The value of job crafting for work engagement, task performance, and career satisfaction: longitudinal and quasi-experimental evidence

Figures & data

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and coefficient alpha’s of all the variables in study 1.

	M	SD	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.	12.	13.
1. Function type	1.58	0.50	(-)
2. T1 Seeking challenges	2.59	0.82	.04	(.76)
3. T1 Seeking resources	3.63	0.49	−.16	.31**	(.52)
4. T1 Decreasing demands	2.15	0.68	.05	.11	−.01	(.53)
5. T1 Work engagement	4.77	1.15	.17	.09	.35**	−.17	(.92)
6. T1 Task performance	5.20	1.03	.06	−.12	.12	−.09	.32**	(.85)
7. T1 Career satisfaction	4.32	1.45	−.18	−.19*	.28**	−.27**	.61**	.26**	(.86)
8. T2 Seeking challenges	2.57	0.80	.18	.59**	.14	.09	.10	−.02	−.10	(.77)
9. T2 Seeking resources	3.47	0.53	−.12	.26**	.57**	.01	.30**	.06	.11	.38**	(.61)
10. T2 Decreasing demands	2.08	0.70	.21	.06	−.04	.31**	−.10	.06	−.17	.18	.15	(.65)
11. T2 Work engagement	4.70	1.05	−.05	.04	.27**	−.14	.81**	.30**	.48**	.19*	.39**	−.16	(.94)
12. T2 Task performance	5.19	0.99	.04	.02	.23*	.09	.34**	.55**	.14	.04	.18	−.07	.44**	(.80)
13. T2 Career satisfaction	4.22	1.27	−.16	.01	.30**	−.22*	.55**	.21*	.70**	.05	.31**	−.30**	.62**	.31**	(.88)

Note: Function type was coded as: 1 = academic staff; 2 = supportive staff. Job crafting had a range of 1 to 5. Work engagement had a range from 0 to 6. Task performance and career satisfaction had a range of 1 to 7. *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01.

Figure 1. Visualization of constraints to capture the latent change score of the variable seeking resources. The numbers “1” represent the imposed constraints to specific parameters, whereas “c” indicates the parameters that are constrained for measurement error. The “Delta seeking resources” represents the latent change score of the variable seeking resources.

Figure 2. The hypothesized latent change score model. For all latent factors it applies that e.g. “ΔSC” represents the latent change score of the variable Seeking Challenges.

Table 2. Examples of self-set job crafting goals of the participants, study 2.

	Examples of self-set goals
Seeking challenges	On Thursday, I will inquire about internal courses that are available within the organization. Next week, I am going to start a new research project with my colleagues. Tomorrow, I will send an email to my supervisor to say that I will volunteer to coach new colleagues.
Seeking resources	Next week, I will discuss with my colleague the option to divide customer questions such that I handle them in the morning and she will handle them in the afternoon. This week, I will initiate a monthly drink within our department to increase the social cohesion. From now on, I am going to create a folder in outlook in which I am going to save compliments and positive messages.
Decreasing demands	From now on, I am only going to read and respond to email on two set times a day. On Tuesday, I am going to clean my desk to work more efficiently. From now on, I will try to only schedule meetings in the afternoon to avoid being interrupted in my work during the morning.

Table 3. Overview of the intervention of study 2.

Steps	Aspects of the intervention that reflect the experiential learning theory
Step 1: Concrete experiences	Providing real-life examples from interviews conducted with employees Every employee has at least some experience with job crafting (Lyons, 2008) by doing a Situated Learning Narratives (SELN; Benner, 1984) exercise, we encouraged people to think about positive past behavior in problem solving situations.
Step 2: Reflection	SELN exercise further encouraged employees to think about how that behavior may be helpful in attaining future goals. In a group context, they stimulate others’ thinking about problem solving behaviors.
Step 3: Abstract concepts	Demonstrating the value of job crafting for work-related outcomes such as work engagement (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002), via the Job Demands-Resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Step 4: Creating new experiences	Setting three specific, measurable, acceptable, realistic, and time-bound (SMART) goals (Doran, 1981) for the three weeks after the intervention (i.e., week 1: seeking resources, week 2: decreasing demands, week 3: seeking challenges). By setting three goals, employees could practice all three job crafting strategies. Weekly reminders were send to encourage goal achievement (e.g., Fjeldsoe, Marshall, & Miller, 2009). The trainer encouraged participants to think about possible facilitating factors and obstacles for their goals. This way, employees could think ahead about dealing with obstacles and how to optimally use facilitators.

Table 4. Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, and correlations among the variables of study 2.

