An engaged workforce : might empowering leadership be the answer to all? : what is the role of proactive personality in the relationship between empowering leadership and job crafting and does the latter mediate the rel

An Engaged Workforce: Might Empowering Leadership be the Answer to All?

Job Crafting and Does the Latter Mediate the Relationship between Empowering Leadership and Engagement?

Author: Sanne Maria Marianne Rietveld Student Number: 11393262

Supervisor: Eloisa Federici Second Reader: Corine T. Boon MSc Business Administration

Specialization Leadership and Management Master Thesis Final

Date: 23/06/2017

2

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Sanne Maria Marianne Rietveld 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

The study examines the role of empowering leadership and proactive personality in predicting job crafting and work engagement. Based on the literature on empowering leadership and the job-demands resources model, the study hypothesizes that empowering leadership aids employees to craft the job by providing the necessary support and in turn increases work engagement. Additionally, based on the literature on proactive personality and contingency theory, the study hypothesizes employees low on proactive personality to benefit more from empowering leadership. The study hypothesized these relations to occur on a composite score of data collected on day-level for five days, and on the general level. A model is proposed and tested with the external macro PROCESS, based on data collected among employees who were working in various organizations in the Netherlands (N = 117). At the daily level, results indicated empowering leadership to be positively related to job crafting. At the general level, results indicated job crafting to partially mediate the relationship between empowering leadership and engagement and indicated proactive personality to moderate the relationship between empowering leadership and job crafting such that the relation is stronger for employees’ medium to high levels on proactive personality. Implications and future research directions are discussed.

Key words: empowering leadership, job crafting, engagement, proactive personality, JD-R

theory, self-determination theory.

4

Table of Content

2.3 Empowering Leadership and Work Engagement ...17

2.4 Job Crafting ...18

2.4.1 Empowering Leadership and Job Crafting ...21

2.4.2 Job Crafting and Work Engagement ...23

2.4.3 The Mediating Role of Job Crafting ...24

2.5 Proactive Personality ...25

2.5.1 The Moderating Role of Proactive Personality ...27

3. Method ...29

3.1 Sample & Procedure ...29

3.2 Analytical Strategy...31 3.3 Measures ...32 3.4 Data Analysis ...33 4. Results ...36 5. Discussion...40 5.1 Practical Implications...44

5.2 Limitations and Future Research ...44

6. Conclusion ...47

7. References ...48

5

List of figures & tables

Figure 1. Research Model ...9

Table 1. Means, Standard deviations and Correlations among study variables ...35

Table 2. Results PROCESS Daily Seeking Resources ...59

Table 3. Results PROCESS Daily Seeking Challenges ...60

Table 4. Results PROCESS Daily Reducing Demands ...61

Table 5. Results PROCESS Daily Engagement ...62

Table 6. Results PROCESS General Seeking Resources ...63

Table 7. Results PROCESS General Seeking Challenges ...64

Table 8. Results PROCESS General Reducing Demands ...65

6

1. Introduction

Guy Kawasaki, Apple’s former Chief Evangelist, believes leadership is all about empowering others (Hiscox Small Business Insurance, 2011). Apple, but also LinkedIn, Google, Facebook, Airbnb and Tesla are all innovative companies which are believed to contain organizational cultures where employees are provided with opportunities by their leaders, support as well as freedom to come up with the next breakthrough (Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). Over three decades ago, Manz and Sims (1987) theorized about the case of empowering leadership and argued for effective leadership to exist if leaders lead workers, to lead themselves. With work increasingly becoming more complex due to a need for continuous improvement, these as well as other companies desire an ever more adaptive and proactive workforce that leads itself (Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012; Vogt, Hakanen, Brauchli, Jenny, & Bauer, 2016). According to Manz and Sims (1987), to have employees behave proactively, situational factors, such as leadership, can constitute a key determinant. Because proactive behaviors have been shown to influence positive organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction, retention, productivity, commitment and engagement, understanding how leadership influences proactive behaviors might help managers struggling to engage, satisfy and retain their followers and team.

In comparison to directive leadership styles, empowering leadership has been conceptualized as a leadership style that consists of behaviors which enable, not direct, employees. Examples of such empowering leadership behavior are sharing power with subordinates, delegating authority to employees, promoting autonomous decision making, sharing information, providing participation in decision making, highlighting the significance of work and removing bureaucratic constraints (Sharma & Kirman, 2015; Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005). In essence, empowering leadership is about providing employees with responsibility and authority over resources at work, as well as providing support to handle this responsibility (Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005). Empowering leadership has thus far been shown to be positively related to creativity, knowledge sharing, performance, satisfaction and commitment (Hassan, Mahsud, Yukl, & Prussia, 2013; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Recently, engagement has been identified as a key outcome of empowering leadership. Schaufeli, Martinez, Pinto, Salanova and Bakker (2002) define work engagement as “a positive self-fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption” (p. 74). According to JD-R theory, engagement typically flows from

7 job resources which are aspects of the job that help one to achieve work goals, stimulate personal growth and learning and development. Recently, leadership has been identified as a job resource (Tims et al., 2010). Because empowering leaders are specifically person-oriented, they might in this way directly help employees to achieve their goals, stimulate their growth and in turn their engagement at work.

This study proposes engagement can particularly flow from the proactive behaviors which empowering leaders stimulate. One such proactive behavior that has been repeatedly found to influence engagement, is termed job crafting. According to Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), the first researchers who coined job crafting, this behavior constitutes of actions employees take to “shape, mold and re-define their jobs” (p. 180). When the concept of job crafting was introduced, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) argued that job crafting can be influenced by the perceived opportunity to engage in this behavior. The success of job crafting might depend to a large extent on the ability of the employee to use resources and balance their demands (Berg, Dutton & Wrzesniewski, 2013). If supervisors are not concerned with the personal growth of their employees and do not signal openness and support, employees may not be able to craft their jobs in the way they would want to (Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, & Hetland, 2012). Few leadership styles have been brought into relation with job crafting, which is what Wang, Demerouti and Le Blanc (2017) call upon to do more. Since empowering leaders care for self-leadership and provide employees with autonomy, they might be in a unique position to stimulate employees to craft their jobs. In a way, engaging in job crafting can be considered as a trade-off decision which an empowering leader can influence. One way in which an empowering leader stimulates job crafting and reach engagement, is through the willingness of providing resources in general which can help employees enact job crafting behaviors (Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005). In addition, an empowering leader stimulates job crafting by providing the employee explicitly with autonomy to organize one’s tasks and balance resources and demands. Since empowering leaders believe in self-leadership, an employee who desires to undertake proactive behaviors can expect the leader to react positively (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2016). Engagement itself has been repeatedly found to flow from job crafting (Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012). Engagement results from the existence of resources as well as from balancing job resources and demands which is what job crafting behaviors aim to do (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014). Through engaging in job crafting, employees are in turn able to align their needs, abilities and desires and create an environment

8 which is more resourceful and challenging and provides the employee with meaning. This resourceful environment in turn increases a sense of engagement.

This study notably expects that job crafting is an important mediator in the relation between empowering leadership and engagement. This expectation can be partly based in self-determination theory as discussed by Deci and Ryan (2000). As reported by Deci and Ryan (2000), three psychological needs typically motivate the self to initiate behaviors, and, are essential for an individuals’ well-being; the need for competence, autonomy and relatedness. One reason job crafting is stimulated by empowering leaders is because these leaders specifically stimulate independent and self-initiating actions and provide autonomy for employees to create a meaningful experience at work. Deci and Ryan (2000) have also argued that choice and the opportunity for self-direction, appears to enhance intrinsic motivation since it affords a greater sense of autonomy. Since empowering leadership allows for this opportunity of self-direction, it can increase one’s involvement and engagement at work. All in all, an empowering leader increases the level of engagement among employees by stimulating them to engage in job crafting, balance their resources and demands, create a meaningful environment which is resourceful and challenging, satisfying basic human needs.

Though empowering leadership might hence be recognized as an important situational condition for employees to craft their jobs and feel engaged, the effect of leadership is not universal. Researchers within the leadership research area have long argued for moderators to neutralize or enhance the effect of a leader’s influence on employee behavior (Taylor & Pattie, 2014). For example, Li, Chiaburu, Kirkman and Xie (2013) revealed that transformational leadership is more helpful in encouraging employees low in proactive personality, to take charge. Bakker et al. (2012) have shown in their research how employees with a proactive personality are inclined to craft their jobs. Without being supervised by an empowering leader, these employees might thus be expected to still craft their jobs. In comparison to highly proactive employees, less proactive employees are argued to strive less for congruence with their surroundings in terms of needs and abilities (Bakker et al., 2012). In this case, an empowering leader might provide for a safe environment to stimulate them to balance their demands and resources and craft their jobs more actively. This expectation can be related to the social learning theory of Bandura (1977). He suggests that learning processes are subject to individual differences, which is why some personalities are high or low in need for leaders to interact with them. Because less proactive

9 employees, faced by work demands and resources, are less inclined by themselves to balance these, an empowering leader can be in the unique position to influence the employee to balance their demands and resources, and increase engagement. Hence proactive personality can have a role in affecting the relationship between empowering leadership and job crafting in that more proactive employees might not be in the need of an empowering leader to craft their own jobs while less proactive employees are.

Recently, methods to study organizational behaviors on a daily level are on the rise (Fisher & To, 2012). These methods typically aid in understanding within person processes that fluctuate from day-to-day, and reduce the chance for recall biases (Petrou et al., 2012). With regard to the concept of engagement, it is believed its level can vary from day-to-day (Sonnentag, 2003). Similarly, as job demands and resources are recognized to vary from day-to-day, the behavior to align them, can be expected to vary from-day to-day as well (Petrou et al., 2012). This current thesis aims to answer the research question:

What is the moderating role of proactive personality in the relationship between empowering leadership and (daily) job crafting and does the latter mediate the relationship between empowering leadership and (daily) engagement?

Accordingly, the study’s research model is as follows. Figure 1. Research Model

10 The aim of this thesis is hence threefold. First, to expand scientific knowledge on the role of empowering leadership at work by investigating the relation between empowering leadership and work engagement through job crafting. Second, to investigate the boundary conditions of leadership by investigating the role of proactive personality as a moderator in the relation between empowering leadership and job crafting. The third and final is to investigate some of these constructs at the daily level and establish differences with the between level. To answer the research question and attain these aims, data will be collected on a general and daily level through a daily diary study. This thesis begins with a review of the relevant literature on the various concepts, their relationships and the research model. Subsequently, a description of the research methodology is presented followed by a description of the results of the analyses. Finally, in the discussion section the theoretical and practical implications, the limitations, future directions and conclusion are presented.

2. Literature Review

In less than twenty years, Zappos, an online shoe retailer worth a billion dollars, has become one of the best companies to work for (George, 2015). Zappos employees are known to love their work and care for it deeply. In fact, the company is being praised for having found the link between a happy workforce and generating profit (Pontefract, 2015). According to Bill George, a senior fellow of the Harvard Business School, the secret behind their success is a leadership that empowers employees to lead (2015). Today’s best leaders, he argues, are distinguished by a leadership style which empowers followers to step up, lead themselves and grow their own potential (George, 2015). In a working environment that increasingly desires employees to initiate changes by themselves, this leadership might have great potential in enabling employees to do exactly that.

Chapter two reviews the concepts of empowering leadership, job crafting, work engagement and proactive personality. The relationships between these variables are explored and described in order to understand how these variables can potentially contribute to the current literature on organizational behaviors, their antecedents, outcomes and managerial practice. First, the chapter will elaborate on the concepts of empowering leadership and work engagement and discuss their relationship. Second, the chapter will elaborate on the concept of job crafting and explain how job crafting can mediate the relationship between empowering leadership and work

11 engagement. In order to draw conclusions from mediation analysis, both direct and indirect effects of this relation are assessed. The result will show whether job crafting fully, partially or not at all, mediates the relationship. Third, this chapter will describe the concept of proactive personality and its role as a possible moderator in the relationship between empowering leadership and job crafting.

2.1 Leadership

An interest and fascination for leadership can be said to be as old as civilization itself. From the early writings of Aristotle until the Harvard Business Review articles today, leadership is something that attracts many. In a way, our history books are the stories of leaders and how they are distinguished from the lay man. Since leadership has different meanings for different people, a common definition is hard to find. Definitions have ranged from an emphasis on the leader’s abilities, traits, behaviors, individual versus group orientation and appeal to the self (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). Over time, varying theoretical perspectives of leadership have been developed which consequently resulted in various empirically studied outcomes of leadership (Hiller, DeChurch, Murase, & Doty, 2011).

The earliest research on leadership was typified by a search for a “great man”; a leader recognized by physical features, abilities and traits that made him fit to lead. (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; Hoffman, Woehr, Maldagen - Youngjohn, & Lyons, 2011; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). Empirical evidence, however, lacked to find a perfect leadership profile. As a response to the disappointment in the trait research, a behavioral, or style approach to leadership gained more attention (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). However, this approach failed to take situational characteristics into account and hence suffered from measurement problems and inconsistent findings (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001). A contingency stream of research subsequently became more prominent and argued for the effectiveness of any given leader behavior to be contingent on the situation (Bryman & Parry, 2006; Howell & Shamir, 2005). Recently, new leadership approaches have risen in both scientific and professional literature that aim to explain why some leaders achieve such high levels of motivation, commitment, motivation and performance of followers in dynamic work environments (Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

12 and constantly looking for new types of leadership. New leaders that succeed by guiding organizations into the future are described to be transformational, charismatic, transforming, inspirational, visionary and value based (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001; Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009). In this changing landscape of leadership research, a specific approach is emerging as a way to achieve high levels of motivation. This approach is called empowering leadership (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014). At its core, empowering leadership involves the delegation of power and authority to employees to enable them to manage and lead themselves. The trend towards this type of leadership reflects a shift in focus from a leader-dominated view to a broader view of employee involvement in power (Hollander & Offermann, 1990). It involves the process of giving front-line employees the power to make decisions. Something that is usually reserved for managers. How this concept has developed and what impact it can have an impact on the individual and organization is explored next.

2.1.1 Empowering Leadership

Manz and Sims (1987) were the first to recognize the importance of empowering leadership behaviors. They argued that effective leadership stems from leaders leading their employees into leading themselves. Manz and Sims (1987) identified that the most important behaviors of a leader is to be able to facilitate a team’s self-management through self-observation, self-evaluation and self-reinforcement. Today, these behaviors that empower employees have been researched more intensely; resulting in the concept of empowering leadership.

Empowering leadership has mostly been defined in two ways (Sharma & Kirman, 2015). First of all, it has been defined to consist of behaviors of leaders such as participation in decision making and sharing information. Secondly, it has been conceptualized as a power sharing process by leaders to enhance employee autonomy. On the whole, empowering leadership is defined as “behaviors that share power with subordinates” (Vecchio, Justin, & Pearce, 2010, p. 531). In comparison to traditional leadership practices, which are more hierarchical and directive in nature, empowering leadership delegates authority and responsibility to its employees (Ahearne et al., 2005). Empirical evidence has distinguished empowering leadership from directive, transformational and transactional leadership. Respectively, these entail a reliance on position power to influence employees; the articulation of a leader’s vision and gathering employees to achieve that vision; and a focus on rewarding employees to stimulate motivation. This behavior

13 contrast with the essence of empowering leadership that is aimed at enhancing employee’s self-motivation and investment in work, not through articulating a vision or rewarding them, but through sharing power and autonomy with them (Avolio et al., 2009; Tuckey et al., 2012).

According to Ahearne et al. (2005), who studied empowering leadership at the individual level, empowering leadership consists of four dimensions: (1) highlighting the significance of work, (2) providing participation in decision making, (3) conveying confidence that performance will be high and (4) removing bureaucratic constraints. An empowering leader thus tends to enhance the meaningfulness of work by aiding an employee to understand the importance of their contribution to the overall organization. In addition, an empowering leader displays confidence in an employee’s abilities and his or her ability to perform. Furthermore, an empowering leader provides an employee with autonomy to stimulate self-determination by encouraging the individual to balance his or her own job. Finally, an empowering leader engages the employee to participate in decision making (Ahearne et al., 2005; Zhang & Bartol, 2010).

Empowering leadership has been found to be related to positive individual and organizational outcomes. Ahearne et al. (2005) state that less experienced employees benefit greatly from empowering leadership. Zhang and Bartol (2010) noticed empowering leadership to positively affect psychological empowerment and in turn intrinsic motivation and creative process engagement; both had a positive influence on creativity. Amundsen and Martinsen (2014) similarly found that empowering leadership had a positive effect on psychological empowerment and creativity, but also on self-leadership, job satisfaction, work effort and performance. Srivastava, Bartol and Locke (2006) observed a positive relationship between empowering leadership, knowledge sharing and team efficacy which were both in turn related to improved performance. Carmeli, Schaubroeck and Tishler (2011) furthermore found a positive relationship between CEOs empowering leadership and top management behavioral integration, which consecutively enhanced top management behavioral integration and firm performance. Vecchio et al., (2010) finally revealed empowering leadership to be associated with increased employee performance and satisfaction in addition to reduced dysfunctional resistance. Overall, these results are promising for organizations that desire an intrinsically motivated and satisfied workforce. One result, that has not yet been intensively researched is engagement as discussed next.

14

2.2 Work Engagement

The first researcher to present the concept of work engagement was William Kahn. Kahn conceptualized engagement as “the harnessing of the organization member’s self to their work roles, in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during role performance” (Kahn, 1990, p. 694). In his work, Kahn built on Goffman’s theory on role embracement. Goffman (2008) claims that behaviors which signify a lack of separation between people and their role indicates embracement or attachment while behaviors separating people from their role indicates role distance or detachment. Kahn extended this concept to an organizational context. In his eyes, because employees identify with their work, effort is made in a dynamic relation where the work role allows the employee to express oneself, and the employee in turn drives his physical, cognitive and emotional energy into the work role as the employee needs both self-expression and self-employment (Kahn, 1990). Subsequent to his work, other definitions have been proposed that define engagement as a discretionary effort or intellectual commitment, Kahn (1990), however, already identified the concept to go beyond commitment and more recent research has identified this to be the case as well.

Most of the contemporary research on work engagement has been prompted by research on the concept of burnout, in search for positive behavioral research (Bakker et al., 2014). Around the 1970s, burnout became a topic of discussion. People working in human service jobs, occupations dedicated to help others, were increasingly observed to lose energy and meaning in their jobs (Schaufeli, Leiter, & Maslach, 2009). Upon identifying that other professions were also increasingly recognized by exhaustion and loss of meaning, burnout and other negative behavioral research sparked. Currently, burnout is defined as a syndrome characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment (Bakker et al., 2014). In contrast to employees that suffer from burnout, employees who are engaged in their work feel energetic, intimately connected to work and view work as a challenge (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008).

Two different but related views on the conceptualization of engagement have been significant in research, both consider work engagement as a positive, work related state of well-being and commitment. The first view advances that engagement is a concept that can be assessed and viewed as the opposite of burnout and thus characterized by the opposite scores on the three dimensions of burnout: exhaustion, depersonalization and ineffectiveness (Maslach, Schaufeli, &

15 Leiter, 2001). While people with a burnout are characterized by a high feeling of exhaustion, detachment from work and low belief in the functioning of the self, engaged employees feel energetic, involved and high up on the scale of self-efficacy (Bakker et al., 2014). On the contrary, the second view argues that work engagement is an independent concept, not related to burnout. This view defines work engagement as “a positive self-fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption” (Schaufeli, Martinez, Pinto, Salanova, & Bakker, 2002, p. 74). Vigor equals high energy levels and resilience while working, the desire to put effort in work and to persist in times of difficulties. Dedication refers to strong involvement into work, experiencing meaning, challenge and enthusiasm. Absorption means being completely concentrated and engrossed in work, as a result time will seem to fly by (Bakker et al., 2014). To a certain degree, depersonalization and dedication, and vigor and exhaustion are each other opposites. Research has partly confirmed this by identifying that students who are very dedicated, typically show little cynicism (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Currently, exhaustion and vigor have been labeled to represent an energy continuum while cynicism and dedication have been labeled an identification continuum where engaged workers are most likely recognized to have a high level of energy and strong identification with their work. Hence, though work engagement and burnout are thus recognized to have their own conceptualizations, they are closely related and researchers tend to agree that engagement is characterized by a high energy level, identification and absorption, while a burnout is characterized by a low energy level, and little identification (Bakker et al., 2014). As a phenomenon, work engagement has been linked to a variety of positive motivational and job-related outcomes. Engaged employees have been shown to experience more positive and active emotions, they feel more inspired, are cheerful, enthusiastic and particularly willing to learn new things and explore their environments (Bakker et al., 2014). With regard to job-related outcomes, performance is a re-occurring outcome, which stresses the importance of engagement within an organization. Menguc, Auh, Fisher and Haddad (2013) used data from 482 service employees and customers in 66 retail stores to discover that a higher level of engagement is related to a more positive evaluation of employees’ service performance. In their meta-analysis based on 7939 business units, Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) identified a positive relationship between business unit level engagement and business unit outcomes of customer satisfaction, productivity, profit and safety. Certain health outcomes can also be traced back to engagement. Nonetheless, more research has to be done on this matter since no clear conclusions have yet been formed

16 (Bakker et al., 2014).

Traditionally, researchers have focused on situational as well as individual antecedents to work engagement, in search for ways to achieve a positive state of well-being. Both higher order and lower order individual factors have been proven to be positively related to work engagement (Bakker et al., 2014). Lower order individual factors such as self-efficacy, optimism, self-esteem, positive affect, core self-evaluations and a sense of coherence have been related to engagement (Mäkikangas, Feldt, Kinnunen, & Mauno, 2013). One reason for employees characterized by high self-efficacy and optimism to be more engaged can be found in the way these employees perceive reality more positively and accept failures as normal and not suggestive of a lack of efficacy (Halbesleben, 2010). Higher order factors such as personality have additionally been shown to play a key role in work engagement. Research has shown that of out the Big Five personality traits, extraversion and conscientiousness are consistently related to higher work engagement among employees (Mäkikangas et al., 2013). Extroverts are known to show more positive emotions and are more inclined to be optimistic which has been related to work engagement.

In addition to these individual antecedents, or personal resources, researchers have also focused on situational antecedents. These situational antecedents of work engagement can be related to the job demands resources model and theory (JD-R) (Bakker et al., 2014). The JD-R theory postulates that job characteristics greatly vary over occupations but in general can always be categorized as either a job demand or job resource (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Task variety, task significance, feedback as well as autonomy are such resources whereas role overload, high work pressure and poor environmental conditions constitute demands (Bakker, Demerouti, de Boer, & Schaufeli, 2003). Meta-analyses have typically found that job demands are important predictors of burnout whereas job resources are important predictors of work engagement (Bakker et al., 2014; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Job resources are physical, psychological, social or organizational job facets that either help to achieve work goals, reduce job demands or stimulate personal growth, learning and development (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Job demands, in turn, are indicated to be “…physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive or emotional) effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs” (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004, p. 296). In a longitudinal study, it was identified that the employees with a high level of job control as a resource, also reported higher levels on the scale of Schaufeli et al. (2002) on work

17 engagement. Not only do resources themselves influence engagement of employees, resources have been shown to contribute to employee engagement in combination with high job demands as well (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007). Other job resources that have been found to predict engagement are task variety, task significance, feedback and autonomy (Bakker et al., 2014; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Lately, leadership style has been identified as an important situational antecedent to work engagement which will be explored in the next paragraph (Tims, Bakker, & Xanthopoulou, 2011).

2.3 Empowering Leadership and Work Engagement

So far, we have seen that empowering leadership is aimed at facilitating subordinate self-leadership and self-motivation by providing employees with power and autonomy to take leadership into their own hands (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014). Empowering leadership is person-oriented and serves to teach and develop self-leadership capabilities among employees (Ahearne et al., 2005; Arnold et al., 2000). Although other leadership styles, such as transformational leadership, which involves the articulation of a vision and gathering employees to achieve that vision, may also include developing employees, it is not their primary aim as it is for an empowering leader (Tuckey, Bakker, & Dollard, 2012). The goal of empowering leadership is to have employees develop into self-leaders who can act and initiate something on their own while the goal of a transformational leader is to achieve his or her own vision (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014).

This thesis defined job resources as those job facets that either help to achieve work goals, reduce job demands, stimulate personal growth and learning and development (Bakker et al., 2014). Recently, leadership has started to be recognized as a job resource (Tims et al., 2011). JD-R theory states that engagement typically flows from job resources. One way in which empowering leadership leads to increased levels of engagement, is through engaging employees in participation, stimulating them to grow. Additionally, because empowering leaders are specifically person-oriented, they might in this way directly help employees to achieve their goals, stimulate their development and in turn their engagement at work. Tuckey et al. (2012) found support for this as these researchers discovered empowering leadership to influence work engagement at the team level.

18 Around a decade ago, methods which help to study within person processes have risen in their use (Fisher & To, 2012). In general, these methods, for example the daily diary method that is used in this thesis, help to study, amongst other things, intraindividual processes compromising behaviors, affect, work events and interactions. How engaged an employee is on a specific day can vary due to what one experiences that day. Engagement can therefore be conceptualized as a certain state-like variable that fluctuates from day to day, showing intraindividual variation (Sonnentag, 2003). When measured over a short period of time, states can explain within person differences (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009). Petrou et al. (2012) argue that organizational behaviors should be studied on a daily level. Not only because of the day to day fluctuations in behavior and emotions but also to reduce recall biases and to control individual tendencies. Fisher and To (2012) argue that repeated real-time measures are useful for establishing an accurate person level summary such as the frequency, mean or variability of a type of experience. Due to the scope of this thesis, the average daily engagement of the respective research week will be used to establish such a person level summary. Considering all of this, the first hypothesis is:

H1: Empowering leadership is positively related to daily work engagement. 2.4 Job Crafting

Searching through national and international employment websites will yield one an overview of hundreds or maybe thousands of vacancies referring to a ‘pro-active’ or ‘self-regulating’ attitude among job seekers. In the fast-paced environment that we live in, work is increasingly becoming more complex and demanding. This is why organizations require a self-initiating, adaptive and proactive workforce (Bakker et al., 2012; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012; Vogt et al., 2016). Job crafting is one exemplary type of proactive behavior. The idea of job crafting already existed three decades ago when Kulik, Oldman and Hackman (1987) argued that employees may redesign their own jobs with or without supervision, contrary to traditional job design theory. Today, Grant and Parker (2009) argue that job crafting can be part of the so-called ‘proactive person-environment fit behaviors’ since job crafting is a proactive behavior that refers to either one having to change the environment, or, the self in order to achieve a better compatibility between the work environment and one’s own abilities. Since its coinage, the concept has developed substantially, and, recently its potential to be a strategic advantage to the organization has been recognized.

19 According to Wrzesniewski and Dutton many researchers underrated the role that employees themselves can play in actively shaping the tasks and relationships at work, instead of taking the work situation as a given. Individuals possess, according to these researchers the latitude to define one’s own job and to carry out their jobs as they see fit. Job crafting can thus be seen as an action that refers to “… physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work” (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p. 179). In this way, job crafting constitutes a bottom up employee approach instead of a more traditional top-down approach to work. Several reasons exist for why employees would want to adjust their jobs, and they all arise from three specific individual needs (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). First, employees engage in job crafting due to a desire for control over their job and to avoid alienation. Second, employees engage in job crafting because they, in general, are motivated to create a positive self-image. The third and final reason concerns a basic need for human connections. Though their contribution has been significant, some have found the definition and conceptualization of Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) to be restrictive and recent literature has used the JD-R model to describe in a theoretically grounded way a wider list of specific job characteristics (Bakker et al., 2012). For example, asking for feedback on one’s performance, taking e-learning courses or grabbing an opportunity to participate in a new project when it comes along. Without necessarily altering one’s tasks or relationships completely, employees can initiate behaviors to bring a situation closer to their preference. To capture these and more aspects that employees may alter in their jobs, several researchers have used the JD-R model to expand on the relatively restrictive conceptualization of Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) (e.g. Tims, Bakker, & Derks, (2012); Petrou et al., (2012)). Tims and Bakker (2010) hence defined job crafting as proactively changing one’s job demands or resources to bring a situation closer to one’s own preference. Tims and Bakker (2010) identified different dimensions of job crafting to constitute: (1) increasing or seeking structural or social resources, (2) increasing or seeking job demands or challenges, and (3) decreasing hindering job demands. An employee might increase his/her social job resources by asking a colleague or manager for advice, increase structural job resources by learning new skills or increase challenging job demands by asking for more responsibility. It is also possible to reduce demands by avoiding contact with difficult clients or eliminate other emotional, mental and physical demanding job aspects. Therefore, job crafting may be defined as a “…proactive employee behavior consisting of seeking resources, seeking challenges, and reducing demands”

20 (Petrou et al., 2012, p. 501) or according to Tims et al., (2012) as “… the changes that employees may make to balance their job demands and job resources with personal abilities and needs” (p.174). Job crafting in general can thus be described as a proactive behavior to increase person-environment fit (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010). This JD-R approach is in line with one other job crafting approach presented by Laurence who distinguished between expansion oriented and contraction oriented job crafting: the former referring to an increase in number and complexity of tasks and the latter referring to a reduction in complexity of tasks and relationship (Wang, Demerouti, & Bakker, 2017). Reducing demands could be described as contraction-oriented job crafting while seeking resources and challenges could be considered as expansion oriented job crafting.

Previous research has found several situational and individual antecedents to influence job crafting. At the individual level, a career orientation, work experience, desire for status as well as the need for positive a self-image, the need for human connection and approach and avoidance temperament have been found to be positively related or predictors of job crafting (Niessen et al., 2016; Berdicchia et al., 2016; Leana, Appelbaum, & Shevchuk, 2009; Bipp & Demerouti, 2015). One important condition needed for job crafting to occur is job autonomy, or the possibility to control how and when employees carry out their work tasks (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Without autonomy, one can imagine that employees will not be able to perceive an opportunity to craft their job.

Though other related types of organizational proactive behaviors exist, such as taking charge, personal initiative and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), job crafting can be distinguished from these as it specifically targets the change of job characteristics (Niessen et al., 2016). Similarly, two related job redesign constructs, task I-deals and role adjustment, can also be distinguished from job crafting. Task I-deals, a concept referring to the customization of job content established in agreement between the employer and employee is distinct as it authorized by an employer, while job crafting is a bottom up approach that does not require authorization (Hornung, Rousseau, Glaser, Angerer, & Weigel, 2010). Role adjustment is a broader concept that includes task I-deals, job crafting, delegation of responsibilities and work sharing with colleagues (Clegg & Spencer, 2007). One situational antecedent to job crafting that has only been recently identified is empowering leadership. The following section will explain why this is so.

21

2.4.1 Empowering Leadership and Job Crafting

Self-initiated actions, such as job crafting, are embedded in organizational realities. One such reality is the existence of a supervisor. Recently, Den Hartog and Belschak (2016) argued that whether or not employees display proactive behavior depends on whether employees believe that their leaders will react positively to their proactivity and be receptive to the employees. If supervisors are not concerned with the personal growth of their employees and do not signal openness and support, employees may not be able to craft their jobs in the way they would want to (Petrou et al., 2012). Hence supervisors might be in a unique position to provide employees with opportunities and resources to craft a job.

