the impact of a proactive personality on daily work
TRANSCRIPT
THE IMPACT OF A PROACTIVE PERSONALITY ON DAILY WORK
ENGAGEMENT, AND THE ROLE OF JOB CRAFTING AND I-DEALS.
University of Amsterdam
Master of Business Administration
Track Leadership & Management
Master Thesis
Author: Kim van Beek
Student number: 11363851
Supervisor: E. Federici
2nd Supervisor: C.T. Boon
Due date: June 23th, 2017 / First final version
2
STATEMENT OF ORGINALITY
This document is written by Student Kim van Beek who declares to take full responsibility for
the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources
other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion
of the work, not for the contents.
3
TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOLEDGEMENT 5
ABSTRACT 6
INTRODUCTION 7
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 9
Proactive personality and work engagement 9
Job crafting vs. Idiosyncratic deals 12
The mediating role of daily job crafting 13
The mediating role of Idiosyncratic deals 17
METHOD 22
Research design 22
Sample 22
Measures 24
General questionnaire (between-level) 24
Dairy study (within-level) 24
RESULTS 27
Analytical strategy 27
Exploratory Factor Analysis 27
Descriptive statistics 31
Hypothesis testing 32
Additional analysis 35
DISCUSSION 39
Limitations 40
Practical implication and future research 42
CONCLUSION 43
REFERENCES 44
APPENDIX 51
Appendix I – Surveys 51
Appendix II – Cover letter 59
4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Comparison of two concepts of work design and its dimensions 13
Table 2: Demographic characteristic profile of respondents 23
Table 3: Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for measurement scale 29
daily job crafting
Table 4: Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for measurement scale 31
I-deals
Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Variables 32
Table 6: Estimated Coefficients of the Parallel Mediation Model (day-level) 34
Table 7: The (In)direct Effects of the Parallel Mediation Model (day-level) 35
Table 8: Estimated Coefficients of the Parallel Mediation Model (general-level) 37
Table 9: The (In)direct Effects of the Parallel Mediation Model (general-level) 38
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Hypothesised research model 9
Figure 2: Results of the hypothesised research model (day-level) 35
Figure 3: Results of the hypothesised research model (general-level) 36
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This thesis could not be finished without the help and guidance of others. Therefore, I would
like to take the opportunity to express my gratitude and deepest appreciation to everyone who
have helped me during this research project.
First of all, I would like to express my appreciation to my supervisor at the University of
Amsterdam, Eloisa Federici, for guiding me through the entire process of this research project.
Apart from my own efforts, her useful remarks, comments, general support and caring guidance
largely contributed to the successful completion of this research. Furthermore, the same
accounts for my fellow students in the “job crafting team”, by helping each other out if needed
and by collecting data together we made our research projects valuable.
Second of all, I would like to thank all survey participants who took the time to fill out the
questionnaire and dairy survey for five consecutive work days. Their participation made it
possible to conduct this research.
To round off, I would like to thank my family, friends and fellow Master students for their help,
understanding and support throughout my entire studies and especially throughout this whole
Master’s year. All in all, without my loved ones nothing of this would have happened and I
would not be the proud and dedicated person I am today.
6
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to compare two parallel mechanisms of proactive behaviours at work,
daily job crafting and I-deals, in explaining the relationship between proactive personality and
daily work engagement. These two bottom-up concepts of work design can be found in recent
literature, which both reflect the proactive behaviours of today’s employees. This quantitative
study collected data by using a general questionnaire and a diary study of five consecutive work
days. The hypotheses were tested with a sample of 111 Dutch employees, working more than
three days a week, from wide range of sectors (e.g. services, health care, education, transport
& logistics). The results found evidence of the relationship between employees with a proactive
personality and daily work engagement. Thus, the present results enhance our understanding of
the antecedents of daily work engagement, making the use of repeated real-time measures the
main strength of this study. Unexpectedly, this study did not find evidence of the parallel
mediation of daily job crafting and I-deals assuming the relationship between proactive
personality and daily work engagement. However, one step is made in the exploration of the
investigated variables. Further research, for example on a longitudinal basis, needs to be done
to gain more knowledge on the links between proactive personality, daily work engagement
and proactive work behaviours as daily job crafting and I-deals.
Key words: proactive personality, proactive work behaviours, job crafting, Idiosyncratic deals,
work engagement, day-level job crafting, day-level work engagement, repeated measure design
7
INTRODUCTION
Over the years, researchers have used the design of jobs as a starting point to examine how
employees experience their work (Berg, Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2010). Traditionally, research
focused on the top-down processes of managers designing jobs for their employees and the job
design theory (Campion & McClelland, 1993; Grant, Fried, & Juillerat, 2011). Organisations
were supposed to offer their employees sufficient job resources, including social support,
feedback, and skill variety. Research indeed argued that managers can influence employees’
job demands and resources (Nielsen, Randall, Yarker & Brenner, 2008; Piccolo & Colquitt,
2006), and may indirectly influence employee’s work engagement and performance (Harter,
Schmidt & Hayes, 2002). However, scholars have recognised the important role of employees
in designing their own jobs (Black & Ashford, 1995; Miner, 1987), highlighting the proactivity
part in their efforts (Grant & Ashford, 2008). Bakker and colleagues (2012) for example, have
shown that employees with a proactive personality are most inclined to change their work
environment in a proactive way, by mobilising job demands and job resources, which in turn
facilitate work engagement. Therefore, it may be equally important that employees organise
their own job, to respond to the complexity of contemporary jobs and deal with the needs of
today’s work environment (Demerouti, 2014). While this environment changes quickly, it is
particularly important for employees to show proactive behaviour and create their own work
environment (Bakker, Tims & Derks, 2012).
Two bottom-up concepts of work design can be found in recent literature, which both
reflect the proactive behaviours of today’s employees: job crafting and idiosyncratic deals. Both
these behaviours increasingly occur due to the changing nature of work (e.g. flexible human
resource practices, virtualisation) (Hornung, Rousseau & Glaser, 2009). It is relevant for
organisations to know on which terms these behaviours are initiated and how they differ from
each other. The question is to which extent job crafting and I-deals are any different,
contributing to and enriching each other. More specifically, the simultaneous mechanisms of
job crafting and I-deals, in explaining the link between a proactive personality and work
engagement have not been investigated yet. This study aims to compare two parallel
mechanisms of proactive behaviours at work, in explaining the relationship between proactive
personality and work engagement.
On the one hand, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) have complemented traditional top-
down approaches of job design with the concept of job crafting, defined as “the physical and
8
cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work” (p. 179).
Employees can take action to adjust their work to better match their personal needs, strengths,
and interests (Berg, Dutton & Wrzesniewski, 2008; Wrzesniewski, Berg & Dutton, 2010), not
specifically authorised by the manager (Ross, Greene & House, 1977). On the other hand,
idiosyncratic deals (or I-deals) constitute a middle path between top-down work redesign and a
single employee’s private efforts to craft a job (Hornung, Rousseau, Glaser, Angerer & Weigl,
2010). I-deals, in general, are employment terms that employees negotiate for themselves,
taking multiple forms from flexible schedules to career development (Hornung, Rousseau &
Glaser, 2008), and, as opposed to job crafting, always intended to benefit both the employee
and the manager (Lai, Rousseau & Chang, 2009).
In addition, currently knowledge on the link between proactive personality and work
engagement is predominantly based on research at the between-person level, which infer
stability within a person. However, most behaviours vary over time and are dependent on
situational or personal circumstances (Ohly, Sonnentag, Niessen & Zapf, 2010), which
particularly holds true for job crafting. In other words, how employees perform on a particular
day is probably dependent on what occurs on that day and how employees experience that day
(Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2014). Daily job characteristics that affect mood, which translates into
well-being, work engagement (Teuchmann, Totterdell, & Parker, 1999) and proactive
behaviours (Ohly & Fritz, 2010) are examples of behaviours that are dependent on what occurs
on a particular day. These everyday variations in individuals’ behaviours are mostly ignored or
treated as a measurement-error in between-person studies. Therefore, this study will go beyond
the enduring work engagement and job crafting level and investigate these variables on a daily
level, making use of repeated real-time measures. As Fisher and To (2012) argue in their article
these repeated real-time measures are relevant and preferable for creating accurate person-level
summary measurements. The constructs of proactive personality and I-deals will still be studied
on the between-level as they infer stability within a person.
All in all, this study describes the relation between proactive personality trait and work
engagement on a daily level, and the role of two bottom-up concepts of work design as
mediators between this relationship. To clarify, job crafting as a daily mediator and I-deals as
a general mediator of the relationship between proactive personality and daily work engagement
will be investigated. The proposed research model is visualised in Figure 1. When the proposed
hypotheses fail to reject, this suggests that employees with a proactive personality and proactive
behaviours in the workplace are relevant mechanisms for human resource managers who are
9
seeking to enhance work engagement in their organisations.
This study will be structured as follows: At first, the concepts of proactive personality,
job crafting, I-deals and work engagement will be explained and the research model with its
related hypotheses will be introduced. Subsequently, the way this research is conducted will be
discussed in the methodology section. Next, the outcomes of the relations of the research model
will be analysed. Finally, a conclusion, implications and limitations of this research will be
given. Besides, suggestions for future research areas will be described.
FIGURE 1: Hypothesised research model
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The exploration of the relation between proactive personality and work engagement on a daily
level, and the role of two bottom-up concepts of work design as mediators between this
relationship, is guided by an extensive theoretical background of the relevant literature. The
formulated hypotheses were set up from these findings. At first, the direct link between
proactive personality and (daily) work engagement is discussed. Followed by a section in which
the two bottom-up concepts of work design, job crafting and I-deals, are compared and
distinguished. Subsequently, the role of job crafting and I-deals as mediators in the relationship
between proactive personality and work engagement will be discussed.
PROACTIVE PERSONALITY AND WORK ENGAGEMENT
Bateman & Crant (1993) were the first to introduce a measure of the ‘proactive personality’
trait and discussed the proactive element of organisational behaviour. They define proactive
personality as “the relatively stable tendency to effect environmental change”. According to
Buss and Finn (1987) people are not “passive recipients of environmental presses”, however,
they have a specific influence on their own environments. Identifying proactive personality as
a determinant of proactive behaviour supposes that proactive employees are proactive across
Proactive
Personality
I-Deals
Daily
Work Engagement
Daily
Job Crafting H2a H2b
+ +
+ +
H2
H3
H1
H3a H3b
+
10
different circumstances and over time, regardless of the contingencies of a work situation or in
one’s career (Parker & Bindl, 2017). People who have a proactive personality identify
opportunities and act on them, they show initiative, take action, and work hard until they bring
about significant change (Bakker et al., 2012). Furthermore, they transform the mission of their
organisation, find and solve problems, and accept responsibility themselves and take personal
initiative to have an impact on the world around them (Crant & Bateman, 2000). In contrast,
individuals who do not have a proactive personality show the opposite patterns: they fail to
identify, let alone seize, opportunities to change things (Crant, 1996). In other words, these
people are more reactive and passive and tend to adapt to circumstances rather than change
them (Seibert, Crant & Kraimer, 1999). The proactive personality is “a tendency to initiate and
maintain actions that directly alter the surrounding environment” (Bateman & Grant, 1993).
According to Buss and Finn (1987), proactivity is an instrumental trait because it belongs to a
class of behaviours that impact the environment.
As organisations are increasingly growing complex and unpredictable, the topic of
proactivity at work has become of great importance for contemporary workplaces. Proactivity
drives performance and innovation of teams and organisations, and boosts individuals’ well-
being and careers. When employees are proactive, they use their initiative at work to create a
better future for themselves and their employers. They scan for opportunities, persist until
change is achieved, and take charge to prevent problems from reoccurring in the future (Parker
& Bindl, 2017). Findings of four meta-analyses on proactive personality (Fuller & Marler,
2009; Thomas, Whitman & Viswesvaran, 2010; Tornau & Frese, 2013; Spitzmuller, Sin, Howe
& Fatimah, 2015) indicate that employees with a proactive personality tend to perceive more
autonomy, psychological empowerment, job control, role clarity at work and feel more self-
assured to complete specific work tasks (self-efficacy) and pursue goals that are job or career
related (flexibility role orientation, role breadth self-efficacy, career self-efficacy, and job
search self-efficacy). It has also been demonstrated that individuals with a proactive personality
are probably more satisfied with their work and more committed to the organisation (i.e. low
turnover intention and high commitment) (Parker & Bindl, 2017). Furthermore, studies have
found relationships between proactive personality and individual job performance (Crant,
1995), career outcomes (Seibert et al., 1999), entrepreneurship (Becherer & Maurer, 1999;
Crant, 1996), charismatic leadership (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant & Bateman, 2000; Deluga,
1998), organisational citizenship behaviours (e.g. altruism, courtesy, and sportsmanship)
(Greguras & Diefendorff, 2010), and team performance (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999).