	M	SD	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.
1. Age	42.74	11.75	(-)
2. Function type	1.58	0.49	.54	(-)
3. Seeking challenges	2.75	0.97	−.21	.15	(.80)	.33	.25	.09	.12	−.06
4. Seeking resources	3.48	0.60	−.12	.08	.33	(.57)	−.04	.41	.32	.33
5. Decreasing demands	2.21	0.68	−.01	.05	.20	−.10	(.60)	−.16	−.12	−.18
6. Work engagement	3.60	1.18	.14	.22	.09	.44	−.22	(.92)	.49	0.59
7. Task performance	5.12	1.20	−.01	.11	.11	.32	−.15	.55	(.90)	0.36
8. Career satisfaction	4.13	1.44	−.10	−.01	−.05	.35	−.17	.62	.43	(.82)

Note: The coefficient alphas in the table are the average alphas of T1 and T2. Correlations below the diagonal are between-level correlations (N = 119) with correlations r ≥ .18 being significant at p ≤ .05 and r ≥ .24 being significant at p ≤ .01. Correlations above the diagonal are within-level correlations (N = 194) with correlations r ≥ .14 being significant at p ≤ .05 and r ≥ .19 being significant at p ≤ .01. Function type is coded as: 1 = Scientific staff; 2 = Supportive staff. Job crafting had a range of 1 to 5. Work engagement had a range from 0 to 6. Task performance and career satisfaction had a range of 1 to 7.

Table 5. Means and standard deviations of the Intervention and control group, study 2.

	Intervention group		Control group
	M	SD	M	SD
T1 seeking challenges	2.86	1.04	2.55	0.91
T2 seeking challenges	3.10	1.05	2.50	0.70
T1 seeking resources	3.48	0.63	3.51	0.61
T2 seeking resources	3.54	0.52	3.36	0.64
T1 decreasing demands	2.17	0.68	2.23	0.70
T2 decreasing demands	2.41	0.64	2.04	0.66
T1 work engagement	3.32	1.27	3.76	1.18
T2 work engagement	3.66	1.16	3.73	0.98
T1 task performance	5.11	1.32	5.02	1.23
T2 task performance	5.15	1.18	5.25	0.98
T1 career satisfaction	3.81	1.52	4.31	1.49
T2 career satisfaction	4.05	1.38	4.42	1.24

Table 6. Multi-level regression effects of the intervention on the outcome variables, study 2.

	Outcome variables
	Seeking challenges		Seeking resources		Decreasing demands		Work engagement		Work engagement		Task performance		Career satisfaction
	β	t-value	β	t-value	β	t-value	β	t-value	β	t-value	β	t-value	β	t-value
Intercept	2.39	15.43**	3.46	35.67**	2.16	20.00**	4.49	23.24**	4.44	23.02**	4.87	25.09**	4.33	18.26**
Function type	0.28	1.71	0.09	0.88	0.11	0.96	0.49	2.35*	0.49	2.36*	0.22	1.06	−0.03	−0.13
Time	0.09	0.83	−0.18	−2.58**	−0.17	−1.62	−0.11	−0.82	0.01	0.09	0.29	1.62	0.03	0.20
Group	0.30	1.76	−0.03	−0.28	−0.05	−0.43	−0.45	−2.09*	−0.39	−1.80	0.14	0.63	−0.50	−1.89
Time x group	0.13	0.89	0.29	3.04**	0.40	2.81**	0.57	3.19**	0.40	2.27*	−0.29	−1.13	0.23	0.99
Seeking resources									0.78	4.17**	0.85	3.01**	0.52	2.08*
Decreasing demands									−0.17	−1.39	−0.23	−1.27	−0.31	−1.87

Note: Group is coded as 1 = intervention; 2 = control. Function type was coded as 1 = academic staff; 2 = Supportive staff. *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01.

Figure 3. Simple slopes for the intervention and control group representing the slope of seeking resources over time.

Figure 4. Simple slopes for the intervention and control group representing the slope of decreasing demands over time.

Figure 5. Simple slopes for the intervention and control group representing the slope of work engagement over time.

Lyons, P. (2008). The crafting of jobs and individual differences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 23, 25–36.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Benner, P. (1984). From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. Menlo Park, California: Addison-Wesley.

 Google Scholar

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmative factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.

 Google Scholar

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328.

 Google Scholar

Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a SMART way to write management’s goals and objectives. Management Review, 70, 35–36.

 Google Scholar

Fjeldsoe, B. S., Marshall, A. L., & Miller, Y. D. (2009). Behavior change interventions delivered by mobile telephone short-message service. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36, 165–173.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar