Modelling job crafting
Modelling job crafting behaviours: Implications for work engagement
Arnold B Bakker, Alfredo Rodríguez Muñoz and Ana I Sanz Vergel
Abstract
In this study among 206 employees (103 dyads), we followed the job demands–
resources approach of job crafting to investigate whether proactively changing one’s
work environment influences employee’s (actor’s) own and colleague s (partner’s) work
engagement. Using social cognitive theory, we hypothesized that employees would
imitate each other’s job crafting behaviours, and therefore influence each other’s work
engagement. Results showed that the crafting of social and structural job resources, and
the crafting of challenge job demands was positively related to own work engagement,
whereas decreasing hindrance job demands was unrelated to own engagement. As
predicted, results showed a reciprocal relationship between dyad members’ job crafting
behaviours – each of the actor’s job crafting behaviours was positively related to the
partner’s job crafting behaviours. Finally, employee’s job crafting was related to
colleague’s work engagement through colleague’s job crafting, suggesting a modelling
process.
Keywords
Actor–partner interdependence model; Job crafting; Proactive behaviour; Social
cognitive theory; Work engagement
Modelling job crafting
Traditional job design theories, like job characteristics theory (Hackman & Oldham,
1980) and the interdisciplinary approach to job design (Campion, 1988), propose that
employees can be motivated through the design of their job. However, since employees
working in contemporary organizations likely have at least some latitude to modify their
jobs (Oldham & Hackman, 2010), there is increasing interest in the way employees
influence or shape their own jobs. Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) refer to this
influence as job crafting, defined as “the actions employees take to shape, mold, and
redefine their jobs” (p.180). Job crafting may include changing what one does as a part
of the job, how one approaches work, or how one interacts with others. Job crafting can
also take the form of increasing one’s own job challenges and job resources, as well as
decreasing one’s hindrance job demands (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012).
There is accumulating evidence that job crafting has a positive impact on job
satisfaction, work engagement, and job performance (Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012;
Laurence, 2010; Lyons, 2008; Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, & Hetland, 2012;
Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2013). In the present study, we aim to expand this literature by
investigating the impact of job crafting on one’s direct colleague. We will use social
cognitive theory to argue that employees may imitate each other’s job crafting
behaviours, and influence each other’s work engagement. With our study among dyads
of employees, we may contribute to the field in two different ways. First, using Tims et
al.’s (2012) conceptualization of job crafting, we examine how different job crafting
behaviours may be modelled among co-workers. Evidence for the modelling of job
crafting would confirm the interpersonal consequences of proactive behaviour at work.
Second, we investigate whether employee job crafting can influence co-worker’s work
engagement – an affective, motivational state consisting of vigour, dedication, and
absorption (Bakker, 2011). Previous research has indicated that work engagement is
Modelling job crafting
linked to important organizational outcomes (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011), thus
emphasizing the relevance of this outcome. We use the Actor-Partner Interdependence
Model (APIM; Kashy & Kenny, 2000) as a statistical technique to investigate reciprocal
effects between the members of the dyads.
Theoretical background
People are not “passive recipients of environmental presses” (Buss, 1987, p.
1220). Instead, they actively influence their own environment, with the aim to align the
environment with their preferences and abilities (Tims & Bakker, 2010), and to change
the meaning of their work (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). The latter authors
introduced the concept of “job crafting” to refer to this process of employees shaping
their jobs. They proposed that job crafting can take the form of physical and cognitive
changes individuals make in their task or relational boundaries. In this approach,
physical changes refer to changes in the form, scope or number of job tasks, whereas
cognitive changes refer to changes in how one perceives the job. Changes in one’s
relational boundaries refer to changing the interactions and relationships individuals
have with others at work
Wrzesniewski and Dutton’s (2001) definition of job crafting is restricted to those
changes that employees may make in their specific work tasks, relationships at work,
and cognitions about work. Some recent studies have suggested that job crafting may
take other forms as well. For example, Lyons (2008) found that the salespersons in his
study engaged in self-initiated skill development. In another study, Laurence (2010)
showed that job crafting can take the form of contraction – job crafting behaviours that
aim to decrease stimulation or reduce the complexity of the task or relational
environment. Finally, research by Petrou et al. (2012) showed that employees engage in
Modelling job crafting
job crafting by asking for feedback and social support when needed, and by actively
searching for job challenges.
Results from these studies provide evidence for job crafting as private
behaviour. However, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) point out that the opportunity to
perform this type of behaviours as well as the effects of job crafting may depend on
others – including colleagues and supervisors. Indeed, there is evidence that job crafting
is not merely and individual behaviour since groups of individuals may craft their jobs
to meet shared objectives (Leana, Appelbaum, & Shevchuk, 2009). The latter authors
use the term “collaborative job crafting” to refer to workers who together customize
how their work is organized and enacted (p. 1170). In a recent study, Tims, Bakker,
Derks and Van Rhenen (2013) also found evidence for team-level job crafting, and
showed how team job crafting influenced individual performance through individual
work engagement.
The Job Demands-Resources model approach to job crafting
In the present study, we follow the Job Demands-Resources model (JD-R)
approach to job crafting (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Tims et al., 2012), because we are
interested in how employee-driven changes in job characteristics contribute to work
engagement. JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008, 2014) proposes that all job
characteristics can be categorized as either job demands or job resources. Job demands
refer to those physical, social or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained
effort at the physical or cognitive levels. Job resources are defined as aspects of the job
that may be helpful to achieve work goals, to reduce demands or to stimulate personal
growth. According to the theory, job demands and job resources initiate two different,
simultaneous processes, with chronic high job demands leading to strain, health
Modelling job crafting
problems and absenteeism (‘health impairment process’), and high job resources leading
to positive organizational outcomes (‘motivational process’) (Demerouti, Bakker,
Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). Job demands and resources also interact and their
combination explains additional variance in strain and work engagement, and indirectly
in performance. Specifically, job resources buffer the undesirable impact of job
demands on strain, whereas challenge job demands ‘boost’ the positive impact of job
resources on work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). By framing job crafting in
terms of job demands and job resources, we are able to capture a wide variety of aspects
(i.e., job characteristics) that employees may proactively change in their jobs.
On the basis of JD-R theory, Tims et al. (2012) empirically distinguished four
dimensions of job crafting, namely: (1) increasing structural job resources, (2)
increasing social job resources, (3) increasing challenge job demands, and (4)
decreasing hindrance job demands. These dimensions refer to actual behaviours, that is,
what people actually do to change or shape their jobs. Increasing structural resources
refers to proactively mobilizing job resources such as opportunities for development,
autonomy, or skill variety, whereas increasing social resources refers to seeking social
support, supervisory coaching, or performance feedback. The two other dimensions of
job crafting, increasing challenge demands and decreasing hindrance demands are based
on extensions of the JD-R model, differentiating between hindrance and challenge
demands.
According to Crawford, LePine, and Rich (2010), challenge job demands are
appraised as demands that have the potential to promote mastery and future gains,
whereas hindrance job demands are perceived as constraints that block progress.
Examples of challenges demands are work pressure or job complexity, while hindrance
demands include role conflict or role ambiguity. These authors found that challenge
