Research Master’s Psychology Thesis
Department of Work- and Organizational Psychology
How Can Researchers Cope With the Academic Competition?
-
Testing a Job Crafting Intervention -
Author
Rebecca Maria Fruwert Student number: 10408185
Robstraat 15 1531 CH Wormer
Supervisors Machteld Van den Heuvel
Bianca Beersma
Second assessor Melvyn Hamstra
Table of Contents Abstract ... 5 Research Question 1 ... 8 Method ... 13 Results ... 16 Discussion ... 19 Research Question 2 ... 23 Method ... 26 Results ... 29 Discussion ... 30 Research Question 3 ... 35 Method ... 39 Results ... 40 Discussion ... 42 Research Question 4 ... 43 Method ... 51 Results ... 54 Discussion ... 62 General Discussion ... 69
Strengths, Limitations and Future Research ... 69
Practical Implications ... 73
Conclusion ... 77
References ... 78
List of Tables
Table 1. Chronological Order of the Measures per Group ... 90
Table 2. Items for the Work Engagement, Distress and Social Support Scales ... 91
Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations Between Control Variables ... 93
Table 4. Regression Analyses for the Perceived Competitive Pressure for Publications ... 94
Table 5. Regression Analyses for the Perceived Competitive Pressure for Funding ... 95
Table 6. Regression Analyses for the Perceived Competitive Pressure for Promotions ... 96
Table 7a. Moderation Analysis with CP for Publications as IV ... 97
Table 7b. Moderation Analysis with CP for Promotions as IV ... 98
Table 7c. Moderation Analysis with Effort-Reward-Balance of Publications as IV ... 99
Table 7d. Moderation Analysis with Effort-Reward-Balance of Funding as IV ... 100
Table 7e. Moderation Analysis with Effort-Reward-Balance of Promotions as IV ... 101
Table 8. Causes and Consequences of Competitive Pressure ... 102
Table 9. Correlations Between Personal Resources ... 117
Table 10. Coping Strategies Collected in the Pilot Study ... 118
Table 11. Correlations Between Resources, Work Engagement and Distress ... 127
Table 12. Strategies of Researchers in the Cognitive Job Crafting Group ... 128
Table 13. Strategies of Researchers in the Relational Job Crafting Group ... 134
List of Figures
Figure 1. The Job Demands-Resources model ... 139
Figure 2. Interaction of Resources and Demands on Work Engagement ... 140
Figure 3. Theoretical Model of the Expected Outcomes for Research Question 2 ... 141
Figure 4. Theoretical Model of the Expected Outcomes for Research Question 4 ... 142
Abstract
Academic competition fosters negative outcomes on the societal, collegial and individual level. Our aim was to test an intervention for researchers to increase work engagement and decrease distress. The Job Demands-Resources model proposes that with increased resources, the harmful effects of job demands can be attenuated. Based on this proposition, we
hypothesized that relational job crafting (i.e. collaborating) would increase social resources (i.e. practical assistance), and that cognitive job crafting (i.e. focusing on positive job aspects) would increase personal resources (i.e. meaning of work), and thereby foster work
engagement and decrease distress. We conducted a randomized controlled online intervention study over one week with 214 Dutch researchers. Unexpectedly, personal and social
resources, but also distress decreased in all groups. Most remarkably, however, the mere thinking about the causes and consequences of the academic competition increased negative feelings towards work, demonstrating the harmful effect of working in a competitive
environment experimentally. Effect sizes of all effects were small to moderate. We discuss potential drawbacks of our study design and derive recommendations for future job crafting interventions.
"(…) he sends funding proposals to compete for outside funding, manuscript submissions to compete for published articles,
evidence portfolios to compete for his academic ranking, and applications to deans to compete for promotion. Each of these submissions has a high chance for rejection."
(Carson, Bartneck, & Voges, 2013, p.188)
Competition, the situation where the number of competitors exceeds the amount of resources and rewards (Pfeffer, 1992), is generally believed to bring out the best in us. Because academic competition provides incentives for extraordinary effort, it is traditionally seen as the drive for innovation, creativity, and research productivity (Hagstrom, 1974). In academia, the incentives for extraordinary effort are scarce rewards, such as grants,
publications, and higher-rank positions (Bok, 2003; Carson et al., 2013). With respect to funding, the success rates for receiving a Dutch NWO grant range between 15 and 25% (Lauwen, Gascon, & Blank, 2013). With respect to publications, high impact journals, such as Science and Nature, accept less than 8% of the submitted papers (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2014; Macmillan Publishers Limited, 2014). For those rewards, the competition is bitter, because the number of competitors is much greater than the number of available rewards (Pfeffer, 1992). The perceived competitive pressure is defined as the perceived necessity to take competitive action (Zucchini & Kretschmer, 2011). This subjective perception determines which competitive strategies researchers initiate in order to increase their success chances for publishing and attracting grants, and thereby build a good reputation and promising career prospects (De Weert, 2001).
Even though the perceived competitive pressure plays a critical role for academics, previous research on the consequences of working in a competitive environment is rare. We argue that the perceived competitive pressure has serious negative effects on researchers. By
means of four research questions we will shed light into the effects of working in a
competitive environment, and we will test possible interventions for researchers to strengthen their well-being at work. As a first research question, we will investigate if the perceived competitive pressure is a chronic job demand for researchers. We will start by summarizing the Job Demands-Resources model in relation to previous research on competition in
academia, and we will show that the perceived competitive pressure in academia is a chronic job demand for researchers and strongly related to researchers’ health and well-being. While previous studies argued that the competition in academia would be harmful to researchers, they did not clarify which aspects of "the competition" would be harmful, and did not present adequate empirical arguments. We are the first ones to introduce and test a measurable concept regarding researchers’ perceptions about the competition for publications, funding and promotions in academia. As a second research question, we will explore if the pure thinking about the competitive academic environment evokes negative affective reactions towards work. With the results of our controlled experiment, we will add empirical evidence to our claim that working in a competitive environment is harmful to researchers. Those insights highlight the necessity to derive and test an intervention for researchers in order to enhance motivation and health outcomes. Within the scope of our third research question, we will derive job crafting strategies for academics in order to create and maintain beneficial outcomes in the light of the competitive work environment. As fourth and final research question, we will test if researchers can increase their work engagement and decrease their distress level by means of our intervention. Even though some researchers before us have argued that the academic career and reward system should be adjusted, no study approached this problem on the individual level. In our view, interventions that strenghten the individuals are especially appropriate where problems emerge at the systemic level and cannot directly be influenced by those who suffer from it.
Research Question 1
Is the Perceived Competitive Pressure a Job Demand for Researchers?
A widely used model that can explain both positive and negative motivational and health outcomes is the Job Demands-Resources model (JD-R; Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), which is displayed in Figure 1.
Job demands cover a wide range of physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological effort, and are
therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs (Demerouti et al., 2001). Job demands are not necessarily negative, but may become stressors and can impair employee health when they exhaust mental and physical resources (Demerouti et al., 2001). Distress is one category of psychological symptoms that is fostered by high job demands, which is characterized by feelings of tension and worry (Terluin, Van Rhenen, Schaufeli, & De Haan, 2004).
There is some evidence that the perceived competitive pressure for publications, funding and promotions is a chronic job demand for researchers. Researchers who perceive high levels of competitive pressure are likely to engage in behaviors that require sustained effort to maintain a competitive advantage (Zucchini & Kretschmer, 2011). This competitive effort evoked by the perceived competitive pressure is likely to be associated with certain costs on the individual, collegial and societal level, and therefore a chronic job demand for researchers (Demerouti et al., 2001). Anderson, Ronning, De Vries and Martinson (2007) conducted interviews with researchers to analyze the effects of academic competition. As researchers’ main competitive actions, the authors identified self-promoting and strategic behaviors, as well as an engagement in questionable research conduct.
Regarding collegial relationships among researchers, Anderson and her colleagues (2007) found that the competitive pressure for publications, funding and the limited higher-rank positions induces self-protective and self-promoting behaviors in researchers.
Researchers collaborate less and mistrust each other, share less information, fight for first authorships and even interfere with the peer-review processes to maintain their competitive advantage (Anderson et al., 2007). This could be at the expense of developing authentic social relationships at work as well as fruitful networks.
Regarding strategic behaviors, Anderson and her colleagues (2007) found that
researchers often align their research focus with (or are assigned to) priority areas that have a high probability of funding and being published, which increases their visibility and chances for promotion. However, those areas do not necessarily coincide with their interests and motivations (Anderson et al., 2007). This is detrimental for a personally meaningful professionalism and instead fosters the motivation to outperform others and the fear to fail among researchers (Carson et al., 2013). Researchers are thus likely to lack positive feelings towards their work. This lack of motivation and commitment might not only result in low work engagement, but also in a lower standard of work (Wood, 1990) – which is where competitive actions do not only affect researchers on the individual and collegial level, but also spread to involve the public.
Regarding scientific misconduct, there is a positive relationship between the level of perceived competition in an academic department and the probability that colleagues observe misconduct among each other (Louis, Anderson, & Rosenberg, 1995). The perceived
competitive pressure for publications and funding increases the ambition to produce more and better proposals and manuscripts for the next assessment round, which restricts the time for serious reading and reflective research (Roberts, 2007). Martinson, Anderson and De Vries (2005) mention the academic competition as a main cause of scientific misbehaviors,
such as fabricating data, non-falsification of own research and plagiarism. Research integrity, however, is crucial for scientific and societal progress and should be aspired by researchers and prioritized by policy makers.
Previous studies report the academic competition as a main source of distress and dissatisfaction in researchers (Anderson et al., 2007; Carson et al., 2013; Gillespie, Walsh, Winefield, Dua, & Stough, 2001; Kinman & Jones, 2003). However, those studies did not examine the statistical relationship between perceived levels of competition and job
outcomes. Carson and her colleagues (2013) wrote an extensive and emotional essay about the "negative effects of highly competitive systems", but did not define clear competition-related constructs and their exact impacts. Gillespie and her colleagues (2001) and Anderson and her colleagues (2007) conducted group discussions and interviews with researchers and based their insights on qualitative data. Kinman and Jones (2003) reported that almost 60% of the researchers in their study agreed that the increasingly competitive atmosphere was a stressor for academics, but a measure of the statistical relationship remained to be
established. To examine the scope of the problem and its precise effects, quantitative work is needed. In this study, we wanted to test the mostly anecdotal evidence presented above empirically. We argued that the perceived competitive pressure for publications, funding and promotions is a chronic job demand for researchers, because in order to remain competitive and increase their success chances, researchers engage in competitive actions, such as self-promotion, strategic behaviors and dubious research conduct. Those behaviors are associated with certain psychological costs, such as negative feelings towards work, and social costs, such as mistrusting relationships amongst colleagues. According to the JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001) chronic demands foster exhaustion and distress, because they are associated with psychological costs. We therefore predict:
Hypothesis 1a: The perceived competitive pressure for publications is positively related to distress.
Hypothesis 2a: The perceived competitive pressure for funding is positively related to distress.
Hypothesis 3a: The perceived competitive pressure for promotions is positively related to distress.
Besides job demands, job resources play a critical role in predicting motivation and health outcomes. Job resources cover a wide range of job aspects that help achieving work goals and support personal growth, learning, and development (Demerouti et al., 2001). Job resources foster work engagement, which is defined as a positive affective or motivational reaction towards the job that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Even though high demands are not directly associated with work
engagement, we will test if the perceived competitive pressure for publications, funding and promotions is related to it. According to the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), a potential negative relationship between job demands and work engagement could either be explained by a mediation by distress (i.e. high demands increase distress, which decreases work engagement), or a mediation by job resources (high demands restrict job resources, such as social support, which decreases work engagement; see Figure 1).
Hypothesis 1b: The perceived competitive pressure for publications is negatively related to work engagement.
Hypothesis 2b: The perceived competitive pressure for funding is negatively related to work engagement.
Hypothesis 3b: The perceived competitive pressure for promotions is negatively related to work engagement.
Effort-Reward-Balance as Job Resource
A competition is characterized by a superior number of competitors as compared to the number of resources (Pfeffer, 1992). A lack of rewards, as reflected in unsuccessful grant proposals, rejected manuscripts and insufficient promotion possibilities, is therefore one consequence of the academic competition for many researchers, and has been identified as a cause of stress in academics (Day, 2011; Gillespie et al., 2001; Kinman & Jones, 2008). It should therefore be considered in this study.
The Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) model (Siegrist, 1996) explains the negative effects of a perceived lack of rewards on researchers’ health and well-being. It states that when the perceived rewards are lower than the rewards one believes to have deserved, negative emotions, demotivation and strain can develop (Siegrist, 1996). When researchers perceive high levels of competitive pressure, they are likely to put extraordinary efforts in writing high-quality proposals and papers to increase their success chances. However, they receive many rejections due to the low acceptance rates (Carson et al., 2007). In terms of the JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001), a combination of high job demands (high perceived competitive pressure) with low psychological resources (a perceived imbalance of effort and rewards) is likely to foster strain (Figure 1). Therefore, we will test explorative if a perceived balance of effort and rewards buffers against the effects of high job demands, in a way that when researchers perceive high levels of competitive pressure, a perceived balance of effort and rewards, in contrast to a perceived imbalance, decreases distress.
