Reducing demands or optimizing demands? Effects of cognitive appraisal and autonomy on job crafting to change one’s work demands

ABSTRACT

Employees can craft their job demands by optimizing or reducing them. Research has shown reducing demands produces dysfunctional effects, yet optimizing demands creates positive effects. However, little is known about when and why employees choose to engage in optimizing demands versus reducing demands. Drawing on the transactional theory of stress, we proposed that individuals’ primary appraisal of a demand as a challenge or a hindrance affects their choice of demands crafting via secondary appraisal of control. We further theorized that job autonomy affects control appraisal and interacts with primary appraisal to affect control appraisal. We conducted two randomized vignette experiments in which we manipulated primary appraisal and job autonomy in Study A (N = 182) and control appraisal in Study B (N = 145) to test our hypotheses. The assigned challenge appraisal positively predicted optimizing demands indirectly via the increased control appraisal. The assigned hindrance appraisal positively predicted reducing demands, but this effect was not mediated by control appraisal. Job autonomy had a main effect on control appraisal but did not interact with assigned challenge/hindrance appraisal in predicting control appraisal. Our findings provide significant insights into distinct mechanisms of two demands crafting strategies, and guidance to organizational practices.

KEYWORDS:

• Job crafting
• optimizing demands
• reducing demands
• challenge appraisal
• hindrance appraisal
• job autonomy

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Notes

1. There was a significant difference in gender between two studies, χ2(1) = 7.34, p = .007. Participants in Study A were older than those in Study B, t (322) = 5.50, p < .001. Participants in Study A also had longer work experience than those in Study B, t (321) = 4.11, p < .001. There were no significant differences in participants’ weekly work hours, t (325) = .53, p = .60, and in participants’ self-efficacy, t (324) = −.59, p = .56. The results did not change with inclusion or exclusion of these demographics. Thus, demographics were excluded from analyses for parsimony.

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported by Australian Research Council Australian Laureate Fellowship (Grant Number: FL160100033), Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship, Curtin International Postgraduate Research Scholarship (CIPRS), and Research Stipend Scholarship.