Does job crafting assist dealing with organizational changes due to austerity measures? Two studies among Greek employees

Figures & data

Table 1. Means, standard deviations and inter-correlations between the study variables (N = 380) for Study 1.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Sector	1.42	.49	–
2. Age	39.72	9.65	−.27**	–
3. Gender	1.68	.47	.00	−.08	–
4. Tenure	9.39	8.41	−.18**	.69**	.01	–
5. Seeking resources	2.96	.66	−.10*	−.04	−.01	−.06	–
6. Seeking challenges	2.43	.96	.07	.05	.08	.02	.30**	–
7. Reducing demands	2.29	.71	.07	−.06	−.07	.02	.00	−.11*	–
8. Assessment of changes	2.92	2.06	.09	.15**	−.05	.13*	.01	.13*	.09	–
9. Adaptive performance	3.89	.82	.08	.00	−.05	−.05	.11*	.22**	.00	.13**

Sector is coded: 1 = public, 2 = all other sectors; dummy coded types of organizational change are not shown for the sake of clarity;

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 2. Moderated regression analysis for the moderating effect of attitudes to austerity measures in the relationship between job crafting and adaptive performance for Study 1.

	Adaptive performance
	Step 1			Step 2			Step 3
Variable	B	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β
Control variables
Sector	.10	.10	.06	.08	.10	.05	.13	.10	.08
Age	.01	.01	.11	.01	.01	.09	.01	.01	.10
Gender	−.04	.09	−.02	−.08	.09	−.05	−.07	.09	−.04
Tenure	−.01	.01	−.10	−.01	.01	−.10	−.01	.01	−.11
General changes
New tasks	.08	.10	.05	.06	.09	.03	.06	.09	.03
New ways of completing existing tasks	−.15	.10	−.08	−.16	.10	−.09	−.16	.10	−.09
New ways of working with colleagues or clients	−.07	.10	−.04	−.11	.10	−.06	−.11	.10	−.06
New technologies	.18	.10	.10	.17	.09	.10	.16	.09	.09
New products or services	.25*	.13	.11*	.18	.12	.08	.19	.12	.09
New manager	.15	.10	.09	.20*	.10	.11*	.21*	.10	.12*
New location	−.14	.11	−.07	−.13	.11	−.06	−.10	.11	−.05
Austerity-led changes
Lay-offs of colleagues	−.10	.09	−.06	−.11	.09	−.07	−.15	.09	−.09
Pay-cuts	−.11	.14	−.05	−.10	.14	−.04	−.05	.13	−.02
Decreases in resources	−.10	.09	−.06	−.12	.09	−.07	−.13	.09	−.08
Main effects
Seeking resources				.05	.05	.07	.06	.05	.08
Seeking challenges				.17***	.04	.20***	.16***	.04	.19***
Reducing demands				.01	.04	.02	.05	.04	.06
Assessment of changes				.06	.04	.07	.04	.04	.04
Interaction effects
Seeking resources × Assessment							.01	.04	.02
Seeking challenges × Assessment							−.03	.04	−.04
Reducing demands × Assessment							.16**	.05	.16**
R^2	.06			.12			.14
Adjusted R^2	.02			.07			.09
ΔR^2				.06***			.02*

Sector is coded: 1 = public, 2 = all other sectors; all dummy-coded types of general organizational change as well as all dummy-coded types of austerity-led changes are both compared against the category “other”; Assessment = Assessment of changes*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Figure 1. The relationship between reducing demands and adaptive performance moderated by individuals’ assessment of changes (Study 1).

Table 3. Multilevel analyses examining mediating and moderating effects (N = 72).

Model:	Positive Affect			Openness to Change			Adaptive Performance
Variables	Estimate	SE	t	Estimate	SE	t	Estimate	SE	t
Model 1: Main Effects
Intercept	3.615	.100	36.15***	3.594	.137	26.23***	4.035	.085	47.47***
Time (Refer. Category = Pre)	−.068	.096	−.708	−.139	.143	.97	−.280	.117	−2.39*
Group (Refer. Category = Control)	−.188	.156	1.21	−.436	.214	−2.04*	.096	.173	.55
Time x Group	.340	.151	2.25*	.518	.223	2.32*	−.025	.182	−.14
Seeking Resources	.436	.078	5.59***	.235	.105	2.24*	.338	.085	3.98***
Reducing Demands	−.154	.066	−2.33*	−.083	.093	−.89	−.200	.075	−2.67**
Model 2: Moderation
Intercept	3.547	.103	34.44***	3.587	.132	27.17***	3.994	.093	42.95***
Time	−.149	.118	−1.23	−.145	.138	−1.05	−.263	.116	−2.27*
Group	−.120	.157	−.76	−.408	.206	−1.98*	−.025	.142	−.18
Time x Group	.520	.181	2.87**	.680	.216	6.54***	.197	.180	1.09
Seeking Resources	.471	.082	5.74***	.270	.104	2.60*	.382	.072	5.31***
Reducing Demands	−.146	.069	−2.12*	−.090	.087	−1.03	−.240	.061	−3.93***
Assessment of changes	.057	.024	2.38*	.131	.030	4.37***	.064	.022	2.91**
Seeking Resources x Assessment of changes	−.057	.034	−1.68	−.086	.042	−2.05*	−.075	.032	−2.34*
Reducing Demands x Assessment of changes	.030	.027	1.11	.067	.034	1.97*	.096	.026	3.69***

Time: 0 = Pre and 1 = Post; Group: 0 = Experimental and 1 = Control; *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05.

Figure 2. The relationship between reducing demands and adaptive performance moderated by individuals’ assessment of changes (Study 2).

Figure 3. The relationship between seeking resources and adaptive performance moderated by individuals’ assessment of changes (Study 2).

Table 4. Results of repeated measures GLM (n _intervention = 30 and n _control = 42) for Study 2.

Variables	SS	df	MS	F	p	partial η2
Seeking Resources	.02	1	.02	.11	.74	.00
Seeking Challenges	.01	1	.01	.02	.88	.00
Reducing Demands	1.21	1	1.21	3.91	.05	.05
Positive Affect	.80	1	.80	3.79	.06	.05
Openness to Change	1.95	1	1.95	5.36	.02	.08
Adaptive Performance	.05	1	. 05	.121	.70	.00

Table 5. Mean scores, SD, paired sample T-tests for the Study variables (n _intervention = 30 and n _control = 42).

	Intervention		t-test		Control		t-test
Variable	M	SD	t	p^1	M	SD	t	p^2
JC: Seeking Resources Pre	2.81	.74			2.85	.67
JC: Seeking Resources Post	2.78	.78	.21	.835	2.87	.80	−.27	.79
JC: Seeking Challenges Pre	1.90	.98			1.91	.98
JC: Seeking Challenges Post	1.90	.99	.00	1.00	1.94	.98	−.33	.74
JC: Decreasing Demands Pre	1.90	.65			2.03	.78
JC: Decreasing Demands Post	2.40	.95	−3.28	.003	2.16	.93	−1.10	.28
Positive Affect Pre	3.44	.81			3.60	.65
Positive Affect Post	3.67	.71	−2.07	.048	3.52	.79	.73	.47
Openness to Change Pre	3.14	.91			3.63	.86
Openness to Change Post	3.55	.85	−2.52	.019	3.52	.85	.71	.48
Adaptive Performance Pre	3.98	.78			4.09	.62
Adaptive Performance Post	3.62	.96	2.05	.050	3.82	.55	2.82	.01
Assessment of Change Pre	6.04	2.38			6.00	2.03
Assessment of Change Post	4.96	2.28	1.61	.123	6.00	2.22	0.00	1.00

JC: Job Crafting; ¹df = 29; ²df = 41.