The mediating effect of Limiting Job Crafting on the relationship between Role
Overload and Job Satisfaction
Name: Warna Berrier
Study Programme: BSc in Bèta-Gamma – Major Business Administration (UvA) Student number: 6170560
First Supervisor: dr. C.T. Boon Second Supervisor: E. Federici
2
Statement of Originality
This document is written by student Warna Berrier 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 Abstract
Although job satisfaction is not a direct predictor for job performance, it is a predictor for various other factors that are beneficial to an organization. Limiting job crafting is a relatively new concept that could play a part in enhancing job satisfaction. Limiting job crafting could help employees coping with role overload, which is a predictor for lower job satisfaction. This study aims to investigate whether role overload is related to job satisfaction, and if this relation is mediated by limiting job crafting. More specifically, this study hypothesizes that employees can involve in limiting job crafting as a mechanism to explain a positive relationship between role overload and job satisfaction. These hypotheses are tested with a sample consisting of 116 employees.
Unexpectedly the hypotheses were not supported by the data, suggesting that employees do not use limiting job crafting in order to deal with role overload and as a consequence experience higher job satisfaction.
4 Table of Contents 1. Introduction. ... 5 2. Theoretical framework ... 7 2.1 Job satisfaction ... 7 2.2 Job Crafting ... 7 2.3 Role overload ... 8 3. Method. ... 11
3.1 Research design and Sample ... 11
3.2 Procedure ... 11
3.3 Measurement ... 11
3.3.1 Dependent variable Job Satisfaction ... 11
3.3.2. Independent variable Role Overload ... 12
3.3.3 Mediating variable Limiting Task Crafting ... 12
3.3.4. Mediating variable Limiting Cognitive Crafting ... 12
3.3.5 Control variables ... 12
3.4 Analysis and predictions ... 13
4. Results ... 13
4.1 Reliabilities and Correlations ... 13
4.2 Regression results ... 14
4.3 Mediating effect... 18
4.3.1 Indirect effect Mediator Limiting Task Crafting ... 18
4.3.2. Indirect effect Mediator Limiting Cognitive Crafting ... 19
4.3.3. Direct effect ... 19
4.3.4. Total effect ... 19
5. Discussion. ... 20
5.1. Summary and link to theory and contributions ... 20
5.2. Unpredicted results ... 21
5.3. Discussion points ... 22
5.3.1. Limitations and recommendations ... 22
5.3.2 Future research ... 22
6. Concluding thoughts ... 23
References ... 24
Appendix A: Employee instruction e-mail ... 27
5
1. Introduction.
For an employee the goal of a job can be the means to a stable income. But there are endless possibilities to how employees experience their job and therefore how satisfied they are with their job. Job satisfaction, the positive or negative attitude an employee has towards his or her job, is correlated with turnover and absenteeism in the workplace (Saari et al., 2004). Furthermore, Tett & Meyer (1993) suggest that an increase in job satisfaction can reduce turnover intentions. According to Krishnan and Singh (2010) turnover intentions leads to less performance orientation, higher organizational deviance and less organizational citizenship behavior. Apart from these withdrawal behaviors job satisfaction can also be a predictor for confidence, loyalty and ultimately improved quality in the output of the employed (Tietjen & Myers, 1998). These are all factors that can influence the organization’s overall performance, therefore it might be important for an organization to improve employees’ job satisfaction wherever possible.
Role overload is described as the situations in which employees feel that there are too many responsibilities or activities expected of them in light of the time available, their abilities, and other constraints (Bolino & Turnley, 2005). According to a study conducted by Pearson (2008), role overload is negatively correlated with job satisfaction. According to Glazer & Beehr (2005) role overload is a predictor for anxiety. Anxiety is in turn a predictor for organizational commitment and intention to leave, followed by organizational commitment predicting intention to leave. Furthermore, a study performed by Newbury-Birch & Kamali (2001) revealed that anxiety is negatively correlated with job satisfaction. One can conclude from this result that it is important for an organization to monitor for high levels of role overload. If high role overload results in lower levels of job satisfaction, it can influence the organization’s overall performance.
Job crafting, the bottom-up ways in which employees proactively change the boundaries of their job, has become a common and widespread phenomenon of which little theory has been developed on how employees perceive and adapt to the inevitable challenges involved in job crafting (Berg, Dutton & Wrzesniewski, 2013). Job crafting is done by employees to create a better fit between their job and their preferences, skills and abilities (Tims et al., 2015). The means to create this better fit can be done in different ways. Employees can change their levels of job
demands and job resources in order to align them with their own abilities and preferences (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Job demands can be described as the characteristics of a job that will potentially evoke strain if they exceed the employee’s adaptive capability (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti & Xanthopoulou, 2007). Research has shown that high job demands can impair employee physical and psychological health, such as occupational stress, burnout and repetitive strain injury (Jackson
6 & Rothmann, 2006; Bakker et al., 2003). A possible way for employees to deal with high job
demands is to increase their job resources: the job characteristics that contribute toward achieving work-related goals. These job resources can reduce the effects of job demands and associated costs, and stimulate personal development (Tims et al., 2013). In other words, job resources can buffer the impact of these job demands (Bakker et al., 2003). However, employees might be in a position that disables them from increasing their job resources because there is no opportunity to increase their job resources or because they do not know how to increase their job resources. Another possible way for employees to cope with high job demands is to decrease the level of job demands (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Current research has been done on the effects of reducing hindering job demands on colleagues, being a positive relation to colleague workload and conflict, which, in turn, is positively related to colleague burnout (Tims et al., 2015). But the question regarding why employees try to actively decrease job demands has yet to be answered. A possible explanation could be that an employee might try to actively reduce or mentally rescope tasks in order to be able to handle the expected responsibilities or activities that are causing high levels of job demands. This form of reducing job demands is called limiting job crafting and includes two parts, being limiting task crafting and limiting cognitive crafting. Limiting task crafting involves employees altering the set of responsibilities prescribed by a formal job description by reducing tasks, altering the nature of tasks, or decreasing the amount of time, energy and attention spent on various tasks (Berg, Dutton & Wrzesniewski, 2013). On the other hand, through limiting cognitive crafting employees can improve meaningfulness in their work by narrowing their mental scope of the purpose of their job on specific tasks and relationships that are significant or valuable to them.
Existing research has neglected to look into the mediating effect of job crafting on the relation between role overload and job satisfaction, therefore the purpose of this study is to investigate if there is one. Employees that are experiencing high role overload are expected to experience lower job satisfaction (Pearson, 2008), however limiting job crafting could be a possible tool for employees to deal with high role overload and subsequently achieve higher levels of job satisfaction. From a business point of view this could have implications for the way employees can cope with high role overload. If an employee has so many tasks and responsibilities that he or she cannot perform their core tasks sufficiently well, job satisfaction can be negatively affected which can have consequences for the organization. If limiting job crafting can play a mediating role between role overload and job satisfaction, it could be possible for employees who experience high role overload to craft their jobs to the extent that they can focus on their core tasks as a mechanism to explain a positive relationship between role overload and job satisfaction. Therefore, this study
7 aims to find whether employees who are subject to high role overload also experience lower job satisfaction. Furthermore, this study looks into the mechanism of limiting job crafting and if this mechanism can play a positively mediating role between role overload and job satisfaction.
Therefore the research question of this study is: How does role overload affect job satisfaction, and can limiting job crafting play a positively mediating role between the relationship of role overload and job satisfaction.
2. Theoretical framework 2.1 Job satisfaction
According to Weiss & Merlo (2015) job satisfaction can be defined as a positive or negative evaluation one makes about one's job or job situation. From this definition one can conclude that job satisfaction is an attitude. In contrast to the assumption made in many studies, job satisfaction is not a predictor for job performance (Bowling, 2007). However, it remains important for
organizations to pursue higher employee job satisfaction because it is a predictor for other factors that are beneficial to the organization. According to a meta-analysis of LePine, Erez & Johnson (2002) job satisfaction may have a causal relationship with organizational citizenship behavior. Job satisfaction is also negatively correlated to turnover and absenteeism (Saari et al., 2004), which are both factors that any organization is looking to minimize in order to operate most successfully. So although job satisfaction isn’t a predictor of performance, it is a predictor for factors that can be beneficial to the organization’s overall performance.
2.2 Job Crafting
According to Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001) job crafting involves employees redesigning their job. One can involve in job crafting by shaping the physical or cognitive task boundaries of the job, the relational boundaries of the job, or both. By changing the physical task boundaries of the job the authors refer to changing the form or number of activities an employee engages in while doing the job. Apart from the physical aspect of task boundaries, there are also cognitive task boundaries, which refer to altering how an employee ascribes meaning and significance to their job (Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2013). This form of job crafting does not involve any physical change to the task, but merely a change in perspective on the task. This study will focus on limiting job crafting, which includes both limiting task crafting and limiting cognitive crafting. The reason for this focus lies in the expectation that employees who experience role overload are more likely to decrease instead of increase the job tasks. Employees are also more likely to limit oneself to the most meaningful parts of the job instead of focusing more on less meaningful parts.
8 The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model incorporates many possible working conditions and focuses on both negative and positive indicators of employee well-being, which are job
resources and job demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Job resources refer to the aspects of the job that are functional in dealing with the job and stimulate personal growth and development (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Job demands refer to those physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical or psychological effort (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). In the framework of the JD-R model job crafting can be defined as the changes that
employees may make to balance their job demands and job resources with their personal abilities and need (Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2013). There are two main crafting strategies when it comes to job demands, which are decreasing hindering job demands and increasing challenging job demands (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Challenging job demands are those demands that are related to positive work outcomes. Examples of challenging job demands are pressure, time urgency and workload (LePine et al., 2005). Hindering job demands are those demands that require more effort and are related to negative work outcomes because they hinder the employee in achieving valued goals (Tims et al, 2014; Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Examples of hindering job demands are supervisor-related stress and role overload (LePine et al., 2005). According to the JD-R model there are multiple ways to balance their job demands and job resources with their personal abilities and needs. This study will focus on the crafting strategy involving decreasing hindering job demands, specifically the hindering job demand role overload.
2.3 Role overload
Role overload describes situations in which employees feel that there are too many
responsibilities or activities expected of them in light of the time available, their abilities, and other constraints (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). According to Bolino & Turnley (2005) role overload can produce higher levels of turnover and make it more difficult to attract new employees. Also, according to Sales (1970) role overload is presumably stressful to the overloaded employee because of the sheer volume of work involved and because of the failure which overload generally implies.
One could argue that an employee that’s experiencing high role overload will not be satisfied with their job, because the employee is not able to live up to what’s expected or the employee feels that there is too much work to be handled. In other words, the employee does not have sufficient job resources in order to handle the level of job demands, e.g. role overload, and is therefore less satisfied. This statement is supported by a study conducted by Pearson (2008), who researched 155 full time employed women . The study showed a negative correlation between role
9 overload and job satisfaction, with job satisfaction also showing a positive correlation with
psychological health. Also, being a hindering job demand, role overload is negatively related to work outcomes such as job satisfaction (LePine et al., 2005). Therefore role overload is expected to have a negative effect on job satisfaction. Hence, hypothesis one is as follows (H1):
Hypothesis 1 [H1]: Role overload is negatively associated with job satisfaction.
Employees that experience a high level of hindering job demands, which in turn negatively affects their job performance, may take initiative to lower these job demands by actively decreasing them (Tims & Bakker, 2010). A possible way to decrease hindering job demands might be to simply reduce the amount of tasks the employee has to work on, e.g. limiting task crafting. In other words, the employee could take initiative to limit the tasks that the employee has to work on that are the cause of role overload, in order to cope with role overload. An employee might be able to do this by proactively crafting his or her job. If an employee feels that there are too many responsibilities or activities expected of them in light of the time available, their abilities, and other constraints, then a possible way to deal with this is to reduce the amount of responsibilities or activities. Therefore, the second hypothesis that is proposed is (H2):
Hypothesis 2 [H2]: Role overload positively affects limiting task crafting.
Another possible way for an employee to overcome high role overload could be limiting cognitive crafting. Employees who cognitively craft their job show enhancement in the amount of meaningfulness they experience at work (Berg, Dutton & Wzresniewski, 2013). Without changing any physical or objective the employee can still change how the job is experienced. In light of role overload, an employee could try to cognitively limit oneself to the most meaningful parts of the job. This could be done by changing the employee’s perspective on the job and viewing the as a set of separate tasks instead of a whole, and thereby focusing on the most important parts (Dutton & Wrzesniewski, 2001). This form of job crafting, called limiting cognitive crafting, seems a plausible way for employees to overcome high role overload because it can enable employees to focus on the most meaningful parts and disregard the less meaningful parts that might be causing role overload. Hence, hypothesis three is set as the following (H3):
Hypothesis 3 [H3]: Role overload positively affects limiting cognitive crafting.
