Can job crafting be crafted?

Transcription

1 Human Resource Studies Master thesis A research into job crafting and job resources Student: Shimrit Florentin Supervisor: Dr. T.A.M. Kooij Second supervisor: Drs. B. Kroon MTO supervisor: Dr. A.P.J.G. Vossen Date:

2 P a g e 2

3 P a g e 3 Abstract This research examined the process of job crafting from the organization s point of view. Four job resources, autonomy, social support, supervisory support and feedback were proposed to have signaling power for employees regarding job crafting. The research was conducted through interviews with 60 employees from six organizations in the Netherlands. It was found that all four job resources can be used to facilitate job crafting. Moreover, two additional job resources, flexible working and open culture were further identified as facilitators of job crafting. Personal resources such as proactive personality, personal preferences and experience were also found important for the job crafting process. Job resources have a direct and an indirect (through employees perceptions of the acceptable behavior) effect on job crafting. Together, these findings suggest that job crafting can be influenced by job resources available to employees in the work place and this offers the organization an opportunity to intervene on the matter.

4 P a g e 4

5 P a g e 5 Table of contents Introduction...7 Theoretical framework...10 What is job crafting?...10 Job crafting what is in it for the organization?...11 How can the organization influence employees perceived opportunity to job craft?..12 Job resources...14 Method...20 Research design...20 Sample...21 Coding and analysis...23 Results...25 Descriptive...25 Perceived benefits and weaknesses of job crafting...27 Facilitators of job crafting...29 Zone of acceptance...33 Discussion...36 Conclusions and research propositions...36 Theoretical implications and future research...39 Practical implications...41 Limitations...42 References...44 Appendix 1 Interview protocol...47 Appendix 2 Thematic matrix...50

6 P a g e 6

7 P a g e 7 Introduction Recent work in the field of human resource management has identified an important goal for achieving competitive advantage in organizations: long-run agility (Boxall & Purcell, 2008; Dyer & Shafer, 1999). Many times, the realization of such a goal is conditioned on having a proactive workforce, suitable working conditions and flexible work design to facilitate a contribution of various talents to the organization (Berg, Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2010; Crant, 2000; Parker, Williams & Turner, 2006). Job crafting, the constant adjustments which employees perform in their jobs, may assist in maintaining such flexibility and advance an organization in a bottom-up process. As Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001, p. 198) explained, in today s rapid-changing environment employees ability to craft their own jobs may be a strategic advantage in larger-scale change. However, up to date research of job crafting concentrated more on employees discretion and less on the organization s possibility to intervene. The AMO model can aid in placing the individual employee within his/her context. The AMO model maintains that individual performance is dependent on an individual s Ability, Motivation and Opportunity to perform (Boxall & Purcell, 2008). Opportunity to perform is explained by Boxall and Purcell (2008) as working conditions (work structure and environment) which provide the individual "support and avenues for expression" (Boxall & Purcell, 2008, p. 5). While the organization has a potential role in influencing each of these components (for example, courses and trainings to increase abilities, reward to enhance motivation) it seems that the opportunity to perform component is the most subjected to influence of the organization by means of, for instance, HR practices, culture and job design. Job crafting can be seen as a way for the individual to perform since it enables self-expression and addressing personal needs via modification of the content of work or the relational boundaries at work (Hornung et al., 2010). With respect to job crafting specifically, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) have discussed perceived opportunity for job crafting as a moderating variable between

8 P a g e 8 employees motivation to craft a job and actual job crafting behaviors (see figure 1 for an understanding of this study within the context of the model of Wrzesniewski and Dutton). Following, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) stated that certain job features can encourage job crafting, for example, autonomy in the job may lead to more perceived opportunities for job crafting. The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model illustrated that every job contains job features which can be divided into job demands and resources through which tailored interventions can be made (by, for instance, reducing harmful demands or increasing the most important job resources) (Bakker, Demerouti & Verbeke, 2004). This study will focus on job resources and will address the following question: How can job resources provide signals that influence employees perceived opportunity to job craft? Since the study will focus on resources that can be provided by the organization, this question is concerned with the organization's side of job crafting. The study will include an inspection of the effect of job crafting for the organization to investigate potential benefits and weaknesses of job crafting from the organization's point of view. Another subject which will be examined is the zone of acceptance. Hornung, Rousseau, Glaser, Angerer and Weigl (2010) described job crafting as a process which is performed unauthorized or within the zone of acceptance. The zone of acceptance is made up of perceptions regarding acceptable and appropriate behavior at work. The organization may not be able to guide crafting that is unauthorized (it can only forbid it officially), but it can influence crafting that is performed within the zone of acceptance by defining the zone of acceptance clearly for its employees. Simon (1997) explained that the zone of acceptance is defined by the sanction which authority has available to enforce its commends. It is therefore also important to explore the way in which employees see the zone of acceptance and what they perceive as defining it. This will contribute to the required understanding of the process of job crafting within its context. Finally, the research will look into job resources that can facilitate

