1
You can go your own way
The relationship between autonomy, job crafting, personality and work
engagement
Master thesis Esther de Groot
Amsterdam Business School, Executive Program in Management Studies, track Leadership
Amsterdam, 31-01-2016 Student number: 10970193 Supervisor: Claudia Buengeler
2
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Esther de Groot 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.
Motto: Open up
Everything’s waiting for you You can go your own way Go your own way
(Fleetwood Mac, Lindsay Buckingham, 1977)
This thesis is dedicated to the people who made me the autonomous and engaged person I am: My father John de Groot
My husband Frank Verschuren
And three of the most inspirational managers, I had the pleasure working with: Paolo Bellini
Ruud Dreijer Hugo Jager
3
Inhoud
Preface ... 4
Abstract ... 6
Introduction ... 8
Theoretical background and hypotheses ... 13
Autonomy and work engagement ... 13
Job design and Job crafting ... 16
Personality traits ... 20
Personality and job crafting ... 21
Method ... 23
Participants and procedure ... 24
Study constructs ... 24
Analysis strategy ... 27
Results ... 28
Discussion and implications ... 36
Theoretical implications ... 36
Discussion and further research ... 39
Practical implications ... 41
Limitations of the study ... 42
Conclusion ... 43
4
Preface
Three years ago, I started with the Executive Program in Management Studies at the Amsterdam Business School (University of Amsterdam). In my career as IT (Service) Manager what strike me the most was the difference in work engagement in different organizations and the difference in amount of autonomy employees were granted. I was inspired by managers who dared to give employees the freedom to decide how to do their jobs and even the freedom to make mistakes. I also was inspired by employees and co-workers who used that autonomy to make their own job, the team cooperation and the results for the customer of a higher quality.
Throughout my life, I have always worked on my own development, there is almost not a year that I did not take a course, go to a seminar or participated in on the job training activities. A master study, however, is different, in the impact it has on your life. Lots of weekends and evenings studying have stretched the patience of my husband and friends. I am grateful that they found a way to gracefully deal with my absence. A lot of friends, fellow students,
acquaintances and co-workers have shown interest in my classes and thesis. All the talks I had with them helped me in formulating my thoughts and choosing perspectives. So, I am
grateful, to have so many nice, interested and involved people around.
A few persons deserve to be mentioned by name: Eva Metz and Domenica Pani for
proofreading and testing the questionnaire. My husband Frank Verschuren for proofreading parts of the thesis more than one time. And last but not least, my supervisor Claudia
Buengeler for the detailed feedback, she always kept me on my toes.
This master thesis is a result of a search in the field of autonomy and work engagement. In this search, I have read a lot of academic literature, but also have read a lot about current practices. I would like to thank the Corporate Rebels, especially, for meeting with me and
5
sharing some of their thoughts, ideas and experiences. I also would like to thank Niels van der Weerdt, my teacher Consultancy, who took the time in his very busy life, to talk to me and share ideas about my thesis subject. Renske van Geffen, my teacher in Human Resource Management, also brainstormed with me and inspired me with her positive attitude.
The different classes that preceded the process of this thesis have opened a whole new world of academic literature and knowledge. Twenty three years ago, I graduated and got my master in Sociology. One of my teachers, Abram de Swaan, said to us all: you will look at the world from a sociologists’ perspective from now on, you will always see groups, interactions and effects people have on one another. In the past two years I learned new perspectives to look at the world, psychological views, anthropological views, management views, and even new sociological views. I enjoyed the diversity in students and teachers, mostly the international diversity, which added new perspectives to the mix.
Three years of working and studying has showed me that only a very little part of academic insights are used in organizations. And, that sometimes, insights and developments in organizations are not very quickly picked up by academic research. I think both worlds can get better, when they make more use of each other’s knowledge. It is my intention to use knowledge and insights from both worlds and combine them in future jobs and studies.
Even after three years of part-time study, I am still curious, and will not stop working on my development here. Although, I will take a short break from studying and have more time for my husband and friends.
6
Abstract
This study aims to extend current understanding of work autonomy and work engagement. Work autonomy was measured in a more detailed way to reveal the relationship between work engagement and different aspects of work autonomy. Furthermore the level of job crafting is expected to be influencing the relationship between work autonomy and work engagement, in such way that when levels of job crafting are high, the relationship between autonomy and work engagement is more positive. Job crafting is predicted by personality traits.
A positive relationship with one facet of work autonomy, work criteria autonomy, and work engagement was found. Other facets of work autonomy, work method autonomy and work scheduling autonomy, did not show a positive relationship with work engagement. This result was surprizing and not in line with earlier research on the relationship between autonomy and work engagement (Hakanen, Bakker and Schaufeli, 2006, Schaufeli, Bakker and Van Rhenen, 2009). Since I used a more detailed scale, with three subscales, to measure autonomy, this might open up room for discussion about the definition and measurement of work autonomy. Hackman and Oldham (2010) already described in their article that autonomy in the
workplace is a research object that is not stable, but constantly moving. Thus, the academic discussion and research are facing a ‘moving target’. The subject of research is constantly changing.
In contradiction with the prediction, no moderating relationship of job crafting was found. Relationships between job crafting, work autonomy and work engagement are the subject of many recent studies, the relationship is not clear yet.
7
The predicted relationship between some personality facets, namely conscientiousness and agreeableness was found. Other personality facets, extraversion and neuroticism, did not relate to job crafting the way it was predicted.
Thus, this study did extend the current understanding of work autonomy and work
engagement, but more by opening up room and giving direction for more questions, than with a lot of answers.
8
Introduction
Over the last decade employees have obtained more autonomy in where and when they do their job. In the Netherlands this is known under the name ‘Het nieuwe werken’. Employees are allowed, up to a certain extent, to decide on their own work schedule and they are allowed to work from home. (Baane, 2010). In 2000 this was embedded into the law (wet flexibel werken). The last few years more and more attention has been given to other aspects of autonomy, especially autonomy in work procedures and work results. These forms of autonomy have been connected to work engagement (Laloux, 2015).
Recently work engagement is being used in practices and theories about a new way of organizing companies. Weggeman (2007) describes the positive effect of more autonomy for professionals. Laloux (2015) researched the effect of autonomy in a broader range of working environments. Websites like ‘Nieuworganiseren.nu’ and ‘Corporaterebels.nl’ present case studies and examples of organisations experimenting with more autonomy for their employees. Some researches emphasize the influence of social support and the work environment (Hackman and Oldham, 2010, Sennett, 2015). Autonomy is, however, the job resource of most interest in both academic and business literature and practice.