Empowering leadership aims to enhance employees’ self-leadership and investment in work by sharing power and autonomy (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014). Several reasons exist why empowering leadership behaviors specifically stimulate job crafting. First of all, one key condition for job crafting to occur is the provision of autonomy. Without this autonomy at the job, adjusting resources and demands might be particularly difficult. Ahearne et al. (2005) discovered empowering leadership to consist of behaviors to such as removing bureaucratic constraints to allow the employee more freedom to organize the job. The worker’s perception of receiving a degree of (job) control and autonomy from their leader may additionally encourage and facilitate the job crafting process. In this way, empowering leadership may be linked to job crafting due to the fact that the more autonomy and flexibility the workers perceive, or the less bureaucratic constraints the workers perceive, the more likely they are to display job crafting as the decision to job craft is influenced by a perceived opportunity to do so (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). The delegation additionally conveys the message that it is legitimate for these employees to craft their jobs. Secondly, job crafting is believed to arise, amongst others, from a desire for competence (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). According to self-determination theory, employees initiate behaviors to satisfy their need for competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000). An empowering leader explicitly stresses and displays confidence that performance will be high, which might satisfy the employees desire to be competent. Finally, empowering leadership is recognized by a willingness in general to provide job resources which helps employees enact job crafting behaviors (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014). The interpersonal style of an empowering leader hence creates a context that allows for job crafting to take place.

22 self-leadership and self-development, which are key aspects of job crafting. Manz and Sims (1987) even explicitly argued that employee self-leadership, which results of empowering leadership, entails a redefinition of one’s tasks and relationships with the tasks which closely reflects the job crafting dimensions as introduced by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001). Empirical evidence has found empowering leadership to increase employee proactive behavior (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2016). Recently, Esteves and Lopez (2016) researched how nurses’ perception of a directive or empowering leader is related to job crafting behaviors. Their results indicated that the perception of an empowering leader is strongly related to an increase in job challenges as well as an increase in social resources (Esteves & Lopes, 2016). With regard to the final aspect of job crafting, hindering job demands, it is known that the job crafting mechanism works somewhat different (Tims et al., 2012). Both increasing challenges and resources are argued to create a meaningful experience and identity at work. In contrast, decreasing hindering job demands is mainly the result of an unpleasant experience at work. If an employee has an empowering leader, he or she will likely have the autonomy to decrease hindering demands. Podsakoff, LePine and LePine (2007) argued decreasing hindering demands to be beneficial for employees by reducing negative work and worker outcomes. On the one hand, this may mean that employees might craft an environment that has less obstacles. On the other, as will be argued below, this might have negative effects on engagement levels of an employee, which is why job crafting may not always benefit the organization.

As was indicated in paragraph 2.3, organizational behaviors might fluctuate from day to day due to certain experiences at work. Evidence by Sonnentag (2003) already indicated that proactive behaviors show within person variation over time. Petrou et al. (2012) argue that job crafting occurs in order to bring a situation in line with one’s preference in terms of demands and resources at work. Since demands and resources can vary from day to day, the behavior to bring these in line, can be expected to vary from day to day as well. In line with Petrou et al. (2012), this thesis will research three distinct job crafting behaviors that have been shown to occur at a daily level. Accordingly, the next hypotheses are:

H2a: Empowering leadership is positively related to day-level seeking resources. H2b: Empowering leadership is positively related to day-level seeking challenges. H2c: Empowering leadership is positively related to day-level reducing demands.

23

2.4.2 Job Crafting and Work Engagement

Various researchers have found job crafting to be significantly related to well-being outcomes such as engagement. Tims et al. (2013), in their longitudinal study, reported that employees who crafted their resources in the first month of the research showed an increase in social and structural resources over the course of the research of two months, which was an increase positively related to job satisfaction. De Beer, Tims and Bakker (2016), in their cross-sectional study, found social job resources to be a positively significant predictor of job satisfaction as well. In the long term, Leana et al. (2009) found teacher collaborative crafting to be related to organizational commitment. Tims et al. (2013) reported that an increase in job resources was positively related to an increase in engagement. A longitudinal study by Vogt, et al., (2016) showed that job crafting, measured as increasing social resources, structural resources and seeking challenges, predicts work engagement over time. In another longitudinal study by Harju et al. (2016), seeking challenges was identified to positively predict work engagement.

Several reasons exist to substantiate the outcome of job crafting on work engagement. In the recent conceptualization of job crafting based on the JD-R model, it is shown that job crafting behaviors such as increasing structural, social resources and challenging demands, affect engagement (Petrou et al., 2012). When job demands are high, job resources have been shown to have an additional positive impact on engagement (Bakker et al., 2012). An employee who proactively changes his or her work and optimizes demands and resources, can be expected to work in a resourceful and challenging environment (Bakker et al., 2013). Such a resourceful and challenging environment promotes work engagement in turn. Another reason can be found in self-determination theory. This theory states that job resources and challenging demands are able to satisfy the basic needs of humans for autonomy, relatedness and competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In the previous paragraph it was argued how these could be stimulated by a resource such as leadership. The theory also lends itself to the current argument as it argues the self-initiating behaviors which arise from psychological needs, in turn can lead to an increase of well-being. By crafting the job, employees might feel more psychological freedom and ownership, as well as a sense of relatedness and mastery which help in stimulating engagement. Through crafting resources, for instance, employees may increase a feeling of relatedness as crafting these resources increases interactions with co-workers and managers. Employees may also increase a feeling of autonomy and by crafting challenges and executing these, employees may feel more competent.

24 The theory furthermore states that the satisfaction of all three needs results in a stimulation of motivation and engagement of employees (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

As was argued in previous paragraphs, both job crafting and engagement can vary one day from the other (Petrou et al., 2012; Tims et al., 2011). This thesis predicts that the average level of job crafting in a week will be related to the average level of engagement in that week. Due to the fact that this study uses Petrou et al.’s (2012) recent conceptualization of job crafting, the first two dimensions of seeking resources and challenges are hypothesized to be positively related to work engagement. According to Petrou et al. (2012), reducing demands, however, plays a different role in relation to daily work engagement. Petrou et al. (2012) argue that in essence, reducing demands means that employees will reduce the triggers for action. Reducing these triggers results in a suboptimal level of challenge in the job. This is believed to be counterproductive and negatively related to motivation and satisfaction of the basic need of competence, which, as argued before, is essential in achieving engagement. Hence the following hypothesis:

H3a: Day-level seeking resources is positively related to daily work engagement. H3b: Day-level seeking challenges is positively related to daily work engagement. H3c: Day-level reducing demands is negatively related to daily work engagement.