11
Moreover, previous research has meta-analysed the relationships between proactive
personality and two opposing states of work; work engagement and burnout. Christian, Garza
and Slaughter (2011) argue that proactive individuals are more involved in their work
environment and thus more engaged in their work. Furthermore, scholars found that proactive
personality was negatively related to the three sub-dimensions of burnout: emotional
exhaustion, depersonalisation, and reduced personal accomplishment (Alarcon, Eschleman &
Bowling, 2009). The concept of work engagement is defined as a positive state of fulfilment
that is indicated by vigor, dedication, and absorption at work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010) and
is the opposite of burnout (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001). In essence, work
engagement captures how employees experience their work. The vigor component reflects a
job experience which is stimulating and energetic, and to which an employee really wants to
devote time and effort. Dedication occurs when the employee experiences the job as a
significant and meaningful pursuit. Lastly, an employees’ work experience as engrossing and
something on which they are fully concentrated is the absorption component of work
engagement (Bakker & Demerouti 2008; Bakker et al., 2012). Engaged employees are highly
energetic, identify strongly with their jobs, and experience states of flow at work.
Most research on work engagement has focused on differences between individuals and
has treated day-to-day fluctuations in work engagement as a measurement-error (Sonnentag,
Dormann, & Demerouti, 2010). However, literature argued that it is also possible that there are
daily fluctuations in the experience of work engagement within an individual (Kahn, 1990).
Sonnentag (2003) was the first to question this prevailing belief that engagement refers to a
persistent and extensive affective-cognitive state (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá &
Bakker, 2002). She proposed that work engagement should not only be seen as an enduring
experience. Rather, Sonnentag demonstrated and showed that levels of work engagement may
vary within the same employee on a daily level, in response to specific personal and situational
conditions (Sonnentag et al., 2010). Thus, daily work engagement was introduced as
complementary to enduring work engagement (Bakker, 2014). Whereas enduring work
engagement refers to how engaged employees feel in relation to their work in general, over long
periods of time, daily work engagement reflects a temporary state of mind that exists on a
certain moment and fluctuates within the same employee over short periods of time (e.g., day-
to-day or momentary from hour to hour) (Bakker, 2014; Sonnentag et al., 2010).
Proactive individuals demonstrate initiative and dedication (Bateman & Crant, 1993;
Crant, 1995). Hence, proactive personality is probably related to enduring work engagement
12
because employees who are more involved in their work surroundings are also more likely to
immerse themselves in their work. This study will go beyond the enduring work engagement
level and investigate work engagement on a daily level, making use of repeated real-time
measures. As Fisher and To (2012) argue in their article these repeated real-time measures are
relevant to create accurate person-level summary variables or measurements. Computing the
desired indicators from multiple real-time measures is preferable because for some variables,
the amount of intra-individual variability shows trait-like stability. This means that some
employees are typically less stable in other variables than others, like work engagement. It is
possible that individuals do not describe this variability well when they reflect on it. Therefore,
this study contributes to the research field by creating accurate measurements of daily work
engagement. And so, the direct link between proactive personality and daily work engagement
is included in the proposed research model (see Figure 1), which lead to the first hypothesis:
H1: There is a positive, direct relationship between proactive personality and daily
work engagement
JOB CRAFTING VS. IDIOSYNCRATIC DEALS
As been mentioned before, Bakker and colleagues (2012), have shown that employees with a
proactive personality are most inclined to change their work environment in a proactive way,
by mobilising job demands and job resources, which in turn facilitate work engagement.
Therefore, it may be equally important that employees organise their own job, responding to
the complexity of contemporary jobs, and dealing with the needs of today’s work environment
(Demerouti, 2014). Organisations increasingly introduce flexible work arrangements and
customisation of jobs in order to be able to motivate employees. At the same time, new
economic realities demand organisations to be more flexible, to adapt rapidly to the changing
conditions in the market. Hence, employees are also expected to be more flexible, proactive,
and able to adapt to changing work circumstances (Bal & Rousseau, 2016; Grant & Parker,
2009).
Two bottom-up concepts of work design can be found in recent literature, which both
reflect the proactive behaviours of today’s employees: job crafting and Idiosyncratic deals. Both
these behaviours increasingly occur due to the changing nature of work (e.g. flexible human
resource practices, virtualisation) (Hornung et al., 2009). It is relevant for organisations to know
on which terms these behaviours are initiated and how they differ from each other. The question
13
is to which extent job crafting and I-deals are any different, contributing to and enriching each
other. More specifically, the simultaneous mechanisms of job crafting and I-deals, in explaining
the link between a proactive personality and work engagement has not been investigated yet.
This study aims to compare two parallel mechanisms of proactive behaviours at work as
mediators, to explain the relationship between proactive personality and work engagement.
Bal and Rousseau (2016) give the following central assumption of job crafting and I-
deals: “...the attention to the individual experience of the employee, who no longer follows a
standardised career trajectory but for whom everything at work is and individualised experience
that might or might not be shared with others. Hence, job adaptations currently follow an
individualised approach…” (p. 4). Although job crafting and I-deals are both proactive work
behaviours and concepts of work design, they work on a separate note. Table 1 shows the most
important comparisons and dimensions of the two concepts. The primary goal of job crafting is
to fulfil personal needs of employees through recognising and restructuring job demands and
resources, where employees are the actors of the job. I-deals, in contrast, aim to achieve mutual
benefit between employers and employees through negotiating employment features, which
makes employees both actors and recipients of the job (Hornung et al., 2010; Parker & Bindl,
2017).
TABLE 1
Comparison of two concepts of work design and its dimensions (Hornung et al., 2010)
Dimensions Job Crafting I-Deals
Initiation Bottom-up by employee Bottom-up typically by employee
Implementation Employee discretion Employee-employer negotiation
Authorisation Unauthorised or within zone
of acceptance
Authorised by agents or human
resource approval
Employee’s role Actor Both actor and recipient
Focus Individual job or position Individual job or position
Primary goal Personal needs Broad mutual benefit
Design content Tasks and interactions Any or all employment features
Process Ongoing Intermittent events
The next sections will provide a complete theoretical review on both proactive work behaviour
mechanisms; job crafting and I-deals. Furthermore, the paragraphs will describe and explain
14
the mediating roles of daily job crafting and I-deals in the relationship between proactive
personality and daily work engagement.
THE MEDIATING ROLE OF DAILY JOB CRAFTING
Traditionally, research focused on the top-down processes of managers designing jobs for their
employees and the job design theory (Campion & McClelland, 1993; Grant, Fried, & Juillerat,
2011). More recently, Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001) have complemented traditional top-down
beliefs of job design with the concept of “job crafting” as a bottom-up process, defined as “the
physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their
work” (p. 179). Employees can take action to adjust their work to better match their personal
needs, strengths, and interests, or in other words to “turn the job they have into the job they
want” (Berg et al., 2008; Wrzesniewski et al., 2010). In literature, two different forms of job
crafting conceptualisations can be found.
To begin with, Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001) distinguished three forms of job crafting.
The first form involves changing the job's task boundaries, where employees change the
number, scope, or type of job tasks at work. By deciding to do less, more, or different tasks than
prescribed in the formal job description, employees craft a different job. Secondly, job crafters
can change their relationships at work by altering the nature or extent of their interactions with
others (“e.g. a computer technician offering help to co-workers as a way to have more social
connection and teach new technicians”). Finally, job crafting could occur as employees change
the cognitive task boundaries of their work, which reflects the third form of job crafting. In
other words, employees change their jobs by altering how they perceive tasks, either by viewing
it as a set of separated tasks or as an integrated whole. Wrzesniewski and Dutton’s (2001) view
on job crafting is restricted to the changes that employees may make in their specific tasks,
work relationships, and cognitions about work. Some recent studies have suggested that job
crafting may take other forms as well (Lyons, 2008).
The present study follows the conceptualisation of job crafting proposed by Tims,
Bakker and Derks (2012). Based on the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2014), they define job crafting as “the changes that employees may make to balance
their job demands and job resources with their personal abilities and needs” (p. 174). Job
demands are the physical, social or organisational job characteristics that require sustained
physical and/or psychological effort. Job resources are the physical, psychological, social or
organisational elements of the job that make sure employees achieve their goals and facilitate
15
their personal development (Demerouti et al., 2001). The JD–R model incorporates demands
and resources of particular interest in organisations without focusing on predefined job features
(Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, & Hetland, 2012). By examining job crafting in terms
of job resources and job demands, job characteristics and other aspects that employees may
develop in their jobs could be captured. Tims et al. (2012) have shown that job crafting can take
the form of three different types of behaviours: (a) increasing (structural or social) job resources
(e.g. autonomy, social support and feedback); (b) increasing job demands/challenges (e.g. new
projects); and (c) decreasing job demands (e.g. fewer cognitive demands). Job demands refer
to job characteristics that need continuous effort from employees and are, therefore, linked to
various costs. On the other hand, job characteristics that contribute towards accomplishing
specific goals at work, reducing the effect of job demands and its related costs, and supporting
personal development are referred to as job resources. The authors propose a key distinction
between social job resources and structural job resources. Structural job resources are factors
such as autonomy, responsibility, capabilities and knowledge of the job, whereas social job
resources are factors such as support from colleagues, feedback and supervisory coaching
(Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2013). This distinction is particularly important. On the one hand, it
allows to focus on significantly different job crafting behaviours. On the other hand, it assists
in our understanding of how employees proactively relate to different elements of their working
life, such as task structure and social structure (Berdicchia, Nicolli & Masino, 2016).
Although Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) define job crafting as “everyday” behaviour,
most conceptualisations and operationalisations in the literature do not tap this aspect
(Demerouti, 2014). There is some evidence that employees also employ in job crafting on a
weekly and daily basis. To capture the “everyday” changes in job characteristics that employees
may go after, various researchers (Petrou et al., 2012; Tims & Bakker, 2010) theoretically frame
daily job crafting by using the Job Demands-Resources (JD–R) model (Bakker & Demerouti,
2007; Demerouti et al., 2001). This conceptualisation of job crafting helps to examine the
construct of job crafting in a different light. By using the JD-R model job crafting can be seen
as a construct that can unfold on a daily level as well and as being directed towards the
surroundings of the work environment of the employee, namely the specific job resources and
job demands. Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and Petrou and colleagues (2012) suggest that
even in if the environment is stable with clear work procedures and detailed job descriptions,
employees adjust the tasks they are doing and mobilise the resources they need to achieve their
tasks successfully, on a daily basis (Demerouti, Bakker & Halbesleben, 2015). In this study, the
16
extent to which job crafting can be conceived on a daily level in addition to the general level
(as been proved in previous studies), will be investigated. This because merging momentary
states and individual habits is necessary to understand the dynamics of organisational behaviour
as they unfold daily (Ilies, Schwind, & Heller, 2007). Furthermore, as been previously
mentioned, also Fisher and To (2012) argue that repeated real-time measures are useful for
creating accurate person-level summary measurements.
Applying Crant’s (2000) theory of proactive personality, literature argues that
employees with a proactive personality create favourable conditions and opportunities for
themselves at their work. Tims and Bakker (2010) stated that proactive employees strive for
coherence with their work environment in terms of needs and abilities. In other words, these
employees shape their work environment such that the job demands and job resources better fit
their own needs and abilities. Based on these arguments, Tims, Bakker and Derks (2012) found
that employees with a proactive personality are most likely to ask for advice and feedback from
colleagues or managers (social job resources), and proactively improve their work environment,
for instance ask for autonomy, create skill variety, and follow training (structural job resources).
Furthermore, they found that proactive employees are most likely to search for challenges, for
instance, ask for more tasks or work when they feel under-stimulated. Therefore, the following
hypothesis is formulated:
H2a: There is a positive relationship between proactive personality and daily job
crafting (increasing job resources, increasing job challenges, decreasing demands).
Job crafters proactively change their work environment and align their job demands and
resources with their own abilities and needs (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Bakker and colleagues
(2012) have shown that individuals with a proactive personality are most inclined to change
their work environment in a proactive way, by mobilising job demands and job resources, which
in turn facilitate work engagement. Whether employees develop symptoms of burnout or work
engagement is, at least, partly the role of job design (Hornung et al., 2010). Literature revealed
that job resources have a positive effect on work engagement and that job demands (e.g.,
workload, time pressure, role conflicts), however, have a negative effect on work engagement.
Job resources (e.g. feedback, social support, and skill variety) are assumed to play either an
extrinsic motivational role by being instrumental in achieving work goals, or an intrinsic
motivational role of fostering employees’ growth, training, and development (Bakker et al.,
2012). In addition, the research of Wrzesniewski and colleagues (2010) indicates that
17
“employees, at all levels, in all kinds of occupations, who try job crafting often end up more
engaged and satisfied with their work lives, achieve higher levels of performance in their
organisations, and report greater personal resilience.” (p. 115)
Quantitative diary studies suggest that daily variations in job resources explain daily
variations in work, partly through their influence on daily personal resources like daily self-
efficacy and daily optimism (Bakker, 2014). Finally, examining job crafting and its correlates
daily is in line with the affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), which states that
job features influence employee affect through specific work events. For example, daily job
characteristics that affect mood, which translates into well-being (Teuchmann et al., 1999) or
proactive behaviours on a daily basis (Ohly & Fritz, 2010). Following this argumentation daily
variations in job crafting could explain daily variations in daily work engagement. Therefore,
the following hypothesis is formulated:
H2b: There is a positive relationship between daily job crafting and daily work
engagement.
To conclude, the theoretical arguments so far suggest that proactive personality
has a direct relationship with daily work engagement. However, this direct link will be more
positively stronger through the mediation of daily job crafting. As individuals with a proactive
personality are most inclined to change their work environment in a proactive way, by
mobilising job demands and job resources (being job crafters), this in turn facilitate work
engagement on a daily basis even more. All in all, this leads to the following hypotheses:
H2: Daily job crafting mediates the positive relationship between proactive personality
and daily work engagement.
THE MEDIATING ROLE OF IDIOSYNCRATIC DEALS
I-deals and its effects on several employee outcomes can be explained using the theories of
social exchange (Blau, 1964), and besides the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). According
to the social exchange theory, when an employee and an manager or supervisor trust each other
in an relationship of exchange, mutual agreements between the two drive the behaviours of both
parties. I-deals serve as a basis for reciprocity between the employee and the organisation or
employer, because the mutual agreements that they have jointly coordinated enhances the
relationship between the two (Bal, De Jong, Jansen, Bakker, 2012).
Idiosyncratic deals (or I-deals) constitute a middle path between top-down work
18
redesign and a single employee’s private efforts to craft a job (Hornung et al., 2010). Human
resource practices often evolve through exceptions made to standard arrangements. I-deals can
establish new criteria that eventually form the basis for broader changes in job design, as a
flexible response to the changing needs (Hornung et al., 2010). The physical foundation of I-
deals is established within the exchange relationship between an employee and the organisation.
I-deals, in general, are employment terms that employees negotiate for themselves, taking
multiple forms from flexible schedules to career development (Bal & Rousseau, 2016; Hornung
et al., 2008), and intended to benefit both the employee and the manager over time (Lai et al.,
2009). Idiosyncratic deals are employment arrangements that are different in nature from those
given to other employees and are crafted to meet the specific needs of individual employees.
These I-deals offer employees additional resources (e.g., special promotion tracks or flexible
scheduling) not readily available to their colleagues (Rousseau, Ho & Greenberg, 2006).
Moreover, the content of I-deals may vary quite extensively across employees. For instance,
some individuals may only have idiosyncratic arrangements regarding their work schedules,
while others may have idiosyncratic deals which address career promotion opportunities and
compensation packages (Ng & Feldman, 2010).
Previous research identified two commonly negotiated forms of idiosyncratic deals: (1)
flexibility I-deals and (2) developmental I-deals. So, in contrast to the belief that I-deals are just
one single concept, it can be divided into two kinds of I-deals, namely: ‘hard’ I-deals (i.e.
flexible working hours) and ‘soft’ I-deals (i.e. development; Hornung et al., 2008). Hard I-deals
are solid, factual arrangements which have a general shared meaning, and can be measured
objectively (e.g. working hours). To implement and record these hard I-deals, definitive metrics
(i.e. number of hours worked) can be used. This means that flexibility I-deals are arrangements
that personalise the scheduling of work and allow employees to customise their working hours
to better fit his or her personal needs and preferences (e.g. personal discretion over scheduling)
(Hornung et al., 2008; Rousseau, 2005). On the other hand, developmental I-deals are more soft
than flexibility I-deals as they are more different per individual and because the way employees
see development, their perception of it, is different in meaning for each individual (Rousseau,
Hornung & Kim, 2009). Thus, soft I-deals obtain their value from the relationship between the
employer and the employee (Rousseau et al., 2009). These I-deals are in nature more subjective
and therefore need supportive surroundings to be productive (Rousseau, 2005). This means that
developmental I-deals refer to customised opportunities to develop employees’ skills and
competencies and meet personal goals for professional or career advancement (e.g. challenging
19
work assignments, individual recognition of performance, special training, career
opportunities) (Hornung et al., 2008; Rousseau, 2005).
Previous studies have found relationships between I-deals and employee commitment,
job satisfaction and organisational citizenship behaviours (OCBs) and the motivation to
continue working after retirement (Anand, Vidyarthi, Liden & Rousseau, 2010; Bal, De Jong,
Jansen & Bakker, 2012; Hornung et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2013; Rosen 2013; Van der Meij &
Bal, 2013). More specifically, the organisation or manager negotiates a particular arrangement
with the employee, and in return, the employee get more connected to the organisation
(Hornung et al., 2008; Ng and Feldman, 2009), contributes to a higher degree (Hornung et al.,
2008), and has a better relationship with the organisation (Rousseau et al., 2009). Furthermore,
literature revealed that developmental I‐deals are positively related to social exchange and can
boost the relationship between the employee and the organisation by increasing connection and
competence (Hornung et al., 2008). Finally, flexibility I‐deals can lead to a better work-life
balance, since family responsibilities are the main reasons for employees to pursue flexibility
(Bailey & Kurkland, 2002). However, possible negative effects of developmental and flexibility
I‐deals are found in literature. For example, some employees choose not to negotiate
developmental I‐deals. If an organisation would merely depend on I‐deals for career
development, some employees will be excluded and therefore not develop themselves, taking a
chance that the positive effects of an I‐deal will backfire (Rousseau et al., 2009). In addition,
flexibility I‐deals may also have negative consequences. To clarify, because employees with
flexibility I-deals have different agendas, they may signal a lack of organisational commitment
or engagement because their job attendance harder to notice (Perlow, 1997). Besides, when
organisations fail to control the gained flexibility, their employees can start to perform less,
which can become a major problem if this is followed by decreasing connection (Hornung et
al., 2008).
In line with the hypothesis of the relationship between proactive personality and daily
job crafting, also the relation between proactive personality trait and I-deals is hypothesised in
this study. This to compare, in a parallel mediation, the two different forms of proactive
behaviours of employees at work. Applying Crant’s (2000) theory of proactive personality, this
study argues that employees with a proactive personality create favourable conditions and
opportunities for themselves in their work. People with proactive personalities identify
opportunities and act on them, they show initiative and take action (Bakker et al., 2012). Hence,
they will negotiate their employment terms with the managers for themselves, to create the
20
favourable conditions, by using (flexibility and developmental) I-deals. In other words, these
employees shape their work environment such that the job demands and job resources better fit
with their own needs and abilities. Therefore, this leads to the following hypothesis:
H3a: There is a positive relationship between proactive personality and I-deals.
As been mentioned before, research have found several positive outcomes of I-deals for
employees, one positive outcome that is not discussed yet in this theoretical background is work
engagement. Employees who negotiate I-deals with their managers, proactively change their
work environment and align their job demands and resources with their own abilities and needs
(Tims & Bakker, 2010). Bakker and colleagues (2012) have shown that individuals with a
proactive personality are most inclined to change their work environment in a proactive way,
by mobilising job demands and job resources, which in turn facilitate work engagement. Bal
and Vink (2011) showed that flexibility I-deals are related to an increase in motivation to
continue working, while the links of developmental I-deals only manifested under conditions
of a favourable work environment. On the other hand, a quantitative research revealed that
developmental I-deals are linked to higher work engagement, while flexibility I-deals are linked
to lower work–family conflict (Hornung, Rouseau, Glaser, Angerer & Weigl, 2011). This
means we could argue for both types of I-deals to relate with work engagement. Moreover,
Serrano and Reichard (2011) examine the relationship between I-deals and work engagement
from the manager or organisational point-of-view, instead of the employee. They argue that
managers can collaborate with employees to negotiate work responsibilities and demands, by
creating I-deals. This makes sure that the work of the employees is in line with their personal
needs, which, they say, makes work engagement more likely. Besides, Hornung and colleagues
(2010) found three mechanisms through which the creation of I-deals positively relates to work
engagement. At first, creating I-deals increased job complexity or “the degree tasks allow the
use of intellectual abilities, require collaboration, and support skill acquisition” (Hornung et al.,
2010, p. 195). Subsequently, I-deals increase job control and employees’ ability to work alone
and use judgement during a decision-making process. Finally, I-deals positively relate to work
engagement by reducing job demands or obstacles to get the things done. Overall, creating I-
deals supports employees to become vigorously and more involved in their jobs. This because
employees get more engaged in completing complicated tasks, exercise decision-making
judgement, and control for undesirable job demands (Hornung et al., 2010).
As been stated before, most research on work engagement has focused on differences
21
between individuals and has treated day-to-day fluctuations in work engagement as a
measurement-error (Sonnentag et al., 2010). However, literature argued that it is also possible
that there are daily fluctuations in the experience of work engagement within an individual
(Kahn, 1990). The relation between I-deals (on a general level) and work engagement (on a day
level) has not been investigated yet. And, as Ohly and colleagues (2010) argue, it is relevant to
combine general questionnaire information with a daily diary study of what employees do
during their workday. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H3b: There is a positive relationship between I-deals and daily work engagement.
To conclude, the theoretical arguments so far suggest that proactive personality
has a direct relationship with daily work engagement. However, this direct link will be more
positively stronger through the mediation of I-deals. As individuals with a proactive personality
are most inclined to change their work environment in a proactive way, using I-deals to
negotiate employment terms and arrangements with their managers, this in turn facilitate (daily)
work engagement even more. All in all, this leads to the following hypotheses:
H3: I-deals mediate the positive relationship between proactive personality
and daily work engagement.
22
METHOD
This chapter will explain how the hypotheses of this research will be tested. First of all, the
method of research will be discussed. Secondly, a description of the sample will follow given
a thorough understanding of the descriptive statistics of the final sample. Finally, the
measurements of the independent variable, dependent variable, mediators, and control variables
will be discussed.
RESEARCH DESIGN
This quantitative study collects data by using a general questionnaire and a diary study of five
days. The data collection was done by three students from the Amsterdam Business School, but
each student conducted its own research. Employees, working more than three days a week,
from various organisations in the Netherlands (e.g. services, health care, education, transport &
logistics) were asked to take part in this research. Participation was voluntary, however, an
incentive of six vouchers, each worth €50 on Bol.com, was used to motivate participation.
Participants were informed that upon agreement, they would receive an online diary
questionnaire and that they were invited to fill out the survey for five consecutive working days
at the end of each day. Before starting with the diaries, respondents first have to fill out a general
online questionnaire in which they provide demographic data and information on the general
level of the measured variables. Both surveys were administered online, using Qualtrics
software. The complete version of both surveys can be found in Appendix I. With a self-
completion questionnaire, respondents answer questions by completing the questionnaire
themselves. The online version operates by inviting prospective respondents by e-mail to visit
a website at which the questionnaire can be found and completed online. The cover letter used
to explain the research to the respondents could be found in Appendix II. With these type of
questionnaires, there is an absence of interviewer effects, there is no interviewer variability and
there is more convenient for respondents because they can complete a questionnaire when they
want and at the speed that they want to go (Bryman & Bell, 2011).
SAMPLE
The population of interest for this study is ‘Dutch workers’; working more than three days a
week. As the population is large and the sampling frame is unknown, this study was conducted
using a non-probability convenience sample. This is a sample that has not been selected using
a random selection method and occurs when either the probability that every unit or respondent
23
included in the sample cannot be determined (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Respondents were
reached through personal e-mail and social media channels among the personal network of the
researchers. The between-level and within-level surveys were send to 132 participants. In total,
117 respondents filled out the questionnaire on the between-level, reaching a response rate of
88.64%. On the within-level, in total, 111 Dutch workers responded to minimal three days of
the dairy study, reaching a response rate of 84.09%. All in all, 127 measurement points were
collected on the within-level survey.
Table 2 shows the mean values and standard deviations adopted to illustrate the sample
characteristics; employees in the Netherlands working 3 days a week or more. With an average
age of 34 years (SD = 13.04), 60.4% of the respondents were female employees; 82% had an
educational level of HBO or higher; and on average respondents had 7 years of organisational
tenure (SD = 9.23). Furthermore, the respondents work in a wide range of sectors (e.g. services,
health care, education, transport & logistics) with an average of 37.45 working hours per week
(SD = 7.49). When comparing the final demographic results of the sample frame with the data
of the Dutch working population (n = 8.474.000), a small amount of bias is shown. This
especially accounts for the demographic variables gender and age (CBS, 2017). In the sample,
woman are overrepresented and the average age was lower.
TABLE 2
Demographic characteristic profile of respondents (N = 108)
Variables N % Mean SD
Gender .60 .49
Male
Female
Age
Educational level
Secondary School
MBO
HBO
University (bachelor)
University (master)
PhD
Other
Organisational Tenure
Working hours per week
42
64
3
14
42
5
38
2
2
39,6
60,4
2.8
13.2
39.6
4.7
35.8
1.9
1.9
33.85
3.71
7.16
37.45
13.04
1.31
9.23
7.49
Note. Men = 0, woman = 1. Age is coded in years. Educational level is based on Dutch system, secondary school = 1, MBO =
2, HBO = 3, University (bachelor) = 4, University (master) = 5, PhD = 6, other = 7. Organisational Tenure is coded in years.
24
MEASURES
As respondents’ native language was Dutch, each measuring scale was translated. To validate
the translation, the back translation method, a bilingual technique, and pretesting, as suggested
by Brislin, Lonner and Thorndike (1973) was utilised.
General questionnaire (between-level)
Proactive personality. Proactive personality was assessed using the Dutch translation (Claes et
al., 2005) of the six-item version of Bateman and Crant’s (1993) Proactive Personality Scale
(PPS). Sample items include: ‘This employee is always looking for better ways to do things’,
and ‘If this employee sees something s/he doesn’t like, s/he fixes it’. Respondents could respond
on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = disagree through 5 = agree. The reliability of the scale
was good; Cronbach’s α =.77.
I-Deals. Using a Dutch translation of Rousseau’s measures (e.g., Hornung et al. 2008),
employees indicated the extent to which in their current jobs they had “asked for and
successfully negotiated individual arrangements different from their peers” in terms of
flexibility I-deals (three items) and development I-deals (four items). Flexibility items include:
‘Flexibility in starting and ending the workday’ and ‘Individually customised work schedule’.
Developmental items include: ‘On-the-job activities’, ‘Training opportunities’ and ‘Career
development’. Respondents could respond on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all
through 5 = to a very great extent. The reliability of the scale was very good; Cronbach’s α
=.90.
Dairy study (within-level)
The diary study consisted of five identical questionnaires, one for each day. Similar to that of
previous diary studies (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009), respondents indicated how representative
each statement was for the past day using a scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree. All respondents were instructed to answer the questionnaires right before
leaving the office that day. Besides, by means of an online questionnaire the author was more
capable of checking the actual day and time (i.e. more accuracy in the measurement).
Daily Job Crafting. Daily job crafting was assessed using the Dutch translation of Petrou and
colleagues’ (2012) subscales. The day-level job crafting questionnaire consisted of three
25
subscales: Day-level seeking recourses included four items as “Today, I have asked colleagues
for advice”. Day-level seeking challenges included three items as “Today, I have asked for more
responsibilities”. Day-level reducing demands was measured by using three items as “Today, I
have tried to ensure that my work is emotionally less intense”. Cronbach’s α for the total scale
=.83.
Daily Work Engagement. This study adapted three items from Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova’s
(2006) short-form Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) to assess daily work engagement
(Lanaj, Johnson & Barnes, 2014). Sample items translated to Dutch include: “Today, my job
inspired me” and “Today, I was very enthusiastic about my job.” Respondents could respond
on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree through 5 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s
α =.76.
Control variables. The variables tenure, age and gender are included as a control variable in
this study. At first, literature revealed that tenure may have an effect on job proactive behaviours
as job crafting and I-deals. Several authors argue that tenure in the organisation could be one
factor that is likely to influence how employees make sense of the possibilities for job crafting,
and should be investigated in future research (Berg et al., 2010; Ghitulescu, 2006). Berg,
Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2010) argue that it is possible that employees that are shorter tenured
engage in more job crafting or job proactive behaviours. This because short tenured employees
proactively shape their jobs to themselves and quickly examine where changes could be made,
while longer-tenured employees are more used to the job and examine it more as a fixed entity.
Two possible competing hypotheses could be that longer-tenured employees receive more
authority and support from their managers and colleagues, in making changes to their job
(Wrzesniewski, Bartel, & Wiesenfeld, 2009). Furthermore, it could be that longer-tenured
employees could better take the opportunities for job proactive behaviours available to them
due to their time spent in the organisation (Berdicchia et al., 2016). Thus, the employees’ tenure
with the organisation (the length of the time the employee had worked for the organisation) is
controlled. An open question was used to measure the tenure (in years) of employees working
for the organisation: "How long do you work for this organisation (in years)?".
Next to that, Kooij, Tims and Kanfer (2015) discussed whether older employees may
craft their jobs differently than younger employees, since motivation and competencies change
with age and individuals use strategies to age successfully in life. Furthermore, they say that
26
older employees know their own competencies, abilities, roles, tasks and responsibilities due to
their long work experience and job tenure. As such, the bottom-up approach of job crafting is
the most appropriate approach for older employees to adapt the job to age-related changes they
are confronted with, and to age successfully at work. Therefore, age was included as a control
variable in this study.
Finally, the role of gender could have an influence on the proactive behaviours at work.
There is a mixed picture found in literature. In terms of proactive job search, networking
behaviours and voicing concerns about issues at work, men were found to be more proactive
than woman. However, the influence still remains inconclusive and it is suggested that further
research will be helpful to clarify the relevance of gender in job proactive behaviours
(Berdicchia et al., 2016; Bindl & Parker, 2010). Therefore, gender was included as a control
variable and measured as a dichotomous variable, i.e., 0 for male and 1 for female.
27
RESULTS
In this section the results of the different analyses will be presented. At first, they analystical
strategy on the collected data will be discussed. Subsequently, the descriptive statistics for the
most important variables are given. Moreover, this section provides a correlation matrix to
examine the relation between the different variables. Besides, the reliability analyses of all
scales are given. Finally, this section ends with testing the hypothesis formulated in this
research, followed by an additional analysis of the variables on a general level instead of the
daily level.
ANALYTICAL STRATEGY
At first, a check of the frequencies was computed to examine if there were any errors in the
data; no errors were found. Besides, by excluding cases listwise missing values were dealt with.
This means that only cases that had no missing data in any variable were analysed. Descriptive
statistics (means, standard deviations and correlations between the study variables), skewness,
kurtosis and normality tests were computed for all variables. All variables were normally
distributed with skewness and kurtosis ranging between -1 and 1; Proactive Personality
(skewness =.088, kurtosis =.195), Daily Job Crafting (skewness = -.087, kurtosis =.670),
Idiosyncratic Deals (skewness = -.019, kurtosis = -.643) and Daily Work Engagement
(skewness =.058, kurtosis -.272). Furthermore, to verify the underlying dimensions of the
independent variable, the mediators and the dependent variable, an Exploratory Factor Analysis
was conducted on the measurement scales of proactive personality, daily job crafting,
Idiosyncratic deals, and daily work engagement. Finally, the PROCESS Macro written by
Andrew F. Hayes for SPSS was used to test the hypotheses.
EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS
Proactive Personality (Independent variable). A principal axis factoring analysis (PAF) was
conducted on the six items with oblique rotation (direct oblimin) in order to investigate the
reliability of the item list used to measure proactive personality.
At first, the correlation matrix was analysed to investigate multicollinearity and whether
correlations were too small. As the determinant of the correlation matrix (.239) was not smaller
than the necessary value of 0.00001, no multicollinearity existed. Moreover, Bartlett’s test of
sphericity, which tests the null-hypothesis that the original correlation matrix is an identity
matrix, was significant for this particular set of data (χ2 (15) = 149.250, p = <.001). This means
28
that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix and that correlations between items were
sufficiently large for PAF. Furthermore, the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure verified the sampling
adequacy for the analysis, KMO =.77, as this is above the acceptable limit of.5 (Field, 2013).
This means that all assumptions for the PAF are met.
An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each factor in the data. One factor
had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and explained 46,56% of the variance. The scree
plot showed an inflexion that would justify retaining one factor. Therefore, one factor was
retained because of the use of fewer than 30 variables, the convergence of the scree plot and
Kaiser’s criterion on this value. All six items load strongly on the one underlying factor (all
above.505), representing “Proactive Personality”.
In order to compare the independent variable to the other variables, one variable is
computed that reflects the mean score of the six items that constitute proactive personality
(ProTOT).
Daily Job Crafting (Mediator 1). A PAF was conducted on the ten items with oblique rotation
(direct oblimin) in order to investigate the reliability of the item list used to measure job crafting
on a day-level.
At first, the correlation matrix was analysed to investigate multicollinearity and whether
correlations were too small. As the determinant of the correlation matrix (.001) was not smaller
than the necessary value of 0.00001, no multicollinearity existed. However, Bartlett’s test of
sphericity, which tests the null-hypothesis that the original correlation matrix is an identity
matrix, was significant for this particular set of data (χ2 (45) = 781.662, p = <.001). This means
that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix and that correlations between items were
sufficiently large for PAF. Furthermore, the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure verified the sampling
adequacy for the analysis, KMO =.77, as this is above the acceptable limit of.5 (Field, 2013).
This means that all assumptions for the PAF are met.
An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each factor in the data. Three factors
had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and explained 78.65% of the variance. The scree
plot shows an inflexion that would justify retaining three factors. Therefore, three factors are
retained because of the use of fewer than 30 variables, the convergence of the scree plot and
Kaiser’s criterion on this value. Table 3 shows the factor loadings after rotation. The items that
cluster on the same factor suggest that factor 1 represents “Day-level seeking resources”, factor
2 represents “Day-level seeking challenges” and factor 3 represents “Day-level reducing
29
demands”.
In order to compare the mediator to the other variables, one variable is computed that
reflects the mean score of the ten items that constitute daily job crafting (DjcraTOT).
TABLE 3
Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for measurement scale
Daily Job Crafting (N = 111)
Factor Loadings
Item Seeking
resources
Seeking
challenges
Reducing
demands
I have asked others for feedback on my
job performance
.20 .02 .70
I have asked colleagues for advice -.19 -.08 .85
I have asked my supervisor for advice .11 .07 .60
I have tried to learn new things at work .29 .10 .53
I have asked for more tasks if I finish my
work
.86 .01 -.02
I have asked for more responsibilities .96 -.04 .04
I have asked for more odd jobs .92 -.01 .05
I have tried to ensure that my work is
emotionally less intense
-.05 .95 .12
I have made sure that my work is
mentally less intense
.01 .94 -.12
I have tried to ensure that my work is
physically less intense
-.02 .72 .01
Eigenvalues 4.07 2.36 1.4
% of variance 40.74 23.57 14.34
Note. Factor loadings over.40 appear in bold
Idiosyncratic Deals (Mediator 2). A PAF was conducted on the seven items with oblique
rotation (direct oblimin) in order to investigate the reliability of the item list used to measure
Idiosyncratic deals.
At first, the correlation matrix was analysed to investigate multicollinearity and whether
correlations were too small. As the determinant of the correlation matrix (.004) was not smaller
30
than the necessary value of 0.00001, no multicollinearity existed. Moreover, Bartlett’s test of
sphericity, which tests the null-hypothesis that the original correlation matrix is an identity
matrix, was significant for this particular set of data (χ2 (21) = 545.973, p = <.001). This means
that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix and that correlations between items were
sufficiently large for PAF. Furthermore, the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure verified the sampling
adequacy for the analysis, KMO =.81, as this is above the acceptable limit of.5 (Field, 2013).
This means that all assumptions for the PAF are met.
An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each factor in the data. Two factors
had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and explained 79.53% of the variance. The scree
plot shows an inflexion that would justify retaining two factors. Therefore, two factors are
retained because of the use of fewer than 30 variables, the convergence of the scree plot and
Kaiser’s criterion on this value. Table 4 shows the factor loadings after rotation. The items that
cluster on the same factor suggest that factor 1 represents “Flexibility I-deals” and factor 2
represents “Developmental I-deals”. Although this analysis showed that “on-the-job-activities”
represents flexibility I-deals, literature suggests that this item represents developmental I-deals
(e.g., Hornung et al. 2008). It is possible that on-the-job activities load strongly on flexibility I-
deals because flexibility I-deals are arrangements that personalise the scheduling of work and
allow employees to customise their working hours to better fit the individual needs and
preferences, which also fits with on-the-job activities. Still, however, the ‘wrong’ loading is not
a problem because in the end this study averages across all items.
In order to compare the mediator to the other variables, one variable is computed that
reflects the mean score of the seven items that constitute I-deals (Ideal).
Daily Work Engagement (Dependent variable). A PAF was conducted on the three items with
oblique rotation (direct oblimin) in order to investigate the reliability of the item list used to
measure daily work engagement.
At first, the correlation matrix was analysed to investigate multicollinearity and whether
correlations were too small. As the determinant of the correlation matrix (.466) was not smaller
than the necessary value of 0.00001, no multicollinearity existed. Moreover, Bartlett’s test of
sphericity, which tests the null-hypothesis that the original correlation matrix is an identity
matrix, was significant for this particular set of data (χ2 (3) = 82.706, p = <.001). This means
that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix and that correlations between items were
sufficiently large for PAF. Furthermore, the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure verified the sampling
31
adequacy for the analysis, KMO =.68, as this is above the acceptable limit of.5 (Field, 2013).
This means that all assumptions for the PAF are met.
TABLE 4
Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for measurement scale I-deals (N = 105)
Factor Loadings
Item Flexibility
I-deals
Developmental
I-deals
Flexibility in starting and ending the working day .92 .10
Individually customised work schedule .74 .04
Flexibility in work-related tasks .76 -.20
On-the-job activities .58 -.27
Training opportunities .12 -.74
Special opportunities for skill development -.08 -1.04
Career development .04 -.85
Eigenvalues 4.45 1.11
% of variance 63.61 15.92
Note. Factor loadings over.40 appear in bold
An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each factor in the data. One factor
had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and explained 67.56% of the variance. The scree
plot showed an inflexion that would justify retaining one factor. Therefore, one factor was
retained because of the use of fewer than 30 variables, the convergence of the scree plot and
Kaiser’s criterion on this value. All three items load strongly on the one underlying factor (all
above.616), representing “Daily Work Engagement”.
In order to compare the dependent variable to the other variables, one variable is
computed that reflects the mean score of the three items that constitute daily work engagement
(DengTOT).
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Table 5 shows the means, the standard deviations, and the correlations between the study
variables. For all day-level variables, an aggregate score of the five days is used; therefore, for
all day-level variables, participants were assigned a mean score of their five measurements.
32
Furthermore, only those who have taken the within survey more than three times that week
were taken into account. The between-level and within-level surveys were send to 132
participants. In total, 117 respondents filled out the questionnaire on the between-level,
reaching a response rate of 88.64%. On the within-level, in total, 111 Dutch workers responded
to minimal three days of the dairy study, reaching a response rate of 84.09%. All in all, 127
measurement points were collected on the within-level survey. The reliabilities of multi-item
scales were determined by computing Cronbach’s alpha values. All scales have acceptable
alpha values and are greater than the suggested cut-off level of 0.7 (Hair, Black, Babin,
Anderson & Tatham, 1998), ranging from.76 to.90.
Inconsistent with the expectations, no significant correlations were found between
proactive personality, daily job crafting, and daily work engagement. A significant correlation
was found between I-deals and daily work engagement, r =.21, p <.05. Besides, a significant
correlation was found between I-deals and daily job crafting (r =.24, p <.05). Examining the
control variables, age was significantly correlated with gender, org. tenure, daily job crafting (r
= -.27, p >.05) and daily work engagement (r =.26, p <.01). Furthermore, org. tenure was
significantly correlated with gender, age and daily job crafting (r = -.21, p <.05).
TABLE 5
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Variables (N = 105)
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Gender .61 .49 -
2. Organisational Tenure 7.10 9.26 -.21* -
3. Age 33.85 13.04 -.30** .74** -
4. Proactive Personality 3.72 .52 -.15 -.05 -.08 (.77)
5. Daily Job Crafting 2.59 .52 .00 -.21* -.27* .16 (.83)
6. I-deals 2.75 .98 -.09 -.01 .08 .05 .24* (.90)
7. Daily Work Engagement 3.38 .67 -.09 .13 .26** .19 .02 .20* (.76)
Note: *p <.05, **p <.01
Cronbach’s alphas are in parentheses.
Men are coded as 0, woman are coded as 1. Organisational Tenure is measured in years.
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
To test the hypotheses, the PROCESS Macro written by Andrew F. Hayes for SPSS was used
33
(Hayes, 2013). All hypotheses were tested by model 4. This model tested a mediation model,
with proactive personality as an independent variable (X), daily work engagement as the
outcome variable (Y) and daily job crafting (M1) and I-deals (M2) as the mediations. The
variables tenure, age and gender were taken into account as control variables. The results of
these analyses are displayed in Table 6 and 7. Overall, the model explains 12% of the variance
in the value of daily work engagement (F(4,100) = 3.4614, p =.01, R2 =. 1216.
To test hypothesis 1; “There is a positive, direct relationship between proactive
personality and daily work engagement”, the analysis examines the direct effect of proactive
personality and daily work engagement, after controlling for the variables gender, tenure and
age. The effect of proactive personality on daily work engagement H1 =.2630, means that an
increase of one unit on the scale of proactive personality leads to an additional value of.2630
for daily work engagement. Since the sign of H1 is positive, those employees that have a
relatively high proactive personality are also estimated to have a higher score on daily work
engagement. This effect is statistically significant (p =.04), supporting hypothesis 1.
In this study, an analysis was conducted to test for parallel mediation of daily job
crafting and I-deals. At first, hypothesis 2; “Daily job crafting mediates the positive
relationship between proactive personality and daily work engagement”, was tested. The
analysis examines the daily job crafting indirect effect of proactive personality on daily work
engagement. However, this indirect effect was not significant, because the effect is not
statistically different from zero, as revealed by a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that
crosses zero (-.031 to.068). Hypothesis 2 is, therefore, rejected. To examine if the mediation of
daily job crafting has a partly effect, an analysis was conducted for hypothesis 2a and 2b.
Inconsistent with the expectations, the effect of proactive personality on daily job crafting (H2a
=.123) and the effect of daily job crafting on daily work engagement (H2b =.026) were both
non-significant. Therefore, hypothesises 2a and 2b are rejected.
Subsequently, the analysis to examine if the direct effect was mediated by I-deals was
conducted, therefore, hypothesis 3; “I-deals mediate the positive relationship between
proactive personality and daily work engagement”, was tested. The analysis examines the I-
deals indirect effect of proactive personality on daily work engagement. However, this indirect
effect was not significant, because the effect is not statistically different from zero, as revealed
by a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that crosses zero (-.030 to.091). Hypothesis 3 is,
therefore, rejected. To examine if the mediation of I-deals has a partly effect, an analysis was
conducted for hypothesis 3a and 3b. Inconsistent with the expectations, the effect of proactive
34
personality on I-deals (H3a =.093) and the effect of I-deals on daily work engagement (H3b
=.105) are both non-significant. Therefore, hypothesises 3a and 3b are rejected.
TABLE 6
Estimated Coefficients of the Parallel Mediation Model (day-level)
Consequent
Daily Job Craf. (M1)
Daily Work Engag. (Y)
Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE P
Proactive Personality (X) .131 .097 .181 .263 .124 .037
Daily Job Crafting (M1) --- --- --- .033 .131 .803
Gender -.066 .107 .540 .061 .136 .653
Organisational Tenure -.001 .008 .893 -.009 .010 .363
Age -.012 .006 -072 .020 .008 .012
constant 2.508 .437 <.001 1.403 .641 .031
R2 =.097 R2 =.1470
F(4,100) = 2.6886, p =.035 F(6,98) = 2.8158, p =.01
Consequent
I-deals (M2)
Daily Work Engag. (Y)
Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE P
Proactive Personality (X) .093 .192 .630 .263 .124 .037
I-deals (M2) --- --- --- .105 .067 .116
Gender -.126 .211 .551 .061 .136 .653
Organisational Tenure -.016 .016 .301 -.009 .010 .363
Age .013 .011 .244 .020 .008 .012
constant 2.147 .862 .014 1.416 .646 .031
R2 =.0240 R2 =.1470
F(4,100) =.6158, p = ns F(4,100) = 2.8158, p =.01
35
TABLE 7
The (In)direct Effects of the Parallel Mediation Model (day-level)
Effect SE P LLCI ULCI
Direct effect .263 .124 .037 .016 .510
Total effect .277 .124 .028 .031 .522
Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
Indirect effect total
Daily job crafting
I-deals
.014
.004
.010
.040
.024
.028
-.044
-.030
-.031
.110
.074
.090
Figure 2 shows the results of the hypothesised research model. In this final model only
the variables measured on a daily level are included. The next section will include an
additional analysis, including variables measured on a general level.
Note: *p <.05,
= hypothesis rejected
= hypothesis supported
FIGURE 2: Results of the hypothesised research model (day-level)
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
A post hoc analysis was conducted in order to further investigate the study variables. This
analyses could be run because respondents had to report on the variables of job crafting and
work engagement on a general level as well in the questionnaire. The results of these analyses
are displayed in Table 8 and 9. Overall, this model explains 12% of the variance in the value of
general work engagement (F(4,100) = 3.4614, p =.01, R2 =. 1216).
When conducting an analysis on the general level instead of the daily level of job
crafting and work engagement, the first effect of proactive personality on general-level job
Proactive
Personality
I-Deals
Daily
Work Engagement
Daily
Job Crafting
.264*
36
crafting is statistically significant (b =.173, p =.020). Thus, an increase of one unit on the scale
of proactive personality leads to an additional value of.173 on general-level job crafting. Since
the sign is positive, those employees that have a relatively high proactive personality are also
estimated to have a higher score on general-level job crafting. Meaning hypothesis 2a could be
supported on a general level; “There is a positive relationship between proactive personality
and general-level job crafting.”
Furthermore, when conducting an analysis on the general level instead of the day-level
of work engagement, the second effect of I-deals on general-level work engagement is
statistically significant (b =.252, p = <.001). Thus, an increase of one unit on the scale of I-deals
leads to an additional value of.252 on general-level work engagement. Since the sign is positive,
those employees that have a relatively high I-deals score are also estimated to have a higher
score on general-level work engagement. Meaning hypothesis 3b could be supported on a
general level; “There is a positive relationship between I-deals and general-level work
engagement.”
Figure 3 shows the results of the hypothesised research model. In this final model the
variables of job crafting and work engagement on a general-level are displayed.
Note: *p <.05, **p <.01
= hypothesis rejected
= hypothesis supported
FIGURE 3: Results of the hypothesised research model (general-level)
Proactive
Personality
I-Deals
.264*
General
Job Crafting
General
Work Engagement
.173*
.252**
37
TABLE 8
Estimated Coefficients of the Parallel Mediation Model (general-level)
Consequent
Job Crafting (M1)
Work Engagement (Y)
Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE P
Proactive Personality (X) .173 .073 .020 .516 .133 <.001
Job Crafting (M1) --- --- --- .022 .185 .905
Gender -.037 .080 .648 .111 .143 .439
Organisational tenure -.004 .060 .551 .017 .011 .118
Age -.008 .004 .086 -.005 .008 .550
constant 2.921 .328 <.001 .872 .781 .267
R2 =.1540 R2 =.2552
F(4,100) = 4.5495, p =.002 F(6,98) = 5.5965, p = <.001
Consequent
I-deals (M2)
Work Engagement (Y)
Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE P
Proactive Personality (X) .093 .192 .630 .516 .133 <.001
I-deals (M2) --- --- --- .252 .070 <.001
Gender -.126 .211 .551 .111 .143 .439
Organisational tenure -.016 .016 .301 .017 .011 .118
Age .013 .011 .244 -.005 .008 .550
constant 2.147 .862 .014 .872 .781 .267
R2 =.0240 R2 =.2552
F(4,100) =.6158, p = ns F(6,98) = 5.5965, p = <.001
38
TABLE 9
The (In)direct Effects of the Parallel Mediation Model (general-level)
Effect SE p LLCI ULCI
Direct effect .516 .133 <.001 .253 .780
Total effect .543 .137 <.001 .271 .815
Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
Indirect effect total
Daily job crafting
I-deals
.027
.004
.023
.067
.040
.058
-.091
-.075
-.079
.179
.092
.158
39
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to compare two parallel mechanisms of proactive behaviours at work,
daily job crafting and I-deals, in explaining the relationship between proactive personality and
work engagement. These two bottom-up concepts of work design can be found in recent
literature, which both reflect the proactive behaviours of today’s employees. Both these
behaviours increasingly occur due to the changing nature of work (e.g. flexible human resource
practices, virtualisation) (Hornung, Rousseau & Glaser, 2009). It is relevant for organisations
to know on which terms these behaviours are initiated and how they differ from each other. The
question is to which extent job crafting and I-deals are any different, contributing to and
enriching each other. In total, seven hypotheses were proposed.
The first hypothesis was supported by the data, indicating that there is a direct positive
link between employees with a proactive personality and daily work engagement, which is in
line with previous research. Individuals with a proactive personality demonstrate initiative and
dedication (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant, 1995). Thus, proactive personality is related to work
engagement because employees who are involved in their work environment also immerse
themselves in their work even more. The main strength of this study is its use of a diary design.
In this way, the current study allowed investigating fluctuations of the variables over the time
of a working week. This dairy design creates the opportunity to capture work events and
experiences as they unfold in the work environment (Ilies et al., 2007). Thus, the present results
enrich our understanding of the antecedents of daily work engagement. For instance, by
examining employee’s proactive personality as an antecedent of daily work engagement, more
insight is gained in the role proactive personality plays in the daily process that explains
employee’s work engagement.
Furthermore, in this study, it was argued that as managers are not always available for
their employees, it is important that employees mobilise their own job resources and demands
through proactive job behaviours as job crafting and I-deals. It was hypothesised that employees
with a proactive personality would be most likely to craft their own jobs or negotiate I-deals
with their managers, so that they become more engaged.
To begin with, the second hypothesis proposed that daily job crafting mediates the
positive relationship between proactive personality and daily work engagement. Unexpectedly,
no significant relationship was found. The indirect effect showed not to be significant, so daily
job crafting played no mediating role between a proactive personality and daily work
40
engagement. The fact that the results of this research are not in line with the expectations and
previous research, does not necessarily mean that the assumed relation does not exist. However,
this relation is not supported in this study. To examine if the mediation of daily job crafting has
a partly effect, an analysis was conducted for hypothesis 2a and 2b. Inconsistent with the
expectations, the effect of proactive personality on daily job crafting and the effect of daily job
crafting on daily work engagement were both non-significant.
The third hypothesis proposed that I-deals mediates the positive relationship between
proactive personality and daily work engagement. However, the results of the study were
inconsistent with the hypotheses. The indirect effect showed not to be significant, so I-deals
played no mediating role between a proactive personality and daily work engagement. Also in
this case, the fact that the results of this research are not in line with the expectations and
previous research, does not necessarily mean that the assumed relation does not exist. However,
this relation is not supported in this study. To examine if the mediation of I-deals has a partly
effect, an analysis was conducted for hypothesis 3a and 3b. Inconsistent with the expectations,
the effect of proactive personality on I-deals and the effect of I-deals on daily work engagement
were both non-significant.
A possible explanation for these unexpected results might be the repeated measure
design of this study. Respondents had to rate the variables (of job crafting and work
engagement) for five consecutive work days. This study computed a mean score for each of the
variables, making it repeated measures. This computed mean score may have affected
conditions with significant repetitions. Furthermore, events that could not be controlled for (i.e.
personal circumstances/feelings, changes at work or the weather) outside this study may have
changed the responses between the days. A post hoc analysis was conducted in order to further
investigate the study variables on a general level, to examine if this would make any difference.
When conducting an analysis on the general level instead of day-level job crafting and work
engagement, the effect of proactive personality on general-level job crafting was significant.
Furthermore, the effect of I-deals on general-level work engagement was significant. Meaning
hypotheses 2a and 3b could be supported on a general level. This indicates that to make the
repeated measures even more accurate, the time span between the within measures should be
increased in future research.
LIMITATIONS
Like most research, this study has several limitations that could explain the unexpected results
41
of this study. At first, this study does not allow to make cause-and-effect inferences because of
its use of cross-sectional data. Although the relationship from proactive personality to (daily)
work engagement was defended using previous findings and theory, reversed causality is
possible for this relationship and its mediators. It is reasonable that proactive personality and
proactive work behaviours as job crafting and I-deals, are not only a cause but also an outcome
of work engagement.
Subsequently, the data in this study depend on self-report and therefore can be subject
to common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003) and social
desirability. It should be noted that because of the dairy nature of this study the variables used
are likely best rated by the employees themselves. For instance, because job crafting fluctuates
on a daily basis, it may be hard to report this by peers or managers (Daniels, 2006; Spector,
2006). Still, self-reports may introduce common method bias and social desirable answers. The
concept of social desirability could play a role in not finding significant results. Social
desirability is the tendency of individuals to present themselves in a favourable light (Randall,
Paul Huo & Pawelk, 1993). Several solutions are used to lower this chance of common method
biases. At first, because a diary study needs employees to report their behaviour in close
proximity to the actual event, bias is reduced (Bolger, Davis & Rafaeli, 2003; Podsakoff et al.,
2003). In addition, to reduce dropout and habituation, diary studies are normally shorter than
single surveys; only the highest loading items or items with the highest face validity are
included, which may improve comprehension of the items (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
A third limitation is the use of a non-probability convenience sampling technique to
gather the respondents, which were Dutch employees working more than three days a week.
This is a limitation, since it hinders the generalisability of the results of the study, which is due
to lower external validity. Moreover, the sample that is used heterogeneous, since different
sectors and positions are included. The sample heterogeneity lowers the validity and makes it
harder to make generalisations, since it is not possible to control for all the changing variables.
A fourth limitation of this study is that daily mood and employee’s day-levels of job
resources are not controlled for in the analyses. The fact that these control variables were not
taken into account could affect potential “good-day” or “not-good-day” effects. Controlling for
day-levels of job resources is particularly important for this study, because job resources have
been found to provoke and prompt a positive mood at work (Schaufeli & van Rhenen, 2006),
and are crucial predictors of work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008).
Finally, not much is known about the effects that a diary study design could have on
42
employees’ answers (Bolger et al., 2003). The respondents in this study had to complete the
same survey for five consecutive work days. Although it was tried to keep the diary survey
short, it could be the case that respondents filled out the survey in a habitual manner after certain
days. In that way, answers do not fluctuate over time which makes the use of a dairy study less
valuable.
PRACTICIAL IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
There are a number of issues that future research may want to address. First, longitudinal
replications of this study can test whether proactive work behaviours as job crafting and I-deals
relate to specific outcomes as work engagement on a daily level. By increasing the time span
of the within measures, the real-time repeated measures will be more accurate.
Furthermore, in the specific case of I-deals, it should be further investigated who
benefits from an I-deal, including not only the employee, but also other parties, such as the
organisation, co-workers and family and friends outside the workplace. Future research should
collect multi-source data to better assess I-deals and the impact of I-deals. Besides, as Bal and
Rousseau (2016) argue, future research on I-deals should be more focused on the timing of I-
deals. Little is known on when I-deals are negotiated, how they are managed and/or for how
long I-deals are negotiated.
Besides, practical implications of this study can be found. At first, the results indicate
that proactive personality is an crucial antecedent of work engagement. This suggests that
selecting employees with proactive personalities may be an effective strategy for human
resource managers seeking to enlarge work engagement. However, as Fuller, Hester and Cox
(2010) also argue, it can be stated that engagement is not only a function of selecting employees
with proactive personalities, but also a matter of assigning these employees to certain jobs
where they feel they have a considerable degree of autonomy to decide how to manage their
jobs. Most importantly, the study implies that a proactive personality determines how engaged
employees are during their daily work. Therefore, organisations should stimulate strategies that
aim re-enforcements of resources at a daily level, and not only rely on redesigns on a general
level. In other words, “enhancing techniques should be applied in time proximity to the task
that needs to be performed in order to be successful” (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti &
Schaufeli, 2009, p. 198).
Subsequently, proactive work behaviours can either be constrained or stimulated by the
organisation. As far as it concerns organisational implications, job crafting and I-deals are
43
neither naturally good nor bad. Although the management of an organisation is usually
responsible for job redesign and changes in functions, roles and tasks, for example job crafting
is “undercover”. To some extent, employees in any type of job behave as job crafters. However,
some organisations will deny the idea of job crafting. But, job crafting and I-deals can be seen
as proactive and problem-focused behaviour through which employees engage in creative
problem solving. Furthermore, these behaviours could enhance employee’s sense of control,
job satisfaction, work engagement, and job performance. The form of job crafting that is
positive and helpful for the individual could easily prove to be counterproductive for an
organisation as a whole as well. Besides, I-deals already aim to achieve mutual benefit between
the organisation and employees through negotiating employment features. For all these reasons,
job crafting and I-deals should be supported by the organisation as long they are in the same
line with the organisational goals.
On a final note, it should not be forgotten that job crafting and I-deals increasingly occur
at the workplace and can indeed be very helpful for both the individual as the organisation.
Acknowledging these proactive work behaviours as existing and natural behaviour of
employees is not solely the only option for managers but also a one-of-a-kind opportunity to
maximise employee potential or engagement and achieve multiple organisational positive
outcomes.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, this study found evidence of the relationship between employees with a proactive
personality and daily work engagement. Thus, the present results enhance our understanding of
the antecedents of daily work engagement, making the use of repeated real-time measures the
main strength of this study. Unexpectedly, this study did not find evidence of the parallel
mediation of daily job crafting and I-deals assuming the relationship between proactive
personality and daily work engagement. However, one step is made in the exploration of the
investigated variables. Further research, for example on a longitudinal basis, needs to be done
to gain more knowledge on the links between proactive personality, daily work engagement
and proactive work behaviours as daily job crafting and I-deals.
44
REFERENCES
Alarcon, G., Eschleman, K. J., & Bowling, N. A. (2009). Relationships between personality
variables and burnout: A meta-analysis. Work & stress, 23(3), 244-263.
Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2010). Good citizens in poor
quality relationships: Idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship quality.
Academy of management journal, 53(5), 970-988.
Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new
directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of organizational
behavior, 23(4), 383-400.
Bakker, A. B. (2014). Daily fluctuations in work engagement. European Psychologist.
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.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of managerial psychology, 22(3), 309-328.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career
development international, 13(3), 209-223.
Bakker, A. B. & Demerouti, E. (2014), “Job demands – resources theory”, in Chen, P.Y. and
Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Work and Wellbeing: Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide,
Vol. III, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 37-64.
Bal, P. M., De Jong, S. B., Jansen, P. G., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Motivating employees to
work beyond retirement: A multi‐level study of the role of I‐deals and unit climate.
Journal of Management Studies, 49(2), 306-331.
Bal, P. M., & Rousseau, D. M. (2016). Idiosyncratic Deals between Employees and
Organisations: Conceptual issues, applications and the role of co-workers. New York,
USA: Routledge.
Bal, P. M., & Vink, R. (2011). Ideological currency in psychological contracts: The role of team
relationships in a reciprocity perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 22(13), 2794-2817.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organisational behaviour:
A measure and correlates. Journal of organisational behaviour, 14(2), 103-118.
Becherer, R. C., & Maurer, J. G. (1999). The proactive personality disposition and
entrepreneurial behaviour among small company presidents. Journal of Small Business
45
Management, 37(1), 28.
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.
Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2008). What is job crafting and why does it
matter. Center for Positive Organisational Scholarship, University of Michigan.
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 Organisational Behaviour, 31(2‐3), 158-186.
Bindl, U., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behaviour: Forward-thinking and change
oriented action in organisations (Vol. 2, pp. 567-598). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Black, J. S., & Ashford, S. J. (1995). Fitting in or making jobs fit: Factors affecting mode of
adjustment for new hires. Human Relations, 48(4), 421-437.
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual
review of psychology, 54(1), 579-616.
Brislin, R., Lonner, W., & Thorndike, R. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York:
Wiley.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA.
Buss, A. H., & Finn, S. E. (1987). Classification of personality traits. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 52(2), 432.
Campion, M. A., & McClelland, C. L. (1993). Follow-up and extension of the
interdisciplinary costs and benefits of enlarged jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78(3), 339.’
CBS. (2017). Arbeidsdeelname; kerncijfers. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2gusSO7
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel
Psychology, 64(1), 89-136.
Crant, J. M. (1995). The Proactive Personality Scale and objective job performance among
real estate agents. Journal of applied psychology, 80(4), 532.
Crant, J. M. (1996). The Proactive Personality Scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial
intentions. Journal of small business management, 34(3), 42.
46
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behaviour in organisations. Journal of management, 26(3), 435
462.
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The
impact of proactive personality. Journal of organisational Behaviour, 63-75.
Daniels, K. (2006). Rethinking job characteristics in work stress research. Human Relations,
59(3), 267-290.
Deluga, R. J. (1998). American presidential proactivity, charismatic leadership, and rated
performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(3), 265-291.
Demerouti, E. (2014). Design your own job through job crafting. European Psychologist, 19,
237-247.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Halbesleben, J. R. (2015). Productive and counterproductive
job crafting: A daily diary study. Journal of occupational health psychology, 20(4),
457-469.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.
Fisher, C. D., & To, M. L. (2012). Using experience sampling methodology in organisational
behaviour. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 33(7), 865-877.
Fuller Jr, J. B., Hester, K., & Cox, S. S. (2010). Proactive personality and job performance:
Exploring job autonomy as a moderator. Journal of Managerial Issues, 35-51.
Fuller, B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the
proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 75(3), 329-345.
Ghitulescu, B. (2006). Job crafting and social embeddedness at work. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in
organisational behaviour, 28, 3-34.
Grant, A. M., Fried, Y., & Juillerat, T. (2011). Work matters: Job design in classic and
contemporary perspectives.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). 7 redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational
and proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317-375.
Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2010). Why does proactive personality predict
employee life satisfaction and work behaviours? A field investigation of the mediating
role of the self‐concordance model. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 539-560.
47
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate
data analysis. Uppersaddle River. Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed) Upper Saddle
River.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2008). Creating flexible work arrangements
through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 655.
Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2009). Why supervisors make idiosyncratic
deals: Antecedents and outcomes of i-deals from a managerial perspective. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 24(8), 738-764.
Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., Glaser, J., Angerer, P., & Weigl, M. (2010). Beyond top‐down
and bottom‐up work redesign: Customising job content through idiosyncratic deals.
Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 31(2‐3), 187-215.
Hornung, S., Rouseau, D. M., Glaser, J., Angerer, P., & Weigl, M. (2011). Employee-oriented
leadership and quality of working life: mediating roles of idiosyncratic deals.
Psychological reports, 108(1), 59-74.
Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., & Heller, D. (2007). Employee well-being: A multilevel model
linking work and nonwork domains. European journal of work and organisational
psychology, 16(3), 326-341.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and
consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management journal, 42(1), 58-74.
Kooij, D. T., Tims, M., & Kanfer, R. (2015). Successful aging at work: The role of job
crafting. In Aging workers and the employee-employer relationship (pp. 145-161).
Springer International Publishing.
Lai, L., Rousseau, D. M., & Chang, K. T. T. (2009). Idiosyncratic deals: Co-workers as
interested third parties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 547.
Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). Beginning the workday yet already
depleted? Consequences of late-night smartphone use and sleep. Organisational
48
Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 124(1), 11-23.
Lyons, P. (2008). The crafting of jobs and individual differences. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 23(1-2), 25-36.
Miner, A. S. (1987). Idiosyncratic jobs in formalized organisations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 327-351.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). Idiosyncratic deals and organisational commitment.
Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 76(3), 419-427.
Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., & Brenner, S. O. (2008). The effects of transformational
leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being:
A longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 22(1), 16-32.
Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and
proactive behaviour: A multi‐level study. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 31(4),
543-565.
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organisational
research. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 79-93.
Parker, S. K., & Bindl, U. K. (2017). Proactivity at Work: Making things happen in
organisations. New York, USA: Routledge. ISBN 9781848725638.
Perlow, L. A. (1997). Finding time: How corporations, individuals, and families can benefit
from new work practices. Cornell University Press.
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a
job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of
Organisational Behaviour, 33(8), 1120-1141.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviours: The
mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management journal, 49(2),
327-340.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.
Randall, D. M., Paul Huo, Y., & Pawelk, P. (1993). Social desirability bias in cross-cultural
ethics research. The International Journal of Organisational Analysis, 1(2), 185-202.
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in
social perception and attribution processes. Journal of experimental social psychology,
13(3), 279-301.
49
Rousseau, D. M. (2005). I-deals, idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves. ME
Sharpe.
Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in
employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 977-994.
Rousseau, D. M., Hornung, S., & Kim, T. G. (2009). Idiosyncratic deals: Testing propositions
on timing, content, and the employment relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
74: 338‐348.
Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). The conceptualisation and measurement of work
engagement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and
psychological measurement, 66(4), 701-716.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic
approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3(1), 71-92.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2006). About the role of positive and negative emotions
in managers’ well-being: A study using the Job-related Affective Well-being Scale
(JAWS). Gedrag & Organisatie, 19(4), 223-244.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career
success. Journal of applied psychology, 84(3), 416.
Serrano, S. A., & Reichard, R. J. (2011). Leadership strategies for an engaged workforce.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63(3), 176.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the
interface between nonwork and work. Journal of applied psychology, 88(3), 518.
Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Not all days are created equal: The
concept of state work engagement. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory
and research, 25-38.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organisational research truth or urban legend?.
Organisational research methods, 9(2), 221-232.
Spitzmuller, M., Sin, H. P., Howe, M., & Fatimah, S. (2015). Investigating the uniqueness and
usefulness of proactive personality in organisational research: A meta-analytic review.
Human Performance, 28(4), 351-379.
50
Teuchmann, K., Totterdell, P., & Parker, S. K. (1999). Rushed, unhappy, and drained: an
experience sampling study of relations between time pressure, perceived control,
mood, and emotional exhaustion in a group of accountants. Journal of occupational
health psychology, 4(1), 37.
Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in
organisations: A comparative meta‐analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal
of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 83(2), 275-300.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting
scale. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 80(1), 173-186.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job
resources, and well-being. Journal of occupational health psychology, 18(2), 230.
Tims, M., B. Bakker, A., & Derks, D. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy
performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 490-507.
Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean‐up in proactivity research: A meta‐analysis
on the nomological net of work‐related proactivity concepts and their incremental
validities. Applied Psychology, 62(1), 44-96.
Van der Meij, K., & Bal, P. M. (2013). De ideale ‘Idiosyncratic-deal’. Gedrag en Organisatie,
26(2), 156-181.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of
the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work.
Wrzesniewski, A., Berg, J. M., & Dutton, J. E. (2010). Managing yourself: Turn the job you
have into the job you want. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 114-117.
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.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement
and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal
of occupational and organizational psychology, 82(1), 183-200.
51
APPENDIX I - SURVEYS
BETWEEN VARIABLES
Control Demographics: age, gender, manager tenure, organisational tenure
General-level Job crafting
(Petrou et al, 2012)
General-level of seeking resources
1. I ask others for feedback on my job performance
2. I ask colleagues for advice
3. I ask my supervisor for advice
4. I try to learn new things at work
5. I contacted other people from work (e.g., colleagues, supervisors) to get the necessary
information for completing my tasks
6. When I have difficulties or problems at my work, I discuss them with people from my
work environment
General-level of seeking challenges
1. I ask for more tasks if I finish my work
2. I ask for more responsibilities
3. I ask for more odd jobs
General-level of reducing demands
1. I try to ensure that my work is emotionally less intense
2. I make sure that my work is mentally less intense
3. I try to ensure that my work is physically less intense
4. I try to simplify the complexity of my tasks at work
General-level of compensatory effort at work – control variable
[Binnewies et al., 2009]
The scale measures how exhausting and straining it is in general to perform at work. It
therefore assesses how much compensatory effort a person has to expend in general to
achieve a certain level of performance. Our measure of compensatory effort differs from
measures of effort that assess the duration or intensity of behaviour. Cronbach’s alpha was.81.
1. It needs much energy to work on my tasks
2. I am doing my work with ease (reverse coded)
3. I have to expend much effort in order to accomplish my tasks
Proactive personality - moderator
6-item adaptation of Bateman and Crant’s (1993) Proactive Personality Scale (Claes et al.,
2005; Parker, 1998)
Geef a.u.b. aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen.
1. Als ik iets zie wat mij niet zint, maak ik het in orde.
2. Ongeacht wat de verwachtingen zijn, als ik in iets geloof dan laat ik het gebeuren.
3. Ik houd ervan om op te komen voor mijn ideeën, ook als anderen tegen zijn.
4. Ik blink uit in het herkennen van kansen en mogelijkheden.
5. Ik ben altijd op zoek naar betere manieren om dingen te doen.
52
6. Als ik in een idee geloof, zal niets me tegenhouden om dit idee werkelijkheid te laten
worden.
Resilience - moderator
10 items Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10). Campbell-Sills & Stein (2007)
Geef a.u.b. aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen.
1. Ik ben in staat om me aan te passen aan veranderingen
2. Ik kan alles wat op me afkomt aan
3. Ik probeer de positieve kant te zien van problemen
4. Omgaan met stress maakt me sterker
5. Ik kom tegenslagen snel te boven
6. Hindernissen beletten mij niet om mijn doelen te bereiken
7. Ik blijf doelgericht (gefocust) als ik onder druk sta
8. Ik raak niet snel ontmoedigd als er iets fout gaat
9. Ik zie mezelf als een sterk persoon
10. Ik kan omgaan met vervelende gevoelens
Career Adapt-Abilities - moderator
Maggiori et al (2015) short-form (CAAS-SF) of Savickas & Porfeli (2012) original version
(CAAS). Netherlands form by van Vianen et al., (2012).
Concern:
1. Thinking about what my future will be like
2. Preparing for the future
3. Becoming aware of the educational and vocational choices that I must make
Control:
1. Making decisions by myself
2. Taking responsibility for my actions
3. Counting on myself
Curiosity:
1. Looking for opportunities to grow as a person
2. Investigating options before making a choice
3. Observing different ways of doing things
Confidence:
1. Taking care to do things well
2. Learning new skills
3. Working up to my ability
HRM practices - moderator
(Jiang, Hu, Liu, & Lepak, 2015)
1. Selection emphasizes traits and abilities required for providing high quality of
performance.
2. Recruitment process uses many different recruiting sources (agencies, universities,
etc.)
3. Selection process is comprehensive (uses interviews, tests, etc.)
4. The subsidiary provides an orientation program for newcomers to learn about the
53
subsidiary.
5. The subsidiary continuously provides training programs.
6. The subsidiary invests considerable time and money in training.
7. Performance appraisals provide employees feedback for personal development.
8. Performance appraisals are based on objective, quantifiable results.
9. Supervisors get together with employees to set their personal goals.
10. Employee salaries and rewards are determined by their performance.
11. The subsidiary attaches importance to the fairness of compensation/rewards.
12. Employees receive monetary or nonmonetary rewards for great effort and good
performance.
13. The subsidiary considers employee off-work situations (family, school, etc.) when
making schedules.
14. The subsidiary has its ways or methods to help employees alleviate work stress.
15. The subsidiary has formal grievance procedures to take care of employee
complaints or appeals.
16. If a decision made might affect employees, the company asks them for opinions in
advance.
17. Employees are often asked to participate in work-related decisions.
18. The subsidiary shares job-related information with employees (e.g., company
operation, sales, etc.).
I-deals – moderator
(Hornung et al. 2008)
Indicate the extent to which in your current job you had asked for and successfully negotiated
individual arrangements different form your peers in terms of:
Flexibility I-deals:
1. Flexibility in starting and ending the working day
2. Individually customised work schedule
3. Flexibility in work-related tasks
Developmental I-deals:
1. On-the-job activities
2. Training opportunities
3. Special opportunities for skill development
4. Career development
Job satisfaction - dependent
(Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979)
Geef a.u.b. aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende uitspraken.
1. Al met al ben ik tevreden met mijn werk
2. In het algemeen houd ik niet van mijn werk
3. In het algemeen ben ik blij om hier te werken
Stress - dependent
(Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986)
Geef a.u.b. aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende uitspraken.
1. Mijn werk is erg stressvol
2. Er gebeuren zeer weinig stressvolle dingen op mijn werk
3. Ik ben erg gestresst door mijn werk
4. Ik voel me bijna nooit gestresst als gevolg van mijn werk
54
Empowering Leadership - independent
(Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005)
A 12-item measure corresponding to four dimensions: enhancing the meaningfulness of work
(3 item), fostering participation in decision-making (3 item), expressing confidence in high
performance (3 item), providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints (3 item).
Enhancing the meaningfulness of work:
1. My manager helps me understand how my objectives and goals relate to that of the
company.
2. My manager helps me understand the importance of my work to the overall effectiveness of
the company.
3. My manager helps me understand how my job fits into the bigger picture.
Fostering participation in decision-making:
4. My manager makes many decision together with me.
5. My manager often consults me on strategic decisions.
6. My manager solicits my opinion on decisions that may affect me.
Expressing confidence in high performance:
7. My manager believes that I can handle demanding tasks.
8. My manager believes in my ability to improve even when I make mistakes.
9. My manager expresses confidence in my ability to perform at a high level.
Providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints:
10. My manager allows me to do my job my way.
11. My manager makes it more efficient for me to do my job by keeping the rules and
regulations simple.
12. My manager allows me to make important decisions quickly to satisfy customer needs.
Work-life Balance
Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualising the work–family interface: An
ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and
family. Journal of occupational health psychology, 5(1), 111.
Negative spillover from work to family:
How often have you experienced each of the following in the past year?
1. Your job reduces the effort you can give to activities at home
2. Stress at work makes your irritable at home
3. Your job makes you feel too tired to do the things that need attention at home
4. Job worries or problems distract you when you are at home
Positive spillover from work to family
How often have you experienced each of the following in the past year?
1. The things you do at work help you deal with personal and practical issues at home
2. The things you do at work make you a more interesting person at home
3. The skills you use on your job are useful for things you have to do at home
55
Negative spillover from family to work
How often have you experienced each of the following in the past year?
1. Responsibilities at home reduce the effort you can devote to your job
2. Personal or family worries and problems distract you when you are at work
3. Activities and chores at home prevent you from getting the amount of sleep you need to do
your job well
4. Stress at home makes you irritable at work
Positive spillover from family to work
How often have you experienced each of the following in the past year?
1. Talking with someone at home helps you deal with problems at work
2. The love and respect you get at home makes you feel confident about yourself at work
3. Your home life helps you relax and feel ready for the next day’s work
Work engagement
9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006), based on
(Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002)
Vigor (VI)
1. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.
2. At my work, I feel bursting with energy.
3. At my job I feel strong and vigorous.
Dedication (DE)
1. My job inspires me.
2. I am enthusiastic about my job.
3. I am proud on the work that I do.
Absorption (AB)
1. I get carried away when I am working.
2. I am immersed in my work.
3. I feel happy when I am working intensely.
Exhaustion
Winwood, P. C., Winefield, A. H., Dawson, D., & Lushington, K. (2005). Development and
validation of a scale to measure work-related fatigue and recovery: the Occupational Fatigue
Exhaustion/Recovery Scale (OFER). Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
47(6), 594-606.
Q1: I often feel at the end of my rope with my work
Q2: I often dread waking up to another day of my work
Q3: I often wonder how long I can keep going at my work
Q4: I feel most of the time I’m living to work
Q5: My head feels dull/heavy a lot of the time
Q6: I often feel exhausted at work
Q7: Too much is expected of me at my work
56
Q8: My working life takes all my energy from me
Q9: I feel exhausted all the time
WITHIN VARIABLES
Role overload (kwantitatieve job demands)
(Bolino & Turnley, 2005 JAP)
1. The amount of work I am expected to do is too great.
2. I never seem to have enough time to get everything done at work.
3. It often seems like I have too much work for one person to do.
Problem solving demands – independent
Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006) also used daily by
Schimitt et al (2012)
1. The job involves solving problems that have no obvious correct answer.
2. The job requires me to be creative.
3. The job often involves dealing with problems that I have not met before.
4. The job requires unique ideas or solutions to problems.
Decision-making autonomy – independent
Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ); Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006)
1. The job gives me a chance to use my personal initiative or judgement in carrying out
the work.
2. The job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own.
3. The job provides me with significant autonomy in making decisions.
Task Variety – independent
Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ); Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006)
1. The job involves a great deal of task variety.
2. The job involves doing a number of different things.
3. The job requires the performance of a wide range of tasks.
4. Today, my job involved performing a variety of tasks.
Day-level compensatory effort at work - moderator
[Binnewies et al., 2009]
The scale measures how exhausting and straining it was on the specific day to perform at
work. Thus, it assessed how much compensatory effort a person had to expend during the day
to achieve a certain level of performance. Cronbach’s alpha ranged between.78 and.88 (mean
=.85).
1. Today, it needed much energy to work on my tasks
2. Today, I did my work with ease (reverse coded)
3. Today, I had to expend much effort in order to accomplish my tasks
57
Job crafting - mediator
(Petrou et al, 2012)
Day-level seeking resources
1. I have asked others for feedback on my job performance
2. I have asked colleagues for advice
3. I have asked my supervisor for advice
4. I have tried to learn new things at work
Day-level seeking challenges
1. I have asked for more tasks if I finish my work
2. I have asked for more responsibilities
3. I have asked for more odd jobs
Day-level reducing demands
1. I have tried to ensure that my work is emotionally less intense
2. I have made sure that my work is mentally less intense
3. I have tried to ensure that my work is physically less intense
Day-level Work Engagement - dependent
Day-level version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti, &
Hetland, 2012)
1. Today, I felt bursting with energy. (Vi)
2. Today, I felt strong and vigorous at my job. (Vi)
3. When I got up this morning, I felt like going to work. (Vi)
4. Today, I was enthusiastic about my job (De)
5. Today, my job inspired me (De)
6. Today, I was proud of the work that I do (De)
7. Today, I felt happy when I was working intensely (Ab)
8. Today, I was immersed in my work (Ab)
9. Today, I got carried away when I was working (Ab)
Day-level fatigue – dependent
The Profile of Mood States (POMS; McNair, Lorr, & Droppleman, 1971; Zohar et al., 2003)
Please indicate how you feel at the moment:
1. Exhausted
2. Fatigued
3. Weary
4. Spent
Day-level Job satisfaction – dependent
Faces Scale (Kunin, 1955, 1998)
[The Faces Scale is widely used in organisational psychology (e.g., Barsky, Thoresen,
Warren, & Kaplan, 2004; Claessens, Van Eerde, Rutte, & Roe, 2004). Research suggests that
single-item measures of job satisfaction can be as reliable and valid as measures consisting of
multiple items (Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997).]
58
1. Please indicate how satisfied you are with your job today.
Day-level task performance
Tims et al (2014) used four items adapted from Williams and Anderson’s (1991) scale (the
negatively worded items were not included). An example item reads: “Today, I adequately
completed assigned duties.” The answering categories ranged from (1) not at all characteristic
of me to (5) very characteristic of me. Cronbach’s alpha of this scale ranged from 0.85 to 0.90
(Mean = 0.88). Williams and Anderson’s (1991) scale is the following:
1. Adequately completes assigned duties
2. Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description
3. Performs tasks that are expected of him/her
4. Meets formal performance requirements of the job
5. Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance evaluation
6. Neglects aspects of the job he/she is obligated to perform (R)
Fails to perform essential duties (R)
59
APPENDIX II – COVER LETTER
Geachte deelnemer,
Welkom en hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek. U ontvangt deze e-mail omdat
u heeft aangegeven om deel te nemen aan dit onderzoeksproject dat wordt uitgevoerd door drie
studenten, in samenwerking met het onderzoeksteam van de Leadership & Management
afdeling van de Amsterdam Business School, aan de UvA. Dit project beoogt ons meer inzicht
te geven in verschillende kanten van uw werk en de impact dat dit heeft per dag in de week.
Wat moet u weten over dit onderzoek?
• Vandaag bent u uitgenodigd om deze vragenlijst in te vullen, welke ongeveer 20
minuten van uw tijd zal kosten. De link naar deze vragenlijst vindt u onderaan deze
mail.
• Volgende week zal er elke werkdag (van maandag tot vrijdag om 16:00) een
vragenlijst naar u worden gestuurd, welke maar 6 minuten van uw tijd zal kosten. Zorg
er alstublieft voor dat u deze vragenlijst elke dag, vóór het verlaten van uw werkplek,
invult. De vragenlijst kan uiterlijk vóór het slapengaan worden ingevuld.
Uw hulp en bereidheid om de vragen te beantwoorden wordt ontzettend gewaardeerd.
Deelnemers die alle vragenlijsten volledig invullen zullen deelnemen aan een loting en maken
kans op één van de 6 vouchers van Bol.com t.w.v. €50,-!
Volg deze link om naar de vragenlijst te gaan:
Take the survey
Of kopieer en plak de onderstaande URL in de adresbalk van uw internet browser:
https://uvafeb.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8I0DirFA3i5fkbP?Q_DL=7ar5asOuy2DXlT7_8I
0DirFA3i5fkbP_MLRP_elICCMIOt0XDFhb&Q_CHL=e-mail
Follow the link to opt out of future emails:
Click here to unsubscribe
Als u vragen heeft over dit onderzoek kunt u contact opnemen met Alies, Kim of Sanne via
[email protected] of het telefoonnummer: +31628427183.
Alvast hartelijk bedankt voor uw waardevolle deelname!
Het onderzoeksteam:
Kim van Beek
Alies Louwen
Sanne Rietveld
Eloisa Federici