PUTTING THE CONTEXT BACK IN JOB CRAFTING RESEARCH

Transcription

1 PUTTING THE CONTEXT BACK IN JOB CRAFTING RESEARCH CAUSES OF JOB CRAFTING BEHAVIOR MASTER S THESIS HUMAN RESOURCE STUDIES AT TILBURG UNIVERSITY Author: Mirna Volman Student number: s Project theme: Individualized HR arrangements - Who gets the best deal? Project period: January 2011 August 2011 Supervisor: Second supervisor: MTO supervisor: drs. B. Kroon dr. N. V. Zubanov dr. W. P. Zijlstra

2 ABSTRACT Historically the idea is that the core job characteristics are more or less stable over time, unless the organization changes them. Job crafting, the concept where the notion is that employees themselves shape, model and redefine their job, is a relatively new field of research. What seems to be lacking in the conditions for job crafting research, suggested in the current literature, is the job context. That is why this research examined the moderating effect of job context, characterized by job autonomy, on the relationships between motivational orientations and job crafting behavior. Data were collected by means of questionnaires concerning a large number of human resource related subjects.. The sample consisted of 400 participants in different sectors in the Netherlands. The expected moderating effect of job autonomy was not found, instead a direct effect of job autonomy on job crafting was found. It tuned out that the two most important predictors for job crafting behavior are job autonomy and having a career orientation. Keywords: Job crafting, Motivational orientations, Job autonomy, Job context 2

3 INTRODUCTION As long as people work they have changed minor components of their job in order to raise their job satisfaction and their physical and mental wellbeing (Sauter, Hurrell & Cooper, 1989; Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1992). For a long time these employee -initiated changes in the job were neglected by researchers. Most research was about the job design initiated by the employer or the manager (e.g. Hackman & Oldham, 1976). The concept where the notion is that employees themselves shape, model and redefine their job was first recognized and named in the beginning of the 21 st century. Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) labeled this concept job crafting. Job crafting was found to contribute to job satisfaction, engagement and it affects employees mental and physical wellbeing (e.g. Berg, Grant & Johnson, 2010). Because of these positive outcomes, managers might be interested in stimulating job crafting behavior. But in this managers are facing difficulties since job crafting comes from the individual without input from the manager (Lyons, 2008). In order to find out what causes employees job crafting behavior, research has been done about the conditions for job crafting (e.g. Berg, Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2007; Berg, Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2010). Most researchers found employees motivations, such as the need for human connection with others (Berg et all., 2010) and the need for control over the job (Berg, Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2007) as important conditions for job crafting behavior. These motivations come from the orientations people hold toward work. (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). A motivational orientation is how an employee sees the work (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler and Tipton, 1985). When work is seen as a job, the employee is primary focused on the financial reward. When an employee sees work as a career, the primary focus is on advancement and self-development, and when work is seen as a calling, the primary focus is on enjoyment or fulfillment (Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin & Schwartz, 1997). These different views of work lead to different motivations and ways of job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). But how can it be explained that two people with the same motivational orientation show different job crafting behavior? What seems to be lacking in the conditions for job crafting research, suggested in the current literature, is the job context. Since motivational orientations are seen as personal traits (Wrzesniewski, et all., 1997) the difference in the way and the amount of job crafting can be explained by the trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003). This theory is about activating behavior that belongs to a certain personal trait (Tett & Guterman, 2000). Translating this theory to the link between motivational orientations and job crafting behavior, there has to be an activator for the behavior that belongs to a certain motivational orientation. This activator will activate job crafting behavior that belongs to a certain motivational orientation. An important activator for job crafting behavior is job autonomy since job autonomy determines the leeway employees experience to show job crafting behavior (Black & Ashford, 1995). Two people with the same motivational orientation could differ in the amount of job crafting behavior depending on their level of job autonomy. Hence, including the 3

4 job context, as determined by the amount of job autonomy, could contribute to our understanding of job crafting behavior. The understanding of the role of the job context in job crafting research can offer an opportunity for managers to support job crafting, since managers can exert an influence on job context by giving employees more or less autonomy. This leads to the following research question: To what extend does job autonomy moderate the relationship between motivational orientations and job crafting? Because previous research about job crafting merely ignored the job context as a condition for job crafting, this paper will contribute to the existing literature by giving an overview of how both job context and employee personal traits can influence job crafting. Managers can learn from this research by getting knowledge how to design the job context in a way to support job crafting behavior. In this paper first the concept of job crafting is examined by giving an overview of the existing literature and theories, following by the hypotheses and the conceptual model. After this theoretical framework the methods used to conduct this research and the results will be presented. Finally the conclusion will be given and a discussion will be presented including the limitations of this research and the implications for further research. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Changing minor things of your job: Job crafting Historically the idea is that the core job characteristics are more or less stable over time, unless the organization changes them (e.g. Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Although early research did not explicitly consider employees to change minor components of their jobs over time, employees have always been job crafting (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1992). Job crafting was first recognized as a phenomenon by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) who described job crafting as the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work. Hence job crafting involves shaping the task boundaries of a job, shaping the relational boundaries of a job or both, shaping the task boundaries and the relational boundaries (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Shaping task boundaries of the job includes taking on more of fewer tasks, expanding or diminishing the scope of the tasks, changing how to perform the tasks (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), or emphasizing or taking additional tasks related to one s passion (Berg et all., 2008). An example is an accountant creating a new method of filing taxes to make the job less repetitive (Berg et all., 2007). Shaping relational boundaries of the job includes altering the nature or extent of the interactions with people at work (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). An example is a computer technician who offers his 4

5 help to co-workers in a way to have more social connection with others (Berg et all., 2007). Employees who show more job crafting behavior report more achievement and fulfillment of valued identities (Grant, Alexander, Friesbeck, Jaffe, Kagan, Kamin, Kemerling, Long, Nagel, Paulding & Swayne, 2007), more enjoyment (Berg et all., 2010) and more personal growth (Barker Caza, 2007). Since previous research found positive outcomes of job crafting, the question raises why do not all employees show the maximum amount of job crafting behavior? Why do people show job crafting behavior? : Motivational orientation People have different needs they fulfill by performing a job. Because of these different needs, they have different motives to job craft (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). These different motives for job crafting can be explained using two complementary theoretical perspectives: the work identity theory and the job-demand-control theory. In this paragraph first the work identity theory and the jobdemand-control theory will be explained. After this, different motivational orientations toward work will be discussed and finally the different motivational orientations will be linked to the work identity theory and the job-demands-control-theory. People have different needs they seek to fulfill at work, for example the need for human connection with others (Berg et all., 2010) and the need for control over the job (Berg et all., 2007). The needs that people have depend on their work identity and the related work role they prefer. Employees have different work identities and a different view of their preferred work identity (Ibarra, 2003). The work identity is part of the social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In the social identity theory, a person does not have one personal self, not one identity. Rather a person has several personal selves. These personal selves refer to different group memberships. This means that different social contexts may trigger a person to feel, act and think on basis of a certain personal self. This will be the personal self which corresponds most to a certain social group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Social identity is a person s self-concept which is derived from the perceived membership of social groups (Hogg & Vaughan, 2002). An example of a social group is the work environment. At work people feel they are member of the company or for example of a project team and they will act in their personal self which is most close to the group identity. So the work environment will trigger them to act, feel and think in a way that is most appropriate for the work environment. This is a person s work identity. Work Identity theory (Ibarra, 2003) states that when the preferred identity is different from the current work identity, employees will seek for ways to get their preferred identity (Ibarra, 2003). Ones work identity is described as how we see ourselves in our professional roles, what we convey about ourselves to others and how we live our working lives (Ibarra, 2003). To get the preferred self-atwork, employees change things in their work. Hence, employees craft their job in order to get their preferred work identity (Tracy & Trethewey, 2005). People with different work identities, might experience different demands in their job. Job demands are sustained physical and psychological effort and are associated with physical and 5

6 psychological costs like work pressure (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Although every occupation may have its own specific risks for job stress, there are individual differences in how employees experience these situational demands. In addition, people call upon different resources to meet with the experienced demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). According to the job demand resource theory, job resources can reduce the stress effects of job demands (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). Employees search for resources to build a buffer for the demands experienced in their job (Bakker, Demerouti, Taris, Schaufeli, & Schreurs, 2003). Which resources employees use, depends on the availability of resources, but also on their motivational processes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Job crafting is a way in which employees build resources for themselves. Which resources are crafted can depend on the motive an employee has why to work. By combining job-demand-recourse-theory with work identity theory it follows that that employees in the same job call upon other resources, hence they could show different types of job crafting behavior depending on their needs. In the next section different motivational orientations for work will be explained. After this, the link between the motivational orientations and the work identity theory and the job-demand-control-theory will be discussed. People work for different reasons. In 1985 Bellah et all. classified those motives into three groups which was called the motivational orientation toward work: the financial orientation, the career orientation and the calling orientation. These motivational orientations were to some extend based on Maslow s hierarchy of needs. Bellah et all. (1985) translated Maslow s safety stage to the financial orientation. People who have this motivational orientation toward work see their work mainly as a job and focus on the financial reward of the job rather than on pleasure or fulfilment. Those people feel that they work because they have to work. The second motivational orientation Bellah et all. (1985) defined was related to Maslow s esteem stage. This orientation was labelled the career orientation. People with this motivational orientation focus primary on advancement and self-development. Those people feel that they work because they want to develop themselves. The final motivational orientation Bellah et all. (1985) defined was the calling orientation, which was based on Maslow s selfactualization stage. People with this orientation see their work as a calling and focus on enjoyment of fulfillment and often do socially useful and valuable work. People with this motivational orientation toward work feel that they work because they are called to do this work. Later research shows that each of the motivational orientations are represented within a wide range of occupations (Wrzesniewski et all., 1997). The different notions have influence on how people see their work and how they will behave at work. These individual views are stable over time and can be viewed of as personal traits (Wrzesniewski, et all., 1997). Personal traits can interact with the objective characteristics of the work (Hulin & Blood, 1968; Schneider, 1983). To conclude, financial orientations, career orientation and calling orientation toward work probably relate differently to job crafting. This can be explained by the work identity theory and the job-demand-control-theory. 6

7 Financial orientation People who have a financial orientation toward work see their work as a job and are primary focused on the financial rewards (Bellah et all., 1985). This means that for them work is not an end in itself but the financial reward for the work allows them to acquire the resources they need to enjoy the leisure time (Wrzesniewski et all., 1997). When the financial reward is not present, it will lead to dissatisfaction (motivation-hygiene theory; Herzberg, 1959). People with this motivational orientation will have a preferred work identity which consists of the following components: as little tasks as possible with the highest possible reward (Ibarra, 2003). In order to get as many reward as possible people with financial orientations will focus mainly on tasks which give them the highest reward (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). When looking at the job-demand-control-theory the biggest demand for people with a financial orientation is many, low rewarding tasks. In order to cope with this demand, financial oriented people will focus mainly on the tasks that do give them high rewards (based on the job-demand-resource-model: Demerouti, et all., 2001). In other words, people with a financial orientation toward work will craft the job in a way to change the task boundaries, in this way they can focus mainly on tasks with the highest reward (e.g. people with a variable salary will focus on doing as many as possible rather than on helping as many people as possible) (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). This leads to the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: The more a person has a financial orientation toward work, the more this person will show job crafting behavior in a way to change the task boundaries of the job (task crafting) Career orientation People with a career orientation toward work are primary interested in the advancement of their career (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Esteem reasons are the reasons why those employees work; they have the need for status and prestige (Maslow, 1943). They have a deeper personal investment in their work than people with financial orientations (Wrzesniewski et all., 1997). In contrast with people with a financial orientation, people with a career orientation not only mark their achievements through financial reward but through advancement within the occupational structure and through self-development (Wrzesniewski et all., 1997). People with this motivational orientation want to change their work identity to an identity that has more prestige and power (Ibarra, 2003). This leads to a higher social standing and higher selfesteem (Bellah et all., 1985). Those people are willing to get higher in the organization and want to have promotion. To reach their preferred work identity they focus on tasks which are highly visible in the organization and they have relationships with the most important people in the organization (Ibarra, 2003). Translating this to the job-demand-control-theory the demands for career oriented employees are doing non- visible tasks and having relationships with people who are lower in rank in 7

8 the organization than they are themselves. In order to tackle those demands they will focus mainly on tasks that are highly visible and maintain relationships with people that are more powerful in the organization than they are themselves (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). In other words, people who have a more career orientation toward work will job craft in a way to change relational boundaries in order to get interaction and be visible for the more powerful people in the organization. People with a career orientation are also likely to engage more in high-viable tasks that are good for the organization, they will job craft in a way to change task boundaries in a way to focus more on the high-visible tasks. This leads to the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: The more a person has a career orientation toward work, the more this person will show job crafting behavior in a way to change both, task and relational boundaries of the job Calling orientation Finally, people with a calling orientation toward their job focus primary on enjoyment and fulfillment (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Having a calling was historically used in religious context, where people were understood to be called by God to do certain morally and socially important work (Weber, 1956). The modern notion of having a calling has lost its religious connection but having a calling is still seen as work that people do because they feel they are called to do this (Wrzesniewski et all., 1997). Usually, the calling is seen as socially or morally valuable and useful (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). People with a calling orientation toward work believe that their work is inseparable from their private life (Wezesniewski, 2003). In contrast to people with a financial or a career orientation, people with a calling orientation expect more from their work than financial reward and promotions (Rousseau, Ho & Greenberg, 2006). People with a calling orientation have a passion for an occupation and this is part of their personal identity (Berg et all., 2010). For those people their personal identity is preferred to be their work identity. When their passion is not fully integrated in their work, they are willing to change their work in order to integrate their passion (Ibarra, 2003). Translating this to the job-demand-controltheory, people with a calling orientation toward work see tasks and relationships which are not socially and morally valuable and useful as demands. To cope with those demands they focus on tasks and relationships that are socially and morally valuable and useful and to tasks and relationship that help them to integrate their passion into their work (Grant & Johnson, 2010). The process of changing the tasks of the work can be done in several ways: first; giving more attention, time and energy to tasks which are more related to one s passion, second; Taking on additional tasks that are related to one s passion and third; Reframing the social purpose of the work in order to get a better fit with one s passion (Berg et all., 2010). From the first two ways can be concluded that people with calling orientations will job craft in way to change the task boundaries of the job. From the third way, together with the work of 8

9 Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), who found that people with a calling orientation are likely to change the quality and/ or amount of interaction with others to better fit the work with one s identity, can be concluded that people with a calling orientation will job craft in a way to change the relational boundaries of the job. This leads to the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 3: The more a person has a calling orientation toward work, the more this person will show job crafting behavior, in a way to change the task and relational boundaries of the job Putting motives into job crafting behavior: the moderation effect of job autonomy The different motivational orientations toward work lead to different ways of job crafting. But not all employees with the same motivational orientation show job crafting behavior in the same way and to the same extent. Since a motivational orientation is seen as a personal trait (Wrzesniewski, et all., 1997) the difference in the way and the amount of job crafting can be explained by the trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003). In the next section this theory is explained followed by the link between the theory and motivational orientation, job crafting behavior and job autonomy. In the early 1990 s Barrick and Mount (1991) concluded in their meta-analysis that the context plays a big role in the differences of behaviors of people who seem to have the same personal traits. At that time it was not clear what the role of the context exactly was, Barrick and Mount (1991) only presumed that there were certain situational moderators. Later, Tett and Burnett (2003) came with the idea that the situation itself is the moderator. In their trait activation theory they stated that people can only act on their preferences when the environment allows and/ or stimulates them to do so. The trait activation theory focuses on the interaction between the person and the situation. This interaction is used to explain behavior on basis of responses to the situation (Tett & Guterman, 2000). The emphasis of this theory is to understand why traits are shown more in one situation than in another situation (Tett & Burnett, 2003). A situation is relevant to a trait when it provides space to enact trait- relevant behavior. It is about activating behavior that belongs to a certain personal trait (Tett & Guterman, 2000). Translating this theory to the link between motivational orientations and job crafting behavior, there has to be an activator for the behavior that belongs to a certain motivational orientation. This activator will activate job crafting behavior that belongs to the motivational orientation someone holds. An important activator here is job autonomy since job autonomy determines the leeway employees experience to show job crafting behavior (Black & Ashford, 1995). Job autonomy is the degree of freedom and the authority an employee has over the job (Evans & Fischer, 1992). Job autonomy is the situational activator of the behavior that suits employees with a certain motivational orientation to job craft, in a way of giving them more or less leeway to show behavior that suits their motivational orientation. This is why two people with the same motivational orientation could differ in the way and the amount of job crafting behavior. 9

10 Job autonomy can restrict or open up possibilities for employees to job craft. In low autonomy jobs, where managers closely control employees time and tasks, job crafting that belongs to a certain motivational orientation is not activated (Wezesniewski & Dutton, 2001). In high autonomy jobs on the other hand, employees may perceive more opportunities to be creative and decide for themselves what to do at what time (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey & Tighe, 1994). In this situation the activator, job autonomy, does activate behavior that suits with the motivational orientation to job craft. For employees with a financial orientation the behavior that belongs to this orientation is to focus mainly on highly rewarded tasks, to job craft in a way to change the task boundaries of the job (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). In this situation high autonomy will stimulate this behavior. Low autonomy will not activate and stimulate job crafting behavior (trait activation theory: Tett & Burnett, 2003). This leads to the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 4a: The relationship between having a financial orientation and job crafting in a way to change task boundaries of the job will be stronger when job autonomy is higher The behavior that follows from having a career orientation is job crafting in a way to focus more on the high visible tasks and interact more with people who are more powerful in the organization than they are themselves (Wrzesniewski et all., 1997). This job crafting behavior will be stimulated and activated by giving high autonomy (trait activation theory: Tett & Burnett, 2003). So, people with a career orientation will show more job crafting behavior in a way to change task boundaries and relational boundaries of the job when job autonomy is higher. This leads to the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 4b: The relationship between having a career orientation and job crafting in a way to change task boundaries and relational boundaries of the job will be stronger when job autonomy is higher Finally, the behavior that belongs to having a calling orientation will be stimulated by higher job autonomy. This behavior is focusing on the tasks and relationships which contribute to one s passion and which are socially and morally valuable and useful (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). In other words job crafting behavior in order to change the task and relational boundaries of the job. A low level of job autonomy will not activate this behavior, a high level of job autonomy, on the other hand, will activate this behavior (trait activation theory: Tett & Burnett, 2003). This leads to the following hypothesis: 10

11 Hypothesis 4c: The relationship between having a calling orientation and job crafting in a way to change task boundaries and relational boundaries of the job will be stronger when job autonomy is higher This theoretical framework leads to the following conceptual model: METHOD Design, population and sample Data were collected by means of questionnaires concerning a large number of human resource related subjects. Two different questionnaires were used, one for the employees and one for the departmental manager. The questionnaires were collected from 400 employees in different sectors within the Netherlands. In all organizations employed at least 50 employees. In every organization data was collected at least at one department. Each department had a minimum of 7 employees. For this research only the employee questionnaires were used. 48 percent of the participating employees are male and 52 percent are female. The mean age of the participants is years old (SD=12.145). 11

12 Procedure The data were collected by 51 premaster students who are following the course research in human recourse studies at Tilburg University and by 5 human recourse studies master students from Tilburg University. Every student collected data from at least 75 percent of the employees of a department and the departmental manager at least at one department in one organization. The questionnaires were handed out with a cover letter in which anonymity was guaranteed and in which the aim of the questionnaire was explained. Measures Job crafting Job crafting was measured with a 14 item scale based on work by Tim and Bakker (2010). Two factors were chosen based on the scree plot of the Oblimin rotated factor analysis, which could be labeled task crafting and relational crafting (see Table 4 and 5 in Appendix 1). The first factor (task crafting) explained % of the variance and the second factor (relational crafting) explained 34.75%. Task crafting was measured with 8 items. All questions started with: How often did you do.. in the last year?. A sample of an item is: I, by myself, made my work more challenging. The answers categories were ranged on a 7-point likert scale, from never to always- daily. The reliability of the task crafting scale was.825. Relational crafting was measured with 6 items. All questions started with: How often did you do.. in the last year?. A sample of an item is: I, by myself, ask advice from my co-workers to solve difficulties in my job. The answers categories ranged on a 7-point likert scale, from never to alwaysdaily. The relational crafting scale had a reliability of.723. Job autonomy Job autonomy was measured with 4 items, based on the questionnaire developed by van Veldhoven and Meijman (1994). All questions started with: How often do you do the following?. An example of an item is: I can decide by myself how much time I spend on a certain activity. The answer categories ranged from never to always and were measured on a 4-point likert scale. Previous research showed that the Cronbach s Alpha of this scale is 0.9 (van Veldhoven, Meijman, Broersen & Fortuin, 2002). In this research the reliability of this scale was.832 and factor analyses showed that the scale measured one factor (see Table 9 in Appendix 1). Motivational orientation The motivational orientation scale was developed by Wrzesniewski, et all. (1997). According to the literature this scale should consist of three factors: financial orientation, career orientation and calling orientation. Looking at the scree plot, no such distinction could be found. Even when oblimin 12

13 and varimax rotations were used, the three expected factors could not be found. Then, three factor analyses were performed for each construct separately. This lead to the following scales that were used to measure financial orientation, career orientation and calling orientation (see Table 6, 7 and 8 in Appendix 1): Financial orientation was measured with 7 items. All questions started with: To what extent do you agree with the following?. An example of an item is: My primary reason for working is financial to support my family and lifestyle. The answer categories ranged from totally disagree to totally agree and were measured on a 5-point likert scale. The factor analyses showed that the scale measured one factor. The reliability of this scale turned out to be.686. Career orientation was measured with 4 items. All questions started with: To what extent do you agree with the following?. An example of an item is: I expect to be at a higher position in five years. The answer categories ranged from totally disagree to totally agree and are measured on a 5- point likert scale. This scale measured one factor and had a reliability of.761. Calling orientation was measured with 7 items. All questions started with: To what extent do you agree with the following?. An example of an item is: My work is one of the most important things of my life. The answer categories ranged from totally disagree to totally agree and were measured on a 5-point likert scale. This scale measured one factor and turned out to be very reliable (.832). Control variables In order to make sure that the results found in this study are not caused by spuriousness and to enhance the generalizability, some control variables were added. The control variables are: age, educational level, gender and task interdependency. The control variables will be introduced briefly. Age Previous research showed that when people age, they become more selective in the tasks they perform, so they are job crafting to change the task boundaries of the job (Fried, Grant, Levi, Hadani & Slowik, 2007). For this reason age was added as a control variable. Age was measured by the question: What is your year of birth?. Age is measured as the number of full years from the year of birth to 2011 (this year). Educational level Previous research found that higher educated employees have a more calling orientation toward work while lower skilled employees have a more financial orientation toward work. Also higher skilled employees seek the perceived opportunity to job craft in themselves where lower educated employees seek the opportunity to job craft in others. This makes higher educated employees better able to job craft (Berg, et all, 2010). Educational level was measured with the question What is your highest, completed educational level?, the answer categories were: Elementary, Basis, Middle, Higher and Academic. For these answer categories dummy variables were made. Elementary was labeled 1, basis was labeled 2, middle was labeled 3, higher was labeled 4 and academic was labeled 5. 13

14 Task interdependency Task interdependency is included as a control variable, since previous research has shown that the level of job interdependency can restrict more or less the freedom to job craft. This in a sense that less interdependence with coworkers create more freedom for job crafting by enhancing the perceived opportunity to craft. On the other hand, when an employee is highly dependent on co-workers this may restrict the job crafting opportunities (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Job interdependency was measured with four questions. An example is: I depend on my colleague for the completion of my work. The answer categories ranged from absolutely disagree (1) to absolutely agree (5). Factor analysis showed that these items measured one factor and reliability analysis showed that this scale is very reliable (.812). RESULTS Descriptive statistics and correlations The first part of Table 1, shows the number of participants, the means, the standard deviations and the correlations of the variables in this sample, including the control variables. Since the missing values were deleted pair wise, the different correlations have different numbers of participants. This table shows a relatively strong correlation between the two forms of job crafting; task crafting and relational crafting (r=.495 p<.001). Also between the different motivational orientations some relatively strong correlations are found, for example the correlation between having a financial orientation and having a calling orientation (r=.348, p<.01). In contradiction to the expectations, a negative correlation was found between having a financial orientation and task crafting (r=-.115, p<.05). On the other hand no significant correlation was found between having a financial orientation and relational crafting, this is in line with the expectations. Another finding in line with the expectations is the significant correlation between having a career orientation and task crafting (r=.122, p<.05) as well as relational crafting (r=2.36, sig<.01). For having a calling orientation, a correlation was found with task crafting (r=.144, sig<.01), which also is in line with the expectations. Interestingly, no significant correlation was found between calling orientation and relational crafting, which is in contradiction of the expectations. What is remarkable is that a significant correlation was found between job autonomy and both types of job crafting (task crafting: r=.291, p<.01, relational crafting: r=.130, p<.05). This could imply an effect of job autonomy on job crafting. Furthermore some of the control variables were found to correlate relatively high with certain model variables. For example educational level and having a financial orientation (r=-.236, p<.01) and the correlation between task interdependency and relational crafting (r=.184, p<.01). This could imply that those control variables could interfere with the relationships in the model. 14

15 TABLE 1: MEANS (M), STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) AND PEARSON-CORRELATIONS (R) N M SD r Job crafting - task Job crafting - relational ** 3. Financial orientation * Career orientation *.236** Calling orientation ** **.203** 6. Job autonomy **.130* -.192** ** 7. Age (year of birth) ** ** ** Educational level *.109* -.236** * (1= none, 2= basic, 3=middle, 4= higher, 5= academic) 9. Gender * ** (1=man, 2=woman) 10. Task interdependency ** -.173** * ** p <.05 ** p <.01 15

16 Results of regression analyses The relationships in the conceptual model suggest an interaction model. Brambor, Clark and Golder (2005) suggest that although interaction models are often used in research, the execution of these models is often deficient and errors are common. They therefore present several ways in which interaction analyses can be improved. The first step is that interaction terms should be included in the analysis (Brambor et al., 2006). The fourth hypothesis of this research contains an interaction effect, so the interaction terms financial orientation x job autonomy, career orientation x job autonomy and calling orientation x job autonomy were included in the analyses. The second step is to include each of the elements that are part of the interaction term in the analyses. These steps were taken into account. Table 2 and Table 3 show both the unstandardized (B) and the standardized regression coefficients (β) of the regression analyses. For this research two regression analyses were conducted, one with task crafting as independent variable and one with relational crafting as dependent variable. Both analyses consisted of four blocks. In the first block the motivational orientations were added as independent variables; financial orientation, career orientation and calling orientation. Even though no effect was expected of financial orientation on relational crafting, financial orientation was included in the analyses with relational crafting as independent variable to alienate this effect. In the second block job autonomy was added in both analyses, in order to check if job autonomy has an effect on job crafting. The third block of both analyses consisted of the interaction effects of job autonomy (financial orientation x job autonomy, career orientation x job autonomy and calling orientation x job autonomy) and finally in the fourth block the control variables (age, educational level, gender and task interdependency) were added. The results of these analyses will be discussed now. The first regression analysis shows that the expected interaction effect of job autonomy on the relationship between motivational orientation and task crafting was not found since the third block provides a R 2 of.009 with a non-significant F (p =.310). This means that job autonomy will not explicitly activate job crafting behavior for someone with for example a career orientation. Even though job autonomy is not a moderator of the relationship between motivational orientation and task crafting, the first regression analysis shows that job autonomy has a direct relationship with task crafting (β=.249, p<0.01). This means that the more job autonomy a person has, the more this person will job craft in a way to change task boundaries, and this is unrelated with the motivational orientation of this person. Besides this relationship, the first regression analysis shows two other significant relationships (see Table 2). One of these two relationships is in line with hypothesis two. Career orientation has a positive significant relationship with task crafting (β=.098, p<.1). In other words, the more a person has a career orientation, the more this person will show job crafting behavior in a way to change the task boundaries of a job. The first analysis also shows a negative significant relationship between financial orientation and task crafting (β=-.096, p<.1). This is the contradiction to the expectation of 16

17 hypothesis 1. This implies that the more a person has a financial orientation, the less the person will show job crafting behavior in a way to change the task boundaries of the job. The second regression analysis shows that, the expected interaction effect of job autonomy on the relationship between motivational orientation and relational crafting was not found (see Table 3). The third block provides a R 2 of.004 with a non-significant F (p =.484). This means that job autonomy will not activate behavior that belongs to for example a career orientation in a way to job craft. Also in this model, job autonomy was found to have an influence. Job autonomy was found to have a direct effect on relational crafting (β=.119, p=.022). Again, this means that the more job autonomy a person has, the more this person will job craft in a way to change relational boundaries, and this is unrelated with the motivational orientation of this person. Career orientation has a positive significant relationship with relational crafting (β=.098, p<.1). This relationship is in line with hypothesis 2. This means that he more a person has a career orientation, the more this person will show job crafting behavior in a way to change the relational boundaries of a job. No other significant effects were found. Taken these two regression analyses together, it was found that the two most important predictors for job crafting are having a career orientation and job autonomy. In this first analysis job autonomy is the most important predictor (β=.249, p<.01), followed by having a career orientation (β=.098, p<.1). In the second analysis this is the other way around. The most important predictor of relational crafting is having a career orientation (β=.231, p<.01), followed by job autonomy (β=.119, p<.01). Looking back at the hypotheses the following can be concluded: hypothesis one, three and four a, b and c hypothesis cannot be confirmed. The findings show the opposite results as were expected in hypothesis one. The more a person has a financial orientation, the less this person will show job crafting behavior in a way to change the task boundaries of a job. The second hypothesis can be slightly confirmed, when the significance level is set on.1. The more a person has a career orientation, the more this person will job craft in a way to change task boundaries as well as relational boundaries of the job. For employees with a calling orientation, it is hard to say anything about their job crafting behavior since none of these effects are significant (hypothesis 3). Also no interaction effect was found of job autonomy on the relationship between motivational orientations and job crafting (hypothesis 4). The results found in these analyses were not disturbed by age, gender, educational level or task interdependency since none of these control variables have an influence. The R² of the last block in both models ( R 2 of the first analysis:.008 and of the second analysis:.005) is not significant better than the other blocks. 17

18 TABLE 2: REGRESSION FOR TASK CRAFTING Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 B β B β B β B β Task crafting Financial orientation -.188* -.096* Career orientation.197*.098*.184*.092* Calling orientation Job autonomy.415***.249*** Financial orientation x job autonomy Career orientation x job autonomy Calling orientation x job autonomy Age Educational level Gender Task interdependency

19 R F 4.248*** 9.260*** 5.815** R F 4.248*** *** ** p <.1 ** p <.05 ***p <.01 19

20 TABLE 3: REGRESSION FOR RELATIONAL CRAFTING Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4 B β B β B β B β Relational crafting Financial orientation Career orientation.430***.231***.423***.227*** Calling orientation Job autonomy.184**.119** Financial orientation x job autonomy Career orientation x job autonomy Calling orientation x job autonomy Age Educational level Gender Task interdependency

21 R F *** 8.662*** 5.481** R F *** 5.300** ** p <.1 ** p <.05 ***p <.01 21

22 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION This research was about the effect of motivational orientation on job crafting behavior and the moderating effect of job autonomy on this relationship. These relationships were researched because previous research suggested that the job context is lacking in current job crafting research. In this research, no evidence was found for the moderating effect of job autonomy on the relationship between motivational orientations and job crafting. Instead a direct effect of job autonomy on job crafting was found. It tuned out that the two most important predictors for job crafting behavior are job autonomy and having a career orientation. In this section first the most important findings of this research will be discussed. Next, the limitations of this research will be presented and finally the implications of future research and practical implications will be given. The most important findings of this research will be discussed on basis of the main variables in this research: the moderation effect of job autonomy, the effect of financial orientation, career orientation and calling orientation on job crafting. Based on previous research (e.g. Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) and theory (trait activation theory: Tett & Burnett, 2003), this research expected a moderation effect of job autonomy on the relationship between motivational orientations and job crafting. Instead a direct effect of job autonomy on job crafting was found. This implies that employees with high autonomy will show more job crafting behavior, independent of their motivational orientation. Looking at the definition of job autonomy: the degree of freedom and the authority an employee has over the job (Evans & Fischer, 1992), it can be said that job autonomy is the formal freedom an employee has in the job. This because it is the freedom the manager or the organization gives to the employees. In other words job autonomy is the leeway an employee has in the job which is given by the manager. On the other hand, job crafting is the informal freedom an employee has in the job since job crafting is changing minor things of the job without discussing with the manager (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). The results of this research can be translated as: the more formal freedom an employee has in the job the more informal freedom. People with more autonomy in their job can plan their work by themselves and are controlled less. This gives them the opportunity to change minor things by themselves. In theory the difference between job autonomy and job crafting is clear, but the question raises: to what extend differ job crafting and job autonomy in practice?. Is job crafting still job crafting when an employee has much formal freedom? When the freedom is formally given, is there still room for informal freedom? More research about the relationship between job crafting and job autonomy is needed to answer these questions. In contradiction to previous research (e.g. Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) a negative effect of having a financial orientation on task crafting was found. This implies that the more a person has a financial orientation, the less this person will change the task boundaries of the job. So people who

23 work mainly for the money will not change anything about the tasks of their job. This can be explained by the following: those people only do their tasks and do not want to put any more energy in the job than is needed, even not when this energy can lead to fewer tasks. In their qualitative research Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) found that employees with a financial orientation toward work will focus mainly on tasks that give them the highest reward possible, so they will be job crafting in a way to get fewer tasks. The difference between the findings of Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and the results of this research can be explained by the measurement. The questionnaire of this research consisted of questions about getting fewer tasks and taking on more tasks; both types of questions were called job crafting. This can give a biased view of job crafting. In their qualitative research Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) asked specific questions about job crafting and the way of job crafting. Future research can contribute here by synchronizing the qualitative findings and the questionnaire used in quantitative research. More bias was found between findings of qualitative research and this quantitative research. In their qualitative research, Grand and Johnson (2010) found a positive effect of having a calling orientation on job crafting. This implies that the more employees feel that they are called to do a certain job, the more they change minor things of their job in order to let it fit better to their passion or values. This research did not found any relationship between having a calling orientation and job crafting. The difference between these findings can also be explained by the measurement. In their research Grant and Johnson (2010) asked specific questions about someone s passion and the way of job crafting. In this research only general questions about having a calling orientation were asked by means of a questionnaire. Another explanation for this difference can be found in the sample. Grant and Johnson s (2010) research was mainly conducted among lectures of lower education schools and universities. Since this research is much broader in the occupations, this can be the reason why Grant and Johnson (2010) did find an effect and this research did not. More research about having a calling orientation is needed among different groups of employees and also here synchronizing qualitative findings and questionnaires used in quantitative research is needed. Beside those findings in contradiction to previous research, this research did also find a result which is in line with previous research: career orientation is an important predictor for job crafting; both task crafting and relational crafting. So the more a person works for advancement and selfdevelopment, the more this person will change minor things of the job. The reason for this can be because they want to be visible in the company to get promotion. This research showed that job context and personal traits do both matter since job autonomy and having a career orientation are the most important predictors of job crafting; both task crafting and relational crafting. It is a combination of personal traits and context that makes that people job craft. But what exactly the personal traits and the context is and how they relate to each other, is still unclear. 23