The relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development, job crafting and work engagement

Transcription

1 The relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development, job crafting and work engagement Student s name and number: Naomi Grosze Nipper ( ) Name of the supervisor: Rob Poell Project period: March 2017 August 2017 Project theme: Professional development and work engagement 1

2 Abstract The importance of employee engagement (i.e. work engagement) to organizational success in today s economy has been emphasized in literature. Employee engagement is crucial for most organizations. A possible strategy to strengthen work engagement may be related to employee s professional development. The present study addresses how perceived opportunities for professional development and job crafting are related to work engagement. The present study aims to create a better understanding of factors related to employee engagement. A quantitative and cross-sectional study (N = 859) was conducted with the use of a questionnaire. The results showed a positive relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement and between job crafting and work engagement. In addition, job crafting mediated the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement. More specifically, two job crafting strategies were the strongest mediators in the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement, namely increasing structural job resources and increasing challenging job demands. Consequently, it might be worthwhile for organizations to offer opportunities for professional development and to facilitate employee job crafting behavior. Theoretical contributions, limitations, suggestions for future research and practical implications are discussed. 2

3 Introduction In the Global Human Capital Trends Report (2015) it is mentioned that employee engagement is a priority for most organizations. In this report, it is underlined that employee engagement is not only important for HR departments, but also for the whole company and its profitability. Over the last decade, research revealed that work engagement has positive outcomes both for employees and organizations (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). Therefore, organizations are interested in the concept work engagement (World Economic Forum, 2015), and in ways to enhance employee engagement. One possible strategy to strengthen employee engagement may be related to employee s professional development (Hobfoll, 1989). Employees professional development can be facilitated by organizations; employees can also proactively take charge of their development themselves. Most organizations in Western society are offering their employees opportunities for professional development like training, coaching and career management (Huang, 2001). From this top-down facilitation of learning and development, both employees and organizations benefit. For employees, perceived opportunities for professional development may produce new skills and knowledge, sustainable employability, job enjoyment and work engagement. In addition, it reinforces the motivation and feelings of competence of employees (Colbert, Brown, Choi & Thomas, 2008; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). For organizations, perceived opportunities for professional development may ensure that employees are able to meet the job requirements and contribute to the organization goals (Huang, 2001; Meijman & Mulder, 1998). For a long time, employees were seen as passive workers of doing their assigned job tasks (Tims & Bakker, 2010). However, now more studies shed light on proactive or selfinitiative behaviors of employees at work (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Job crafting is a form of such proactive behavior of employees. According to Tims, Bakker and Derks (2012), 3

4 individual job crafting includes increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources or increasing challenging job demands. Job crafting seems to be a way in which employees proactively take initiative to optimize their work situation and learn (bottom-up approach). Employees who craft their job try to improve the fit between their work and their abilities, knowledge, passions and needs, which could be related to higher work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Thus, both learning from a top-down and from a bottom-up perspective seems to be important antecedents of employees work engagement. In the present study, the aim is to assess how learning and development, from both a top-down and a bottom-up approach, is related to work engagement. As far as I know, this proposed relationship has not been previously tested in earlier studies. Besides, previous studies focused mainly on the relationship between the top-down facilitation of learning and development and work engagement. However, this study wants to emphasize the role of proactive learning. Job crafting behavior of employees may stimulate them to apply or transfer learned skills and knowledge from developmental practices (e.g. formal/informal training) to practice (i.e. their job). The present study aims to create a better understanding of factors related to employees work engagement, which might be useful for different organizations. Thus, the study is practically and scientifically relevant. Work Engagement There are several conceptualizations of work engagement. Kahn (1992) defined work engagement from a psychological perspective. He described engaged employees as individuals who are attentive and completely cognitively, emotionally and physically connected with their work roles. Besides, Rothbard (2001) defined work engagement as a motivational construct consisting of two different dimensions, namely attention (i.e. the amount of time thinking about a work role) and absorption (i.e. the intensity of someone s concentration or focus on a work role). Finally, work engagement could be defined as a 4

5 positive, fulfilling and work-related state of mind (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). According to Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) work engagement is characterized by vigor (i.e. high levels of energy, willingness to put effort in one s work and mental resilience while working), dedication (i.e. strong involvement in one s work and feelings of enthusiasm, inspiration and pride while working) and absorption (i.e. high levels of concentration and engrossment while working). Within the present study, this conceptualization of work engagement from Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) will be used, since the definition is well-validated and often utilized. Moreover, work engagement is different from related concepts such as workaholism and job embeddedness (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; Schaufeli, Taris & Van Rhenen, 2008). First, workaholics are really hard workers. Workaholics are reluctant to disengage from work and they intently and frequently think about work when they are not at work. Workaholics are so obsessed with their work that it endangers their health, social functioning and interpersonal relations. In contrast, engaged employees lack the compulsive drive. Engaged employees work hard because they like their job and not because they are driven by a strong inner urge they cannot resist. Second, job embeddedness can be described as a mood that develop slowly over time and remain particularly stable over time. In contrast, work engagement can be described in terms of a mood that develop not entirely momentary and is not particularly stable over time. Besides, the resource bases of job embeddedness and work engagement are different from each other. Why is work engagement so important for employees and organizations? First, work engagement is related to constructive employee behavior. According to the study of Schaufeli, Taris, Le Blanc, Peeters, Bakker and De Jonge (2001), engaged employees have a high level of energy, passion and self-efficacy. Employees who have such a high level of energy, passion and self-efficacy, are very connected with their work roles so that time flies (Bakker 2011; Macey & Schneider, 2008; May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004). Engaged employees also 5

6 experience positive emotions (e.g. joy), which seems to broaden their thought-action repertoire (Frederickson, 2004). Besides, engaged employees provide feedback to themselves in terms of acknowledgement, success, admission and respect which may be related for example to better performance and goal setting (Schaufeli et al., 2001). Finally, engaged employees are able to transfer their work engagement to others (e.g. co-workers). When employees transfer their engagement to co-workers, it may influence and increase team performance, since performance is usually an outcome of collaborative effort (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2009). Second, work engagement is related to constructive organizational outcomes. Work engagement is positively related to organizational commitment, turnover intention, quality, productivity, organizational citizenship behavior and innovation (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Hakenen, Bakker & Schaufeli, 2006; Llorens, Bakker, Schaufeli & Salanova, 2006; Hakanen, Perhoniemi & Toppinen-Tanner, 2008). Moreover, Gierveld and Bakker (2005) showed in their study among 327 secretaries that work engagement was positively associated with job performance. Gierveld and Bakker (2005) compared engaged employees with non-engaged employees and showed that engaged employees scored better on both in-role and extra-role performance. The engaged employees influenced daily businesses of the organization too (e.g. website maintenance). Further, Bakker, Gierveld and Van Rijswijk (2006) showed in their study among school principals (N = 105) and teachers (N = 232) that engaged school principals scored better on in-role and extra-role performance. The school principals work engagement was positively associated with higher school teachers ratings on the performance of the school principals. Their study also showed that engaged school principals scored higher on creativity (i.e. they used better ways to cope with work-related problems) and leadership (i.e. they were evaluated as transformational leaders). Finally, the study of Salanova, Agut and Peiró (2005) showed in their study among employees (N = 342) and customers (N = 6

7 1140) of different Spanish hotels and restaurants that employees work engagement and organizational resources were related to the service climate, which in turn was related to the performance and customer loyalty of employees. The customers evaluated the performance and customer loyalty of engaged personnel as higher, compared to the non-engaged personnel. Thus, work engagement is related to positive organizational outcomes and it may create competitive advantage for organizations. Opportunities for Professional Development A study of TNS Nipo (2016) within the public sector showed that 83 percent of the respondents (i.e. employees) found personal and/or professional development very important. Although the employers are partially responsible for the development of their employees, only 57 percent of the respondents believe that their employer currently provides enough opportunities for professional development. This study demonstrates the need for learning and developmental opportunities. Organizations respond to this situation by offering many opportunities for professional development to their employees (Huang, 2001). As mentioned earlier, perceived opportunities for professional development lead to positive outcomes for both employees and the organization (Schaufeli et al., 2001; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Hakanen, Bakker and Schaufeli, 2006; Schaufeli, Bakker & Salanova, 2006; Hakanen et al., 2008; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model is a heuristic model that describes how two sets of working conditions (i.e. job demands and job resources) may cause work engagement. Job demands are organizational, physical and social aspects of a job that often stimulate strain. Job resources (e.g. opportunities for professional development) are organizational, psychological, physical and social aspects of a job that are functional in reducing job demands, stimulating growth and attaining work goals (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). The present study will focus on job resources, namely opportunities for professional 7

8 development (e.g. formal/informal training, coaching and career management). According to the JD-R model, job resources, like opportunities for professional development, could cause work engagement through a motivational process (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Opportunities for professional development used by employees could have both an intrinsic motivational role and an extrinsic motivational role (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2000). A motivational theory that explains and describes how intrinsic motivation works is the self-determination theory of Ryan and Deci (2000). Opportunities for professional development used by employees may have an intrinsic motivational role since they enhance learning, development and growth of employees. The self-determination theory of Ryan and Deci (2000) proposes that work environments which fulfill the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness will foster intrinsic motivation and vitality (i.e. work engagement) (Ryan & Frederick, 1997). For example, when employees use opportunities for professional development (e.g. workplace training) provided by organizations, it may strengthen the learning process of employees and thereby fulfill the need for competence, which ultimately may foster motivation and wellbeing of employees (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan & Frederick, 1997). Further, opportunities for professional development used by employees may have an extrinsic motivational role too. Meijman and Mulder (1998) pronounce that when organizations offer job resources to their employees, the willingness of employees to devote their effort and abilities to their work tasks will increase. Therefore tasks will be succeeded and work goals will be reached. The extrinsic motivational potential provide help to employees (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). For example, when employees use opportunities for professional development (e.g. workplace coaching) provided by organizations, employees may devote effort and abilities to their work tasks and it may foster the likelihood of completing tasks and reaching work goals. Since employees will derive fulfillment from meeting work goals, they may become more engaged and committed within 8

9 their job (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). When employees have the feeling that organizations are trying to invest in them, they may become more committed, more motivated and more engaged. Thus, perceived opportunities for professional development will lead to positive outcomes, such as motivation, performance and work engagement, via both the intrinsic and the extrinsic motivational role (Van den Broeck, Van Steenkiste, De Witte & Lens, 2008; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). Several studies have indeed shown the positive relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement. Schaufeli, Bakker and Van Rhenen (2009) showed in their study among managers and executives within a Dutch telecom organization (N = 201) that opportunities for professional development predicted work engagement over a one year period. In line with the findings of Schaufeli and colleagues (2008), a two-year longitudinal study of Mauno, Kinnunen and Ruokolainen (2007) among Finnish health care personnel (N = 409) showed that opportunities for professional development predicted work engagement. The present study will examine if this relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement could be confirmed. The first hypothesis reads as follows: Hypothesis 1: Employees perceived opportunities for professional development are positively related to their level of work engagement. Job Crafting The term job crafting was coined by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001). When the term job crafting arose, employees were no longer considered as passive employees but as proactive employees. Employees are able to make self-initiated changes to their work, which is a bottom-up approach. The supervisor is often unaware of this proactive behavior of employees. Moreover, employee job crafting is different from related concepts such as personal initiative and proactive personality (Tims et al., 2012). First, personal initiative is a 9

10 self-starting behavior of the employee that is in line with the mission of the organization. The self-starting behavior has a long-term focus and is persistent during difficulties. In contrast, job crafting is about of proactive changes in the job design that are not consistent with the mission of the organization. Job crafting has a short-term focus and occur as a solution of a short demanding period. Second, a proactive personality if also different from job crafting, since employees with a proactive personality are expected to engage in job crafting more than employees without this personality. It is likely that employee with this characteristic will engage in job crafting, but it is not job crafting itself. According to Berg, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), employees can craft their job by implementing cognitive changes (e.g. changes in meaning of the job), physical changes (e.g. changes in form, number or scope of job tasks) and relational changes (e.g. changes in the nature of interactions at work) to attain important personal work goals. Another approach towards job crafting is related to the Job Demands-Resources theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). The Job Demands-Resources theory states that every job consists of both job demands and job resources, which can be influenced by job crafting. Thus, through job crafting, employees change the level of job demands and job resources to balance them with their personal needs and abilities. The present study will focus on this approach, since it is well-validated and often utilized. Employees could craft their job by increasing structural resources (e.g. enhancing opportunities to develop yourself), increasing social job resources (e.g. questioning feedback), increasing challenging job demands (e.g. beginning a new project) or decreasing hindering job demands (e.g. reducing conflicts or workload) (Tims et al., 2012; Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). However, several studies have shown that decreasing hindering job demands is not such a good way to craft your job (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001; Herzberg, 1966). Therefore, the present study will focus on the three other 10

11 job crafting strategies. These three strategies of job crafting can also be seen as approaches of proactively learning within the organization. For example, when an employee wants to learn from a colleague regarding the use of Excel (i.e. increasing structural resources) he or she could try to listen carefully, to learn from the colleague and to increase his or her knowledge and abilities regarding Excel. Besides, when an employee asks his or her supervisor for performance feedback (i.e. increasing social job resources) he or she receives information about how to improve behavior. When the employee tries to use this feedback, the employee may learn from it. Moreover, when an employee starts a new project (i.e. increasing challenging job demands) he or she must apply new knowledge and skills and collaborate with other employees to accomplish the project, which may benefit the learning process of the employee. These three examples are ways to proactively learn within an organization. Through job crafting, employees are able to optimize the fit between their job and their personal needs, preferences, passions and abilities, which optimize their person-job fit (Tims et al., 2012; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Employees who improve their person-job fit, are more likely to feel motivated, committed and engaged. Earlier studies indeed confirmed the positive relationship between job crafting and employees work engagement. Tims and colleagues (2012) showed in their study, of one month, among Dutch employees (N = 190) from organizations within different sectors (e.g. government, retail sector and health care sector) that job crafting was significantly related to work engagement. Moreover, the study of Tims, Bakker and Derks (2013), of three months, among employees within a Dutch chemical organization (N = 288) showed that job crafting was positively related to employee wellbeing, job satisfaction and work engagement. Decreasing hindering job demands was not related to increases in wellbeing, job satisfaction and work engagement (Tims et al., 2013). The second hypothesis reads as follows: Hypothesis 2: Employees job crafting is positively related to their level of work engagement. 11

12 Moreover, the present study suggest that job crafting will mediate the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement. Employees who perceive opportunities for professional development from their organization, may want to benefit from it by applying the learned skills and knowledge proactively within their job to improve their work situation or person-job fit and to learn. When organizations offer opportunities for professional development to employees, employees will have the perception that learning is important and allowed within the workplace, which will stimulate them to proactively learn within their job (Van Wingerden & Niks, 2017). This job crafting behavior will ultimately be related to employee engagement. The study by Van Wingerden and Niks (2017) among 1596 employees from different Dutch organizations also showed that perceived opportunity to craft (POC) was positively related to opportunities for professional development, job crafting behavior and work engagement. Thus, the present study propose that opportunities for professional development will be related to employee s work engagement via job crafting (See Figure 1). The third hypothesis reads as follows: Hypothesis 3: Employees job crafting mediates the positive relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and their level of work engagement. Figure 1. The proposed mediation model. 12

13 Method Research Design A quantitative and cross-sectional study was conducted to test the proposed mediation model with the use of a questionnaire. The data was obtained from a random sample. However, the data is not entirely a reflection of the Dutch working population (See the next section). Procedure and Participants The online questionnaire was posted on the homepage of the company Schouten & Nelissen. Schouten & Nelissen is a well-known Dutch HRD consultancy firm. The study was announced through the company's newsletter (i.e. a mail sent to several companies listed in the contacts of the firm Schouten & Nelissen) and social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin). The announcement of the study contained a link, which referred to the homepage of Schouten & Nelissen. Via this link, participants (i.e. HR managers, HRD managers and supervisors) were able to see an introduction of this particular study and to engage in the study. The participants were asked to fill in the questionnaire regarding perceived opportunities for professional development, job crafting and work engagement. The questionnaire was available on the website for four weeks. The questionnaire was removed from the website after four weeks, since many participants had completed the questionnaire. The participants did not receive a monetary compensation for their participation within the study. The participants also filled in a informed consent form. In total, 862 participants engaged in the study. Three participants were removed from the study, since they were younger than 15 years old and older than 70 years old. These participants were not included in further analyses. There were no missing items, since the research system of Schouten Research only processed the data when participants completed the entire questionnaire. The random sample consisted of 538 female (63%) and 321 male 13

14 (37%) participants. The mean age of the participants was years (SD = 9.19). Higher vocational education was the most common form of education (54%), followed by university (34%), secondary vocational education (8%), and secondary school (4%). With respect to the sector, 15% of the participants (n = 126) worked in the educational sector, 14% (n = 122) in the public service sector, 16% (n = 133) in the healthcare sector, 12% (n = 104) in business services, 7% (n = 63) in financial institutions and 36% (n = 311) in remaining sectors. The baseline characteristics of the study sample are presented in Table 1. Instruments Three validated scales were included in the questionnaire, namely opportunities for professional development, job crafting and work engagement. Perceived opportunities for professional development were measured with three items (α =.88) from the scale of Bakker, Demerouti, Taris, Schaufeli and Schreurs (2003) (e.g. My work offers me the possibility to learn new things ). A five-point scale was used with answers ranging from (1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree. Job crafting was measured with three subscales of the job crafting scale created by Tims et al. (2012). Each subscale consisted of four items. The subscales were increasing structural job resources (α =.74) (e.g. I try to learn new things at work ), increasing social job resources (α =.76) (e.g. I ask my supervisor to coach me ) and increasing challenging job demands (α =.78) (e.g. When there is not much to do at work, I see it as a chance to start new projects ). A five-point scale was used with answers ranging from (1) never to (5) very often. Work engagement was measured with the three subscales of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova, 2006). The factorial validity of the scale was demonstrated within the study. Each subscale consisted of three items. The subscales were vigor (α =.89) (e.g. At my job, I feel strong and vigorous ), dedication (α 14

15 =.91) (e.g. I am proud of the work that I do ) and absorption (α =.75) (e.g. I am immersed in my work ). A seven-point scale was used with answers ranging from (0) never to (6) always. Table 1 Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population Characteristic N (%) Characteristic N (%) Sex Supervisory position Woman 538 (63) Yes 583 (68) Men 321 (37) No 276 (32) Age Education level years 59 (7) Secondary school 35 (4) years 171 (20) Secondary vocational 65 (8) years 340 (39) education years 258 (30) Higher vocational education 463 (54) years 31 (4) University 296 (34) Professional sector Job tenure Education 126 (15) < 2 years 115 (14) Healthcare 133 (16) 2-3 years 62 (7) Public sector 122 (14) 4-6 years 131 (15) Business services 104 (12) 7-10 years 188 (22) Finances 63 (7) years 146 (17) Remaining 311 (36) 16 > years 217 (25) Sectors Organization size N (%) ZZP 82 (10) 2-99 employees 150 (17) employees 87 (10) employees 101 (12) employees 77 (9) employees 98 (11) employees 116 (13) employees 48 (6) > employees 100 (12) Analysis Several steps were taken to get from raw data to results and conclusions. First, missing 15

16 values were evaluated and assumptions were checked with the use of SPSS. Second, a factor analysis (Maximum Likelihood) and a reliability analysis were conducted for each scale to evaluate the reliability. Descriptives and frequencies were conducted for both demographic data and research variables. Third, a correlation table was developed in excel with the use of SPSS to make an overview of relationships between different variables. Next, a simple regression analysis was conducted to analyze both the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement and the relationship between job crafting and work engagement. Finally, four mediation analysis, Macro Hayes model 4 (Hayes, 2012), was conducted to analyze the mediating effect of job crafting on the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement. We evaluated the effect-size of the regression coefficients (i.e. Cohen s d) and the p-values to interpret the effects. Results Factor Analysis Perceived opportunities for professional development. Data were subjected to factor analysis. Maximum Likelihood and orthogonal Varimax rotation were used. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) values for individual items were above.50 and the KMO measure was.74, which indicated that de data were sufficient for Confirmative Factor Analysis (CFA). Besides, the Bartlett s test of sphericity χ² (3) = , p <.001, showed that there were patterned relationships between the items. By using one fixed factor and an eigenvalue cut-off of 1.0, one factor presented opportunities for professional development. The scree plot confirmed this finding. Since only one factor presented perceived opportunities for professional development, orthogonal Varimax rotation was not executable. The factor loadings are displayed in Appendix A. Job crafting. Data were subjected to factor analysis. Maximum Likelihood and 16

17 orthogonal Varimax rotation were used. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) values for individual items were above.50 and the KMO measure was.84, which indicated that the data were sufficient for CFA. Besides, the Bartlett s test of sphericity χ² (66) = , p <.001, showed that there were patterned relationships between the items. By using one fixed factor and an eigenvalue cut-off of 1.0, one factor presented job crafting. The scree plot confirmed this finding. Since only one factor presented job crafting, orthogonal Varimax rotation was not executable. The factor loadings after rotations are displayed in Appendix A. Work engagement. Data were subjected to factor analysis. Maximum Likelihood and orthogonal Varimax rotation were used. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) values for individual items were above.50 and the KMO measure was.94, which indicated that the data were sufficient for CFA. Besides, the Bartlett s test of sphericity χ² (36) = , p <.001, showed that there were patterned relationships between the items. By using one fixed factor and an eigenvalue cut-off of 1.0, one factors presented work engagement. The scree plot confirmed this finding. Since only one factor presented work engagement, orthogonal Varimax rotation was not executable. The factor loadings are displayed in Appendix A. Descriptive Statistics The means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations, between all study variables are displayed in Table 2. The internal consistencies of the scales were acceptable, since Cronbach s alphas were all above.70. Simple Regression Analysis We used a simple regression analysis to evaluate the effects of perceived opportunities for professional development and job crafting on work engagement. The results from the simple regression analysis indicated that there was a significant positive relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement, b =.53, SE =.03, p <.001. Besides, the results from the simple regression analysis indicated that there was 17

18 a significant positive relationship between job crafting and work engagement, b =.65, SE =.06, p <.001. Approximately 40% of the variance in work engagement was accounted by the two predictors (R² =.402). Hypothesis 1 predicted a positive relationship between employees perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement. Hypothesis 1 was confirmed by the data. Hypothesis 2 predicted a positive relationship between employees job crafting and work engagement. Hypothesis 2 was also confirmed by the data. Table 2 Correlations and Cronbach's Alphas (on the Diagonal) among all Study Variables N M SD Professional development 859 3,8 0,9 (0.88) 2 Job crafting 859 3,8 0,5.39** (0.83) 3 JC structural 859 4,3 0,5.41**.76** (0.74) 4 JC social 859 3,2 0,7.25**.78**.38** (0.76) 5 JC challenges 859 3,9 0,7.27**.80**.50**.36** (0.78) 6 Work engagement 859 4,6 1.57**.48**.44**.28**.42** (0.94) 7 WE vigor 859 4,6 1,1.53**.47**.42**.27**.42**.94** (0.89) 8 WE dediction 859 4,8 1,2.61**.47**.43**.28**.40**.94**.85** (0.92) 9 WE absorption 859 4,5 1.41**.39**.36**.21**.34**.88**.74**.73** (.75) Note. * p <.05; ** p <.01, JC = Job Crafting Macro Hayes The results of the simple regression analysis provided support for Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2. Therefore, we chose to further investigate whether employee job crafting mediates the confirmed relationship stated in Hypothesis 1. To test Hypothesis 3 whether job crafting mediates the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement, a mediation analysis was conducted (Macro Hayes model 4; Hayes, 2012) First, the regression of perceived opportunities for professional development on work engagement, ignoring the mediator, was significant, b = 0.68, p <.001. Second, the regression of perceived opportunities for professional development on the mediator, job crafting, was significant too, b = 0.22, p <.001. Third, the regression of job crafting on work engagement, controlling for perceived opportunities for professional development was 18

19 significant, b = 0.65, p <.001. Finally, the analyses revealed that the regression of perceived opportunities for professional development on work engagement, controlling for the mediator, job crafting, was significant, b = 0.53, p <.001. Approximately 40% of the variance in work engagement was accounted by the two predictors (R² =.402). Overall, we concluded that job crafting partially mediated the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement, since the insignificance of the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement in the presence of the mediator, job crafting, could not be confirmed. Hypothesis 3 can still be confirmed by the data (See Figure 2). Further, we investigated how the tree different job crafting strategies mediated the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement. With increasing structural job resources as a mediator in the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement, a significant positive indirect effect (c =.1244) was found from the bootstrap analysis, with a 95% confidence interval excluding zero (.0936 to.1611). With increasing social job resources as a mediator in the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement, a significant positive indirect effect (c =.0448) was found from the bootstrap analysis, with a 95% confidence interval excluding zero (.0237 to.0710). With increasing challenging job demands as a mediator in the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement, a significant positive indirect effect (c =.0929) was found from the bootstrap analysis, with a 95% confidence interval excluding zero (.0631 to.1291). The indirect effects of the mediators increasing structural job resources and increasing challenging job demands were higher than the indirect effect of the mediator increasing social job resources. Thus, the job crafting strategies increasing structural job resources and increasing challenging job demands were the 19

20 strongest mediators in the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement. The output of the mediation analyses are displayed in Appendix B. Figure 2. The unstandardized regression coefficients of opportunities for professional development on work engagement, controlled for job crafting, stands between brackets. * p <.05, ** p <.001 Discussion This quantitative and cross-sectional study examined the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development, job crafting and work engagement. The study was conducted with the use of a questionnaire. The present study predicted that perceived opportunities for professional development would be positively related to work engagement (H1). The present study also predicted that employee job crafting would be positively related to work engagement (H2). Finally, the present study predicted that the proposed relationship stated in Hypothesis 1 would be mediated by employee job crafting (H3). The results showed several effects which were in line with the expectations. First, the results indicated that employees were more engaged at work to the extent that they perceived 20

21 more opportunities for professional development from their organization, which was in line with the expectation and prediction of the present study and supports Hypothesis 1. This result is also in line with the results of Schaufeli and colleagues (2008) and Mauno and colleagues (2007) where opportunities for professional development were positively associated with work engagement. Second, the results indicated that employees were more engaged at work to the extent that they took more initiative to craft their job. This result was in line with the expectation and prediction of the present study and supports Hypothesis 2. This result is also in line with the results of Tims and colleagues (2012) and Tims and colleagues (2013) where employee job crafting was positively related to their level of work engagement and Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) where a better person-job fit created by employees was positively related to their level of work engagement. Finally, the results indicated that the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement was partially mediated by job crafting. This result was in line with the expectation and prediction of the present study and supports Hypothesis 3. Theoretical Contributions The present study has several theoretical contributions. A first contribution of this study is that it shows a stronger and more positive relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement, than between job crafting and work engagement (See Table 2). This result is surprising, since the present study did not expect or predict that one of the two factors would be more positively related to work engagement. However, the model of the present study remains, since the result has no consequences for the model. A second contribution of this study is that it shows a positive relationship between 21

22 perceived opportunities for professional development and employee engagement a relationship that is mediated by employee job crafting. The present study showed a mediating effect of job crafting in the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement, which is not previously found in earlier studies. A third contribution of this study is that two job crafting strategies were the strongest mediators in the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement, namely increasing structural job resources and increasing challenging job demands. The job crafting strategy increasing social job resources was a less powerful mediator in the relationship between perceived opportunities for professional development and work engagement. As a result, it will be more effective for organizations when employees focus on the job crafting strategies increasing structural job resources and increasing challenging job demands. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research Some limitations need to be acknowledged. First, within the present study a crosssectional dataset was used. Since, the questionnaire was provided once to the participants, it is not possible to make predictions and to infer causality. Future research could examine if there are causal relationships between perceived opportunities for professional development, job crafting and work engagement, for example, with the use of longitudinal data. Second, within the present study only self-reports were used to measure perceived opportunities for professional development, employee job crafting and employee work engagement, which may lead to a common method bias. Besides, the use of self-reports may also lead to a social desirability bias of the participants. Future research could use different types of methods, such as interviews and other-ratings from supervisors, colleagues or customers to avoid a common method bias. The use of interviews or other-ratings may also create a broad and more objective view of the measured concepts, which may avoid a social 22

23 desirability bias. Finally, the results of the present study showed moderate relationships between increasing structural job resources (i.e. job crafting) and work engagement (r =.44), and between increasing challenging job demands (i.e. job crafting) and work engagement (r =.42). However, the results showed a weak relationship between increasing social job resources (i.e. job crafting) and work engagement (r =.28) (See Table 2). This result is in line with outcomes of the studies by Van Wingerden, Bakker and Derks (2016) and by Bakker, Tims and Derks (2012), where increasing structural job resources and increasing challenging job demands were strongly and moderately related to work engagement, while increasing social job resources was weakly related to work engagement. According to Tims and colleagues (2012), employees could craft their job by increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources, increasing challenging job demands and decreasing hindering job demands. However, several studies have already shown that decreasing hindering job demands is not such a good way to craft your job and is unrelated to work engagement (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001; Herzberg, 1966). Besides, as mentioned earlier, the present study showed a particular weak relationship between increasing social job resources and work engagement. Therefore, the question arises whether job crafting consist of four, three or two components. More specifically, these strategies of job crafting can also be seen as approaches to proactively learn within organizations. For example, when an employee asks his or her supervisor for performance feedback, the employee may try to use this feedback and may learn from it. This example could be seen as a way to proactively learn within the organization. Thus, future research could further investigate whether job crafting consist out of four, three or two components and whether it is actually a way to learn. Future research should pay attention to this topic, since several studies have shown that job crafting can foster work engagement. 23

24 Practical Implications The present study has several practical implications too. First, offering opportunities for professional development might be worthwhile for organizations in various sectors. Organizations should pay attention to the facilitation of learning and development, since perceived opportunities for learning and development is positively related to motivation, production (i.e. quantity and/or quality), work engagement and subsequently the performance of employees. Thus, organizations should offer employees the opportunity to develop professionally within their work environment. Second, strengthening employee job crafting might be worthwhile for organizations in various sectors. Organizations should be aware of the ability of employees to craft their own work environment. For example, it could be the task of the manager or supervisor to stimulate and facilitate (e.g. a seminar regarding job crafting) employee job-crafting. Managers or supervisors could provide information to employees about job crafting strategies and related effects. When managers or supervisors stimulate and facilitate employee job crafting, employees may take the initiative to craft their job. 24

25 References Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs, P. J. (2003). A multigroup analysis of the job demands-resources model in four home care organizations. International Journal of Stress Management, 10(1), 16. Bakker, A. B., Gierveld, J. H., & Van Rijswijk, K. (2006). Succesfactoren bij vrouwelijke schoolleiders in het primair onderwijs: Een onderzoek naar burnout, bevlogenheid en prestaties [Success factors among female school principals in primary teaching: A study on burnout, work engagement, and performance]. Diemen, The Netherlands: Right Management Consultants. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of managerial psychology, 22(3), Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2009). The crossover of daily work engagement: Test of an actor partner interdependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Human relations, 65(10), Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands-resources theory. In C. Cooper & P. Chen (Eds.), Wellbeing: A complete reference guide (pp ). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Colbert, J. A., Brown, R. S., Choi, S., & Thomas, S. (2008). An investigation of the impacts of teacher-driven professional development on pedagogy and student learning. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends (2015). Work engagement is top priority. Retrieved May 2, 2017, from 25

26 werknemers-employee-engagement-is-top-prioriteit/ Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demandsresources model of burnout. Journal of Applied psychology, 86(3), 499. Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), Gierveld, J. H., & Bakker, A. B. (2005). De invloed van de secretaresse [The influence of the secretary]. Diemen, The Netherlands: Manpower. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of school psychology, 43(6), Hakanen, J. J., Perhoniemi, R., & Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008). Positive gain spirals at work: From job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness. Journal of vocational behavior, 73(1), Hakanen, J. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The Job Demands-Resources model: A three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work & Stress, 22(3), Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Same same but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?. European psychologist, 11(2), Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS [Macro]. Herzberg, F. I. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American psychologist, 44(3), 513. Huang, T. C. (2001). The relation of training practices and organizational performance in small and medium size enterprises. Education+ Training, 43(8/9),

27 Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human relations, 45(4), Llorens, S., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2006). Testing the robustness of the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 13(3), 378. Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and organizational Psychology, 1(1), May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 77(1), Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of vocational behavior, 70(1), Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology. Volume, 2. Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative science quarterly, 46(4), Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well being. Journal of personality, 65(3), Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68. Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate. Journal of applied Psychology, 90(6), Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., Le Blanc, P., Peeters, M., Bakker, A. B., & De Jonge, J. 27

28 (2001). Maakt arbeid gezond. Op zoek naar de bevlogen werknemer [Does work make happy, Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi sample study. Journal of organizational Behavior, 25(3), Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement, 66(4), Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement. Managing social and ethical issues in organizations, 135, 177. Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well being?. Applied Psychology, 57(2), Schaufeli W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, Slemp, G. R., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2014). Optimising employee mental health: The relationship between intrinsic need satisfaction, job crafting, and employee wellbeing. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(4), Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1-9. Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. Journal of occupational health psychology, 18(2),