If an employee is effective in reducing job demands by limiting certain tasks to a level where the employee feels that the responsibilities and activities that are expected can be met, then one
10 would expect that this positively affects job satisfaction. All in all, the employee would probably feel that all the job tasks can actually be handled, which would give more satisfaction than job demands that are too much to handle. Hence, hypothesis four is as follows (H4):
Hypothesis 4 [H4]: Limiting task crafting positively affects job satisfaction.
Assuming that [H3] is true, one can assume that an employee who cognitively limits the job to the most important parts in order to cope with high role overload will be more satisfied with the job. Put differently, an employee who has been able to reduce job demands to a more manageable level through limiting cognitive crafting is likely to experience higher job satisfaction. This is in line with a study performed by Hackman & Oldham (1980) , who state that work-related
meaningfulness is associated with numerous work-related benefits, including increased job satisfaction. Therefore hypothesis 5 (H5) is stated as:
Hypothesis 5 [H5]: Limiting cognitive crafting positively affects job satisfaction.
Limiting task crafting can be a possible mediator of the relationship between role overload and job satisfaction. Role overload can lead to an increase in limiting task crafting, which in turn can result in higher job satisfaction. Furthermore, the cognitive limitation can also be a possible
mediator between role overload and job satisfaction. Therefore the sixth (H6) and seventh (H7) hypotheses are:
Hypothesis 6 [H6]: The negative relationship between Role overload and Job satisfaction is positively mediated by Limiting Task Crafting.
Hypothesis 7 [H7]: The negative relationship between Role overload and Job satisfaction is positively mediated by Limiting Cognitive Crafting.
H1 - H2 + H3 + H5 + H4 + Role Overload Limiting Cognitive Crafting Limiting Task Crafting
Job Satisfaction
H6 +
H7 +
11
3. Method.
3.1 Research design and Sample
In order to test how role overload contributes to limiting task and limiting cognitive crafting, and these in turn result in an increase of job satisfaction, a cross-sectional survey design was used. Data were collected by 5 bachelor students from the Amsterdam Business School, who each collected dyads. A dyad consists of an employee and his or her direct manager. Dyads who did not fully complete the questionnaires were excluded from the sample. This data was collected through online questionnaires. Participants were sampled through personal contacts and were Dutch-speaking. The questionnaires were self-administered and could be filled in anytime so it would cause the least amount of inconvenience for the participants. The variables in the model that are used in this study were only tested in the employee questionnaire. Therefore the final sample used in this study will only contain data of employees.
The sample that was used is a non-random, self-selected sample with a response rate of 88%, consisting of 116 employees. Of the employees, 45% was male and 55% was female. The average age was 32 years (SD = 12.1) and the average tenure was 6.3 years (SD = 8.35). The highest achieved education of the sample was HBO for 31%, MBO for 22%, high-school for 20%, Master’s degree from a University for 14%, Bachelor’s degree from a University for 13%, 1% achieved a PhD degree and 1% did something else.
3.2 Procedure
Because the data for this study were collected by five bachelor students family, friends and acquaintances were contacted in order to find participants who were willing to fill out the
questionnaire. The contacts who agreed to participate were first sent an informative e-mail about the nature of the questionnaire. The second e-mail contained instructions, a link to the
questionnaire and a personal code. The personal codes were used to connect the data of the manager with the data of the corresponding employee(s). The codes were removed after the manager and employee data were linked in order to guarantee anonymity to the participants. A reminder was sent to participants who did not fill out the questionnaire after one week.
3.3 Measurement
3.3.1 Dependent variable Job Satisfaction
Employee job satisfaction was measured with three 7-point likert questions from
Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins & Klesh (1979). The question’s scale ranged from (1) not at all to (7) completely. Respondents had seven options to choose from, where (1) indicates a complete disagreement and (7) a complete agreement with the statement. Accordingly, a high score on this
12 scale means that the respondent is very satisfied with his/her job. An example question from this scale is: “All in all, I am satisfied with my job”. One item on the scale was counterbalanced for and the Cronbach’s alpha was (.82).
3.3.2. Independent variable Role Overload
The extent to which employees experienced role overload was also measured through three questions on a 7-point likert scale. This scale was designed by Bolino and Turnley (2005). The employees determined to which extent they feel there are too many responsibilities or activities expected of them in light of the time available, their abilities, and other constraints. An example question from this scale is: “I never seem to have enough time to get everything done at work”. Scales ranged from (1) not at all to (7) completely, where scoring a (7) means that the employee perceives a high degree of role overload. For this variable no items were counterbalanced and Cronbach’s alpha was (.91).
3.3.3 Mediating variable Limiting Task Crafting
The first mediating variable Limiting Task Crafting was measured with three 5-point likert questions developed by Bindl et al. (2014). Employees were asked to what extent they tried to reduce or simplify the amount of work they had over the past week. An example question is: “I tried
to simplify some of the tasks that I worked on”. Scales ranged from (1) not at all to (5) a great deal. A
high score (5) means that the employee tried to reduce or simplify the amount of work. No items were counterbalanced for this variable and Cronbach’s alpha was (.57).
3.3.4. Mediating variable Limiting Cognitive Crafting
The second mediating variable Limiting Cognitive Crafting was also measured with three 5-point likert questions developed by Bindl et al (2014). Employees were asked if they actively focused on some parts of their job over other parts over the last week. An example question is: “I
assessed the different elements of my job to determine which parts were most meaningful”. Scales
ranged from (1) not at all to (5) a great deal, where a high score (5) means that the employee tries to focus on certain parts of the job. Also no items were counterbalanced for in this variable and Cronbach’s alpha was (.64).
3.3.5 Control variables
In this study three control variables were used, being age, gender and tenure. The variables age and tenure were measured through open ended questions. The questions regarding these variables were “What is your age in years?” and “How many years have you been working for this
13 organization?”. The variable gender was measured through a pre-defined list where respondents could choose between the options Male or Female.
3.4 Analysis and predictions
The data must be structured and curated before analysis can be done. Next, the counter-indicative items relevant to the study will be re-coded. Thirdly, the scale means have to be
computed by grouping the relevant items to one scale mean. Afterwards, a reliability analysis will take place which measures the reliability of all relevant scales. A correlation analysis will provide insight if variables correlate with another. Finally, the direct effects will be tested through
hierarchical regression analysis and the mediation effects will be tested through the Process macro in SPSS (Hayes, 2013). A negative effect of the independent variable role overload on the dependent variable job satisfaction is predicted in the first linear regression analysis. Second, a positive effect of the independent variable role overload on the mediating variables limiting task crafting and limiting cognitive crafting is predicted in the second linear regression analysis. For the third linear regression analysis a positive effect of the mediating variables limiting task crafting and limiting cognitive crafting on the independent variable job satisfaction is expected. Lastly, a positive effect is expected of the independent variable role overload and mediating variables limiting cognitive crafting and limiting task crafting on the dependent variable job satisfaction, but in this case, the direct effect of role overload on job satisfaction is expected to disappear. This means the
relationship between role overload and job satisfaction is mediated by limiting task crafting or limiting cognitive crafting.
4. Results
4.1 Reliabilities and Correlations
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations and the reliabilities of all variables are presented. The reliability of the variables job satisfaction (α = .82) and role overload (α = .91) were satisfactory. Unfortunately, both the variable limiting task crafting (α = .57) and limiting cognitive crafting (α = .64) showed a low reliability. The consequences of this low reliability will be discussed in the discussion section.
Table 1 also depicts the relevant correlations between the variables. Unexpectedly, there was no significant negative correlation found between role overload and job satisfaction r (116) = -.190 p = n.s. This means there is no evidence in the dataset indicating that employees that
experience high role overload will experience lower job satisfaction. In other words, employees with high job demands did not correlate with the level of satisfaction of their job. Also, there was no
14 significant correlation found between role overload and limiting task crafting. The same goes for the correlation between role overload and limiting cognitive crafting. Between limiting task crafting and job satisfaction, and between limiting cognitive crafting and job satisfaction also no correlation was found, which was also unexpected. There was a significant correlation between job satisfaction and tenure r (116) = .241 p = <.01, which makes sense because it is not very likely for an employee to remain employed for a long time if he/she is not satisfied with the job.
4.2 Regression results
In order to investigate the ability of role overload, limiting task crafting and limiting cognitive crafting to predict the degree of job satisfaction, a hierarchical multiple regression was performed after controlling for age, gender and tenure. All effects regarding this analysis can be found in Table 2. In order to investigate the predictive ability of role overload on both limiting task crafting and limiting cognitive crafting, also a hierarchical multiple regression was conducted after controlling for age, gender and tenure. The effects of this regression analysis can be found in Table 3.
First, the three control variables age, gender and tenure were filled in the hierarchical regression as predictors for job satisfaction. This was done to discover how much variance in job satisfaction is explained by these control variables. The model was statistically significant F(3,112 ) = 3.43; p < .05 and explained 8.4% of the variance in job satisfaction. Secondly, role overload was added to the model. The total variance explained by this second model was 15.3% F(1, 111) = 5.00; Table 1. Descriptives and correlations between the variables (Cronbach's Alphas and interrater reliability on
diagonal) M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Gender 1.55 0.5 2. Age 32.03 12.09 -.11 3. Tenure 6.32 8.35 .038 .642** 4. Job Satisfaction 5.5 1.16 .139 .212* .241** (0.82)
5. Limiting Task Crafting 2.33 0.66 .146 -.126 - -.098 -.144 (.56)
6. Limiting Cognitive Crafting 2.8 0.74 .149 -.045 -.069 .167 .123 (0.64)
7. Role Overload 3.81 1.54 .090 .188* .182* -.190 .076 .152 (0.91)
15 p < .01. Thirdly, by adding limiting task crafting and limiting cognitive crafting another 5% variance in job satisfaction was explained, after controlling for gender, age, tenure and role overload (R2 Change = 0.05; F(2,109) = 4.65; p < .001).
The multiple hierarchical regression analysis testing the predictive ability of role overload was conducted in the same way. Again, the three control variables age, gender and tenure were added in the analysis as predictors for limiting task crafting and limiting cognitive crafting. The model containing the control variables predicting limiting task crafting was not statistically significant F(3,113) = 1.64; p > .05, which was also the case for the control variables predicting limiting cognitive crafting F(3,113) = 1.23; p > .05. Subsequently, role overload was added in both models, which both showed not to be statistically significant as well (F(1,112) = 1.67; p > .05, F(1,112) = 1.64; p > .05).
Hypothesis 1 claims that role overload is negatively associated with job satisfaction. Role overload was found to have a significant negative relationship with job satisfaction as was expected (ß = -.20, p <.01). Therefore, hypothesis 1 is supported.
Hypothesis 2 and 3 suggest that role overload positively affects limiting task crafting and limiting cognitive crafting. Unexpectedly, both the relationship between role overload and limiting task crafting (ß = .12, p > .05), as the relationship between role overload and limiting cognitive crafting (ß = .16, p > .05) did not show to be significant. Therefore, both hypotheses 2 and 3 are not supported.
Hypothesis 4 and 5 state that limiting task crafting and limiting cognitive crafting positively affects job satisfaction. No statistical evidence was found for the relation between limiting task crafting and job satisfaction (ß = -.09; p > .05) and therefore hypothesis 4 is not supported. On the other hand, hypothesis 5 is supported since a significant relation between limiting cognitive crafting and job satisfaction was found (ß = .23; p < .05).
16
Table 2. Hierarchical Regression model of Job Satisfaction
R R2 R2 Change B SE ß t Step 1 .29 .08* Gender .34 .21 .15 1.58 Age .01 .01 .13 1.08 Tenure .02 .02 .15 1.27 Step 2 .39 .15** .07** Gender .40 .21 .17 1.94 Age .02 .01 .17 1.44 Tenure .02 .02 .17 1.51 Role Overload -.20 .07 -.27** -3.00 Step 3 .45 .20*** .05* Gender .29 .21 .13 1.41 Age .02 .01 .15 1.33 Tenure .03 .02 .20 1.74 Role Overload -.22 .07 -.30** -3.30
Limiting Task Crafting -.16 .16 -.09 -1.00
Limiting Cognitive Crafting .36 .14 .23* 2.54
17
Table 3. Hierarchical Regression model of Limiting Task Crafting and Limiting Cognitive Crafting
Variables Limiting task crafting Limiting cognitive crafting
R R2 R2 Change B SE ß t R R2 R2Change B SE ß t Step 1 .20 .04 .18 .03 Gender -.21 .12 -.16 -1.73 .24 .14 .17 1.76 Age -.01 .01 -.14 -1.17 .00 .01 .02 .19 Tenure .00 .01 .00 -.00 -.01 .01 -.09 -.75 Step 2 .24 .06 .02 .24 .06 .02 Gender -.23 .12 -.17 -1.86 .22 .14 .15 1.59 Age -.01 .00 -.16 -1.31 .00 .01 .00 .00 Tenure -.00 .01 -.01 -.09 -.01 .01 -.11 -.87 Role Overload .05 .04 .12 1.31 .08 .05 .16 1.68 Note. N = 116 * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001
18
4.3 Mediating effect
In order to test hypotheses 6 and 7, the Process macro developed by Hayes (2013) will be used in SPSS. This macro is a tool that allows to estimate the indirect, direct and total effect of the model. A model will be tested accordingly to the two hypotheses involving the mediators (H6 & H7). The model will test the effect of role overload on job satisfaction with limiting task crafting and limiting cognitive crafting as mediators, while controlling for the variables gender, age and tenure. The effect of role overload on the mediator limiting task crafting is defined as a1,and the effect of
role overload on the mediator limiting cognitive crafting is defined as a2. The effect of the mediator
limiting task crafting on job satisfaction is defined as b1,and the effect of the mediator limiting
cognitive crafting on job satisfaction is defined as b2. The indirect effect is estimated as the product
of a and b, and is therefore defined as a1b1 and a2b2. The direct effect of role overload on job
satisfaction is defined as c1’. Finally, the total effect will be tested and is defined as c1. A visual
representation can be found in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Process visual representation
4.3.1 Indirect effect Mediator Limiting Task Crafting
In Table 3 all effects are depicted. Unexpectedly, the indirect effect a1b1was not statistically
different from zero, as revealed by a 95% BC Bootstrap confidence interval that is not entirely below zero. This indicates that there is no evidence for the variable limiting task crafting to be (partially) mediating the relationship between role overload and job satisfaction.
Role overload Job satisfaction
Limiting cognitive crafting Limiting task crafting a1 c’1 a2 b2 b1
19
4.3.2. Indirect effect Mediator Limiting Cognitive Crafting
The indirect effect a2b2 also showed not to be significant, as revealed by the 95% BC
bootstrap confidence interval that is not entirely above zero (-0.0001 to 0.1044). This result means that there is no statistical evidence found for the variable limiting cognitive crafting to be mediating the relationship between role overload and job satisfaction.
4.3.3. Direct effect
As predicted, the direct effect c1’ = -0.221 showed that role overload has a negative effect on
job satisfaction. This means that two employees who differ by one unit on role overload and who experience the same level of limiting cognitive and task crafting, differ approximately by -0.221 units in job satisfaction. The negative sign means that a higher score in role overload results in a lower score in job satisfaction. The effect is statistically different from zero, given the 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that is entirely below zero (-0.354 to -0.088).
4.3.4. Total effect
The results show that the total effect of role overload on job satisfaction is c1 = -0.202,
meaning that two employees who differ by one unit in role overload are estimated to differ by -0.202 units in their reported job satisfaction. The negative value indicates that the employee experiencing higher role overload reports lower job satisfaction. This total effect is statistically different from zero, as revealed by a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that is entirely below zero (-0.276 to -0.025).
Table 3. Bootstrapping results of limiting task crafting and limiting cognitive crafting as mediators in the relationship between role overload and job satisfaction.
Effect SE p LLCI ULCI
Direct effect c1’ -0.221 0.067 <.01 -0.354 -0.088
Total effect c1 -0.202 0.067 <.01 -0.335 -0.068
Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Indirect effect a1b1 -0.009 0.018 -0.0682 0.0117
a2b2 0.028 0.023 -0.0001 0.1044
20
5. Discussion
5.1. Summary and link to theory and contributions
The main goal of this study was to investigate the concept of job satisfaction. In particular, the possible positively mediating effect of both limiting task as limiting cognitive crafting on the relationship between role overload and job satisfaction. In total 7 hypotheses were proposed.
The first hypothesis was supported by the data, indicating that role overload negatively affects job satisfaction, which is in line with previous research (LePine, 2005; Pearson, 2008). From the perspective of employees it makes sense that the more they feel that there are too many
responsibilities or activities expected of them in light of the time available, their abilities and other constraints, the less satisfied they will feel about their job. In light of the JD-R model this could explain that when the more the proportion of job demands to job resources is out of balance, the more employees will experience lower job satisfaction. So the employee might not have sufficient job resources in order to handle their job demands.
A possible way for employees to get their job demands in balance to their job resources is to limit the amount of physical tasks to make the job more manageable, which was the second
hypothesis. Unexpectedly, no significant relationship was found between employees who
experience role overload and limiting task crafting. Thus, the results of this study did not prove that employees try to reduce or simplify the amount of work when experiencing role overload. A
possible explanation for this result might be that employees are not willing to reduce the amount of work because they feel this work was assigned to them, and therefore making this work their responsibility and a part of their job. If they would reduce their work by a certain amount, it might be possible that another colleague has to pick it up, which could be interpreted as the employee slacking off or not being able to do the job properly. This might be the cause for employees to not engage in limiting task crafting. Another explanation could be that employees used a different strategy to cope with role overload, being that they increased their job resources in order to buffer the impact of their job demands, which is also in line with Tims et al. (2010).
With the third hypothesis a positive effect from role overload on limiting cognitive crafting was expected. This effect was not found. This indicates that employees who experience role overload will not actively focus on some (more important or meaningful) parts of their job over other parts. The argument can be made that employees see all the parts of their job as a whole, which could mean that every part of their job should receive the necessary attention and focus. By focusing on one part, and therefore neglecting another part, the employee might feel it is not doing a good job because some parts don’t receive the necessary amount of attention.
21 Unexpectedly, the results did not show support of this hypothesis. This could indicate that
employees don’t necessarily need to reduce the amount of tasks in order to be satisfied with their job. It is possible an employee is content with the amount of work he/she has to do, and therefore a decrease in work would lead to the employee feeling he/she could handle more. Another possible explanation could be that an employee would feel relieved by reducing the amount of tasks, however this could negatively impact employee self-confidence because the employee might feel he/she was not able to do his or her job sufficiently. This negative effect on employee
self-confidence could be an explanation to why job satisfaction was not affected despite limiting the amount of tasks.
The fifth hypothesis, limiting cognitive crafting positively affects job satisfaction, was supported by the data as expected. This suggests that if employees focus on the more meaningful and significant parts of their job over other parts, they will be more satisfied with their job. From an employee’s point of view this makes sense, since the parts of the job that are less significant to the employee are given a lower priority. This is in line with a study performed by Knoop (1994), who found that meaningfulness of work contributes to job satisfaction.
Unexpectedly, the sixth hypothesis was not supported by the data. The indirect effect showed not to be significant, so limiting task craft played no mediating role between role overload and job satisfaction.
The seventh hypothesis was also not supported by the data. No mediating effect was found of limiting cognitive crafting between the relationship of role overload and job satisfaction, since the indirect effect resulted to be not significant. However, this
5.2. Unpredicted results
The analysis done in order to test the hypotheses resulted in some unpredicted results. Role overload did not prove to have an effect on limiting task crafting. One would expect that the most straightforward way for employees to reduce the amount of role overload they are experiencing, is by reducing the amount of work they have. Though, employees might not be concerned about role overload and might feel they cannot abruptly reduce the amount of work, since this might result in colleagues having to do the work for them.
The data also did not show a significant positive relationship between role overload and limiting cognitive crafting. Since limiting cognitive crafting did have a positive effect on job
satisfaction it is unexpected that employees did not use limiting cognitive crafting as a tool to cope with role overload.
22 employees did not use limiting job crafting as a mechanism to deal with role overload in order to achieve higher job satisfaction.
5.3. Discussion points
5.3.1. Limitations and recommendations
There is a possibility that the sample that was used is biased because all participants were contacted through student of the Amsterdam Business School. This could have resulted in the respondents partaking the questionnaire as a favor for the student, instead of really trying to answer the questions as accurately as possible.
Another limitation is the reliability of both the mediator variables. The Cronbach’s alpha showed to be below the normally acceptable value of 0.7, which indicates the internal consistency regarding the items in both variables is low. This means that the questions regarding the scale do not measure the same attribute to a high degree (Connelly, 2011). The score on one item should be able to predict the score on another item that is designed to measure the same attribute. If this is not the case the reliability of the attribute is low and results in a low Cronbach’s alpha. A possible solution to this problem is to redesign the items in a way that they do measure the same attribute.
Because the respondents provided the measure of both the independent as the dependent variable, there may have been a result of self-report bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This is another limitation to this study, because there can be artifactual covariance between the independent and dependent variable since the respondent is the same person.
Lastly, since this is a cross-sectional study no causal relationships could be investigated, which is also a limitation.
5.3.2 Future research
In this study limiting cognitive crafting showed to be positively related to job satisfaction. This is interesting because employees didn’t show to use limiting cognitive crafting as a tool to cope with high role overload. Since limiting cognitive crafting did show to be predicting a degree of job satisfaction, it will be interesting for future research to investigate what the effects of limiting cognitive crafting are on employees who experience high levels of role overload. Another possible solution for employees to manage their hindering job demands, and therefore role overload, is to possibly enrich their job resources instead of limit their job demands. This has not been
investigated yet and could therefore be an interesting subject for future research. It would be interesting to see for which people what option would be most effective. Especially because the possibility exists that for some employees in certain sectors, it could be very difficult to enrich their job resources. In this case it would be interesting to see if decreasing hindering job demands
23 through limiting cognitive crafting would still be an effective way to deal with high role overload.
Another interesting aspect for future research would be to investigate if there are negative outcomes to limiting cognitive crafting. It might be possible that employees focus through limiting cognitive crafting on the parts that are most important and significant to them, but then the question arises if these parts are also the most meaningful and significant to the organization. It could be the case that the employee is focusing on these parts out of self-interest, while he/she knows that it might not be the best focus for the company. Maybe the parts that receive less attention are just as, or even more meaningful to the organization, and as a consequence are being neglected.
Lastly, future researchers should redesign the items in the questionnaire for both limiting task crafting and limiting cognitive crafting, since both the scales resulted to be too low in
reliability. This low reliability indicates that the scales did not consistently measure what was supposed to be measured. This study should be replicated with variables that have acceptable reliability because the possibility exists that the outcomes will be different.
6. Concluding thoughts
This study set out to investigate if employees use job crafting in terms of limiting cognitive crafting and limiting task crafting in order to cope with high role overload and achieve higher job satisfaction. In answer to the research question, the study showed there was a negative relationship between role overload and job satisfaction, However, the proposed mediating effect of limiting task crafting and limiting cognitive crafting was not supported. These results indicate that an employee that’s experiencing high role overload does use limiting job crafting as a mechanism to deal with high role overload and achieve higher job satisfaction.
All in all, this study showed that job crafting is an interesting and complex concept, that has the potential to benefit employees in the workplace and therefore an organization as a whole. Though a lot more research as to be done in order to discover which aspects encompassing job crafting are useful in what situation.
24
References
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands Resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology (Vol. 22).
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2003). Dual processes at work in a call centre: An application of the job demands-resources model. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 12, 393–417
Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of educational
psychology, 99(2), 274.
Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work. Purpose
and meaning in the workplace, 81-104. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Bindl, U.K., Unsworth, K., & Gibson, C. (2014). The Pursuit of Happiness at Work: How Active Changes at Work influence Well-being and Work Outcomes. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Orlando, USA.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The Personal Costs of Citizenship Behavior: The Relationship Between Individual Initiative and Role Overload, Job Stress, and Work-Family Conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740–8.
Bowling, N. A. (2007). Is the job satisfaction-job performance relationship spurious? A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(2), 167–185.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Ann Arbor.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65-74.
Connelly, L.M. (2011). Research Roundtable. Cronbach’s Alpha. MEDSURG Nursing, 20(1), 44-45.
Glazer, S., & Beehr, T. A. (2005). Consistency of implications of three role stressors across four countries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(5), 467-487.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Jackson, L., & Rothmann, S. (2006). Occupational stress, organizational commitment, and ill-health of educators in the North West province. South African Journal of Education, 26, 75–95.
25 Knoop, R. (1994). Work Values and Job Satisfaction. The Journal of Psychology, 128(6), 683-690.
Krishnan, S.K., & Sing, S. (2010). Outcomes of intention to quit of indian IT professionals.
Human Resource Management, 49(3), 421-437.
Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work process and quality of care in early childhood education: The role of job crafting. Academy of Management Journal, 52(6), 1169- 1192.
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764-775.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(1), 52–65.
Newbury-Birch, D., & Kamali, F. (2001). Psychological stress, anxiety, depression, job satisfaction, and personality characteristics in preregistration house officers. Postgraduate
Medical Journal, 77(904), 109-111.
Pearson, Q. M. (2008). Role overload, job satisfaction, leisure satisfaction, and psychological health among employed women. Journal of Counseling and Development: JCD, 86(1), 57.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Lee, J.Y. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Rizzo, J., House, R., & Lirtzman, S. 1970. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.
Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource
Management, 43(4), 395–407.
Sales, S. M. (1970). Some effects of role overload and role underload.Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 5(6), 592-608.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology,
46, 259–293.
Tietjen, M. A., Myers, R. M. (2003). Motivation and job satisfaction.Management Decision, 36(4), 226-231.
Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign.
26 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), 230-240. Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2014). Job crafting and job performance: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 914-928
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2015). Examining Job Crafting from an Interpersonal Perspective: Is Employee Job Crafting Related to the Well-Being of Colleagues? Applied
Psychology, 64(4), 727–753.
Weiss, H. M., & Merlo, K. L. (2015). Job Satisfaction. International Encyclopedia of the Social &
Behavioral Sciences, 12, 833–838.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179–201.
27
Appendix A: Employee instruction e-mail
Beste (werknemer),
Allereerst, nogmaals heel erg fijn dat u wilt meewerken aan ons onderzoek! In deze e-mail staat de link naar de online vragenlijst vermeld. Als werknemer is het de bedoeling dat u een aantal vragen
beantwoordt over uw werkomgeving, uw baan en het personeelsmanagement (plusminus 15 minuten). Als u de link naar de vragenlijst opent zal de eerste vraag zijn om een code in te voeren.
De code die voor u is aangemaakt is: …
Klik op de volgende link of kopieer deze in uw internet browser om de vragenlijst te starten. https://uvafeb.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_0rGm8g30XCUFWyp
Wij willen u er nogmaals op attenderen dat uw antwoorden anoniem en vertrouwelijk zullen worden behandeld. Alvast hartelijk bedankt voor uw deelname!
Voor vragen kunt u terecht bij één van de onderzoekers. Met vriendelijke groet,
Het Onderzoeksteam. Nikki Tsiftis
Laura van Dokkum Casper America Warna Berrier Thomas Stephens Marlon Vreugd Eloisa Federici Corine Boon
28
Appendix B: Employee questionnaire
Employee questionnaire
1. Geef aan wat uw geslacht is.
2. Wat is uw leeftijd in jaren?
3. Wat is uw hoogst behaalde opleiding? Middelbare school MBO HBO Universiteit (bachelor) Universiteit (master) PhD Anders
4. Hoe lang werkt u voor deze organisatie?
5. Hoe lang werkt u met uw huidige leidinggevende samen?
6. Hoeveel uur werkt u per week (volgens uw contract)?
Person-Organization fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002)
Onderstaande stellingen gaan over uw organisatie. Geef a.u.b. aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen.
1. Wat ik belangrijk vind in het leven is vergelijkbaar met wat binnen mijn organisatie belangrijk wordt gevonden
2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden, normen en cultuur van mijn organisatie
3. De waarden en cultuur van mijn organisatie sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik belangrijk vind in het leven
Person-supervisor fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002)
Onderstaande stellingen gaan over uw leidinggevende.
29 2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden en normen van mijn leidinggevende
3. De waarden van mijn leidinggevende sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik belangrijk vind in het leven
Onderstaande stellingen gaan over uw collega's.
1. Wat ik belangrijk vind in het leven is vergelijkbaar met wat mijn collega’s belangrijk vinden 2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden en normen van mijn collega’s 3. De waarden van mijn collega’s sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik belangrijk vind in het leven
Person-Job fit (DA fit & NS fit) (Cable & DeRue, 2002)
Onderstaande stellingen gaan over uw baan.
1. Er is een goede ‘match’ tussen de eisen van mijn baan en mijn persoonlijke vaardigheden 2. Mijn vaardigheden en opleiding passen goed bij de eisen voor mijn huidige baan
3. Mijn persoonlijke vaardigheden en opleiding passen goed bij wat er van mij verwacht wordt in mijn huidige baan
4. Wat mijn baan me biedt komt overeen met wat ik in een baan zoek 5. De dingen die ik zoek in een baan worden in mijn huidige baan vervuld 6. Mijn huidige baan biedt mij alles wat ik verwacht van een baan
Proactive personality
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.
6. Als ik in een idee geloof, zal niets me tegenhouden om dit idee werkelijkheid te laten worden.
Resilience
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.
30 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
1. Able to adapt to change 2. Can deal with whatever comes
3. Tries to see humorous side of problems 4. Coping with stress can strengthen me 5. Tend to bounce back after illness or hardship 6. Can achieve goals despite obstacles
7. Can stay focused under pressure 8. Not easily discouraged by failure 9. Thinks of self as strong person 10. Can handle unpleasant feelings
HRM practices
(Jiang, Hu, Liu, & Lepak, 2015)
Hieronder vindt u een aantal stellingen over het personeelsmanagement in uw organisatie. Geef a.u.b. aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen.
1. Nieuwe medewerkers worden geselecteerd op kenmerken en vaardigheden die nodig zijn om goede prestaties te leveren
2. Werving van nieuwe medewerkers gebeurt via verschillende kanalen (wervingsbureaus, hogescholen/universiteiten, enz.)
3. De selectieprocedure voor nieuwe medewerkers is uitgebreid (er worden gesprekken gehouden, test afgenomen, enz.)
4. Mijn organisatie biedt een oriëntatieprogramma aan voor nieuwe medewerkers, om de organisatie te leren kennen
5. Mijn organisatie biedt voortdurend trainingen/opleidingen aan 6. Mijn organisatie investeert veel tijd en geld in trainingen
7. In functionerings- of beoordelingsgesprekken krijgen medewerkers feedback over hun persoonlijke ontwikkeling.
31 8. Functionerings- of beoordelingsgesprekken zijn gebaseerd op objectieve, kwantificeerbare resultaten
9. Managers bepalen samen met medewerkers hun persoonlijke doelen
10. Salarissen en beloningen van medewerkers zijn afhankelijk van hun prestaties 11. Mijn organisatie hecht veel waarde aan het eerlijk belonen van medewerkers 12. Medewerkers ontvangen een beloning (in geld of anderszins) als ze goed presteren 13. Mijn organisatie houdt rekening met de thuissituatie van medewerkers bij het maken van planningen
14. Mijn organisatie heeft methodes om medewerkers te helpen stress te verminderen 15. Mijn organisatie heeft formele klachtenprocedures voor h klachten van medewerkers 16. Mijn organisatie vraagt medewerkers van tevoren om input bij beslissingen die mogelijk consequenties voor hen hebben
17. Medewerkers worden vaak betrokken bij het nemen van werkgerelateerde beslissingen 18. Mijn organisatie deelt bedrijfsinformatie met medewerkers (bijvoorbeeld over
bedrijfsresultaten, verkoopcijfers, enz.)
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 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.).
Job security (Sun et al., 2007)
1. Medewerkers kunnen zo lang als ze willen bij de organisatie blijven 2. Baanzekerheid is zo goed als gegarandeerd voor medewerkers
32 1. Employees in this job can be expected to stay with this organization for as long as they wish 2. Job security is almost guaranteed to employees in this job
Job crafting Bindl et al. (2014)
De volgende uitspraken gaan over uw gedrag op het werk. Geef a.u.b. aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met elke stelling.
Enhancing Task Crafting
1. Ik neem geregeld extra taken op me
2. Ik maak mijn werkzaamheden ingewikkelder door de structuur of volgorde te veranderen 3. Ik verander mijn werkzaamheden om ze uitdagender te maken
4. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik meer moeilijke beslissingen moet nemen in mijn werk
1. I actively took on more tasks in my work. a
2. I added complexity to my tasks by changing their structure or sequence. 3. I changed my tasks so that they were more challenging. b
4. I increased the number of difficult decisions I made in my work. B
Limiting Task Crafting
1. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder verschillende werkzaamheden hoef te doen 2. Ik probeer om sommige werkzaamheden simpeler te maken
3. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder geestelijk inspannend werk hoef te verrichten
1. I actively reduced the scope of tasks I worked on. C 2. I tried to simplify some of the tasks that I worked on. d 3. I sought to make some of my work mentally less intense. a
Enhancing Relationship Crafting
1. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik nieuwe mensen ontmoet op mijn werk 2. Ik doe moeite om collega’s beter te leren kennen
3. Ik leg contact met collega’s, ook al ken ik ze niet zo goed
4. Ik probeer om meer tijd door te brengen met verschillende collega’s
1. I actively sought to meet new people at work. b
2. I made efforts to get to know other people at work better. c
3. I sought to interact with other people at work, regardless of how well I knew them. b 4. I tried to spend more time with a wide variety of people at work.
33 Enhancing Skill Crafting
1. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik mijn capaciteiten ontwikkel in mijn werk 2. Ik probeer nieuwe dingen te leren op mijn werk
3. Ik zoek mogelijkheden op om mijn vaardigheden verder te ontwikkelen op mijn werk
1. I actively tried to develop wider capabilities in my job. a
2. I tried to learn new things at work that went beyond my core skills. a 3. I sought out opportunities for extending my overall skills at work.
Enhancing Cognitive Crafting
1. Ik denk na over hoe mijn werk bijdraagt aan de doelen van de organisatie 2. Ik denk na over andere manieren waarop ik mijn werk kan zien
3. Ik denk na over manieren waarop mijn werk een maatschappelijke bijdrage kan leveren
1. I thought about how my job contributed to the organization’s goals. c 2. I thought about new ways of viewing my overall job.
3. I thought about ways in which my job as a whole contributed to society. C
Limiting Cognitive Crafting
1. Ik richt me op de beste aspecten van mijn werk, en ik probeer de minder leuke aspecten te negeren
2. Ik beoordeel de verschillende aspecten van mijn werk om te bepalen welke het meest betekenisvol zijn
3. Ik probeer mijn werk te zien als een verzameling van losse taken in plaats van als een geheel
1. I focused my mind on the best parts of my job, while trying to ignore those parts I didn’t like. 2. I assessed the different elements of my job to determine which parts were most meaningful. 3. I tried to think of my job as a set of separate tasks, rather than as a ‘whole’.
Notes. Items taken or adapted from a Tims et al. (2012), b Laurence (2010), c Slemp et al.
(2013), d Leana et al. (2009); * Items discarded from final measure. Stem: Over the past week…; 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal).
I-deals
Bal et al (2012) adaptation of Rousseau’s measures (Hornung et al., 2008).
Geef aan in hoeverre u individuele afspraken heeft gemaakt over uw werk die anders zijn dan die van uw collega’s, op het gebied van:
34 1. Flexibiliteit in het bepalen wanneer de werkdag start en eindigt
2. Een voor u aangepast werkschema
3. Flexibiliteit die u heeft in uw werkzaamheden 4. De werkzaamheden die u doet
5. Mogelijkheden voor het volgen van trainingen
6. Mogelijkheden voor het ontwikkelen van vaardigheden 7. Carrière-ontwikkeling
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 customized 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
Career Adapt-Abilities
Maggiori et al (2015) short form (CAAS-SF) of Savickas & Porfeli (2012) original version (CAAS). Netherlands form by van Vianen et al., (2012)
Mensen gebruiken verschillende sterke punten in hun carriere. Niemand is overal goed in, iedereen richt zich vooral op waar hij/zij goed in is. Geef a.u.b. aan in hoeverre u de volgende punten heeft ontwikkeld: 1 = Helemaal niet; 2 =Nauwelijks; 3 = In redelijke mate; 4 = In hoge mate; 5 = In zeer hoge mate
Concern:
1. Nadenken over hoe mijn toekomst eruit zal zien 2. Me voorbereiden op de toekomst
3. Bewust worden van de opleiding- en beroepskeuzes die ik moet maken
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. Zelf beslissingen nemen
35 3. Op mezelf rekenen
1. Making decisions by myself
2. Taking responsibility for my actions 3. Counting on myself
Curiosity:
1. Op zoek gaan naar kansen voor persoonlijke ontwikkeling
2. Verschillende mogelijkheden onderzoeken voordat ik een keuze maak 3. Verschillende manieren zien om dingen te doen
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. Zorgen dat ik dingen goed doe à Er voor zorgen de dingen goed te doen 2. Nieuwe vaardigheden leren
3. Naar beste vermogen werken
1. Taking care to do things well 2. Learning new skills
3. Working up to my ability
Role overload
(Bolino & Turnley, 2005)
De volgende stellingen gaan over uw werk. Geef a.u.b. aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen.
1. De omvang van de werkzaamheden die van mij verwacht worden is te groot 2. Het lijkt alsof ik nooit genoeg tijd heb om al mijn werkzaamheden te voltooien 3. Het lijkt vaak alsof ik te veel werk heb voor een persoon
Role ambiguity
(Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970)
1. Voor mij ligt duidelijk vast hoe veel invloed ik heb in mijn werk 2. Er zijn duidelijke doelen en verwachtingen in mijn werk 3. Ik weet dat ik mijn tijd goed ingedeeld heb
