Job Crafting
Its relationship to job performance and how this is moderated
by proactive personality and person-job fit
Bachelor Thesis Martijn Savenije (10002429)
Abstract
Job crafting is a relatively new research domain within job (re)design theory and generally defined as a specific form of proactive behaviour which involves the employee (re)shaping the job on a
cognitive, relational and/or physical level. Based on theory research it was confirmed that job crafting can indeed affect job performance and hypothesized that this relationship between job crafting and job performance may be moderated by proactive personality (PP) and person-job (PJ) fit. Data collection through online questionnaires yielded 102 dyads that answered questions with regard to job crafting, job performance and its two moderators. Statistical analysis through a
regression model did not reveal any statistically significant relationships between job crafting and job performance. This was in contrast to an earlier and largely similar quantitative study which did reveal significant results. Statistical analysis did also not reveal any significant moderation effects by PJ and PP. Possible explanations for these results are the probable homogeneity of data sources and the fact that job crafting as a whole was used as a variable, rather than specific parts of job crafting. Future research should focus on testing these specific parts of job crafting and the relationship to job performance, as this may reveal new insights in the topic.
Introduction
Historically, organizational researchers have focused largely on the top-down approach to job (re)design. The idea was that job design was an activity that was mostly the concern of managers. More recently, however, scholars have started investigating the role of employees more closely and have come up with the concept of ‘job crafting’ (Wrezniewski & Dutton, 2001). The concept of job crafting takes at its heart the role of employees in (re)shaping jobs. Job crafting is an interesting concept that to study as it is not difficult to see that it is likely that any employee somehow engages in some form job crafting. All the more interesting is the fact that job crafting has already been shown to affect job performance (Bakker, Tims & Derks, 2012)
Job crafting is a relatively new research domain within the field of job redesign. Previous research on job crafting has been directed to theory building through qualitative research, diary studies and the testing of the validity of Job Crafting measuring scales. (Demerouti and Bakker, 2013; Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrezniewski & Dutton, 2001; Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2012). For example, one quantitative study revealed that job crafters do indeed stay engaged and perform well at their jobs (Bakker, Tims & Derks, 2012).
The aim of this paper is to contribute to the field by testing the theory that was built by other scholars. The core premise of this article is that job crafting may affect employee performance at work. Therefore, this research focused on the effects of job crafting on job performance, and more specifically on how this effect is moderated by (1) the fit between the job and the employee and (2) the degree to which the employee has a proactive personality. The goal of this research as such is to take the first steps in answering a more fundamental question: what does job crafting mean to managers and what effect of job crafting on employee performance can managers expect especially with regard to employee specific characteristics person-job fit and proactive personality?
1. Theoretical framework
1.1 Job DesignJob crafting is strongly related to Job design. usually represents a top-down process in which organizations create jobs and form the conditions under which the job holders/incumbents execute their tasks. Job redesign is usually seen as a process in which the supervisor decides to change something in the job, tasks or roles of the individual (Tims & Bakker, 2010).
Previous research on job redesign has led to mixed results (Demerouti & Bakker, 2013). This is probably due to the relative weak relation between stimulating job characteristics and work outcomes such as job performance, turnover and absenteeism (Fried, 1991). Furthermore, conventional job redesign has been criticised for being less relevant for the way modern jobs are organised (Demerouti & Bakker, 2013).
In current job design research there is a trend towards individualization of the employee’s role. In their article Grant & Parker (2009) consider two general viewpoints: relational perspectives and proactive perspectives. The relational perspectives focus on how jobs and the tasks they involve are more socially embedded than ever before (Grant & Parker, 2009), whilst (…) proactive perspectives focus particularly on anticipatory actions taken by employees to create changes in how jobs, roles and tasks are executed (Frese & Fay, 2001). Job redesign perspectives that apply the proactive approach aim at (i) job redesign to stimulate proactivity, which examines how organizations can structure jobs and tasks to encourage employees to take the initiative and actively shape their work tasks and contexts, and (ii) job crafting, role adjustment, and idiosyncratic deals that represent the proactive steps that employees take to modify the cognitive, physical and relational boundaries of their work and to propose personalized employment arrangements with managers and supervisors (Grant & Parker, 2009). The concept of job crafting can serve as a means to explain the way
employees are shaping their own jobs and their effect on job performance. 1.2 Contribution of the job crafting perspective
Job crafting is a relatively new concept that provides a new, bottom-up perspective on job redesign. The term was first coined in 2001 by Wrezniewski and Dutton. In their article they revision
employees as ‘job crafters’: “individuals who actively compose both what their job is physically, by changing a job’s task boundaries, what a job is cognitively, by changing the way they think about the relationships among job tasks and what their job is relationally, changing the interactions and relationships they have with others at work” (Wrezniewski and Dutton, 2011, p. 180). Job crafting is defined as the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work” (Wrezniewski & Dutton, 2001, p. 180). Since then, some scholars have added new dimensions to the definition of job crafting.
In a more recent article Tims & Bakker (2010) describe job crafting as a specific form of proactive behaviour in which the employee initiates changes in the level of job demands and job resources. In their article job crafting is conceptualized using the Job Demands – Resources (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), which was originally conceived as a means to model causes of job stress
experienced by employees. The model divides potential sources of job stress into two categories: job demands and job resources regardless of the situation or occupation in which they occur. This particular trait makes the model more flexible than previous models such as the demand-control model (DCM) or the effort reward imbalance (ERI) model. “Job demands refer to those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort or skills and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, page 2-3).
According to this model, the employee may undertake various actions in order to lower job stress: (1) increase the level of job resources available at work, (2) increase the level of job demands at work and (3) may decrease the level of job demands at work.
Clearly job crafting takes a bottom-up approach to job redesign. While existing research on job (re)design is extensive, job crafting complements this research by changing the direction of the relationship (Wrezniewski & Dutton, 2001). By taking an approach that is focused on the way employees shape their job without interaction or consultation of their supervisor, job crafting may contribute to finding an explanation of how jobs are shaped in the modern economy (Peeters, De Jonge, & Taris 2012).
