Abstract
Purpose: Previous studies have found mixed results regarding the effect of job crafting (JC) on employee engagement (EE) and employee performance (EP). JC was also influenced by the type of work and tenure. Therefore, the present study examined the relationship between JC and EE in increasing in-role (IRP) and extra-role performance (ERP). Additionally, it analyses JC on manufacturing and service micro, small and medium enterprise (MSME) and differences in tenure.
Design/methodology/approach: The study was conducted using 1032 employees who work in MSME in Indonesia, especially in Yogyakarta. Validity and reliability tests were carried out for the questionnaire, and Chi-square was used to test the JC difference for the type of work, analysis of variance was used to test the JC difference on tenure, and structural equation modeling (SEM) to analyze the relationship model.
Findings/results: The results of SEM with a two-step approach found that EE mediated the effect of JC on performance. Depending on the type of work performed, the challenges of manufacturing companies differed from those of service companies. The tenure also distinguished the JC that was carried out.
Practical implications: Job crafting is a phenomenon of employee creativity that is important for achieving a good fit in the workplace and increase EE and EP. The human resources department needs to optimize this concept by regulating the procedures for conducting JC.
Originality/value: The results found that the effect of JC was only on IRP and was different, negative, positive and insignificant. Furthermore, JC is proven not to affect ERP.
Keywords: employee engagement; extra-role performance; in-role performance; job crafting; MSMEs.
Introduction
The reasons employees feel comfortable working in one organisation are related to the environment, communication and remuneration (Arachi et al., 2021). In the past, jobs were designed by the leader (a top-down approach) and were undeniable. In its development, job design with this approach is no longer effective in increasing employee engagement (EE) and employee performance (EP). Therefore, a new approach is needed to redesign employee work (Bruning & Campion, 2018). Several studies have proven that a self-directed or bottom-up approach can match work and employee needs (Bakker & Oerlemans, 2019; Debus et al., 2019).
One way to motivate employees is to involve them in redesigning their work (Slemp et al., 2021). Job redesign protects the employees’ welfare and improves performance (Hulshof et al., 2020). Job crafting (JC) is a development of the JD-R model that optimises job demand (JD) and job resources (JR) (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Several studies have found that JC improves person-environment (P-E) fit (Tims et al., 2016), employee well-being (Kim & Beehr, 2020), EE (Shi et al., 2021), increasing in-role (IRP) and extra-role performance (ERP) (Hakanen et al., 2017), as well as reducing burnout (Petrou et al., 2015) and negative effect (Dierdorff & Jensen, 2018). Job crafting motivates employees by increasing their resources (Hakanen et al., 2017).
Previous results regarding JC’s effect on EE were mixed. Some stated that JC has positive effects on EE (Meijerink et al., 2020; Ogbuanya & Chukwuedo, 2017), zero effects (Sakuraya et al., 2020) and negative effects on EE (Petrou et al., 2012). Meanwhile, EE is an antecedent of JC (Inam et al., 2021; Robledo et al., 2019; Tan et al., 2020), and this inconsistency in the relationship encourages the need for research to test the model. Furthermore, disagreements were also found among the actors. Job crafting is essential for senior employees (Kooij et al., 2017; Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2016), and another study found that youthful individuals like to take proactive actions (Nagy et al., 2019). Some reported the JC differences between manufacturing and service firms (Rudolph et al., 2017; Wrzesniewski et al., 2013).
In addition to EE, JC is often associated with performance to increase efficiency and effectiveness and motivates employees intrinsically (Dubbelt et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2021). It can improve performance because it can expand the boundaries of employees’ work; consequently, employees feel autonomy in their job (Kooij et al., 2017; Maden-Eyiusta & Alten, 2021; Wang et al., 2018). Job crafting is a means to maintain employee enthusiasm, active involvement and person-work fit (P-E fit).
Several previous studies have found that EE is associated with IRP and ERP (Park et al., 2020). Employee engagement is a source of motivation for EP (Petrou et al., 2018; Vakola et al., 2021). The results of previous studies indicate that EE is related to and affects positive variables such as well-being, job satisfaction, affective commitment, decreased burnout and increased performance (Agarwal, 2014; Yalabik et al., 2015). Job crafting positively affects motivation and performance because it can develop their work (Lazazzara et al., 2020; Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2018; Tims & Parker, 2020; Vakola et al., 2021). This study aims to strengthen the findings based on the results. Firstly, it reexamines JC as an antecedent or consequence of EE. Secondly, it analyses two models of the relationship between JC, EE, and performance, IRP and ERP. In the first model, EE mediates JC and performance (IRP and ERP), while in the second, JC mediates EE and performance (IRP and ERP). Lastly, it examines the differences between JC in manufacturing and service companies.
Literature review and hypotheses
Job crafting is the behaviour of designing one’s work to meet the needs and goals of employees by seeking resources and challenges and reducing hindering JDs (Tims & Parker, 2020). In the past, jobs were designed without considering employee input (top-down approach). This approach is no longer appropriate because employees want a positive meaning by creating an identity at work. This can be achieved through the involvement in redesigning or modifying the job according to the wishes of the employees and the organisation (Arachi et al., 2020). The redesign includes physical and cognitive changes related to employees’ tasks or job boundaries (Wrzesniewski et al., 2013). Involvement in redesigning jobs generates positive emotions among employees (Constantini et al., 2019) and increases innovation, creativity and well-being (Afsar et al., 2019; Khan et al., 2021).
Job crafting is a theoretical approach to job design that involves employees in a proactive manner (Wrzesniewski et al., 2013). Job crafting is a self-initiated voluntary behaviour to seek resources and challenges and reduce physical, mental and emotional demands of work to improve EP (Demerouti et al., 2015). It is a new form of job redesign from a top-down to a bottom-up approach according to the wishes and preferences of employees (Hulshof et al., 2020). They need JC to effectively deal with internal and external pressures and organisational changes (Park et al., 2020).
The goal of JC is to obtain and avoid the positive and negative aspects of work (Bruning & Campion, 2018; Zhang & Parker, 2019). The psychological and behavioural outcomes were similar for all employees concerning interests, job qualifications and demands (Wang et al., 2018). Rudolph et al. (2017) found that the effect of JC on performance only occurs in manufacturing companies, which supports the research of Wrzesniewski et al. (2013). Job crafting’s success can result in a better person-job fit; hence, employees can develop and act positively in work and life (Rudolph et al., 2017). Many studies have explored the relationship of JC with adaptive and maladaptive outcomes (Bindl et al., 2018; Slemp et al., 2021), but the concept is always associated with positive things (Vogel et al., 2016).
Based on social cognitive theory (SCT), senior employees will effectively carry out JC because of their learning and experience at work (Demerouti et al., 2017). However, the meta-analysis by Rudolph et al. (2017) found that with increasing age, employees are reluctant to conduct JC. Younger workers more often show this proactive conduct to increase the sense of purpose at work (Nagy et al., 2019; Tims et al., 2016).
Various kinds of literature have explored the antecedents and consequences of JC according to the theory that underlies the use of the strategy (Zhang & Parker, 2019). The self-determination theory (SDT) states the need for psychological empowerment in the form of JC, an autonomous motivation that improves performance (Maden-Eyiusta & Alten, 2021). Furthermore, the core of the JD-R theory is the optimal provision of JD and JR for employees (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). The theory of work adjustment (TWA) explains that work is a continuous and reciprocal interaction process between employees and the environment to optimise performance (Hulshof et al., 2020).
There are three dimensions of JC, namely seeking job resources (SJR), seeking job challenges (SJC) and reducing inhibiting job demands (RJD) (Baig et al., 2022; Gordon et al., 2015). The three dimensions of JC are not mutually exclusive and can be conducted together (Dierdorff & Jensen, 2018). Each dimension also influences employees differently (Bakker & Orlemans, 2019). According to SDT, SJR is in line with satisfying needs for competence and relatedness, while SJC is consistent with fulfilling needs for autonomy (Vogt et al., 2016). Seeking job resources and challenges can improve performance and achieve goals (Gordon et al., 2015), while RJD leads to inconsistent results in performance (Tims et al., 2013). Seeking resources and challenges are effective JC, known as the approach type, while RJD is ineffective or avoiding (Makikangas & Schaufeli, 2021; Zhang & Parker, 2019). The JC approach consistently has a positive effect, while the avoidance has a negative effect on EE and EP (Dubbelt et al., 2019; Petrou et al., 2018). Some studies found no relationship between JC avoidance and EE and EP (Bruning & Campion, 2018; Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2018). Seeking resources can be invested and conserved based on the conservation of resource (COR) theory (Hakanen et al., 2017; Shi et al., 2021). Conservation of resource theory states that individuals seek to obtain and prevent the loss of resources to cope with demands (Lazazzara et al., 2020).
Employee engagement and EP are widely used in research outcomes of workplace employee attitudes (Meijerink et al., 2020). Employee engagement is a positive work state characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2006). It is a source of motivation for EP (Petrou et al., 2018). Employees with high EE can remain motivated to achieve organisational goals despite decreasing resources (Bakker et al., 2016). Engaged employees work passionately and are fully engaged in their work. Employee engagement is a form of intrinsic motivation that builds comfortable and enthusiastic behaviour at work. It includes vigour (i.e. high energy, extra effort and determination to face adversity), dedication (i.e. involvement, interest, enthusiasm, challenge, inspiration) and absorption (i.e. concentration, time passes quickly, difficulty letting go of work) (Demerouti et al., 2017; Green et al., 2017; Vakola et al., 2021). Furthermore, it is negatively related to boredom and procrastination at work (Metin et al., 2018).
Many previous studies have proven the relationship and influence of JC on EE (Allan et al., 2019; Bakker & Oerlemans, 2019; Lazazzara et al., 2020; Moon et al., 2020; Slemp et al., 2021; Tian et al., 2021). In general, JC positively affects EE (Meijerink et al., 2020; Rudolph et al., 2017). By using SJR and SJC, individuals can achieve their goals to feel engaged with the organisation. Some studies found the effect of EE on JC (Bakker et al., 2020; Gray et al., 2020; Hakanen et al., 2017; Imran et al., 2020; Inam et al., 2021; Thao & Kang, 2018). Employees with high involvement will analyse resources and challenges but do not want to reduce the demands of their work (Tan et al., 2020). Meanwhile, Sakuraya et al. (2020) and Van Wingerden et al. (2017) found no influence or relationship between the two constructs, and Petrou et al. (2012) found a negative effect of JC on EE.
The relationship between each dimension of JC and EE is different (Hulshof et al., 2020). Seeking job resources and seeking job challenges are consistently associated positively with EE (Rudolph et al., 2017). Seeking job resources and seeking job challenges increase EE (Borst et al., 2019; Harju et al., 2016), unlike RJD (Bakker & Sanz-Vergel, 2013). Therefore, the reduction of RJD, which is the JC dimension, is positively related to EE (Rudolph et al., 2017). However, some studies have found that the dimension is negatively associated with EE (Dubbelt et al., 2019; Koize & Nel, 2019; Radic et al., 2020). Other analyses found that a reduction in inhibiting RJD did not affect EE (Tims et al., 2013). According to Tims et al. (2015) and Moon et al. (2020), combining the three dimensions of JC can improve EE and EP. Meanwhile, employees craft their work with SJR, SJC and RJD (Demerouti et al., 2015). According to the COR theory, individuals are motivated to protect and maintain existing resources (Hakanen et al., 2017).
Employee engagement is a surplus of resources; hence, employees with high value will be more proactive in finding resources and challenges (Lu et al., 2014). Based on COR theory, creativity can increase EE. According to social exchange theory (SET), individuals who do not feel engaged in their work will have a low sense of creativity (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2013; Kim & Park, 2017). Employee engagement is also a positive predictor for individuals and organisations, such as IRP and ERP performance (Bakker et al., 2012). It was reported that JC improved EP (Gordon et al., 2018; Kooij et al., 2017; Moon et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020), both IRP and ERP (Bavik et al., 2017; Junca-Silva et al., 2022; Khan et al., 2021). Tims et al. (2015) found that SJC was associated with SJR, thereby increasing EE. According to Moon et al. (2020), JC uses SJR and RJD to improve EE and achieve performance.
Meanwhile, EP refers to employee behaviour consistent with organisational goals and is the core of work results (Metin et al., 2018). There are two dimensions, namely IRP and ERP or task and contextual performance (Robbins & Judge, 2016). In-role performance supports organisational functions, aligns with goals and is included in the job description (Gordon et al., 2015). Extra-role performance is a behaviour in the workplace that is not work-related and outside the job description. Furthermore, it contributes to the social and psychological aspects of the organisation (Demerouti et al., 2015). It is voluntary, selfless, intrinsically motivated, and helps organisations maintain their work climate (Bavik et al., 2017). Extra-role performance is not related to IRP but is a means to achieve superior quality, practical operational activities and high customer satisfaction to increase IRP (Bavik et al., 2017).
Previous studies found that EE mediates the effect of JC on performance (Metin et al., 2018; Park et al., 2020; Tims et al., 2013), IRP (Dubbelt et al., 2019) and ERP (Demerouti et al., 2015; Vogel et al., 2016). However, the research results of Van Wingerden et al. (2017) found that EE partially mediated the influence of JC on performance. Seeking job resources and challenges can improve performance directly (Kooij et al., 2017; Petrou et al., 2015) and indirectly through EE (Bakker et al., 2012; Demerouti et al., 2015; Tims et al., 2015). Some studies found that long-term engagement encourages employees to redesign their jobs (Bakker et al., 2020; Gray et al., 2020; Inam et al., 2021).
Based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB, Ajzen, 1991), JC is a consequence of various long processes experienced by individuals at work. This long process produces EE, which can encourage employees to be proactive in their creativity at the workplace. Therefore, JC is a behaviour inherent in employees’ workflow (Constantini et al., 2022). Employee engagement affects employee creativity in the workplace through JC (Bakker et al., 2020; Thao & Kang, 2018). More specifically, this study provides answers to the following questions:
- Are the three JC dimensions significant predictors of EE and EP for IRP and ERP?
- Is the influence of the three dimensions of JC on IRP and ERP mediated by EE?
- Will employees who feel attached to the company conduct JC, which mediates the influence of EE on IRP and ERP?
- Is there a JC difference between employees of a manufacturing company and a service company?
Samples and procedures
This research sample was for full-time employees working in micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME) in Yogyakarta. The questionnaire was distributed online using Google Forms which was given to the company’s owner for distribution to its employees. The questionnaires were distributed during breaks to avoid interference with working hours. Overall, 1032 respondents were collected for 5 months (January–May 2022), with 560 female respondents (54.26%) and the rest male. Of this number, 640 were service employees (62.02%), and the rest were manufacturing companies. Furthermore, 220, 369 and 443 people worked less than 3 years (21.32%), between 3 and 10 years (35.75%) and more than 10 years (42.93%), respectively.
Measures
All research instruments were adopted from previous studies and assessed using a 5-point Likert scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Job crafting was measured using a 11-item questionnaire adopted from Petrou et al. (2012). In addition, four items measured the SJR dimension, for example, I seek feedback from others about my performance, and were valid with a loading factor 0.553–0.808 and reliable at α = 0.733. The SJC dimension, for example, I ask for more responsibility, was measured using three valid items with a loading factor 0.772–0.864 and reliable (α = 0.797). The RJD dimension, for example, I ensure my work is not too mentally demanding, was measured by four items, and three of the questionnaire were valid with a loading factor 0.769–0.828 and reliable (α = 0.789).
Employee engagement was measured using a 17-item questionnaire adopted from Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) and Inam et al. (2021). Even though there were three dimensions in EE, this study combines them into a construct, for example, at work, I feel full of energy. Meanwhile, 14 items from 17 EE questions were valid with a loading factor 0.567–0.837 and reliable (α = 0.923).
Increasing IRP and ERP were measured using a questionnaire adapted from Koopmans et al. (2012). IRP uses six question items, for example, I work to achieve the result of my work, and four were valid with a loading factor 0.577–0.856 and reliable (α = 0.754). Extra-role performance uses eight question items, for example, I take the initiative when a problem is solved, that were declared valid with a loading factor 0.654–0.860 and reliable (α = 0.888).
Results and analysis
Preliminary analyses reporting the mean, standard deviation, bivariate correlation between variables and composite reliability are shown in Table 1. The mean of the studied variables is moderate (SJC and RJD) and high (SJR, EE, IRP and ERP). Seeking job challenge and RJD are high, while the other variables have a moderate standard deviation.
| TABLE 1: Mean, standard deviation, composite reliability and bivariate correlation. |
The reliability testing results with Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability of the variables studied were more significant than 0.70 and declared reliable (Hair et al., 2019). The bivariate correlation between the variables showed a significantly positive relationship. Meanwhile, a negative relationship exists between RJD and SJR. Increased SJR was negatively associated with RJD, which hinders employees’ work. The three JC dimensions are positively related to EE, IRP and ERP. An independent sample t-test was conducted to analyse the differences in the three dimensions of JC, as presented in Table 2.
| TABLE 2: Differences in job crafting by type of company. |
Table 2 shows that only SJC differs between manufacturing and service MSMEs. The other variables did not obtain any difference. In other words, different types of work lead to different challenges. Furthermore, Table 3 presents the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) test for testing the differences in the three JC dimensions based on tenure. Table 3 shows differences in the three JC dimensions in terms of employee tenure. The average SJR, SJC and RJD decreased following the significant difference.
| TABLE 3: Differences in job crafting by tenure. |
Structural equation modelling (SEM) with a two-step approach was used to test the model of the relationship between the dimensions of JC, EE and performance (Byrne, 2010). There were two models proposed in this study. The first was EE mediating the effect of three dimensions of JC on IRP and ERP based on the results of previous studies (Dubbelt et al., 2019; Hulshof et al., 2020; Lazazzara et al., 2020; Park et al., 2020; Shin et al., 2018; Van Wingerden et al., 2017; Vogel et al., 2016) presented in Table 4 and Figure 1.
 |
FIGURE 1: Results of the first model test: Employee engagement mediates the effect of job crafting on performance. |
|
| TABLE 4: Results of the first model test: Employee engagement mediates the effect of job crafting on performance. |
The results of the first model test show that the three forms of JC have a significant positive effect on EE. This study also proved that EE increases IRP and ERP. Reducing inhibiting JDs has a negative and positive effect on SJR and SJC. The first model also proved that the three JC dimensions increase IRP and ERP. In other words, EE fully mediated the effect of the three JC dimensions on both performance dimensions.
The second model proposed the influence of EE on IRP and ERP mediated by the three JC dimensions based on previous studies (Bakker et al., 2020; Gray et al., 2020; Imran et al., 2020; Inam et al., 2021; Kim & Park, 2017; Robledo et al., 2019; Thao & Kang, 2018), which is presented in Table 5 and Figure 2.
 |
FIGURE 2: Results of the first model test: Job crafting mediates the effect of work engagement on performance. |
|
| TABLE 5: Results of the first model test: Job crafting mediates the effect of work engagement on performance. |
The second relationship model shows that EE has a significant positive effect on both IRP and ERP. Furthermore, SJR, SJC and RJD did not affect ERP in this model. The impact of the three dimensions of JC on IRP was inconsistent. SJR, RJD and SJC have positive, negative and zero effects on IRP. Extra-role performance had a significant positive effect on IRP. This second model also proved that EE improves all three JC dimensions. Consistent with the first model, RJD decreases SJR but increases SJC.
This study compared the fit indices categories of the two models to determine the best. Several criteria can be used to test the suitability of the model with SEM, namely the normed chi-square (χ2/df), the comparative fit index (CFI), the normed fit index (NFI), Tucker and Lewis index (TLI), the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The criteria for model suitability are NFI > 0.90, CFI > 0.95, SRMR and RMSEA < 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Meanwhile, the TLT criteria > 0.90 (Tucker & Lewis, 1973), the GFI criteria > 0.90, AGFI > 0.90, and the chi-square and 2/df criteria were expected to be small (Byrne, 2010), as presented in Table 6.
| TABLE 6: Comparison of the fit index of the two models. |
Based on Table 5 and Figure 2., the first model fits with the data. In the case of employees of MSME in Indonesia, especially in Yogyakarta, JC can increase EE, which improves IRP and ERP performance.
Discussion
This study aims to examine the relationship model of the JC, EE and performance. Similar to previous studies, JC includes three dimensions, namely SJR, SJC and RJD. The three dimensions are significantly correlated with each other. The results indicate that the relationship between SJR and SJC and between SJC and RJD is positive, while SJR and RJD are negative. The search for job resources conflicts with the demands of the job. Furthermore, RJD is an aspect of work that requires continuous physical and mental abilities and can cause stress, while SJR helps achieve goals and increases motivation and personal development.
This study is in line with the research of Demerouti et al. (2015). The search for resources has an impact on the unwillingness of employees to eliminate JDs. Likewise, work demands cause employees to not look for resources that can improve the quality of their work. This study proves that JC is indeed the development of the JD-R model, where JDs and resources are JC avoidance and approach which brings negative and positive consequences as suggested by Bakker and Demerouti (2017). This is in line with the COR theory, which supports individuals always looking for resources to minimise JDs (Hakanen et al., 2017; Shi et al., 2021).
This study partially supports the research findings of Rudolph et al. (2017) and Wrzesniewski et al. (2013), which state differences in JC between manufacturing and service companies. In addition, SJC differed between the two types of companies, while SJR and RJD had no difference. Manufacturing companies have a consistent work rhythm; hence, employees do not try to look for challenges, while those in service companies require a lot of creativity. This study supports the TWA, which states that work is an interaction between employees and their environment (Hulshof et al., 2020).
This study proves that junior employees prefer JC. There are differences in the three dimensions of JC in terms of tenure. This is consistent with previous studies (Bruning & Campion, 2019; Nagy et al., 2019). Younger employees prefer creativity and trying new things. Furthermore, they compare their ability with that of other companies to apply new standards in the workplace. Senior employees who already feel comfortable and established are reluctant to make changes. This finding supports TWA, which states that employees and their environment affect work (Hulshof et al., 2020). Additionally, young people tend to modify work to suit their expectations.
This study further strengthens previous studies that JC increases EE (Bakker & Orlemans, 2019; Gordon et al., 2015; Lazazzara et al., 2020; Meijerink et al., 2020; Metin et al., 2018; Vakola et al., 2021). Employees should proactively redesign jobs by looking for resources and challenges and reducing JDs to achieve a match in their work. In other words, JC increases EE and makes employees fit with their work. Employee engagement is related to human resource management systems, especially job descriptions and design. This is in line with SDT, where JC is a form of employee motivation to increase EP through EE (Maden-Eyiusta & Alten, 2021).
The first model strengthens previous studies that EE can improve EP, both IRP and ERP (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2013; Christian et al., 2011; Gorgievski et al., 2014; Hulshof et al., 2020; Metin et al., 2018; Van Wingerden et al., 2017). Employee engagement mediates the three JC dimensions’ effect on IRP and ERP in this first model. This strengthens the results of previous studies such as Bavik et al. (2017), Dubbelt et al. (2019), Hulshof et al. (2020), Metin et al. (2018) and Park et al. (2020). In the first model, the effect of JC on performance is mediated by EE. Employees feel engaged in their work because of this concept, making them more productive and performing according to job descriptions. In line with SET, individuals who do not feel attached will perform poorly (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2013; Kim & Park, 2017).
In the second model, all JC dimensions’ effect on ERP is insignificant. Job crafting does not affect ERP, which contradicts previous studies, where JC can improve ERP (Bavik et al., 2017; Gordon et al., 2015; Khan et al., 2021). The effect of each JC dimension on IRP is inconsistent. Seeking job resources, RJD and SJC have positive, negative and zero impacts on IRP. This finding does not support previous studies such as Bakker and Van Woerkom (2018), Demerouti et al. (2015), Miglianico et al. (2020) and Zhang et al. (2020). However, this second model aligns with the first model, and EE positively affects IRP and ERP. Meanwhile, EE was completely related to IRP and ERP while encouraging creativity to achieve performance (Vakola et al., 2021).
Employee engagement is a job outcome that requires a long process to be achieved. One way to be conducted is by allowing employees to redesign their work. This innovative action requires creativity because work is an interaction between employees and their environment. Job redesign involves modifying jobs, tasks and behaviours. Employees can adjust existing jobs according to their needs, values and skills to generate internal motivation for work. Furthermore, their involvement in proactively expanding work boundaries can lead to feelings of psychological empowerment (Matsuo, 2019). Job crafting is an effective and very flexible way of giving autonomy to carry out their tasks efficiently. The ease of performing these tasks makes employees enthusiastic and highly dedicated. Besides improving EP, EE can also make employees feel at home in the company.
Conclusion
Job crafting is an opportunity for employees to be proactively involved in the company’s activities. This opportunity has consistently motivated employees by increasing EE to improve performance, IRP and ERP. This study supports the JD-R model, SDT, TWA, COR theory and SET. However, it does not support TPB because JC is not a consequence of an individual’s long career journey. Job crafting is more in demand by junior employees than seniors and has been shown to increase EE. This research implies that organisations should stimulate opportunities to engage in JC spontaneously. In addition, they should provide procedures to perform and conduct JC interventions to achieve alignment between employee and organisational goals. The initiative and autonomy of employees are encouraged to design or redesign their jobs to increase the level of psychological empowerment. Job crafting requires a change in culture from top-down to bottom-up.
Despite the various positive results that can be achieved, some weaknesses need to be understood. This study uses self-rating to improve the relationship between the variables studied. Future research can be conducted by using others’ ratings. In addition, the cross-sectional analysis may attenuate the influence of the mediating variable. Therefore, future research needs to use time series data or experimental methods to achieve more complex results.
Acknowledgements
The entrepreneurs and employees of MSMEs who have actively participated in this research.
Competing interests
The author declares that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Author’s contributions
D.W.A. is the sole author of this article.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the author.
References
Afsar, B., Masood, M., & Umrani, W.A. (2019). The role of job crafting and knowledge sharing on the effect of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior. Personnel Review, 48(5), 1186–1208. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2018-0133
Agarwal, U.A. (2014). Examining the impact of social exchange relationships on innovative work behaviour. Team Performance Management, 20(3/4), 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/tpm-01-2013-0004
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Allan, B.A., Batz-Barbarich, C., Sterling, H.M., & Tay, L. (2019). Outcomes of meaningful work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 56(3), 500–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12406
Arachi, A.E., Agbaecze, E.K., Nzewi, H.N., & Agbasi, E.O. (2020). Job crafting, bottom-up job characteristic of academics with an embeddedness potential. Management Research Review, 44(7), 949–969. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-07-2020-0432
Baig, L.D., Azeem, M.F., & Paracha, A. (2022). Cultivating innovative work behavior of nurses through diversity climate: The mediating role of job crafting. SAGE Open 8, 23779608221095432. https://doi.org/10.1177/23779608221095432
Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
Bakker, A.B., & Oerlemans, W.G.M. (2019). Daily job crafting and momentary work engagement: A self-determination and self-regulation perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.12.005
Bakker, A.B., Petrou, P., Op Den Kamp, E.M., & Tims, M. (2020). Proactive vitality management, work engagement, and creativity: The role of goal orientation. Applied Psychology, 69(2), 351–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12173
Bakker, A.B., Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., & Sanz Vergel, A.I. (2016). Modelling job crafting behaviours: Implications for work engagement. Human Relations, 69(1), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715581690
Bakker, A.B., & Sanz-Vergel, A.I. (2013). Weekly work engagement and flourishing: The role of hindrance and challenge job demands. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 297–409. https://doi.org/1016/869066-40
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. http://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712453471
Bakker, A.B., & Van Woerkom, M. (2018). Strengths use in organizations: A positive approach of occupational health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 59(1), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000120
Bakker, A.B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2013). Creativity and charisma among female leaders: The role of resources and work engagement. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(14), 2760–2779. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.751438
Bavik, A., Bavik, Y.L., & Tang, P.M. (2017). Servant leadership, employee job crafting and citizenship behaviors: A cross-level investigation. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 58(4), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965517719282
Bindl, U.K., Hardin, K., Gibson, C.B., & Stride, C.B. (2018). Job crafting revisited: Implications of an extended framework for active changes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(5), 605–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000362
Borst, R.T., Kruyen, P.M., & Laki, C.J. (2019). Exploring the job demands-resources model of work engagement in government: Bringing in a psychological perspective. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(3), 372–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x17729870
Bruning, P.F., & Campion, M.A. (2018). A role resource approach-avoidance model of job crafting: A multi-method integration and extension of job crafting theory. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 499–522. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0604
Bruning, P.F., & Campion, M.A. (2019). Exploring job crafting: Diagnosing and Responding to the Ways your Employees and Coworkers Change their Jobs. Business Horizons, 62(5), 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.05.00
Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., & Slaughter, J.E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relation with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x
Constantini, A., Ceschi, A., Viragos, A., De Paola, F., & Sartori, R. (2019). The role of a new strengths-based intervention on organization-based self-esteem and work engagement: A three-wave intervention study. Journal of Workplace Learning, 31(3), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-07-2018-0091
Constantini, A., Demerouti, E., Ceschi, A., & Sartori, R. (2022). Implementing job crafting behaviors: Exploring the effects of a job crafting intervention based on the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 58(3), 477–512. http://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320975913
Debus, M.E., Gross, C., & Kleinmann, M. (2019). The power of doing: How job crafting transmits the beneficial impact of autonomy among overqualified employees. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(3), 317–331. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09625-y
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2015). Productive and counterproductive job crafting: A daily diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(4), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039002
Demerouti, E., Xanthopoulou, D., Petrou, P., & Karagkounis, C. (2017). Does job crafting assist dealing with organizational changes due to austerity measures? Two studies among Greek employees. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(4), 574–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1325875
Dierdorff, E.C., & Jensen, J.M. (2018). Crafting in context: Exploring when job crafting is dysfunctional for performance effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(5), 463–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000295
Dubbelt, L., Demerouti, E., & Rispens, S. (2019) The value of job crafting for work engagement, task performance, and career satisfaction: Longitudinal and quasi-experimental evidence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(3), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1576632
Gordon, H.J., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P.M., Bakker, A.B., Bipp, T., & Verhagen, M.A.M.T. (2018). Individual job redesign: Job crafting interventions in healthcare. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 104(1), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.002
Gordon, H.J., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P.M., & Bipp, T. (2015). Job crafting and performance of Dutch and American health care professionals. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14(4), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000138
Gorgievski, M.J., Moriano, J.A., & Bakker, A.B. (2014). Relating work engagement and workaholism to entrepreneurial performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-06-2012-0169
Gray, S.M., Knight, A.P., & Baer, M. (2020). On the emergence of collective psychological ownership in new creative teams. Organization Science, 31(1), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1307
Green, P.I., Finkel, E.J., Fitzsimons, G.M., & Gino, F. (2017). The energizing nature of work engagement: Toward a new need-based theory of work motivation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2017.10.007
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C.M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Hakanen, J.J., Peeters, M.C.W., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2017). Different types of employee well-being across time ad their relationships with job crafting. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(2), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp000008
Harju, L.K., Hakanan, J.J., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2016). Can job crafting reduce boredom and increase work engagement? A three-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 95–96, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.07.001
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/1070551990909540118
Hulshof, I.L., Demerouti, E., & Le Blanc, P.M. (2020). Day-level job crafting and service-oriented task performance: The mediating role of meaningful work and work engagement. Career Development International, 25(4), 355–371. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-05-2019-0111
Imran, M.Y., Elahi, N.S., Abid, G., Ashfaq, F., & Ilyas, S. (2020). Impact of perceived organizational support on work engagement: Mediating mechanism of thriving and flourishing. Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity, 6(3), 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030082
Inam, A., Ho, J.A., Zafar, H., Khan, U., Sheikh, A.A., & Najam, U. (2021). Fostering creativity and work engagement through perceived organizational support: The interactive role of stressors. SAGE Open, 11(3), 2158–2440. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211046937
Junca-Silva, A., Silva, S., & Caetano, A. (2022). Job crafting, meaningful work and performance: A moderated mediation approach of presenteeism. SN, Business Economic, 2(4), 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-022-00203-8
Khan, M.M., Mubarik, M.S., & Islam, T. (2021). Leading the innovation: Role of trust and job crafting as sequential mediators relating servant leadership and innovative work behavior. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(5), 1547–1568. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-05-2020-0187
Kim, M., & Beehr, T.A. (2020). Job crafting mediates how empowering leadership and employees’ core self-evaluations predict favourable and unfavourable outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(1), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1697237
Kim, W., & Park, J. (2017). Examining structural relationships between work engagement, organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior for sustainable organizations. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(2), 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020205
Koize, M., & Nel, P. (2019). Job and personal resources as mediators in the relationship between iron-ore mine-workers job demands and work engagement. SA Journal of Human Resource Management/SA Tydsterff vir Menslikehulpbronbestuur, 17, 1183. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v1710.1183
Kooij, D.T.A.M., Tims, M., & Akkermans, J. (2017). The influence of future time perspective on work engagement and job performance: The role of job crafting. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2016.1209489
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C., Hildebrandt, V., Van Buuren, S., Van Der Beek, A.J., & De Vet, H.C. (2012). Development of an individual work performance questionnaire. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/e577572014-108
Lazazzara, A., Tims, M., & De Gennaro, D. (2020). The process of reinventing a job: A meta-synthesis of qualitative job crafting research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 116, 103267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.01.001
Lichtenthaler, P. W., & Fischbach, A. (2016). Job crafting and motivation to continue working beyond retirement age. The Career Development International, 21(5), 477–497. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-01-2016-0009
Lichtenthaler, P.W., & Fischbach, A. (2018). A meta-analysis on promotion- and prevention focused job crafting. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(1), 30–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1527767
Lu, C., Wang, H., Lu, J., Du, D., & Bakker, A.B. (2014). Does work engagement increase person–job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(1), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.12.004
Maden-Eyiusta, C., & Alten, O. (2021). Expansion-oriented and job crafting and employee performance: A self-empowerment perspective. European Journal, 41(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.10.012
Makikangas, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2021). A person-centered investigation of two dominant job crafting theoretical frameworks and their work-related implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 131, 103658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103658
Matsuo, M. (2019). Empowerment through self-improvement skills: The role of learning goals and personal growth initiative. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115, 103311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.05.008
Meijerink, J., Bos-Nehles, A., & De Leede, J. (2020). How employees’ pro-activity translates high-commitment HRM systems into work engagement: The mediating role of job crafting. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(22), 2893–2918. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1475402
Metin, U.B., Peeters, M.C.W., & Taris, T.W. (2018). Correlates of procrastination and performance at work: The role of having ‘good fit’. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 46(3), 228–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2018.1470187
Miglianico, M., Dubreuil, P., Miquelon, P., Bakker, A.B., & Martin-Krumm, C. (2020). Strength use in the workplace: A literature review. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(2), 737–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00095-w
Moon, T.-W., Youn, N., Hur, W.-M., & Kim, K.-M. (2020). Does employees’ spirituality enhance job performance? The mediating role of intrinsic motivation and job crafting. Current Psychology, 39, 1618–1634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9864-0
Nagy, N., Johnston, C.S., & Hirschi, A. (2019). Do we act as old as we feel? An examination of subjective age and job crafting behaviour of late career employees. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(3), 373–383. http://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2019.1584183
Ogbuanya, T.C., & Chukwuedo, S.O. (2017). Job crafting-satisfaction relationship in electrical/electronic technology education programme: Do work engagement and commitment matter? Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 33(3), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpto.2017.09.00
Park, Y., Lim, D.H., Kim, W., & Kang, H. (2020). Organizational support and adaptive performance: The revolving structural relationships between job crafting, work engagement, and adaptive performance. Sustainability, 12(12), 4872. http://doi.org/10.3390/su12124872
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M.C.W., Schaufeli, W.B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1120–1141. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1783
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Job Crafting in Changing Organizations: Antecedents and Implications for Exhaustion and Performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(4), 470–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039003
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2018). Crafting the change: The role of employee job crafting behaviors for successful organizational change. Journal of Management, 44(5), 1766–1792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315624961
Radic, A., Arjona-Fuenter, J.M., Ariza-Montes, A., Han, H., & Law, R. (2020). Job demands-Job resources (JD-R) model, work engagement, and well-being of cruise ship employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 88, 102518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhrm.2020.102518
Robbins, S.P., & Judge, T.A (2016). Organizational Behavior (16th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall (R&J).
Robledo, E., Zappala, S., & Topa, G. (2019). Job crafting as mediator between work engagement and well-being outcomes: A time-lagged study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 1376. https://doi.org/10.3390/i.jerph16081376
Rudolph, C.W., Lavigne, K., Katz, I., & Zacher, H. (2017). Job crafting: A meta-analysis of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 112–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.008
Sakuraya, A., Shimazu, A., Imamura, K., & Kawakami, N. (2020). Effects of a job crafting intervention program on work engagement among Japanese employees: A randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 235. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00235
Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2003). Test manual for Utrecht work engagement scale. Unpublished.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
Shi, Y., She, Z., Li, D., Zhang, H., & Niu, K. (2021). Job crafting promotes internal recovery state, especially in jobs that demand self-control: A daily diary design. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1889. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11915-1
Shin, Y., Hur, W.M., & Choi, W.H. (2018). Coworker support as a double-edged sword: A moderated mediation model of job crafting, work engagement, and job performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(11), 1417–1438. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1407352
Slemp, G.R., Zhao, Y., Hou, H., & Vallerand, R.J. (2021). Job crafting, leader autonomy support, and passion for work: Testing a model in Australia and China. Motivation and Emotion, 45(1), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-020-09850-6
Tan, L., Wang, Y., Qian, W., & Lu, H. (2020). Leader humor and employee job crafting: The role of employee-perceived organizational support and work engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 499849. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.499849
Thao, N.P.H., & Kang, S.W. (2018). Servant leadership and follower creativity via competence: A moderated mediation role of perceived organisational support. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 12, e32. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2018.20
Tian, W., Wang, H., & Rispens, S. (2021). How when job crafting relates to employee creativity: The important roles of work engagement and perceived work group status diversity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 291. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph.18010291
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032141
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.969245
Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person–job fit and meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 96(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007
Tims, M., & Parker, S.K. (2020). How coworkers attribute, react to, and shape job crafting. Organizational Psychology Review, 10(1), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619896087
Tucker, L.R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170
Vakola, M., Petrou, P., & Katsaros, K. (2021). Work engagement and job crafting as conditions of ambivalent employees’ adaptation to organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(1), 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320967173
Van Wingerden, J., Derks, D., & Bakker, A.B. (2017). The impact of personal resources and job crafting interventions on work engagement and performance. Human Resource Management, 56(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21758
Vogel, R.M., Rodell, J.B., & Lynch, J.W. (2016). Engaged and productive misfits: How job crafting and leisure activity mitigate the negative effects of value in congruence. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1561–1584. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0850
Vogt, K., Hakanen, J.J., Brauchli, R., Jenny, G.J., & Bauer, G.F. (2016). The consequences of job crafting: A three-wave study. European Journal of Work Organizational Psychology, 25(3), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1072170
Wang, H.J., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P., & Lu, C.Q. (2018). Crafting a job in ‘tough times’: When being proactive is positively related to work attachment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(3), 569–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12218
Wrzesniewski, A., LoBuglio, N., Dutton, J.E., & Berg, J.M. (2013). Job crafting and cultivating positive meaning and identity in work. Positive Organizational Psychology, 1, 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2046-410X(2013)0000001015
Yalabik, Z.Y., Van Rossenberg, Y., Kinnie, N., & Swart, J. (2015). Engaged and committed? The relationship between work engagement and commitment in professional service firms. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(12), 1602–1621. http://doi/org/10.1080/09585192.2014.953972
Zhang, F., & Parker, S.K. (2019). Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure of job crafting concepts and integrative review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2332
Zhang, F., Wang, B., Qian, J., & Parker, S.K. (2020). Job crafting towards strengths and job crafting towards interests in overqualified employees: Different outcomes and boundary effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(5), 587–603. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2517
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