Practice shows that not all employees are comfortable in an environment with relatively much autonomy. Organizations which change the amount of autonomy employees are granted or start working with self-managed teams, are facing turnover. In the municipality of Hollands Kroon, for instance, some of the employees have left the organization because they did not
9
So, a lot of organizations are experimenting with raising the level of autonomy for their employees, but it is not yet clear which employees will function well in such an organization and which will not.
The relationship between work autonomy and work engagement has been researched extensively (Dikkers, Jansen, de Lange, Vinkenburg, and Kooy,. 2010, Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli 2009, Schaufeli,and Bakker 2004, 2009) Research about work engagement is mostly about work conditions (job resources and job demands). The most well-known model in this area is the JDR model developed by Bakker and Demerouti (2008). This model proposes a relationship between job demands, job resources and work
engagement. Job demands refer to those physical, social or organisational aspects of the job that require sustained physical or mental effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological and psychological costs. Examples are high work pressure and emotionally demanding interactions with clients or co-workers. Challenging demands do not have a negative effect on the energy level of the employee and are not related to negative work outcomes like dissatisfaction or health problems. When the level of demands exceed the capabilities of the employees, they fall in the category of hindering job demands, because they hinder the employee in achieving valued goals. For employees it is important to decrease these demands in order to achieve their goals and stay engaged. Job resources are the physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of the job that: reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs; are functional in achieving work goals and stimulate personal growth, learning, and development’ (Dikkers et al 2010). Mobilizing resources is in line with COR theory. COR theory is one of the two leading frameworks for understanding stress in the past 20 years. Recently it is also been used in the field of positive psychology. The central notion in COR theory is that individuals strive to obtain, foster and protect those things they value. In organizational settings the things
10
employees value are job resources, like skills, knowledge and support. In these settings employees share collective resource pools. Engagement in organizations is a reflection of the social ecology, the way organizations are providing their employees with resources.
Organizations which have structures and leaders in place that increase resources and strive for fair distribution of those resource, will increase the engagement of their employees. (Hobfoll, 2010)
Tims and Bakker (2010) argue the importance of job crafting as an activity for the employee to benefit their own goals. Job crafting consists of proactive activities the employee engages in to make changes to his job to adjust it to one’s preferences. The most important one they include in their proposed model is person-job fit. They state that there is a relation between job crafting and autonomy, that employees have to experience the opportunity/ autonomy to craft their job. Thus, a given amount of autonomy is granted to employees by job description and social process in the organisation, whether employees make use of the autonomy and see it as an opportunity to job craft is different for every employee. An important antecedent of job crafting shown in former research is proactive personality. Proactive personality is predicted by personality traits. In this study I will research whether a main effect exists between personality and job crafting. This might have positive practical implications, since personality tests are used in employee selection processes.
Recently some research has been done on the influence of individual traits (Langelaan , Bakker, Van Doornen, Schaufeli, 2006, Kim, Shin, Umbreit, 2007, Kim, Shin, Swanger, 2009). Langelaan et al. (2006) argue that it is still an intriguing question why some employees are work engaged and some are experiencing burnout in the same environment. Researchers (Thomas, Bateman and Grant, 1993, Thomas, Whitman, Viswesvaran, 2010) have found evidence for the relationship between the big five traits and proactive behaviour. Job crafting
11
is a form of proactive behaviour.In this research individual traits will be researched as factors that influence job crafting.
In this research I will propose a model in which work autonomy is positively related to work engagement and that this relationship is influenced by the level of job crafting the employee engages in shows. I suggest that an important antecedent of job crafting is the personality of the employee. In other words: the personality of the employee predicts the level of job crafting of this employee, and the level of job crafting influences the positive relationship between work autonomy and work engagement.
12
Research model
Work method autonomy Work criteria autonomy Work scheduling autonomy
Work engagement
Increasing job resources
Increasing challenging demands Decreasing hindering demands Personality traits
13
Theoretical background and hypotheses
Autonomy and work engagement
Companies which grant their employees more autonomy have employees that are more work engaged (Onderzoek Beste Werkgever 2016, Effectory)
There are two ways in which autonomy can emerge at work: the autonomy formally granted to the employee and described in his or her job design and autonomy the employee creates himself, besides his job description, through job crafting. The autonomy formally assigned through job design is often studied as a job resource in research about work engagement. Deci and Ryan (1980) conclude that autonomy is one of the basic human needs and that it is
playing an important role in motivation. Schaufeli and Bakker use this concept of the motivational role of autonomy in their Job Demands Resources Model, a model that gives insight in how to predict work engagement. (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008) Work engagement is a relatively new line of research. Bakker et al. (2008) state in a position paper on the subject that the field of psychology is criticized as primarily dedicated to addressing mental illness rather than mental wellness. They show that research on work engagement may broaden views on the meaning and effects of working and suggest that focus on work engagement does not only benefit the individual, but also the organizations. With the development of the JDR model Bakker is contributing to the research on positive psychology, and work
engagement specifically. In the JDR model Bakker et al. (2008) predict the positive relationship between job resources, like autonomy, feedback, social support, and work
14
engagement. Job resources are assumed to have an influence on intrinsic motivation, because they foster employees’ growth and development, and play an extrinsic motivational role because they are instrumental in achieving work goals. Resourceful work environments motivate employees to dedicate their efforts and abilities in the work task. (Bakker et al. 2008) In the Job Demands and Resources (JDR) model the relationship between autonomy as a job resource and work engagement is shown to be positive (Hakanen, Bakker, Schaufeli, 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2009) Work engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli et al, 2002). It is a persistent affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual or behaviour. Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working. Dedication means having a strong involvement in one’s work, being enthusiastic and feeling significant and challenged. It is not only a cognitive or belief state but includes the affective dimension as well. Absorption is being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work. It is close to what is called ‘flow’, a state of optimal experience. But where flow is peak experience, absorption is a more persistent state of mind. (Schaufeli et al, 2002).
Dikkers et al (2010) define job resources as : ‘Those physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of the job that: reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs; are functional in achieving work goals and stimulate personal growth, learning, and development’
Hackman and Oldham (1975) researched autonomy in the context of work design and they define autonomy as ‘the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out’. Recently, they published an overview article with new insights on the subject of job design (Hackman and Oldham, 2016). In that article they describe the
15
changing work situation, with less strictly formulated job descriptions and procedures and more emphasis on teamwork.
Recently Breaugh (1985) developed a more precise and detailed way to measure autonomy. He argues that work autonomy is a too complex phenomenon to measure through the use of a broad index. He splits work autonomy in three facets; work method autonomy, work criteria autonomy and work scheduling autonomy. Work method autonomy is the decision latitude employees have regarding the procedures they use in their work. Work scheduling autonomy is the extent to which workers feel they can control the scheduling of their work activities. Work criteria autonomy is the degree of discretion employees have to modify or choose the goals they have to achieve and criteria used for evaluating their performance. Breaugh’s study shows the validity of the three work autonomy facets. His study showed that the test-retest coefficients were high and that the three different facets were moderately correlated.
Additional evidence of the construct validity shows high correlations with similar constructs, like Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) autonomy scale. This result is confirmed by research of Humphrey. ( Humprey et al. 2007). Their research also show high correlations with other measurements of autonomy, so the scale of Breaugh is measuring the same variable than other autonomy scales, only in more detail. The three different facets have consequences in the work environment, in a way that they require different actions of employers. Improving work scheduling autonomy requires other solutions than improving work method autonomy. Implementing flexible work schedules and granting opportunities to work from home are examples of solutions for problems with work scheduling autonomy, when evaluation based on results rather than work process is an example of an improvement of work method autonomy. (Breaugh 1985, Humprey, Nahrgang and Morgeson, 2007). Weggeman (2007) differentiates between strategic autonomy, this is the autonomy to determine ‘what is going to be done’ and professional autonomy, that determines ‘how it is going to be done’. The first is
16
supported by horizontal methods and reports (management reports) , the second is supported by vertical methods and reports (safety regulations, financial control regulations). He
concludes that professionals understand and are willing to comply to vertical methods, because they positively influence safety and quality. They, however, strive for autonomy on strategic autonomy and are less motivated when the bureaucratic workload of management reports increases.
Thus, work autonomy and work engagement are proven to be positively related in the past. New, more precise ways of measuring autonomy are available and are shown to be highly correlated with earlier measurements of autonomy. One can expect that the positive
relationship between work autonomy and work engagement can be demonstrated when using the new, more precise definition and scale of Breaugh (1985).
This leads to the following hypotheses:
1. a. Work method autonomy is positively related to work engagement b. Work criteria autonomy is positively related to work engagement c. Work scheduling autonomy is positively related to work engagement
Job design and Job crafting
Jobs are designed and described in job descriptions. A job design consists of the task and relationships assigned to one person in an organization (Ilgen and Hollebeck, 1991). The process of job design is a top down process, management defines the job descriptions for the employees.
17
This job design may be a starting point from which employees introduce changes to their tasks and relationships at work. Wrzeniewski and Dutton (2001) stated that the tasks and interactions at work are the raw materials employees use to shape their jobs. They conclude that this new vision turns the perspective on job design, the employee is effectively placed in the positions traditionally held by managers and is viewed as a competent and active architect of the job. In the Netherlands, Tims, Bakker (2010) and Tims, Bakker and Derks (2012) have built on the research of Wrzeniewski and Dutton and have developed a model and a scale for the job crafting concept. Tims and Bakker (2010) define job crafting as follows: ‘the bottom-up approach in which employees take the initiative to optimize their own job characteristics to align work with their personal preferences and abilities’. Their research shows that when only the outcome is considered, the better match, than it is a direct effect of this job crafting on work engagement. But job crafting is not only an outcome, it is also a process. It is a
participative change process, in which jobholders are actively involved in determining what changes will be made in their jobs to improve the match with their own needs and skills. (Oldham and Hackman, 2010) It is an informal process, in which employees use discretion and opportunities to change their jobs, but not their job description. Therefore it is a different concept than role innovation, that leads to change not only the job, but also the job
description. It is also a different concept than Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, which has the goal of helping others. Thus job crafting is a concept that describes the process of fitting the job to one’s personal preferences, without changing the job description.
(Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). Employees and managers engage in the process of crafting their own jobs. Low rank employees have to overcome more boundaries and limits in their environment and are more dependent on others for support of job crafting activities. (Berg, Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2010)
18
Job crafting has shown to be an important factor in enhancing work engagement Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, Hetland, 2013, Tims et al, 2010) Job crafting consists of three dimensions, namely increasing job resources, increasing challenging job demands and decreasing hindering job demands. These subscales are tested and proven to have internal validity (Tims, Bakker, Derks 2012). Job resources are able to buffer the negative effects of job demands Job resources can be increased by employees through mobilizing help from co-workers and manager, but also by developing oneself through education. The second
dimension of job crafting, increasing the level of challenging job demands, employees will engage in when they feel their job is not offering them enough opportunities to use all their knowledge, skill and time. Employees might add tasks and responsibilities to their jobs to be more satisfied and work engaged. Employees might also engage in decreasing hindering job demands, the third dimension of job crafting, by lowering their job demands. They can, for example avoid shifts, like nightshifts, that are exhausting and have a negative effect on their biorhythm or avoid co-workers or customers who are demanding. (Tims et al, 2010, 2012) Employees who actively change the content or design of their jobs, have shown to be able to increase their person-job fit and experience enhanced meaning in their work. (Tims et al 2010) According to Conservation of Resource (COR) theory employees share a pool of recources. Employees strive to obtain and foster these recourses. Autonomy is one of these resources. It is granted by job description, but can be impacted by social processes in an organization in which one employee gets more autonomy at the expense of the other.
According to COR theory the employee who is in the disadvantaged position will try to obtain his autonomy back. Job crafting is a possible way to do that. A positive relationship between increasing job resources, increasing challenging demands and work engagement has been found by Petrou (Petrou, 2012). The relationship between decreasing hindering job demands and work engagement is negative. He recommends further research.
19
As earlier mentioned, results of job crafting are positively related to work autonomy. When job crafting is studied as a process, one can argue that there is not a main effect on work engagement, but that the amount of job crafting has an effect on the relationship work
autonomy end work engagement. Job crafting as a process is continuous, employees engage in on a day to day basis and they are in that process constantly aware of the amount of work autonomy they have and how they can influence the relationship between their work autonomy and work engagement.