9 P a g e 9 job crafting in order to identify methods by which the organization may be able to direct and guide job crafting, at least to some degree. As stated by Berg et al. (2010, p. 181) job crafting matters to organizations since it enables contribution of employees talents and proactive behavior to meet objectives. They further assert that organizations may find that there is more they can offer to facilitate [job crafting] (Berg et al., 2010, p. 181). Thus, this study makes a practical contribution for organizations which are interested in guiding the job crafting phenomenon to the possible extent, and a scientific contribution for a better refined definition of job crafting and the conditions that may influence it. Figure 1. Wrzesniewski and Dutton s model of job crafting (2001)

10 P a g e 10 Theoretical framework This section starts by shedding more light into the concept of job crafting, subsequently, potential point of view concerning the concept of job crafting will be explained and lastly, the issue of influence in the matter of perceived opportunity to job craft will be discussed. What is job crafting? Drawing on Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), Hornung et al. (2010, p. 190) explained that job crafters modify their job s content or its relational boundaries to add meaning, meet personal needs, or impact others the worker cares about. Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) described three possible forms of changes that employees might make in their work: changes to task boundaries; to cognitive task boundaries and to relational boundaries. First, changes to task boundaries can be made by altering the amount, scope or type of tasks taken on. Consequently, employees actually create a different job by deciding to do more, less or different tasks (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). The second type of job crafting, changes to cognitive task boundaries, can take different forms. Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) discussed one such form in which employees can change their perception of their job from a set of separate work tasks to an integrated whole. It is said that these changes fundamentally influence the way employees approach the job. The third type of job crafting, changes to relational boundaries, can be made by altering the quality or amount of interactions with others at work. Employees can adjust the level of involvement with others or choose to interact to a greater or lesser extent on the job (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). As can be seen, definitions of job crafting often highlight the role of the individual employee and fulfillment of his/her personal needs (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Hornung et al., 2010). But alongside the focus on the individual side of matters, the question of what is in it for the organization must be raised.

11 P a g e 11 Job crafting what is in it for the organization? Oldham and Hackman (2010) raised the issue of the risk for inefficiencies in work processes that job crafting may introduce and possible subsequent disruptions to colleagues. Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) have asserted that whether job crafting is positive or negative for the organization is dependent on the actual changes employees make in their jobs (content as well as method and style of crafting) and the effect of these changes on motivational factors and performance. For example, in a research of job crafting among employees in childcare centers, Leana, Appelbaum and Shevchuk (2009), found that collaborative job crafting had positive consequences for performance as well as for employee-satisfaction, while individual job crafting had a weak association with performance and negative influence on job satisfaction. It seems, thus, that consequences of job crafting are unpredictable, at least to some extent. Why is it, therefore, that some organizations are encouraging such actions rather than demanding that their employees strictly follow job descriptions? Whether an organization might encourage or discourage its employees to job craft may differ according to the context and the environment in which the organization operates (Lyons, 2008). For example, in an unpredictable business climate, organizations may fail since they simply cannot keep up with the rate of change in their external environments (Dyer & Shafer, 1999; Ashkenas, Ulrich, Jick & Kerr, in Dyer & Shafer, 1999). For organizations operating in such an environment, there is a need to develop an entirely different approach that views adaptation as a continuous process as opposed to a one-time event (Dyer & Shafer, 1999). It was in this context that Dyer and Shafer (1999) explained the concept of agility as an inherent capacity for adaptability that is seen as a core competence for organizations operating in dynamic external environments. In other words, agility is the capacity to shift, flex, and adjust as circumstances change, and to do so as a matter of course (Dyer & Shafer, 1999, p. 148). Such quality can be achieved by, for example, creating an innovative climate, which highlights new ways of working, openness to criticism, flexibility, challenging old ideas and risk-taking (Moolenaar, Daly & Sleegers, 2010; Susanj, 2000). In addition, it could also happen that certain job functions in the same

