Job crafting How and why is it that job crafting practices differ between younger and older employees: a qualitative study.

Transcription

1 Job crafting How and why is it that job crafting practices differ between younger and older employees: a qualitative study. Master thesis: Matthijs Holstein Supervisor: Dr. T.A.M. Kooij Second supervisor: Dr. A.P.J.G. Vossen Research theme: Older employees and job crafting Research period: January 2011 December 2011 Tilburg University, December 2011

2 Table of content Table of content... 2 Abstract... 3 Introduction... 4 Theoretical framework... 5 Work design, a proactive approach; job crafting... 5 Defining age... 7 Ageing: several life-span theories to take into consideration... 7 Change in perception: Socio-emotional selectivity theory... 9 Expectations Methodology Research design The sample Data collection Data analysis Results Conclusion and discussion Task crafting Relational crafting Cognitive crafting Reflecting back on the expectations Limitations and future research Practical implications Reference list Appendix 1 Interview protocol English version Appendix 2 Interview topic (including questions) used for this study Dutch version Appendix 3 Sample Matrix Appendix 4 - Codes Appendix 5 Job crafting practices

3 Abstract By applying a qualitative research this study wanted to explore how and why job crafting practices differ between younger and older employees. Job crafting theory, entailing how people actively shape their own job, was combined with several life-span theories as well as the socio-emotional selectivity theory to establish a set of expectations on how older and younger employees would craft their job and why this might differ. As individuals age they are expected to deal with a certain amount of loss in resources. This study applied the job-demands resources model as it has been suggested by Tims and Bakker (2010) to examine how and why older and younger employees made alterations to their job. As part of a larger research conducted by five other Master students at Tilburg University, semi-structured interviews were conducted at six different organizations resulting in a total sample of 60 respondents. Coding was applied to analyze the data. The results showed differences as well as some similarities between younger and older employees. Specifically, some of the findings of this study suggest that both younger and older employees added tasks to their existing set of tasks but differed in what kind of tasks they would add. Lowering the amount of tasks was only reported by older employees. Older employees reported increasing their job resources (asking for support) to be able to deal with their job demands. Older employees also emphasized the importance of their social life in comparison to their work life which led them to decrease their work demands. Finally, this study proposes several propositions regarding job crafting and the differences between younger and older employees which may be used in future research. Key words: Age, Job crafting, Selection Optimization Compensation theory, Optimization in Primary and Secondary control, Socio-emotional selectivity theory. 3

4 Introduction One of the biggest challenges for the next coming decades is the unprecedented growth of the older workforce (OECD, 1998). In the Netherlands, in 2008 the average age of the workforce was 40,3 years old (CBS, 2009) and in 2010 almost half of the workforce was expected to be 45 years old or older (Van Dalen, Henkens & Schippers 2010). As the increasing amount of older employees will have an impact on many organizations it will be important for organizations to create specific policies for these employees (Van Dalen et al., 2010). But what is the specific role of employees themselves and how do they influence their own job? There is an increasing amount of literature available showing that employees play an important role in actively shaping their own job (Frese, Garst & Fay 2007; Parker, Bindl & Strauss, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Job crafting, a type of work design, is a form of pro-activity and entails how employees influence their own job characteristics (Berg, Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2010). Job crafting is a concept which has only been developed in the last decade. It is defined as the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in task or relational boundaries of their work (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p. 179). In contrast to other work design theories such as job design and idiosyncratic deals, with job crafting the employee is the one in control of designing the job without collaboration of the manager (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). According to the job crafting model developed by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) employees engage in three different types of practices with regards to job crafting. It remains unclear in the literature how job crafting practices might differ between younger and older employees. Older employees are expected to differ considerably in their capabilities and needs, compared to their younger colleagues (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004). According to the life-span theory, as individuals age they will experience a shift on how they use their available resources, allocating less resources towards growth and more towards maintenance and regulation of loss (Baltes, Staudinger & Lindenberger, 1999). Growth can be described as behavior focused at attaining higher levels of functioning, maintenance on maintaining levels of functioning and loss focused on lower levels of functioning when maintenance or recovery of resources is no longer possible (Baltes et al., 1999). To deal with the maintenance and regulation of loss, several life-span theories have been described in the literature. Based on the life-span theories such as the optimization in primary and secondary control (Heckhausen, 1997) and the Selection Optimization Compensation (SOC) theory (Baltes and Baltes, 1990) which are all focused on coping with age-related losses, the conclusion could be made that as individuals age they are focused on different goals and value different aspects in life and work compared to younger individuals. One might assume that this will also be reflected in the type of job crafting practices older employees engage in. Younger employees might for example be focused on taking on (additional) tasks to 4

5 enhance their development whereas older employees might select a task they are very good at and/or choose a specific task to compensate for other tasks in which they experience a loss. This study will focus specifically on job crafting practices used by older employees and how and why these might differ from younger employees. Research on job crafting is quite sparse. Specifically related to older employees no research is available yet, making it an interesting topic to further investigate and to add to both the job crafting literature as well as to the ageing literature. Furthermore, job crafting is not necessarily aligned with the outcomes desired by the organization (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Which makes it even more important for organizations to understand how job crafting works and which practices are involved. This study is based on available literature but because aging literature has not been applied to job crafting before this study is also partly inductive. The theory part of the proposal will finish with clearly defined expectations based on these theories. After this, semi-structured interviews will be applied to gather data. Because literature on job crafting is quite sparse, a mix of both a deductive and an inductive research would be valuable to enhance research on job crafting forward. Through answers obtained by the semi structured interviews this study hopes to contribute to the already existing literature of job crafting and theories focused on individuals as they age. This study hopes to be able to reach this goal by establishing clear propositions with regards to job crafting practices and the differences between younger and older employees. Thus the following research question is formulated: What are the different types of job crafting practices older employees employ and how and why do these practices differ compared to younger employees? Theoretical framework The theoretical framework will start with an outline of job crafting followed by theories related to the development of individuals as they age. Life-span theories, which focus specifically on the development of individuals will be applied in this research. They will be applied to help understand and determine how job crafting practices of older employees might differ from practices applied by younger employees. As has been mentioned before, this study is a mix form of both a deductive as well as an inductive study. It is not the aim of this study to test hypotheses but based on the available literature, expectations regarding the theory will be formulated to have some form of a reference framework. Work design, a proactive approach; job crafting By using job crafting an employee is able to influence and shape the meaning of their work as well as their work identity (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Job crafting is a bottom-up approach with employees playing a proactive role in designing the job themselves (Horung, Rouseau, Glaser, Angerer & 5

6 Weigl, 2010). This is an important contrast in comparison to idiosyncratic deals and job design. Not only because it is a bottom up approach but also because it is an ongoing process (Horung et al., 2010). Furthermore, job crafting is also a process which might happen unnoticed by employers as an employer does not always recognize job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). People engage in job crafting because they want to have personal control over their job, they wish to have a positive self image of the job to be expressed and confirmed by others and finally they are motivated to do so to satisfy their need for human connection (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Baumeister and Leary (1995) describe this last need as the need to establish relationships with others as a way to establish meaning into their lives. According to Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) job crafting can take three different forms: in the first form employees create a different job by altering the amount of tasks or the type of tasks they perform which was primary set for them. The second form involves a change in the relational boundary of the job. In this second form of job crafting the employee chooses the quality and quantity of the relationships they have with colleagues. The last form of job crafting comes about when an employee changes the cognitive task of the job by, for example, giving a different meaning to the job (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Tims and Bakker (2010) have combined the theory on job crafting with the job-demands and resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Job demands refer to physical, social and organizational aspects of the job that are in need of physical, social and/or cognitive effort and this is why they are associated with certain physical and physiological cost (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p. 3). Job resources are the physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that in the first place may be needed to achieve the desired work outcomes. Secondly, they may be needed to decrease job demands and the related physiological and psychological costs. Finally, job resources can be used for personal growth and development (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p. 3). Tims and Bakker (2010) propose that employees may change their degree of job demands and resources to make them fit with their personal desired outcomes and abilities. They consider three types of job crafting practices. The first practice describes the employee increasing the level of job resources in order to handle the job demands. Although it is unclear exactly how; possibly this could be done through training to increase the skills. The second practice relates to increasing the level of job demands. This is done to create a better alignment with an individual s abilities by for example altering the amount of tasks to create more challenges. The third practice entails decreasing the level of job demands when for example the job demands go beyond the capacity of an employee. This can for example be done by reducing tasks which are too demanding and thus lowering one s workload (Tims & Bakker, 2010). 6

7 Defining age Age can be conceptualized in many different ways. Many studies researching age influences on work behavior, have applied chronological age. One of the reasons for this is that chronological age is the primary sign of aging in the workplace (Kooij, De Lange, Jansen, Kanfer & Dikkers, 2011). Accordingly, this study will also use chronological age in its research. Ageing: several life-span theories to take into consideration A core theme shared in the life-span theories is the focus on resources. The model of conservation of resources (Hobfoll, 1989) proposes that people strive to retain, protect and build resources. What is threatening to people is the potential loss of these resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Several life-span theories describe the development of an individual as they age (e.g. Baltes et al., 1999; Heckhausen, 1997; Bajor & Baltes, 2003). Because of losses which occur due to a decrease in biological potential and because the benefits of learning decrease compared to a younger individual, an older individual needs more time and practice to be able to achieve the same learning gains as well as reaching the same level of performance and functioning as a younger individual (Baltes et al., 1999). The life-span theories seem to provide an answer as to why and how an older employee deals with the potential loss of resources. According to Baltes et al. (1999) the main idea behind the life span theories is that as individuals age they move from a focus on growth to a focus on maintaining and keeping the loss of resources to a minimum. The Selection, Optimization and Compensation (SOC) theory (Baltes & Baltes, 1990) entails that a person s personal resources (social, physical and mental) are limited as an individual ages and that these resources will become stretched as an individual becomes older (Bajor & Baltes, 2003). The SOC theory describes how through choosing the most important outcomes (selection), optimizing resources in achieving these chosen outcomes and compensating for outcomes which no longer can be achieved, a loss in performance can be avoided and age-related gains are maximized (Baltes et al., 1999). The main idea behind the SOC theory is that selection, optimization and compensation together need to be applied when aging successfully and if one of the strategies is only used little this can be compensated by using the other two strategies (Zacher & Frese, 2011). When for example an individual makes less use of selection of goals this can be compensated by increasing the amount of optimization of resources and by better compensating by using alternative strategies to be able to attain the desired goals (Zacher & Frese, 2011). Applying the SOC theory, this study expects that older employees will try to craft their job in a way that they are able to reduce their workload by letting go of tasks which they are no longer capable of accomplishing and by selecting tasks which are of importance to them. Resources to complete these selected tasks will be optimized by investing time and energy in these selected tasks (Zacher & Frese, 2011). Tasks which are no longer attainable will be compensated. This could for example be done by 7

8 asking colleagues for support or by using tools, making it easier to execute a task. Applying this last strategy, employees will not only be able to compensate for tasks but also be able to increase the job resources to be able to deal with their job demands in accordance to the theory of Tims and Bakker (2010). The life-span theory of primary and secondary control focuses on the control an individual has on the outcome he or she is pursuing (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1993). Primary control is focused on changing the external environment to create a better fit with one self and secondary control is focused on making cognitive alterations to the self to create a better fit with the external environment (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1993). As people age their level of primary control decreases because of biological (e.g. decline in health) and socio-cultural (e.g. the prejudice that an older employee is less productive) constraints; this will have to be compensated for with a higher level of secondary control (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1993). Thus cognitive alterations will need to be made to compensate for the loss in primary control. This could mean that compared to younger employees, older employees will make more use of cognitive job crafting. Heckhausen and Schulz (1993) further develop the theory of primary and secondary control by combining it with the SOC theory (Baltes and Baltes, 1990); proposing a model of optimization in primary and secondary control: the OPS model (Heckhausen, 1997) resulting in two primary control strategies and two secondary control strategies. The first strategy, selective primary control is aimed at investing resources such as effort, time, skills and abilities to reach desired outcomes. The second strategy, compensatory primary control, is used when the cognitive or physical abilities are insufficient to reach the desired outcome and can for example be achieved by asking for help from others or by using a tool. Selective secondary control, the third strategy, is a cognitive strategy aimed at increasing the importance of a chosen goal. The fourth strategy, compensatory secondary control is another cognitive strategy focused at minimizing any negative effects on one s self-esteem and motivation when a person has to deal with goals which can t or no longer can be obtained (Heckhausen, 1997). This can for example be done through goal disengagement or choosing alternative goals (Schulz & Heckhausen, 1996). According to Heckhausen (1996) when opportunities to develop diminish, an aging individual will be focused on compensatory-type control strategies. Linking the OPS model to job crafting, this study has several expectations. The first expectation is that related to selective primary control older employees will select goals aimed to avoid a loss in resources in comparison to younger individuals who focus on development and growth in abilities (Heckhausen, 1997). Older individuals are expected to place emphasis on compensatory control strategies to cope with loss in resources. Relating this to job crafting, this study expects that when older individuals are no longer able to perform certain tasks anymore they will ask help from others or use tools to substitute for the loss in these tasks. Furthermore this study expects several secondary control strategies will be used by older individuals to compensate for the loss in primary control. Older individuals are expected to disengage from a work related goal when this is no 8

9 longer realistic to obtain. As a result of this they might focus on alternative goals which still are obtainable and thus applying the strategy of selection. Older individuals are expected to be more satisfied with their current life situation as a strategy to cope with the loss in primary control (Heckhausen, 1997). Although not explained exactly how, a possible explanation for that could be that by focusing and feeling satisfied with what you are (still) able to achieve a person creates a kind of defense mechanism to deal with losses. Feeling content with what can be achieved will result in individual not experiencing a loss even though objectively this might be the case. Thus this could possibly be a form of cognitive job crafting. Kanfer and Ackerman (2004) also linked the effects of aging to the life-span theories by describing how as an older individual ages there is a decline (loss) in fluid intelligence (Gf) but a growth (gain) in crystallized intellectual abilities (Gc). Fluid intelligence is related to (working) memory, abstract reasoning, and the ability to process new information. Crystallized intellectual abilities contain aspects such as knowledge gained through education and experience (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004). Thus, relating this to job crafting, younger employees will probably prefer challenging (new) task in which they have the possibility to process a lot of new information as well as tasks challenging their intellect through abstract reasoning. As an individual ages, this study expects older employees to craft their job in a way that they will focus on tasks related to their experiential knowledge whether than on their cognitive skills. Change in perception: Socio-emotional selectivity theory Older individuals do not only change because of resources declining but also because of the shift in perspective from lifetime spent to lifetime remaining which creates an emphasis on the past instead of focusing on future goals (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995). According to the socio-emotional selectivity theory an individual will choose goals according to his or her time perspective being open-ended or limited (Lang & Carstensen, 2002). One of the effects of this future time perspective is that the motive of information knowledge seeking, which is focused on growth, becomes less important as there is no necessity to plan for the future (Lockenhoff & Carstensen, 2004). But with the increase in age the second motive, emotion regulation gains in importance (Lansford, Sherman & Antonucci, 1998). When people realize they are gradually approaching the end of life, they care more about experiencing meaningful social ties and less about expanding their horizons (Carstensen, Fung & Charles, 2003, p. 105). Thus older individuals care less about increasing the amount of contacts and want the contacts they have to be meaningful (Lang & Carstensen, 2002) compared to their younger counterparts. Older adults prefer emotional meaningful goals such as generativity (e.g. teaching the future generation) and contacts which are of meaningful importance to the individual such as friends and family (Lang & Carstensen, 2002). For job crafting 9

10 practices this could mean that older employees will be focused on relational job crafting to be able to create (more) meaningful contacts. Furthermore it could also mean that if older employees do not regard their work as meaningful they will possibly decrease their amount of tasks or increase tasks that are meaningful such as generativity. Expectations The theory of Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and the theory of Tims and Bakker (2010) both seem to be valuable and relevant when studying job crafting. Tims and Bakker (2010) state that there is no agreement yet on how job crafting is to be examined and have suggested that the job-resources demands model might be useful to investigate what specific element(s) employees change in their job. It would seem that the practices described by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) help explain what happens when a person job crafts and that the changes in the level of job-demands and job resources by Tims and Bakker (2010) help explain how this is done. Thus both theories would seem to be valuable when analyzing job crafting. Summarizing the expectations which came forward with the theoretical framework: this study expect that by linking job crafting to the SOC theory, older employees will try to craft their job in a way that they are able to reduce their workload by letting go of tasks they are no longer capable of performing and by selecting tasks which are of importance to them. Tasks which are no longer attainable will be compensated for. This could for example be done by asking colleagues for support or by using tools, making it easier to execute a task. Secondly, related to primary and secondary control, as people age their decrease of primary control will be compensated with an increase in secondary control (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1993) which could possibly mean that compared to younger employees, older employees will make more use of cognitive job crafting. Third, based on the OPS model, this study expects older employees will select goals aimed to avoid a loss in resources in comparison to younger individuals who focus on development and growth in abilities (Heckhausen, 1997). When older individuals are no longer able to perform certain tasks anymore they are expected to craft their job by asking for help from others or use tools to substitute for the loss in these tasks. Older individuals are expected to disengage from a work related goal when this is no longer realistic to obtain. As a result of this they might focus on alternative goals which they are still able to obtain. Older individuals are expected to be more satisfied with their current life situation as a strategy to cope with the loss in primary control (Heckhausen, 1997). Fourth, when looking at crystallized and fluid intelligence (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004), this study expects younger employees to prefer challenging (new) task in which they have the possibility to process a lot of new information as well as tasks challenging their intellect through abstract reasoning. In contrast older employees are expected to craft their job in a way that they will focus on tasks related to their experiential knowledge whether than on their cognitive skills. Finally, based on 10

11 the socio-emotional selectivity theory (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995) this study expects older employees to be focused on relational job crafting to be able to create (more) meaningful contacts. Furthermore it could also mean that when older employees do not regard their work to be meaningful they will possibly decrease their amount of tasks or increase tasks that are meaningful such as generativity. Table 1 provides an overview of how this study expects the life-span theories to influence job crafting and why this might differ between younger and older employees in accordance with the job crafting practices described in the job crafting literature. 11

12 Table 1: Conceptual overview Job crafting practices Younger employees Practice of changing task boundaries Increasing tasks focused on cognitive stimulating, abstract reasoning and tasks focused on information processing. Increasing tasks focused on development and growth in resources. Practice of changing cognitive task boundaries Making less use of changing the cognitive task boundaries. Practice of changing relational boundaries Increasing the amount of contacts to gain knowledge (resources). Adjusting jobdemands / jobresources Increasing the job demands and jobresources (focused on gains and developme nt) Older employees Increasing tasks focused on gained experience and knowledge. More tasks focused on maintaining or avoiding a loss in resources (SOC strategy) e.g. using other resources to substitute or reducing tasks. Increase in tasks which are meaningful Increasing the use of making cognitive adjustments. Feeling more job satisfaction (secondary control strategy). Increasing the amount of meaningful contacts. Increasing tasks related to generativity Decreasing jobdemands and increasing jobresources (to deal with losses) 12

13 Methodology Research design Through an inductive research this study wants to elaborate on the concept of job crafting as it has been proposed by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and how and why job crafting might differ between younger and older employees. As there are not many studies available on the topic of job crafting, an inductive research would be the most valuable way to enhance research forward by being able to obtain a rich set of data. An inductive research differs from a deductive research in that it is not aimed at testing a theory but trying to develop or extend a theory (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007) which is the aim of this study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted at one single point of time to collect data. Therefore, the design of this study was a cross-sectional qualitative research design. The aim of this research was to create a better understanding as to how and why older and younger employees might differ in the job practices they apply using the existing life-span and socio-emotional theories and therefore be able to contribute to the existing job crafting literature as well as to the aging literature. For this reason this research could be typed as an exploratory research (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003) as it sought to look in depth at this topic and the underlying factors. To be able to study the differences between younger and older employees this study has taken 45 as a cut of age. Participants aged 45 years old and below were categorized as younger (Lang & Heckhausen, 2001) and participants above the age of 45 were categorized as older. The differences between the two groups were studied to be able to answer the research question: What are the different types of job crafting practices older employees employ and how and why do they differ compared to younger employees? The sample This study is part of a larger research on job crafting conducted by five other Master students at Tilburg University. As described as one of the non-probability samples by Ritchie and Lewis (2003) this research has applied purposive sampling to select 60 individuals. According to this sample method, individuals were selected because they possess certain features which would help to create a better understanding of the studied theme (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Features most important in this study were that all selected individuals had to work (for an employer) and demographic age. The selected employees belonged to six different organizations. 53% of the sample consisted out of employees below the age of 45 and 47% of the sample consisted out of employees above the age of 45. Furthermore, the sample ranged from the youngest person being 21 years old to the oldest person being 63 years old. The mean age was 44 years old. 52% of the sample were male and 48% of the sample were female. The study made sure that participants varied with regards to age as to not create a group of participants very close to the age of 45 which might have made it difficult to interpret the results (respondents aged between 40 and 45 years 13

14 old represented 7,7% of all job crafting accounts and respondents aged between 45 and 50 years old represented 11% of all job crafting accounts). The mean age of category younger was years old with a standard deviation of 6. The mean age of category older was with a standard deviation of For an overview of the sample characteristics, see table 2. Table 3 provides an overview of characteristics belonging to category younger and category older. This study aimed at creating two groups who, excluding age, shared similar characteristics. However the two groups due differ slightly when looking at education and tenure. Category younger entails a sample of higher educated employees and employees with a lower tenure in comparison to category older. 14

15 Table 2: Sample characteristics Organization Total Percentage Age Young % Older % Gender Male % Female % Rank High % Low % Educa- LBO/VBO % tion MAVO % MBO % HAVO/VWO % HBO/WO % Master s % Tenure 1-2 years % 3-5 years % 5-10 years % 10 years % Work Travel Retail Financial Toilet Consultancy Cate- Total sector Sector Hygiene ring Total

16 Table 3: Younger versus older Younger Older Gender Male 13 (45%) 16 (55%) Female 18 (58%) 13 (42%) Rank High 13 (48%) 14 (52%) Low 18 (55%) 15 (45%) Education LBO/VBO 2 (22%) 7 (88%) MAVO 2 (40%) 3 (60%) MBO 10 (56%) 8 (44%) HAVO/VWO 5 (45%) 6 (55%) HBO/WO 6 (60%) 4 (40%) Master s 7 (100%) 0 (0%) Tenure 1-2 years 5 (71%) 2 (29%) 3-5 years 9 (90%) 1 (10%) 5-10 years 5 (63%) 3 (37%) 10 years + 13 (37%) 22 (63%) A majority of the respondents in the sample had a customer orientated job. This meant that they worked on delivering a product to a customer. Either in direct or indirect contact with the customers. For example, all the respondents from organization 1 (travel) had a job focused on composing and delivering a leisure travel product to their customers. All the respondents from organization 2 (retail) and organization 6 (catering) were in direct contact with their customers; all the respondents from organization 2 (retail) worked in a shop and all the respondents from organization 6 (catering) worked in a catering facility which meant that they were also in direct contact with their customers. Organization 3 (financial sector), organization 5 (consultancy) and organization 4 (toilet hygiene) consisted out of mix of customer orientated jobs and back-office (supporting) jobs. Employees at organization 2 (retail) and organization 6 (catering) had to work with a tighter job description compared to employees from the other organizations (based on the interviews). 23% of the total sample had a management role. For an overview of the job titles and full range of the sample characteristics see appendix 3. Data collection Data was collected through semi structured interviews. Interviews as a data collection method have been described as an opportunity to provide detailed coverage on a research topic (Ritchie & Lewis, 16

17 2003). A topic list was developed in order to be able to improve the consistency of the collection of data and to provide an overview on the specific topics which had to be discussed. The questions used for the interview were based on the questions by Berg et al. (2010). Although they studied a different topic (low rank/high rank) their questions were aimed at reaching similar results as this study; is there a difference with regards to job crafting between two groups. Using the questions based on the Berg et al. (2010) study has the advantage that they have been applied before and resulted in an amount of job crafting accounts being reported and thus increasing the reliability of the questions. Before finalizing the protocol, the questions were tested on individuals who were not involved in the project to check whether they resulted in job crafting accounts being reported. The questions were considered to have the desired outcome. See appendix 1 for the English interview protocol and appendix 2 for the Dutch version. By using a semi-structured interview the interviewer was able to get a better understanding of the responses participants gave by being able to ask follow-up questions. The interview started with general protocol questions. Furthermore at the start of the interview respondents were asked about their job description. The general formulation of the first question also helped to explore other potential job crafting practices not described by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) (e.g. Has your job changed since you first started? If so, how has it changed?). If needed, specific probe questions related to job crafting practices as they have been developed by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) were asked (e.g. In what ways, if any, have you made your job your own? Adapted to your own needs and wishes?). When the answer of a respondent entailed a job crafting account follow up questions would be asked regarding motives (e.g. Why did you make this change?), challenges (e.g. What kind of challenges or obstacles did you face while making this change?) and facilitators (e.g. What helped you in making this change?). After the question focused on general job crafting more specific job crafting questions were also asked related to cognitive crafting (e.g. Have you actively changed the way you think about your work?), task crafting (e.g. Have you incorporated responsibilities into your job on your own initiative?) and relational crafting (e.g. Have you actively changed relationships with others at work?). When a respondent did indeed mention a job crafting account the follow up questions related to motives, challenges and facilitators would be asked again to further clarify. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data analysis To process the large amount of data, the transcripts of the interviews were coded applying the Strauss and Corbin (1990) coding system. Strauss and Corbin (1990), distinguish between the use of three related different types of coding. The first type of coding which was done in pairs (this to increase the reliability) was open coding, the process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing and categorizing data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 61). This type of coding helped reducing data in making 17

18 groups of important key concepts. Although this first step was done in pairs, the two researchers differed in their total amount of job crafting accounts as occasionally they would differ in opinion about what a job crafting practice entails. For example, should a job crafting practice be described as a structural change. This study believed it should while the other researcher did not consider this to be an important condition. This lead to this study reporting less job crafting accounts compared to the other study (there was a difference of 50 job crafting accounts). The second type of coding was axial coding, a set of procedures whereby data are put back together in new ways after open coding, by making connections between categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 96). The third and final type of coding was selective coding, the procedure of selecting the core category, systematically relating it to other categories, validating those relationships, and filling in categories that need further refinement and development (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 116). Some examples of coding codes which were used (for a full list of codes see appendix 4): Job crafting 1 (task job crafting) fluid intelligence tasks. - For example challenging (new) tasks, tasks with for example an emphasis on processing new information and abstract thinking. Job crafting 2 (task job crafting) crystallized intelligence tasks. - Tasks related to knowledge and prior experience gained through the years. Job crafting 3 (cognitive job crafting) more use of cognitive job crafting due to secondary control. - for example changing the (personal) meaning of a tasks. To make the process of analyzing easier the quotes obtained from the interviews were gathered in a spreadsheet and categorized corresponding to the categories which had been made in the interview protocol (general, task, relational and cognitive job crafting practices). This resulted in 91 accounts of job crafting being identified. The next step was looking at which specific job crafting practices were similar for younger and older employees followed by the differences between younger and older employees resulting in a final list of practices which will be presented in the results section. 18

19 Results In the following section the results will be presented. To start, the table below provides an overview of the number of job crafting accounts sorted by organization and by age category. Table 4: Job crafting accounts Number of job crafting accounts Percentage of younger employees Percentage of older employees Percentage of total (by organization) Organization 1 Younger: 6 14% Older: 16 33% 24% Organization 2 Younger: 21 50% Older: 19 39% 44% Organization 3 Younger: 4 10% Older: 1 2% 6% Organization 4 Younger: 5 12% Older: 9 18% 15% Organization 5 Younger: 6 14% Older: 0 0% 7% Organization 6 Younger: 0 0% Older: 4 8% 4% Total: Younger: 42 46% Older: 49 54% 100% If one was to make groups based on the number of job crafting accounts, possibly three groups could be made ranging from high to low. Organization 1 (travel) and 2 (retail) reported the highest amounts of job crafting accounts (68% of all the job crafting accounts). Organization 4 (toilet hygiene) 19

20 and 5 (consultancy) could be placed in the middle category (22% of all job crafting accounts). And finally, organization 3 (financial sector) and 6 (catering) could be placed in the lowest category, showing a very low amount of job crafting accounts (10% of all job crafting accounts). Although this could partially be due to the fact that this organization had a low amount of respondents compared to the other organizations; only 6 respondents instead of 10). The reported job crafting accounts could be labeled in many different job crafting categories. In total 15 categories of job crafting could be made. Table 5 provides a list of all the different job crafting practices this study was able to obtain after analyzing the transcripts. Table 5: Job crafting categories Job Crafting category Name 1 Adding tasks related to problem solving, creative thinking (fluid intelligence). 2 Adding tasks based on prior experience and knowledge gained through the years. 3 Adding additional tasks (other). 4 Selecting a certain task to focus on. 5 Compensating for a task by using a tool. 6 Reducing the amount of tasks. 7 Doing an existing task different. 8 Asking other for help. 9 Increase the amount of contacts. 10 Focusing on relationships with younger colleagues to pass on knowledge. 11 Decreasing the number of contacts. 12 No longer increasing the network 13 Thinking different about the job. 14 Regarding status in a job as less important. 15 Disengaging from a task (cognitive). After having analyzed these practices it was apparent that there were important differences in job crafting practices used between younger and older employees but also similarities. These similarities will 20

21 be presented first, followed with the differences. Table 6 provides an overview of the shared job crafting practices by younger and older employees and how often they occurred in the interviews. Table 6: Job crafting similarities Job crafting practice: Younger Older Adding additional tasks (other) 18 x 16 x Doing an existing task different. 13 x 8 x Both younger and older employees reported increasing their amount of tasks. Although younger employees described doing this more often compared to older employees. Younger employees for example describe practices such as taking responsibilities from other departments and incorporating it into their own job. Yes, also (work) from other departments. Because I find it interesting. The more you know the more you are employable. (M02, in table 1, appendix 5, 36 years old, travel industry) Because that's creative (doing more PR work; not part of her current job) and then I can challenge myself also and then I feel I can grow more and learn more. (S05, table 1, appendix 5, 31 years old, consultancy) Furthermore one younger employee describes how she added sweeping the floors to her current set of tasks and another younger employee describes how he included tasks no one has taken ownership for and thus seems to indirectly help his colleagues. I sweep the hall (not part of her job description) when there is lot of stuff laying around. It makes the entrance look neater for customers. It's important for the customers. (A05, table 1, appendix 5, 27 years old, retail) A part of the operations management and writing their reports is what I take responsibility for. I notice I take responsibility for more and more things. Especially because work was left undone is why I took ownership for these tasks. I also have the tendency that if someone else doesn't do it I'll do it, whatever. (N02, table 1, appendix 5, 35 years old, financial sector) Comparing these results to the results from older employees; Older individuals similar to younger employees describe how they have also taken on additional tasks, see for example following two quotes. 21

22 I also find it more and more fun now to develop things. Also, for example the brochure layout. Even now I continue to develop for example because we have less staff, next summer I would like to take the responsibility for the brochure production. It's a lot of work but I want to do it. This has more to do with your personal development because you seek a particular challenge. (M09, table 1, appendix 5, 46 years old, leisure travel organization) Yes it may sound very strange, but a few years ago I started to sweep the department at the end of the day. I do it every day now and I did this out of my own initiative. There's a lot of dust and dirt laying around in this department which I think is unhealthy and dirty. The reason I do this is because I've got bronchitis and I enjoy sweeping. (J08, table 1, appendix 5, 56 years old, toilet hygiene) Although examining the motives behind these practices was not the primary aim of this study, it is interesting to note that although the practices were the same (adding tasks) the reason behind using the practices were not always the similar. J08 (older employee) for example explains that because of his bronchitis (in other words his health) he has added sweeping the floors to his already existing set of tasks. Younger employees describe development and challenging tasks as a reason why they performed these job crafting practices (see the first two quotes). Although development is not a motive exclusively used by younger employees as one older employee (M09) also indicated that he took on additional tasks to develop (see quote above). Other motives which came forward during the analyses of the interviews with younger employees was the motive to add things out of personal interest as well as creating opportunities for the future. I've taken on the check-ups of the mechanic cars. Everyone used to do that separately, but now I take care of that (because he has a special interest for cars). I look when the APK's are needed, or if it's something small I try to repair it myself. (J10, table 1, appendix 5, 38 years old, toilet hygiene) I considered this an opportunity (organizing events) to get rid of my uncertainty. If in the future I want to hold an executive position than I will just have to do this. (J03, table 1, appendix 5, 31 years old, toilet hygiene) Furthermore, both younger and older employees describe helping customers and colleagues as a motive why they job craft (see the previous mentioned quotes from A05 and N02). Besides both younger and older employees describing how they have added additional tasks to their job, both groups also describe how they altered a certain task. The following two respondents have not added a task but based 22

23 on the experience they have, they have made alterations to the tasks they perform. The first respondent created a new system to file the receipts making it easier for (and her colleagues) to solve a problem with a customer who has lost his/her receipts and the second respondent has also created another system of executing a certain task (to make it easier). That second receipt. But I keep it here, with the name on it, because in case there are any complaints and the customer has already thrown the receipt away, which happens often, than I still am able to find the receipt which makes it easier to solve any complaints. It's a bit more work, but I've obviously been through these situations otherwise it wouldn't have crossed my mind. It works so much easier. You search for the receipt which you can find easily. (A03, table 1, appendix 5, 57 years old, retail) But it was often also forgotten (the voucher). The customer has already been and then you don't use that receipt anymore. So I've initiated that as soon as the item arrives, we take that voucher (order receipt), we scan the voucher, and then that is already taken care of. (A06, table 1, appendix 5, 37 years old, retail) Respondents describe efficiency and to be able to perform tasks faster as to why they have changed these tasks. Yes, otherwise you're stuck with the fabric (if you don t sell the entire piece) which means I have to make a coupon (pricing a small piece of fabric) and that takes time. Then I have to wrap it, and now I can just give it to a customer for a certain amount. If you don't do it like this, it would be more work. Not every customer wants it (the extra fabric). If that is so I still need to make a coupon, wrap it around a piece of cardboard, add a coupon and wrap it in plastic. It saves time. (A03, table 1, appendix 5, 57 years old, retail). One older employee also again mentions health as to why he does a task different. For a full range of the quotes regarding the similarities, see appendix 5. Yes, I'll be 64 soon. Then a package which weights 40 kg will feel heavier compared to when I was 50. But I'm still able to carry them though. You need to know how to carry the boxes correctly because than they do not weight that much. So I pick them up differently now. (A08, table 1, appendix 5, 63 years old, retail) Proceeding with the differences in job crafting practices. In this paragraph this study will also start with presenting tasks which have been added to the already existing set of tasks. With regards to the 23

24 similarities, although the practices could be described as similar the motives did vary a lot. The added tasks can simply be described as adding a task in accordance with the motive. In the next paragraph however, although tasks are also added, this study was able to establish specific tasks and also differentiate different ways in how and why this was done. Overall, many differences in job crafting practices between younger and older employees could be reported. It is interesting to note that older employees reported more differences in job crafting practices (25 job crafting practices) compared to younger employees (10 job crafting accounts). But when looking at the total job crafting practices (similarities and differences) there was only a small difference between younger (46%) and old (54%). For a full range of the categories including how often these job crafting practices occurred, see table 7 below and see appendix 5 for a list of all the quotes. Table 7: Job crafting differences Job crafting practice: Younger Older Adding tasks focuses on problem solving, creative thinking (fluid intelligence). 2 x Thinking different about the job. Increase the amount of contacts. Decreasing the number of contacts. 4 x 3 x 1 x Adding tasks based on prior experience and knowledge gained through the years. Selecting a certain task to focus on. Compensating for a task by using a tool. Reducing the amount of tasks. Regarding status in a job as less important. Disengaging from a task (cognitive). Focusing on relationships with younger colleagues to pass on knowledge Asking others for help. No longer increasing the network. 5 x 2 x 3 x 6 x 1 x 1 x 4 x 2 x 1 x 24