Job crafting as a moderator has been researched by Vogel et al (Vogel, Rodell, Lynch, 2016) in a study about value incongruence and job engagement. They conclude that job crafting can make a good situation better, but maybe also make a bad situation tolerable. Dikkers et al. (2009) have refined the JDR model by researching proactive personality as a moderator. They concluded that the proactive personality reinforces the impact of job resources in increasing engagement. They suggest that related concepts like job crafting can be used in further refining the JDR model.
In this study I propose that job crafting is a moderator between work autonomy and work engagement. I propose, in line of argument with Petrou (2012) that job crafting, in the form of increasing job resources and increasing challenging demands, can make a good situation better, in other words can increase the positive relationship between work autonomy and work engagement. Also in line of argument with Petrou (2012), I propose that job crafting in the form of decreasing hindering job demands is demotivating and therefore influences the relationship between work autonomy and work engagement in a negative way. Because of the scale I am using, it is not possible to make predictions about the relationship between work scheduling autonomy and increasing resources or increasing challenging job demands. The scale has only one question specifically about work scheduling autonomy and that is linked to decreasing hindering job demands.
20
This leads to the following hypotheses:
2. Job crafting is moderating the relationship between job autonomy and work engagement, such that
a. the relationship between work criteria autonomy as well as work method autonomy and work engagement is more positive when job crafting in the form of increasing job resources or increasing challenging job demands is high rather than low
b. the relationship between all work autonomy facets and work engagement is more negative when job crafting in the form of decreasing hindering job demands is high rather than low
Personality traits
The research on personality traits goes back to 1932 when McDougall wrote about the
meaning of ‘character’ and ‘personality’ in the first issue of Character and Personality. A five factor model was proposed for the first time by Fiske (1949). Costa and McCrae (1985) define personality as ‘the relatively enduring styles of thinking, feeling and action that characterize an individual’, they add to this definition that these characteristics are familiar in everyday life, we describe ourselves and the people around us in such terms as energetic, nervous or careful. They developed a scale, the NEO PI, to measure personality for career assessment purposes. They emphasise that for many purposes more detailed information, than scores on five factors is needed, but to predict vocational interests five factors are sufficient.
In 1999 John (1999) concludes in his research about the Big Five trait taxonomy that the field of research on personality is approaching a consensus on a general taxonomy of personality traits. The Big Five consist of five traits, which are relatively stable during lifetime and have a
21
predictive value for career success (Judge et al. 1999) and other life course events like social relations, mental health and political attitudes (Soldz and Vaillant 1999). The five traits are conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism and openness. Conscientious people are known to be efficient, organized and dutiful, have relatively much discipline and are not very impulsive (John, 1999). They are achievement oriented and are well suited to demanding jobs that require initiative and persistence (Costa et al, 1985). People who score high on extraversion are sociable, energetic and outgoing. Agreeable people are seen as warm, sympathetic and not demanding. (John, 1999). Neuroticism is characterized by
self-consciousness, low self-confidence and moodiness. They fit best in positions low in stress and which require little emotional control. (Costa et al, 1985) People who score high on openness are curious, imaginative and have wide interests (John, 1999)
The big five are researched from different perspectives. An important line of research is the relationship between the big five, job satisfaction and motivation.
The big five are used in companies when assessing potential employees. Emphasis is on cognitive ability. (Robertson and Smith, 2001)
Personality and job crafting
Job crafting can be seen as a specific form of proactive behaviour: it is self-starting and focuses on how employees perceive their work environment and act in accordance with their own preferences, values and skills. (Tims, 2012). Bateman found in his research a positive relationship between two of the big five traits, namely extraversion and conscientiousness and proactive personality. He did not find an effect of openness to experience or agreeableness.
22
Kim et al (2007 & 2009) have researched personality traits in relation to work engagement. Only conscientiousness was found to be related to work engagement. They concluded that employees high in conscientiousness are characterized by strong responsibility, organizational skills and steadiness and will use all these characteristics to work with a lot of energy. Other personality traits did not have a relationship with work engagement.
Thomas, Whitman and Viswesvaran (2010) studied proactivity constructs and found positive correlations between proactivity, conscientiousness and extraversion. He argues that
conscientious employees, because of their achievement striving, are led to proactively plan methods for optimizing procedures. Employees who score high on extraversion might engage in proactive activities through social ways, because it is consistent with their sociable, active characteristics.
This leads to the following hypothesis:
3. Extraversion and conscientiousness are positively related to increasing challenging job demands
Bateman (Bateman and Grant, 1993) and Kim et al. (2007 and 2009) also researched the big five traits. They did not use the concept of job crafting, but they found that when employees are granted the autonomy to go above and beyond to help the customer, it has a positive effect on the work engagement of the employee. One could say that agreeableness and autonomy have a relationship with the adjustments the employee made to the job. Making adjustments to a job, can be seen as job crafting. Going above and beyond can be described as increasing job resources. So one could assume there is a positive relationship between agreeableness and the job crafting dimension increasing job resources. They found this effect specifically in the hospitality branch. Based on this studies (Kim et al. 2007, 2009) one could propose that agreeable employees in the hospitality branch, engage in job crafting. One could ask whether
23
this relationship is to be expected in a broader group of respondents. COR theory (Hobfoll, 2010) states that fostering and increasing resources are social activities. One can expect that extravert employees, who are sociable, will engage easy in activities that increase job resources.
This leads to the following hypothesis:
4. Agreeableness and extraversion are positively related to increasing job resources
Neuroticism is not known to be positively related to proactivity (Thomas et al, 2010). One can assume that employees who score high on neuroticism are not engaging in job crafting.
However, neuroticism is found to be positively related to burnout. (Kim et al,. 2007) One could ask whether people high on neuroticism will use job crafting, especially decreasing hindering job demands, to avoid getting burnout. Demerouti et al. (2014) found evidence for adaptive strategies used by employees to avoid burnout. One of the strategies consists of concentrating one’s effort on a few goals and ignoring other goals.
This leads to the following hypothesis:
5. Neuroticism is positively related to decreasing hindering job demands
Method
In the following paragraphs the participants, procedure, study constructs and analysis strategy for this research will be described
24
Participants and procedure
Convenience sampling was used for this research. The online questionnaire was programmed in Qualtrics and distributed through email and social media in November 2016 by providing an anonymous link. After a week a reminder was sent. The questionnaire was filled out by 130 respondents. Most of the respondents (93.9%) have a high education (vocational and academic scholing). More than 50% is working as IT professional, other professions are paralegals and teachers. The percentage of men (57,1) is somewhat higher than the percentage of women (42,9). The age of the respondents is relatively high, more than 50% is older than 50 years. Respondents are working on average 7 years at their current employer.
Study constructs
Work engagement
To measure work engagement I used the UWES (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale) scale developed by Schaufeli and Bakker (2003). Work engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli et al, 2002). The UWES consists of 17 statements of how an employee feels at work. Respondents score on a scale from 1 (never) to 7 (every day). Example statements are ‘I am enthusiastic about my job.’ and ‘When I am working I forget everything else around me.’ Cronbachs α for this scale is ,92.
Work autonomy
The scale of Breaugh is used (1985) He argues that autonomy must be measured through three facets, work method autonomy, work scheduling autonomy and work criteria autonomy. His
25
research shows that these are indeed three distinct facets. This is confirmed by research of Humprey et al. (2007). For every facet three statements are in the scale for respondents to score on a 7 point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). Example items are ‘I am free to choose the methods to use in carrying out my work’ and ‘I have control over the scheduling of my work’. Cronbachs α for this scale is ,907, and for the subscales work method autonomy, work scheduling autonomy and work criteria autonomy, respectively were ,83: ,90 and ,81
Job crafting
To measure job crafting, I used the scale by Tims et al (2012) consisting of 21 statements, that have to be scored on a 5 point scale (1=never, 5=often). Example items are ‘I develop my capabilities’, ‘I manage my work so that I try to minimize contact with people whose problems affect me emotionally’ and ‘I regularly take on extra tasks even though I do not receive extra salary for them’. The scale can be subdivided in the subscales ‘increasing job resources’, ‘increasing challenging job demands’ and ‘decreasing hindering job demands’. Cronbachs α for the overall job crafting scale is .90, and for the subscales increasing job resources, increasing challenging job demands and decreasing hindering job demands, respectively ,85; ,85 and ,69
Personality
The NEO PI scale (Costa and McCrea, 1985) is used to measure the big five personality facets via ten questions per personality factor (agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, neuroticism). Example items are: ‘Some people think of me as calm and calculated’ (reversed item for agreeableness) and ‘I often feel tense and jittery’(neuroticism). The scale consists of 12 items per subscale, 60 items in total and are scored on a 5 point scale
26
(1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree) The values for Cronbachs α are for conscientiousness ,91, for agreeableness ,84 for extraversion ,87, for openness= ,60 and for neuroticism ,92
Control variables
Additional variables were added to the questionnaires. These variables might have an
influence on the dependent variable within the proposed model. Measures for work conditions were added because the influence of social support and the work environment on work
engagement has been shown by different researchers (Hackman & Oldham, 2010; Sennett, 2015) A commonly used questionnaire to measure work conditions is the Job Content Questionaire (JCQ) survey by Karasek et al. (Karasek, Brisson, Kawakami, Houtman, Bongers and Amick, 1998). This instrument contains items to measure social and psychological characteristics of jobs, and consists of questions about decision latitude, psychological demands and workload, co-worker support and supervisor support. Respondents need to score the items on a 4 point scale (1 strongly disagree, 4, strongly agree).Example items are: ‘I have freedom to make decisions about my job’, ‘My co-workers help me to get the job done’. Cronbachs α for the scale is .61, for the subscales used in this research, supervisor support and co-worker support respectively ,81 and ,77.
Other control variables were age and tenure. Earlier research has shown that age and tenure play a role in proactive behaviour (Wanberg, Kammeyer, 2000). Since job crafting can be seen as a form of proactive behaviour it seems useful to control for age and tenure, when testing the hypotheses with job crafting as a dependent variable. Age was measured by asking the respondents year of birth and this was recoded into age. Asking for year of birth has a higher validity than asking for age (Billiet, Loosveldt, Waterplas, 1984). Tenure was
27
measured by asking for how long respondents were working at their current employer, they could fill it in in a blank space.
Analysis strategy
First the data was checked. A number of respondents did only answer the first four questions, the data of these respondents was not used in the analyses and deleted from the database. The scales and subscales were checked for consistence (see values for Cronbachs α above). For the regression analysis independent variables were standardized, using z-values.
The research model contains four dependent variables (work engagement, increasing job resources, increasing challenging demands and decreasing hindering demands), therefore four hierarchical regressions were performed to test the predicted main effects and moderation effect.
28
Results
In this study 4 independent variables were researched, so 4 regression analyses were
conducted. First, the results for the first regression, in which hypotheses 1 and 2 are tested,are shown in correlation table, regression table and text. Subsequently the results for the
29
Table 1: descriptive statistics and correlations for the variables in hypothesis 1 and 2
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Co-worker support 3,14 ,41 1 2. Supervisor support 2,84 ,59 ,21* 1 3. Work Method Autonomy 2,42 1,01 -,13 -,16 1 4. Work Scheduling Autonomy 2,30 1,10 -,08 -,06 ,78** 1 5. Work Criteria Autonomy 2,87 ,92 -,51 ,27** ,59** ,49** 1 6. Incr. Job Resources 3,08 ,64 ,27** ,27** ,07 ,12 -,24* 1 7. Incr. Chall. Job Demands 3,03 ,87 ,19* ,11 ,20* ,27* -,17 ,73** 1 8. Decr. Hindering Job Demands 1,9 ,56 ,04 ,07 ,06 ,05 -,10 ,38** ,31** 1 9. Work engagement 5,6 ,80 ,19* ,21* -,28** -,21* -,15 ,35** ,29** ,06 1
Co-worker support and Supervisor support are significantly positively correlated with increasing job resources and work engagement. Co-worker support is also significantly positively correlated with increasing challenging job demands. Supervisor support is
30
significantly positively correlated with work criteria autonomy. Co-worker support is not correlated with work criteria autonomy. The subscales of work autonomy are moderately to highly correlated with each other. Work engagement is negatively correlated with all subscales of job autonomy and positively correlated with all subscales of job crafting.
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses 1 and 2. Hypothesis 1 states that work method autonomy, work criteria autonomy and work scheduling autonomy are positively related to work engagement. Hypothesis 2 predicts interaction effects between the different facets of job crafting and the relationship between work autonomy and work engagement. In a first step, two predictors, both control variables were entered: co-worker support and supervisor support. In a second step, main effects were entered into the regression; work method autonomy, work criteria autonomy, work scheduling autonomy, increasing job resources, increasing challenging demands and decreasing hindering demands. The total variance explained was 27,8%, the model was significant F 1,92)= 4,35; p<,05. In a third step, the interactions between the different aspects of work autonomy and job crafting were entered into the regression. The total variance explained was 32%, the model was significant F (2,85)=2,27 ; p<,05. Support for the effects of the variables as hypothesized in hypothesis 1 and 2, were only found for the relationship between work criteria autonomy and work engagement (β=,25, p<,5). For the relationship between work method autonomy and work engagement support for the opposite of the hypotheses was found, a negative
relationship between work method autonomy and work engagement (β=-,38, p<,5).
Table 2: regression analysis on the effect of work autonomy and job crafting on work engagement
Work engagement
31 Step 1 Control
variables
Co-worker supp ,16 ,04 ,02
Supervisor support ,14 ,10 ,07
Step two main effects Work meth autonomy -,38* -,34* Work crit autonomy ,25* ,21 Work sched autonomy -,13 -,14
Incr job res ,15 ,19
Incr chall dem ,27* ,21
Decr hind dem ,12 ,11
Step three:
interaction effects Incr job res x work meth aut
-,08
Incr job res x work crit aut
-,03
Incr dem x work meth aut
,04
Incr dem x work crit aut
,02
Decr dem x work meth aut
,25
Decr dem x work crit aut
-,01
Decr dem x work sched aut -,03 R2 ,06 ,28 ,32 ∆ R2 ,06 ,22 ,4 F Change ,43 ,00 ,58 * p<,05, ** p<,01
Finally correlation and hierarchical regression tests were conducted to test the relationship between personality and job crafting, as hypothesised in hypothesis 3, 4 and 5.Table shows the statistics and correlations of the variables in hypothesis 3 , 4 and 5.
32 Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Age 45,07 10,37 1 2. Tenure 7,20 6,70 ,29* * 1 3. Extravers ion 2,60 ,65 -,06 ,02 1 4. Conscient iousness 2,36 ,75 -,06 ,13 ,63** 1 5. Agreeable ness 2,47 ,64 -,12 -,06 ,55** ,82** 1 6. Neurotici sm 3,37 ,79 ,34** -,00 -,67* * ,64 -,54* * 1 7. Incr. job resources 3,08 ,63 -,25* -,126 -,10 ,20* ,20* -,10 1 8. Incr. challengi ng job demands 3,03 ,87 -,23* -,25* ,04 ,22* * ,73* * -,18 ,73** 1 9. Decr. hindering job demands 1,90 ,56 -,02 -,07 ,02 ,14 ,10 -,20* ,38** ,30** 1 * p<,05, ** p<,01
Age is significantly correlated with neuroticism. Age and tenure show no significant correlations with other variables, only with each other.
Conscientiousness and agreeableness show significant positive correlation with increasing job resources and increasing challenging job demands. Neuroticism shows a significant negative
33
correlation with decreasing hindering job demands. Extraversion shows no significant correlation with none of the job crafting subscales.
Conscientiousness show very high correlations with both extraversion and agreeableness.
The subscales of job crafting have a significant moderate to high correlation.
The results of the regression analysis between the personality aspects and the subscales of job crafting are shown in table 4, 5 and 6
Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test hypothesis 3. This hypothesis predicted a positive relationship between conscientiousness, extraversion and increasing challenging job demands. In the first step two predictors, both control variables were entered, age and tenure. In the second step two main effects, conscientiousness and extraversion were entered. This model was statistically significant F(2,85)=5,37, p<,05 and explained 21% of the variance.
The regression results show support for a part of hypothesis 3. Conscientiousness is significantly positively related to increasing challenging job demands (β=,40, p=,00). Extraversion, however is shown to be negatively related to increasing challenging job demands (β=-,324, p=,01)
Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test hypothesis 4, which stated that agreeableness and extraversion are positively related to increasing job resources. In the first step two control variables were entered, age and tenure. In the second step agreeableness and extraversion were entered as main effects. The model was significant F(2,83)=3,54, p<0,5. Agreeableness is positively related to increasing job resources (β=,28, p=,02), extraversion is negatively related to increasing job resources (β=-,25, p=,03), Hypothesis 4 is partly
34
Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test hypothesis 5, which stated that neuroticism is positively related to decreasing hindering job demands. In the first step two predictors were entered, age and tenure, both control variables. In the second step neuroticism was entered. This model was statistically nonsignificant F(1,86)=1,27, p=,34.
Hypothesis 5 is not supported. Neuroticism has no significant relation with decreasing hindering job demands (β=-,21, p=,08)
Age is negatively related to increasing job resources (β=-,23, p=,03) and increasing
challenging job demands (β=-,23, p=,0,4). Tenure has no significant relationship with any of the job crafting subscales.
Table 4: Regression conscientiousness, extraversion and Increasing challenging demands
JC Incr chall dem
Step 1 Step 2
Step one: control variables
Age -,22 -,21
Tenure -,19 -,22
Step two: main effects
Conscientiousness ,40* Extraversion -,32* R2 ,99 ,21 ∆ R2 ,99 ,12 F Change 4,69 5,56 * p<,05, ** p<,01
Table 5: Regression agreeableness, extraversion and increasing job resources
JC Incr res
35 Step one: control variables
Age -,23* -,24*
Tenure -,05 -,27
Step two: main effects
Agreeableness ,28* Extraversion -,25* R2 ,07 ,14 ∆ R2 ,07 ,07 F Change 3,36 3,52 * p<,05, ** p<,01
Table 6: Regression neuroticism and decreasing hindering demands
JC Decr dem
Step 1 Step 2
Step one: control variables
Age -,01 ,07
Tenure ,05 ,37
Step two: main effects
Neuroticism -,21
R2 ,01 ,04
∆ R2 ,01 ,03
36
Discussion and implications
Theoretical implications
The main idea of this study was to explain the level of work engagement by the level of autonomy employees are granted and the level of job crafting employees engage in. The model proposed in this study was: work autonomy is positively related to work engagement. And that this relationship is influenced by the level of job crafting the employee is involved with. An important antecedent of job crafting is the personality of the employee. In other words: the personality of the employee predicts the level of job crafting of this employee, and the level of job crafting influences the positive relationship between work autonomy and work engagement.
The main conclusions of this study are:
Personality traits have an influence on job crafting. Conscientiousness and
agreeableness have respectively a positive effect on increasing challenging demands and increasing job resources
The different aspects of job crafting, increasing challenging demands, increasing resources, decreasing hindering demands have no effect on the relationship between work autonomy and work engagement
The relationship between work method autonomy and work engagement was negative The relationship between work criteria autonomy and work engagement was positive The last conclusion is in line with most research on work autonomy and work engagement, the third conclusion is in contradiction with most research on work autonomy and work
37
engagement. Numerous studies have found a positive relationship between work autonomy and work engagement. (Bakker et al, 2012, Breevaart et al. 2014, Schaufeli et al.2004, 2009) However, Dikkers et al. (2010), however, did not find the predicted positive relationship. All of these studies measured autonomy in an abstract way, using one scale, e.g. the JCQ of Karasek (1985). This study is the first to measure work autonomy in a more detailed way, using the scale of Breaugh (1985), in a study relating work autonomy to work engagement. This study contributes to the arguments of different researchers (Weggeman, 2007, Schwartz et al, 2006) to define autonomy in a different and more specific way.
The interaction effect of job crafting activities on the relationship between autonomy and work engagement was not found. The data and analysis showed one main effect of job crafting on work engagement, the relationship between increasing challenging job demands. The autonomy that is granted to the employee is shown to be relevant in this research. So autonomy granted is more important than autonomy that is gathered by job crafting activities. Possible explanation is the jobs of the respondents. Paralegals and IT specialists work in highly regulated environments (e.g. SOX laws and regulations). One could assume that in highly regulated environments job crafting activities to fit the job to one’s personality leads in the same time, to breaking of the regulation and decrease in the quality of the work. So job crafting in this environment can easily lead to mixed results for the employee. For example crafting one’s job by deciding on one’s own or by trying to minimize contact with people with unrealistic expectations, might lead to decide to not follow the regulation or decide to
minimize contact with the internal control department, which both can lead to decline of quality or deficit reports from the internal control department. The positive relationship between increasing challenging job demands seems in line with the positive relationship between work criteria autonomy and work engagement. Work criteria autonomy and
38
increasing challenging job demands lead to more influence of the employee on the goals that he needs to achieve.
To my knowledge this study is the first to research the direct relation between personality and job crafting. Kim et al (2007, 2009) have found a relationship between employees adjusting their tasks and responsibilities to meet the customers’ expectations and agreeableness. They found evidence for this relationship in their research in the hospitality industry. In my study, I found a relationship between increasing job resources and engagement in a broader context. This research has found conformation for the hypothesis that conscientiousness is positively related to increasing challenging job demands. Since increasing challenging demands is a form of proactive behaviour, this is in line with research of Grant (Grant and Ashford, 2008) and Thomas (Thomas, Whitman and Viswesvaran, 2010) who have found a relationship between conscientiousness and proactivity. They both argue that this result can be explained by the tendency conscientious people have towards planning and achievement striving. Thomas et al (2010) also predicted a relationship between extraversion and proactive behaviour, but this hypothesis was not supported. My research results are in line with the results of Thomas et al.(2010. )The result driven attitude of the agreeable and conscientious employees seems to be more important in engaging in job crafting activities, than the sociable character of the extravert employee. The social character of the extravert employees might give them a predisposition for job crafting, but that might not be enough to put thought into action, a drive for result for the customer or organization is shown to be.
39
Discussion and further research
The hypothesized positive relationship between work autonomy and work engagement, was not found for work scheduling and work method autonomy.
First reaction, of course, is to check and double-check the data and analysis. After that, the results still showed the same negative relationship. Other explanations should be found for these findings. A possible reason for these findings can be the measurement of the variable work autonomy. Additional correlation analysis shows that the work autonomy scale of the JCQ scale is negatively correlated with the different subscales of the work autonomy scale of Breaugh. For work scheduling autonomy it is -,06, for work method autonomy it is -,23 and for work criteria autonomy it is -,37. Breaugh (1985) found in his study a positive correlation between his subscales and the autonomy scale of Hackman and Oldham (1975). Additional regression shows that regression analysis testing the effect of work autonomy on work engagement, using the JCQ subscale on autonomy shows a significant positive relationship between work autonomy and work engagement (β =,39, p=,00), additional regression using the scale of Breaugh as an overall autonomy scale, instead of the subscales still shows a negative relationship of work autonomy and work engagement (β =-,24, p=0,2). Thus, it is still unclear whether the scale of Breaugh is measuring the same kind of autonomy as other scales, only in a more precise and detailed way or that both scales measure considerably different forms of autonomy. One could propose that the scale of Breaugh measures the autonomy of an employee in using methods and procedures and in planning and scheduling works in daily execution of the job by the employee, with items like ‘I am free to choose the methods to use in carrying out my work’ and ‘I have control over the scheduling of my work’. And that the scale of JCQ measures decision latitude and participation in making overall
40
organizational decisions, with questions like ‘I have freedom to make decisions about my job’. Further research comparing different autonomy scales could bring more clarity.
Connected to this explanation is the explanation that one of the aspects of autonomy might be perceived not as a positive element of work, but as a negative one. According to Weggeman (2007), work method autonomy has two forms, vertical and horizontal. Vertical methods are methods used in the primary work process, for example safety procedures or financial control procedures. Horizontal methods are procedures to report to management. Weggeman
concludes that professionals are more motivated when they have more autonomy in horizontal methods, but not when they are granted more autonomy in vertical methods. Autonomy in vertical methods might compromise the quality or safety of the work and he argues that a professional is not motivated by delivering lower quality work or working in an unsafe environment. The Dutch organization Buurtzorg is known and much appreciated by the nurses who work there for the high amount of autonomy in horizontal methods. Less reports to management are required than in other organizations employing nurses.
( https://decorrespondent.nl/5147/waarom-de-baas-van-buurtzorg-de-baas-van-nederland-zou-moeten-zijn/197876415-4c77c222). More research on defining and measuring work method autonomy can lead to more insight in this complex construct, that lead to insight in
relationships with other constructs, like work engagement, and, based on that results, give employers the opportunity to grant autonomy on the right methods.