12 P a g e 12 organization are more dynamic than others, defining the employees from whom it may be more expected to maintain flexibility. As mentioned in the introduction, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) argued that in today s rapidly changing environment, job crafting can contribute to change on an scale and pose as a strategic advantage for the organization. Taken together, it seems that job crafting may be a valuable tool for enabling and promoting agility in organizations operating in dynamic environments. How can the organization influence employees perceived opportunity to job craft? Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001, p. 179) defined job crafting as the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work. While this definition acknowledges the power and discretion of the individual actor, it seems to downplay the component of context. Hornung et al. (2010) described job crafting as an ongoing process which is initiated by the worker (bottom-up) and which is either done unauthorized or within the zone of acceptance, with the primary goal of satisfying personal needs of the individual employee. This description by Hornung et al. (2010) appears to recognize to some greater extent the power of context in influencing the actions of employees at work. Tims and Bakker (2010) suggested a model of job crafting in which person-job (mis)fit influences job crafting directly, while work characteristics as well as individual differences have a moderating effect in the process. Following, it is acknowledged here that job crafting requires a mixture of work and individual characteristics to be realized. However, while individual factors (motivation; proactive personality) can be difficult or impossible to have an influence over after the initial selection process, work characteristics can be potentially altered by both the organization and the employee at any time. As such, it is possible for organizations to stimulate job crafting (Tims & Bakker, 2010). But which job features define the organization s ability to do so? As mentioned above, Hornung et al. (2010) described job crafting as an activity that occurs unauthorized or within the zone of acceptance. This means that as far as employees are concerned, job crafting is not necessarily performed without permission,

13 P a g e 13 as sometimes employees perceive that they are allowed to job craft within certain boundaries as long as the organization did not forbid it. Simon (1997) explained that the zone of acceptance is a way for the organization to demonstrate authority. The zone of acceptance is, to some extent, constantly tested by individual employees who are affected by the organization s response (i.e. responses from peers and supervisors) to their actions. Thus, the magnitude of the zone of acceptance depends upon the sanction which authority has available to enforce its commends (Simon, p. 10). Consequently, when a job crafting activity is performed unauthorized, it will have an effect on the redefinition of the zone of acceptance such that negative reactions will maintain or diminish the zone of acceptance whereas positive reactions will extend it. As opposed to crafting that occurs unauthorized, crafting within the zone of acceptance enables the organization an opportunity for guidance. Signaling theory helps to explain the role that the organization can play in the definition of the zone of acceptance. Signaling theory concerns with the extent to which imperfect information influences decision-making. It asserts that individuals make decisions based on the information they have. Some individuals are exposed to public information (freely available information) only, while some also possess private information (that is available only to some). This results in information asymmetry between individuals. According to signaling theory, in such a situation signals are sent to reduce information asymmetry (Connelly, Certo, Ireland & Reutzel, 2011). Applied to the present research, Simon (1997) stated that employees have incomplete information regarding the zone of acceptance. This means that the organization must send clear signals to clarify to employees wanted behaviors. These signals can be sent via multiple tools, for example, Schneider, Brief and Guzzo (1996) asserted that members make inferences about what is expected of them based on the policies, practices, procedures, and routines in the workplace. Similarly, Bowen and Ostroff (2004) proposed that it is possible to create a strong HRM system through which unambiguous messages about expected employeebehavior are sent. Thus, factors such as HR practices; signals communicated to the employee; routines; culture and job design all have a part in shaping an

14 P a g e 14 individual s perception of the zone of acceptance. This concept is an indication of the role that the organization may play in guiding job crafting of its employees. One central domain which may be of significance in defining the magnitude of the zone of acceptance is that of job resources available to employees. Job resources According to the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), both job demands and job resources influence outcomes through individual outcomes. Job resources are defined as physical, psychological, social or features, which may be functional in achieving work-related goals; decrease job demands and their associated costs; and encourage development and personal growth (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001). It is assumed that the process of job crafting should be supported to some extent by job resources that are provided by, or at least maintained by, the organization (Tims & Bakker, 2010). The present study will focus on autonomy, social support, supervisory support and feedback in an attempt to investigate whether the existence of these job resources signals to employees a larger opportunity to craft. The study will examine these particular job resources since they were proven in previous research (Hakanen, Bakker & Schaufeli, 2006; Schaufeli, Bakker & Van Rhenen, 2009) to promote positive outcomes as well as to moderate negative ones and were hypothesized to be able to influence job crafting (Leana et al., 2009; Tims & Bakker, 2010). In addition, these resources can be influenced by the organization via job design, HR practices or culture, thus enabling potential interventions. Following Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), who discussed perceived opportunities for job crafting, this study will only focus on the subjective experience of employees regarding the researched job resources (i.e. perceived job resources). In addition, the study will attempt to reveal the reasons employees perceive that they have or lack certain job resources, this to promote understanding of the actions organizations can take in order to influence employees perception of the issue and, as a result, their behaviors at work. For example, Berg et al. (2010) found that visibility in the

15 P a g e 15 organization may reduce perceptions of autonomy on the part of employees, thus, high visibility may be one of the reasons employees perceive that they lack autonomy and in such circumstance, the organization should take visibility into account in case of an intervention. Below the relevant job resources are described and discussed in relation to job crafting. Perceived autonomy Combined with Hackman and Oldham s (1976, p, 258) definition of autonomy, perceived autonomy is defined here as employee s perception regarding the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out. According to Hackman and Oldham (1976), autonomy is predicted to increase an individual s feelings of personal responsibility for work outcomes. This is since the outcomes of a job with high autonomy are dependent less upon external factors (for example adequacy of instructions or job procedures) and more upon the employee s own initiatives, efforts, choices and decisions. Under such circumstances, the individual is expected to feel strong personal responsibility for the outcome (success or failure) of the job. Both Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and Tims and Bakker (2010) have proposed that higher perceived autonomy will facilitate job crafting as a result of higher perceived latitude to craft the job. This proposition was supported by the research of Leana et al. (2009), who found that discretion was positively related to individual job crafting. At the same time, Berg et al. (2010) found that employees in high-rank positions, which are typically characterized by more autonomy, job-crafted less because they were more visible in the organization. Further, as suggested above, autonomy is associated with high personal accountability for work outcomes (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). This may consequently mean that employees would rather follow work procedures and job descriptions to the possible maximum in order to avoid being held accountable for failed

16 P a g e 16 crafting initiatives. In addition, Lyons (2008) found that 39% of sales representatives (a job characterized with large amounts of autonomy) saw no opportunity or slight opportunity to make changes in their job compared to 23% who reported that they had a substantial opportunity to make changes. There is a need, therefore, to make clear the relationship between autonomy and job crafting. Perceived social support Perceived social support is a feeling of a flow of communication between people involving emotional concern, caring, information, and instrumental help (Williams & House, in Logan and Ganster, 2005, p. 92). Job crafting is expected to occur more or less depending on the magnitude of the zone of acceptance in a given organization/team. Since peers have a crucial role in demonstrating to the individual how un/acceptable their actions are, in providing directions for individual action (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) and in influencing individual attitudes (Lines, 2005), the possibility to job craft is expected to be influenced to a great deal by the amount of perceived social support available. To that end, Berg et al. (2010) found that employees in low-rank positions tended to raise support of peers in the organization as a preparation activity for job crafting and Jones and George (1998) pointed out that when social support is high, risk-taking and involvement which are associated with job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) are more likely to take place. On the other hand, strong social support can also function as a control mechanism in an organization. The best example for this issue is clan control mechanism, which is characterized by high levels of communication, information sharing and help among members of the organization (Turner & Makhija, 2006). At the same time, as Ouchi, (1980) explained, application of clan control mechanism results in great regularity of relations and is characterized by a high degree of monitoring. In this situation visibility is higher, which can limit the sense of freedom of employees and hence also limit job

17 P a g e 17 crafting activities (Berg et al. 2010). In addition, Lyons (2008) asserted that workers who are closely monitored may not engage in job crafting behaviors. Once more, it is not entirely understandable what might be the effect of perceived social support on job crafting. Perceived supervisory support Perceived supervisory support refers to an employee s feeling that a supervisor understands their needs and a perception that in a difficult situation the supervisor would help out, even at his/her own expense (Fakunmoju, Woodruff, Kim, Lefevre, & Hong, 2010). In relation to supervisory support, Lyons (2008) explained that job crafting can be seen by managers as a double-edged sword. This since creativity and receptiveness to changes may be desired, but at the same time, it is unlikely that managers wish that these take place without their knowledge or approval. Following literature on the topic, it is reasonable to expect one of two contrasting outcomes regarding perceived supervisory support and the extent of job crafting. First, it is likely that employees will need the potential support of their supervisor to engage in job crafting. Following this line of thought, Berg et al. (2010) found that employees are sometimes required to shape expectations of their supervisors beforehand in order to be able to craft and further described a case in which a supervisor s attitude restricted an employee from crafting her job altogether (Berg et al., 2010, p. 170). Therefore, supervisors need to accommodate job crafting, or at the very least not prohibit it, as part of the delineation of the zone of acceptance. Perceived supervisory support may lead to an employee s assessment of the zone of acceptance as extended, which in turn will result in a larger perceived opportunity to craft. However, Leana et al. (2009) found that supportive supervision was not related to individual job crafting, this in spite of their hypothesis that supportive supervision will foster job crafting behaviors. A possible explanation can be provided by leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, which explains the development of relationships between supervisors and subordinates in organizations (Graen & Cashman, in Wayne, Shore &

18 P a g e 18 Liden, 1997). One of the most important characteristics of LMX is negotiation between leaders and members, as Hornung et al. (2010) hypothesized, supervisory support and trust may lead to employees feeling that they can negotiate task conditions with the supervisor (as opposed to engaging in crafting that is not directly authorized). According to the definition of job crafting negotiation regarding job tasks and terms of employment cannot be considered crafting, but rather idiosyncratic deals (i-deals). As a result, perceived supervisory support may lead to an incline in task i-deals but (consequently) a decline in job crafting. In this case, the higher the perceived supervisory support, the lower job crafting will be. There is therefore a need to thoroughly examine the relationship between perceived supervisory support and job crafting. Feedback Hackman and Oldham (1976, p, 258) defined feedback as the degree to which carrying out the work activities required by the job results in the individual obtaining direct and clear information about the effectiveness of his or her performance. This research focuses on feedback provided by superiors, since it can be a means of influence for the organization to guide job crafting. According to Hackman and Oldham (1976), feedback helps fostering knowledge of results and signals to employees that their actions are not gone unnoticed, thus assisting in defining the zone of acceptance. In addition, Tims and Bakker (2010) proposed that tailored feedback, which takes into account personal characteristics (e.g. level of individual skills and knowledge) as well as demands and resources available on the job, may stimulate job crafting in order to increase person-job fit. In order to sharpen this proposition, it is important to understand a point made by Baron and Kreps (1999), who stated that even though research has shown that most useful feedback is behaviorally specific and is providing guidance on how to improve work behaviors, it is still widespread for untrained supervisors to provide vague feedback focused on dispositions rather than behaviors, or in the words of Tims and Bakker (2010), feedback that is not tailored. In an empirical study, Jawahar (2010) found that the more job-relevant the

19 P a g e 19 criteria, the more accurate and tailored will the feedback perceived to be, thus potentially influencing performance. It is therefore proposed here that when given feedback is tailored and guiding, it is more likely that job crafting will take place. The influence of feedback on job crafting should be investigated to further support this proposition. Figure 2 is a visual summary of the basic premise of this paper. It is expected that the aforementioned resources will have an influence on perceived opportunity to job craft. Concerning job resources and their influence on perceived opportunity to job craft, an important note is that job resources may have an additive effect of both direct and indirect paths. For example, perceived supervisory support may influence perceived opportunity to job craft directly, but may also take on a moderating effect and strengthen feelings of autonomy. Perceived Autonomy Perceived Social Support Perceived Supervisory Support Perceived Opportunity to Job Craft Job Crafting Feedback Figure 2. Conceptual Model

20 P a g e 20 Method This study was written as part of an HR studies master program in Tilburg University for which a research group of six students was cooperating for the purpose of data collection. Therefore, data were collected by six different students from six different organizations. Research design The design of this study is a cross-sectional qualitative research design. As was suggested by Hornung et al. (2010), bottom-up job modifications (i.e. job crafting) may be better studied using qualitative methods. In addition, a qualitative research is able to facilitate an understanding of how social actors assign subjective meaning to their environment. It is recognized that generalization from qualitative research can be difficult to be made (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003), however, since job crafting theory is not a completely developed area of research, this study can be regarded as a pilot study with both explanatory and exploratory characteristics, which purpose is to formulate propositions concerning job resources and job crafting for future reference. These propositions are based on data collected through the interviews and could be tested further via quantitative methods. Especially related to the present research, Bakker et al. (2004) explained that qualitative research is valuable because it can generate knowledge about unexpected job resources. This means that this research is not only able to examine the relation of the above mentioned job resources to perceived opportunities to craft, but is also able to identify additional job resources which may influence perceived opportunities to job craft. The research was conducted in the form of semi-structured interviews, meaning, key questions were asked in a similar way in each interview while probing for further information when necessary (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Interviews lasted three quarters of an hour on average. An interview protocol (see appendix 1) which was largely based upon the research of Berg et al. (2010) was composed and previously tested by all six students.

