Master thesis Humans Resource Studies

The effect of a job crafting intervention and

proactive personality on work engagement

Student: Jacqueline Boumans

ANR: 159477

1st Supervisor: Dr. M. van Woerkom

2nd Supervisor: Dr. T.A.M. Kooij

Project theme: Intervention study:

The job crafting intervention

Project period: January 2014 - January 2015

Date: January 29, 2015

2

Abstract

This study evaluates two different points of view regarding job crafting, which are both based on the Job

Demands Resources model. The study analyzes how a job crafting intervention and a proactive

personality can influence various dimensions of job crafting and, in turn, how these dimensions of job

crafting influence the level of work engagement of an employee. In addition, the mediating effect of the

various dimensions of job crafting, in particular between the job crafting intervention and work

engagement, as well as between proactive personality and work engagement, was studied. In this

experimental study (N=86) 31 participants took part in the job crafting intervention and 55 participants

were placed in a wait list control group. A factor analysis was conducted which indicated four job crafting

dimensions, namely job crafting towards strengths, job crafting towards interests, seeking resources and

challenges, and reducing demands. Furthermore, a multiple hierarchical regression analysis was

conducted. A significant relation was found between proactive personality and job crafting towards

strengths. However, contrary to expectations, no significant relation was found between proactive

personality and the other three dimensions of job crafting, between the job crafting intervention and

the four dimensions of job crafting or between the four dimensions of job crafting and work engagement.

Therefore, although this was a limited study, this experimental study was a first step towards exploring

the field of job crafting in an organizational setting.

Keywords: various dimensions of job crafting; proactive personality; work engagement; experimental

study; multiple hierarchical regression analysis

3

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decades, job design has been seen as a top-down process. This implies that the

management of an organization designed the employee’s job of for the employee (Berg, Wrzesniewski &

Dutton, 2010). However, in recent years the active role of the employee in job design, rather than the

role of the manager, has garnered more attention from researchers (Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Shaufeli

& Hetland, 2012). Job design is thus seen as not only a top-down but also a bottom-up process, in which

employees make their own changes with regard to the boundaries of their job (Berg, Wrzesniewski &

Dutton, 2010).

This bottom-up way of altering aspects or tasks of a job and the redesign of a job can be seen as

job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). According to Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) “crafting a job

involves shaping the task boundaries of the job (either physically or cognitively), the relational

boundaries of the job, or both” (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p. 179). Tims et al. argue that by

changing the task boundaries an employee might become more engaged (Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2011).

Work engagement was first studied by Kahn (1990). Later on, Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) defined work

engagement as a positive state of mind experienced by an employee while doing his work. Additionally,

it gives the employee an experience of fulfillment (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Based on the Job Demand

Resource (JD-R) model from Bakker and Demerouti (2008), it can be stated that job resources such as

autonomy or feedback and personal resources such as optimism or self-esteem, either independently or

combined, have a positive effect on work engagement. However, job demands such as work pressure or

physical demands can have a negative effect on work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). This

implies when an employee changes the boundaries of a task, a result can be that an employee increases

the job and personal resources or decreases the job demands, which has a positive effect on the

employee’s level of work engagement. Thus crafting a job can lead to an employee experiencing a higher

level of work engagement (Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2011).

There are two different points of view with regard to why employees craft their tasks and both are

based on the JD-R model (2008). The first point of view, according to Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), is

based on the personal resources of an employee, namely his or her strengths and interests. The

employee crafts the tasks to create a better alignment between interests and strengths and the tasks he

or she has to perform (Berg, Dutton, Wrzesniewski, 2008). The second point of view is based on the job

demands and job resources of the JD-R model (2008). Petrou et al. (2012) argue that job crafting has

three dimensions, which are 1) seeking resources; 2) seeking challenges; and 3) reducing demands. If an

employee notices that the job resources or job demands do not correspond to the way he or she wants

4

to experience them, the employee can craft the tasks to either increase resources or challenges, or

decrease demands to obtain a better balance with personal needs (Petrou et al., 2012).

Another aspect of job crafting is the role of the personality of an employee. According to

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), job crafting is seen as an individual process. The level of initiative in

this active role of redesigning a job can be different for every employee (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).

This difference in taking initiative can be explained by the degree of an employee’s proactivity. Bateman

and Crant (1993) found that employees respond to changes in their environment differently. For example,

an employee can simply adapt to environmental changes, or an employee can have a proactive

approach and take initiative to alter the situation (Crant, 2000). The latter employee would be referred

to as having a proactive personality (Crant, 2000). The implication is that having a proactive personality

can influence job crafting.

In this study an intervention concerning job crafting will be conducted to find out if there are indeed

relationships between the above mentioned aspects in an organizational setting (Berg et al., 2008). The

intervention is designed like a workshop. By using an online tool (Dorenbosch, 2013) the employees have

to analyze their tasks and explore which tasks they like to do (more), or which tasks they dislike and

eventually want to do less. In addition, they have to rearrange the remaining tasks and combine them,

for example, with their needs and personal strengths or interests. This can result in a redesigned job that

is more aligned with the personal and job resources or job demands of an employee, and therefore

could result in the experience of a higher level of, for instance, work engagement (Berg et al., 2008).

Taking all the above into account, it would be interesting to study how job crafting intervention and

a proactive personality influence the employee’s level of job crafting and in turn have an effect on the

level of work engagement. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyze how an intervention and

proactive personality influence the level of job crafting and, in turn, how the level of job crafting

influences an employee’s experience of work engagement.

Consequently, a relevant research question is: To what extent do a job crafting intervention and a

proactive personality affect work engagement, mediated by the level of various dimensions of job

crafting?

At present, there is no study in which the effects of a job crafting intervention are tested. Previous

studies have explored a theoretical framework with regard to job crafting in relation to work

engagement (Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012; Petrou et al., 2012; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). However,

an experimental study has not been conducted yet. With this study the author wants to contribute to

5

the literature by testing the job crafting intervention and its effect on various dimensions of job crafting

and, in turn, on work engagement. Additionally, this study examines how a proactive personality might

affect job crafting and work engagement.

Another key aspect of this study is that this intervention will be implemented in an organizational

setting, in contrast to previous master theses that were based on convenience sampling (Van Duijn, 2013;

De Jager, 2013; Lansbergen, 2013). This way insight is given as to how this intervention can contribute to

job crafting within an organization and if this has an effect on work engagement.

The following sections provide a theoretical framework to explain the relations between job crafting,

the job crafting intervention, proactive personality and work engagement. Furthermore, the methods

used in and the results of the study are shown, ending with a discussion.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The effect of an intervention on job crafting

According to Leana, Appelbaum and Shevchuk (2009), an employee can actively alter a boundary of a

task in order to create a better fit between the task and the personal needs or the work environment of

the employee . This process is labeled by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) as job crafting. An employee

has three different possibilities when crafting his or her job, namely task, relational and cognitive crafting

(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).

Firstly, task crafting is described as changing the task boundaries of the job. In a formal job

description the tasks an employee has to carry out are explained. However, when an employee crafts

tasks related to the job, an employee can change the number, scope or type of the tasks. For example,

an employee can craft the job in such a way that he or she has to do less or more of a certain task or do

the job in another way (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Secondly, an employee can change the relational

boundaries of a task. With this form of job crafting, employees can make changes to the frequency of

interaction with other employees while carrying out tasks. For instance, employees can choose how

often they will interact with colleagues during a work day (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Thirdly,

employees can change the boundaries of a task on cognitive grounds. This impacts how an employee

sees the different tasks within a job. For example, an employee feels either more or less responsible for

doing a certain task. The employee can see the task as an integrated one and feel responsible for

carrying out the task, or the employee does not see it as a priority and does not feel responsible for

carrying it out (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).

6

To evaluate whether various dimensions of job crafting indeed have an effect on how employees

carry out their tasks, this study is based on Wrzesniewski and Dutton’s (2001) job crafting intervention, in

which employees have to complete eight steps with regard to their job, using an online tool

(Dorenbosch, 2013). The online tool analyses the input and gives a conclusion in the form of diagram for

every step. With setting a goal in the last step of the online tool, the employees are encouraged to

actually craft their job. By taking these steps, the employees could obtain a better awareness of how

their job fits with their personal needs. If employees have a better understanding of how they can craft

their jobs, they are more likely to fit their jobs to their strengths or interests (Berg et al., 2008) or

increase their job resources, or reduce demands (Petrou et al., 2012). Therefore, it can be argued that

when employees have participated in this intervention, the level of job crafting should increase. The

following hypothesis is formed on this basis:

H1a: Participating in the job crafting intervention has a positive effect on job crafting towards strengths.

H1b: Participating in the job crafting intervention has a positive effect on job crafting towards interests.

H1c: Participating in the job crafting intervention has a positive effect on seeking challenges and

resources.

H1d: Participating in the job crafting intervention has a negative effect on reducing demands.

The effect of proactive personality on job crafting

Job crafting is a form of proactive behavior (Berg, Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2010). In addition, based on

research of Crant (2000) and Erdogan and Bauer (2005) it can be stated that a proactive personality is a

predictor of proactive behavior. Proactive personality is defined as "the degree to which individuals have

an active role orientation” (Erdogan & Bauer, 2005, p. 861). Crant (2000) states that an employee with a

proactive personality uses his or her personal initiative to influence the environment. In comparison to

reactive employees, proactive employees, for instance, ask for more feedback and take more initiative

with regard to their job (Seibert, Kraimer & Crant, 2001). In addition, Bateman and Crant (1993) define a

proactive personality as a "relatively stable tendency to effect environmental change" (Bateman & Crant,

1993, p. 104). This implies that a proactive personality can be seen as "a personality trait which is stable

over time" (Bateman & Crant, 1993).

This aspect of a proactive personality can be related to job crafting. When an employee crafts the

job, the employee is changing the boundaries of the job to align the job with personal interests and

needs (Berg et al., 2008). Thus, in order to redesign a job, an employee has to show proactive behavior

7

to have an influence on the work environment (Crant, 2000). This implies that employees with a

proactive personality play a more proactive role in adapting their jobs to changes within the organization,

towards personal strengths and interests, or job resources and demands. By adapting in response to

changes, employees can increase their level of performance (Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012) or their level

of work engagement (Berg et al., 2008).

Other researchers also found evidence that employees with a proactive personality influence their

environment (Bandura, 1989; Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant & Ashford, 2008; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant,

2001). Based on this evidence it can be assumed that employees with a proactive personality influence

their work environment (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). A form of influencing the work environment is

job crafting (Wrzeniewski & Dutton, 2001). Bakker, Tims and Derks (2012) have also found a positive

relationship between proactive personality and job crafting. Thus, it can be stated that employees with a

proactive personality are more likely to craft their jobs (Bakker, Tims & Derks, 2012). Therefore, the

following hypothesis is proposed:

H2a: The level of an employee's proactivity has a positive effect on job crafting towards strengths.

H2b: The level of an employee's proactivity has a positive effect on job crafting towards interests.

H2c: The level of an employee's proactivity has a positive effect on seeking challenges and resources.

H2d: The level of an employee's proactivity has a negative effect on reducing demands.

The effect of job crafting on work engagement

According to Schaufeli and Bakker (2004), work engagement is defined "as a positive, fulfilling, work-

related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption" (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004,

p. 295). “Vigor” can be explained as an experience of a high level of energy while an employee is

working (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). According to Mauno, Kinnunen and Ruokolainen (2006), an

employee who experiences a high level of vigor is highly motivated to carry out the job. Additionally,

when an employee with a high level of vigor has to do a difficult task, the employee persists until the job

is finished correctly. “Dedication” is described as feelings of enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge,

which are the result of a strong psychological involvement an employee has towards the job (Schaufeli &

Bakker, 2004). “Absorption” refers to being in a state of total concentration in which one has no sense of

time (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Other studies pointed out that absorption is similar to the concept of

"Flow" (González-Roma, Schaufeli, Bakker, & Lloret, 2006; Langelaan et al., 2006; Llorens et al., 2007).

The main difference between these concepts is that with absorption, perseverance plays an important

8

role and is related to the work domain (Mauno, Kinnunen & Ruokolainen, 2006). Flow is a short peak

experience that can occur in every aspect of an employee’s life and is thus is not strictly work related

(Schaufeli et al., 2002a; Schaufeli et al., 2006). In addition, according to Schaufeli et al. (2002a, 2002b)

work engagement is relatively stable over time.

The JD-R model assumes that the personal (Wrzeniewski & Dutton, 2001) and job resources, as well

as the job demands (Petrou et al., 2012) an employee has influences work engagement (Bakker &

Demerouti, 2008). By crafting a job an employee can alter tasks in a certain way. This can increase the

personal (e.g. the strengths and interests of an employee) and job resources or decrease job demands,

which can have a positive effect on the level of work engagement an employee can experience (Tims,

Bakker, & Derks, 2011). In other words, by crafting a job, the job tasks are redesigned, resulting in a

higher level of personal or job resources or a lower level of job demands, ultimately having a positive

influence on work engagement (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2011). Hence, it can be argued that job crafting

has a positive effect on the level of work engagement. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H3a: The higher the level of job crafting towards strengths, the higher the level of work engagement.

H3b: The higher the level of job crafting towards interests, the higher the level of work engagement.

H3c: The higher the level of seeking challenges and resources, the higher the level of work engagement.

H3d: The higher the level of reducing demands, the lower the level of work engagement.

The mediating effect of job crafting on work engagement

By participating in job crafting intervention employees can become aware of the fact that their personal

and job resources and job demands are not balanced in the manner they want them to be (Berg et al.,

2008). Participating in the intervention brings about an improved understanding of how an employee

can craft the job (Berg et al., 2008). This higher level of understanding of job crafting implies that

employees can better align their job with their personal needs (Wrzeniewski & Dutton, 2001) and job

resources and demands (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2011) after taking part in the intervention (Berg et al.,

2008).

A result of this can be that the employee crafts the job and experiences an increased balance

between personal (Wrzeniewski & Dutton, 2001) and job resources, and the job demands (Petrou et al.,

2012). Crafting the task, based on participating in the job crafting intervention has, in turn, a positive

effect on the level of work engagement an employee experiences. For that reason it can be assumed that

9

if employees participate in the job crafting intervention, their level of job crafting increases, which in

turn increases their level of work engagement. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H4a: Job crafting towards strengths mediates the relationship between participating in the job crafting

intervention and work engagement.

H4b: Job crafting towards interests mediates the relationship between participating in the job crafting

intervention and work engagement.

H4c: Seeking challenges and resources mediates the relationship between participating in the job

crafting intervention and work engagement.

H4c: Reducing demands mediates the relationship between participating in the job crafting intervention

and work engagement.

As stated in a previous section, a proactive personality has a positive effect on the level of job crafting

(Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). When an employee experiences a higher level of job crafting, based on

the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008), an increased level of personal (Wrzeniewski & Dutton, 2001)

or job resources and a reduction in job demands follows (Petrou et al., 2012). This, in turn, has a positive

effect on work engagement (Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2011).

As a result, a mediation effect can be expected. It can be stated that employees with a proactive

personality have a higher level of job crafting, which in turn has a positive effect on the level of work

engagement. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H5a: Job crafting towards strengths mediates the relationship between participating in the job crafting

intervention and work engagement.

H5b: Job crafting towards interests mediates the relationship a proactive personality and work

engagement.

H5c: Seeking challenges and resources mediates the relationship between a proactive personality and

work engagement.

H5c: Reducing demands mediates the relationship between a proactive personality and work

engagement.

10

The above stated hypotheses are presented in the conceptual model, which is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual model

METHOD

Research set-up

This study was set up as an experimental study with a pre- and post-test design. The participants were

divided into two groups; the control group and the experimental group. This distribution between the

groups was based on the enrollment for the job crafting intervention. The job crafting intervention was

conducted at the headquarters of a large health care insurance organization in Tilburg, the Netherlands.

A presentation about job crafting intervention was given to potential participants from the organization.

The intervention itself was designed as a workshop and after the presentation the employees who were

interested in participating could sign up for the workshop. Those who enrolled were divided into two

groups. Five workshops were given in May 2014 and those participants represented the experimental

group. The three more workshops were given in September 2014 and participants formed the control

group. Approximately ten employees participated in each workshop.

Furthermore, both groups were asked to fill in pre-test questionnaires and post-test questionnaires to

measure the level of the variables job crafting, proactive personality and work engagement. All the

participants had to fill in the pre-test before the first intervention was given and the post-test had to be

filled in four weeks after the intervention in May 2014. Two weeks after the intervention the

experimental group received a phone call by one of the researchers in order to give advice or stimulate

H2

H1 H4 & H5

H3 Work Engagement

Job Crafting Intervention

Proactive Personality

Job Crafting

a) towards strengths b) towards interests c) seeking resources

and challenges

d) reducing demands

11

the participants with regard to the job crafting process. The researchers had a fixed script (see Appendix

A), so each participant was asked the same questions. The participants in the intervention in September

2014 were called the “wait list control group”. While the study took place these participants formed the

untreated group as their questionnaires were intended to be a means of comparison between the

experimental and control group.

Sample

The data collection was done by three master’s students from Tilburg University. All the students who

participated in the thesis circle did so to further their research for their master’s theses on job crafting.

The sample consisted of N = 86 participants. All the participants had a Dutch nationality and

were working in various departments, located in Tilburg, Breda, Goes and Sittard, of the health care

insurance company. With regard to the deviation of the sample based on gender, 19 (22.1%) participants

were male and 67 (77.9%) participants were female. The age of the participants ranged from 22 to 55

years, with a total average of 32.2 years. The educational background of the participants varied from

secondary school to university. In addition, the participant’s average contract hours were 33.7 hours a

week, the average organizational tenure was 5.5 years and the average functional tenure was 3.0 years.

In addition, a t-test was conducted to find out if there were significant differences between the

experimental and control group with regard to the descriptives. The gender, age and average functional

tenure descriptives were not significantly different. However, the descriptives of educational background

(t = -3.85 p = .00), contractual hours (t = -2.19 p = .03) and average organizational tenure (t = 2.95 p = .00)

differed significantly between the experimental and control group. This implies that the groups of the

sample did not correspond with each other on three of the six descriptives used in this study.

In order to measure whether the job crafting intervention had an effect, the participants were

assigned to the experimental group (N = 31) and control group (N=55). To have a better overview of the

descriptives of both groups, the descriptives of both groups are also described and are presented in

Table 1. The experimental group consisted of more male participants (29.0%) in comparison to the

control group (18.2%). The average age of the experimental group was 30.7 years (SD = 5.8) and that of

the control group 33.0 years (SD = 7.3). The educational background of the two groups differed. The

educational background of the experimental group ranged from an intermediate vocational education to

university. The majority of these participants (58.1 %) had a university degree. However, the educational

background of the control group ranged from secondary school to university. In this group, the majority

of the participants (60.0%) had a secondary vocational education degree. The groups varied in numbers

12

of contract hours. The experimental group had 34.8 contract hours (SD = 2.9) and the control group 33.1

hours (SD = 4.0). Additionally, there was a difference due to the organizational tenure. The organizational

tenure of the experimental group was 3.1 years (SD = 5.2) and that of the control group was 6.9 years

(SD = 6.3). Nevertheless the difference due to the functional tenure was smaller: 2.6 years with regard to

the experimental group (SD = 3.6) and 3.3 years for the control group (SD = 3.0).

Table 1. Participants descriptives (N=86) divided in experimental (N=31) and control group (N=55)

Description Mean / % Significance (two-tailed)

Experimental Group 36% (N=31)

Control Group 64% (N=55)

Gender (Experimental Group) Male 29.0% (N=9) .28

Female 71.0% (N=22) Gender (Control group) Male 18.2% (N=10)

Female 81.8% (N=45)

Average Age in Years Experimental Group 30.7 (SD=5.8) .14

Control Group 33.0 (SD=7.3)

Educational Background (Experimental Group)

Secondary School 0.0% (N=0) .00*** Intermediate Vocational Education 3,2% (N=1) Secondary Vocational Education 38.7% (N=12) University 58.1% (N=18)

Education Background (Control Group)

Secondary School 7.3% (N=4) Intermediate Vocational Education 12,7% (N=7) Secondary Vocational Education 60.0% (N=33) University 20.0% (N=11)

Contractual Hours Experimental Group 34.8 (SD=2.9) .03*

Control Group 33.1(SD=4.0)

Average Organizational Tenure in Years

Experimental Group 3.1 (SD=5.2) .00**

Control Group 6.9 (SD= 6.3)

Average Functional Tenure in Years Experimental Group 2.6 (SD=3.6) .40

Control Group 3.3 (SD=3.0) Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 (two-tailed)

Procedure

After the students contacted the organization, a presentation was given to the members of a network for

the younger employees within the health care insurance organization. This presentation explained the

content of the intervention. Subsequently, an invitation to participate in the intervention was also sent

by email to all the other employees of the health care insurance organization. If the employees were

13

interested, they could sign up for the job crafting intervention by email and choose when they wanted to

participate. The intervention took place in May for the experimental group and in September for the

control group. However, some participants asked for a transfer to another date and the students replied

to those requests. The participants were transferred to the dates they preferred.

After the dates were set, the job crafting intervention started. The intervention consisted of

eight weeks. In the first two weeks the participants had to fill in the pre-test questionnaire to determine

the level of several variables. In the third week the experimental group participated in the intervention;

the control group, however, did not take part in the intervention. In the fifth and sixth weeks the

experimental group was contacted by the students by phone. Working with a fixed script, the students

asked the participants if there were any problems with reaching the goals they had set in the

intervention. In the seventh and eighth weeks both the experimental and the control group had to fill in

the post-tests. The total procedure lasted for eight weeks in total.

The Intervention

The intervention was executed using an online tool, created by Dorenbosch (2013). This online tool

made it possible to give the participants a better understanding of how a job can be crafted. After a

short explanation about the content of the workshop, the online tool was initiated. It consisted of eight

steps. In the first step the participants had to make a diagnosis of their tasks. The job was divided into

several tasks and in the second step the participants had to divide those tasks into small, medium and

large tasks. After categorizing the tasks, a percentage was assigned to the small, medium and large tasks,

which represented the time a participant spent on this type of task. In the third step the dynamics of the

tasks were discussed. In this step the participants made a distinction between tasks they had executed

from the start and tasks they had acquired later on in their careers. In this way the participants created

an overview of how their work changed over time. In the fourth step the participants explored how

likable their work was. The personal interests and risks of the participants were discussed and person-job

(mis)fits were identified.

In the fifth step the participants combined the previous steps by comparing the tasks they

mentioned in step one with the interests and risks of step four. In step six, the participants examined

which tasks had priority in order to carry out their tasks in the future. After those six steps the

participants received an overview of their own tasks, personal risks and wishes, and how these risks and

wishes fitted with the way they wanted to work in the next two years. In the seventh step, they had to

choose which task they wanted to craft based on a summary that took into account all the previous

14

steps. The participants had to choose how they wanted to craft their task. There were four different

crafting possibilities, namely: a task which the participant liked could be enlarged so that more time

could be spent on the task; a risk task could be made smaller so that he or she would spend less time on

it; the participant could carry out the task in a different manner; or he or she might have wanted to learn

new skills to carry out the task. Finally, in the eighth step the participant had to come up with a plan

explaining why and exactly how the participant wanted to craft this task. There had to be a very practical

argumentation with regard to which steps the participant wanted to take to alter the task. The aim was

that the participant would complete the alteration within four weeks after the workshop (Dorenbosch,

2013).

Instruments

Job crafting was measured with two scales. The first scale used in this study was a shortened version of

Van Woerkom and Kooij’s (2013) scale. It was shortened because not every employee worked with

customers, so the outcomes were not consistent. Therefore, the items related to customers were

removed. This scale consisted of 10 items in total and was measured with a seven-point Likert scale,

ranging from one (never) to seven (always). This scale measured two aspects of job crafting: 1) job

crafting towards strengths, which is based on the Short Measure of Character Strength by Furnham and

Lester (2012), and 2) job crafting towards interests, which was based on the shortened version of the

Person Globe Inventory by Tracey (2010). The Cronbach's α was .83 for the subscale of job crafting

towards strengths. It consisted of five items. An example item was: "I organize my work in a way that it

fits my strengths." For the subscale of job crafting towards interests the Cronbach's α was .85 and also

consisted of five items. An example item was: "I actively look for tasks that fit my interests."

In addition, job crafting was measured with a shortened version of the scale by Tims and Bakker

(2010), created by Petrou et al. (2012). The scale consists of eight items and is measured with a seven-

point Likert scale ranging from one (never) to seven (always). The scale consists of two subscales. The

first subscale measured ‘seeking challenges’ and ‘seeking resources’. It consisted of five items. The scale

had a Cronbach's α of .86. An example item is: "I ask others for feedback on my job performance". The

second subscale was ‘reducing demands’ and consisted of three items. An example item is: "I make sure

that my work is mentally less intense". The Cronbach's α was .65. If the item "I try to ensure that my

work is physically less intense" was deleted, the Cronbach's α would be .81. However, the corrected

item-total correlation was still > .30. In addition, testing the subscale without this item, the results

15

remained the same. Thus, this item did not influence the results and therefore it was still considered in

this study.

To validate the scale by Van Woerkom and Kooij (2013) and the scale by Petrou et al. (2012), a

principal components analysis was conducted. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was .83, which was

above the recommended value of .6. The Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was statistically significant. This

supported the factorability of the correlation matrix. The principal components analysis showed that

there were five components with eigenvalues above 1. They explained 37.8%, 11.2%, 10.1%, 6.2% and

5.8% of the variance.

An oblimin rotation was conducted in order to obtain a better interpretation of these four

components. Based on the rotated solution, the pattern matrix showed that the subscale ‘general level

of seeking resources’ and the subscale ‘general level of seeking challenges’ loaded on one component,

namely Component 3. In addition, some items loaded on two or three components. To see whether

there was a better fitting solution, a fixed number of four components was generated based on the fact

that two subscales were combined. The four-component solution explained 65.3% of the variance.

Component 1 contributed 37.8%, Component 2 contributed 11.2%, Component 3 contributed 10.1%,

and Component 4 contributed 6.2%.

Based on the four-component solution, only the items that loaded on Component 1, which

represented job crafting towards strengths, Component 2, which represented general level of reducing

demands, and Component 3, which represented the general level of seeking resources and challenges,

loaded only on one component. With regard to Component 4, which represented job crafting towards

interests, these items did not exclusively load on one component. Nevertheless, the job crafting towards

interests subscale was still considered in this study based on the fact that, although the items of

Component 4 did not exclusively load on one component , the items were still representative with

respect to the subscale. In addition, the subscale's Cronbach's α was .85.

Subsequently, the component correlation matrix did show that there was a weak positive

relationship between Component 1 and Component 2 (r = .07) and Component 2 and Component 3 (r

= .05). Between Component 2 and Component 4 there was a weak negative correlation (r = -.08). With

regard to Component 1 and Component 3 (r = .45), and Component 1 and Component 4 (r = -.39), the

correlation was of a medium level. Finally, there was a small correlation between Component 3 and

Component 4 (r = -.30). The output of this factor analysis is presented in Appendix B.

Work engagement was measured with the nine items of the short Dutch version of the Utrecht

Work Engagement Scale by Schaufeli and Bakker (2003). The scale consists of three subscales: vigor,

16

dedication and absorption. The seven- point Likert scale ranged from one (totally disagree) to seven

(totally agree). The Cronbach's α was .91 and an example item is: "At work I am full of energy".

Proactive personality was measured with a shortened version of the scale by Bateman and Crant

(1993), created by Tims and Bakker. The shortened version consists of six items that have the highest

average factor loadings and were measured with a five-point Likert scale, ranging from one (totally

disagree) to five (totally agree). An example item is: "When I see something I don’t like, I change it". The

Cronbach's α is .82. See Appendix C for the complete scales, which are translated in Dutch.

Statistical analysis

After the collection of the data, the statistical program SPSS was used to process the data (Pallant, 2007).

First, the data was checked for outliers, missing values and errors. Second, the reliability of the scales

was tested.

Five control variables, namely age, gender, education, contract hours and organizational tenure,

were used to test whether the control variables influenced the effect of the independent and dependent

variable. Those four were taken into account due to the fact that they correlated with at least one of the

independent or dependent variables (see Table 2). The statistical analysis used in this study was a

multiple regression to test hypotheses 1, 2 and 3. A multiple regression is done to verify if the

independent variables predict certain outcomes. Also, this method verified if an independent variable

was also able to predict an outcome when checked for the effects of another variable (Pallant, 2007).

The job crafting intervention and proactive personality were the independent variables that were

included to predict the scores of the mediator (job crafting, measured at T2) and the dependent variable

(work engagement, measured at T2). Furthermore, the analyses were checked for the baseline levels of

job crafting and engagement (measured at T1) by including them as independent variables in our models.

The mediating effect of hypotheses 4 and 5 was tested with the procedure of MacKinnon,

Fairchild, and Fritz (2007). A mediation effect occurred when an independent variable (intervention or

proactive personality) had a significant effect on the mediation variable (job crafting), and the mediator

had an effect on the dependent variable in an analysis in which the independent variable was checked.

Pure mediation occurred when, in this second equation, the independent variable had no significant

effect on the dependent variable, while the mediator did have a significant effect on the dependent

variable. Partial mediation occurred when the independent variable still had a significant effect on the

dependent variable (and the mediator as well). Therefore, first a regression analysis was conducted with

the job crafting intervention (1, 0), proactive personality and the baseline level of job crafting as

17

independent variables, and job crafting as the dependent variable. In a second analysis, job crafting (T2)

and engagement (T1) was added to the independent variables and work engagement (T2) was included

as a dependent variable. Furthermore, if a significant effect of the mediating variable was found,

bootstrapping (Hayes, 2014) was conducted to confirm this.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

The correlations of the variables regarding the strengths and interest scales, and the correlations of the

variables regarding the scale of Petrou et al. (2012) used in this study are presented in the correlation

matrix, which is shown in Table 2. The means and the standard deviations of those variables are also

included in this table. With regard to the job crafting intervention, correlations with reducing demands

are significant (r = .31, p < .01). The variables proactive personality (T1) and work engagement (T2) are

both significant in relation to job crafting towards strengths (T2) and job crafting towards interests (T2).

Proactive personality had significant positive relationship with job crafting towards strengths (r

= .45, p < .01) and job crafting towards interests (r = .37, p < .01). This also is the case regarding the

relationship between work engagement and job crafting towards strengths (r = .79, p < .01) and work

engagement and job crafting towards interests (r = .48, p < .01). In addition, the variable proactive

personality has a significant positive correlation to the seeking challenges and resources scale (T2) of

Petrou et al. (2012) (r = .34, p < .01). Work engagement (T2) was also positively significantly related to

seeking challenges and resources (T2) (r = .34, p < .01).

In order to test whether there was a significant difference between the three master

students/researchers who provided the job crafting intervention (workshop leader), an ANOVA analysis

was conducted. The results of this ANOVA analysis showed that, regarding the variable job crafting

towards strengths and regarding the variable reducing demands, there was a significant difference

between the workshop leaders. For this reason, control variables were conducted.

18

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of dependent, independent and control variables (N= 86)

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

1. Gender1

1.78

.42 -

2. Age (year) 32.16 6.82 .21 -

3. Education2

4.15 .78 .07 -.24* -

4. Contract hours (week) 33.70 3.72 -.26

* -.55

** .26

* -

5. Tenure company (year) 5.54 6.14 .21 .71

** -.33

** -.51

** -

6. Tenure function (year) 3.03 3.27 .11 .68

** -.27

* -.47

** .76

** -

7. Intervention .36 .48 -.13 -.16 .39

** .23

* -.30

** -.09 -

8. JC strengths T1 4.24 .78 -.09 -.10 .02 .21 -.08 -.10 .09 -

9. JC interests T1 3.65 .93 -.07 -.17 -.04 .16 -.07 -.14 .23

* .67

** -

10. Seeking chal/res T1 4.15 1.16 .12 -.30

** -.15 .21 -.25

* -.21 .08 .52

** .54

** -

11. Reducing demands T1 1.80 .77 .02 .02 -.05 -.12 -.02 .09 .12 .02 .14 .03 -

12. Proactive Personality 3.48 .66 -.06 -.02 -.21

* .08 -.05 -.06 -.05 .55

** .51

** .61

** .06 -

13. Work engagement T1 4.75 .73 -.00 .06 -.15 .15 -.00 -.01 -.07 .50

** .47

** .50

** .05 .55

** -

14. JC strengths T2 4.16 .79 -.06 -.10 -.04 .15 -.08 -.08 -.03 .56

** .50

** .39

** -.08 .45

** .36

** -

15. JC interests T2 3.69 1.01 -.22

* -.11 -.03 .09 -.16 -.10 .03 .48

** .60

** .30

** .01 .37

** .31

** .71

** -

16. Seeking chal/res T2 3.50 1.05 -.11 -.30

** -.01 .24

* -25

* -.16 .10 .34

** .39

** .65

** -.12 .34

** .31

** .59

** .50

** -

17. Reducing demands T2 1.59 .91 -.38

** -0,14 .04 .12 -.17 -.10 .31

** .06 .14 -.08 .29

** .01 -.10 -.17 .10 .12 -

18. Work engagement T2 4.78 .69 .13 .04 -.10 .21 -.05 -.00 .08 .49

** .46

** .51

** .04 .58

** .79

** .48

** .39

** .34

** -.12 -

Note. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed);

1Reference category = man

2Education = 1) Secondary School, 2) Intermediate Vocational Education, 3) Secondary Vocational Education, 4) University

19

Regression analyses

To test the proposed hypotheses in this study, a multiple regression analysis was used. However, first the

variance inflation factor (VIF) was conducted to check for multicollinearity. According to Cohen et al.

(2003, p. 423), the VIF has to be below the value of 10, which was the case in all analyses. The tested

variables were entered into different blocks. The independent variables were added into the first block

and the control variables into the next block.

Hypothesis 1a states that the relationship between the job crafting intervention and job crafting

towards strengths is positively related. Hypothesis 2a also states a positive relationship between having a

proactive personality and job crafting towards strengths. In model 1, the independent variables

explained 21.0% of the variance in job crafting towards strengths. Adding the control variables, the total

variance explained by model 2 is 41.5% (F = 5.80).

Nevertheless, the relationship between the job crafting intervention and job crafting towards

strengths was not significant (β = .08, p > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 1a is rejected. However, the

relationship between proactive personality and job crafting towards strengths was statistically significant

in model 1 (β = .46, p < .001) and in model 2 (β = .28, p < .05). In model 2 the control variable job crafting

towards strengths T1 (β = .38, p < .001) was statistically significant. Based on these, findings hypothesis

2a is accepted.

In addition, Hypothesis 1b describes the relationship between the job crafting intervention and

job crafting towards interests, which is positively related. Likewise, hypothesis 2b describes that having a

proactive personality is positively related to job crafting towards interests. In model 1, the independent

variables explained 14.0% of the variance in job crafting towards interests. Adding the control variables,

the total variance explained by model 2 is 41.7% (F = 5.80). The job crafting intervention was not

significantly related to job crafting towards interests in either model 1 (β = .01, p > .05) or model 2 (β = -

.18, p > .05). However, proactive personality was significantly related to job crafting towards interests in

model 1 (β = .37, p < .001), but not in model 2 (β = .10, p > .05). In model 2, two control variables were

significantly related to job crafting towards interests, namely job crafting towards interests T1 (β

= .58, p < .001) and gender (β = .20, p < .05). Therefore, hypothesis 1b and hypothesis 2b are rejected.

Hypothesis 1c states that the relationship between the job crafting intervention and seeking

challenges and resources is positively related. In addition, Hypothesis 2c also proposes a positive

relationship between having a proactive personality and seeking challenges and resources. In model 1,

the independent variables explained 12.1% of the variance of seeking challenges and resources. Adding

the control variables, the total variance explained by model 2 was 43.8% (F = 7.69). In model 1 (β = .08,

20

p > .05) and model 2 (β = .01, p > .05) the relationship between the job crafting intervention and seeking

challenges and resources was not statistically significant. However, the relationship between proactive

personality and seeking challenges and resources was significant in model 1 (β = .33, p <.01) but not in

model 2 (β = -.06, p > .05). In model 2, one control variable was significant in relation to seeking

challenges and resources, namely seeking challenges and resources T1 (β = .66, p < .001). Based on these

findings, hypothesis 1c and 2c are rejected.

Hypothesis 1d describes a negative relationship between the job crafting intervention and

reducing demands. Hypothesis 2d also states a negative relationship between having a proactive

personality and reducing demands. In model 1, the independent variables explained 9.7% of the

variance of reducing demands. Adding the control variables, the total variance explained by model 2 is

39.9% (F = 6.73). In addition, the relationship between job crafting intervention and reducing demands

was significant in model 1 (β = .31, p <.01) but not in model 2 (β = .15, p > .05). Proactive personality in

both model 1 (β = -.00, p > .05) and model 2 (β = -.01, p > .05) was not significantly related to reducing

demands. Nevertheless, three control variables were significantly related to reducing demands, namely

reducing demands T1 (β = .22, p <.05), workshop leader (β = .37, p <.001) and gender (β = -.28, p <.01).

Based on these results, hypotheses 1d and 2d are rejected. The results are presented in Table 3.

21

Table 3. Hierarchical multiple regression predicting job crafting

Towards strengths

Towards interests Seeking challenges Reducing demands

and resources

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

b β b β b β b β b β b β b β b β

Intervention¹ -.09 -.06 .12 .08 .02 .01 -.37 -.18 .18 .08 .03 .01 .59** .31** .27 .15 Proactive Personality .66

*** .46

*** .40

* .28

* .69

*** .37

*** .18 .10 .64

** .33

** -.11 -.06 -.01 -.00 -.02 -.01

JC Strengths T1 .40***

.40***

JC Interests T1

.62*** .58***

Seeking chal/res T1 .60***

.66***

Reducing Demands T1 .26

* .22

*

Workshop leader a -.65** -.32** Workshop leaderb 1.44*** .37*** Age (year) -.01 -.07

Education3 .09 .09 .13 .10 .06 .04 -.06 -.05 Contract hours (week) .02 .06 Organizational tenure (year)

.00 .00

R2

.21*** .42***

.14** .42***

.12** .44***

.01 .37***

Δ R2

.21***

.28***

.32***

.36***

F

11.00*** 11.34***

6.75** 11.43***

5.08** 7.70***

.50 8.64***

Δ F 9.36***

18.50***

7.81***

13.91***

Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 (two-tailed)

¹ Reference category = control group

a Reference category = Sanne and Jacqueline, workshop leader = Dominique

b Reference category = Dominique and Sanne, workshop leader = Jacqueline

2 Reference category = man

3 Education = 1) Secondary School, 2) Intermediate Vocational Education, 3) Secondary Vocational Education, 4) University

The relationship between job crafting and work engagement (T2) is described by four

hypotheses: 1) hypothesis 3a states that the relationship between job crafting towards strengths and

work engagement is positively related, 2) hypothesis 3b states that the relationship between job

crafting towards interests and work engagement is positively related, 3) hypothesis 3c states that

there is a positive relationship between increasing challenging job demands and work engagement,

and 4) hypothesis 3d describes a negative relationship between reducing demands and work

engagement. In model 1, the independent variables explained 24.5 % of the variance of work

engagement. Adding the control variables, the total variance explained by model 2 is 72.7% (F =

14.60). Both in model 1 as well as in model 2, there was no significant relationship between a form of

job crafting and work engagement. Two control variables were significant related to work

engagement, namely work engagement T1 (β = .66, p <.001), and gender (β = -.28, p <.05). Therefore,

hypotheses 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d are rejected. The results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Hierarchical multiple regression predicting work engagement

Model 1 Model 2

b β b β

Job crafting towards strengths .28 .32 .10 .12 Job crafting towards interests .08 .12 .07 .11 Seeking challenges and resources .06 .10 -.03 -.04 Reducing demands -.07 -.09 .03 .04 Work engagement T1 .62 .60 Job crafting intervention

.12 .08

Proactive personality

.20 .16 Workshop leadera -.12 -.07 Workshop leaderb -.21 -.07 Age (year) .01 .10 Gender2 .33* .20* Education3 -.02 -.03 Contract hours (week) .03 .17 Organizational tenure (year) -.01 -.06

R2

.25**

.73***

Δ R2

.48***

F

5.67** 11.42***

Δ F 10.61***

Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 (two-tailed)

¹ Reference category = control group

a Reference category = Jacqueline and Sanne, workshop leader 1 = Dominique

b Reference category = Dominique and Sanne, workshop leader = Jacqueline

2 Reference category = man

3 Education = 1) Secondary School, 2) Intermediate Vocational Education,

3) Secondary Vocational Education, 4) University

23

The mediation analyses of hypothesis 4, which states a mediation effect of job crafting on the

relationship between job crafting intervention and work engagement, and of hypothesis 5, which

describes the mediating effect of job crafting on the relationship between proactive personality and

work engagement, are conducted on the basis of MacKinnon, Fairchild, and Fritz’s (2007) procedure.

To confirm that there is indeed a mediation, two assumptions have to be tested. First, there has to be

a significant relation between the independent variable and the mediating variable. Second, there

has to be a significant relationship between the mediating variable and the dependent variable

checked for the independent variable.

To confirm that there is a mediation, as stated in hypothesis 4a (job crafting towards

strengths), hypothesis 4b (job crafting towards interests), hypothesis 4c (seeking challenges and

resources) and hypothesis 4d (reducing demands), it must be checked whether there is a significant

effect between the job crafting intervention and the mediating variable job crafting, and proactive

personality and the mediating variable job crafting. The relationships were not significant, which

means that the first assumption is violated. Therefore, there is no mediation effect of job crafting on

the relationship between job crafting intervention and work engagement. Consequently,

bootstrapping was not executed. Thus, hypothesis 4 is rejected.

In addition, the mediation stated in hypothesis 5a was tested. The relationship between the

independent variable, the proactive personality and the mediating variable job crafting towards

strengths was checked to confirm that there is a significant effect. The relationship between proactive

personality and job crafting towards strengths was significant (β = .28, p < .05). This is presented in

Table 3. With regard to the second step it had to be checked whether there was a significant effect

between the mediation variable job crafting towards strengths and the dependent variable

engagement, controlled for the independent variable having a proactive personality. This relationship

is not significant (β = .12, p > .05), as shown in Table 4. The second assumption with regard to

mediation is violated. Therefore, bootstrapping was not conducted and hypothesis 5a is rejected.

Finally, to verify that there is a mediation, as stated in hypothesis 5b (job crafting towards

interests), hypothesis 5c (seeking challenges and resources) and hypothesis 5d (reducing demands), it

had to be checked whether there was a significant effect between proactive personality and the

mediating variable job crafting. The relationships were not significant, which means that the first

assumption is violated. Based on these results there is no mediation effect of job crafting on the

relationship between job crafting intervention and work engagement. Therefore, bootstrapping was

not conducted and hypotheses 5b, 5c, and 5d are rejected.

24

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether there is a relationship between the job crafting

intervention and having a proactive personality in relation to job crafting, and if there is a relationship

between job crafting and work engagement. In addition, the mediating effect of job crafting between

the job crafting intervention and work engagement, and between proactive personality and work

engagement was examined. Eighty-six participants took part in this intervention study, which had an

experimental design. Each participant had to fill in two questionnaires at two different times. After

the first questionnaire was filled in, some participants (the experimental group) took part in the job

crafting intervention. The remaining participants (control group) were placed on a wait list, so they

could be a part of the job crafting intervention after they filled in the second questionnaire. Two

weeks after the job crafting intervention, the participants who took part in the job crafting

intervention were contacted by telephone by the researchers to check if they were working on their

goals and eventually were given advice. Subsequently, both groups had to fill in a second

questionnaire in order to predict the possible outcomes stated in five hypotheses.

One aim of this study was to find out if the job crafting intervention encouraged the

participants to actually craft their job. The results of this study did not support the relationship

between participating in the job crafting intervention and the employee’s level of job crafting.

Although an intervention study regarding this aim has never been done before, the results of this

study indicate that the reasoning that employees who know how to craft their job will craft their jobs

more is not plausible. Additionally, the results of the study did not support the mediating effect of job

crafting in the relation on the job crafting intervention and work engagement, and in the relation of

having a proactive personality and work engagement.

A possible reason for these results is that an awareness of the concept of job crafting and

setting a goal to craft their job is not enough motivation for employees to actually craft their jobs.

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) argue that all employees are potential job crafters. However, job

crafting has to be experienced as a priority by the employee. For example, an employee can

experience it as a priority if the employee feels there is a misfit between the interests the employee

has and the tasks he or she has to carry out. When job crafting is experienced as a priority, it is more

likely that an employee will craft the job. Therefore, while it is possible to encourage employees to

craft their jobs or make them more aware of job crafting with the job crafting intervention, it is a

process that takes place on the individual level of an employee (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). If an

employee does not feel the need to change the task boundaries in order to seek challenges and

resources or reduce demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008), the fact of encouraging the employee

with a job crafting intervention and bringing the concept of job crafting to his or her attention does

25

not ensure that an employee will craft the job. The employee has to experience a misfit between the

individual interests and the allocated tasks to see it as a priority and therefore to spend time on job

crafting (Leana et al.,2009).

A second reason for not finding a significant relationship between participating in the job

crafting intervention and job crafting, was indicated in the feedback during the telephone

conversations. Despite the fact that the workshop leaders had to make sure that the participants

filled in a short-term goal and had to identify the first step towards reaching this goal, only fifteen

out of thirty-one participants were able to work on their goal. The participants who had not crafted

their jobs mentioned that they did not work on their goal due to a lack of time. For example, some

had to do extra work because they had to take over some tasks from other colleagues. In addition,

some participants could not recall their goal during the telephone conversation. This was also due to

the fact that it was a very busy time within the health care insurance organization. Hence, they

argued, they had a lack of time.

With regard to having a proactive personality, one relationship was significant. The

relationship of having a proactive personality and job crafting towards strengths was statistically

significant. This implies that employees with a more proactive personality craft their job towards their

strengths more often than employees who have a less proactive personality. Nevertheless, the

relationships between having a proactive personality and the other three dimensions of job crafting

were not significant. Additionally, the relationship between the four dimensions of job crafting and

work engagement was not statistically significant.

However, other studies did find significant relationships (Bakker et al., 2012; Berg et al., 2010;

Petrou et al., 2012; Tims et al., 2012). Possible reason for these findings was that these studies used

another research design as the experimental research design used in this study. For example, Petrou

et al. (2012) used a multilevel analysis which was based on a dairy study. In addition, job crafting is

seen a recent research topic (Petrou et al., 2012). For instance, Bakker et al. (2012), Berg et al. (2010),

and Tims et al. (2012) were focused on elaborating the theory with regard to job crafting as described

by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001). Thus, the research design of an experimental study with a pre-

and post-test design was not used before.

Limitations and strengths

The first limitation is based on the sample of this study. Only 86 participants participated in this study;

thus the sample size was very small. Also, the experimental group and control group significantly

differed from each other on three of the six descriptives that were taken into account. A bigger

sample size and randomization of groups could lead to a higher level of reliability and generalizability.

26

Secondly, there were two limitations with regard to the instruments used in this study. To

begin with, the validity of the subscale job crafting towards interests was low. This implies that job

crafting towards interests is not described accurately by this subscale. The second issue was the low

level of reliability of the subscale reducing demands. This means that the measurement for reducing

demands could be inconsistent with future measurements.

The third limitation was that, with regard to the variables job crafting towards strengths and

seeking challenges and resources, there was a significant difference between the workshop leaders. A

possible explanation for this is a difference in experience of leading a workshop and every workshop

leader also had a slightly own approach to giving the workshop, which caused the workshop to differ

every time. In addition, the content of the workshop differed slightly, because it was partly based on

the input of the participants. These three explanations might have caused a different focus in each of

the workshops. Therefore, it is possible that there was a significant difference between the workshop

leaders.

The final limitation is that the results are based only on the questionnaires. Therefore only

the employees’ perceptions were taken into account. This perception could leave a margin for error

as it might be influenced, for example, by the emotional state of the employee. This emotional state

can influence the perception of the employee and that is why the employee might give an answer to

the question that is not actually or entirely true. For instance, an employee could have crafted the job,

but due to the influenced perception while answering the questionnaire, the employee might have

answered that he or she did not craft the job.

Although this study has its limitations in comparison to previous intervention studies (Van

Duijn, 2013; De Jager, 2013; Lansbergen, 2013), there are also strengths. First of all, this research was

conducted in an organizational context instead of using convenience sampling. With convenience

sampling, the participants have different organizational backgrounds. Secondly, the way in which job

crafting intervention was conducted was based on an online tool (Dorenbosch, 2013) instead of using

paper 'post its'. This online tool ensured a better standardization of the method that was used during

the job crafting intervention. Lastly, the researchers had an extra follow-up measurement by

contacting the participants by telephone. The researcher could encourage the participants to craft

their job and give them advice if they needed it. By following a fixed script and filling in some

questions, the researchers had a better overview, for example, of why some of the participants did

not craft their job.

Further research

This study had an experimental design. However, in total the duration of the study was eight weeks. It

is possible that this period of time was too limited to alter behavior and that no significant results

27

were therefore found. A suggestion for further research is to extend the duration of the study with,

for example, an extra follow up, which forms a part of the total job crafting intervention, before the

last measurement. During this follow up, the participants could discuss their progress so far. They

could share some problems or setbacks and can receive solutions or advice on solving their problems.

In this way, participants will have more guidance to craft their jobs and have more time to change in

behavior.

To overcome the significant differences regarding the workshop leaders there are two

improvements to take into account. First, to create a better alignment the workshop leaders could

have a more fixed script with which to lead the workshop. Although they practiced and made

agreements about certain important aspects, there was still some space to make individual

interpretations. With a more fixed script, there will be less space to make own interpretations. This

should lead to less difference between the workshop leaders. There was also a difference in how

experienced each of the workshop leaders was. Thus, another suggestion for further research is that

it would be desirable for the workshop leaders to have approximately the same level of experience.

This way the absence of experience cannot lower the quality of the job crafting intervention.

Lastly, in this study only the perceptions of the participant were taken into account. It is

possible that the participant misjudged his or her own behavior. To overcome this misjudgment it is

important to take multiple raters into account in further research. A supervisor or a colleague could

also notice a change of behavior or a change in how an employee performs his or her tasks. Taking

more perspectives into account would ensure that a more objective view is created with regard to the

results of the employee (Bakker et al., 2012).

Theoretical and practical implications

Although the results found in this study do not support the effect of the job crafting intervention and

the mediation effect of job crafting, one significant effect was found that contributes to the theory

regarding job crafting. The results indicate that having a proactive personality is positively related to

job crafting towards strengths. In addition, measuring job crafting based on two different points of

view contributes to the theory. One view is based on the personal resources of an employee

(Wresniewski & Dutton, 2001) and the other on the job resources and demands of an employee

(Petrou et al., 2012). Both points of view have been studied separately, but not in one study

simultaneously. A third contribution to the theory is the design of the study. This experimental study

design within an organizational context has not been conducted before.

Within an organizational perspective it is important that the management of an organization

is aware of the concept of job crafting. Job crafting is positively linked to several organizational

outcomes (Berg et al., 2008). Based on the findings of this study, it is difficult to encourage employees

28

to craft their job if they do not see job crafting as a priority. However, if an employee wants to craft a

task, then it should be possible to do this within the organization. The management of the

organization can encourage job crafting by, for example, not immediately rejecting new ideas of the

employees with regard to redesign of their jobs (Petrou et al., 2012) or ensuring that there is an

opportunity for employees to craft their jobs. Based on the telephone interactions, a reason for

which employees did not craft their jobs was that they did not have time to work on the goals they

set in the workshop. The management could point out that they find it important that employees

take time to craft their jobs. To give them the opportunity, the management, for example, could

schedule opportunities for the employees to plan the first steps of job crafting. This way they would

have the opportunity to change the boundaries of a goal they have set in the workshop

(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).

On the other hand, job crafting is not solely a positive concept. It can also do harm to the

organization (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Job crafting can be beneficial for the organization, but

the management has to also be aware of the setbacks of job crafting. The job could redesigned in a

way that is beneficial only to the employee but not for the organization. For example, to increase the

level of work engagement an employee could reduce the workload of a demanding task by changing

the task boundaries and spending less time on this task (Wresniewski & Dutton, 2001). However, this

demanding task might have to be executed within the organization by this employee in order to

execute the project well. Thus by not executing the demanding task, the employee could experience

a higher level of work engagement, but could also hinder the proper execution of the project. If the

managers are aware of the concept job crafting, they can supervise the employees and so circumvent

counterproductive behavior. Thus when the management is aware of the concept of job crafting, it is

better able to supervise the employees, which in turn causes less counterproductive behavior among

employees (Petrou et al., 2012)

During the intervention employees gain knowledge about how they can combine personal

preferences with their tasks. The job crafting intervention took place in groups of approximately ten

employees. At certain points in the workshop, the workshop leader discussed several outcomes of

individual steps with regard to the online tool. Some problems were discussed in the group. During

the job crafting intervention a dialogue took place in which the group helped resolve the problems of

their fellow group members, especially when group members are working in the same department or

team (Leana et al.,2009). Although the job crafting intervention had no significant effect, it can be a

tool to discuss the individual likes and dislikes of an employee and find solutions to these problems.

In conclusion, no evidence was found with regard to the job crafting intervention in relation

to job crafting, or with respect to the mediating effect of job crafting on the relationship between the

job crafting intervention, proactive personality and work engagement. However, a significant effect

29

was found between having a proactive personality and job crafting towards strengths. Due to the fact

that no intervention study was conducted within the field of job crafting, this study is a first step

towards exploring this field. However, further research has to be done to create a better

understanding of how employees can be encouraged to craft their jobs.

30

REFERENCES

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development

International, 13(3), 209-223. doi: 10.1108/13620430810870476

Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job

crafting and work engagement. Human Relations,65(10), 1359-1378. doi:

10.1177/0018726712453471

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-l 184. doi:

10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, M. J. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A

measure and correlates summary. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–119. doi:

10.1002/job.4030140202

Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2008). What is Job Crafting and Why Does It

Matter? Theory‐to‐practice briefing. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan.

Retrieved March 12, 2014 from: http://www.bus.umich.edu/Positive/POS-Teaching-and-

Learning/Job_Crafting-Theory_to_Practice-Aug_08.pdf

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(2-3), 158-186. doi: 10.1002/job.645

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation

analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-462.

doi: 10.1177/014920630002600304

De Jager, N. (2013). Job crafting; the mediating role of job crafting in the relationship between

proactive personality and work engagement. (Master’s thesis, Tilburg University, the

Netherlands).

Dorenbosch, L. (2013). HRM in de praktijk: HRM-toepassingen van een digitale job crafting

applicatie. Retrieved February 20, 2014 from: https://www.tno.nl/media/4439/dorenbosch

_2013_hrm_ toepassingen_van_een_digitale_job_crafting_applicatie.pdf

Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2005). Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality: the

role of fit with jobs and organizations. Personnel Psychology. 58, 859-891.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00772.x

Furnham, A., & Lester, D. (2012). The Development of a Short Measure of Character Strength.

European Journal of Psychological Assessment ,28(2), 95-101.

doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000096

González-Roma, V., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Lloret, S. (2006). Burnout and work engagement:

31

independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 165–174. doi

10.1016/j.jvb.2005.01.003

Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational

Behavior, 28, 3–34. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002

Hayes, A., (2014). Mediation and moderation: A 5-day seminar. Retrieved August 18, 2014 from:

http://www.statisticalhorizons.com/seminars/public-seminars/medandmod14

Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.

Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724. doi: 10.2307/256287

Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work Process and Quality of Care in Early Childhood

Education: The Role of Job Crafting. Academy of Management Journal , 52(6), 1169-1192. doi:

10.5465/AMJ.2009.47084651

Langelaan, S., Bakker, A. B., van Doornen, L. J. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work

engagement: do individual differences make a difference? Personality and Individual

Differences, 40, 521–532. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.009

Lansbergen, N. (2013). Job crafting and person-job fit: An intervention study (Master’s thesis,

Tilburg University, the Netherlands).

Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2007). Does a positive gain spiral of

resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in Human Behaviour, 23, 825-

841. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.012

MacKinnon, D.P., Fairchild, A.J., & Fritz, M.S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of

Psychology, 58, 593-614. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542

Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2006). Job demands and resources as antecedents of

work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 149-171.

doi:10.1016/j.jvb2006.09.002

Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual 3 ed. New York: NY: Open University Press.

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.1783

Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2003). Utrecht work engagement scale: Preliminary manual.

Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University, Utrecht.

Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with

burnout and engagement: A multisample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-

315. doi: 10.1002/job.248

Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a

short questionnaire. A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66,

32

701-716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471

Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002a). Burnout and

engagement in university students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 464–481.

doi: 10.1177/0022022102033005003

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002b). The measurement of

engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of

Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. doi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J.M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model

linking proactive personality and career success. Journal of Personnel Psychology. 54(4), 845-

874. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00234.x

Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA

Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 841-850. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2011). Development and validation of the job crafting

scale. Journal of vocational behavior, 80, 173-186. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009

Tracey, T. J. (2010). Development of an abbreviated Personal Globe Inventory using item response

theory: The PGI-Short. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(1), 1-15. doi:

10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.007

Van Duijn, M. (2013). Job crafting; influenced by future time perspective and predictor of

engagement? An intervention study (Master’s thesis, Tilburg University, the Netherlands).

Wresniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of

Their Work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201. doi:

10.5465/AMR.2001.4378011

33

APPENDIX A

Fixed script telephone contact experimental group

Stap 1 Introductie

Goedemorgen/Goedemiddag, U spreekt met (je voornaam en achternaam ) van de universiteit van Tilburg. Ik bel naar aanleiding van de job crafting workshop, waar u op (datum) aan heeft deelgenomen.

We bellen alle participanten om de voortgang van de job crafting doelstelling te evalueren. U heeft in deze workshop ook een job crafting doel opgesteld voor de komende maand.

Ik ben benieuwd of het in de afgelopen twee weken is gelukt om aan uw job crafting doel te werken.

In welke mate heeft u aan uw doel kunnen werken?

Stap 2 Evaluatie job craften

Stel open vragen: Deze vragen beginnen altijd met een ‘W’ wie, wat, waarom, waar.

- Allereerst ben ik benieuwd welk doel u gesteld heeft?

Kunt u dit aangeven op een schaal van 0 tot 10, waarbij 0 is niet aan doel gewerkt en 10 is volledig

aan het doel gewerkt.

Doorvragen: Hierdoor krijgt de participant inzicht in stagnatie of succesmomenten om aan het doel

te werken.

Waarom wel/niet?

Wel: Wat goed/ wat fijn.

- Op welke manier heeft u aan het doel gewerkt?

- Wat was het resultaat?

- Heeft het u iets opgeleverd?

Kunt u aangeven op een schaal van 1 tot 10 in hoeverre u het doel hebt kunnen bereiken?

Kunt u op een schaal van 1 tot 10 aangeven hoe tevreden u bent met het behaalde resultaat?

- Wat kunt u nog meer doen in de komende weken?

Niet:

- Waardoor is het niet gelukt om aan het doel te werken? / Hoe kwam dat?

- Welke obstakels kwam u tegen? / Wat zat er tegen?

34

Samenvatten: Je confronteert de participant met zijn/haar woorden daardoor stimuleer je nogmaals

om aan het doel te werken

Dus als ik het goed begrijp…

Stap 3 Stimuleren job craften

Nog niet voldoende aan het doel gewerkt:

- Wat heeft u nodig om als nog aan uw doel te werken en te behalen? / - Wat zou u kunnen helpen of

wie zou u kunnen helpen?

