JOB CRAFTING: Differences

Transcription

1 JOB CRAFTING: Differences in perceived challenges and facilitators between lower- and higher-rank workers. Master Thesis I.D. van der Heide Supervisor: Dr.Dorien Kooij Second Supervisor: Christina Meyers MTO Supervisor: Ad Vossen Tilburg University, Human Resource Studies Project Theme: Job crafting in higher- and lower-rank jobs. January July

2 Table of Contents Table of Contents... 1 Abstract... 2 Introduction... 3 Theoretical Framework... 5 Job crafting... 5 Perceived challenges and facilitators of job crafting... 6 Rank... 9 Conceptual model Methods Research Design Data Collection Research Sample Measures of Operationalisation Results Descriptives Perceived challenges and facilitators of job crafting per rank Discussion Conclusions and research propositions Theoretical implications and future research Limitations Practical recommendations Reference List Appendix 1: Interview protocol Appendix 2: Job descriptions (Dutch) Appendix 3: Sample Matrix Appendix 4: Data matrix 1&

3 Abstract This qualitative study was conducted with the purpose of expanding and contributing to job crafting theory. As a theoretical starting point the research of Berg, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2010) on job crafting and its differences for employees in higher- and lower-rank jobs was examined and used as the foundation of this research. Little was known about the actual challenges and facilitators employees experience with job crafting. The research question was therefore stated as: How do the perceived challenges and facilitators of job crafting differ among lower- and higher-rank employees? The data was collected by six master students of Tilburg University for the purpose of generating a large research sample. Sixty semistructured interviews were collected from six different organizations from the profit sector. These interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded and analyzed. During the analysis stage it became apparent that the job crafting challenges and facilitators occurred on the organizational, social, job and personal level. At the same time similarities between the job characteristics of the Job Demands-Resources model and the perceived challenges and facilitators revealed themselves. Eight propositions were made in the final section of this study and recommendations for future research were formulated. Key words: Job Crafting, Rank, Challenges, Facilitators, Job Demands-Resources Model, Job Characteristics. 2

4 Introduction At the birth of the 21 st century, research on job crafting is expanding. More insights on this form of self-initialized work-design are collected and shared. In 2001, Wrzesniewski and Dutton laid a foundation for future research on job crafting by introducing a clear model and a now common used definition of what job crafting should be. Job crafting are the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p. 179). This includes a proactive form of work that is initiated by employees and not by management (Grant & Ashford, 2008). With this research Wrzesniewski and Dutton brought on a wave of interest and more extinctive research on job crafting in motion (Leana, Appelbaum & Shevchuk, 2009; Berg, Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2010; Lyons, 2008). The basis of job crafting lies in work design. According to Kira, Eijnatten and Balkin (2010, p.618) work design is: an ongoing and participative crafting process that starts from the resources and strengths of an individual and looks for further ways to allow these resources to develop. But work identities, job boundaries and the meaning of work are not always fully determined by formal job design. Often individuals alter the relational, cognitive and task boundaries of their jobs and these actions can shape how they see the meaning of their work and their work identity (Leana et al., 2009). Rather than the classic top-down approach of work design, job crafting involves a bottom-up influence by making effort to make the job fit one s own preferences and competencies. Still little theory has been developed around job crafting. Especially the perceived challenges and facilitators by the employee of this form of proactivity at work are not often elaborated upon. Challenges perceived by employees on job crafting were defined by Berg et al. (2010) as the general limits on the available opportunities and the limits encountered in attempts to craft ones job. They mainly described the ways in which employees from higherand lower-ranks in an organization reacted on, and overcame job crafting challenges. These reactions were named adaptive moves and differences in behaviors were found between the two ranks. Unfortunately no further contributions were made to define or indicate which factors could facilitate such proactive behavior. These facilitators of job crafting could help organizations and scholars to theorize upon which actions to undertake in order to stimulate or enable job crafting amongst employees. In addition to Berg et al. (2010) the primary goal of this study is to deepen understanding of the challenges and facilitators of job crafting that employees in higher- and lower-rank jobs perceive. This research is scientifically relevant because new insights on job crafting and the 3

5 related challenges and facilitators can lead to future research and theory building. For the purpose of theoretical and practical relevance the focus will be on the comparison of possible differences between lower- and higher-rank jobs. Rank has been associated with shaping employees environment and others behaviors (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). When perceived challenges and facilitators of job crafting are indicated and differ for rank, scholars and HR-professionals can develop theory and design policies on how to stimulate such behavior for different jobs. The research question is therefore: How do the perceived challenges and facilitators of job crafting differ among lower- and higher-rank employees? 4

6 Theoretical Framework This framework provides theoretical explanations of the concepts used in this research. Firstly, the general concept of job crafting will be presented. Secondly, the concepts of perceived challenges and possible facilitators of job crafting will be elaborated upon followed by an indication of how rank relates to the above mentioned variables. In conclusion, a conceptual model will be presented which reflects the main assumptions in this research. Job crafting According to Oldham and Hackman (2010) the field of job design is changing. The former management-led top-down approach with formal job descriptions is receiving competition from an employees self-initiated bottom-up approach called job crafting (Hornung, Rousseau, Glaser, Angerer and Weigl, 2010). As stated in the former paragraph, job crafting is defined by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001, p.179) as the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work. They make a distinction between three types of job crafting; task crafting, relational crafting and cognitive crafting. Task crafting entails the change employees make in how their work is conceptualized and carried out. Relational crafting means changing the frequency and the choice of people you interact with. Finally, cognitive crafting is making cognitive changes that bring new meaning and significance to work. These changes are spontaneous actions made by individuals in order to make the job better fit their own personal needs. This corresponds to the research of Tims and Bakker (2010) who state that people engage in job crafting behaviors in order initiate an increase within person-job fit. It is likely that employees with a relative greater misfit between themselves and the job will engage in behaviors to alter their jobs. According to Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) job crafting can increase the person-job fit by increasing the meaning of the job, the image of oneself and the need for control. Expected is that job crafting also leads to a better fit between the organization and the employee. This may lead to positive effects for the organization as well, for instance in the form of increased work engagement, increased performance and higher levels of creativity (Bakker, 2009). Tims and Bakker (2010) suggested combining the job crafting theory with the Job Demands- Resources Model (JD-R model) of Bakker and Demerouti (2007). This Job Demands-Resources Model creates a balance between job demands, job resources and their different outcomes. Bakker and Demerouti (2007) drawled on the assumption that every occupation may have its own specific risk factors associated with stress (p.312), namely, job 5

7 demands and job resources. Job demands are job characteristics that are associated with levels of physiological and/or psychological costs caused by various variables which turned into job stressors because the impact on the employee exceeds acceptable levels. Examples of these variables are job design, work pressure, and task complexity. On the other hand, job resources are job characteristics that can reduce the negative effect of job demands by, for example, providing autonomy and social support and they have a motivational potential at the level of the task, including task significance, autonomy and feedback (Hackman and Oldham, 1980). Tims and Bakker (2010) suggested that because of an imbalance between the job resources and job demands a misfit occurs between the person and the job. People can engage in job crafting behaviors in order to increase this person-job fit. In their more recent research Tims, Bakker and Derks (2012) distinguish four different types of job crafting behaviors based on the JD-R model. The first behavior, in order to find balance in the job demands and resources, is increasing social job resources. Secondly, structural resources can be enhanced and following; the challenging job demands can also be increased. Finally, hindering job demands are likely to be decreased. When comparing these job crafting types to those of Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) no clear consensus on a definition of job crafting behavior can be found. While Tims et al. (2012) have a very specific definition of job crafting based on job demands and resources, Wrzesniewski and Dutton s definition (2001) is more general. Because the job crafting definition and framework of Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) is most used by scholars, this research will remain consistent by using this definition and framework as theoretical starting point. Generally the assumption is that job crafting is hidden from management, and with that from decision making processes (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Therefore organizational needs are not necessarily emulated to be satisfied (Lyons, 2008). However, job crafting can have organizational impact if individual behaviors affect organizational performance (Griffin, Neal & Parker, 2007). If the outcomes of job crafting efforts are positive for the organization, then it is desirable to encourage or reinforce such behaviors (Lyons, 2008). Perceived challenges and facilitators of job crafting In order to be able to encourage this proactive behavior, research must be done on the challenges people face during the crafting period and which factors are able to facilitate or stimulate this kind of action. When one has engaged in job crafting behavior, or is planning to do so, certain challenges and facilitators can be perceived by this person. By exploring these 6

8 perceptions insightfulness may be gained on how to lower the perceived challenges and introduce facilitating factors in order to encourage job crafting behavior. The research of Berg et al. (2010) tried to indicate which challenges people experiences with job crafting in higher and lower rank jobs. Both groups described challenges stemming from the obligations that they associate with their job designs as well as the need to get others to comply with or accommodate their job crafting intentions (Berg et al., 2010, p.165). So according to this research job crafting challenges may occur on a social level or on the level of the job. Interestingly, this same research also includes questions about facilitators of job crafting in its interview protocol but unfortunately did not elaborate on the matter specifically. Nevertheless, we can learn two things from this research. Firstly, the questions posed on perceived facilitators by Berg et al. (2010) suggested the existence of three distinctive levels on which these facilitating factors may occur: the personal, social and organizational level. Secondly, this research described how employees overcame the challenges they faced with job crafting, and called them adaptive moves. These adaptive moves are pieces of participants accounts that describe how they cognitively or behaviorally responded to their environments in order to work with or get around the challenges they perceive in enacting forms of job crafting (Berg et al., 2010, p. 171). To discover what factors are facilitating the job crafting behavior, the level on which the adaptive move is made can provide an indication. For example, one could change their own expectations and behaviors (personal level) or that of others (social level). When including other persons in the adaptive move, then the zone of acceptance of job crafting can be influenced. The zone of acceptance contains the extent in which decisions or actions are accepted by others in the organization and is subject to bounded rationality and incomplete information (Simon, 1997). This means that employees are likely to believe that others share the same understanding in what is acceptable and appropriate. The zone of acceptance could either be a facilitator of job crafting when there is no objection from others when altering the job or it can be seen as a challenge when objection presents limits to the zone of acceptance (Hornung et al., 2010). Besides influences from groups or individuals on the perceived challenges and facilitators of job crafting, organizational factors must also be taken into account. An important factor in job crafting is interdependence. Interdependence operates as a challenge in job crafting when employees sense of control over work is decreased (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).On the other hand, interdependent work and tasks can be a facilitator of job crafting because through negotiation with colleagues joint routines are developed to solve problems on how work gets done (Leana et al., 2009). Summarizing, the perceived facilitators 7

9 of job crafting may occur on the organizational-, the social-, and on the personal- level (Berg et al., 2010; Leana et al., 2009). Because of the scarcity of research on challenges and facilitators of job crafting, little is known about their different contents and appearances. Although Berg et al. (2010) suggested that the challenges of job crafting can be found on an organizational and social level, and facilitators of job crafting on a personal, social and organizational level, their research is the first to include these factors and still much is to be explored by more extinctive research on the matter. Hence, the challenges are perceived when altering the job. But no assumption was made by Berg et al. (2010) that challenges also can occur on the level of the job. More information about the challenges and facilitators can be found in research about the Job Demands-Resources Model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Tims & Bakker, 2010; Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2012). As mentioned before, the JD-R Model has been linked to job crafting as a tool for increasing person-job fit (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Tims et al., 2012). The main proposition states that this misfit between the person and the job is due to an imbalance between the Job Demands and the Job Resources of that person. Engaging in proactive behaviors such as job crafting can balance these resources and demands. Logically, challenges and facilitators will be experienced which may be related to these Job Demands and Job Resources. According to Bakker and Demerouti (2007) job resources may occur on five distinguished levels. These levels are; the organization at large, the interpersonal relations, the social relations, the organization of work and the level of the task. Unfortunately no levels were indicated for the job demands. Reasonably the proposition is made that both perceived challenges and facilitators may occur on the former stated levels. When comparing these levels to those of Berg et al. (2010) one can identify similarities between them, organizational, social and personal level, but may also notice the incompleteness of the levels of Berg et al. (2010). Additionally, when theorizing upon the perceived challenges and facilitators of job crafting, the research of Tims and Bakker (2010) must also be taken into account. Relating to the JD-R model Tims and Bakker (2010) argued that work characteristics as autonomy and task independence and individual differences as a proactive personality, self-efficacy and selfregulation are antecedents of job crafting, meaning, these antecedents could work as facilitators for the job crafting behavior. It is reasonable to assume that these work characteristics and individual differences will appear as facilitators in the results of this research. Overall, a lot of theory is found to be informative on which levels perceived challenges and facilitators of job crafting may occur, but little is known about the actual 8

10 factors that are challenging or facilitating to employees who engage in job crafting behavior. This research aims to give an indication of the job crafting challenges and facilitators perceived by employees in two groups that differ in rank. The next paragraph will specify what the concept of rank entails and what the relations are with job crafting and its challenges and facilitators. Rank Power and autonomy are important predictors of the job crafting opportunity (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) and the execution of proactive behaviors (Grant & Ashford, 2008). Since power is seen as the influence one person has over others stemming from a certain organizational position (Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989), rank is assumed to reflect the general amount of formal power and autonomy someone holds in an organization (Berg et al., 2010). Accordingly, higher-rank employees engage in high levels of autonomy and power, whereas lower-rank employees are more restricted and controlled. The assumption is made that employees in higher-rank jobs will craft their jobs more often than employees in lowerrank jobs, because power and autonomy are predictors of having the opportunity to job craft (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). At the same time, the actual job designs of higher- and lower- rank positions often differ in the sense of having a design where general goals has to be met, or a design that prescribes a set of assigned tasks. Therefore it is expected that these two groups have to overcome different kinds of challenges and have different facilitators in their job crafting processes. Affirmatively Berg et al. (2010) showed that there are substantial differences in the perceived job crafting challenges between higher- and lower-rank employees. Employees with higher-rank jobs tend to have an internal locus of control and attributes perceived challenges in job crafting to themselves because they aspire to meet their end goals. While lower- rank employees pose to feel restricted and challenged by others who demand a more structured and controlled way of working. Interestingly, the (facilitated) freedom employees perceive to overcome the job crafting challenges is not necessarily related to their rank. Lower-rank employees find it relatively easier to overcome job crafting challenges by adapting their environment, while employees in higher ranks feel more constrained in influencing their environments (Berg et al., 2010). Confirmatively this shows that rank initiates a difference between the perceived challenges and facilitators of job crafting because of the dissimilarity in loci of control. Assumed is that the kind of perceived challenges and facilitators experienced before or after 9

11 the job crafting behavior might be different for employees in higher- or lower-rank jobs. At the same time, rank is also expected to influence the occurrence of job crafting because of the differences in power and autonomy and so the opportunity to job craft. Meaning, employees in higher-rank jobs craft their jobs more often due to increased levels of perceived opportunity to job craft. Thus, rank may have a direct effect on job crafting. Next, the conceptual model will be explained that emerged from former assumptions. Conceptual model The model depicts the assumed relations between employees rank, job crafting and the perceived challenges and facilitators that comes with this process. This model does not imply causal relations between the various concepts. Firstly, the general assumption that rank brings along different types of challenges and facilitators one experiences with job crafting is reflected by the indirect relations through the perceived challenges and facilitators. Secondly, the assumption that rank is related to the occurrence of job crafting is reflected by the direct relation between rank and job crafting. Figure 1: Conceptual Model. Perceived Challenges Rank Power and Autonomy Job Crafting Task Relational Cognitive Perceived Facilitators 10

12 Methods This research was written as a master s thesis for the Human Resource Studies program. In order to obtain a large research sample, the data collection was conducted by a group of six master students at six different companies. Research Design This study is based on a qualitative descriptive research design with inductive and deductive elements, and was conducted through semi-structured interviews. The goal of inductive research is to develop or extend a theory. Because little is known about the concepts of challenges and facilitators of job crafting a cross-sectional design is appropriate for this study because it does not seek to establish causal relationships (Bryman, 2008). According to Hornung et al. (2010) qualitative research methods are preferred for research on job crafting and can contribute to understanding these self initiated job modifications. Although this research is of qualitative nature, it turned out to be hybrid because both exploratory as well as explanatory methods were used in order to establish propositions about the challenges and facilitators of job crafting. This study can be seen as a pilot study from which outcomes can be tested in future quantitative research. Data Collection The data of this research was collected through semi-structured interviews and formal job descriptions. The interviews were structured by the use of an interview protocol of about 10 questions. This protocol, which can be found in appendix 1, is put together by six master students of Tilburg Universities Human Resource Studies. For terms of reliability and replicatability the protocol is based on the protocol used by Berg et al. (2010) and was tested on forehand on seven persons. First, the general questions of the protocol were posed to the interviewee. Secondly, if job crafting behavior was detected then some follow-up questions may give clarity about the nature of the behavior. Finally, if the interview had gone less smoothly that desired, some probe questions were posed to help the continuity of the interview. Each of the six students has conducted ten interviews of approximately thirty minutes. These were audio taped and later transcribed, which increased the reliability of the data (Baker, 1999). At the same time, job descriptions were made available by the (HR-) manager of the interviewees. These job descriptions were examined by the interviewer before the interview took place in order to give more clarity of what is job crafting behavior and what is not. 11

13 Research Sample This qualitative research used non-probability based sampling for selecting the respondents of the study in order to establish a group with an equal distribution on gender, age and rank. Accordingly Ritchie and Lewis (2003) stated that in non-probability sampling, units are deliberately selected in order to reflect particular groups or features within the sampled population. Interviews were conducted among sixty employees in the Netherlands at six different profit organizations and the following branches; retail, hygiene, travel, insurance, consultancy, and catering. The sample contains 31 male (average age 44.2) and 29 female (average age 43.45) employees with a total average age of years. The sample shows that age, rank and gender are almost equally divided. Table 1 contains some demographics and characteristics of the used sample per organization. Table 1: Sample characteristics per organization. Company Younger workers (<45 years) Older workers ( 45 years) Higherrank employees Lowerrank employees Average Age Gender (M/F) Retail ,1 3/10 Hygiene ,4 6/4 Travel ,7 3/7 Insurance ,9 8/2 Consultancy ,3 8/2 Catering ,5 1/6 Total ,82 29/31 The sample was divided in two groups of respondents, based on the rank of their job. As shown in table 2, the group of employees in high-rank jobs consists of thirty-two employees, thirteen male and nineteen female, with a total average age of 44 years. This average lies slightly above the total average sample age of 43,82 years. The group of employees in lower-rank jobs consisted of twenty-eight members, of which eighteen male and ten female, with a total average age of 43,6. The distribution of employees and age is almost equal amongst both groups, but gender is rather off balance. 12

14 Table 2: Sample characteristics by rank. Group N Gender Age M/F (average) High Rank 32 13/19 44 Low Rank 28 18/10 43,6 Measures of Operationalisation The interviews were shaped by the interview protocol which included a number of questions, follow-up questions and probes. In order to indentify job crafting behavior the general questions posed were: How did your job change since you first started it? and Have you ever given responsibilities to yourself? An example of a follow-up question which was in the protocol, about the facilitators of job crafting is: How did your organization enabled you to make this change? An example question about the perceived challenges in job crafting is: Who restricted you from making this change? The sample was divided in two groups of respondents, based on their rank. All the employees were categorized into the high or low rank group by their interviewer. These decisions were based primarily on the amount of power and autonomy the employee has according to the interview and secondarily on the information of his or her job description. Respondents with relative much autonomy, power and open job descriptions were labeled as high-rank and, respondents with relative little autonomy, power and tight job descriptions were labeled as low-rank. In order to ensure confidentiality, the job descriptions were only available to the interviewer in that particular organization. Necessarily, the task of categorizing respondents into the higher or lower rank group was the responsibility of each student of the cooperating thesis group for their organization. An example of a higher rank and lower rank employees job description in the catering sector can be found in the appendix. Data Analysis After the group wise data collection and transcription process; the transcripts of the interviews were shared and the coding process was carried out individually. This threelayered coding process of Strauss and Corbin (1998) that was used contains the stages of: open coding, axial coding and selective coding. With this iterative coding process the ATLAS TI program was used. During the open coding cycle labels were given to general observations or findings by pairs of students of the research group. For instance, job crafting accounts will be coded as 13

15 such. The subjects of research (N) were the job crafting accounts carried out by the individuals in the research sample. To indicate behavior like job crafting, the definition of Berg et al. (2010, p.163): participants descriptions of a proactive change to the formal task, relational, or cognitive boundaries of their job and the perceptions and experiences that they associate with this change, was used. Accordingly, all behavior indicated as such was labeled JC and when it was still questionable whether the behavior could be indicated as such, was labeled as JC? All the job crafting accounts were compared with the findings of the other members of the thesis group and based on these comparisons a decision was made whether the account could stay in the sample. This comparison increases the reliability of the research. Next, the coding process was an individual responsibility for the researcher. Table 3 gives some examples of labels which were used in this first and second stage of coding. Table 3: example labels/codes. Label/code JC JC? JCtask JCrel JCcog Fac. Chal. Clarification Job crafting Discuss whether its job crafting or not Task crafting Relational crafting Cognitive crafting Facilitator of job crafting Challenge of job crafting The second coding stage, axial coding, divided the first stage categories into subcategories. Clusters of codes were derived from this phase which distinguished categories from subcategories. Meaning, the method of the job crafting behavior, being changing task, relational of cognitive boundaries of the job (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), was indicated and the account was labeled as such. This coding stage also included the indication of the perceived challenges and facilitators of job crafting and labeled them respectively as Fac and Chal. At the end of this phase, when the data was saturated there was no need for further adjustment of the (sub-)categories (Boeije, 2008). Finally, the core categories of the perceived challenges and facilitators were selected in the phase of selective coding. The other challenges and facilitators were related, grouped 14

16 and integrated with these core categories (levels of occurrence) in order to create a coherent story between them. An answer to the research question originated from this phase. 15

17 Results The following sections present the findings of this research. First three forms of job crafting are presented, followed by the perceived challenges on the organizational level, the social level, the job level and the personal level for the higher- and lower-rank group. Finally, the perceived facilitators will be elaborated upon on the level of the organization, the social level, the level of the job and the personal level. Descriptives Of the sixty employees interviewed, forty eight reported to have engaged once or more in job crafting behavior that corresponds to the definition of Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) of changing the task or relational boundaries of their work physically or cognitively in order to fit their personal needs. The job crafting behavior, a proactive change to the formal task, relational, or cognitive boundaries of the job, were described by the participants along with their perceptions and experiences that were associated with this change (Berg et al., 2010). In total seventy-seven (N=77) job crafting accounts were indentified and categorized as task, relational or cognitive job crafting. Forty-nine of the reported job crafting accounts included experienced challenges (N = 18) or facilitators (N = 82) by the employees. Besides these challenges and facilitators mentioned directly after a job crafting account, there were also perceived challenges (30) and facilitators (42) of job crafting reported later in the interview. Task crafting was mentioned 58 times in which employees altered the boundaries of the job by changing the type, the amount or the scope of the task. For example, a department manager in the toilet hygiene sector explained that he took on the extra task of solving the problems of the climate control department and gave two examples of which factors facilitated this change, his personality and autonomy: Actually that is not a part of my job, because it s actually on the plate of the quality manager. But it s in my personality that I want to solve things and I just have the freedom to do such things. Nobody is really interfering with what I do. Relational crafting occurred when people changed the amount or quality of the relational boundaries at work, this behavior was reported 10 times by the employees. A complaint coordinator in the financial sector changed her relational boundaries on purpose: I have been working more together with quality control, because it s working better if you work with a sparring partner. You get things more easily done. 16

18 An example of cognitive crafting in which people actively change their perceptions about the task and the job was given by a process keeper in the financial sector who changed his view on the relationship between the customer and the organization because the organizational philosophy has changed and thus facilitated his job crafting behavior: I noticed that I now more take the stand of, is this actually what the customer wants? instead of looking at my position. This crafting method was reported 8 times by the respondents. A product manager from the travel branch was overwhelmed with work because all his colleagues used him as a question bark and participated in cognitive crafting. Well in fact, you do it to please everybody every time, and your effacing yourself a bit. That is what I reconsidered; it has been a kind of development in myself. Along with this job crafting account where the employee tries to leave the work at work and wants to establish a healthy work schedule, one perceived challenge and two perceived facilitators were motioned. It is a challenge not to work at home on the computer, to quickly look something up. Still my manager helps me by saying to go home on time. The thing that helps me is willpower, just like; you want things to change because you don t notice that you let yourself get overrun by work. Table 4 depicts the job crafting characteristics of the sample and the distribution between employees in high- and low-rank jobs. Interestingly the division of reported job crafting accounts between the two ranks is almost equal. The type of job crafting that was far most reported by both groups was task crafting (N = 58), followed by relational crafting (N=10) and cognitive crafting (N= 8) which do not differ a lot in terms of frequency. Summarizing, no large differences were found in frequency of task, relational or cognitive crafting between employees in higher- and lower-rank jobs. Task crafting turned out to be the most mentioned job crafting practice by both groups. The assumption made by Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001) that employees in higher-rank jobs have more perceived opportunity to craft their jobs due to higher levels of autonomy and power they enjoy, is not supported by the results of this research. 17

19 Table 4: Job Crafting Characteristics Total High Rank Low Rank JC accounts JC task JC relational JC cognitive Facilitators Challenges JC accounts included chal/fac Facilitators Challenges JC accounts without chal/fac A large difference between the higher- and lower- rank group was that although the amount of reported job crafting accounts were somewhat the same, the perceived facilitators in the high rank group were almost double of those in the lower rank group. Another difference was that the lower-rank group reported more challenges of job crafting than the higher-rank group. Perceived challenges and facilitators of job crafting per rank During the phase of analysis the data showed a division of the perceived challenges and facilitators into four levels of occurrence. Both concepts seemed to be influenced by factors on the organizational level, the social level, the job level and the personal level as depicted in Table 5 and 6. Table 5 shows us that there were some differences in the levels of the perceived challenges between both groups. The organizational level withholds the most challenges for the lower-rank group, while for the higher-rank group factors on the organizational and the social level were mentioned most often. Table 5: Amount of challenges per level and rank Challenges High Rank Low Rank organizational 7 (31.8%) 12 (46.2%) social 7 (31.8%) 8 (30.8%) job 3 (13.6%) 3 (11.5%) personal 5 (22.7%) 3 (11.5%) 18

20 Table 6: Amount of facilitators per level and rank Facilitators High Rank Low Rank organizational 14 (17.1%) 6 (14.3%) social 22 (26.8%) 12 (28.5%) job 18 (21.9%) 7 (16.7%) personal 28 (34.2%) 17 (40.5%) Except the amount of facilitators in the high rank group, no large differences can be found between the levels of both groups as depicted in table 6. Both groups reported the most facilitators to be on the personal level, followed respectively by the social, the job and then the organizational level. In order to explore the differences in job crafting challenges and facilitators, a closer look must be taken into these levels of occurrence. What kind of challenges and facilitators were actually perceived by the employees? And, do they differ between rank? High rank employees perceived challenges This paragraph will give a description of the experienced challenges per level of occurrence for employees with a high-rank followed by the experiences of the lower-rank employees. At the end of the paragraph a table is given (table 7), which includes an overview of the perceived challenges by both the higher- and lower-rank employees. On the organizational level, seven accounts were reported in which employees felt challenged or disabled by organizational factors in their attempts to craft their jobs. All these factors were specified as being disabling policies that the organization imposes. Disabling policies were defined as having organizational rules and regulations that counterwork proactive job crafting attempts. A senior account manager in the financial sector stated that the amount of regulation of the organization and the job restrict or disable him from engaging into job crafting behavior: This is your job; this is what you must do! It means that you get less room for taking initiative and developing yourself. Other examples of these disabling policies that challenged employees in their job crafting attempts are given below: 19

21 Everything is being imposed from above and there is none, little chance of having your own input. (Catering manager) Nowadays you have to account for every step. You are being much more restricted, to rapport more, whether it are your hours, your customer accounts, everything. Everything is being recorded. (Retirement specialist, financial sector) Challenges were also experienced on a social level, meaning, employees experienced that other people and their actions could be a challenging factor in their job crafting attempts. Seven challenges on this level were indentified in the interviews and contained six rapports of co-worker resistance, meaning that colleagues of the specific employee were unwilling to support, or were showing resistance to the crafting behavior. An example was given by an ecologist in the environmental consultancy branch who tried to learn about marketing but got no support from her colleagues: There was no picking me up. I had an idea and nobody said: that's cool, I'm going to help you with that, because I didn't know anything about marketing. The last challenge mentioned in this group was reported once. It contains the resistance of both management and colleagues and is called social resistance. Yes you always get resistance somewhere, because you are dealing with different people. Then there are always people who don t agree with it. (Department manager, toilet hygiene) Three accounts of challenging factors were reported to be related to the job of employees in higher-rank positions (job level). The experience of having no time for the crafting behavior (e.g. time restrictions), was reported twice to be the reason of not being able to engage into successful job crafting behavior: I just have too little time in order to do the tasks I prefer. (Administrative assistant, environmental consultancy) And the lack of having authority the job was signaled once to be a challenging factor in the attempt of an employees effort to make his job own and more efficient (task crafting): Look, I don t have the position that I can speak to them about that. I am a colleague, not a manager. (Travel documents coordinator, travel organization). 20

22 The travel documents coordinator also perceived a challenge with this job crafting account that occurred on the social level. He experienced the resistance and strong-headedness of his coworkers to be a challenge in his attempt to craft his job: Interviewer: Did you run into any challenging factors during this change? I ran up against walls, walls and unwillingness. But it is a mentality though. The last level that contained challenging factors towards job crafting behavior is the personal level and was mentioned five times by this group. Here, employees experienced factors in themselves to be restricting them from engaging in job crafting behavior or the way the behavior is enacted. Four times the employees saw their personality as being a limitation towards job crafting; I am stable, I don t like changes, and it is just a part of me I guess. (Replacement catering manager, catering sector) I'm not mature enough yet to do that. And maybe I'm not a people-manager person, maybe I will never be. (Complaint coordinator, financial sector) And one time an employees knowledge, skills and abilities (ksa s) were lacking. She experienced to have a lack of communicative abilities towards her colleagues when crafting her job. I probably was not that clear about my plan. (Ecologist, Environmental consultancy) Challenges of lower rank employees The group of employees in a lower-rank position experienced twelve challenges on the organizational level. A distinction could be made between two kinds of challenges faced by the employees, being, disabling policies (12) and having a disabling organizational structure (2). Disabling policies are connected with counterproductive rules and regulations towards proactive job crafting behavior. Especially highly regulated work environments and bureaucracy were reported to be such disabling policies. But you stick to the rules of the company anyway. Can t we do that in a different way? No! Because it has to be done like that! That freedom is absent. (All-round employee, retail sector) 21

23 I would like to give suggestions to the management about what needs to be improved, but it does not get through the layers of management and regulations. Finally it totally bled to death. (Pension administrator, financial sector) The disabling policies also included an account of an employee who first had ambition to achieve something, but gave that up because the organization did not facilitated such opportunities. Yes, first I still had the goal to achieve something. But that is not possible in this company anyway. (Head of department, toilet hygiene) When an organization makes it impossible for the employees to behave proactively due to its structure, it is called a disabling structure. An example of a disabling organizational structure was given by a pension advisor in the financial sector. He stated that: everything in the organizations runs through a lot of layers, the initiatives are gradually killed in the organization. The social level contained eight rapports of challenging factors in which persons around the employee are the cause of challenges towards job crafting behavior. This level showed a scattered distribution of perceived challenges. Co-worker resistance, named twice, was perceived by a department employee in the retail sector in the following way: Sometimes you face a resistant force from your colleagues if they are not agreeing on the matter. The other six factors on this level were all mentioned one time by this group of employees. These factors are social resistance, supervisor resistance, supervisor persistence, the lack of appreciation, having no contact with management and the problem of co-workers stealing ideas. Supervisor resistance was experienced by a marketing assistant in the toilet hygiene sector: Now they are more critical and because of that I tend to pick up fewer things. Supervisor persistence was perceived as follow: And he had a very persistent standpoint. This, this and this has to be done! (Traffic coordinator, travel sector) In the case of co-workers that are stealing ideas, an all-round employee in the retail sector said: 22

24 Creating ideas, discuss them, reviewing them, carrying them out. And then a third person steals the idea. We have often said it to each other, my colleague and I, like if that happens one more time then we quit, and then we do nothing anymore. Three accounts of challenging factors were reported to be on the level of the job. Two employees faced time restrictions and one employee did not have enough authority to make the preferred changes in his job. I don t get the chance to do that because I have to do so much executive work. I think it is a pity that I do not get the time for it. (Marketing assistant, toilet hygiene) On the personal level, where employees experience challenging factors to be stemming from themselves, three rapports were made of factors in the person itself that were perceived as challenges in the job crafting process. All these three factors can be attributed to the employees personality. I completed a management study in the company but I did not have done anything with it because I do not like it. I am not an office girl! (Catering employee) In short, on the organizational level lower-rank employees perceived more challenges than higher-rank employees. While disabling policies were the main challenge to overcome, the employees with a lower-rank job experienced also the organizational structure to be disabling job crafting behavior. On the social level employees in higher-rank jobs often perceived their co-workers to be the source of challenges towards their job crafting behavior, while employees in lower-rank jobs also have supervisors that are restricting them from crafting their jobs. Interestingly no differences were found on the job level and the variation on the personal level was very small. The only difference on the latter level was that employees in higher-rank jobs mentioned that a lack in their knowledge, skills and abilities was a challenging factor, while the lower-rank group only reported their personality to be a challenge in job crafting. Table 7: Challenges by level Challenges High Rank Low Rank Organizational 7 12 disabling policies 7 10 disabling structure - 2 Social

25 co-workers resistance 6 2 social resistance 1 1 supervisor resistance - 1 supervisor persistence - 1 lack of appreciation - 1 no contact with management - 1 co-workers steal ideas - 1 Job 3 3 time restrictions 2 2 lack of authority 1 1 Personal 5 3 personality 4 3 ksa s 1-24

26 High rank employees perceived facilitators The following paragraph describes the research findings of the facilitators employees in high- and low-rank jobs experienced. Equal to the perceived challenges of job crafting, the division of four levels on which the perceived facilitators occurred are the organizational level, the social level, the level of the job and finally the personal level. For the purpose of creating an overview a table (table 8) is depicted at the end of this paragraph which includes the reported facilitators by the employees in higher- and lower-rank jobs. The factors perceived on the organizational level (14) as being facilitating job crafting behavior were identified as having an enabling culture (6), enjoying enabling policies (4), having an enabling structure (3) and an enabling organizational philosophy (1). When an organizations culture accepts and maybe even stimulates job crafting, then the culture of that organization can be seen as an enabling factor. People are always willing to talk to you, to listen to your question. (Complaint coordinator, financial sector) The following quote includes a mix of enabling culture and organizational philosophy. However, due to the strong feelings of the employee towards a shared organizational feeling, the quote is labeled to be of cultural nature. It s actually a kind of common policy, (to help a colleague when your job is done). It's in the philosophy of our company We're a company - we stick together! (Ecologist, environmental consultancy) The enabling policies include organizations rules and regulations that are not hindering or stimulating the employees from engaging into job crafting behavior. They said: go ahead, find your own time, find your own way to fill the time. (Safety consultant, environmental consultancy) You just knew that they would listen and that you would get the opportunity to do it. And the time to do it! (Manager, catering) An enabling organizational structure facilitates or even encourages job crafting behavior through its open structure and policies. The following employee describes the open and easygoing structure in his organization. The structure of the company is actually that you can say whatever you want and whatever you like to anybody From high to low hierarchy you can say whatever you want. In that way 25