21 P a g e 21 The interview protocol contained basic and probe questions for supplementary information and included questions regarding the work environment, job crafting in general and challenges and facilitators of job crafting. Questions like: "in what ways, if any, have you made your job your own?" and "have you actively changed your relationships with others at work?" were asked to measure job crafting and questions as: "what kind of assistance did you receive from anyone while making this change?" or "how has your organization enabled you to make this change?" were asked to measure facilitators. The zone of acceptance was identified using questions like: are you encouraged to try new ways of working? and who restricted you from making this change? as well as by statements employees gave about the opportunity they feel they have to shape their job in general (meaning statements which were not necessarily tied to a specific job crafting account). Job crafting identification was done in reference with the article of Berg et al., thus accounts were checked to "fit Wrzesniewski and Dutton s (2001) definition of job crafting, omitting any accounts of job changes that were not explicitly described as resulting from changes initiated by the participant... or proactive efforts that did not involve changes to job boundaries..." (Berg et al., 2010, p. 163). Job resources were identified according to the similarities of the account descriptions with the definitions of the resources in the theoretical framework. All terms are presented, explained and conceptualized in the theoretical framework and are based on existing theory. Sample Since most members of the research group were focusing on the relationship between aging and job crafting, a sample including a range of ages was promoted. This can be seen as theoretical sampling, since it is chosen for its likelihood to provide insight into the relationship between aging and job crafting (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). To obtain sample diversity, 60 employees from six organizations in six different sectors were interviewed: retail (13 employees, positions ranging from shop-floor employees to management), catering (7 employees, positions ranging from service providers to management), washroom hygiene (10 employees, positions including production workers,

22 P a g e 22 service providers and management), leisure and travel (10 employees, positions including travel coordinators and management), financial sector (10 employees, positions ranging between administration work, pension advisors and management) and environmental consultancy (10 employees, positions include specialists and management). The sample included 31 females and 29 males with ages ranging from 21 years and 63 years, with a rounded average age of 44 years. Education levels ranged from secondary education to MA with 29 out of 60 interviewees holding post secondary or trade school education. Employees' ranks were categorized as either low, medium or high, according to their position within the hierarchy and responsibilities over other employees. Data regarding the research sample are presented in table 1 below.

23 P a g e 23 Coding and analysis All interviews were recorded and transcribed to enable coding of the material. Coding and analysis of each account of job crafting was done separately, recognizing that there may be several job crafting events mentioned in one interview. Concept-driven coding (Gibbs, 2007) has taken place in the form of thematic framework, which is a method for ordering and organizing qualitative data according to key themes (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Thematic framework uses thematic charting which is the process of reduction and ordering data by summarizing it into the thematic matrix (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). It is important to retain the context and the voice of the respondent in this process, thus, the summary in the thematic chart contained enough information so that it was not required to go back to the raw data. In addition, notes of reference pages in the raw data were taken, and quotations were made in the results section of the paper in order to support interpretations and conclusions. The first stage of the coding was based upon an initial list of thematic ideas that is supported by the article of Berg et al. (2010) and the theoretical part of this paper and included quotes and summaries of each job crafting account on the following issues: type of job crafting; quotes and perceptions of the zone of acceptance and facilitators of job crafting. The second phase of the coding included an examination of job craftingfacilitators mentioned by interviewees and the matching of these with the job resources mentioned in the theoretical framework. In addition, thematic ideas which came up during the interviews, such as personal resources and other job resources, were added to the matrix in this stage (see appendix 2). The thematic matrix was further used to identify which job resources may affect job crafting. Analysis of the mentioned resources was done via pattern matching, meaning comparing observed pattern with an expected pattern to determine whether patterns are matched or not (Dul & Hak, 2008). In this case resources mentioned in the interviews to facilitate job crafting (the observed pattern which will be presented in the results section), were matched against the job resources proposed in the theoretical framework (the expected pattern). Each job crafting event was matched on the proposed and emergent job

24 P a g e 24 resources separately to check the possible effect. This while taking into account other factors such as age, gender, education, rank and and job tenure (which are constants for each interviewee) that may influence the strength (or weakness) of the relationship between job resources and job crafting.

25 P a g e 25 Results Descriptive 50 interviewees out of the total 60 gave accounts of one or more crafting events during the interviews. In total, 78 job crafting events were identified in those 50 interviews. In retail 12 employees out of 13 crafted with 22 accounts of job crafting; in catering 5 out of 7 employees crafted, with 6 accounts of job crafting; in washroom hygiene 9 out of 10 employees crafted, with 13 accounts of job crafting; in leisure and travel 8 out of 10 employees crafted, with 10 accounts of job crafting; in financial sector 9 out of 10 employees crafted, with 16 accounts of job crafting and in environmental consultancy 7 out of 10 employees crafted, with 11 accounts of job crafting. The distribution of the job crafting events regarding the demographic characteristics of the sample seems to be in proportion to their representation in the sample, for example, an equal number of females and males crafted and crafters come from all age groups in proportion to their numbers in the sample. See table 2 below for the job crafting sample matrix. Crafting methods included all 3 types of job crafting theorized by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001): 56 task crafting accounts, 13 accounts of changing cognitive task boundaries and eight accounts of relational-related crafting were identified. Task crafting reports included accounts of changes to job boundaries by altering the amount, scope or type of tasks taken on, for example, an asbestos consultant at environmental consultancy crafted by taking on sales and marketing tasks and explained:...it's in my nature, not in the contract. Accounts of cognitive task crafting included changes in cognitive task boundaries which fundamentally influenced the way employees approach their job. For example, a reservation manager at leisure and travel described how she saw her job differently: I used to really have the 9 to 5 mentality [now] I feel very responsible for the work I do that s really very different Reports of relational crafting included changes in quality or amount of interactions with others at work. An account manager at finance gave an example of that:

26 P a g e 26 I drop by my colleagues a lot... try to be friends. That s how I act around them and that makes them work very hard for you One crafting account could not be classified to any of these types and was identified as time and place-related crafting. This account, by a group-travel coordinator in leisure and travel concerned with determining working hours and place and was enabled by the support of a direct colleague: then I just go home at 12 o'clock, with xxx (colleague) to back me up.

27 P a g e 27 Perceived benefits and weaknesses of job crafting Before addressing whether the organization can influence job crafting and how this might be done, there is a need to provide an answer to the question of whether should the organization encourage job crafting at all or should it demand adhering to job descriptions. We therefore begin with an investigation of whether the job crafting accounts in the present research tended to be more positive or negative in terms of the intentions of crafters (the motives they provided for crafting) and the outcomes of the crafting for the organization. 73 out of the 78 accounts of job crafting included an explanation regarding to the motive for crafting. Some accounts mentioned more than one motive for a single crafting account, thus creating a pool of 80 accounts of motives behind job crafting. 52 of the given motive-accounts for crafting can be attributed to factors that are beneficial for the individual, as: growth: If you want to keep growing in your job, then you have to develop your skills and now it's more the skills and not the information itself (soil consultant, environmental consultancy ) Personal preferences: I chose that extra task because I'm interested in it, I like it (pension specialist, finance ) And making use of experience, for example, in the words of an IT employee at environmental consultancy : I want to do something with my education While 28 accounts of crafting-motives are strictly said to benefit the organization: you can actually improve things in the organization and that would affect the customer... if you analyze the problem and actually would improve then you would get half of the complaints or less (complaints coordinator, finance ) Benefit the customer, as a department manager at washroom hygiene said in reference to a task crafting account: My main goal has always been a satisfied customer Or to benefit colleagues: This way the group works more independently (establishment manager, retail )

28 P a g e 28 Regardless of motive, accounts were also classified in terms of their outcome to one of three groups: positive for the organization, negative or neutral. 53 accounts were classified as positive job crafting; those were crafting accounts which outcome included improvement of systems or processes or expanding the job function: I do more work as a quality consultant externally (safety consultant, environmental consultancy) Assisting to others: If they need someone in a different department and I see he's busy, then I will go there (cashier, retail ) Greater involvement in the job: I used to really have the 9 to 5 mentality I actually had this feature until 2 years back (before became a manager), I feel very responsible for the work I do that s really very different (reservation manager, leisure and travel ) And promotion of sales or saving money, for example, a head department at retail who took on the task of organizing the product mix sold in the branch: I call to the head office and tell them 'can you give us these products... because we would sell more (head department, retail ) Negative job crafting accounts included cognitive task crafting by employees who saw their job differently and thus showed less involvement and decline in job attachment compared to the past: I do not care that much anymore, honestly (head department, washroom hygiene ) Those who dropped tasks belonging to their function regardless of whether their actions will harm the organization or their peers and those who stopped performing extraactivities (that are not officially part of the job) beneficial for the organization, for instance a traffic coordinator in leisure and travel who stopped teaching the job to new employees. Nine negative job crafting accounts were identified in the interviews, five cognitive task crafting and four task crafting accounts. These cognitive task crafters all fundamentally changed their view of work to be less important and their approach to work to show less involvement, and all crafters attributed this change to features. One employee mentioned new rules introduced which caused irritation on the

29 P a g e 29 work-floor, one mentioned a takeover, another employee mentioned a merger and two crafters stated that they simply stopped trying to achieve something when they realized they will never receive enough reward. Out of the task crafters, two dropped tasks that were part of their job, claiming that the job is too heavy for them and two dropped extratasks they were performing, one because she was tired of explaining over and over again and the other because: It wasn't a challenge anymore... I wanted something new (pension maintenance employee, finance ) The remaining 16 crafting accounts were regarded as neutral for the organization and included dropping certain tasks while making sure they are still performed by others, for example as a catering employee said: There are some heavy physical tasks and I don't like to do that... there's always a colleague who says I'll do it for you Forming a closer bond with a colleague for work purposes, for example: Do you feel that the reason you want to make this relationship better is because you want to do more ecology work? Yeah, definitely. I try to get this relationship better because I want to do this job... sure (IT employee, environmental consultancy ) Changing the way employees see or approach the job in such a way that does not concern the organization: My attitude towards my work has become more [business like] instead of taking it personally... I ve become less idealistic... in the beginning I could be really upset (ecologist, environmental consultancy ) As can be seen, these results suggest that crafting is mostly beneficial for the organization and it is therefore important that organizations know how to encourage and guide it. Facilitators of job crafting As for the job resources proposed in this paper to send signals about job crafting, it seems that autonomy, social support, supervisory support and feedback are all related to job crafting. Out of the 78 crafting accounts, 55 accounts included an account of directly-related job resources, (in some cases more than one resource in relation to one

30 P a g e 30 crafting account), meaning resources that were mentioned to be direct facilitators of the crafting. 26 accounts mentioned autonomy to be directly related to crafting, for example: I was hired as a safety consultant and a quality manager in-house because that was the starting point, that was the need [of the organization]. And from then on, when I started working, they said: go ahead, find you own time, find your own way to fill the time (safety consultant, environmental consultancy ) Autonomy was mentioned more than any other job resource as a facilitator of job crafting. Few reasons were mentioned by the interviewees for perceiving that they have autonomy in their work. Some accounts of autonomy were related to a job position that enables freedom; it is not surprising that with the exception of one account all employees who mentioned their position as a source of autonomy held a high-rank position. The remaining employee was reported to have a low rank, even tough he did have certain decision power in his function as the head of his own department. Some employees reported that their sense of autonomy originated explicitly from a company-culture that encourages autonomy. Here it is not surprising that all of those accounts were reported by employees from the same organization (environmental consultancy). Some accounts of autonomy were reported to come as a result of supervisory support, thus when the supervisor trusts the employees they will be given more autonomy, while some accounts of autonomy were described as a result of social support, therefore when peers have faith in each other s abilities they give each other more autonomy and check each other less. In addition, some of the interviewees perceived that they had autonomy because no one interfered with or checked their work and finally, lack of autonomy was also accounted as a reason to stop a crafting activity or to inhibit crafting all together: [Shaping your own job] is different now, there used to be a time that we could do what we wanted, then you could [do more]. That has changed a lot... you cannot put your mark on it (manager, catering ) 22 accounts mentioned social support to be directly related to crafting: There's always a colleague who says 'I'll do it for you'" or "you solve things together, what one cannot do someone else will (catering employees, catering ) Social support reports included descriptions of willingness to assist or to teach peers, teamwork and feelings of belonging to a group and a sense of we re in this together,

31 P a g e 31 enabling colleagues to craft, discussing with colleagues about crafting and explicit encouragement to craft. For example, a number of employees were able to drop physically-demanding tasks specifically because their colleagues were willing to take up these tasks or assist with them. In addition, two accounts of social support also asserted that lack of objection on the part of their peers, signals to them that it is acceptable to craft. The interviewees reported that feelings of social support originated from interactions between employees. Those interactions were based mainly on friendship or proximity on a day to day basis (for example, employees who shared an office or were team-mates). Ten accounts mentioned supervisory support to be directly related to crafting, for example: You need a supervisor that supports you... and he gives me a lot of freedom (secretary, finance ) Interviewees gave several accounts of the reasons why they inferred that they have supervisory support: they indicated that supervisors were protective of them, supervisors had interfered on behalf of employees and supervisors gave employees backup regarding crafting-related decisions. Some supervisors enabled or explicitly encouraged crafting of employees. Furthermore, interviewees mentioned other forms of supervisory support like coaching, friendship and support by granting autonomy. Six accounts mentioned feedback to be directly related to crafting. For example a marketing assistant at washroom hygiene explained what made it possible for her to take on the task of organizing fairs: In the beginning I got to hear a lot that I was doing well and that works for me. Then I got a lot less uncertain. I think it s great to hear that I am doing something right In almost all instances interviewees perceived that feedback was not given frequently enough and some mentioned that lack of feedback signals to them that they can continue to craft as they wish. As the quote reveals, positive feedback was reported to encourage more crafting. Another directly-related facilitator mentioned was experience (five accounts), for example, an all-round employee at retail said that when he was re-hired after retirement for a different position he job crafted: