The Roles of Perceived Opportunity to Craft and Employees’ Job Crafting behaviour in Maintaining Work-Life Balance

(1)

The Roles of Perceived Opportunity to Craft and Employees’ Job Crafting

behaviour in Maintaining Work-Life Balance

Master Thesis

MSc Human Resource Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

Date (01, 07, 2018)

Sandra Ensink Student number: S3195902 E-mail: s.ensink@student.rug.nl

(2)

2 Abstract

Previous researches examined the direct effects of work-life balance on job satisfaction, performance, and stress from a passive perspective on the role of employees in balancing work and life. This research examines the active role of employees in increasing and maintaining work-life balance. Using a proactive job-crafting perspective, this research examines job crafting as a mechanism that enables employees to optimize their work environment by increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources, increasing challenging job demands, and decreasing hindering job demands. A boundary condition for job crafting is that employees perceive opportunities to craft. Results of the online field study (N = 164 employees) showed that work-life balance is positively related to job satisfaction and performance, and negatively to stress. Secondly, job crafting dimensions of increasing structural job resources and increasing challenging job demands are positively related to job satisfaction. Thirdly, increasing structural job resources mediates the relation between work-life balance and job satisfaction. These findings highlight the importance of work-life balance and job crafting. Additional implications for the organization are discussed, and directions for future research are advised.

(3)

3 Introduction

“Given that more and more individuals perform multiple roles in today’s world it is likely that it becomes difficult to maintain work-life balance” (Rao, 2017, p.711).

Work-life balance is the conceptualization of negative and positive spill overs between work and family (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). It is further specified as employees’ satisfaction with balance between the different areas of life, different roles, and goals (Syrek et al., 2011). When work and personal life are in balance, it can lead to positive outcomes. Previous research of Syrek et al. (2011), Harrington and Ladge (2009), and Thompson, Beauvais and Lyness (1999) examined the relation of work-life balance with three different types of outcomes: job satisfaction, performance and stress. The results show that if employees experience better work-life balance they will be more satisfied with their work (Syrek et al., 2011) and their stress levels decrease (Thompson et al., 1999). Moreover, employees who experience a better work-life balance will also fulfil their role more successfully and show more excellent job performance (Harrington & Ladge, 2009). Thus, work-life balance is positively related to job satisfaction and performance, and negatively to stress.

However, it is highly likely that employees perceive work-life imbalance every now and then. Work-life imbalance is defined as the improper prioritization of one’s responsibilities at one’s personal life and at work (Gregory & Milner, 2009). Imbalance between work and life can lead to negative outcomes (Kanwar, Singh & Kodwani, 2009). Work-life imbalance relates, contrary to work-life balance, negatively to job satisfaction and performance, and positively to stress (Syrek et al., 2011; Rao, 2017; Byrne, 2005).

(4)

4 employees in balancing their work and life by using job crafting as the active response of employees. Job crafting can be defined as a form of proactive work behaviour that involves employees actively changing their job characteristics (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Four dimensions of job crafting can be distinguished; increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources, increasing challenging job demands, and decreasing hindering job demands (Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2012). Job crafting can be seen as mechanism that links characteristics of the work environment with work outcomes (Tims & Bakker, 2010). To improve insights of job crafting as a mechanism, job crafting is considered as mediator in this research between work-life balance and job satisfaction, performance, and stress. Crant (2000) states that if employees take an active role when it comes to work, they will identify opportunities, take action and contribute to change. This assumes that when employees perceive a work-life imbalance, they will engage in job crafting. For the employees who perceive work-life balance, this will not be a trigger to engage in job crafting behaviour (Tims & Bakker, 2010)

The second half of the mediated relation is about the relationship between job crafting and job satisfaction, performance and stress. Rudolph, Katz, Lavigne and Zacher (2017) state that job crafting leads to changes in employees’ identity and perceived meaning of work which lead to positive job outcomes. Indeed, research found that job crafting can be positively related to job satisfaction and performance (Tims et al., 2012; Rudolp et al., 2017), and negatively to job stress (Rudolph et al., 2017).

(5)

5 to improve or restore congruence between their interests, needs, abilities and their work environment (Van Wingerden & Poell, 2017). However, an employee who perceives no opportunities to craft is unable to engage in job crafting because the employee sees no possibilities to optimize their job demands and resources with the work environment (Dempsey & Sanders, 2010). With this reasoning it is logical to expect that a high level of opportunities to craft will affect the relation between work-life balance and the four dimensions of job crafting positively. A low level will probably do the opposite.

The results of this research will extend previous research by considering job crafting as a mediator. It will improve insights of job crafting as a mechanism that links work-life balance to job satisfaction, performance and stress. Another contribution is the moderating role of perceived opportunities to craft. There will be a better understanding of perceived opportunities to craft as a boundary condition, moderating the relation between work-life balance and job satisfaction, performance and stress. Another contribution is the proactive perspective of this research. The active response of the employees who experience an imbalance between work and life by using job crafting is examined. The last contribution is that work-life balance, in contrast with previous research, is seen as independent variable instead of dependent variable.

(6)

6 Theory and Hypotheses

Work-Life Balance and the Job Outcomes of Job Satisfaction, Performance, and Stress Work-life balance is the conceptualization of negative and positive spill overs between work and family (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). The fit between work and life include both negative as well as positive effects of work on personal life, and personal life on work (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). In addition to this definition, Fisher-McAuley, Stanton, Jolton and Gavin (2003) define the work and non-work domain more broadly. Fisher et al. (2003) suggest that work-life balance includes personal interference with work, work interference with personal life, and work-personal life enhancement. When employees experience work-life balance, they are satisfied with how their aspired balance complies with the realized arrangement (Syrek et al., 2011). When employees experience a work-life imbalance, they will experience an improper prioritization of one’s responsibilities at one’s personal life and at work (Gregory & Milner, 2009).

The degree in which employees experience work-life balance is relevant in the relation to different work outcomes (Fisher et al., 2003). Work-life balance has been related to favourable work outcomes in previous research (Syrek et al, 2011; Harington & Ladge 2009; Thompson et al., 1999). Whereas work-life imbalance has been related to negative outcomes (Kanwar et al., 2009), this research will examine the relationship between work-life balance and three different types of outcomes: job satisfaction, performance and stress.

(7)

7 it is possible to find a suitable balance between these two (Kanwar et al., 2009). This balance can reduce the chance of work-family conflicts and will prevent a decrease in employees’ job satisfaction (Kanwar et al., 2009). When work and life are less in balance, it is possible that employees feel that their work is making high demands. The employees can perceive a rising pressure at work, and they will become less satisfied with their work-life balance (Syrek et al., 2011). This reasoning is supported by previous research of Kanwar et al. (2009) and Frone, Russel and Cooper (1992). Kanwar et al. (2009) state that when employees are able to balance their professional and personal lives, the employees will like their job more and feel more satisfied. Whereas work-life imbalance relates negatively with job satisfaction (Syrek et al., 2011). Employees will become more satisfied with their work if they are able to balance work and private life demands more effectively and satisfactorily (Syrek et al., 2011).

(8)

8 Stress can be defined as the degree to which employees feel undue pressures and demands (Dubinsky, Yammarino & Jolson, 1994). Motowidlo, Packard, and Manning (1986) state that work stress is an unpleasant emotional experience, caused by specific events that occur at work. The more frequent and intense the events are, the greater the level of stress for the individual is (Motowidlo et al., 1986). If an employee experiences work-life imbalance it can be caused by high demands and commitments at work or in their personal life (Byrne, 2005). These imbalances can make the employee feel like he has no control over the situation, and is not able to cope with it (Byrne, 2005). As a result the employee can feel stressed, which can express itself in feeling tired, a bad health, and a bad temper (Byrne, 2005). This reasoning is supported by previous research of Byrne (2005) and Frone et al. (1992). Byrne (2005) state that if employees achieve a balance between work and life, they will be less stressful. By enhancing the work-life balance, the stress level of employees reduces. (Thompson et al., 1999). Frone et al. (1992) explain this decrease in stress by engagement in work and family roles. A balanced engagement is associated with individual well-being, and a reduce in stress (Frone et al., 1992). A work-life imbalance is positively related with stress (Hofmann & Stokburger-Sauer, 2017). Hofmann and Stokburger-Sauer (2017) state that if there is a conflict between work and personal life, this can increase work-related stress. Stress will increase and employees’ wellbeing will decrease (Major & Morganson, 2011). This reasoning, and the reasoning above will result in the next hypotheses.

(9)

9 Job Crafting

Previous research has examined the relationship between work-life balance and job outcomes. In these previous researches the direct effects of work-life balance on job satisfaction, performance, and stress were examined from a passive perspective on the role of the employees in balancing work and life. It was not examined if the employees could influence their perceived work-life balance. This research will examine a proactive role of the employees in balancing their work and life. The proactive role of the employees by experiencing an imbalance between work and life will be examined by using job crafting as the active response of employees. In previous research of Tims and Bakker (2010) job crafting is described as a theoretically important mechanism which links characteristics of the work environment with work outcomes. To improve insights of job crafting as mechanism, job crafting is considered as mediator in this research between work-life balance and job satisfaction, performance, and stress.

Tims and Bakker (2010) define job crafting as a form of proactive work behaviour that involves employees actively changing their job characteristics. Job crafting is aboutemployees’ self-initiated change behaviours that aim to align their jobs and work environments with their own preferences, motives, and passions (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Job crafting is an individualized, bottom-up, and proactive approach of job re-design, because it is initiated by employees themselves (Demerouti & Bakker, 2014). Job crafting is not about redesigning the job as a whole, but about changing certain aspects of the job within the boundaries of the specific job tasks (Berg & Dutton, 2008).

(10)

10 variety. Employees can engage in behaviour that aim to increase autonomy and skill variety, for example by choosing their own working hours and place (Tims et al. 2012). The job crafting dimension of increasing social job resources referred to feedback, supervisory coaching, and social support (Tims et al., 2012). Employees can ask colleagues and supervisors for help, engage in a mentoring program or ask for support by a counsellor (Lambert, 2000). Job crafting dimension of increasing challenging job demands referred to stimulating employees to develop their knowledge and skills and attaining more difficult goals (Tims et al., 2012). Employees can volunteer for projects, ask for more responsibilities, and engage in learning programs (Lambert, 2000; Tims et al. 2012). Lastly, Tims et al. (2012) describe the job crafting dimension of decreasing hindering job demands as lowering demands which are perceived as overwhelming. Employees can reduce their workload by reducing their tasks, work part-time, and search for support by supervisors and colleagues (Lambert, 2000).

(11)

11 engage in proactive work behaviour (Frese & Fay, 2001) Work-life balance will not stimulate the employee to engage in job crafting behaviour (Van Wingerden & Poell, 2017).

(12)

12 Hypothesis 4: Work-life balance is negatively related to the job crafting dimensions of structural job resources (H4a), social job resources (H4b), and challenging job demands (H4c), and negatively related to the job crafting dimension of hindering job demands (H4d).

The second half of the mediated relation is about the relationship between the four dimension of job crafting and job satisfaction, performance and stress. Job crafting is associated with a variety of favourable work outcomes (Wang, Demerouti & Bakker, 2016). When employees increase their structural job resources, more autonomy can be crafted (Tims et al., 2012). More autonomy can make the employees feel more responsible for their own performance, and as a consequence employees invest more effort in their job (Parker & Ohly, 2008). A form of increasing social job resources is altering relational boundaries (Wang et al., 2016). By creating their own social resources, individual outcomes valued by the employees will be achieved, and employees will feel more satisfaction at work (Tims et al., 2012). Employees can also increase their personal growth, knowledge and skills by increasing their challenging job demands (Tims, et al., 2012). As a result, employees can experience more satisfaction because of their work engagement and new experiences (Tims et al., 2012). In line with this, Rudolph et al. (2017) state that crafting leads to changes in employees’ identity and perceived meaning of work which leads to greater job satisfaction and performance. This suggests positive relationships of the job crafting dimensions of increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources, and increasing challenging job demands to the job outcomes of job satisfaction and performance.

(13)

13 employees stress and an extra burden. Decreasing hindering job demands include minimizing physically and emotionally demanding aspects and reducing workload (Wang et al., 2016). By decreasing hindering job demands, employees can protect themselves from stress. Based on this argumentation it can be assumed that there is a negative relation between decreasing hindering job demands and stress. This reasoning, and the reasoning above leads to the next hypotheses.

Hypothesis 5: The job crafting dimensions of structural job resources (H5a), social job resources (H5b), and challenging job demands (H5c) are positively related to job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 6: The job crafting dimensions of structural job resources (H6a), social job resources (H6b), and challenging job demands (H6c) are positively related to performance.

Hypothesis 7: The job crafting dimension of decreasing hindering job demands is negatively related with stress

As mentioned, this research examines job crafting as a mechanism through which employees may optimize their work environment by increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources, increasing challenging job demands, and decreasing hindering job demands. Job crafting will be examined as the active response of employees by experiencing an imbalance between work and life. It is assumed that when employees engage in job crafting, the dimensions increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources, and increasing challenging job demands will positively relate to job satisfaction and performance, and the dimension decreasing hindering job demands negatively to stress. This reasoning leads to the next hypotheses.

(14)

14 Hypothesis 9: The relationship between work-life balance and stress is mediated by the job crafting dimension of decreasing hindering job demands.

Perceived Opportunities to Craft

The opportunity to craft jobs differ among employees. Employees’ engagement in job crafting depends on the possibilities and freedom they get to craft their job. Van Wingerden and Poell (2017) suggest that employees’ actual job crafting behaviour in the workplace depend on their perceived opportunities to do so.

Perceived opportunities to craft can be defined as employees’ perceptions regarding their opportunities to proactively optimize their work environment (Van Wingerden & Poell, 2017). Employees’ perceived opportunities to craft can be influenced by personal and work characteristics. Personal antecedents are a proactive personality and self-efficiency. (Demerouti, 2014). Additionally, the employee needs to feel capable enough to engage in job crafting (Van Wingerden & Poell, 2017). Examples of work characteristics which can influence the perceived opportunities to craft are management behaviour and autonomy (Van Wingerden & Poell, 2017). Employees need to feel supported by their managers, managers can provide space and opportunities to engage in job crafting, and give employees positive feedback on their job crafting behaviour (Van Wingerden & Poell, 2017). The employee also needs to feel autonomous and encouraged to make decisions on their own.

In the relation between work-life balance and job crafting, perceived opportunities to craft can be a moderator. Van Wingerden and Poell (2017) state that opportunities to craft is an external factor because it depends on available job resources and leadership, and is positively related to job crafting behaviour. In this research, perceived opportunities to craft is seen as moderator between work-life balance and job crafting.

(15)

15 others (Rudolph et al., 2017). However, when there is a high level of opportunities to craft, employees experience they have a sufficient level of autonomy and decision making freedom (Van Wingerden & Poell, 2017). These opportunities will make the employees feel supported to take charge at work themselves (Van Wingerden & Poell, 2017). Based on this feeling, employees will consider their work-life balance. When the employee feels an imbalance, but also feels supported by a high level of opportunities to craft, it is likely that the employee proactively engages in job crafting in order to improve or restore congruence between their interests, needs, abilities and their work environment. However, an employee who perceives no opportunities to craft, is unable to engage in job crafting because the employee sees no possibilities to align their working conditions to their personal needs and abilities (Dempsey & Sanders, 2010; Van Wingerden & Poell, 2017). With this reasoning it is logical to expect that a high level of opportunities to craft will affect the relation between work-life balance and the four dimensions of job crafting positively. A low level of opportunities to craft will affect the relation between work-life balance and the four dimensions of job crafting negatively. This reasoning results in the next hypothesis.

Hypothesis 10: Perceived opportunities to craft will moderate the negative relations of work-life balance with the four dimensions of job crafting, such that the relations will be stronger when perceived opportunities to craft is high rather than low.

Mediated Moderation Model

(16)

16 opportunities to craft affects the influence from work-life balance on job satisfaction, performance, and stress through job crafting which results in the next hypothesis.

Hypothesis 11: Perceived opportunities to craft moderate the indirect relationships between work-life balance and job satisfaction, performance, and stress mediated by the four dimensions of job crafting, such that these indirect relationships are stronger when perceived opportunities to craft is high rather than low.

Based on the hypotheses above the mediated moderation model is represented next (figure 1).

(17)

17 Method

Participants

One hundred and sixty-four participants participated in this research. The sample was 46.95% male, with an average age of 40.66 (SD = 13.681), average working hours per week of 31.29 (SD = 9.850), and average job tenure of 5.65 (SD = 2.315). The participants are working in different sectors, the three most common sectors are government (35.4%), retail/distribution (15.2%), and healthcare (11.6%).

Procedure

Participants were contacted with the request to participate in a study about work-life balance. The only condition to participate in this study is having a job. Participants were contacted in person, by e-mail, or through social media by using the personal network of the researcher. A link gave the participants access to an online questionnaire. The questionnaire was drawn up in English and Dutch, and contained measures of work-life balance, job crafting, perceived opportunities to craft, job satisfaction, performance, and stress. In accordance, with previous research of Hayman (2005), work-life balance was measured based on a three months frame. Employees’ indicated their feelings on work-life balance issues during the past three months (Hayman, 2005). In line with this, job crafting and perceived opportunities to craft are also measured over the past three months. However, job satisfaction, performance and stress were measured in the present, representing what the employees’ feelings are at the time when they participated in the research. Confidentiality and anonymity were emphasized.

Measures

(18)

18 life interference with work, and work-personal life enhancement. The items are measured on a five-point frequency scale (1 = Not at all to 5 = All the time). Example items are “My job made my personal life difficult” and “I was too tired to be effective at work”. Item scores were recoded such that higher scores reflect higher levels of balance between work and life. Based on these 15 items α = .84

Job Crafting. Job crafting was measured based on a three-month timeframe using the job crafting scale developed by Tims et al. (2012). Employees’ indicated their feelings on job crafting during the past three months prior to the survey. The scale consists of 21 items measuring four dimensions of job crafting, namely, increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources, increasing challenging job demands, and decreasing hindering job demands. The items are measured on the 5-point frequency scale (1 = never to 5 = always). Example items are: “I tried to learn new things at work” (increasing structural job resources), “I made sure that my work is mentally less intense” (decreasing hindering job demands), “When an interesting project came along, I offered myself proactively as project co-worker” (increasing challenging job demands), and “I asked colleagues for advice” (increasing social job resources). Cronbach’s alpha for the different dimensions is; increasing structural job resources (α = .72), increasing social job resources (α = .79), increasing challenging job demands (α = .76), and decreasing hindering job demands (α = .75),

(19)

19 Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured by using the generic job satisfaction scale developed by Macdonald and MacIntyre (1997). The job satisfaction scale assessed employees’ feelings in the present, representing the employee’s feelings at the time they participated in the research. The scale consists of 10 items which are measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Example items are: “I feel good about my job” and “On the whole, I believe work is good for my physical health”. Based on these 10 items α = .88

Performance. Performance was measured in the present by using the in-role performance scale developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). Employees indicated their feelings on performance, at the time when they participated in the research. This scale consists of 7 items which are measured on a 5-point scale (1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree). Example items are: “I adequately complete all of my assigned duties” and “I perform the tasks which are expected from me”. Based on these 7 items α = .74

Stress. Stress was measured by using the 4-items work stress scale by Motowidlo et al. (1986). Stress was measured in the present, representing employees’ feelings at the time when they participated in the research. The items are measured on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Example items are: “I feel a great deal of stress because of my job” and “Very few stressful things happen to me at work”. Based on these 4 items α = .73

Control variables. I considered participants’ age, gender, tenure and working hours as possible control variables as previous research has shown that they can influence job crafting behaviour (Rudolph, 2017).

Data analysis

(20)

20 question with some invalid values. Some participants filled in a value that was invalid for the question about their average working hours. These values were deleted pairwise for the control variable working hours. Next, the internal consistency between scale items was calculated by using Cronbach’s Alpha. After this, the variables were standardized, and the formulated hypotheses were tested.

(21)

21 Results

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for all study variables. As hypothesized is work-life balance significantly correlated with job satisfaction (R = .45, p = .00), performance (R = .41, p = .00), and stress (R = -.45, p = .00). This shows that employees who experience more work-life balance, are more satisfied with their job, perform better, and feel less stress. The table also shows that the four dimension of job crafting are empirically well distinguishable (the correlations run from R = .16 to R = .58). The first dimension of job crafting, increasing structural job resources, is as expected significantly and positively correlated with job satisfaction (R = .26, p = .00), and performance (R = .21, p = .01). The third dimension, increasing challenging job demands, is also significantly and positively correlated with job satisfaction (R = .29, p = .00).

(22)

22 Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Age 40.66 13.681 - 2. Gender 1.53 .501 -.079 - 3. Tenure 5.65 2.315 .651** -.025 - 4. Working hours 31.29 9.850 .225** -.499** .196* - 5. Work-life Balance 3.827 .563 .077 .028 .016 -.019 - 6. Job Crafting 1 3.855 .578 -.134+ _.056 _-.113 _-.008 _.227** _- 7. Job Crafting 2 2.320 .726 -.042 .152+ _.075 _-.126 _-.076 _.031 _- 8. Job Crafting 3 2.445 .759 -.272** -.099 -.208** .043 .038 .409** .155* - 9. Job Crafting 4 3.174 .745 -.111 -.092 -.035 .175* .102 .575** .124 .399** - 10. POC 4.900 1.253 -.052 -.095 -.096 .243** .252** .443** .041 .430** .431** - 11. Job Satisfaction 3.750 .735 .156* -.031 .169* .192* .448** .258** .006 .288** .090 .470** - 12. Performance 4.361 .507 .151+ _.229** _.146+ _-.179* _.408** _.212** _-.100 _.000 _.045 _.145+ _.256** _- 13. Stress 3.221 .860 .202** -.039 .228** .038 -.445** -.047 .080 -.048 .044 -.106 -.089 -.107 - Notes. N = 164 +_{p < .10,}*_{p < .05,}**_{p < .01. Gender (1 = male 2 = female), POC = perceived opportunities to craft, Job Crafting 1 = increasing structural job resources, Job}

(23)

23 Hypotheses testing

As table 2 shows, work-life balance is significantly related to job satisfaction (B = .39, SE = .07, p = .00), performance (B = .36, SE = .07, p = .00), and stress (B = -.48, SE = .08, p = .00). These results lend support to Hypothesis 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

Table 2: Regression analysis for testing hypotheses 1, 2, and 3

Predictor Job Satisfaction

B SE t p

Hypothesis 1

Work-life balance .3870 .0687 5.6327 .0000

Age .0054 .0065 .8374 .4037

Gender (1 male, 2 female) .1322 .1510 .8753 .3828

Tenure .0793 .0370 2.1192 .0358 Working hours .0179 .0079 2.4810 .0142 Predictor Performance B SE t p Hypothesis 2 Work-life balance .3643 .0747 4.8791 .0000 Age .0091 .0070 1.2933 .1979

Gender (1 male, 2 female) .3084 .1641 1.8787 .0623

Tenure .0547 .0406 1.3458 .1804 Working hours -.0164 .0086 -1.8990 .0595 Predictor Stress B SE t p Hypothesis 3 Work-life balance -.4787 .0756 -6.3288 .0000 Age .0142 .0071 1.9951 .0479

Gender (1 male, 2 female) -.0571 .1663 -.3436 .7316

Tenure .0551 .0412 1.3377 .1831

Working hours -.0062 .0087 -.7040 .4826

(24)

24 resources” and hypothesis 4c “Work-life balance is negatively related to the job crafting dimension of increasing challenging job demands” are not supported. Work-life balance had a non-significant relationship with increasing social job resources (B = -.10, SE = .08, p = .23), and increasing challenging job demands (B = .06, SE = .08, p = .44). Hypothesis 4d “Work-life balance is negatively related to the job crafting dimension of decreasing hindering job demands” is also not supported. As table3 shows, work-life balance is marginally significant related with decreasing hindering job demands (B = .13, SE = .08, p = .09). However, in contrast with the hypothesis, the results show a positive relationship. This suggests that work-life balance leads to a decrease in hindering job demands.

Table 3: Regression analysis for testing hypotheses 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d Predictor Mediator variable: Increasing structural job resources

B SE t p

Hypothesis 4a

Constant .2972 .5121 .5803 .5626

Age -.0132 .0075 -1.7560 .0811

Tenure -.0262 .0440 -.5954 .5525

Working hours .0071 .0093 .7701 .4424

Predictor Mediator variable: Increasing social job resources

B SE t p

Hypothesis 4b

Constant -.0825 .5361 -.1539 .8779

Work-life balance -.1000 .0821 -1.2177 .2253

Age -.0110 .0078 -1.4058 .1618

Tenure .0885 .0460 1.9220 .0565

Working hours -.0089 .0097 -.9152 .3616

Predictor Mediator variable: Increasing challenging job demands

B SE t p

Hypothesis 4c

Constant 1.0029 .5247 1.9114 .0579

Work-life balance .0619 .0804 .7698 .4426

Age -.0194 .0077 -2.5209 .0128

Gender (1 male, 2 female) -.2098 .1842 -1.1505 .2518

Tenure -.0178 .0451 -.3946 .6937

(25)

25 Predictor Mediator variable: Decreasing hindering job demands

B SE t p

Hypothesis 4d

Constant -.0652 .5222 -.1249 .9007

Age -.0169 .0076 -2.2074 .0288

Tenure .0182 .0448 .4059 .6854

Working hours .0216 .0094 2.2926 .0233

Hypothesis 5a “Job crafting dimension of increasing structural job resources is positively related to job satisfaction” is supported based on the regression analysis. Consistent with this hypothesis there is a significantly positive relationship between increasing structural job resources and job satisfaction (B = .19, SE = .09, p = .03). So, employees who increased their structural job resources experienced more job satisfaction. Hypothesis 5b “Job crafting dimension of increasing social job resources is positively related to job satisfaction” is not supported. As table 4 shows, a regression of increasing social job resources on job satisfaction demonstrates a non-significant negative relationship (B = -.01, SE = .07, p = .85). Hypothesis 5c “Job crafting dimension of increasing challenging job demands is positively related to job satisfaction” is supported. Consistent with this hypothesis there is a significantly positive relationship between increasing challenging job demands and job satisfaction (B = .32, SE = .08, p = .00). So, employees who increased their challenging job demands experienced more job satisfaction.

Table 4: Regression analysis for testing hypotheses 5a, 5b, and 5c Predictor Dependent variable: Job Satisfaction

B SE t p

Constant -1.4719 .4353 -3.3816 .0009

Increasing structural job resources .1885 .0850 2.2187 .0281 Increasing social job resources -.0130 .0672 -.1941 .8464 Increasing challenging job demands .3245 .0755 4.3001 .0000

Age .0054 .0065 .8374 .4037

Tenure .0793 .0374 2.1192 .0358

(26)

26 Hypothesis 6a “Job crafting dimension of increasing structural job resources is positively related to performance”, hypothesis 6b “Job crafting dimension of increasing social job resources is positively related to performance”, and hypothesis 6c “Job crafting dimension of increasing challenging job demands is positively related to performance” are not supported. As table 5 shows, a regression of performance on increasing structural job resources (B = .15, SE = .09, p = .12) and increasing challenging job demands (B = .02, SE = .08, p = .81) demonstrate a non-significant relationship. The regression of performance on increasing social job resources (B = -.13, SE = .07, p = .09) demonstrates a marginally significant and negative relationship. In contrast with this hypothesis, this negative relationship suggests that increasing social job resources leads to a decrease in performance.

Table 5: Regression analysis for testing hypotheses 6a, 6b, and 6c

Predictor Dependent variable: Performance

B SE t p

Constant -.6356 .4730 -1.3437 .1811

Increasing structural job resources .1456 .0923 1.5773 .1169 Increasing social job resources -.1261 .0730 -1.7265 .0864 Increasing challenging job demands .0193 .0820 .2355 .8141

Age .0091 .0070 1.2933 .1979

Tenure .0547 .0406 1.3458 .1804

Working hours -.0164 .0086 -1.8990 .0595

(27)

27 Table 6: Regression analysis for testing hypothesis 7

Predictor Dependent variable: Stress

B SE t p

Constant -.5967 .4792 -1.2452 .2151

Decreasing hindering job demands .0830 .0911 .9110 .3638

Age .0142 .0071 1.9951 .0479

Tenure .0551 .0412 1.3377 .1831

Working hours -.0062 .0087 -.7040 .4826

Hypothesis 8a “The relationship between work-life balance and job satisfaction, performance, and stress is mediated by job crafting dimension of increasing structural job resources” is partly supported. As table 7 shows, the mediation of increasing structural job resources between work-life balance and performance (CI: -.00 to .12), and stress (CI: -.03 to .09) had not a significant indirect effect. However, the mediation of increasing structural job resources between work-life balance and job satisfaction had a significant indirect effect of .05 (CI: .00 to .13). Hypothesis 8b “The relationship between work-life balance and job satisfaction, performance, and stress is mediated by job crafting dimension of increasing social job resources” is not supported. The mediation of increasing social job resources between work-life balance and job satisfaction (CI: -.01 to .03), performance (CI: -.00 to .05), and stress (CI: -.04 to .01) had not a significant indirect effect. Hypothesis 8c “The relationship between work-life balance and job satisfaction, performance, and stress is mediated by job crafting dimension of increasing challenging job demands” is not supported. The mediation of increasing challenging job demands between work-life balance and job satisfaction (CI: -.03 to .08), performance (CI: -.01 to .03), and stress (CI: -.03 to .01) had not a significant indirect effect.

(28)

28 to .00), performance (CI: -.04 to .02), and stress (CI: -.00 to .06) had not a significant indirect effect.

Table 7: Regression analysis for testing hypothesis 8 and 9

Test of Indirect effects of work-life balance on job satisfaction by mediation of job crafting

Effect Boot SE LLCI* ULCI*

Increasing structural job resources

.0515 .0317 .0036 .1304

Increasing social job resources .0013 .0095 -.0130 .0313 Increasing challenging job demands .0201 .0268 -.0277 .0800 Decreasing hindering job demands -.0231 .0178 -.0719 .0015 Direct effect .3870 .0678 .2512 .5228

Test of Indirect effects of work-life balance on performance by mediation of job crafting

.0398 .0310 -.0017 .1167

Increasing social job resources .0126 .0128 -.0027 .0535 Increasing challenging job demands .0012 .0268 -.0277 .0800 Decreasing hindering job demands -.0231 .0094 -.0120 .0315 Direct effect .3643 .0747 .2167 .5119

Test of Indirect effects of work-life balance on stress by mediation of job crafting

.0201 .0283 -.0270 .0904

Increasing social job resources -.0050 .0115 -.0446 .0079 Increasing challenging job demands -.0016 .0092 -.0320 .0101 Decreasing hindering job demands .0112 .0144 -.0076 .0576 Direct effect -.4787 .0756 -.6282 -.3292

(29)

29 Hypothesis 10 “Perceived opportunities to craft will moderate the negative relations of work-life balance with the four dimensions of job crafting, such that these relations will be stronger when perceived opportunities to craft is high rather than low” is not supported. As table 8 shows, the moderation of perceived opportunities to craft between work-life balance and increasing structural job resources (B = .02, SE = .07, p = .78), increasing social job resources (B = .03, SE = .08, p = .75), increasing challenging job demands (B = .06, SE = .07, p = .43), and decreasing hindering job demands (B = .03, SE = .08, p = .70) is not significant.

Table 8: Results of mediated moderation analyses for testing hypothesis 10 Predictor Mediator variable: Increasing structural job resources

B SE t p Constant .5573 .4675 1.1920 .2352 Work-life balance .1553 .0742 2.0939 .0380 Perceived opportunities to craft .4310 .0743 5.8010 .0000 Perceived opportunities to craft x Work-life balance

.0203 .0736 .2757 .7832

Age -.0116 .0068 -1.7019 .0909

Tenure -.0009 .0402 -.0220 .9825

Working hours -.0064 .0087 -.7337 .4643

Predictor Mediator variable: Increasing social job resources

B SE t p Constant -.0092 .5388 -.0171 .9864 Work-life balance -.1308 .0855 -1.5295 .1283 Perceived opportunities to craft .1155 .0856 1.3487 .1795 Perceived opportunities to craft x Work-life balance

.0275 .0848 .3247 .7459

Age -.0108 .0079 -1.3687 .1732

Tenure .0957 .0463 2.0656 .0406

(30)

30 Predictor Mediator variable: Increasing challenging job demands

B SE t p Constant 1.2817 .4757 2.6945 .0079 Work-life balance -.0604 .0755 -.7999 .4250 Perceived opportunities to craft .4517 .0756 5.9748 .0000 Perceived opportunities to craft x Work-life balance

.0594 .0748 .7938 .4286

Age -.0180 .0070 -2.5936 .0105

Gender (1 male, 2 female) -.2487 .1649 -1.5084 .1336

Tenure .0096 .0409 .2337 .8156

Working hours -.0082 .0089 -.9199 .3591

Predictor Mediator variable: Decreasing hindering job demands

B SE t p Constant .1897 .4813 .3942 .6940 Work-life balance .0200 .0764 .2618 .7938 Perceived opportunities to craft .4198 .0765 5.4880 .0000 Perceived opportunities to craft x Work-life balance

.0297 .0757 .3921 .6955

Age -.0155 .0070 -2.1961 .0296

Tenure .0431 .0414 1.0399 .3001

Working hours .0084 .0090 .9400 .3487

(31)

31 structural job resources is significant at the mean level of perceived opportunities to craft (CI: .05 to .09).

Table 9: Results of mediated moderation analyses for testing hypothesis 11

Conditional effect of work-life balance on job satisfaction through job crafting dimensions at different values of perceived opportunities to craft

Low (M – 1 SD) .0254 .0263 -.0050 .1037

Mean .0293 .0225 .0005 .0924

High (M + 1 SD) .0332 .0283 -.0040 .1154

Increasing social job resources

Low (M – 1 SD) .0021 .0152 -.0213 .0468

Mean .0017 .0016 -.0168 .0347

High (M + 1 SD) .0013 .0114 -.0150 .0352

Increasing challenging job demands

Low (M – 1 SD) -.0390 .0316 -.1084 .0173

Mean -.0194 .0248 -.0758 .0247

High (M + 1 SD) .0003 .0358 -.0692 .0755

Decreasing hindering job demands

Low (M – 1 SD) .0017 .0215 -.0359 .0561

Mean -.0035 .0143 -.0390 .0222

High (M + 1 SD) -.0087 .0197 -.0638 .0213

Direct effect of work-life balance on Job Satisfaction

(32)

32 Conditional effect of work-life balance on performance through job crafting dimensions at different values of perceived opportunities to craft

Low (M – 1 SD) .0196 .0224 -.0056 .0909

Mean .0227 .0204 -.0034 .0826

High (M + 1 SD) .0257 .0258 -.0048 .1026

Low (M – 1 SD) .0200 .0194 -.0048 .0799

Mean .0164 .0138 -.0009 .0599

High (M + 1 SD) .0129 .0175 -.0090 .0646

Low (M – 1 SD) -.0023 .0148 -.0456 .0191

Mean -.0012 .0091 -.0290 .0113

High (M + 1 SD) .0000 .0102 -.0234 .0213

Low (M – 1 SD) .0002 .0102 -.0187 .0264

Mean -.0004 .0073 -.0212 .0115

High (M + 1 SD) -.0010 .0104 -.0342 .0127

Direct effect of work-life balance on performance

.3643 .0747 .2167 .5199

Conditional effect of work-life balance on stress through job crafting dimensions at different values of perceived opportunities to craft

Low (M – 1 SD) .0099 .0196 -.0111 .0730

Mean .0114 .0179 -.0146 .0599

High (M + 1 SD) .0130 .0203 -.0134 .0743

Low (M – 1 SD) -.0079 .0172 -.0625 .0119

Mean -.0065 .0131 -.0460 .0105

High (M + 1 SD) -.0051 .0137 -.0518 .0100

Low (M – 1 SD) .0031 .0142 -.0184 .0429

Mean .0016 .0093 -.0113 .0308

High (M + 1 SD) .0000 .0105 -.0243 .0218

Low (M – 1 SD) -.0008 .0132 -.0352 .0189

Mean .0017 .0089 -.0086 .0310

High (M + 1 SD) .0042 .0130 -.0085 .0566

Direct effect of work-life balance on stress

-.4787 .0756 -.6282 -.3292

(33)

33 Discussion

The aim of this paper was to contribute insight into the relation between work-life balance and job satisfaction, performance, and stress by mediation of the four job crafting dimensions. It also contributed to give insight into the proactive role of the employees by experiencing an imbalance between work and life by using job crafting as the active response of employees. Perceived opportunities to craft was examined as boundary condition, moderating the relationship between work-life balance and the dimensions of job crafting.

(34)

34 increasing social job resources and increasing challenging job demands. These relationships turned out to be non-significant.

The study further showed that job crafting dimensions of increasing structural job resources and increasing challenging job demands are positively related to job satisfaction. These findings are in line with the theory of Rudolph et al. (2017) presented in this paper. This theory states that job crafting leads to changes in employee’s identity and perceived meaning of work which leads to greater job satisfaction (Rudolph et al., 2017). In contrast with this theory, this study did not find support for the relationship between job crafting dimensions of increasing social job resources and job satisfaction while this relationship is not significant. Rudolph et al. (2017) stated that job crafting not only would lead to greater job satisfaction but also to greater performance among employees. However, the regression of performance on job crafting dimensions of increasing structural job resources and increasing challenging job demands demonstrate a non-significant relationship. The job crafting dimension of increasing social job resources and performance show a negative relationship, whereas a positive relationship was hypothesized. Additionally, the job crafting dimension of decreasing hindering job demands was hypothesized to be negatively related to stress, however this study does not support a negative relationship due to non-significance.

(35)

35 Bakker (2010) state that job crafting is a mechanism which links characteristics of the work environment with work outcomes.

Further analyses were unable to support both mediated-moderated interactions for all variables. The moderation effect of perceived opportunities to craft for the relationship between work-life balance and the four dimensions of job crafting turned out non-significant. Also the relationship between work-life balance and job satisfaction, performance, and stress by mediation of the four job crafting dimensions, moderated by perceived opportunities to craft is not supported. However, the indirect relationship between work-life balance and job satisfaction through job crafting’s increasing structural job resources is significant at the mean level of perceived opportunities to craft.

The data also shows that how older the employee is, the less the employee increases challenging job demands and structural job resources. Besides, females are more engaged in increasing social job resources than males.

Theoretical Implications

The findings in this study have several implications for theory. First, this study replicates previous research of Syrek et al. (2011), Harrington and Ladge (2009), and Thompson et al. (1999) by examining work-life balance in relation to job satisfaction, performance, and stress. In line with previous research, work-life balance relates positively to job satisfaction and performance, and negatively to stress. This points out the importance of experiencing work-life balance among employees. This study also contributes to existing theory by considering work-life balance as independent variable. Work-work-life balance was examined as a possible stimulus in engaging in job crafting behaviour. Besides, work-life balance was measured by using a time-frame, considering the employees’ past three months in experiencing work-life balance.

(36)

36 positively to the job crafting dimension of increasing structural job resources and decreasing hindering job demands, instead of work-life imbalance. This assumes that perhaps there should be a certain level of work-life balance before employees engage in job crafting behaviour. When employees experience a work-life imbalance, they maybe lack motivation or feel like it is impossible to engage in job crafting. Instead of proactively engaging in job crafting by a work-life imbalance, employees possibly just stick to their tasks.

Another contribution, related to job crafting, is the negative relationship between the job crafting dimension of increasing social job resources and performance. However, all job crafting dimension where hypothesized to relate positively to the job outcomes (Rudolph et al., 2017). A possible cause of this difference can be the time-frame of three months used in this study. Rudolph et al. (2017) state that performance is a long-term effect of job crafting. Employees who engage in job crafting will first experience more engagement to their job, after that employees will put more energy in their tasks which finally will lead to an increase in performance (Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2015). This contributes to the idea that an effect in performance will occur over a longer time-frame.

Practical Implications

This study showed that work-life balance relates positively to job satisfaction and performance, and negatively to stress. These positive job outcomes make it important for organizations to ensure employees experience work-life balance. Organizations can provide several work-life benefits to the employees, for example child care, psychological counselling, part-time work options, and flextime (Lambert, 2000; Thompson et al., 1999).

(37)

37 knowledge, skills, and attaining more difficult goals (Tims et al., 2012). Organizations can provide policies and practices to give employees the opportunity to craft. Employees can be provided with work schedule flexibility, decision-making freedom and more responsibilities while exercising their tasks.

Limitations and Future Research

The present study has several limitations that need to be discussed. A first limitation is that all measures used in this study were based on self-rating. This can increase the possibility of common method variance (Malhotra, Schaller & Patil, 2017). The data for all study variables were collected at the same time, and by using online surveys only. When a participant responds to all the items at the same time, the related constructs will be highly accessible for the participants and bias can occur (Malhotra et al., 2017). Another bias of only using self-rating, could be that less-motivated participants will just agree or disagree with statements, and incorrect conclusions based on the data will be drawn (Malhotra et al., 2017). To decrease the influence of common method bias, future research should use more methods instead of the mono method used in this research. Not only self-rating, but also interviews should be taken into account, while the use of a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods provides better understanding of research problems (Malhotra et al., 2017).

A second limitation is due to the cross-sectional design of this research. All study variables were measured at the same time, so no conclusions about causality can be drawn. Future research could gain a clearer insight into the relation between the variables by using a longitudinal study. For example, it could be the case that the extent in which employees engage in job crafting is influenced by situational factors. The model could also be reversed which means that work-life balance is a result.

(38)

38 dimensions of job crafting. As mentioned, work-life imbalance did not stimulate employees to engage in job crafting behaviour. Future research can examine if a certain level of work-life balance is needed for employees to engage in job crafting behaviour. Also situational factors could be taken into account. When an employee experience work-life imbalance, they maybe would change first their personal life instead of engaging in job crafting behaviour. More research on the antecedent of job crafting behaviour should be done.

In line with this, work-life balance related positively to the job crafting dimension of increasing structural job resources and decreasing hindering job demands. It is can be assumed that if employees experience work-life balance, they feel they have enough freedom and opportunities to engage in job crafting. Based on this reasoning, work-life balance can be examined as moderator in future research.

Conclusion

(39)

39 References

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. 1993. The proactive component of organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 103–118.

Berg, J. M., and Dutton, J. E. (2008). Crafting a fulfilling job: Bringing passion into work. Retrieved from the website of Positive Organizational Scholarship on April, 15, 2011 Beauregard, T. A., & Henry, L. C. (2009). Making the link between work-life balance practices

and organizational performance. Human resource management review, 19(1), 9-22. Byrne, U. (2005). Work-life Balance: Why are we talking about it at all? Business Information

Review, 22(1), 53-59.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of management, 26(3), 435-462.

Demerouti, E. (2014). Design your own job through job crafting. European Psychologist, 19(4), 237-247

Demerouti, E., and Bakker, A. B. (2014). Job crafting. In M. C. W. Peeters, J. de Jonge, and T. W. Taris, An introduction to contemporary work psychology. London, UK; Wiley Dempsey, S. E., & Sanders, M. L. (2010). Meaningful work? Nonprofit marketization and

work/life imbalance in popular autobiographies of social entrepreneurship. Organization, 17(4), 437-459.

Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., & Jolson, M. A. (1994). Closeness of supervision and salesperson work outcomes: An alternate perspective. Journal of Business Research, 29(3), 225-237.

(40)

40 Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the

21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133–187.

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of applied psychology, 77(1), 65.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of management review, 10(1), 76-88.

Gregory, A., & Milner, S. (2009). Work–life balance: A matter of choice? Gender, Work & Organization, 16(1), 1-13.

Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of occupational health psychology, 5(1), 111.

Harrington, B., & Ladge, J. J. (2009). Work–Life Integration: Present Dynamics and Future Directions for Organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 38(2), 148-157.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.

Hayman, J. (2005). Psychometric Assessment of an Instrument Designed to Measure Work Life Balance. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 13(1), 85-91. Hofmann, V., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2017). The impact of emotional labor on employees’

work-life balance perception and commitment: A study in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 65, 47-58.

(41)

41 Kanwar, Y., Singh, A., & Kodwani, A. (2009). Work—Life balance and burnout as predictors of job satisfaction in the iT-ITES industry. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 13(2), 1-12.

Lachman, M. E., & Boone-James, J. (1997). Charting the course of midlife development: An overview. In Lachman, M. E. and Boone-James, J. (Eds.), Multiple paths of midlife development (pp. 1–20). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Lambert, S. J. (2000). Added benefits: The link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 801–815.

Lazar, I., Osoian, C., & Ratiu, P. (2010). The role of work-life balance practices in order to improve organizational performance. European Research Studies, 13(1), 201.

Macdonald, S., & Maclntyre, P. (1997). The generic job satisfaction scale: Scale development and its correlates. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 13(2), 1-16.

Major, D. A., & Morganson, V. J. (2011). Coping with work-family conflict: A leader-member exchange perspective. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(1), 126. Malhotra, N. K., Schaller, T. K., & Patil, A. (2017). Common method variance in advertising

research: when to be concerned and how to control for it. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 193-212.

Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: its causes and consequences for job performance. Journal of applied psychology, 71(4), 618.

Parker, S. K., Ohly, S., Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (2008). Designing motivating jobs: An expanded framework for linking work characteristics and motivation. Past Present and Future. New York, Routledge.

(42)

42 Rudolph, C. W., Katz, I. M., Lavigne, K. N., & Zacher, H. (2017). Job crafting: A meta-analysis of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112-138.

Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there?. Personnel psychology, 36(3), 577-600.

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.

Syrek, C., Bauer–Emmel, C., Antoni, C., & Klusemann, J. (2011). Development and validation of the Trier Scale to Measure Work–Life Balance. Diagnostica, 57; 134–145.

Tausig, M., & Fenwick, R. (2001). Unbinding time: Alternate work schedules and work-life balance. Journal of family and economic issues, 22(2), 101-119.

Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work–family benefits are not enough: The influence of work–family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational behavior, 54(3), 392-415. Tims, M., Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign.

South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36; 1-9

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., and Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80 (1), 173-186

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2015). Job crafting and job performance: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 914-928. Wang, H. H., Demerouti, E. E., & Bakker, A. B. (2016). A review of job crafting research: The

(43)

43 Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of management, 17(3), 601-617.

Van Wingerden, J., & Niks, I. (2017). Construction and validation of the perceived opportunity to craft scale. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 8

Van Wingerden, J., & Poell, R. F. (2017). Employees' perceived opportunities to craft and in-Role performance: the mediating role of job crafting and work engagement. Frontiers in psychology, Vol (8)