare doelen: Hoe zal je weten dat je je doel bereikt hebt? Welke tussenstappen

kunnen helpen?

3. Aanvaardbare doelen: Is er draagvlak voor wat je wilt doen?

4. Realistisch: Is de doelstelling in overeenstemming met andere zaken die je belangrijk

vindt? Is het mogelijk wat je wilt doen?

5. Tijdsgebonden: Wanneer ga je wat doen?

Ten tweede kan u vanuit de rol als coach de werknemer uitdagen een kosten/baten analyse

op te maken (Van Vuuren & Dorenbosch, 2011). Op voorhand stilstaan bij mogelijke kosten en

baten van job crafting voor zichzelf en voor de omgeving kan helpen om potentiële negatieve

gevolgen te voorkomen. Op basis van de huidige onderzoeksresultaten raden we aan een positieve

bril op te zetten en te investeren in wat energie geeft op het werk, ook wanneer het minder goed

gaat. Het hoeft daarbij heus niet om grote veranderingen te gaan om betekenisvol te zijn.

3. Conclusie

Job crafting biedt een complementaire benadering op job redesign waarbij werknemers een

actieve rol opnemen in het vorm geven van hun job. Dergelijke complementaire benaderingen

worden alsmaar relevanter en noodzakelijker in het licht van maatschappelijke tendensen en het

‘nieuwe werken’. Door een actieve rol op te nemen doet men als het ware aan finetunning van de

11

voorgeschreven job en wordt maatwerk mogelijk. Dit neemt echter niet weg dat er geen rol meer

is weggelegd voor de werkgever, leidinggevende of andere coach. Integendeel. Behalve het

creëren van hulpbronrijke jobs en een gezond organisatieklimaat, biedt job crafting tevens een

warme uitnodiging voor de coach in u. Doorheen deze bijdrage belichtte ik een aantal handvatten

waarmee men in coaching aan de slag kan. De grootste uitdaging betreft het stimuleren van job

crafting dat zowel de individuele werknemer als diens omgeving naar een optimaal niveau tilt. De

meerwaarde van coaching die aan bod kwam gaat van het teweegbrengen van een

bewustwordingsproces tot het opstellen en opvolgen van een persoonlijke job craftingsplan en

het anticiperen op zowel positieve als negatieve uitkomsten.

Ik wens u alvast veel coachings- en job craftingsplezier!

12

4. Referenties

Clement, J. (2015). Inspirerend coachen. De kunst van dynamisch en uitdagend communceren.

Leuven: Lannoo Campus.



Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2015). Productive and Counterproductive Job

Crafting: A Daily Diary Study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(4), p. 457-469.


J. de Jonge, & T.W. Taris (Eds.) An Introduction to Contemporary Work Psychology, (pp. 3-30).

UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


antecedents and implications for exhaustion and performance. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 20(4), 470-480. DOI: 10.1037/a0039003

Spruyt, M., & Dekker, M. (2014). Aan de slag met job crafting. Meer plezier en energie in je werk.

Kessels & Smit: Utrecht.

Tims, M., & Bakker, A.B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign.

South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 9p. DOI: 10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841


relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 490-505. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-05-2012-

0148

Tims, M., Bakker, A., & Derks, D. (2015). Examining Job Crafting from an interpersonal perspective:

is employee job crafting related to the well-being of colleagues? Applied Psychology: An

international review. DOI: 10.1111/apps.12043

Vanbelle, E., De Witte, & Van den Broeck, A. (2016a). Job crafting: Een nieuwe kijk op job (re)design.

Van een passieve naar een actieve rol van werknemers in het vormgeven van hun job. In: J.

Schenning, R., Simons, &, T., Besieux (Eds.). Mensenorganisaties: 24 evoluties onder de loep. Weet

wat er speelt bij strategisch HRD. Zaltbommel: Thema, uitgeverij van Schouten & Nelissen.

Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016b). Validation of the Overarching Job Crafting

Scale (OJCS). Manuscript in review.

13

Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016c). Job Crafting: Autonomy and Workload As

Antecedents and the Willingness to Continue Working As a Positive Outcome. Manuscript

accepted for publication.

Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016d). Active Emotions and Personal Growth

Initiative Fuel Employees’ Daily job Crafting and Person-Job Fit: A Multilevel Study. Manuscript

in review.

Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2017). What about the relationship between

negative indicators of optimal functioning and job crafting? Digging into the relationship

between burnout and job crafting. Paper presentation planned at the European Association of

Work and Organizational Psychology Conference, 17-20th of May, Dublin.

Van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M. (2012). Succesvol job craften door middel van een

groepstraining. In: J. de Jonge; M. Peeters, S. Sjollema, & H. de Zeeuw (Eds.). Scherp in Werk. 5

Routes naar Optimale Inzetbaarheid (p.24-49). Assen: Van Gorcum.





__________________________________________

iEls Vanbelle is een doctoraatskandidate binnen de onderzoekseenheid arbeids- en

organisatiepsychologie en professioneel leren aan de KU Leuven. Na iets langer dan een jaar

werkzaam te zijn als onderzoeksmedewerker startte ze in november 2012 haar doctoraat rond

job crafting onder begeleiding van Prof. Dr. Hans De Witte en Prof. Dr. Anja Van den Broeck. Haar

wens is te komen tot een procesmodel van job crafting. Haar werk sluit aan bij haar ruimere

interesse in het welzijn, job design, motivatie, persoonlijke waarden en identiteit, coaching en het

belangrijk evenwicht tussen werk en niet werk. Ze ziet het als een uitdaging ook de vertaalslag te

maken naar praktijkimplicaties. Na het afronden van haar doctoraat in het voorjaar van 2017

wenst ze hiermee dan ook actief aan de slag te gaan.

Appendix IV

Overview Samples

Table 1. Overview of samples used across the four empirical studies

Sample A Sample B Sample C Sample D Sample E Sample F

Study Study 1 Study 1 Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4

Design Longitudinal study

3-wave dataset

Timelag of 6 months

Qualitative

pilot study

Longitudinal study

2-wave dataset

Timelag of 3 months

Cross-sectional study

Daily diary study

1 general survey +

5 consecutive

work days

Cross-sectional study

N NT1=423

NT1T2=313

NT2T2=298

N=26 NT1=637

NT1T2=358

N=1168 N=116

Observations=341

(2.94 per person)

N=583

Response rate 58-82% / 14-25% 19% 72.29% 30.36%

Time of data-

collection

May 2013

December 2013

May 2014

January 2014 November 2014

March 2015

Spring 2013 Spring 2013 Autumn 2016

Number of

organisations

1 Personal

network

sample

1 1 Organisation A=34.5%

Organisation B=19%

Organisation C=26.7%

Diverse=19.8%

14

Sector Healthcare Diverse Government Government Mainly healthcare Diverse

Demographics at T1

Male

Age

Tenure

Educational

level

28.8%

39 (SD=11.15)

/

83.9% bachelor or

master degree

16% primary or

secondary school

degree

52%

35.56

/

80% university

degree

53%

44.41 (SD=10.28)

11.90 (SD=10.28)

39% in job requiring

master degree (A)


bachelor degree (B)

10% in job requiring high

school degree (C)

10% in job requiring no

degree (D)

57%

53 (SD=4.9)

/


master degree (A)


bachelor degree (B)


high school degree (C)

13% in job requiring no

degree (D)

36.2%

38 (SD=10.33)

/

42.2% university

degree

36.2% higher

education degree

21.6% high school

degree

26%

38.85 (SD=10.97)

10.16 (SD=9.72)

70% bachelor or

master degree

Appendix V

Overarching Job Crafting Scale

Overkoepelende Job Crafting Schaal

OVERARCHING JOB CRAFTING SCALE (OJCS)

4 ITEMS

OJCS English version

Job crafting is about the self-initiated changes employees make to their job in order to

optimize their functioning in terms of well-being, work-related attitudes or behaviour (Vanbelle,

Van den Broeck & De Witte, 2016).

Some people make changes in their job, others do not. To what extent do you shape your

job? Please register to what extent you do the following:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Seldom or

never A few

times a year or

less

Once a month or

less

A few of times a month

Once a week

A number of few a

week

Daily

1. I make changes in my job to feel

better 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. I change my job so it would better

fit with who I am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. I make changes in my job to

perform better 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. I change my job so it would better

fit with what I think is important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Which changes do you make?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Reference: Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016). Validation of the Overarching

Job Crafting Scale. Manuscript in review.

OVERKOEPELENDE JOB CRAFTING SCHAAL (OJCS)

4 ITEMS

OJCS - Nederlandstalige versie

Job crafting gaat over de veranderingen die werknemers zelf aanbrengen in hun job om hun

functioneren in termen van welzijn, werk-gerelateerde attitudes of gedrag te optimaliseren

(Vanbelle, Van den Broeck & De Witte, 2016).

Sommige mensen brengen veranderingen aan in hun werk of in hun job, anderen niet. In

welke mate geeft u zelf vorm aan uw job? Gelieve aan te geven in welke mate u akkoord

gaat met de volgende uitspraken.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Zelden of

nooit Een aantal

keer per jaar of

minder

Eens per maand of

minder

Een aantal keer per maand

Eens per week

Een aantal keer per

week

Dagelijks

1. Ik breng zelf veranderingen aan in

mijn job zodat ik me beter voel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Ik pas mijn job aan zodat deze

beter past bij mij 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Ik breng zelf veranderingen aan in

mijn job zodat ik beter kan

presteren

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Ik pas mijn job aan zodat deze

beter aansluit bij wat ik belangrijk

vind

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Welke veranderingen brengt u dan aan?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Referentie: Vanbelle, E., Van den Broeck, A., & De Witte, H. (2016). Validation of the Overarching

Job Crafting Scale. Manuscript in review.

Appendix VI

Short Research Note: Unravelling the affect-proactivity relationship: valence or

activation? Integrating contrasting perspectives1.

1 Based on: Vanbelle, E., Vranjes, I., De Witte, H., & Van den Broeck, A. (2016). Unravelling the affect-proactivity relationship: valence or activation? Integrating contrasting perspectives. Manuscript in preparation.

1

Unravelling the affect-proactivity relationship: valence or activation?

Integrating contrasting perspectives.

Problem statement

To date, the affect-proactivity relationship remains both theoretically and empirically unclear.

Research on this relationship often starts from the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2004)

to argue that especially positive affect is important in relation to proactive behaviour because

positive affect broadens thought-action repertoires (“broaden-and-build perspective”; Fay and

Sonnentag, 2012; Fritz and Sonnentag, 2009). However, recent calls explicitly argue that not the

positive valence but rather the motivational intensity or activation of affective emotions drives

goal-directed behaviour such as proactive behaviour (“motivational intensity perspective”;

Harmon-Jones, Gable & Price, 2013). Moreover, although hypotheses often involve predictions

concerning positive affect in general, only the active dimension of positive affect is measured in

terms of feeling excited, active or alert (The PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988; f.e. in Fay

and Sonnentag, 2012; Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009). Consequently, it remains theoretically as well as

empirically unclear whether it is the valence dimension – in line with the broaden-and-build

perspective –, or the activation dimension of affect – in line with the motivational intensity

perspective –, that determines employees’ proactive behaviour. Whereas both perspectives may

seem to be contradictious at first sight, we argue that both approaches foster our understanding

of affect in relation to different elements of the proactivity process (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss,

2010). More specifically, we argue that the theoretical reasoning underlying the affect-proactivity

relationship might benefit from an integration of the broaden-and-build and the motivational

intensity perspectives.

Unravelling the affect-proactivity relationship: an integrative approach

We are increasingly urged to be “proactive” or to take an active role in shaping and dealing

with our environment. Proactivity, however, goes beyond merely proactive behaviour (e.g.

personal initiative, Frese & Fay, 2001; job crafting, Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2001; etc.). It

concerns a goal-driven process in which employees envision or anticipate desired future

outcomes, make plans to achieve that envisioned future, purposively strive to accomplish

proactive goals (i.e. proactive behaviour) and reflect upon the consequences of the enacted

proactive behaviour (Parker et al., 2010).

Affect is assumed to motivate employees to engage in this proactivity process (Parker, et al.,

2010). The term affect is used as a superordinate category for various kinds of affective states

such as moods and emotions (Gross, & Thompson, 2007). It is seen as the core part of all emotion-

related concepts as it includes the momentary, elementary feelings of pleasure or displeasure and

2

of activation or deactivation (Russell, 2003; Seo, Barrett, & Bartunek, 2004). Affect can be

described within a circumplex, as an integral blend of two dimensions (Seo et al., 2004; Warr,

Bindl, Parker, & Inceoglu, 2014). The first dimension, the valence or pleasantness dimension,

ranges from negative/unpleasant to positive/pleasant. The second dimension, the activation or

motivational intensity dimension, refers to a sense of mobilization or energy and ranges from

passive to active (Barrett, & Russell, 1999). The combination of these dimensions leads to four

categories of affect: positive active (PAA), positive passive (PPA), negative active (NAA) and

negative passive affect (NPA).

We elaborate on two main perspectives on the relative importance of the valence (i.e.

broaden-and-build perspective) versus the activation dimension (i.e. motivational intensity

perspective) in relation to proactivity. The first perspective starts from the broaden-and-build

theory which assumes that positive affect such as contentment and joy broadens thought-action

repertoires (i.e. the attentional scope), such that one can more easily come up with alternative

solutions to behave in a particular way, and builds enduring personal resources (Fredrickson,

2004). In contrast, negative affect such as fear and anger narrows thought-action-repertoires and

interferes with identifying solutions to deal with the environment. The second perspective, the

motivational intensity perspective, argues that not the positive valence but rather the high

motivational intensity or activation is beneficial for proactive behaviour because it narrows the

attentional scope in the sense that one is focused on a desired goal which in turn enhances

effective goal-striving and accomplishment (Harmon-Jones et al., 2013). In contrast, a low

motivational intensity (i.e. passive emotions) broadens the cognitive scope, such that one is less

preoccupied with a certain goal or situation, which allow people to cognitively disengage from

negative stimuli, to envision new goal opportunities (Harmon-Jones et al., 2013) or to reflect upon

a positive achievement (Warr & Inceoglu, 2012). In contrast to the broaden-and-build perspective,

the motivational intensity perspective thus implies that both positive and negative emotions

might stimulate proactivity as long as they yield a high motivational intensity or activation.

Interestingly, both perspectives use the notion of “attentional scope” to build concrete

assumptions, though in a slightly different way. Whereas the broaden-and-build theory assumes

that a broadened attentional scope, when experiencing positive emotions, is beneficial because of

broadened thought-action repertoires (Fredrickson, 2004), a motivational intensity perspective

states that a narrowed attentional scope, when experiencing active emotions, is beneficial because

it implies a stronger focus on the object of the emotion which is helpful for effective goal striving

and accomplishment (Harmon-Jones et al., 2013). Despite this apparent contrast, we argue that

these two views are reconcilable. That is, we argue that both approaches foster our understanding

of the function of affect in relation to both cognitive and behavioural elements of proactivity, but

3

presumably at another level within another timeframe (e.g. general level in a cross-sectional or

longitudinal timeframe versus daily level in a daily timeframe).

At a general level, we expect the valence dimension to have a dominant impact on proactivity.

This is because positive affect installs broadened ways of envisioning and thinking (Fredrickson,

2004). According to the broaden-and-build theory, the “broadened attentional scope” involves the

ability to think broadly, to generate distinct ideas and to come up with diverse solutions to deal

with specific situations. These are all aspects which trigger the proactivity process. In addition to

broadening the thought-action repertoires, positive affect also builds enduring personal

resources over time which help dealing with the environment. Negative affect, in contrast,

narrows thought-action repertoires. People that experience negative affect such as sadness for

instance, are more likely to withdraw into oneself (Lazarus, 1991) and might rather get stuck in a

negative spiral of thinking. This is because sadness makes it more difficult to “think out of the box”

and to broaden horizons. It then might become a challenge to think in a constructive way and to

analyse discrepancies between actual and desired situations one can act upon (Bindl, Parker,

Totterdell, & Hagger-Johnson, 2012). In sum, following the broaden-and-build theory, we argue

that at a general level of analysis positive affect relates stronger to proactivity in comparison to

negative affect.

At a daily level, however, the activation dimension might become especially relevant in

translating discrete experienced emotions into immediate behavioural reactions, regardless of the

valence of the emotion. Active emotions are so salient at the very moment that they urge people

to behaviourally respond in the short run. People have to deal with the amount of energy they are

feeling, either to react on a negative situation or stimulus in case of negative active affect, or to act

upon the object of positive active affect (see f.e. Warr & Inceoglu, 2012). According to a

motivational intensity perspective, the “narrowed attentional scope” involves goal-directedness

instead of the inability to “think-out-of-the-box”. When experiencing active affect, one is energized

to direct behaviour towards a specific goal. Passive affect, on the contrary, allows people to

cognitively disengage from a specific goal or situation, to reflect on situations (Warr & Inceoglu,

2012) and to envision new goal opportunities (Harmon-Jones et al., 2013) which might precede

proactive behaviour (Parker et al., 2010). Passive emotions might need more time to be translated

into concrete proactive behaviour because they lack the needed energy. Consequently, it might be

more relevant to examine passive emotions in relation to proactivity at a general level, within a

longer timeframe . Furthermore, future research might tap into moderators that help individuals

experiencing passive affect to go beyond cognitive elements of the proactivity process and to

actively engage in proactive behaviour. For instance, making envisioned goals or the object of

passive emotions more salient may enhance the intensity of emotions which in turn increases the

likelihood of passive emotions being translated into behavioural actions (Brehm, 1999). In sum,

4

following the motivational intensity perspective, we reason that in the short run, active affect

stimulates people to go beyond the cognitive elements of proactivity and actually engage in

proactive behaviour.

Taken together, we assume that both the valence dimension (i.e. broaden-and-build

perspective) and the activation dimension (i.e. motivational intensity perspective) matter in the

affect-proactivity relationship. However, we also argue that their relative importance depends on

which specific element of the proactivity process is being influenced (i.e. cognitive versus

behavioural) and on what timeframe is being used to measure it (i.e. general level in a cross-

sectional or longitudinal timeframe versus daily level in a daily timeframe). In the short run, at a

daily or momentary level, both positive and negative active affect should enhance proactive

behaviour, as the high level of motivational intensity increases employees’ goal-directedness

needed to engage in proactive behaviour. In the long run, at a general level, especially positive

affect should entail more beneficial outcomes in terms of thought-action repertoires by

stimulating people to think and act constructively (Fredrickson, 2004). It might then be especially

challenging, though highly relevant for practice, to investigate how people experiencing passive

negative affect, such as feelings of burn-out for instance, might be encouraged and coached

towards proactivity. Building on both perspectives, negative passive emotions would be the most

difficult emotions to be translated into both cognitive and behavioural aspects of proactivity.

In conclusion, future affect-proactivity research might benefit from an integrated theoretical

approach which takes into account the underlying mechanisms behind the valence and activation

dimensions in relation to specific elements of proactivity. Furthermore, this integrated approach

might help to decide upon specific study designs, ranging from daily diary studies to longitudinal

interventions studies.

References

Barrett, F., L. & Russell, J.A. (1999). The structure of current affect: controversies and emerging

consensus. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 10-14. DOI: 10.1111/1467-

8721.00003

Bindl, U.K., Parker, S.K., Totterdell, P., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the Self-Starter: How

Mood Relates to Proactive Goal Regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 134-150.

DOI: 10.1037/a0024368.

Brehm, J.W. (1999). The Intensity of Emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(1), 2-

22. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0301_1

Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (2012). Within-Person Fluctuation of Proactive Behavior: How Affect and

Experienced Competence Regulate Work Behavior. Human Performance, 25(1), 72-93.

DOI: 10.1080/08959285.2011.631647

5

Fredrickson, B.L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Phil. Trans. R. Soc.

Lond. B, 359, 1367-1377. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1512

Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21th

century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187.

Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of Day-Level Proactive Behavior: A Look at Job

Stressors and Positive Affect During the Workday. Journal of Management, 35, 94-111.

DOI: 10.1177/0149206307308911Harmon-Jones, Gable, & Price (2013)

Gross, J.J., & Thompson, R.A. (2007). Emotional regulation: conceptual foundations. In J.J. Gross

(Ed.). Handbook of emotion regulation (pp.3-26). New York: Guilford Press.

Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Progress on a Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory of Emotion.


Russell, J.A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological

Review, 110(1), 145-172. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.145

Seo, M., Barrett, L.F., & Bartunek, J.M. (2004). The role of affective experience in work motivation.

The Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 423-439. DOI:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159052




emotions and behaviours. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

23(3), 342-363. DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2012.744449

Warr, P., & Inceoglu, I. (2012). Job Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Contrasting Associations with

Person-Job Fit. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(2), 129-138. DOI:

10.1037/a0026859

Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and Validation of Brief Measures of

Positive and Negative Emotions: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.



job crafting an overarching approach · pdf filesummary of phd - job crafting: an overarching...

Documents