Finally, the JD-R model proposes that job resources particularly foster work
engagement when job demands are high (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). This is in accordance with Hobfoll’s (1989) Conservation of Resources Theory, which proposes that people are motivated to gain valuable resources, especially in the context of resource loss. This implies that job resources particularly show their motivational potential when employees are
confronted with high job demands, which exhaust resources. In line with this proposition, we will test explorative if job demands moderate the relationship between job resources and work engagement, in a way that high levels of perceived competitive pressure foster work engagement, when researchers perceive a good balance of effort and rewards.
Method
Participants. The study was conducted in May 2014. Within the scope of research question 1, 2 and 4, we contacted 1298 researchers from ten Dutch universities by email. Email addresses were taken from the university homepage. The competitive pressure is likely to be especially present in early- and mid-career researchers, who are working on their
reputation and strive for recognition (Carson et al., 2013). Therefore, we contacted early- and mid-career researchers, i.e. post-docs and assistant professors.
In total, 214 researchers completed the survey, which is a response rate of 16.5%. This is more than in the study by Mark and Smith (2012), who received 11% responses from a British university staff sample, but lower than in the study by Winefield and his colleagues (2003), who received 25% responses from an Australian sample. There was a selective response of gender. When comparing those who did and those who did not participate in our study, females were more likely than males to participate in the study, F(1,1295) = 3.11, p < .10. Thus, the sample is not representative of the population because of the selection effect in gender. Assistant professors and post-docs, as well as researchers from the natural and social sciences were equally likely to participate, F(1,1295) = 0.14, ns, and F(1,1295) = 1.12, ns.
There were 152 researchers who provided evaluable data for this study. The remaining researchers belonged to the experimental group described within the scope of research question 2. The researchers covered a wide range of social sciences (i.e. psychology, sociology, political science, law) and natural sciences (i.e. biology, chemistry,
of the researchers were female, 70% (N = 107) were assistant professors, 81% (N = 123) worked full-time, 55% (N = 87) were temporarily employed, and of those who were
temporarily employed, 39% (N = 34) were on a tenure track. Of the tenure trackers, 94% (N = 32) indicated that publishing a certain number of papers was a requirement for tenure, and 85% (N = 29) indicated that attracting grants was a requirement for tenure. Researchers were on average 36.78 years old (SD = 6.07) and held their position for 4.04 years (SD = 3.31).
Procedure. Due to time restrictions, the data for all quantitative results within the scope of research question 1, 2 and 4 were gathered in one study with one experimental group, two intervention groups and one control group. The study design by group and over time, additionally explaining which variables and analyses were used for which research question, is displayed in Table 1. Here we report the results of the baseline measures of the two intervention groups and the control groups taken together.
For all participants and all subsequent research questions the following aspects of the procedure were the same: Upon clicking on the survey link, the computer program
"Qualtrics" assigned researchers randomly to one of the four conditions. Participants were not aware of the randomization. Before filling in the online questionnaire, participants were truthfully informed about the purpose and procedure of the study and that they could win a gift voucher worth 25€. All researchers gave their consent to participate by ticking a box before the data collection started. Demographics, distress and work engagement were
measured first. Effort-reward-balance and the perception about the competitive pressure were measured thereafter. All researchers were thanked and given the opportunity to ask questions and leave comments about the study.
Measures.
Perceived competitive pressure. Perceived competitive pressure was measured with
self-constructed items were: "I perceive the competitive pressure for publications / external funding / limited higher-rank positions as...", with answers ranging from 1 (Very low) to 5 (Very high). Reliability was relatively low, α = .60, indicating that the three items should be considered as discrete stressors for academics in their own right.
Effort-reward-balance. The items were based on the effort-reward-imbalance scale
by Siegrist and his colleagues (2004). The three items ("Considering all my efforts to attract funding, I receive the grants I deserve", "My current publication status (number and citations of publications) adequately reflects my efforts" and "Considering all my efforts and
achievements, my career prospects are adequate") were answered on 5-point agreement scales. Lower scores on these scales reflect a higher perceived imbalance of effort and rewards, and higher sores reflect a subjectively higher balance of effort and rewards. The reliability for this scale was relatively low, α = .59, indicating that the three items should be considered as discrete stressors for researchers in their own right.
Work engagement. Work engagement was measured with the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (UWES-9; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). The short form with nine items measures vigor, dedication and absorption with three items per subscale. Vigor refers to high levels of energy, mental resilience and persistence while working (e.g. "At my work, I feel bursting with energy"). Dedication refers to high levels of enthusiasm,
inspiration, and pride in one’s work (e.g. "I am enthusiastic about my job"). Absorption refers to high levels of concentration and immersion in one’s work (e.g. "I am immersed in my job"). Items were answered on a 6-point scale, ranging from 1 (Never) to 6 (Always). The scale was reliable, α = .90. The items are listed in Table 2.
Distress. Distress was measured with a subscale from the Four-Dimensional
Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) by Terluin and his colleagues (2004). The 16 items were answered on a 5-point scale, indicating how often participants experienced certain symptoms,
such as worry, disturbed sleep, tension and irritation, within the last two weeks. Categories were 1 (Never; 0 points), 2 (Sometimes; 1 point), 3 (Regularly; 2 points), 4 (Often; 2 points) and 5 (Very often; 2 points). The points of each item were added, which results in a possible score range between 0 and 32. The clinical cut-off point is a score greater than 10. The scale was reliable, α = .92. The items are listed in Table 2.
Control variables. Control variables were age, gender (0 = female, 1 = male), current
position (0 = post-doc, 1 = assistant professor), years in current position, tenure track (0 = on tenure track, 1 = not on tenure track), discipline (0 = natural sciences, 1 = social sciences), contract type (0 = permanently employed, 1 = temporarily employed), and employment (0 = full-time, 1 = part-time).
Results
Descriptive statistics and control variables. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between the control variables, perceived competitive pressure, effort-reward balance, work engagement and distress are displayed in Table 3.
The means of the perceived competitive pressure scales were high, with M = 4.22 (SD = 0.82) for the competitive pressure for funding, M = 4.14 (SD = 0.78) for the competitive pressure for publications, M = 3.85 (SD = 0.99) for the competitive pressure for promotions. Effort-reward balance was neither extremely high nor low, with M = 2.85 (SD = 1.07) for funding, M = 3.05 (SD = 1.08) for publications, and M = 2.95 (SD = 1.04) for promotion possibilities. The means for work engagement (M = 4.39, SD = 0.83) and distress (M = 10.58, SD = 5.91) were both remarkably high. The distress mean is interpreted as clinically
significant.
Not surprisingly, there were more females than males from the social sciences, and females were more part-time employed than their male colleagues. Females experienced more competitive pressure for publications, and a worse balance of effort and promotion
possibilities than males. Researchers from the natural sciences perceived more competitive pressure for promotions than their colleagues from the social sciences. Not surprisingly, assistant professors, as compared to post-docs, perceived less competitive pressure for promotions, and more effort-reward-balance of publications and promotion possibilities. Older researchers were less engaged than their younger colleagues, and part-time researchers were less engaged than full-timers. For work engagement as dependent variable we therefore control for age and employment (full- versus part-time) in the subsequent analyses.
Temporarily employed researchers were more distressed than their permanently employed colleagues. For distress as dependent variable we therefore control for contract type (permanent versus temporary) in the subsequent analyses.
Competitive pressure for publications. Hypothesis 1 stated that the perceived competitive pressure for publications would be a) positively related to distress, and b) negatively related to work engagement. We tested this claim with multiple regression analyses. Test statistics of the multiple regressions are shown in Table 4. Researchers who perceived more competitive pressure (CP) for publications also reported more distress, β = .26, t(148) = 3.27, p < .01. The model explained 7.4% of the variance in distress, and CP for publications added 6.6% variance explanation to the control variable. Hypothesis 1a was supported. Researchers who perceived more CP for publications also reported less work engagement, β = -.17, t(147) = -2.14, p < .05. The model explained 8% of the variance in work engagement, and CP for publications added 2.9% variance explanation to the control variables. Hypothesis 1b was supported.
Competitive pressure for funding. Hypothesis 2 stated that the perceived
competitive pressure for funding would be a) positively related to distress, and b) negatively related to work engagement. Test statistics of the multiple regressions are shown in Table 5. Researchers who perceived more CP for funding did not report more distress, β = .04, t(148)
= 0.45, ns. Hypothesis 2a was not supported. Researchers who perceived more CP for funding did not report less work engagement, β = .10, t(147) = 1.18, ns. Hypothesis 2b was not supported.
Competitive pressure for promotions. Hypothesis 3 stated that the perceived competitive pressure for promotions would be a) positively related to distress, and b) negatively related to work engagement. Test statistics of the multiple regressions are shown in Table 6. Researchers who perceived more CP for promotions also reported more distress, β = .20, t(148) = 2.53, p < .01. The model explained 6.1% of the variance in distress, and CP for promotions added 4.1% variance explanation to the control variable. Hypothesis 3a was supported. Researchers who perceived more CP for promotions did not report less work engagement, β = .02, t(147) = 0.22, ns. Hypothesis 3b was not supported.
Explorative analyses. We first tested if a perceived balance of effort and rewards buffers against the effects of high perceived competitive pressure on distress. Test statistics of the multiple regressions are displayed in Table 7a to 7e. Because CP for funding was not related to distress, we did not run analyses with CP for funding as independent variable. We ran two multiple regression analyses with the CP for promotions and the CP for publications (= demands) as predictors of distress, and effort-reward-balance of promotion possibilities and of publications (= resources) as moderators. However, those calculations were not significant. Moreover, we tested if job demands moderate the relationship between job resources and work engagement, in a way that high perceived competitive pressure fosters work engagement when researchers perceive a good balance of effort and rewards. We ran three multiple regression analyses with effort-reward balance of publications, funding and promotion possibilities (= resources) as predictors of work engagement and CP for
publications, funding and promotions (= demands) as moderators. Of those three regression analyses, one was significant. The perceived competitive pressure for publications moderated
the relationship between effort-reward balance of publications and work engagement, β = .18, t(145) = 2.22, p < .05. The model explained almost 16% of the variance in work engagement. The unstandardized simple slope for researchers scoring 1 SD below the mean of perceived CP for publications was 0.03, t(145) = 0.09, ns. The unstandardized simple slope for researchers with a mean level of perceived CP for publications was 0.17, t(145) = 0.48, ns. The unstandardized simple slope for researchers scoring 1 SD above the mean of perceived CP for publications was 0.32, t(145) = 0.88, ns. Not significant simple slopes imply that the increase in work engagement with increasing levels of effort-reward-balance within the analyzed subgroups was not significant. However, the interaction was significant. This special case of an interaction implies that the differences in the means between researchers scoring 1 SD below and 1SD above the mean at low levels of effort-reward balance differ from the differences in the means at high levels of effort-reward balance (see Figure 2). For clarification: For those who perceive low effort-reward balance, perceiving high levels of competitive pressure is more harmful to work engagement than perceiving low levels of competitive pressure. For those who perceive high effort-reward balance this discrepancy between high versus low perceived competitive pressure is much smaller.
Discussion
Even though researchers work in a highly competitive environment, previous studies did not measure the statistical relationship between the perceived competitive pressure and distress and work engagement. We based our hypotheses on the JD-R model, which argues that chronic job demands foster distress and harm work engagement, because they require sustained effort and thereby deplete mental and physical resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). When researchers perceive high levels of competitive pressure, they engage in
actions are associated with high effort and costs, and therefore positively related to distress, and negatively related to work engagement.
We found that the perceived competitive pressure for publications was positively related to distress and negatively to work engagement, but the competitive pressure for funding was neither related to distress nor to work engagement. In a way, publishing and funding are mutually dependent: Without a solid publication list, the chances to get funding decrease, but without funding, research cannot be conducted and papers cannot be written. So where to start? Apparently, young researchers are mainly stressed by the perceived
competitive pressure for publications, but not by the perceived competitive pressure for funding. One researcher in our study wrote: "In the choice between publishing and
completing grant applications, publishing must be prioritized. It has better chance of success that is lasting". Even though there are grants for early-and mid-career researchers in the Netherlands (i.e. Veni and Vidi grants), in most cases, young researchers are part of a research program and are funded by the project’s budget attracted by senior university staff (De Weert, 2001). Each academic rank follows a hierarchical ladder with increasing
qualifications and responsibilities, and attracting funding seems to be a concern of more tenured colleagues. In contrast to the competitive pressure for funding, there is a high
emphasis on publishing for all researchers, as highlighted by the widely used phrase "publish or perish" (Clapham, 2005). In line with this expression, we could confirm that the perceived competitive pressure for publications explained almost 7% of the variance in distress.