- Op welke manier zou u dat kunnen aanpakken?

- Wat zou u daar de komende weken aan kunnen doen, zodat de workshop voor u toch iets concreets

oplevert?

- Wat zou het u opleveren als het u toch nog gaat lukken?

(probeer ze het doel weer even voor ogen te laten krijgen, ze hebben het ten slotte zelf

opgesteld dus het moet toch belangrijk voor ze zijn)

Voldoende aan het doel gewerkt/ behaald:

- Zijn er voor u nog meer mogelijkheden om te job craften?

- Welke vervolg stap zou u willen ondernemen?

Stap 4 Afsluiting

Ik hoop dat u door dit gesprek verder aan uw doel kunt werken. Wij zouden het fijn vinden om te zien

dat u uw taken op een dusdanige manier kunt aanpassen dat de baan beter aansluit bij uw interesses

en sterke punten.

Als er nog vragen zijn naar aanleiding van dit gesprek kunt u ons mailen. Het mailadres is

jobcraftingcz@gmail.com. Dank voor het gesprek. Ik wens u een fijne dag toe.

Tot ziens

35

Antwoordformulier

Naam:........................................................................................................................................................

Stap 2 Evaluatie Job Crafting:

- Allereerst ben ik benieuwd welk doel u gesteld heeft?

Doel:..........................................................................................................................................................

Welke mate heeft u uw kunnen werken?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

O O O O O O O O O O

- Is het gelukt om aan uw opgestelde doel te werken?

O Ja

O Nee,

reden:........................................................................................................................... ......................

- In welke mate heeft u aan uw doel gewerkt?

Antwoordmogelijkheden:

o Heeft u aan uw doel gedacht, o Heeft u de intentie gehad om aan uw doel te werken, o Heeft u daadwerkelijk geprobeerd aan uw doel te werken.

In hoeverre heeft u het doel bereikt?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

O O O O O O O O O O

Kunt u op een schaal van 1 tot 10 aangeven hoe tevreden u bent met het behaalde resultaat?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

O O O O O O O O O O

36

Stap 3 Stimuleren Job Crafting

- Wat zijn de vervolgstappen:....................................................................................................................

Algemene Indruk

Klonk de participant gemotiveerd?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

O O O O O O O O O O

Waren de uitspraken doordacht of toch wat oppervlakkig?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

O O O O O O O O O O

Klonk de participant positief?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

O O O O O O O O O O

Vond de participant het telefoongesprek prettig?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

O O O O O O O O O O

Gaf de participant een geloofwaardige indruk?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

O O O O O O O O O O

Opmerkingen / indrukken telefoongesprek:

APPENDIX B

Table 5. Factor Loading from the Pattern Matrix, Eigenvalues, Final Communalities, and Percent Variance Explainde by Each Factor

Item Item Content Factor Pattern Comm

Factor 1: Job craftin towards strengths (Eigenvalue = 6,81, Variance = 37.85%) F1 F2 F3 F4 .68

2 In mijn werkzaamheden probeer ik mijn sterke kanten zoveel mogelijk uit te buiten. .81 -.06 -.05 -.09 .72

1 Ik organiseer mijn werk zo dat het aansluit bij mijn sterke punten. .78 -.04 -.10 -.22 .56

5 Ik zoek samenwerking met collega’s waarbij ik mijn sterke kanten kan benutten. .75 .08 .09 .02 .63

4 Ik overleg met collega’s over de taakverdeling, zodat ik zoveel mogelijk taken kan uitvoeren die mij goed liggen. .63 -.05 .09 .07 .42

3 Ik zoek naar mogelijkheden om mijn werk aan te pakken op een manier die het best bij mijn sterke punten past. .60 -.02 .18 -.12 .56

Factor 2: Reducing demands (Eigenvalue = 2.01 , Variance = 11.19%) 17 Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder geestelijk inspannend werk hoef te verrichten -.16 .87 -.08 -.02 .78

16 Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder emotioneel inspannend werk moet verrichten. -.14 .86 .06 -.13 .77

18 Ik zorg voor minder fysiek zwaar werk .16 .60 -.01 .11 .39

Factor 3: Seeking challenges and resources (Eigenvalue = 1.82, Variance =10.11 %) 14 Ik vraag om meer verantwoordelijkheden. -.03 -.03 .92 -.02 .83

15 Ik vraag om meer uitdagende klussen -.05 .01 .85 -.12 .77

13 Ik vraag om meer taken als ik klaar ben met mijn werk. -.02 -.12 .76 -.06 .58

12 Ik probeer nieuwe dingen te leren op mijn werk. .08 .02 .70 -.01 .56

11 Ik vraag anderen om feedback over mijn functioneren. .27 .12 .66 .25 .61

Factor 4: Job crafting towards interests ( Eigenvalue = 1.11, Variance = 6.17%) 10 Ik ga nieuwe relaties aan in mijn werk om mijn werk interessanter te maken. -.02 .08 .58 -.32 .55

8 Ik zorg ervoor dat ik leuke taken naar me zelf toetrek. -.02 -.04 .15 -.84 .79

7 Ik organiseer mijn werkzaamheden zo dat ik kan doen wat ik boeiend vind. .16 -.01 .13 -.75 .77

6 Ik zoek actief naar taken die aansluiten bij mijn interesses. .35 .10 -.12 -.70 .75

9 Ik zet projecten op met collega’s die mijn interesses delen. .40 .16 .16 -.40 .60

Note. Comm = Communalities Extraction Method: Principal Component Analyses F1 = Job crafting towards strengths, F2 = Reducing demands, F3 = Seeking challengens and resources, F4 = Job crafting towards interests

APPENDIX C

Scale by Van Woerkom and Kooij (2013): Job crafting towards strengths

1. Ik organiseer mijn werk zo dat het aansluit bij mijn sterke punten.

2. In mijn werkzaamheden probeer ik mijn sterke kanten zoveel mogelijk uit te buiten.

3. Ik zoek naar mogelijkheden om mijn werk aan te pakken op een manier die het best bij mijn

sterke punten past.

4. Ik overleg met collega’s over de taakverdeling, zodat ik zoveel mogelijk taken kan uitvoeren

die mij goed liggen.

5. Ik zoek samenwerking met collega’s waarbij ik mijn sterke kanten kan benutten.

Scale by Van Woerkom and Kooij (2013): Job crafting towards interests

1. Ik zoek actief naar taken die aansluiten bij mijn interesses.

2. Ik organiseer mijn werkzaamheden zo dat ik kan doen wat ik boeiend vind.

3. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik leuke taken naar me zelf toetrek.

4. Ik zet projecten op met collega’s die mijn interesses delen.

5. Ik ga nieuwe relaties aan in mijn werk om mijn werk interessanter te maken.

Scale by Tims and Bakker (2010), created by Petrou et al. (2012): seeking challenges and seeking

resources

1. Ik vraag anderen om feedback over mijn functioneren.

2. Ik probeer nieuwe dingen te leren op mijn werk.

3. Ik vraag om meer taken als ik klaar ben met mijn werk.

4. Ik vraag om meer verantwoordelijkheden.

5. Ik vraag om meer uitdagende klussen.

Scale by Tims and Bakker (2010), created by Petrou et al. (2012): Reducing demands

6. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder emotioneel inspannend werk moet verrichten.

7. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder geestelijk inspannend werk hoef te verrichten.

8. Ik zorg voor minder fysiek zwaar werk.

39

Scale by Bateman and Crant (1993): Proactive Personality Scale (PPS)

1. Als ik iets zie wat mij niet bevalt, dan verander ik het.

2. Wat er ook gebeurt, als ik ergens in geloof dan maak ik het ook waar.

3. Ik neem graag verantwoordelijkheid voor mijn ideeën, ook als anderen hier bezwaar tegen

maken.

4. Ik blink uit in het identificeren van kansen.

5. Ik zoek altijd naar betere manieren om dingen te doen.

6. Als ik in een idee geloof, zal niets mij tegenhouden om het uit te voeren.

Scale by Schaufeli and Bakker (2003): Work engagement (Utrecht Work Engagement)

1. Als ik aan het werk ben voel ik me fit en sterk.

2. Als ik ’s morgens opsta heb ik zin om aan het werk te gaan.

3. Ik ben trots op het werk dat ik doe.

4. Mijn werk inspireert mij.

5. Ik ga helemaal op in mijn werk.

6. Wanneer ik heel intensief aan het werk ben, voel ik mij gelukkig.

7. Op mijn werk bruis ik van de energie.

8. Ik ben enthousiast over mijn baan.

9. Mijn werk brengt mij in vervoering.

40