1.2 Person-Job Fit
Person-Environment (PE) fit is a term that is commonly used in organizational psychology and is defined as the degree to which a match between the individual’s characteristics and the
environmental characteristics exists. The PE-fit consists of four domains: (1) person-organization fit, (2) person-job fit, (3) person-group fit and (4) person-person fit. For this paper it is the second domain – person-job fit – that is relevant. Although the use of the PE-fit model has received substantial criticism (Tinsley, 2000; Spokane et al., 2000) a useful alternative does not yet exist. Person – job (PJ) fit is defined by Carless (2005) as the match between individual knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) and demands of the job or the needs/desires of an individual and what is provided by the job. Prior research has revealed a strong relationship between PJ-fit and job performance (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1990).
Person-job fit in this paper is defined as congruence between an employee’s skills and the demands of a job (demands-ability fit), and the congruence between an employee’s needs and that what is supplied by the job (needs – supplies fit) (Cable & Judge, 1996; Kristof-Brown, 2000; Cable & De Rue, 2002). People’s perception of fit between the self and the job can be a better determinant than the actual person-job fit (Cable & De Rue, 2002). The underlying assumption is that a good PJ-fit may enhance the way job crafting influences the relationship between job crafting and job performance. Therefore, in this article, the self-perception of person-job fit will be used as a construct in the questionnaires used for data collection.
1.3 Proactive Personality
Proactive personality in this paper is defined as is defined as the ‘the relatively stable tendency to effect environmental change. It is established that proactive behaviour can positively influence a worker’s job performance (Crant, 1995; Porath & Bateman, 2006). Furthermore, proactive personality was shown to be a strong indicator for self-improvement behaviour (Major, Turner & Fletcher, 2006) and inrole-performance (Greguras & Dieffendorf, 2010). Job crafting has been defined as a typical form of proactive behaviour (Bakker, Tims & Derks, 2012), it can, however, also be reactive in nature (Wrezniewski & Dutton, 2001). For example, in the form of the avoidance of certain colleagues or certain types of work. It can, therefore, be argued that the degree to which an employee has a proactive personality, can interact with the way job crafting affects job performance. The underlying assumption is that job crafting performed by employees with a proactive personality generally perform better at their job – as perceived by their managers - than those who aren’t proactive.
2. Conceptual Model
2.1 The model
Figure one shows the conceptual model used in this research. The model is based on four constructs: (1) job crafting, (2) Job Performance, (3) Person-Job fit and (4) Proactive personality. The main goal of this research is to investigate the relationship between job crafting and job performance and more the question whether this relationship is stronger or weaker with regard to two moderators: PJ-fit and Proactive personality.
The relationship between job crafting and job performance has already been proven to be
statistically significant in an earlier study (Bakker, Tims & Derks, 2012). Jobs are often designed to maximize task-specific performance of employees in order to achieve a higher goal, often related to key performance indicators. Determinants of job performance include declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and skill, and motivation (Campbell, 1990). The theory on job crafting postulates that the shaping of jobs by employees themselves may indeed affect each of these determinants of job performance (Wrezniewski and Dutton, 2001). For example, an employee may cognitively change the way he or she views the job, assigning more meaning to the tasks that have to be performed. This may, in turn, increase the employee’s motivation to carry out these job-related tasks.
Figure 2.1: Conceptual Model 2.2 Hypotheses
A prior quantitative study on job crafting has already shown that job crafting can indeed improve job performance (Bakker, Tims & Derks, 2012). This study is, however, the only one of its kind in the field of job crafting. Therefore another attempt to reproduce this relationship can be a useful contribution to the field. The hypothesis in this article is that employees that engage more actively in job crafting than their colleagues score higher on indicators of job performance. As discussed in the prior paragraph, based on theory job crafting is expected to affect job performance indirectly, through its determinants.
Hypothesis 1: Job Crafting has a positive effect on job performance.
The hypothesis in this paper is that while all employees engage in some sort of job crafting, those with a good PJ-fit tend to score higher on the indicators of job performance. Since the employee-perception of fit between job and person can be a better determinant of job performance than the actual fit (Cable & De Rue, 2002), it was decided to use the employee’s perception of fit in the
questionnaire, since the effect of PJ-fit on the relationship between job crafting and job performance is the main object of interest in this study.
Many forms of job crafting behaviour exist, and it is expected that their individual relationship to job performance can differ (Wrezniewski & Dutton, 2001). The basic premise in this article is that, job crafters that have a high PJ-fit will engage in job crafting behaviours that positively affect job performance more strongly than job crafting behaviours exerted by employees with a low PJ-fit. Hypothesis 2: The relationship between job crafting and job performance is moderated by Job-Person fit.
Prior research has shown the existence of a positive relationship between proactive personality and job performance (Thompson, 2005; Grant & Parker 2009;) as well as between proactive personality and career success (Seibert, Crant & Kraimer, 1999). The hypothesis in this paper is that while all employees engage in some sort of job crafting, those with a more proactive personality tend to score higher on the indicators of job performance.
Job crafting is referred to as a specific form of proactive behaviour. It can, however, also be reactive in nature. Employees that are proactive generally perform better than employees which show reactive behaviour (Crant, 2000). On the basis of these two facts, the expectation is that although there is generally a positive link between job crafting and job performance, this link is expected to be stronger for employees that score high on proactive personality ratings, and weaker for employees that score low on proactive personality ratings. The expectation is that employees that have a personality strongly affiliated with proactive personality traits will generally engage in forms of job crafting behaviour that improve job performance stronger than job crafting behaviours exerted by employees that generally have fewer proactive personality traits.
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between job crafting and job performance is moderated by the proactivity of the employee.
3. Methodology
In this section the methodology used to test the hypotheses discussed in the conceptual framework will be discussed. First, the overall research design is discussed. This is followed by a description of the sample used in this research. Then, an overall description of and justification for the procedure used in this research is given. This section is concluded with a description of the measures and a review of the strengths and limitations of the chosen method.
Research Design
In this research an online-questionnaire based survey was used as a means for data collection. The online-questionnaire based survey was deemed most suitable for this research because it allowed for a large sample to be gathered with relatively little effort (Saunders et al., 2009, p. 144). In order to test the hypotheses in this research, comparisons between individual persons engaging in job crafting must be made. In order to draw reliable and valid conclusions it is desirable to have a large sample. The online questionnaire proved to be useful in achieving this goal. Finally, other scholars researching the concept of job crafting used this method as well, and acquired reliable results (Bakker, Tims & Derks, 2012). The scale Tims, Bakker & Derks used to measure job crafting activity in their paper was used in this research as well.
The questionnaire was taken by dyads. Persons were eligible as dyad if it concerned a pair of at least two persons, including at least one employee and his/her direct manager. Both persons had to be employed within the same organization.
Two types of questionnaires were used, one for managers and one for employees. The main purpose of the manager questionnaire was to have the manager evaluate the employee(s)’ job performance. The main purpose of the employee questionnaire is to ask the employee to self-rate the degree to which he or she believes to be actively crafting his/her job, the degree to which he/she has a proactive personality and to self-rate his/her fit with the job. All evaluation questions had 5 answers based on the Likert scale. A copy of both the manager and the employee survey can be found in the appendix.
Sample
Population. The population consists of every person in the Netherlands that has a job and at least one manager and a colleague. Since the hypotheses tested in this paper do not necessarily relate to any specific variables in the population, no further information on the population is disclosed. Sample. Sample size was aimed to be as large as possible within the time frame of this research. A large sample size allows for better generalization of results found in the study (Saunders et al., 2009, pp. 217-218). Data collection was carried through 4 fellow scholars, each acting on their own. As a result, as of the writing of this thesis it is unclear exactly how many questionnaires were distributed. Based on figures provided by 2 out of 4 scholars, the estimated response rate was 91.1%.
After cleaning up the data by omitting responses that were unfinished or unlikely (e.g. age > 85 or all answers highest of possible options in all cases), total sample size was N = 102 dyads.
Data Collection
The main strategy for gathering respondents was to approach organizations via email and ask for their permission to interview a number of employees and their managers through an online
questionnaire. It was indicated to the employees and managers in advance that the questions would 8
concern human resource management policy in the company and the effects of this policy on several indicators, i.e. performance. Each respondent then received a personal code and a link to a survey on online questionnaire website Qualtrics. These codes were used to establish a link between the manager and employee questionnaires received through this website.
Allowing questionnaires to be completed online helped the researchers to quickly gather a large number of respondents at low cost. Further advantages include increased willingness of respondents to complete the survey and a more consistent environment for respondents to answer their
questions as opposed to a more traditional interview setting. It should be noted that the items relevant to this research were put in a questionnaire that featured other topics as well. Data Analysis
Sample characteristics. Basic sample characteristics such as number of questionnaires started and completed, education level gender and age are provided.
Descriptive statistics. A summary of descriptive statistics containing N, mean, standard deviation and minimal/maximum values was provided using SPSS.
Variables. Further data analysis was also done using SPSS. The questionnaires provided 259 items, of which 37 are relevant to this research. In order to simplify analysis, these 37 items were merged into 4 new variables corresponding to the constructs discussed in the conceptual model and hypotheses of this paper.
Reliability. Each new variable was tested for reliability by measuring Cronbach’s Alpha of the variables that were merged into a new variable. The reliability scores of each new variable can be found in table 3.2 All merged construct scales were found to be reliable as Cronbach’s Alpha for each new variable was >0,8.
Linear-regression. A linear regression model will be used to test hypotheses 1,2 and 3 regarding suspected moderating effects of Proactive Personality and Person-Job fit. In order to test these hypotheses new variables of the correlation between the moderator and the determinant (job crafting) had to be created (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Measures
Job Crafting. Job crafting was measured in the employee questionnaire using the scale designed by Tims, Bakker & Derks (2011). This scale features 21 statements regarding typical behaviour that is associated with job crafting. The respondent is then given the option to indicate how often he or she participates in such behaviour on a 1 (never) to 5 (very often) scale. More item examples can be found in Appendix A at the end of this paper.
Translated example item: I ensure I make optimal use of my capacities.
Job Performance. Employee job performance was measured in the manager questionnaire based on a scale developed by Van Dyne & LePine (1998). Respondents received 4 questions related to performance. Answers were given on a 1 (fully disagree) to 7 (fully agree) Likert scale. More item examples can be found in Appendix A at the end of this paper.
Translated Example item: Takes care of the responsibilities listed in his/her job description
Person-Job Fit. Was measured using the scale developed by Cable & DeRue (2002). The respondents answered 6 questions regarding their perception of the fit between themselves en their job.
Answers were given on a 1 (fully disagree) to 7 (fully agree) Likert scale. More item examples can be found in Appendix A at the end of this paper.
Translated Example item: My values and standards fit the values and standards held by my colleagues
Proactive Personality. Proactive personality plays the role of moderator in one of the hypotheses. It is measured through a 6 item adaptation of Batemand en Crant’s (1993) Proactive Personality Scale (Claes, Beheydt, & Lemmens, 2005; Parker, 1998). Respondents were shown 6 statements regarding different proactive forms of behaviour. Respondents was given the option to indicate whether they agreed these statements reflected their own behaviour on a 1 (fully disagree) to 7 (fully agree) Likert scale. More item examples can be found in Appendix A at the end of this paper.
Translated Example item: Find new approaches to execute his/her tasks so that she/he can be more successful
Control Variables. The control variables are age and gender.
4. Results
In the previous section the research methodology was discussed. In the coming paragraph the results gathered using this methodology are reported. First, the general characteristics of the sample and the data are discussed. Second, the merged variable scales are tested for reliability using Cronbach Alpha. Third
4.1.1 Sample Characteristics
In total 236 questionnaires were started. 170 respondents started and finished the questionnaire. After removal of questionnaire responses in which 1 or more answers were missing, a group of N = 102 dyads were found to be eligible for analysis. 60,4% of respondents was male and 39,6% female of respondents was female. The average age of respondents was 37 years (rounded to full numbers). A summary of the education level of respondents can be found in table 3.1. Median education level of respondents was HBO. HBO is a Dutch education level which equals a university of applied sciences level in the U.S. Respondents had been working for their current employer for 8.1 year on average. Employees had had their current manager for 2.8 years on average.
Respondent level of education
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Secondary Education 22 12,9 12,9 12,9
MBO 23 13,5 13,5 26,5 HBO 76 44,7 44,7 71,2 University (bachelor) 9 5,3 5,3 76,5 University (master) 35 20,6 20,6 97,1 Other 5 2,9 2,9 100,0 Total 170 100,0 100,0
Table 4.1 Education level of respondents
4.1.2 Data Characteristics
Table 3.2 summarizes descriptive statistics. Person-Job Fit, Job Performance and Proactive
Personality were measured on a 1 to 7 Likert scale. Job crafting was measured on a 1 to 5
Likert scale.
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Job Crafting 102 1,52 3,76 2,7428 ,49388 Person-Job Fitit 102 1,67 7,00 5,1193 1,06870 Job Performance 102 1,50 7,00 5,8995 ,88109 Proac. Personality 102 3,33 6,67 5,2173 ,68730 Valid N (listwise) 102 11
Table 4.2 Descriptive statistics 4.2 Reliability Analysis
The questionnaire yielded 37 items that were relevant for this research. In order to simplify analysis, these 37 items were merged into 4 new variables corresponding to the constructs found in the conceptual model and hypotheses of this paper. Each new variable was tested for reliability by measuring Cronbach’s Alpha of the variables that were merged into a new variable. The reliability scores of each new variable can be found in table 3.2 All merged construct scales were found to be reliable as Cronbach’s Alpha for each new variable was >0,8.
Construct Cronbach’s Alpha Number of items
Job Crafting 0,861 21
Job Performance 0,901 4
Proactive Personality 0,802 6
Person-Job Fit 0,900 6
Table 4.3 Reliability test scores of merged construct scales
4.3 Correlations
JobCraft PJfit JobPerf ProPers JC_PP JC_PJ F Sex Age JobCraft Pearson Correlation 1 ,002 ,065 ,377 ** -,065 -,212* -,077 -,144 Sig. (2-tailed) ,988 ,517 ,000 ,516 ,032 ,444 ,152 PJfit Pearson Correlation ,002 1 ,318 ** ,147 -,136 -,069 -,069 ,224* Sig. (2-tailed) ,988 ,001 ,139 ,172 ,493 ,494 ,024 JobPerf Pearson Correlation ,065 ,318 ** 1 -,022 -,010 -,146 ,147 ,056 Sig. (2-tailed) ,517 ,001 ,825 ,919 ,144 ,142 ,579 ProPers Pearson Correlation ,377 ** ,147 -,022 1 -,205* -,113 -,150 ,157 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,139 ,825 ,039 ,259 ,135 ,117 JC_PP Pearson Correlation -,065 -,136 -,010 -,205 * 1 ,004 ,160 -,214* Sig. (2-tailed) ,516 ,172 ,919 ,039 ,965 ,110 ,032 JC_PJF Pearson Correlation -,212 * -,069 -,146 -,113 ,004 1 ,180 -,044 Sig. (2-tailed) ,032 ,493 ,144 ,259 ,965 ,072 ,660 Sex Pearson Correlation -,077 -,069 ,147 -,150 ,160 ,180 1 -,154 Sig. (2-tailed) ,444 ,494 ,142 ,135 ,110 ,072 ,126 12
Age Pearson Correlation -,144 ,224 * ,056 ,157 -,214* -,044 -,154 1 Sig. (2-tailed) ,152 ,024 ,579 ,117 ,032 ,660 ,126 N 101 101 101 101 101 101 100 101
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
4.3 Job Crafting impact on job performance
Hypothesis 1: Job Crafting has a positive effect on job performance.
In order to test H1, a linear regression analysis was performed in order to measure the effect of job
crafting on job performance. Before commencing analysis all variables were standardized by
transforming them into Z-scores, so as to improve accuracy of results. The model had Job Crafting as the predictor variable and Job Performance as the dependent variable.
The regression analysis provided the results summarized in table 3.4 and 3.5. The significance limit was set at σ > 0,05. The test revealed a statistically non-significant effect of job crafting on job performance as σ was >0,05. σ = 0,324, therefore, H1 is rejected. R2 had a value of 0,035, which isn’t
surprising given the value for σ that was found.
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3,498 3 1,166 1,173 ,324b
Residual 95,440 96 ,994
Total 98,938 99
a. Dependent Variable: Zscore(JobPerf)
b. Predictors: (Constant), Wat is uw leeftijd in jaren?, Zscore(JobCraft), Geef aan wat uw geslacht is
Table 4.4 SPSS output regression analysis JC - JP
Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) -,785 ,459 -1,712 ,090 Zscore(JobCraft) ,088 ,101 ,089 ,875 ,384
Geef aan wat uw geslacht is ,325 ,203 ,163 1,600 ,113
Wat is uw leeftijd in jaren? ,009 ,009 ,103 1,005 ,317
a. Dependent Variable: Zscore(JobPerf)
Table 4.5 SPSS output regression analysis JC – JP (cont.)
4.4 Person-job fit and Proactive personality moderation
In this part of the analysis the other two hypotheses were tested using a single linear regression model. The hypotheses were as follows:
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between job crafting and job performance is moderated by Job-Person fit.
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between job crafting and job performance is moderated by the proactivity of the employee.
In order to measure the effect of person-job fit on the relationship between job crafting and job performance, a multiple variable regression analysis was performed. In order to be able to carry out this regression, a new variable (JC_PJF) was created. This new variable consisted of the correlation between job crafting and person-job fit: (JCx – JCmean) * (PJFx – PJFmean).
In order to measure the effect of proactive personality on the relationship between job crafting and job performance, a multiple variable regression analysis was performed. In order to be able to carry out this regression, a new variable (JC_PP) was created. This new variable consisted of the
correlation between job crafting and proactive personality : (JCx – JCmean) * (PPx – PPmean).
The final multiple variable regression analysis contained the standardised variables JobCraft, ProPers, JC_PP, JC_PJF and the control variables Age and Sex as predictor variables and JobPerf as the
dependent variable.
The statistical significance limit was set at σ > 0,05. The SPSS output showed a σ = 0,023 for the model, which thus was deemed significant. R2 was 0,158, which is considerably higher than the R2
found for the model just containing Job Crafting and Job performance.
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 15,670 7 2,239 2,473 ,023b
Residual 83,268 92 ,905
Total 98,938 99
a. Dependent Variable: Zscore(JobPerf)
b. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(JC_PJF), Zscore(JC_PP), Zscore(PJfit), Zscore(JobCraft), Geef aan wat uw geslacht is, Wat is uw leeftijd in jaren?, Zscore(ProPers)
Unfortunately, the model revealed insignificant results for the JC_PP – JP and JC_PJF – JP
relationships. All other parts of the model were also tested at scores σ > 0,05. The notable exception was PJfit, which was clearly significant with σ = 0,02.
Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) -,012 ,095 -,128 ,898 14
Zscore(JobCraft) ,086 ,107 ,086 ,800 ,426
Zscore(PJfit) ,315 ,099 ,316 3,179 ,002
Zscore(ProPers) -,103 ,107 -,104 -,962 ,339
Zscore(JC_PP) -,004 ,100 -,004 -,042 ,966
Zscore(JC_PJF) -,154 ,099 -,155 -1,551 ,124
Zscore: Geef aan wat uw
geslacht is ,193 ,100 ,193 1,938 ,056
Zscore: Wat is uw leeftijd in
jaren? ,044 ,103 ,044 ,422 ,674
a. Dependent Variable: Zscore(JobPerf)
5. Discussion
The results of the statistical analysis are in contrast to results found by others scholars. Whereas other scholars have found proof of a significant relationship between job crafting and job performance, this study revealed no such thing. In this discussion possible causes for the insignificance of the results are discussed.
5.1.1 The job crafting – job performance relationship
Based on the data used in this article, no statistical proof of a relationship between job crafting and job performance could be found. This is in contrast to an – one of the few – earlier quantitative study into the effect of job crafting on job performance. In this study, performed by Bakker, Tims, and Derks (2012), strong proof was found for job crafting as an indicator for in-role performance. The performance in this case, was judged by peers at work. This may have influenced the outcome of the study, since peers may look at different things when judging performance than supervisors.
5.1.2 Proactive personality and person-job fit as moderators
Even though the statistical analysis did not show a significant relationship between job crafting and job performance, further statistical analysis of a possible effect of PJ-fit on this hypothetical
relationship between job crafting and job performance was performed. The main reason for this was that should significant results be found, these may still add to the existing research on job crafting, as strong evidence for a relationship between job crafting and job performance was found in earlier research.
Unsurprisingly, the statistical analysis of the data yielded insignificant results for the moderators, proactive personality and person-job fit, as well. Although not primarily the topic of this paper, the only variable that proved to have a statistically significant relationship to job performance was Person – Job fit. This single exception is, although pleasant, not surprising. The person job fit is a well-known determinant for job performance, as proven in copious papers before this one. 5.2 Possible explanations for results
One of several possible explanations is the strategy that was used for data gathering, or more specifically, the way that strategy was executed. This research was performed as the final part of a bachelor programme. As such, the network of the scholars that distributed the questionnaires was rather limited. As a result, a sizeable part of the data was acquired through a limited amount of organizations. This may have increased the effect of idiosyncratic factors, such as organizational policy or culture. For example, such idiosyncratic factors may have marginalized room for employees to engage in job crafting, thus limiting its potential effect on job performance.
Another possible explanation that easily comes to mind, is that the scale used to measure job crafting would not be appropriate as it is still quite new and not used extensively. However, testing by other researchers has proved that this is not the case. Other scholars managed to obtain significant results using this scale.
Third, worth noting is that all four commonly known aspects of job crafting were put into a single variable in this paper. The results of the analysis, as such, tell us only something about the effect of job performance of these four aspects together.
Fourd and finally, the decision to investigate the effect of Proactive Personality and Job-Person fit as possible moderators in the job crafting – job performance relationship may not have been the best of choices.
5.4 Managerial implications
While it is generally accepted that job crafting is an important phenomenon for managers, this paper has revealed little to no new insights that could be beneficial to improving managers’ understanding of this topic, or lead to any specific recommendations in their daily work routine.
The strong direct link of person-job fit with job performance that was revealed in this model is of little extra value, since it was already very well known that this link existed.
5.5 Strengths and limitations
Strengths. Online questionnaires are easy for respondents to fill in because they can do so without having to make an appointment with the interviewer. Furthermore online questionnaires make it relatively easy to make sure questions are consistent and constant over all respondents.
Limitations. There has been controversy over the use of self-report questionnaires in organizational behaviour research (Spector, 2006). However the concerns raised on this method can also be applied to other available research methods (Spector, 1994). Therefore it seems irrational not to use this method simply based on the existence of these concerns. Furthermore, the model used in this paper contains an other-rated variable – Job Performance – reducing the bias for which self-report
questionnaires are criticized.
5.5 Concluding remarks & suggestions for future research
In this paper, an attempt to further explore the relationship between job crafting and job
performance was made. Unfortunately, this research has not yielded any results that shed light upon this relationship at this time. One of the most important takeaways of this paper is that this topic has a strong need more – basic – quantitative research.
Many options for future research exist. One of the very interesting paths to pursue in this regard, may be to investigate the possible relationship between certain character traits and specific job crafting activities; the likeliness for certain characters to engage in job crafting, and in what specific job crafting activities such an individual is likely to partake.
Finally, it would be interesting to see more research on the individual aspects of job crafting, and their relationship to, for example, job performance. Another interesting continuation of the research performed in this paper may be to build and test a model that not only contains interaction variables such as proactive personality – job crafting and person job fit – job crafting, but also variables that are a combination of these two. One of the premises in this paper was that employees will engage in different job crafting behaviours based on the congruence between their personality characteristics and the job characteristics. The expectation was that employees with low fit, would engage in
behaviour that negatively affects job performance. Although no statistical significant relationship was found, it may be worth investigating what, for example, kind of behaviours are exerted by employees that have a low PJ fit, but have a very proactive personality. It may well enough be that such an employee may engage in very different behaviours, that changes the relationship with job performance.
References
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. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of managerial psychology, 22(3), 309-328.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(1), 103–118.
Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of proactive behaviour: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 475–498.
Caldwell, D. F., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1990). Measuring person-job fit with a profile-comparison process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 648
Carless, S. A. (2005). Person–job fit versus person–organization fit as predictors of organizational attraction and job acceptance intentions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(3), 411-429.
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875–884.
Claes, R., Beheydt, C., & Lemmens, B. (2005). Unidimensionality of Abbreviated Proactive Personality Scales across Cultures. Applied Psychology, 54(4), 476–489. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00221.x
Crant, J. M. (1995). The Proactive Personality Scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 532.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of management, 26(3), 435-462.