Besides the positive relationship of perceived competitive pressure for publications and distress, we also found a negative relationship with work engagement. Researchers who perceived more competitive pressure for publications were less engaged, i.e. less vigorous, absorbed, and dedicated to their work. Explorative analyses revealed that the CP for publications moderated the relationship between effort-reward balance of publications and
work engagement. The model explained almost 16% of the variance in work engagement. For those who perceived high competitive pressure for publications (i.e. work under higher subjective demands), low rewards (perceived imbalance of effort and publications) were associated with the lowest levels of work engagement. Put differently, insufficient resources were especially harmful under high perceived demands. This is in line with the predictions from the Conservation of Resources Theory, that job resources become especially visible and valuable when work demands are high (Hobfoll, 1989). When researchers perceive an
imbalance between demands and resources, a sustained pressure to compete for publications therefore seems to hinder a vigorous, dedicated and absorbed professionalism - which can be detrimental for the quality of research (Wood, 1990). The proposition of the JD-R model, that high job demands boost work engagement when job resources are high (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007), cannot entirely be supported. A good balance between effort and rewards was related to high levels of work engagement for both those who perceived low and high levels of competitive pressure for publications. Accordingly, high perceived competitive pressure is not necessarily bad. It can be associated with a vigorous, dedicated and absorbed professionalism – on the condition of high perceived effort-reward balance.
Finally, the perceived competitive pressure for promotions was positively related to distress in our sample. CP for promotions explained almost 4% of the variance in distress. We interpret this as a small but not trivial variance explanation, given the complex nature of distress (Terluin et al., 2004). Because researchers perceive a lot of competition for only a limited number of permanent positions, job insecurity is one main stressor for academics (Gilliot, Overlaet, & Verdin, 2002). This is especially true for women, who were particularly attracted by our study, and who perceived a worse balance of effort and promotion
possibilities than their male colleagues. This is, however, not only a perception, but also a fact. With increasing rank, the proportion of women decreases in Dutch universities. In 2011,
47% of the PhD students were female, versus 15% of the professors (De Goede, Belder, & De Jonge, 2013).
Our sample of Dutch researchers showed a remarkably high mean in distress, which was beyond the clinical cut-off point. This could be due to a self-selection of highly
distressed researchers, who might have been especially appealed by our study. However, this is in line with previous studies on researchers’ psychological distress. For example, Bentley, Coates, Dobson, Goedegebuure and Meek (2013) found similar values for personal strain in an international survey with 13403 researchers. Abouserie (1996) found that 74% of the British academic staff was moderately stressed and nearly 15% were seriously stressed. So even though our sample was not representative, we confirm previous studies in the finding that researchers seem to be a highly distressed occupational group. In the light of the high distress scores, we were pleased to see that the means of work engagement were remarkably high and low in variation. This seems somewhat contrary to the distress scores, but we could explain this phenomenon with a self-selection of distressed researchers, who wanted to contribute to this study because they are nevertheless highly dedicated to their work.
For all those findings, a reversed effect cannot be ruled out because of the cross-sectional and observational nature of our study. More distressed researchers might perceive more competitive pressure and see themselves as less successful (cf. Demerouti et al., 2001). In the light of this strong limitation, create stronger evidence for a causal effect of the
perception of competitive pressure on personal outcomes is needed. For that reason, we created a small experiment to demonstrate what happens when researchers reflect on the causes and consequences of competition in academia.
Research Question 2
Does Ruminating About the Academic Competition Foster Negative Reactions Towards Work?
Considering the previous findings, we wanted to simulate realistic thoughts and daily concerns of researchers to experimentally explain and clarify the consequences of being confronted with the competitive academic environment. We conducted a controlled quasi-experiment, where researchers in the competition-focus group thought about the causes and consequences of scientific competition. A repetitive focus on the causes and consequences of a problem has been identified as a main tendency in ruminating (Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, & Lyubomirsky, 2008; Robinson & Alloy 2003). Put simply, rumination is likely to have negative consequences because of its negative content. It is associated with hopelessness, pessimism, low levels of self-efficacy and depression (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008). Researchers who think about the causes and negative consequences of the academic competition are therefore likely to be induced with negative effects. If such a small manipulation would have immediate effects on researchers’ affections towards work, this might demonstrate why working in a competitive environment and being confronted with it on a daily basis has negative effects on researchers’ health and well-being.
Personal Resources
For demonstrating the effects of thinking about the academic competition, personal resources will play a critical role in this study. Personal resources are defined as "aspects of the self that are generally linked to resilience" (Hobfoll, Johnson, Ennis, & Jackson, 2003, p. 632). We will focus on three specific personal resources of which we think play a decisive role in researchers’ functioning at work. Firstly, we aimed to show that thinking about the academic competition decreases researchers’ positive emotions towards their work.
Job-related affective well-being is a summary of the positive and negative emotional reactions to work (Van Katwyk et al., 2000). Secondly, we aimed to show that thinking about the
academic competition decreases researchers’ meaning of work. Meaning of work is defined as an employee’s understanding of the purpose and value of his or her work or what he or she believes is achieved in the work (Brief & Nord, 1990). Finally, we aimed to show that
thinking about the academic competition decreases researchers’ self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure. Self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure is a situation-specific concept of general self-efficacy. Adapted from Bandura (1977), we define it as the belief to be able to cope with the competitive pressure. A theoretical model of the expected effects is displayed in Figure 3.
Meaning of work and job-related affective well-being. We argue that thinking about the consequences of competition in academia causes negative affective reactions towards the job and decreases the perceived meaning of work in researchers. When reflecting on the negative consequences of academic competition, such as deformation of relationships, strategic game-playing, unethical behavior, low quality of research, lack of rewards and high levels of distress, researchers might see less personal meaning and fulfillment in their work (Carson et al., 2013). Realizing those negative effects of competition is likely to decrease positive feelings (i.e. enthusiasm and inspiration), and increase negative feelings (i.e. frustration and sadness) towards one’s work (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008).
Hypothesis 4a: As compared to the control group, researchers in the competition-focus group will experience less job-related affective well-being.
Hypothesis 4b: As compared to the control group, researchers in the competition-focus group will experience less meaning of work.
Self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure. We argue that thinking about the causes of the academic competition is detrimental for researcher’s self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure. The academic competition is characterized by too few rewards for a too large number of competing researchers (Pfeffer, 1992). Those circumstances are environmental conditions which cannot be influenced by the individual. When thinking about those causes of competition, researchers are therefore likely to be induced with the feeling that work outcomes and successes are not self-determined and uncontrollable, which is likely to be accompanied by low self-efficacy (Judge & Bono, 2001).
Hypothesis 4c: As compared to the control group, researchers in the competition-focus group will experience lower self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure.
Achievement Goals
Besides those effects on personal resources, we argue that thinking about the causes of competition in academia will induce either a motivation to outperform others or the fear to perform worse than others in researchers. As argued above, when individuals perceive high levels of competitive action, they are likely to engage in competitive actions, such as promoting behaviors (Anderson et al., 2007; Zucchini & Kretschmer, 2011). To measure self-promoting motivations, we included achievement goals in this study. Mastery goals are focused on the development of intrapersonal competence through task mastery, whereas performance goals are focused on the demonstration of competence as compared to others (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Performance-approach goals (i.e. the motivation to show superior competence as compared to others) and performance-avoidance goals (i.e. the motivation to avoid appearing incompetent as compared to others) are triggered by environments where normative competence is valued (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). This applies to the academic "the-winner-takes-it-all" environment, where researchers have to perform better than others
in order to be successful. The academic reward structure with its focus on extrinsic performance-contingent rewards is therefore likely to induce either a motivation to
outperform others or the fear to perform worse than others in researchers. When reflecting on the causes of competition, researchers might be induced with competitive performance goals. Because we do not see a direct connection, we will test explorative if our manipulation affects mastery-goals.
Hypothesis 4d: As compared to the control group, researchers in the competition-focus group will experience more performance goals.
Method
Participants and data cleansing. Here we report the results of the competition-focus group in comparison to the control group. There were 106 researchers who provided
evaluable data for this study. The remaining researchers belonged to the two intervention groups analyzed for research question 4. Of the 106, 59% (N = 63) were from the social sciences. In total, 57% (N = 61) were female, 74% (N = 78) were assistant professors, 79% (N = 84) worked full-time, 53% (N = 56) were temporarily employed, and of the temporarily employed, 15% (N = 16) were on a tenure track. Researchers were on average 36.25 years old (SD = 5.85) and held their position for 3.95 years (SD = 3.47). There were 56 researchers in the control group and 50 researchers in the competition-focus group.
To check if researchers accomplished their tasks, we evaluated the qualitative data. Of the 50 researchers from the competition-group, we excluded 5 researchers who did not fill in anything. There was 1 researcher who indicated that he or she backed out from the
competition, which we also excluded. Moreover, we doubted researchers whose answers did not fit our expectations. Specifically, 8 researchers were either not concerned about the competition, or saw no consequences, or just thought about positive aspects. Therefore, we
ran two analyses, one with (N = 44), and one without those participants whose answers did not entirely fit our expectations (N = 36). Table 8 shows all answers and indicates which cases were included and which were doubted.
Procedure. For the competition-focus group, the manipulation was to think about the causes and consequences of academic competition. It was formulated as follows: "We now invite you to take your time to think about the following aspects of competitive pressure. 1) How does the academic career and reward system cause competitive pressure on you and other researchers? Please, write down your thoughts. 2) What consequences and implications does the competitive pressure have on you, your daily work experience and your work environment? Please, write down your thoughts". The exact formulation and layout of the exercises are displayed in the supplemental material (p. 145). Meaning of work, job-related affective well-being, self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure, and achievement goals were measured next. Because of the negative effects we expected in this condition, researchers afterwards learned about possible coping strategies to handle the competitive pressure. With that, we hoped to attenuate potential negative feelings. Researchers in the control group first specified demographic information, before meaning of work, job-related affective well-being, self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure, and achievement goals were measured (see Table 1).
Measures.
Personal resources. Job-related affective well-being was measured with the
job-related affective well-being scale (JAWS) by Van Katwyk, Fox, Spector and Kelloway (2000). It contains two subscales, and the twelve items were answered on a 5-point agreement scale. Positive affect was measured with six items ("My job makes me feel… enthusiastic / energetic / inspired / satisfied / at ease / relaxed "), which established a reliable scale, α = .75. Negative affect was measured with six items (furious, angry, frightened,
depressed, discouraged, bored), which established a reliable scale, α = .77. Meaning of work was measured with three items from the meaning subscale of psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995). The items ("The work I do is very important to me", "My job activities are personally meaningful to me" and "The work I do is meaningful to me") were answered on 5-point agreement scales, and established a reliable scale, α = .83. Self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure was measured with three items for publications, funding, and promotions. The scale was constructed based on the guidelines for constructing self-efficacy scales by Bandura (2006). The items ("I can cope with the competitive pressure for funding / publications / promotions") were answered on a 10-point scale, ranging from 1 (cannot do at all) to 10 (highly certainly can do). The scale was reliable, α = .77.
Achievement goals. Achievement goals were measured with eight items on 5-point
agreement scales, adapted from Elliot and McGregor (2001). The items were rephrased for the occupation as a researcher. Performance-approach was measured with two items ("It is important for me to do better than other researchers" and "It is important for me to do well compared to other researchers"), with a Spearman-Brown corrected correlation of r = .71. Performance-avoidance was measured with two items ("I want to avoid doing poorly in my job" and "My fear of performing poorly in my job is often what motivates me"), with a relatively low Spearman-Brown corrected correlation of r = .42. Mastery-approach was measured with two items ("I want to learn as much as possible from my job" and " I strive to completely understand the content that my research field has to offer"), with relatively low Spearman-Brown corrected correlation of r = .22. Mastery-avoidance was measured with two items ("I worry that I might not learn all that I possibly can in my job" and " I am often concerned that I may not learn all that there is to learn in my research field"), with a Spearman-Brown corrected correlation of r = .62.
Data analysis. Hypothesis 4 stated that after thinking about the causes and
consequences of the academic competition, researchers in the competition-focus group would show a) less job-related affective well-being, b) lower meaning of work, c) lower
self-efficacy, and d) more performance goals, as compared to researchers in the control group. Those hypotheses were tested with MANOVAs comparing the control against the
competition focus group after the manipulation, by means of a dummy variable for between-group effects (0 = control between-group, 1 = competition-focus between-group). To control for inflated type I errors we used a multivariate approach. We analyzed the positive and negative job-related affective well-being scales together with meaning and self-efficacy in one MANOVA, because of the substantial correlations. We did the same for the four achievement goals. Correlations between those variables are displayed in Table 9.
For judging mean differences we calculated Cohen’s d as a standardized measure for mean differences, as well as the 95% confidence interval for Cohen’s d. We interpreted Cohen’s d according to common guidelines as small for d ranging from 0.20 to 0.50, as moderate for d > 0.50, and as large for d > 0.80 (Cohen, 1988). In the following, all significances are reported on a 1-tailed significance level because of the directional hypotheses.
Results
Descriptive statistics. In the control group, the "naturally-occurring" (i.e. not
manipulated) means of all four achievement goals were relatively high, with M = 3.63 (SD = 0.89) for performance-approach, M = 3.61 (SD = 3.61) for performance-avoidance, M = 4.10 (SD = 0.66) for mastery-approach and M = 3.12 (SD = 1.09) for mastery-avoidance. Self-efficacy was also relatively high, M = 6.81 (SD = 1.92), as was meaning of work, M = 4.29 (SD = 0.57), and positive affect, M = 3.62 (SD = 0.54). Negative affect was relatively low, M = 2.04 (SD = 0.72).
Self-efficacy, meaning of work and job-related affective well-being. With those whose answers did not fulfill our expectations, the multivariate analysis was not significant, Λ = .95, F(4,94) = 1.29, ns. With just those who did entirely comply with our expectations, the multivariate analysis was significant, Λ = .93, F(4,85) = 1.66, p < .10, η² = .073.
Between-subjects effects revealed that the multivariate effect was accounted for by positive job-related affective well-being, F(1,89) = 43.89, p < .05, η² = .042, negative job-related affective well-being, F(1,89) = 2.91, p < .05, η² = .032, and meaning of work, F(1,89) = 2.09, p < .10, η² = .023. After they thought about the causes and consequences of the academic competition, researchers had less positive feelings towards their work (Mcontrol = 3.62, SDcontrol = 0.54, Mcompetition = 3.36, SDcompetition = 0.59, Cohen’s d = 0.47, CI[0.33;0.67]), more negative feelings towards their work (Mcontrol = 2.04, SDcontrol = 0.72, Mcompetition = 2.33, SDcompetition = 0.68, Cohen’s d = -0.42, CI[-0.60;-0.19]), and even saw less meaning in their work than those in the control group (Mcontrol = 4.29, SDcontrol = 0.57, Mcompetition = 4.09, SDcompetition = 0.68, Cohen’s d = 0.31, CI[0.16;0.54]). Hypothesis 4a and 4b were supported. Self-efficacy was not significant, F(1,89) = 0.00, ns. Thus, ruminating about the academic competition did not decrease self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure. Hypothesis 4c was not supported.
Achievement goals. With and without those whose answers did not fulfill our
expectations, the multivariate analysis was not significant, Λ = .95, F(4,95) = 1.27, ns, and Λ = .96, F(4,87) = 0.96, ns, respectively. The competition-focus group did not differ in
achievement goals from the control group after the manipulation. Hypothesis 4d was not supported.
Discussion
Backing up the results from the cross-sectional findings reported within the scope of research question 1, we experimentally demonstrated that the mere thinking about the
academic competition increased negative and decreased positive affections towards work, and even decreased the meaning of work. Effect sizes were small to moderate. Unexpectedly, the manipulation had no effects on researchers’ self-efficacy and achievement goals.
It could either be that the manipulation was too minimal to affect self-efficacy and achievement goals, or that the manipulation generally does not affect those outcomes, or that those outcomes are too stable to be manipulated. Goal orientation-based training
interventions (Kozlowski et al., 2001) have shown that achievement goals and self-efficacy can, in fact, be changed through training. Button, Mathieu and Zajac (1996) argued that goal orientation is a two-dimensional construct that has both dispositional and situational
components. Thus, achievement goals and self-efficacy can be changed by through larger-scale interventions, such as trainings or situational changes, but were probably too profound to be changed by our minimal manipulation. Moreover, researchers scored relatively high on performance goals, which leaves less room for an increase and might additionally hamper the impact of our manipulation. The high scores on performance goals could reflect that the academic environment has already induced researchers with the competitive orientation to outperform others and a fear of failure. Future research could shed light into this interesting question if performance goals in researchers increase throughout their career.
We showed however, that thinking about the causes and consequences of academic competition induced researchers with negative emotions (i.e. frustration and
discouragement), decreased positive affections towards work (i.e. enthusiasm and inspiration) and even decreased the meaning of work. Emotional reactions towards work are generally viewed as relatively unstable states (Van Katwyk et al., 2000), and were therefore the most likely of the tested variables to be affected by the manipulation. An explanation of the effects can be found in the analysis of the concrete causes and consequences that the researchers wrote down in our study (see Table 8).
The nature of scientific competition caused worry in many researchers. One participant wrote: "The point is that yes, you write very good grant proposals, but so do others, so even though you invested so much time in it, it still feels like a lottery". Further, many factors which influence the outcome of a competition are beyond control: "The peer-review process (for both grants and publications) is sometimes subjective, a feature which is not corrected by a rebuttal phase. Subjectivity has no place in most sciences; furthermore, subjectivity may make a competition unfair". Perceptions of procedural fairness are an important resource for researchers (Boyd et al., 2001), and perceptions of unfairness are likely to foster frustration.
In line with previous research (e.g. Gillespie et al., 2001; Kinman & Jones, 2003), our researchers also revealed that job insecurity is one of the main stressors for researchers and a consequence of the intense competition for higher-rank positions. This is even true for successful grant appliers: "Even when you have obtained a big grant for, say, 5 years, you already need to think about where your salary will come from in the years after that". Others recognized that there is a loop of positive feedback: "When it goes well, it gets better and better, and the opposite is also true". This leads to a powerful stigmatization: "Grant winners have much more status and grant losers are considered faulty". As many worry about their future, it also affects their life planning in a way that many hesitate to settle and plan a family. Some researchers in our sample even admitted to consider leaving academia.
Many of the researchers found the competitive pressure extremely demotivating. In line with the claims of Carson and her colleagues (2013), the urge to publish in research areas that are currently of high interest lead researchers to think about what can be published instead of working on what they find interesting. This has far-reaching consequences. Researchers revealed that producing short-term output leads to a lack of focus on theory and content because of the focus on quantity, "which is detrimental to scientific developments".
Also, "the importance of high impact publications often underestimates the value of the basic academic work (e.g. important check/ verification/ replication) which is not novel but
crucial". Realizing how the academic environment limits essential and reflected research might explain why some researchers were discouraged about their work and experienced less meaning of their work.
Many researchers indicated that they felt lonely and left on their own with their problems, so that the scientific work is strongly individualized. We found the same effects of competition on scientists’ relationships, as described by Anderson and her colleagues (2007). One researcher wrote: "It disconnects people from people, scientists from society. It is no science from the place of curiosity and enjoyment, but rather pushes you and motivates you to struggle for your survival... to push down others". This statement nicely reflects the high scores on performance goals. Another researcher put it as follows: "Researchers do not share too much of the ‘rewards’ (paper authorship, grants, talks in conferences...) of their research outcome. More competition often means less cooperation, more protection towards ongoing work".
Role conflict also played a critical role in our sample: "As research is much more important for your career, teaching can be experienced as an unwanted distraction". The many tasks and responsibilities that researchers have are not always easy to combine. Many work on grant applications during their free time, in evenings, weekends, and even their holidays to increase their success chances. What is more, many "are tired from long days of work with little appreciation". As a consequence of all those factors, distress emerges. One researcher formulated it drastically: "If I look around, I see that people become crazy, almost everybody walks like a ghost. Emotional burnouts are highly popular" – a statement which is certainly reflected by the distress score of our sample.
If such a small manipulation as thinking about the causes and consequences of scientific competition has such serious effects on researchers’ emotional reactions towards their work, how serious must the effects be when such thinking occurs on a regular basis…?
The results from our first research question showed that the competitive pressure for publications and promotions are associated with high stress levels and low work engagement. This experiment illustrated the negative effects of thinking about the academic competition on researchers’ affective reactions towards their work and the perceived meaning of their work. Both findings highlight the importance of taking action to increase positive outcomes in researchers. In the following, we describe how we derived an intervention for researchers, and we will report if this intervention was successful.
Research Question 3
How Do Researchers Cope With the Competition?
While the negative consequences of competition in science have been elaborated on by previous essays, and added empirical evidence by our experimental results, no research examined realistic solutions to the problem. Some have called for alternatives to the
academic performance-based reward system (Roberts, 2007), while others have stated that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to change the incentive structure and career systems that cause competition among researchers (e.g. Anderson et al., 2007; Carson et al., 2013). This dilemma highlights the need of alternative solutions to the problem. From a psychological standpoint, interventions could aim at the researchers themselves. Bakker and Demerouti (2014) suggest two possible interventions based on the Job Demands-Resources model, which aim at individual employees. First, there are job crafting interventions, which are usually initiated by the individual who aims to change job demands and resources. Secondly, there are strengths-based interventions which aim to facilitate personal resources.
Job Crafting Interventions
The earliest definition of job crafting by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) proposes that job crafting includes proactive changes employees make in the cognitive, relational and task boundaries of their work. According to Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), cognitive job crafting describes changes in the perception of one’s job. Relational job crafting describes changes in the quality or quantity of work relationships. Task crafting describes alternations in the nature or amount of work activities. A more recent definition by Tims, Bakker and Derks (2012a) describes job crafting within the JD-R model as "the self-initiated changes employees make in their job demands and job resources to attain and/or optimize their personal (work) goals" (p. 173). Both definitions will play a crucial role in our study.
As noted earlier, increased job resources buffer against the exhausting effects of high work demands and directly increase work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Increasing job resources through job crafting is therefore a promising strategy for researchers in order to attenuate the negative effects of chronic job demands, such as the perceived competitive pressure. According to our finding within the previous research question, that the academic work environment is strongly individualized, and according to previous findings on the often mistrusting and egocentric relationships between researchers (i.e. Anderson et al., 2007), an increase in social resources seems especially essential in this occupational group. Relational job crafting is a strategy to increase social resources (Tims et al., 2012a;
Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). When designing their job crafting scale, Tims and her colleagues (2012a) identified, among others, asking for feedback and advice as job crafting strategies to increase social job resources. Likewise, through open conversations with
colleagues, researchers could build more trust and mutual support, and through collaborating with colleagues researchers do the exact opposite of competing.
To date, job crafting interventions are rare. To our knowledge, just Van den Heuvel, Demerouti and Peeters (2012), as well as Tims, Bakker and Derks (2012b) developed and tested job crafting interventions. The intervention by Van den Heuvel and her colleagues involved a real-life setting, while the study by Tims and her colleagues was an online job crafting intervention. In both cases, participants first got an overview over the JD-R model and the concept of job crafting, before they developed their personal job crafting plan with specific job crafting actions. In the next weeks, participants changed job resources and job demands through their job crafting actions. In both studies, participants were provided with personalized feedback and could work on ideas for future job crafting plans. Both
Strengths-Based Interventions
In further advancement of the JD-R model, personal resources (i.e. aspects of the self that are generally linked to resilience; Hobfoll et al., 2003, p. 632) were added to the original JD-R model (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007). Xanthopoulou and her colleagues (2007) examined the role of three personal resources (self-efficacy,
organizational-based self-esteem, and optimism) in predicting work engagement and exhaustion. They found that personal resources mediated the relationship between job resources and motivational and health outcomes: The supply of job resources activated employees’ self-efficacy, self-esteem, and optimism and made them feel more engaged and less distressed.
To our knowledge, personal resources have not been studied in researchers before. But as we have illustrated within the scope of research question 2, thinking about the
academic competition is likely to harm personal resources, as it induced negative feelings and decreased the meaning of work among participants. Increasing personal resources is therefore a promising strategy for researchers in order to increase positive job and health outcomes.
To derive a strengths-based intervention for researchers, we borrowed ideas from cognitive job crafting, which is defined as altering the perception of the job (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) argue that altering the perception of one’s jobs increases feelings of work purpose and changes the meaning of one’s work. A cognitive job crafting intervention can therefore be seen as a strengths-based intervention, because the intervention target is the individual with its personal resources, such as meaning of work and positive affect (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). Through focusing on the positive sides of being a scientist, such as contributing to scientific progress, researchers could increase the value and meaning of their work. Through reframing the competitive academic environment as a
space for personal growth, researchers could recognize positive aspects of competition and increase positive feelings toward their work.
The job crafting intervention by Van den Heuvel and her colleagues (2012) increased opportunities for professional development, self-efficacy and positive emotions. The intervention by Tims and her colleagues (2012) increased employees’ autonomy and possibilities for personal growth, as well as work engagement. Both interventions demonstrated that employees can activate personal resources and enhance their work motivation through job crafting.
Pilot Study
To sum up, within the scope of the JD-R model, increasing social resources (i.e. social support) through relational job crafting interventions or increasing personal resources (i.e. meaning of work) through strengths-based (or cognitive job crafting) interventions might increase work engagement directly and decrease distress through buffering against high job demands (Figure 4). Note that for the sake of simplicity and in combining the two job
crafting definitions by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and Tims and her colleagues (2012a) we will refer to our strengths-based intervention as cognitive job crafting intervention.
Bakker, Oerlemans and Ten Brummelhuis (2012) suggested that it might be useful to provide participants of a job crafting intervention with useful examples of employees in comparable jobs who successfully changed their job resources or demands. Therefore, we wanted to base the exercises of our intervention study on real-life insights rather than on general coping theories and strategies, which might be too broad for this specific problem. The aim of the pilot study was to investigate which job crafting behaviors and thoughts play a critical role for researchers in coping with the competitive pressure for publications, funding and promotions. Based on those insights, we would design an intervention study to test if