Schwartz et al (2006) argue that it is not the autonomy in deciding about methods that makes employees more motivated, but the autonomy to decide to deviate from standards. They describe the situation of a teacher and two students. One has put all the effort in a course and is struggling to get a C. His paper is a C or a B-. The smartest student who is ‘acing’ every test and paper, has handed in a paper that is a solid B= or even an A-, but it lacks creativity. What grades should the teacher give? Should he follow the rules or take into account what a
41
grade will do to the motivation of the student? This line of argumentation in similar with the ‘comply or explain’ rules in corporate government. Professionals and leaders are allowed to deviate from strict rules, but have to be able to explain their choice.
We can conclude that different definitions and measurements of autonomy need more research to get a clear view on the concept of autonomy. Further research is necessary in determining how to measure autonomy and specifically how to differ the measurements between vertical and horizontal method autonomy. Furthermore the role of autonomy in the broader field of job resources the effect of autonomy on work engagement, deserves more attention. This can be done by expanding the JDR model, as proposed by Dikkers et al. (2009)
Practical implications
Organizations nowadays are experimenting with work autonomy. This study confirms the complexity of the concept of autonomy and it’s relation to work engagement. It might be advisable for organizations to be well aware of the kind of autonomy they are trying to increase and whether increasing that kind of autonomy will lead to more work engagement. Research of Laloux (2015) shows that organizations use trial and error, and beliefs, like people are making important decisions in their private life, so they should have the autonomy to do so in worklife also, to find out if more autonomy for employees has positive results for both employee and organization.
Organizations which consider proactive behaviour in the form of job crafting important, should consider hiring employees who score high on the personality traits conscientiousness and agreeableness.
42
Limitations of the study
A first limitation of this study is that it applied a cross-sectional design to examine presumed causal relationships between the variables. Conclusions about causal relationships can therefore not be drawn, until replicated in studies with longitudal design.
A second limitation is the selection of participants. Convenience sampling was used as sampling procedure, participants were not randomly selected. Selection bias might have influenced the results from this study. The respondents are not representative for all working people in the Netherlands. The data shows that the respondents have a relatively high
education and that older employees (older than 50) are a relatively over represented. Certain professions were also over represented, namely IT professionals and paralegals.
Common source bias is another limitation. All data were collected, using one source, the employee. The issue is whether self-reported data correspond to the objective reality, that other observers also would report, or that it represents the interpretation of the situation of the respondent.
The fourth limitation is that variables were measured at an individual level and not on a team level. Job crafting can be considered, in line with COR theory (Hobfoll, 2010), not only an individual process, but also a team process. The effects and implications on the team level could have influenced the results on individual level, since job crafting activities of one employee can have an effect on the autonomy of another employee.
43
Conclusion
Autonomy is important for the work engagement of employees. But autonomy in itself is a concept that is constantly changing, because of developments in working environments. The definition and measurement of autonomy deserves further research, because of new
developments and study in that area (Schwartz et al, 2006, Weggeman, 2007). More cooperation between the academic research and the organizations currently experimenting with more autonomy for employees, is advisable, to get a multi-perspective view on this concept.
Job crafting by the employee has no influence on the relationship between work autonomy and work engagement. So, according to this study, the autonomy granted by the employer is more important in relation to work engagement.
Consciousness and agreeableness are positively related to job crafting. Employees who score high on one of these two traits, seem to show goal achievement behaviour, through job crafting activities, to satisfy the customer and the company.
44
Literature
Baane, R., Houtkamp, P., & Knotter, M. (2010). Het nieuwe werken ontrafeld. Uitgeverij Van Gorcum.
Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Human relations,65(10), 1359-1378.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career
development international, 13(3), 209-223.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of organizational behavior, 14(2), 103-118.
Billiet, J., Loosveldt, G., & Waterplas, L. (1984). Het survey-interview onderzocht. Effecten
van het ontwerp en gebruik van vragenlijsten op de kwaliteit van de antwoorden.
Sociologische Onderzoeksinstituut
Berg, J. M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2010). Perceiving and responding to
challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 31(2‐3), 158-186.
Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The measurement of work autonomy. Human relations,38(6), 551-570. Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014). Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. Journal
of occupational and organizational psychology, 87(1), 138-157.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). Self-determination theory: When mind mediates behavior. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 33-43.
De Hoogh, A. H., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2005). Linking the Big Five‐Factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership; perceived dynamic work
environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 839-865. Dikkers, J. S., Jansen, P. G., de Lange, A. H., Vinkenburg, C. J., & Kooij, D. (2010). Proactivity, job characteristics, and engagement: a longitudinal study. Career Development
45
Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(3), 329.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in organizational
behavior, 28, 3-34
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied
psychology, 60(2), 159
Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. Journal of organizational behavior, 31(2‐3), 463-479.
Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of school psychology, 43(6), 495-513.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2010). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of
occupational and organizational psychology, 84(1), 116-122.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332.
Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1991). The structure of work: Job design and roles. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 2, 165-207.
John, Oliver P., and Sanjay Srivastava. "The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives." Handbook of personality: Theory and research 2.1999 (1999): 102-138.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five
personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel
psychology, 52(3), 621-652.
Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998). The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): an instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of occupational health psychology, 3(4), 322. Kim, H. J., Shin, K. H., & Umbreit, W. T. (2007). Hotel job burnout: The role of personality characteristics. International Journal of Hospitality Management,26(2), 421-434.
46
Kim, H. J., Shin, K. H., & Swanger, N. (2009). Burnout and engagement: A comparative analysis using the Big Five personality dimensions. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28(1), 96-104.
Laloux, F. (2015). Reinventing organizations. Lannoo Meulenhoff-Belgium.
Langelaan, S., Bakker, A. B., Van Doornen, L. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement: Do individual differences make a difference?.Personality and individual
differences, 40(3), 521-532.
Lu, C. Q., Wang, H. J., Lu, J. J., Du, D. Y., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Does work engagement increase person–job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 84(2), 142-152
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1992). Discriminant validity of NEO-PIR facet scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(1), 229-237.
McDougall, W. (1932). Of the words character and personality. Journal of Personality, 1(1), 3-16
Onderzoek Beste Werkgever 2016, Effectory
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of Robertson, I. T., & Smith, M. (2001). Personnel selection. Journal of occupational and
Organizational psychology, 74(4), 441-47
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Bevlogenheid: een begrip gemeten1
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample study. Journal of organizational
Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 893-917.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study.Educational and psychological