2.4.3 The Mediating Role of Job Crafting

Job crafting can play a key role in the relation between empowering leadership and work engagement. According to the JD-R theory, engagement mainly results from the existence of job resources that in themselves increase engagement, or do so through a balance of job resources and job demands (Bakker et al., 2014). Undertaking job crafting behaviors allows the employees to balance their demands and resources at work. In other words, by engrossing in job crafting behaviors, employees are able to align their needs, desires and abilities to create a meaningful experience at work and feel engaged. One condition that has been intensely researched within the self-determination theory is a degree of autonomy to be able to create a meaningful experience that fulfills the needs of competence, relatedness and control (Deci & Ryan, 2000). These three needs typically motivate the self to initiate behaviors such as job crafting and are essential for well-being. Since employees are embedded in organizational realities, managers might prevent or stimulate subordinates to refrain or engage in certain behaviors. An empowering leader’s key

25 behaviors include a delegation of power and autonomy and the stimulation of self-leadership (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014). An empowering leader hence specifically stimulates self-initiating actions and might hence present a positive boundary condition. Relatedly, Deci & Ryan (2000) have argued that the opportunity for self-direction also enhances intrinsic motivation, and the desire for self-direction, an empowering leader hence can increase the employees’ involvement and engagement at work. Motivated by an empowering leader, employees can engage in job crafting behaviors and therefore satisfy basic human needs to feel energized, vigorous and dedicated. Based on this, the study expects the three daily job crafting behaviors as identified by Petrou et al. (2012) to mediate the relationship between empowering leadership and work engagement.

H4a: Day-level seeking resources mediates the relationship between empowering leadership and day-level engagement.

H4b:Day-level seeking challenges mediates the relationship between empowering leadership and day-level engagement.

H4c: Day-level reducing demands mediates the relationship between empowering leadership and day-level engagement.

2.5 Proactive Personality

Personality itself has a positive influence on work life for two reasons. First of all, careers are the product of behavior tendencies that have accumulated over time; and, secondly, the work life is full of weak and unfamiliar situations where personality plays a dominant role in behavior choice (Fuller & Marler, 2009). In an increasingly competitive and dynamic environment, organizations are facing more complex and new challenges. In turn, employees working in today’s organizations are expected to be willing to change, to continuously take charge, to demonstrate initiative and to act instead of react. Proactive behaviors in general have gained increasing research interest in the last two decades as proactive behaviors have become recognized as a necessity in dynamic times (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012).

In 1993, Bateman and Crant suggested that proactivity is a dispositional construct that differentiates the extent to which people take action to influence their environment. They noted that the wide variety of proactive behaviors studied since 1993 had some commonalities. As a result they identified the proactive personality concept as a determinant of these proactive

26 behaviors across domains (Bateman & Crant, 1993). According to Bateman and Crant (1993) a person with a prototypic proactive personality is someone “who is relatively unconstrained by situational forces, and who effects environmental change” (p. 105). They assumed that individuals with a proactive personality are proactive across different contexts, over time, regardless of contingencies of a situation at work or career (Crant, Hu, & Jiang, 2017). Nonetheless, recent research has also identified how proactive behavior can be seen as undesirable such as in more hierarchical organizational structures, while the concept has mostly been related to positive attitudes, behaviors and career-related outcomes (Crant et al., 2017).

Proactive personality as a construct stems from interactionism, which argues that “situations are as much a function of the person as the person’s behavior is a function of the situation” (Bowers, 1973, p. 327). Individuals can thus be seen as creators of their own environments who internally and externally control their behaviors. Social cognitive theory additionally supports the theory behind the construct as it argues for a dynamic reciprocal relationship between the person and the environment. In other words, the person and the environment continuously influence each other (Bakker et al., 2012). While people with a proactive personality are thus characterized as active crafters of their environments, who seek out opportunities, show initiative and perseverance to bring about change, passive individuals typically fail to actively craft their environments (Bateman & Crant, 1993).

Proactive personality has been recognized to be distinct in its breadth on the one hand and its focus on inherent proactive traits on the other hand (Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010). The scope of the proactive personality construct suggests it is related to a broad variety of proactive behaviors, in and outside of work. Proactive personality can be seen as an antecedent to many other researched proactive behaviors, specifically proactive work behavior (Crant et al., 2017). In fact, as a dispositional construct and a stable behavioral tendency, proactive personality has been identified to be a predictor of many other proactive behavior such as voice behavior, taking charge, creativity, network building and career related initiative (Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010; Fuller & Marler, 2009).

A recent meta-analysis reported that one of the most common scales used today to measure proactive personality is the 17-item scale by Bateman and Crant (1993) that represents a unidimensional scale that measures proactive tendencies (Claes, Beheydt, & Lemmens, 2005). Another scale that has been used often is a ten-item scale created by Seibert, Crant and Kraimer

27 (1999). Both scales offer good internal consistency. Other researchers have also developed six, five and four item measures. Recently, researchers evaluated the unidimensionality of the different shorter versions of the original seventeen-item scale, revealing the six-item version represents unidimensional scale in the three researched cultures and languages (Claes et al., 2005).

People with a proactive personality are thus in general believed to act on their environment and create favorable conditions. At work, this means that employees with a proactive personality are believed to create favorable work conditions, which can result in positive job attitudes. Empirical evidence shows that positive relationships exist between proactive personality and attitudes such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, life satisfaction, motivation to learn and willingness to adapt (Crant et al., 2017; Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010). Empirical evidence has also shown a relationship between proactive personality and behaviors, especially other proactive behaviors. People with a proactive personality are more likely to show organizational citizenship behavior, voice behavior, charge taking behavior, active socialization and more creative behavior (Crant et al., 2017). Researchers also identified that these individuals experience more career satisfaction, career commitment, showed job search behaviors, and had higher salaries and prestige (Crant et al., 2017). This thesis will argue for a moderator role of proactive personality, as will be elaborated in the next paragraph.

2.5.1 The Moderating Role of Proactive Personality

Proactive personality may have a moderating role on the relationship between empowering leadership and job crafting. Some researchers have argued for the moderating potential of proactive personality (Xin, Zhou, Qian, & Kang, 2016; Fuller, Marler, & Hester, 2006; Li, Chiaburu, Kirkman, & Xie, 2013). Specifically, with regard to leadership at work and organizational behaviors, proactive personality has not yet been intensively researched as a possible boundary condition. However, research has found that, in general, followers’ personality, usually measured by the Big Five personality traits, greatly matters when examining the impact of a leader’s character or style on follower behaviors, cognitions or attitudes (De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2009; Guay & Choi, 2015; Liborius, 2014; Taylor & Pattie, 2014). For example, followers high on agreeableness, who are generally more kind, sympathetic and trusting, are more affected by a leaders’ humility. As a result, followers are more inclined to follow the leader as they perceive their leader worthy to follow (Liborius, 2014). Guay and Choi (2015) identified that follower

28 neuroticism and extraversion moderated the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors such that these relationships were stronger for those high in neuroticism and low in extraversion. Taylor and Pattie (2014) revealed follower conscientiousness to moderate the negative relationship between ethical leadership and follower incivility. In other words, there is less of a need for an ethical leader to interact with highly conscientious employees to stimulate civility as these individuals already act civil out of a sense of self-discipline and dutifulness (Taylor & Pattie, 2014). De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2009) support this and reason that for some personalities, leadership style can have less or more of an effect on the individual to behave or feel a certain way.

One of the few researchers who published a study on the moderating role of proactive personality on the relationship between leadership and organizational behavior are Li et al., (2013). Their study revealed that transformational leadership is especially helpful to motivate employees low in proactive personality to take charge (in comparison to those high in proactive personality). The highly proactive employees, might already have enough motivation of their own. As a result, help from a leader is not necessarily needed. In fact, for long, researchers within the leadership research area have argued for moderators to neutralize or enhance the effects of a leader’s influence on employee behavior (Taylor & Pattie, 2014). The belief that followers’ characteristics matter for the potential impact of leadership is not new. As was discussed in the review on leadership research above, researchers began to discuss situational characteristics in order to move on from a “great man approach”, which yielded limited empirical evidence (Hoffman et al., 2011). Examples are the Fiedler’s (1964) contingency model or House’s (1971) path goal theory. These researchers argued for the role of support and loyalty of followers as well as follower’s experience and skills to influence the appropriateness of leadership styles (Howell & Shamir, 2005). Howell and Shamir (2005) subsequently pleaded for the role of follower characteristics as effective determinants of reactions to leaders. Ehrhart and Klein (2001) extended the argument and argued that followers’ personality affects individual preferences for different types of leaders. They argue that many will agree that leadership is jointly produced by the leader and follower (e.g. Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). These arguments can be grounded in the social learning framework of Bandura (1977) which suggests that learning processes are subjected to individual differences. This theory supports the idea that certain personalities require more from a leader than others. Hence, some individuals do benefit greatly from learning from the leader, while

29 others less so as they already are inclined to behave a in certain way.

This thesis argues that empowering leadership provides employees with participation in decision making, highlighting the significance of work, conveying confidence that performance will be high and removing bureaucratic constraints (Ahearne et al., 2005). In essence, empowering leadership aims at enhancing the self-motivation of employees and their investment in their work by sharing power (Manz & Sims, 1987). Additionally, an empowering leader stimulates self-determination by encouraging the individual to balance his/her own job. This is of special interest for employees who are low in proactive personality. A person low in proactive personality crafts his or her job less since his or her personality is not dispositioned to do so. However, when faced with a leader who stimulates taking control and acting autonomously, the less proactive employee, in line with social learning theory, might be more likely to change his or her behavior. People low in proactive personality are typically characterized as passive, they do not show initiative and do not seek out opportunities to change the state of their environment. An empowering leader might then provide for a safe environment to let an employee craft his or her job. In contrast, when a highly proactive individual is faced with an empowering leader, the leadership behaviors might be more neutralized due to the fact that a proactive individual is likely to engage is job crafting on his or her own. Proactive employees already have more personal resources and are already more motivated to craft their jobs. This makes them less or not dependent on an empowering leader. As such, this thesis hypothesizes that:

H5: Proactive personality moderates the relationship between empowering leadership and all three types of job crafting behavior in such a way that this relationship will be stronger for less proactive employees.

3. Method

3.1 Sample & Procedure

To test the hypotheses on the relations between empowering leadership, work engagement, job crafting and proactive personality, a general questionnaire and daily questionnaire were distributed. The general questionnaire was sent out to collect demographic data as well as information on the general level of the measured variables. The daily questionnaire had to be filled in every day for five consecutive days in two possible research weeks, either 27th of March till 31st

30 of March or 3rd of April till the 7th of April. The participants were instructed to fill in the survey before they left the office after a day of work or the latest, before they went to bed. The general questionnaire was sent out one week before the participants’ preferred research started for which they had agreed upon to participate. All participants received the general and the daily questionnaire by e-mail. Data was collected by using the software program Qualtrics. Participants who, after two weeks, failed to fill in the general questionnaire received reminder e-mails. Strict confidentiality of participation was ensured in the accompanying body of the e-mail.

Participants were recruited by three students in the Business Administration Master of the University of Amsterdam. The study used non-probability sampling methods. Namely, convenience sampling and snowball sampling. The research team used convenience sampling to gain access to certain employees. Additionally, snowball sampling was used to find additional employees. This method resulted in an appropriate sample size in a timely and inexpensive way. Because of the non-probability sampling techniques and the collection of data by three researchers, the sample is expected to be diverse.

The chance of winning a voucher worth €50,- served as an incentive to participate in the study. In return for their participation, the respondents could also receive the results after the study was finalized. Those who were included in the study were full-time employees who were able to fill out the survey for at least three days in the research week. In addition, participants had to be Dutch, and could work in several organizations, in different industries, and be at different stages in their careers. The participants were informed that upon agreement they would receive both the general and the daily questionnaire, for which the last one had to be filled in at the end of each day during the respective research week. The scales in the questionnaire that were not already available in Dutch, were translated using the back-translation method as described in the measures section. A total of 132 general questionnaires were sent out via e-mail. In the end, 117 people filled out the general questionnaire leaving us with a response rate of 88,64% on the general questionnaire. The average age of these respondents was 33.6 years. 57,9% of the respondents was female and 42,1% was male. The respondents had different educational backgrounds. Overall, they were all highly educated. Two had a PhD, 41 had a WO Master’s degree, 6 a WO Bachelor’s degree, 44 a HBO Bachelor’s degree, 15 a MBO degree and 4 secondary education degree. On average, the respondents have been with the company for 6,8 years (SD=9.23), had worked 2,8 years with the leader (SD=3,04) and 37,5 hours per week (SD=7,4). 111 participants filled in the