Campbell (1991), Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In Dunnette, M. D., & Hough, L. M. (1991). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 2 . Consulting Psychologists Press.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). 4. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in organizational behavior, 23, 133-187.
Fried, Y., Grant, A. M., Levi, A. S., Hadani, M., & Slowik, L. H. (2007). Job design in temporal context: A career dynamics perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7), 911-927.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). 7 Redesigning Work Design Theories: The Rise of Relational and Proactive Perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317-375.
Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2010). WHY DOES PROACTIVE PERSONALITY PREDICT EMPLOYEE LIFE SATISFACTION AND WORK BEHAVIORS? A FIELD INVESTIGATION OF THE MEDIATING ROLE OF THE SELF-CONCORDANCE MODEL. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 539-560.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational behavior and human performance, 16(2), 250-279.
Kristof, Amy L. "Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications." Personnel psychology 49.1 (1996): 1-49.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). CONSEQUENCES OF INDIVIDUALS'FIT AT WORK: A META-ANALYSIS OF PERSON–JOB, PERSON–ORGANIZATION, PERSON–GROUP, AND PERSON–SUPERVISOR FIT. Personnel psychology, 58(2), 281-342
Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the Big Five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 927.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing Role Breadth Self-Efficacy: The Roles of Job Enrichment and Other Organizational Interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology December 1998, 83(6), 835–852.
Peeters, M. C., De Jonge, J., & Taris, T. W. (Eds.). (2013). An Introduction to Contemporary Work Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. Chapter 17: Job Crafting by Demerouti & Bakker
Porath, C. L., & Bateman, T. S. (2006). Self-regulation: from goal orientation to job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 185.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Essex: Prentice Hall.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of applied psychology, 84(3), 416.
Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 385-392.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research truth or urban legend?. Organizational research methods, 9(2), 221-232.
Spokane, A. R., Meir, E. I., & Catalano, M. (2000). Person–environment congruence and Holland's theory: A review and reconsideration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57(2), 137-187.
Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1-9.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 173-186.
Tinsley, H. E. (2000). The congruence myth: An analysis of the efficacy of the person–environment fit model. Journal of Vocational behavior, 56(2), 147-179.
Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: a social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1011.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.
Appendix A – Questionnaire Sample
Bachelor Project 2014: HRM implementation and job crafting
Scales for questionnaire
MANAGER QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Geef aan wat uw geslacht is.
2. Wat is uw leeftijd in jaren?
3. Wat is uw hoogst behaalde opleiding?
• Middelbare school
• MBO
• HBO
• Universiteit (bachelor)
• Universiteit (master)
• PhD
• Anders
4. Hoe lang werkt u voor deze organisatie?
HRM practices
(Kehoe & Wright, 2013)
1. Werknemers moeten een formele test (schriftelijke test of een gerelateerde
werkoefening) afleggen voordat ze worden aangenomen.
2. Werknemers ondergaan een gestructureerd interview (werkgerelateerde vragen die aan
elke sollicitant worden gesteld) voordat ze worden aangenomen.
3. Werknemers zijn betrokken bij het formele participatieproces zoals
kwaliteitsverbetergroepen, oplossingsgroepen of discussies in een groep.
4. Er is een redelijk en eerlijk proces voor klachten voor werknemers.
5. Werknemers hebben de kans om groepsbonussen te krijgen voor productiviteit,
prestaties of andere uitkomsten gerelateerd aan groepsprestaties.
6. Werknemers hebben de kans om individuele bonussen (of commissies) te krijgen voor
productiviteit, prestaties of andere uitkomsten gerelateerd aan individuele prestaties.
7. Ten minste één keer per jaar krijgen werknemers een formele evaluatie over hun
prestaties.
8. Er is regelmatig formele communicatie naar werknemers over bedrijfsdoelen en
doelstellingen.
9. Op basis van een suggestie van een werknemer, of groep werknemers, heeft het bedrijf
in de afgelopen 4 maanden een verandering doorgevoerd/ondergaan in de manier
waarop het werk wordt uitgevoerd.
10. Loonsverhogingen voor werknemers zijn gebaseerd op werkprestaties.
11. Gekwalificeerde werknemers krijgen de kans om door te stromen naar posities binnen
het bedrijf met meer loon en/of verantwoordelijkheden.
12. Het is toegestaan voor werknemers om belangrijke werkgerelateerde beslissingen te
nemen, bijvoorbeeld over hoe het werk wordt gedaan of hoe nieuwe ideeën worden
geïmplementeerd.
13. Mijn organisatie neemt alleen de allerbeste mensen aan.
14. Het totale salaris van de werknemers is het hoogste voor dit type werk.
15. Werknemers krijgen elk jaar formele training.
Person-Organization fit
(Cable & DeRue, 2002)
1. Wat ik belangrijk vind in het leven is vergelijkbaar met wat binnen de organisatie
belangrijk wordt gevonden
2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden, normen en cultuur van de organisatie
3. De waarden en cultuur van de organisatie sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik
belangrijk vind in het leven
Big 5
(Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006)
1. Ik ben een gangmaker op feesten.
2. Ik voel mee met de gevoelens van anderen.
3. Ik klaar klusjes meteen.
4. Ik heb vaak stemmingswisselingen.
5. Ik heb een levendige fantasie.
6. Ik praat veel.
7. Ik ben geïnteresseerd in andermans problemen.
8. Ik zet dingen op de juiste plek terug.
9. Ik ben meestal gestresst.
10. Ik ben geïnteresseerd in abstracte ideeën.
11. Ik praat met veel verschillende mensen op feestjes.
12. Ik voel andermans emoties.
13. Ik houd van geordendheid.
14. Ik raak snel van slag.
15. Ik vind het makkelijk om abstracte ideeën te begrijpen.
16. Ik treed op de voorgrond.
17. Ik ben echt geïnteresseerd in anderen.
18. Ik houd dingen netjes.
19. Ik voel mij vaak treurig.
20. Ik heb een goede verbeeldingskracht.
Ratings of 2/3 employees:
Task performance
(Van Dyne & LePine, 1998)
Deze medewerker…
1. Maakt de verantwoordelijkheden waar die in zijn/haar taakomschrijving staan
2. Voert de taken uit die bij zijn/haar baan horen
3. Voldoet aan de prestatienormen
4. Levert prima werk af
Human capital
(Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005)
Deze medewerker…
1. Is zeer vakkundig
2. Wordt door veel mensen gezien als de beste op zijn/haar gebied
3. Is creatief en slim
4. Is expert in zijn/haar specifieke functie
5. Ontwikkelt nieuwe kennis en ideeën
Social capital
(Subramaniam & Youndt, 2005)
Deze medewerker…
1. is goed in samenwerken met anderen om problemen vast te stellen en op te lossen
2. deelt informatie en leert van anderen
3. wisselt ideeën uit met collega’s uit verschillende delen van de organisatie
4. werkt samen met klanten, leveranciers, partners, enz. om oplossingen te vinden
5. past kennis vanuit een deel van de organisatie toe bij problemen en kansen die ergens
anders in de organisatie voorkomen
Pro
‐self, prosocial, and pro‐organizational proactive behavior
(Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010)
At work, your subordinate personally takes the initiative to:
[organizational]
1. Suggest ideas for solutions for company problems
2. Acquire new knowledge that will help the company
3. Optimize the organization of work to further organizational goals
[interpersonal]
1. Share knowledge with colleagues
2. Take over colleagues' tasks when needed even though she/he is not obliged to
3. Help orient new colleagues
4. Help colleagues with developing or implementing new ideas
[personal]
1. Find new approaches to execute his/her tasks so that she/he can be more successful
2. Acquire new knowledge that will help his/her career
3. Realize his/her personal goals at work
4. Take on tasks that will further his/her career
Person-supervisor fit
(Cable & DeRue, 2002)
1. Wat ik belangrijk vind in het leven is vergelijkbaar met wat deze medewerker
belangrijk vindt
2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden en normen van deze medewerker
3. De waarden van deze medewerker sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik belangrijk
vind in het leven
EMPLOYEE QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Geef aan wat uw geslacht is.
2. Wat is uw leeftijd in jaren?
3. Wat is uw hoogst behaalde opleiding?
Middelbare school
MBO
HBO
Universiteit (bachelor)
Universiteit (master)
PhD
Anders
4. Hoe lang werkt u voor deze organisatie?
5. Hoe lang werkt u met uw huidige leidinggevende samen?
6. Hoeveel uur werkt u gemiddeld per week?
Person-Organization fit
(Cable & DeRue, 2002)
1. Wat ik belangrijk vind in het leven is vergelijkbaar met wat binnen mijn organisatie
belangrijk wordt gevonden
2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden, normen en cultuur van mijn
organisatie
3. De waarden en cultuur van mijn organisatie sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik
belangrijk vind in het leven
Person-supervisor fit
(Cable & DeRue, 2002)
1. Wat ik belangrijk vind in het leven is vergelijkbaar met wat mijn leidinggevende
belangrijk vindt
2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden en normen van mijn leidinggevende
3. De waarden van mijn leidinggevende sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik belangrijk
vind in het leven
Person-Team fit
(Cable & DeRue, 2002; DeRue & Morgeson, 2007)
1. Wat ik belangrijk vind in het leven is vergelijkbaar met wat mijn collega’s belangrijk
vinden
2. Mijn waarden en normen passen bij de waarden en normen van mijn collega’s
3. De waarden van mijn collega’s sluiten goed aan bij de dingen die ik belangrijk vind in
het leven
Person-Job fit (DA fit & NS fit)
(Cable & DeRue, 2002)
1. Er is een goede ‘match’ tussen de eisen van mijn baan en mijn persoonlijke
vaardigheden
2. Mijn vaardigheden en opleiding passen goed bij de eisen voor mijn huidige baan
3. Mijn persoonlijke vaardigheden en opleiding passen goed bij wat er van mij verwacht
wordt in mijn huidige baan
4. Wat mijn baan me biedt komt overeen met wat ik in een baan zoek
5. De dingen die ik zoek in een baan worden in mijn huidige baan vervuld
6. Mijn huidige baan biedt mij alles wat ik verwacht van een baan
Big 5
(Donnellan et al., 2006)
1. Ik ben een gangmaker op feesten.
2. Ik voel mee met de gevoelens van anderen.
3. Ik klaar klusjes meteen.
4. Ik heb vaak stemmingswisselingen.
5. Ik heb een levendige fantasie.
6. Ik praat veel.
7. Ik ben geïnteresseerd in andermans problemen.
8. Ik zet dingen op de juiste plek terug.
9. Ik ben meestal gestresst.
10. Ik ben geïnteresseerd in abstracte ideeën.
11. Ik praat met veel verschillende mensen op feestjes.
12. Ik voel andermans emoties.
13. Ik houd van geordendheid.
14. Ik raak snel van slag.
15. Ik vind het makkelijk om abstracte ideeën te begrijpen.
16. Ik treed op de voorgrond.
17. Ik ben echt geïnteresseerd in anderen.
18. Ik houd dingen netjes.
19. Ik voel mij vaak treurig.
20. Ik heb een goede verbeeldingskracht.
Proactive personality
6-item adaptation of Bateman and Crant’s (1993) Proactive Personality Scale (Claes, Beheydt,
& Lemmens, 2005; Parker, 1998)
1. Als ik iets zie wat mij niet zint, maak ik het in orde
2. Ongeacht wat de verwachtingen zijn, als ik in iets geloof dan laat ik het gebeuren.
3. Ik houd ervan om op te komen voor mijn ideeën, ook als anderen tegen zijn.
4. Ik blink uit in het herkennen van kansen en mogelijkheden.
5. Ik ben altijd op zoek naar betere manieren om dingen te doen.
6. Als ik in een idee geloof, zal niets me tegenhouden om dit idee werkelijkheid te laten
worden.
HRM practices
(Kehoe & Wright, 2013)
1. Werknemers moeten een formele test (schriftelijke test of een gerelateerde
werkoefening) afleggen voordat ze worden aangenomen.
2. Werknemers ondergaan een gestructureerd interview (werkgerelateerde vragen die aan
elke sollicitant worden gesteld) voordat ze worden aangenomen.
3. Werknemers zijn betrokken bij het formele participatieproces zoals
kwaliteitsverbetergroepen, oplossingsgroepen of discussies in een groep.
4. Er is een redelijk en eerlijk proces voor klachten voor werknemers.
5. Werknemers hebben de kans om groepsbonussen te krijgen voor productiviteit,
prestaties of andere uitkomsten gerelateerd aan groepsprestaties.
6. Werknemers hebben de kans om individuele bonussen (of commissies) te krijgen voor
productiviteit, prestaties of andere uitkomsten gerelateerd aan individuele prestaties.
7. Ten minste één keer per jaar krijgen werknemers een formele evaluatie over hun
prestaties.
8. Er is regelmatig formele communicatie naar werknemers over bedrijfsdoelen en
doelstellingen.
9. Op basis van een suggestie van een werknemer, of groep werknemers, heeft het bedrijf
in de afgelopen 4 maanden een verandering doorgevoerd/ondergaan in de manier
waarop het werk wordt uitgevoerd.
10. Loonsverhogingen voor werknemers zijn gebaseerd op werkprestaties.
11. Gekwalificeerde werknemers krijgen de kans om door te stromen naar posities binnen
het bedrijf met meer loon en/of verantwoordelijkheden.
12. Het is toegestaan voor werknemers om belangrijke werkgerelateerde beslissingen te
nemen, bijvoorbeeld over hoe het werk wordt gedaan of hoe nieuwe ideeën worden
geïmplementeerd.
13. Mijn organisatie neemt alleen de allerbeste mensen aan.
14. Het totale salaris van de werknemers is het hoogste voor dit type werk.
15. Werknemers krijgen elk jaar formele training.
Job crafting
(Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012)
Nooit Soms Regelmatig Vaak Heel vaak
1 2 3 4 5
1. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik mijn capaciteiten optimaal benut
2. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik niet teveel hoef om te gaan met personen wier problemen mij
emotioneel raken
3. Ik vraag collega's om advies
4. Ik probeer mezelf bij te scholen
5. Als er nieuwe ontwikkelingen zijn, sta ik vooraan om ze te horen en uit te proberen
6. Ik vraag of mijn leidinggevende tevreden is over mijn werk
7. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik zelf kan beslissen hoe ik iets doe
8. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder moeilijke beslissingen in mijn werk hoef te nemen
9. Ik probeer nieuwe dingen te leren op mijn werk
10. Ik vraag anderen om feedback over mijn functioneren
11. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder emotioneel inspannend werk moet verrichten
12. Ik zoek inspiratie bij mijn leidinggevende
13. Ik neem geregeld extra taken op me hoewel ik daar geen extra salaris voor ontvang
14. Ik probeer mezelf te ontwikkelen
15. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik niet teveel hoef om te gaan met mensen die onrealistische
verwachtingen hebben
16. Als het rustig is op mijn werk, zie ik dat als een kans om nieuwe projecten op te
starten
17. Ik vraag mijn leidinggevende om mij te coachen
18. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder geestelijk inspannend werk hoef te verrichten
19. Ik probeer mijn werk wat zwaarder te maken door de onderliggende verbanden van
mijn werkzaamheden in kaart te brengen
20. Als er een interessant project voorbij komt, bied ik mezelf proactief aan als
projectmedewerker
21. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik me niet lange tijd achter elkaar hoef te concentreren
Psychological empowerment
(Spreitzer, 1995)
Meaning:
1. Het werk dat ik doe, is belangrijk voor mij.
2. Mijn werkzaamheden zijn belangrijk voor mij.
3. Het werk dat ik doe, is zinvol voor mij.
Competence:
4. Ik ben overtuigd van mijn vermogen om mijn werk goed te doen.
5. Ik ben zelfverzekerd over mijn mogelijkheden om mijn werkzaamheden uit te voeren.
6. Ik beheers de vaardigheden die nodig zijn voor mijn werk.
Self-determination:
7. Ik heb een grote mate van zelfstandigheid bij het bepalen hoe ik mijn werk doe.
8. Ik kan zelf beslissen hoe ik omga met mijn werkzaamheden.
9. Ik heb veel ruimte voor zelfstandigheid en vrijheid in de manier waarop ik mijn werk
doe.
Impact:
10. Mijn invloed op wat er gebeurt op mijn afdeling, is groot.
11. Ik heb veel controle over wat er gebeurt op mijn afdeling.
12. Ik heb belangrijke invloed op wat er gebeurt op mijn afdeling.
Social support (colleague support & supervisor support)
(Schreurs, Van Emmerik, Günter, & Germeys, 2012), based on (Peeters, Buunk, & Schaufeli,
1995)
1. Mijn collega’s laten merken dat ze me aardig vinden
2. Mijn collega’s laten zien dat ze de manier waarop ik mijn werk doe waarderen
3. Mijn collega’s geven me advies over hoe ik dingen moet aanpakken
4. Mijn collega’s helpen me als het nodig is
1. Mijn leidinggevende laat merken dat hij/zij me aardig vinden
2. Mijn leidinggevende laat zien dat hij/zij de manier waarop ik mijn werk doe waardeert
3. Mijn leidinggevende geeft me advies over hoe ik dingen moet aanpakken
4. Mijn leidinggevende helpt me als het nodig is
Transformational leadership
(De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2004)
1. Mijn manager praat met medewerkers over wat voor hen belangrijk is.
2. Mijn manager stimuleert medewerkers om op nieuwe manieren over problemen na te
denken.
3. Mijn manager heeft een visie en een helder beeld van de toekomst.
4. Mijn manager moedigt medewerkers aan om onafhankelijk te denken.
5. Mijn manager is in staat anderen enthousiast te maken voor zijn/haar plannen.
6. Mijn manager betrekt medewerkers bij besluiten die van belang zijn voor hun werk.
7. Mijn manager stimuleert medewerkers hun talenten zo goed mogelijk te ontwikkelen.
8. Mijn manager geeft medewerkers het gevoel aan een belangrijk en gemeenschappelijk
doel te werken.
9. Mijn manager laat zien overtuigd te zijn van zijn/haar idealen, opvattingen en
waarden.
10. Mijn manager is altijd op zoek naar nieuwe mogelijkheden voor de afdeling van de
organisatie.
11. Mijn manager delegeert uitdagende verantwoordelijkheden aan medewerkers.
Communication frequency
(Sosa, Eppinger, Pich, McKendrick, & Stout, 2002)
Zelden De meeste maanden in het jaar
Meerdere keren per maand
Elke week Elke dag
1 2 3 4 5
