1
The mediating effect of Task Crafting on the relationship between Callings and
the work outcomes Job Satisfaction, OCB and Task Performance.
Name: Jannick Kapnissakis Study Programme: Business administration Student number: 10398988
First Supervisor: H.A. Berkers Second Supervisor: R. van Geffen Date: July 15th 2016
2 Statement of Originality
This document is written by student Jannick Kapnissakis 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
Callings is increasingly becoming a more important concept for researchers, because it is an accurate predictor for work and life outcomes. Through job crafting, individuals have a way to exercise their calling. By crafting their tasks, an increase in the job satisfaction of employees is expected. The effect task crafting has on the job performance (OCB and task performance) is not clear yet. That is why this study aims to investigate whether there is a relationship between callings and work outcomes, like job satisfaction and performance and how this is mediated by task crafting. More specifically, this study hypothesizes that the relationship between callings and job satisfaction is positively mediated by task crafting. This study also hypothesizes that the relationship between callings and OCB is positively mediated and between callings and task performance negatively mediated through task crafting. These hypotheses are tested with different samples of employees and supervisors. The hypotheses are tested with a sample of 67 complete dyads consisting of employees and supervisors. A small negative mediation effect was found for job satisfaction, but no mediation effect was found for job
4 Table of contents 1. Introduction………5 2. Literature review………7 3. Theoretical framework………..10 3.1. Job satisfaction………..10
3.2. OCB and task performance………...11
3.3. Task crafting……….13
4. Methodology………...16
4.1. Research design and sample………..16
4.2. Prodecure………...17
4.3. Measurement……….17
4.3.1. Dependent variable callings………...17
4.3.2. Independent variable job satisfaction………17
4.3.3. Independent variable OCB……….17
4.3.4. Independent variable task performance……….18
4.3.5. Mediating variable task crafting………18
4.3.6. Control variables………18
4.4. Analysis and predictions………18
5. Results………19
5.1. Reliabilities and correlations……….19
5.2. Regression results………..20
5.3. Mediating effects………...23
5.3.1. Indirect effect mediator task crafting on job satisfaction………..23
5.3.2. Direct effect callings and job satisfaction………..23
5.3.3. Total effect of job satisfaction………...23
5.3.4. Indirect effect mediator task crafting on OCB………..24
5.3.5. Direct effect callings and OCB………...24
5.3.6. Total effect of OCB………..24
5.3.7. Indirect effect mediator task crafting on task performance………..25
5.3.8. Direct effect callings and task performance………..25
5.3.9. Total effect of task performance………25
6. Discussion………..26
6.1. Summary and theoretical implications………...26
6.2. Points of discussion………28
6.2.1. Limitations and recommendations……….28
6.2.2. Future research………...29
5
1. Introduction
Work is increasingly becoming more important in people’s lives (Hall & Chandler, 2005). This is causing individuals to look for work that provides them with meaning and self-definition (Colpy, Sippola & Phelps, 2001; Shamir, 1991). Work that is challenging, autonomous and has significant tasks is experienced as meaningful (Tims, Derks & Bakker, 2015).A considerable amount of workers want to gain more from their work than only a source of income (job) or an avenue for advancement and accomplishment (career). These people want work that provides them a sense of meaning and a place where they can exercise their calling (Dik & Duffy, 2009; Duffy & Sedlacek, 2007; Dekas, & Rosso, 2009). According to Elangovan et al. (2010), a calling is a course of action where the individual actively tries to combine the things that he or she would like to do, should do, and actually does. It does not include an external summons. Western communities contribute to the trend by encouraging individuals to follow their passion and find their ‘true calling’ (Newport, 2012). The western media also contribute to this notion by increasing the number of books, television and other resources to help individuals find their calling (Steger, Dik & Duffy, 2012). People within western cultures, therefore expect that they should have the opportunity to exercise their calling at work (Berkelaar & Buzzanell, 2015). Consequently, research on callings has tripled in the last five years (Steger, Dik & Duffy, 2012). Another reason for the increase in research might be that scholars assume that callings affect work and life behaviors, as well as individual, organizational and social outcomes (Bellah, 2007).
Most recent research has almost exclusively emphasized on the positive sides of callings, but according to Bunderson & Thompson (2009), there might be possible downsides for individuals who search or already found their calling. Individuals who are extremely engaged with their calling may have unrealistic performance expectations of themselves and others (Vinje & Mittelmark, 2007). When these employees are unable to meet their unrealistic goals, they could become chronically dissatisfied, resulting in burnouts (Hirschi, 2011). These individuals are highly committed to their work, and therefore are willing to sacrifice aspects of themselves for the sake of their calling
(Bunderson & Thompson, 2009). Callings could not only hurt the individual, but also the organization, when exercised in an extreme way. Scholars have shown that those with callings can develop a career tunnel vision, what could lead to resistance to feedback from others and a lack of adaptability in their work (Dobrow, 2006). This in line with the research of Grant & Schwartz (2011), who suggest that positive psychology at high levels can undermine the outcomes they were intended to promote.
Job crafting provides opportunities for employees to change their work in order to create meaningful work that matches their preferences, skills and abilities (Berkelaar & Buzzanell, 2015). Job crafting is defined as the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in their task or relational boundaries of their work, and is a proactive behavior (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). The idea of employees working from a fixed job description is becoming less common (Mohrman &
6 Cohen, 1995). In today’s rapidly changing economy which is based on knowledge, organizations value employee proactivity (Grant & Ashford, 2008). Employees could engage in relational crafting,
cognitive crafting or task crafting. In this study task crafting is measured, because task crafting is the most objective concept to measure and most easy to compare to the performance of the employee. It is most easy to measure, because it is prescribed in the job description. According to Berg, Grant & Johnson (2010), employees could craft the tasks of their jobs in two ways. Job expanding is adding tasks to pursue aspects of their unanswered calling by taking on short-term temporary tasks or by adding new tasks to a job. Job crafters can also change the boundaries of their jobs by taking on fewer tasks, diminishing the scope of the tasks (Berg, Grant & Johnson, 2010). In this case, the individuals could focus on specific tasks that are of value to them and provides them meaning. By emphasizing their tasks, the crafters create a better alignment between the ideal and actual work experiences (Berkelaar & Buzzannel, 2015).
Callings seems to have a positive effect on job satisfaction (Duffy et al., 2011; Duffy et al., 2013), but existing research has neglected to look into the effect callings has on the behavioral aspects of the job, like performance and task crafting. According to Berkelaar & Buzzanell (2015), it is important to define what initiates the calling, like an internal or external summons. This does not only matter for research, but also to understand what behaviors and outcomes result when people have or want to pursue their calling. This is in line with the study of Elangovan et al (2010), who explain that this deeper understanding of callings could enhance the understanding of work motivation, career choices, job satisfaction, employee stress, citizenship behaviors and other organizational concepts. That is why I focus on examining the effects of callings on performance and job satisfaction, and more specifically on how they are mediated by task crafting. The aim of this research is to answer the fundamental question: How does task crafting mediate the relationship between callings and the work
outcomes job performance and job satisfaction?
To answer this research question, an overview of the current literature of callings is discussed. Continuously, the definitions of the dependent variables job satisfaction, job performance, which is divided in to task performance and OCB, and the mediating variable task crafting are being discussed The relationship with one other is also discussed. Consequently, a theoretical framework is developed from which several hypotheses are drawn. Subsequently, the methodology and research method used, are described, which leads to analysis of the results. It ends in a discussion and a conclusion of the research.
7
2. Literature review 2.1. Callings
A calling is, according to Elangovan et al. (2010), a course of action where the individual actively tries to combine the things that he or she would like to do, should do, and actually does. Their definition does not include the focus on an external summons, whereas Dik & Duffy (2009) do focus on an external summons. This does not have to be a stemming from God, but could also stem from the needs of society. Although the definition of callings continues to be disputed, all the definitions seem to have in common that it entails a sense of purpose and meaning in work. However, they disagree on whether a calling stems from an external summons, or can also come from within the individual as a result of self-reflection (Hirschi, 2011). According to Dalton (2001); Davidson & Caddell (1994), a calling is a focus on external summons, where people were called to serve God or as a summons by God to a particular career. This is in contradiction to what Wrzesniewski (2003) proposes, because she defines it as an individual’s experience toward a career domain, like teaching and doing social work, what does not include the external summons. Nevertheless, one of the most current definitions is that religiosity is not necessary nor sufficient to experience a calling at work, and it may also serve the individual (Hall & Chandler, 2005). They define callings as a sense of purpose, as the work one was meant to do, and as work that a person perceives as his purpose in life. A calling is hard to define, because it is an individual, subjective concept. Many authors do see pro-social values and goals as a defining component. The definition used in this research is that of Elangovan et al. (2010), because society is increasingly becoming more secular, individualized and their definition is one of the most recent ones.
Although the idea of callings has become predominantly secular in its meaning and use (Wrzesniewski, 2003), it is still seen as a moral compass, in that it is generally used to describe work that benefits the common good (Thompson & Bunderson, 2003). During the Protestant Reformation, viewing work as a calling emerged early in the 16th century. One of the first studies to measure callings was done in 1869. Catholics and Protestants were asked how they saw their work (Davidson & Caddell, 1994). The researchers asked the participants to read three paragraphs that described a job, a career, and a calling. Afterwards they asked them to choose which of them best coincided with their own work. A job was a non-permanent, financially driven work orientation. A career was a work orientation attained throughout a lifetime where the setting may change, but the type of work remains the same. A calling was referred to as something which people feel put on the Earth to do (Duffy & Sedlacek, 2007). These work orientations are considered to capture the beliefs of the role of work in people’s lifes, inform people’s basic goals for working and influencing work-related feelings and behavior (Wrzesniewski, 2003, 2010). Research has pointed out from a wide range of occupations, that people see their work as one of these three orientations (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). The priest
8 Martin Luther King discussed the importance of pursuing your calling. It was considered as the
highest achievement possible on earth (Weber, 1958). Luther’s notion of having a calling spread through Protestant Europe.
Research on callings has increased in the last years (Dik & Duffy, 2012), because individuals actively try to pursue their callings more often and scholars assume this could affect work and life behaviors (Bellah et al., 2007; Duffy & Dik, 2012, 2013). This is in line with the study of Roberson (1990), who suggests that callings affect work motivation and performance on the job. Many members of the recent generations, also called X and Y, have the belief they can become whoever they want or dream to be (Twenge, 2006). They consider a wide range of potential occupational callings and they expect to get the opportunity to fulfill these callings (Twenge, 2006). This is in line with research of Wrzesniewski (2003) who argues that individuals more often seek occupations that provides them with meaning and purpose. These people also see it as an opportunity to help others (Thompson & Bunderson, 2003). Therefore traditional career paths are diminishing (Rousseau et al., 2006).
It is difficult to define characteristics of callings and how to distinguish it from separate, but similar, constructs (Novak, 1996). Even though it is hard to define characteristics of callings, Novak (1996) described four aspects of callings. Each calling is unique, it includes prerequisites, like one’s openness to discovering the calling, it provides a sense of energy and enjoyment, and it requires self-reflection. According to Weiss, Skelley, Haughey & Hall (2003), it should also benefit others. Elangovan et al. (2010) discuss the secular characteristics of callings and define three features. Callings should be an action orientation reference to the course of action, used to enact one’s calling, and not just being an attitude or perception of it, it should provide a sense of clarity and personal mission, and it must have pro-social intentions. The distinction of jobs, careers, and callings, is not dependent on the occupation. Within any occupation, there are individuals that have one of these three relations to their work (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). Although one may expect that certain occupations consist of more people experiencing callings, like teachers and doctors. It could well be possible that salespersons and secretaries also see their work as their calling. Those people could love their work and may think that it contributes to making the world a better place (Wrzesniewski et al, 1997). According to Duffy & Dik (2009), callings are an inclusive, individual and a cross-cultural concept, which involves an ongoing process of evaluating the purpose and meaningfulness in one’s work. (Wrzesniewski 2003).
Viewing work as a calling shows positive effects on career and general well-being (Dik & Duffy, 2009) and on personal fulfillment (Duffy et al., 2011). Experiencing a calling at work provides employees with work meaning, as well as a sense of occupational importance (Bunderson &
Thompson, 2009). Because these people feel their work has meaning, they are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs than adults viewing their work as a job or career (Davidson & Caddell, 1994; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). This is in line with the research of Dobrow, (2006); Duffy and Sedlacek,
9 (2007), who suggested that individuals who view their work as a calling are more satisfied with their work and career. They are also more committed to their organizations than people who do not
experience their work as a calling (Serow, Eaker, & Ciechalski, 1992). According to Hall & Chandler (2005), having a calling is associated with subjective psychological success and higher objective job performance. These employees perform better, because they have higher life and job satisfaction, and score lower on absenteeism than job and career orientated individuals (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). Instead of just reacting to a set of job responsibilities, employees’ shape their jobs what often delivers benefits to organizations by fostering innovativeness and adaptability (Frese & Fay, 2001).
Callings also may have some possible downsides according to Bunderson & Thompson (2009). Previous research on callings showed that those who found or look for their calling, but cannot achieve this through their paid work experience frustration, depression and other negative effects (Berg et al., 2010). The people who do experience a calling find it hard to find a balance between work and non-work, what could lead to workaholism (Cardador & Caza, 2012). They could be passed over for pay raises, because they do not need an extra incentive or external motivation (Berkelaar & Buzzanell, 2015). They value the fulfillment they get from the opportunity to make a difference in society so much that they are willing to settle for less than their ideal in other aspects of the job, like the financial gain and promotion (Hardy, 1990). Other work has suggested that people with callings cannot identify themselves with their organization. The work itself, and not the place in which one does the work, is likely to be the most important for those with callings (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003).
10
3. Theoretical framework
In the theoretical framework, the dependent variables job satisfaction, OCB and task performance are further explained. The mediating variable task crafting also is discussed in the next section. The relationship between these variables is explained, where after hypotheses are drawn. These hypotheses are shown in the conceptual model as depicted in figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
3.1. Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is commonly defined as the positive emotional feeling of employees to one’s job, as a result from the comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired. According to Cranny, Smith & Stone (1992), this is the consensus definition of job satisfaction, and they argue that their definition is in line with the definition of Locke (1969). He defined job satisfaction as the positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job as achieving the one’s job values. According to Weiss & Merlo (2015) this definition is still accurate. Job satisfaction is influenced by two separate factors. The first one is extrinsic motivation, and consists of: salary, promotions, cohesiveness of workgroups, security, fringe benefits, and working conditions (Gruneberg, 1979). These motivators are divided into two sub factors: compensation and outward orientation (Amabile et al., 1994). The second factor is intrinsic motivation, and is directly associated with doing the job. This is derived from the task itself and includes factors as: interesting and challenging work, self-direction, responsibility, variety, creativity, opportunities to one’s skills and abilities. These motivators are
11 divided into two different sub factors: challenge and enjoyment (Amabile, et al., 1994). Job
satisfaction is important to study, because it is one of the most important predictors of life satisfaction (Oishi, Diener, Lucas, & Suh, 1999). A lack of job satisfaction from employees often leads to reduced organizational commitment (Levinson, 1997).
People who pursue or experience a calling mostly are intrinsically motivated and people who experience their work as a job or a career mostly are extrinsically motivated (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). This is in line with the research of Duffy et al. (2011) who showed job satisfaction is the job attitude that is most often measured and linked to the calling work orientation. People with callings have a stronger and more rewarding relationship to their work, which is associated with spending more time at work, and gaining more enjoyment and satisfaction from it (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997).
Individuals who exercise their calling at work are aware of the contributions they make, and this awareness leads to increased job satisfaction (Dik et al., 2009). According to Hall and Chandler (2005), this relationship is the deepest form of satisfaction or psychological success. The relationship between callings and job satisfaction is increasingly becoming more important, because how
individuals view their work may have a bigger impact on job satisfaction than status or income (Duffy & Sedlacek, 2007).
People who view their work as a calling report higher on job satisfaction than those who view their work as a job or career (Wrzesniewski, 2007). The research of Bunderson & Thompson (2009) has shown that people with a calling are more committed to their careers, and according to Blau (1988), commitment to a career is related to higher job satisfaction. This is in line with other research and suggests that people who find a job that is meaningful, and beyond the financial rewards, report higher on job satisfaction, job performance, less job stress, and longer tenure (Claes & Ruiz, Quintanilla, 1994; Knoop, 1994a, 1994b; Mottaz, 1985). In addition, Dik and Duffy (2009) also argued that approaching one’s work as a calling may lead to higher levels of intrinsic satisfaction of the employee. People who view their work as a career or a job rank satisfaction they get from their leisure time higher than the satisfaction they get from their work (Wrzesniewski, 2007). In summary, there is a considerable amount of empirical and theoretical evidence that supports the positive relationship between callings and job satisfaction. Therefore I hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1 [H1]: Callings positively affect job satisfaction. 3.2. Job performance
Job performance is according to Campbell (1983), the degree to which an individual helps the organization to reach its goals. This is in line with the research of Treadway et al. (2005), who define it as the willingness of the employee to play a part in the success of the organization. It is according to Staw (1984) one of the most theoretically and practically important problems in organizational research. Organizational citizenship behavior (extra-role performance) and task performance (in-role
12 performance) are broadly recognized as two distinct facets of overall job performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000). In-role performance is the task performance of the individual and is directly or indirectly related to the mission of the organization. The tasks the
individual has to perform, is the set of prescribed work activities a person normally performs during a work period. Therefore it is the building block of the relationship between the employee and the organization (Griffin, 1987). In-role performance is more likely to appear on performance appraisal forms than extra-role behaviors (Motowidlo et al., 1997). Thus, if employees fail to perform these required behaviors, they do not receive the organizational rewards, like the merit increases and may have to fear for losing their jobs (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998).
Extra-role performance, also defined as organizational citizenship behavior is defined as a specific type of individual performance which supports the organization, but is not normally found in an individual’s job description (Organ, 1988). These behaviors seem similar across jobs and include: cooperating with others, volunteering for additional tasks, orienting new employees, offering to help others accomplish their work, and voluntarily doing more than the job requires (Borman &
Motowidlo, 1993). OCB does not contribute to the organization’s technical processes, but it does maintain the broader organizational, social, and psychological environment in which the technical core must function (Motowidlo & James, 1994). Extra role behavior is according to Van Dyne & LePine (1998), positive and discretionary. It is not specified in advance by role prescriptions, not recognized by formal rewards systems and has no consequences when not performed. However, supervisors do value extra-role behavior, because organizations cannot forecast all the tasks the individuals have to fulfill to achieve the goals of the organization (Organ, 1988). OCB is increasingly becoming more important for organizations, because in the first place globalization raises extra effort required from employees. In the second place are team-based organizations becoming more popular, thus the exchange of knowledge within these teams is essential. Finally, downsizing within organizations makes employees’ adaptability and willingness to exhibit extra more of a necessity (Motowidlo et al., 1997). By engaging in extra-role behavior, employees contribute to organizational efficiency and effectiveness (Organ, 1988). OCB is also becoming more essential in today’s economy, because employees are increasingly more concerned with doing work that benefits other people and contributes to society (Colby, Sippola, & Phelps, 2001). On their turn organizations are increasingly more
concerned with providing employees the opportunities to engage in OCB (Thompson & Bunderson, 2003).
Research has shown that OCB interacts with task performance in determining individual outcomes (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). The performance of individuals cannot be completely
understood without taking the resources in to consideration (Hockey, 1997). Most research on OCB neglects the fact that individuals are constrained by resources, like time. Employees have a fixed amount of time and they must decide on how to divide this time between task performance and OCB.
13 Spending time on one activity obviously comes at the expense of the other (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Scholars have suggested that citizenship undermines task performance, because individuals could ignore the in-role tasks they do not like (Bolino, Turnley, & Niehoff, 2004). According to Hanson and Borman (2006), excessive citizenship could inhibit task performance, explaining the relationship could be curvilinear, dropping off at higher levels. Engaging in high levels of citizenship may come at the expense of the core tasks of the employees and may diminish other outcomes such as raises or promotions, which creates a paradox for employees (Bergeron, 2007).
There are only a few studies that have empirically examined the relationship between job performance and callings, because job performance is a complex criterion to measure (Newness, 2013). When people are not able to exercise their calling at work, it could undermine their
psychological well-being, according to Scheier & Carver (1988). This could lead to a decrease in their job performance (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). Research has shown that an imbalance of time spent on OCB comes at the expense of task performance and may lead to diminished task performance outcomes (Bergeron, Shipp, Rosen & Furst, 2011; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994). Callings have according to Newness (2013), a positive effect on OCB. Callings and OCB are similar concepts in the way that too much of them, could have negative effects on task performance. The benefits of
citizenship or callings may reach a point of inflection reflective of too much of a good thing after which the relationship becomes negative (Pierce & Aguinis, 2011). The relationship becomes negative, because these employees may experience role overload (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). That is why I hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 2a [H2a]: Callings positively affect OCB
Hypothesis 2b [H2b]: Callings negatively affect Task performance. 3.3. Task crafting
The physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work is called job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Job crafting is a creative and improvised process that could provide the employee with meaning and give an identity at work (Berg et al., 2010). According to Hackmand & Oldman (1976) employees do not simply accept the task and roles managers expect from them, which is supported by Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001). Instead, the employees actively shape their lives at work to incorporate or emphasize aspects of their unanswered callings. If people with callings cannot exercise them at their work, they may craft their jobs by task emphasizing, job expanding and role reframing to create a better alignment between their ideal and actual work experiences. This could lead to more enjoyment and meaning at work (Berkelaar & Buzzanell, 2015). This study focusses on task crafting, because it is the most objective and easy concept to measure rather than cognitive, or relational crafting. Changing the boundaries of the tasks is one form of job crafting. Task crafting is changing the form or number of activities someone engages
14 in while doing the job (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Work is differently structured nowadays, thus organizations need individuals who take action in influencing their work characteristics (Strauss & Parker, 2014), which is called the proactive person-environment fit behavior (Parker & Collins, 2010). Today’s managers expect their employees not only to adapt to the implemented change, but also to introduce changes themselves (Grant & Parker, 2009).
Employees could craft the boundaries of their tasks by changing the number, scope or type of job tasks done at work (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Job expanding consists of adding tasks to incorporate aspects of an unanswered calling by taking on short-term, temporary tasks or by adding new tasks to the job (Berg et al., 2010). Job crafters can also change the boundaries of their jobs by taking on fewer tasks, what diminishes the scope of their tasks (Berg et al., 2007). Employees are likely to alter their jobs in ways that fits their own working orientation (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Work orientations differ on how they change their tasks at work. People who are extrinsic motivated may craft their jobs in ways that limits the task’s boundaries of the job, because the work is done to meet some external end (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). According to Amibele et al. (1994) extrinsic motivation leads to less creativity in the approach of the tasks.
Individuals who are intrinsically motivated by their calling may engage in more enhancing job crafting than individuals who are more extrinsically motivated (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe (1994); Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swindler, & Tipton (1985); Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001). Intrinsic motivated individuals may engage more heavily in expansive job crafting, because it allows them to express their self-determination (control) and competence in their work (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Traditional job design theory says that tasks are more meaningful for individuals when they involve variety of skills (task variety) and contribute to the overall process of the organization (Hackman & Oldham, 1976, 1980). When employees see the results of their tasks, they experience their work as more meaningful, what could lead to higher motivation. Employees can use the unique knowledge they have of their own job to make the job more efficient (Berg et al., 2010).
Even though previous research of Leana et al. (2009) did not find a significant relationship between callings and job crafting, a positive relationship between callings and task crafting is expected in this research. Employees with a calling orientation have the desire to find positive meaning in their work (Rosso, Dekas & Wrzesniewski, 2010). Individuals who want to experience their calling at work can actively change parts of their jobs to bring them more in line with their personal needs, values and passions (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Traditional job designs are unlikely to provide these employees with opportunities to personalize their work (Wrzesniewski, LuBuglion, Dutton & Berg, 2012). Employees could craft the tasks of their jobs in ways that provides them with a sense of meaning and identity through their work. Employees may move from the one-size-fits-all job description to an organic bottom-up process executed by themselves (Wrzesniewski, LuBuglion, Dutton & Berg, 2012). Task
15 crafting is directed to making work meaningful for the individual (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). That is why I hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 3 [H3]: Callings positively affect task crafting.
Task crafting may lead to increased job satisfaction, because employees can shape their job demands and resources to meet their own preferences and needs (Tims et al., 2013). According to Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001), employees alter the task and relational boundaries of their jobs to create work in where they are more satisfied. This is in line with the research of Ghitulescu (2006) who argues that individuals who engage in task crafting are likely to alter their jobs in ways that increases the purposefulness of what they do at work. The more control people have over their work, the more meaningful their work is, what leads to positive work outcomes, like the person-job fit. Research of Slemp & Vella-Brodrick (2013) have shown the positive relationship between job crafting and job satisfaction. Task crafting is a form of job crafting, thus that is why I hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 4 [H4]: Task crafting positively affects job satisfaction.
Literature describing the effect job crafting has on performance is scarce and careful.
According to Van Scotter & Motowidlo (1994), there should be a distinction between OCB and Task performance, because performance that is judged by supervisors is not unidimensional. It involves different patterns of behaviors, and contributes independently to supervisors’ judgements over an individual’s overall worth to the organization. OCB and callings are similar concepts in certain ways. The difference is that OCB is mostly focused on helping others within the organization or the
organization itself. Where task crafting is focused on changing the task landscape to alter work
meaning and identity for the individual self (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Some task crafting might be a part of OCB, like doing extra work, but it has a different intention. Although the intent behind the behavior is different, a positive relation between task crafting and OCB may be expected. Like stated before, engaging in OCB and taking on additional tasks must come at the expense of task
performance. That is why I hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 5a [H5a]: Task crafting positively affects OCB.
Hypothesis 5b [H5b]: Task crafting negatively affects Task performance.
Although the possible mediating effect of task crafting between callings and job satisfaction has not been examined yet, a positive effect is expected. Employees who want to experience their calling may craft their tasks to meet their needs and preferences (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Employees with an intrinsic motivation have the need to satisfy these needs (Vansteenkiste et al., 2007) and if this need is found, it is motivating and rewarding (Gagne, Ryan & Bargmann, 2003; Reiss, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe & Ryan, 2000) what leads to more job satisfaction.
16
Hypothesis 6 [H6]: Task crafting positively mediates the effect of callings on job satisfaction
The mediating effect of task crafting between callings and job performance has not been examined yet, because the concepts are hard to quantify. Individuals who want to pursue their unanswered callings, may engage in task crafting to bring their needs in line with their jobs. The expectation is that people who have callings engage in enhancing task crafting, what could have a positive effect on OCB, because they are willing to engage in doing extra work for the organization, but this could come at the expense of their task performance. That is why I hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 7a [H7a]: Task crafting positively mediates the effect of callings on OCB. Hypothesis7b [H7b]: Task crafting negatively mediates the effect of callings on Task performance.
4. Methodology
4.1. Research design and Sample
In order to test how callings affect task crafting, and this results in an increase of job satisfaction and OCB and a decrease in task performance, a cross-sectional survey design was conducted. Data was collected through four Bachelor students from the Amsterdam Business School, who each had to collect dyads. A dyad consists of an employee and their supervisor, where the supervisor had to rate the employee. These people were sampled through personal contacts of the students and were Dutch-speaking. Questionnaires from dyads that were not fully completed were excluded from the sample. The data was collected through an online survey, which could anytime be filled in by the respondents. One of the advantages of using this technique is that it offers the
possibility to collect a larger sample than through interviews (Saunders et al., 2007). The use of a standardized anonymous survey also enhances the reliability and the validity (Saunders et al., 2007). The variables callings and job satisfaction were only tested in the questionnaires of the employees. The mediating variable task crafting of the employees was tested on both employees and supervisors, but only those filled in by employees are used in this study. OCB and task performance were only tested by supervisors who rated their subordinates. Because collecting dyads is hard, an additional survey was send to individuals who could not pursue their supervisor to participate in the research. That is why the sample for employees and supervisors is different.
It was a self-selected sample and the surveys were send to 114 dyads. 67 dyads were fully completed, which is a response rate of 58.7%. After sending the surveys to the dyads, additional surveys were send to employees in order to increase the reliability of the sample. The response rate of employees was therefore 90.1%, which were 109 employees. Of the completed dyads, 46% of the employees was male and 54% was female. The average age of the employees was 34 years (SD =
17 1.56) and their average tenure was 6 years (SD = 0.78). 19.4% of the employees works in the industry sector. 16.4% of the employees surveyed, works in the health care sector.
The response rate of the supervisors was 78.9%, which where 90 supervisors. Of the completed dyads, 37% of the supervisors were male and 63% female. The average age of the supervisors was 44 years (SD = 1.43).
4.2. Procedure
The four Bachelor students contacted acquaintances and family to participate in the research. An email was send to all participants, which included instructions, a hyperlink to the online
questionnaire and an individual code. Both the manager and subordinate received an individual code to match the data of the supervisors with the data of the corresponding employees. A reminder was sent to those participants who had not completed the survey after one week. One week before the deadline another reminder was send.
4.3. Measurement
4.3.1. Dependent variable Callings
Callings from the employees was measured with four 7-point Likert questions from Leana et al. (2009). The Likert questions are most often used and therefore offers the best possibilities to compare the results of this study with other studies (Lucas & Sherry, 2005; Norris, 2004). Scales of the questions 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. A high score means that the employee has the opportunity to exercise his or her calling at their work. An example question is: “I would choose my current work life again if I had the opportunity”. Callings was also measured with one 7-point Likert question from Duffy et al. (2012). Scales of the questions 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. A high score means that the employee is experiences their calling right now at their job. The question is: “I am living out my calling right now in my job”. Cronbach’s alpha was (.65).
4.3.2. Independent variable Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction of the employees was measured with three 7-point Likert questions from Tims et al. (2013). Scales of the questions 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. A high score means that the employee is highly satisfied at his or her job. An example question is “I am satisfied with my current work”. Cronbach’s alpha was (.81).
18 OCB of the employees was measured with six 7-point Likert questions from Van Dyne & LePine (1998) rated by their supervisors. Scales of the questions ranged from (1) not at all to (7) completely. Supervisors also had the opportunity to respond with does not apply to me, but this was treated as missing data. Respondents had seven options to choose from, where (1) indicates a complete disagreement and (7) a complete agreement with the statement. A high score means that the employee performs high levels of OCB at their current work. An example question is “This employee volunteers to do things for the team”. Cronbach’s alpha was (.88).
4.3.4. Independent variable Task performance
Task performance of the employees was measured with four 7-point Likert questions from Van Dyne & LePine (1998) rated by their supervisors. Scales of the questions ranged from (1) not at all to (7) completely. Supervisors also had the opportunity to respond with does not apply to me, but this was treated as missing data. Respondents had seven options to choose from, where (1) indicates a complete disagreement and (7) a complete agreement with the statement. A high score means that the employee performs high levels of task performance. An example question is “This employee meets performance expectations”. Cronbach’s alpha was (.94).
4.3.5. Mediating variable Task Crafting
The mediating variable task crafting, consists of enhanced task crafting and limiting task crafting and was rated by employees. Enhanced task crafting was measured with four 7-point likert questions from Bindl et al. (2014). An example question is: “I actively took on more tasks in my work”. Scales range from (1) did not add tasks at all till (7) added several tasks, where high scores present a high level of increasing the tasks of their job. Limiting task crafting was measured with three 7-point Likert questions from Bindl et al. (2014). An example question is: “I actively reduced the scope of tasks I worked on”. Scales range from (1) did not reduce the scopes of tasks till (7) reduced several tasks, where high score present a high level of reduction of the tasks. Cronbach’s alpha was (.81).
4.3.6. Control variables
Tenure and gender of the employees were the control variables used in this research. They were measured through open ended question. Tenure was measured through the open question: “How long are you active in your current job (in years)?” Tenure job is one of the control variables, because Sherman (2004) has shown that positive effects of callings start to diminish after a period of time. According to (Hartnett & Kline, 2005) this is also known as the fall of the call. The control variable gender was measured through a pre-defined list where respondents had to choose one of the options: “Please specify your gender”, where 1 was male and 2 was female. Gender was a control variable,
19 because Duffy & Sedlacek (2007) showed that social factors like gender may influence a person’s calling, because females tend to value contributing to society more than males.
4.4. Analysis and predictions
The data has to be cleaned and structured before analysis can be done. A reliability analysis has to be done in order to check if the variables are reliable enough to do the analysis. Scale means have to be computed in order to do a regression analysis. If the reliabilities are acceptable, a correlation analysis has to be done to provide an insight on how the variables correlate with each other. The direct effects are tested through hierarchical regression analysis and the mediation effects through Process macro in SPSS (Hayes, 2013). The residuals of the outliers that are above or under 3.5 are deleted from the data. A positive effect of callings on job satisfaction is predicted in the first linear regression. The second hypothesis consists of two parts, where a positive effect of callings on OCB is expected, and a negative effect on task performance. With the third hypothesis a positive effect of the independent variable callings on the mediating variable task crafting is expected. A positive effect of task crafting on job satisfaction is expected in the fourth regression. In the first part of the fifth hypothesis, a positive effect of task crafting on OCB is expected and a negative effect on task
performance in the second part. A positive effect of the independent variable callings and the mediator task crafting on the dependent variable job satisfaction is expected, but in this hypothesis the direct effect of callings on job satisfaction is expected to disappear. This means that the relationship between callings and job satisfaction is mediated by task crafting. At the first part of the last hypothesis a positive effect of the independent variable callings and mediator task crafting is expected, but the direct of callings on OCB is expected to disappear what means there is a mediation effect of task crafting. In the second part of the last hypothesis a negative effect of the independent variable callings and mediator task crafting is expected, but the direct effect of callings on task performance is expected to disappear what means that the relationship between calling and task performance is mediated by task crafting.
5. Results
5.1 Reliabilities and Correlations
The means, standards deviations, and the reliabilities of all the variables used in this study are presented in table 1. The reliability of the variables job satisfaction (α = .81), OCB (α = .88), task performance (α = .94), and the mediating variable task crafting (α = .81) were satisfactory. The reliability of callings (α = .65), was not high, but acceptable. This is further explained in the discussion section.
Besides the reliabilities, the correlations between the variables are also presented in table 1. Unexpectedly, there was no significant negative correlation between callings and task performance r (67) = .16, p = n.s. It means there is no evidence in the data that indicates that employees who have high a high amount of callings score less on their task performance. There was also no significant correlation
20 found between callings and task crafting r (67) = 0.17, p = n.s. Callings and task crafting do not correlate significantly, thus a full mediation effect is not expected. On the other hand, callings correlated significantly with job satisfaction, OCB and tenure. Unexpectedly, there is also no correlation effect between task crafting and all the other variables in this study, except for tenure. A significant positive correlation between OCB and task performance was found r (67) = 0.47, p <.00, where after reading previous literature, a significant negative correlation was expected.
5.2 Regression results
In order to investigate the ability of callings and task crafting to predict the degree of job satisfaction, a hierarchical multiple regression was executed, after controlling for gender and tenure. All results of this regression can be found in table 2. In order to investigate the ability of callings and task crafting to predict the degree of OCB and task performance, there was also a hierarchical multiple regression performed, after controlling for gender and tenure. All results of these regression can be found in tables 3 and 4.
First, the two control variables gender and tenure were entered into the hierarchical regression as predictors for job satisfaction. It was done to show how much of the variance in job satisfaction is explained by the control variables. The model was statistically not significant F (2, 104) = 1.99; p > .05. Secondly, callings was added to the model. The total variance explained by the second model was 61.5% F (3, 103) = 20.93; p < .001. The introduction of explained additional variance in job
satisfaction, after controlling for gender and tenure was significant (R² change = .34; F (1, 103) = 56.69; p <.001). In the final model the predictor variable callings was statistically significant and positive, with callings (β = .61, p < .001), supporting H1. This means that people who experience their calling at work are also more satisfied with their job.
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 .54 .50 2. Tenure 6.03 6.35 .11 3. Callings 4.55 .97 .10 .27* (.65) 4. Job Satisfaction 5.54 .78 -.10 .33** .59** (.81) 5. OCB 5.47 .75 .07 .03 .29* -.01 (.88) 6. Task Performance 5.60 .71 -.03 -.05 .16 -.04 0.47** (.94) 7. Task Crafting 4.06 1.09 -.10 -.25* .17 -.17 0.10 0.23 (.81)
Note. N= 67 * p<.05. ** p<.01. For gender, 0 = male
21 For both the first and the second part of the second hypothesis, the same steps were followed as in the first hypothesis. The two control variables gender and tenure were entered into the
hierarchical regression as predictors for OCB. The model was statistically not significant F (2, 71) = .21; p > .05. Secondly, callings was added to the model. The total variance explained by the second model was not significant F (3, 70) = 1.55; p > .05. The introduction of OCB, after controlling for gender and tenure, explained no variance that was significant (R² change = .06; F (1, 70) = 4.23; p <.05). In the final model the predictor variable callings was statistically significant and positive, with callings (β = .243, p < .05), supporting H2a, which means that people with callings engage more in OCB. The control variables tenure and gender were also filled in the hierarchical regression as predictors for task performance. The first model was statistically not significant F (2, 66) = .62; p > .05. The introduction of task performance, after controlling for gender and tenure explained no variance that was significant (R² change = .02; F (1, 65) = 1.45; p >. 05). In the final model no predictor variables were statistically significant, with callings (β = .153, p > .05), not supporting H2b, what means that there was significant relationship between people who experience callings and their task performance.
Hypothesis three was tested through multiple regression. The expectation was that callings should positively affect task crafting. After controlling for gender and tenure, in all the models a positive significant effect of callings was found. The results for job satisfaction were F (3, 103) = 3.54; p < .05 with an unstandardized coefficient of (ß = .279, p < .01), OCB F (3, 70) = 2.56; p > .05 with an unstandardized coefficient of (ß = .264, p <.05) and task performance F (3, 65) = 3.07 with an
unstandardized coefficient (ß = .269, p < .05), what supports H3. This means that people who have a calling craft the tasks of their jobs more often.
With hypothesis four, a positive effect of task crafting on job satisfaction was expected through multiple regression. Unexpectedly, after controlling for gender and tenure, a negative
significant relationship was found F (4, 102) = 18.38; p < .00 and an unstandardized coefficient of = (ß = -.188), p <.01, not supporting H4. It means that people who craft the tasks of their jobs are less satisfied with their jobs.
Hypothesis five consisted of two parts, where a positive effect of task crafting on OCB and a negative effect on task performance was expected. After performing multiple regression, the
hypotheses were not significant. The effect on OCB was F (4, 69) = 1.17; p > .05 with an
unstandardized coefficient of (ß = .025; p >.05). The effect on task performance was F (4, 64) = .98; p > .05 and an unstandardized coefficient of (ß = .109, p >.05). Both hypotheses were not supported, thus task crafting by employees did not show an effect on their job performance.
22
Note. N = 107 * p<.05. ** p<.01. *** p<.001
Note. N = 74 * p<.05. ** p<.01. *** p<.001
Note. N = 69 * p<.05. ** p<.01. *** p<.001
Table 2. Hierarchical Regression model of Job Satisfaction
R R2 R2 Change B SE ß t Step 1 .19 .04 Gender (-.13) .17 (-.07) (-.76) Tenure .03 .02 .19 1.91 Step 2 .62** .38** .34** Gender (-.28) .14 (-.16) (-1.96) Tenure .01 .01 .06 .72 Callings .56 .07 .61 7.53
Table 3. Hierarchical Regression model of OCB
R R2 R2 Change B SE ß t Step 1 .08 .01 Gender .10 .17 .07 .56 Tenure .00 .01 .03 .25 Step 2 .25* .06* .06* Gender .07 .17 .05 .42 Tenure .00 .01 -(.01) (-.10) Callings .18* .09* .24* 2.06*
Table 4. Hierarchical Regression model of Task performance
R R2 R2 Change B SE ß t Step 1 .14 .02 Gender (-.13) .20 (-.08) (-.66) Tenure (-.01) .02 (-.10) (-.80) Step 2 .20 .04 .02 Gender (-.16) .20 (-.10) (-.77) Tenure (-.02) .02 (-.14) (-1.10) Callings ..13 .11 .15 1.21
23
5.3 Mediating effects
In order to test hypotheses six and seven, the SPSS macro of Hayes (2013) was used in SPSS, to examine task crafting as a mediating variable. Through the SPSS macro of Hayes (2013) an estimation of the indirect, direct and total effect of the model can be made. The model is going to test the effect of callings on job satisfaction, OCB, and task performance, while controlling for gender and tenure. Preacher & Hayes (2008) prefer the use of bias-corrected and accelerated confidence intervals (BCa), as opposed to regression coefficients or regular confidence intervals as a basis for statistical conclusions. The use of bias-corrected and accelerated confidence intervals helps to adjust for biases and skewness of the dataset and makes the data more reliable. This is useful for this study, because the most variables are negatively skewed. The effect of the independent variable callings on the mediator task crafting is defined as a1. The effect of the mediator task crafting on one of the dependent
variables Job satisfaction, OCB and task performance is defined as b1. The indirect effect is estimated as the combination of a and b and is therefore defined as a1b1. The direct effect of callings on one of the dependent variables is defined as c1’. The total effect will also be tested and is defined as c1.
5.3.1 Indirect effect Mediator Task crafting on Job satisfaction
In table 5 all the results are presented. The indirect effect a1b1 = (-0.052) was statistically slightly below zero, which was shown by the 95% BC Bootstrap confidence interval (0.1354 to -0.0098). This means there is evidence that task crafting mediates the relationship between callings and job satisfaction. Where a positive mediation effect was expected, a small negative mediation effect was found.
5.3.2 Direct effect Callings and Job satisfaction
As predicted, the direct effect of callings c1’ = 0.612 on job satisfaction was significant. It means that people who experience one unit of calling more are .612 of units more satisfied with their job when mediated by task crafting. The effect is statistically significant above zero, given the 95% BC Bootstrap confidence interval (0.4632 to 0.7600).
5.3.3. Total effect of callings
The results show that the total effect of callings on job satisfaction is c1 = 0.559 and means that employees who differ by one unit of callings are expected to differ 0.559 of units in job satisfaction. The positive value indicates that employees who score higher on callings also score higher on job satisfaction. This total effect is different from zero, thus significant (0.4119 to 0.7064). With hypothesis six a positive mediation effect of the relationship between callings and job
24
Table 5. Bootstrapping results of task crafting as a mediator in the relationship between callings and job satisfaction.
Effect SE p LLCI ULCI
Direct effect c1’ 0.612 0.075 <.001 0.463 0.760
Total effect c1 0.559 0.074 <.001 0.411 0.706
Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Indirect effect a1b1 -0.052 0.031 -0.135 -0.010
Note: Gender and tenure were included as control variables
5.3.4. Indirect effect Mediator Task crafting on OCB
In table 6 all the results are presented. The indirect effect a1b1 was statistically not significant, which was shown by the 95% BC Bootstrap confidence interval (-0.0397 to 0.0782). This shows there is no evidence that task crafting mediates the relationship between callings and OCB.
5.3.5. Direct effect Callings and OCB
Unexpectedly, the direct effect of callings c1’ = 0.175 of callings on OCB was also not significant. This was also shown by the 95 % BC Bootstrap confidence interval that is not entirely below or above zero (-0.0077 to 0.3583). This means that there is no evidence that callings have an effect on OCB when mediated by task crafting.
5.4.6. Total effect of OCB
The results show that the total effect of callings on OCB is c1 = 0.182 and means that employees who differ by one unit of callings are expected to differ 0.182 of units in OCB. The positive value indicates that employees who score higher on callings also score higher on OCB. This total effect is significantly different from zero, which is showed by the BC Bootstrap confidence interval (0.0054 to 0.3585). No mediation effect of task crafting on the relationship between callings and OCB was found. This means that task crafting does not explain the relationship between callings and OCB. The first part of hypothesis seven is not supported.
25
Table 6. Bootstrapping results of task crafting as a mediator in the relationship between callings and OCB
Effect SE p LLCI ULCI
Direct effect c1’ 0.175 0.092 >.05 -0.001 0.358
Total effect c1 0.182 0.089 <.05 0.005 0.359
Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Indirect effect a1b1 0.007 0.027 -0.040 0.078
Note: Gender and tenure were included as control variables
5.3.7. Indirect effect Mediator Task crafting on Task Performance
In table 7 all the results are presented. The indirect effect a1b1 was statistically not significant, which was shown by the 95% BC Bootstrap confidence interval (0.0160 to 0.1487). This shows there is no evidence that task crafting mediates the relationship between callings and task performance.
5.3.8 Direct effect Callings and Task Performance
Unexpectedly, the direct effect of callings c1’ = 0.100 of callings on task performance was also not significant. This was also shown by the 95 % BC Bootstrap confidence interval that is not entirely below or above zero (-0.1208 to 0.3202). This means that there is no evidence that callings have an effect on task performance when mediated by task crafting.
5.3.9.. Total effect of task performance
The results show that the total effect of callings on task performance is not significant. This is shown by the BC Bootstrap confidence interval (-0.0853 to 0.3434). This total effect is not
significantly different from zero. This means that task crafting does not explain the relationship between callings and task performance. The second part of hypothesis seven is also not supported.
26
Table 7. Bootstrapping results of task crafting as a mediator in the relationship between callings and Task performance
Effect SE p LLCI ULCI
Direct effect c1’ 0.010 0.110 >.05 -0.121 0.320
Total effect c1 0.129 0.107 >.05 -0.085 0.343
Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Indirect effect a1b1 0.029 0.038 -0.016 0.149
Note: Gender and tenure were included as control variables
6. Discussion
6.1. Summary and theoretical implications
The main goal of this paper was to further investigate the effect callings had on job satisfaction and performance. In particular, the possible mediating effect task crafting had on the relationship between these variables. In total seven hypotheses were proposed.
The first hypothesis expected that individuals who experience their work as a calling were more satisfied with their job and was supported by the data. This implicates that people who have the opportunity to exercise their calling at work are more satisfied with their job. This is in line with previous research of Dik & Duffy (2009) who argued that viewing work as a calling shows positive effects on career well-being. It makes sense that people who have the opportunity to exercise their calling at their work more satisfied with their current job. When individuals have a calling, they want a job that is meaningful and beyond the financial rewards, which increases their job satisfaction and their tenure (Claes & Ruiz, Quintanilla, 1994; Knoop, 1994a, 1994b; Mottaz, 1985). An explanation might be that the employees who were surveyed in this research all had a job. If they were highly unsatisfied with their job, they would already have left that organization.
Previous research showed that callings had a positive effect on job satisfaction, but the effect of callings on the behavior of the employees has not been examined often before. The first part of the second hypothesis, callings positively affects OCB, was supported by the data. This is in line with the research of Organ, because he suggested (1990) that people who want to exercise their calling would engage in activities that are not within their formal job description and would go the extra mile. According to Elangovan et al. (2010), this could be a never ending process, because the employees who engage in OCB could be constantly ‘hungry’, what could lead to dissatisfaction and role
27 overload. The organizations that participated in this research may have been mostly flexible
organizations, because according to Ilgen & Hollenbeck (1991); Mohrman & Cohen (1995), even in a flexible knowledge economy, jobs are typically interconnected and interdependent what places social pressure on employees to perform their responsibilities on time and in a prescribed way. In these organizations, employees get the opportunity and the freedom to perform OCB. A reason according to Motowidlo et al. (1997), might be the increase of globalization where adaptability becomes more of a necessity.
With the second part of the second hypothesis, a negative effect of callings on task performance was expected, but this was not supported by the data. This finding was especially unexpected, because callings showed a positive effect on OCB. According to Rutondo & Sackett (2002), spending time on one activity obviously comes at the expense of the other. The research of Bergeron (2007) suggests that callings have a positive effect on OCB, which leaves insufficient time for employees to successfully complete the tasks they were prescribed to do. The correlation already showed a positive correlation between OCB and task performance, which indicated that at least one of the hypotheses would not be supported. A reasonable explanation might be that supervisors would only retain employees who perform their in-role tasks at least satisfactory. This is in line with research of Van Dyne & Lepine (1998), who argue that an absence of in-role behaviors could lead to
reprimands and negative financial consequences.
The third hypothesis, callings positively affects task crafting was supported in all the models and is in line with the research of Amabile et al. (1994). According to Rosso, Dekas & Wrzesniewski (2010), employees with callings have the desire to find positive meaning in their work and according to Tims & Bakker (2010), they can do this by crafting their jobs in ways that brings them more in line with their personal needs and values. Employees rated their own task crafting, because employees themselves know best if they have added or reduced some of the tasks. Only the amount of task crafting, employees engaged in is not clear, because the questionnaires were careful. An example is: “I tried to simply some of the tasks that I worked on”. It is likely to assume that employees who work on average six years within the same organization, have tried to simply some of their tasks they worked on, thus the questions regarding job satisfaction could be more specific.
With the fourth hypothesis, the positive relationship between task crafting and job satisfaction was not supported. Unexpectedly, there was a negative significant relationship between task crafting and job satisfaction. This is contradictory to the research of Ghitulescu (2007), who did find a positive relationship between job crafting and job satisfaction. An explanation might be that employees do not have the job resources to craft their work to their needs. According to Schaufeli et al. (2009), a decrease in job resources results in dissatisfaction and increased burnouts one year later. Burnouts could also come from role overload, because the employees enhanced their tasks and could not cope with these additional tasks. Another explanation might be that only task crafting was held accounted
28 for in this research, and it could weel be that other forms of job crafting do increase the job
satisfaction. According to Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001), relational job crafting gives employees the opportunity to participate in the creation of their work identity with others, which fulfills the desire of having an identity and the need for positive-self assessment. Another explanation might be that employees were not satisfied with the altered tasks afterwards.
The fifth hypotheses examined the relationship between task crafting and the performance of the employee. A positive effect of task crafting on OCB was expected and found. This is in line with the research of Slemp & Vella-Brodrick (2013), who also found a significant positive correlation between job crafting and OCB. Like stated before, task crafting and OCB are concepts that show a high resemblance. According to Fuller, Marier & Hester (2006), autonomy within the job is intrinsically motivating which enhances effort and job performance. Task crafting did not show a significant negative effect on task performance. An explanation might be that employees who engage in OCB do this in their own time, what does not negatively affect their task performance.
The sixth hypothesis expected task crafting to positively mediate the relationship between callings and job satisfaction. Only a negative mediating effect of task crafting was found. The direct effect of callings on job satisfaction is higher than when task crafting is added to the model. It may be that employees experience role overload or the outcomes of task crafting were not satisfactory. This is in contradiction with the self-determination theory of Ryan & Deci (2000), who suggest when people have more control and autonomy, they are more satisfied.
At the last hypotheses, task crafting was expected to positively mediate the relationship between callings and OCB and negatively between callings and task performance. Both mediation effects were not found. The mediator task crafting did not add extra significance to the models. It shows that task crafting does not appear to effect the performance of the employee.
6.2. Points of Discussion
6.2.1. Limitations and recommendations.
The first limitation is the cross-sectional study, because this only measures the variables at one particular moment in time. The majority of studies investigating callings have been cross-sectional, what provides limiting knowledge on how callings might affect people over time (Dik & Duffy, 2013). According to them, a better understanding of the impact of having and living a calling over time cannot be overstated. The study of Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas (2012) showed that a calling declined over a seven year period. A cross-sectional study also shows no causal relations, like an experiment does.
Another limitation could be that the sample was biased, because all participants were
contacted through personal contact of the Bachelor students of the Amsterdam Business School. The respondents could have been unreliable, because they could have only tried to help the Bachelor students finish their studies and did not care for the results of the research.
