The job crafting JD-R model

In their seminal article, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (Reference Wrzesniewski and Dutton2001) identify three types of job crafting behaviors: changing task boundaries, changing relational boundaries and changing cognitive task boundaries. According to this model, the reason why individuals engage in job crafting behaviors is explained in terms of three basic needs (need for control, need for a positive self-image and need for human connections). Job crafting initiatives may be encouraged or inhibited by job characteristics (i.e., autonomy, interdependence), general motivational orientations (i.e., intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivations) or work orientations (i.e., seeing work as a job, a career or a calling). Job crafting generates consequences in terms of work design, social environment at work, meaning of work and work identity.

Tims and Bakker (Reference Tims and Bakker2010) integrate job crafting within the JD-R model. Job resources are physical, psychological, social or organizational job elements that allow pursuing work goals, dealing with job demands and promoting personal growth and development. Insufficient resources generate anxiety, stress, lower motivation, disengagement, withdrawal and prevent employees from goal attainment to personal development (Bakker & Demerouti, Reference Bakker and Demerouti2007). On the contrary, sufficient resources decrease depersonalization, emotional exhaustion (Fernet, Austin, Trépanier, & Dussault, Reference Fernet, Austin, Trépanier and Dussault2013) while increasing satisfaction and motivation, work engagement and the ability to develop further resources (Bakker & Demerouti, Reference Bakker and Demerouti2008; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, Reference Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti and Schaufeli2012).

Job demands are work features that require sustained physical, cognitive or emotional effort. A distinction between ‘challenging job demands’ and ‘hindering job demands’ has been proposed (LePine, Podsakoff, & Lepine, Reference LePine, Podsakoff and Lepine2005). Hindering job demands prevent employees from achieving goals by generating stress and anxiety. Challenging job demands, even when experienced as complex and difficult, provide increased mastery experiences, satisfaction, self-efficacy, work engagement excitement, passion and personal development (Bakker & Demerouti, Reference Bakker and Demerouti2007).

Within the JD-R framework, the job crafting behaviors originally described in Wrzesniewski and Dutton’s (Reference Wrzesniewski and Dutton2001) model are conceptualized as actions aimed at changing job resources and job demands. For example, when workers change their ‘relational boundaries,’ with the goal of improving the social environment and the relations with colleagues and supervisors, in the JD-R model these behaviors are interpreted as job crafting behaviors aimed at increasing their social resources (such as support, feedback, help, etc.). Similarly, when workers reshape their ‘task boundaries’ by changing the number and types of tasks they perform, in the JD-R model these behaviors are interpreted as job crafting behaviors aimed at modifying their job demands. In the JD-R model, the behaviors aimed at changing the ‘cognitive boundaries’ described by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (Reference Wrzesniewski and Dutton2001) lose somewhat their relevance, as these behaviors ‘may be more like coping with the circumstances as they are and not about actively shaping the boundaries of one’s work’ (Tims & Bakker, Reference Tims and Bakker2010: 4,5).

Also, since authors distinguish between structural job resources and social job resources (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, Reference Tims, Bakker and Derks2012), the JD-R model identify four different job crafting behaviors: increasing structural resources, increasing social resources, increasing challenging demands and decreasing hindering demands.

Structural resources concern increased responsibility and control, ability to decide about processes and problems, knowledge, competencies and skills, professional development, opportunity to learn and to deploy the full range of one’s capabilities.

Social resources, on the other hand, concern increased support from colleagues, help and guidance, positive relationship with one’s supervisor leading to more feedback and improved coaching.

Challenging job demands concern the participation to new projects and activities that provide opportunity to increase personal and professional growth, learning and mastery.

Finally, hindering demands concern those activities that workers may try to avoid because they make work mentally or emotionally too intense, or because they make work too complex, or because they involve problematic relationships with colleagues or other actors.

Promotive control and restrictive control

Scholl (Reference Scholl1999) defined restrictive control as a form of power exertion through which a subject pushes his wishes through against the interests of another, and promotive control as a process by which an actor influences another actor in line with the latter’s interests. Restrictive control is exercised through formal power, as it is legitimized by the hierarchical authority of the supervisor. Behavioral change happens through coercion and pressure to conform. On the contrary, promotive control embraces dialogue, participation to decision making, respect and exchange of information and ideas between the supervisor and his/her collaborators. As a consequence, this form of influence triggers ‘an authentic change in the target’s preferences and behaviors’ (Elias, Reference Elias2009: 370).

Promotive control and restrictive control may generate different processes and behavioral consequences, as well as different work outcomes. For example, research shows that promotive control and restrictive control have opposite effects on leader–member relationship, effective commitment and normative commitment (Elias & MacDonald, Reference Elias and MacDonald2006), innovation success (Scholl, Reference Scholl1999) and job satisfaction (Elias, Reference Elias2009). The distinction between promotive and restrictive control is different from other constructs related to leadership style. For example, the concepts of employee orientation-consideration (influence by means of trustful and respectful leadership) and production orientation-initiating structure (influence through emphasis on tasks, Northouse, Reference Northouse2007) focus on tasks completion or the quality of the supervisor–collaborator relationship. Instead, concepts of promotive and restrictive control focus on how leadership may be exercised based on either a strict adherence to the organizational power structure or an open, collaborative, agreement-seeking approach. Also, the classic distinction between transactional and transformational leadership (Bass, Reference Bass1997) does not relate closely to either promotive or restrictive control leadership styles. A more exhaustive overview of the usefulness of promotive/restrictive control distinction in relation to other conceptualizations of leadership can be found in Elias (Reference Elias2009). Overall, it seems that such distinction actually adds a unique, useful perspective on alternative leadership styles, by focusing on two broad and yet clearly different ways through which leaders may choose to exercise their influence on collaborators.

The relationship between promotive control, restrictive control and job crafting

We argue that promotive control may trigger job crafting initiatives aimed at increasing both structural and social job resources. On the one hand, participation to decision-making and open discussion may generate opportunities to increase learning and mental abilities, to develop technical skills and to acquire new competencies (Panari, Guglielmi, Simbula, & Depolo, Reference Panari, Guglielmi, Simbula and Depolo2010). Also, promotive control requires workers to pay attention and process information in order to provide their opinions and to contribute to decision-making, and that may enhance their thinking skills and problem-solving ability (Parker & Wu, Reference Parker and Wu2014). At the same time, a constructive interaction with the supervisor may create conditions for increased seeking feedback and other social resources (help, support, advice, guidance, etc.). A climate of trust may improve the personal relationships and the social bounds in the workplace (Elias & MacDonald, Reference Elias and MacDonald2006). Finally, conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, Reference Hobfoll1989) suggests that the availability of more resources (as provided by promotive control) may create the psychological conditions that facilitate initiatives aimed at developing further resources (Hakanen, Perhoniemi, & Toppinen-Tanner, Reference Hakanen, Perhoniemi and Toppinen-Tanner2008).

On the contrary, we argue that restrictive control, by generating pathologies related to the procurement, transmission and application of information, may decrease the amount of knowledge generated and shared by employees, and their ability to seek and develop more resources. When the supervisor does not communicate anything but what is strictly necessary for the mere execution of predetermined tasks, employees ‘lack the information requisite to the pursuit of organizational goals’ (Elias & MacDonald, Reference Elias and MacDonald2006: 240) with negative consequences on self-efficacy, self-competence, self-image and also on their ability to identify ways to increase their resources (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, Reference Wrzesniewski and Dutton2001). At the same time, initiatives aimed at seeking social support and feedback may also decrease, because the skills and knowledge necessary to identify the most useful information sources are lacking (Grant & Ashford, Reference Grant and Ashford2008).

We now examine how promotive and restrictive control may affect job crafting initiatives in relation to job demands. We first focus on increasing challenging job demands. In their seminal paper, Tims and Bakker (Reference Tims and Bakker2010) argued that when supervisors share more detailed information about their collaborators’ expected contributions, the latter may utilize such information to identify job crafting initiatives aimed at changing their demands and finding new resources. Similarly, promotive control may also create conditions allowing workers to improve their critical thinking about their work activities (Scholl, Reference Scholl1999; Reference Scholl2001), thereby increasing their ability to identify new challenging job demands. Wrzesniewski and Dutton (Reference Wrzesniewski and Dutton2001: 195) also observed that when managers exercise influence by involving workers in conversations and share ‘what they are trying to accomplish and why,’ workers ‘can use this knowledge to motivate and legitimate their own job crafting behaviors.’ Moreover, the feeling of interest created by self-determination and autonomy may increase workers’ willingness to explore new experiences and ideas, to expand the self in the process and to generate a sense of achievement which, in turn, allows them to envision even greater achievements in the future through new challenging demands as an opportunity for further personal development (Fredrickson, Reference Fredrickson2001). Restrictive control, on the contrary, may decrease the resources necessary to find new challenging job demands. It may also generate a passive style of coping (LePine, Podsakoff, & Lepine, Reference LePine, Podsakoff and Lepine2005), characterized by a tendency to avoid or decrease challenging activities (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, Reference Lyubomirsky, King and Diener2005). Restrictive control decreases the learning opportunities and, by consequence, the skills and knowledge that may be critical to cope with challenging demands (Morrison, Cordery, Girardi, & Payne, Reference Morrison, Cordery, Girardi and Payne2005). Similarly, the sense of engagement may also be decreased (Schaufeli & Salanova, Reference Schaufeli and Salanova2010), which also seems to decrease the ability and the willingness to face new challenging activities (Hakanen, Perhoniemi, & Toppinen-Tanner, Reference Hakanen, Perhoniemi and Toppinen-Tanner2008). Finally, restrictive control may also have negative effects on workers’ motivation to seek new challenging job demands because of the decreased possibility to express preferences and ideas, which in turn may decrease self-efficacy and self-competence (Bandura, Reference Bandura1977).

We now turn our attention to the ways promotive and restrictive control that may affect job crafting initiatives in relation to hindering job demands. Decreasing job demands may be seen as socially undesirable (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, Reference Tims, Bakker and Derks2013b) and leading to sanctions (Grant & Ashford, Reference Grant and Ashford2008), as job demands often appear to be more like ‘givens’ and ‘predetermined’ than job resources (Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, Reference Hakanen, Bakker and Schaufeli2006). Literature shows that when supervisors encourage participation in decision-making, free expression of opinion, awareness of the organizational goals, the psychological risk associated with individual initiative is decreased, intrinsic motivation, engagement and the propensity to proactivity increases (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, Reference Wrzesniewski and Dutton2001, Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, Reference Parker, Bindl and Strauss2010). Thus, it seems reasonable to imply that promotive control may encourage behaviors aimed at decreasing those job demands that are considered ‘hindering’ by the individuals. On the contrary, it seems safe to assume that restrictive control, by emphasizing conformity to predetermined procedures, may induce workers not to engage in decreasing hindering job demands.

The relationship between job crafting, self-competence and work performance

Self-competence concerns the self-evaluation of skills and abilities possessed by the individual in relation to a certain activity or domain, and the perception of oneself as capable, effective and in control (Ford, Reference Ford1985). More recently, Tafarodi and Swann (Reference Tafarodi and Swann2001: 654) defined self-competence as ‘the valuative experience of oneself as a causal agent, an intentional being that can bring about desired outcomes through exercising its will.’ Literature shows that organizations may increase workers’ self-competence in different ways, including practices such as job enrichment, goal setting and participative decision-making (Williams & Lillibridge, Reference Williams and Lillibridge1992). Similarly, job crafting may also help to develop self-competence in a variety of ways. In general, job crafting enables employees to adjust their jobs to their personal skills, abilities, knowledge and preferences. People experiencing a congruence between their characteristics and key aspects of their job will likely feel more positive work-related affective states, as well as a higher perception of being in control and competent (Maslach & Leiter, Reference Maslach and Leiter1997). More specifically, we need to consider separately job crafting in terms of changing job resources and job demands.

According to the JD-R model, job resources can play not only an extrinsic motivational role (as they are instrumental for goal achievement) but also an intrinsic motivational role, because they foster employees’ learning, growth and development. By increasing their structural resources workers increase their opportunities for learning as well as their ability to utilize their capabilities and to intervene autonomously on their work activities (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, Reference Tims, Bakker and Derks2012). In turn, this should increase their belief to possess the cognitive and behavioral repertoire needed to control and cope with problems and, ultimately, this should also increase self-efficacy and self-competence (Bandura, Reference Bandura1977; Kelloway & Barling, Reference Kelloway and Barling1991; Williams & Lillibridge, Reference Williams and Lillibridge1992). Behaviors aimed at increasing social resources may also increase self-competence, because help, support, advice and feedback clearly constitute opportunities for learning, which may consolidate the belief to master problems at work with more proficiency (Bakker & Demerouti, Reference Bakker and Demerouti2007).

We also argue that job crafting behaviors such as changing job demands may positively affect self-competence. Indeed, proactivity literature shows that efforts aimed at increasing challenges at work improve self-competence (Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, Reference Parker, Bindl and Strauss2010). Even though new challenges may be perceived as difficult and stressful, they may promote mastery, personal growth, future gains and develop confidence about one’s abilities (Clegg & Spencer, Reference Clegg and Spencer2007). Also, according to job crafting literature, ‘it is expected that employees only increase their level of job demands when they have enough job resources available to deal with them’ (Tims & Bakker, Reference Tims and Bakker2010: 4). Overall, it seems that the combination of increasing resources and increasing challenging job demands may represent the attempt to create a sort of ‘active job,’ characterized by personal development, learning, mastery and competence feeling (Karasek & Theorell, Reference Karasek and Theorell1990; Petrou et al., Reference Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli and Hetland2012).

The effect of behaviors aimed at decreasing hindering demands on self-competence appears to be two-fold.

Some studies show that while hindrances tend to be appraised as stressful demands that may thwart personal growth, learning and goal attainment (Tims & Bakker, Reference Tims and Bakker2010), they are nonetheless of relevance for workers’ engagement, so decreasing them may contribute to make the work environment less challenging and stimulating (Petrou et al., Reference Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli and Hetland2012) and to decrease the opportunities to acquire new abilities and to strengthen the existing ones. However, when individuals find it impossible to tackle such demands, these become threatening to the self and a hindrance to achieve a sense of fulfillment. Indeed, literature shows that hindering demands may generate emotional exhaustion and a decline in one’s feelings of competence and successful achievement in one’s job (Maslach & Leiter, Reference Maslach and Leiter1997; Fernet et al., Reference Fernet, Austin, Trépanier and Dussault2013). Accordingly, when such demands are alleviated the employees’ confidence about their skills and abilities may be increased. For these reasons, consistently with the original job crafting JD-R model, we expect that self-competence may benefit from proactive behaviors aimed at decreasing hindering job demands.

We now focus on work performance. Several scholars hypothesized (Clegg & Spencer, Reference Clegg and Spencer2007; Tims & Bakker, Reference Tims and Bakker2010) and found empirically a positive effect of job crafting on performance (Bakker, Tims, & Derks, Reference Bakker, Tims and Derks2012; Petrou et al., Reference Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli and Hetland2012; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, Reference Tims, Bakker and Derks2012; Tims, Bakker, Derks, & Van Rhenen, Reference Tims, Bakker, Derks and Van Rhenen2013a). Specifically, increasing job resources may improve performance, both through increased extrinsic motivation (as a result of more adequate means for the achievement of goals) and through increased intrinsic motivation (through personal development and mastery), and by decreasing the negative effects (i.e., stress, burnout) generated by chronic job demands (Tims & Bakker, Reference Tims and Bakker2010). At the same time, by crafting job demands, workers may improve their performance as a consequence of an enrichment of their activity through more stimulating and complex tasks, which may allow them to engage in a more active style of coping and to fully utilize their skills and abilities.

Again, if we focus on hindering demands we could hypothesize two opposite effects. Although it seems reasonable that workers may improve performance by removing hindering job demands, as these generate anxiety, stress, dissatisfaction and, ultimately, obstacles to the achievement of goals (Tims & Bakker, Reference Tims and Bakker2010), some studies show that this is not always the case. The reduction of workload may protect employee well-being in stressful situations but it may also decrease the sense of challenge and work engagement (Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, Reference Petrou, Demerouti and Schaufeli2016), with negative effects on performance (Demerouti, Bakker, & Halbesleben, Reference Demerouti, Bakker and Halbesleben2015). However, consistently with what originally stipulated within the job crafting JD-R model, we expect a positive relationship between behaviors aimed at decreasing hindering job demands and work performance.

The indirect role of job crafting in mediating supervisory control, self-competence and performance

Given the theoretical premises that we described in earlier paragraphs, we expect that restrictive control and promotive control have an indirect effect on performance and self-competence through job crafting. We also hypothesize that restrictive control and promotive control, by facilitating or inhibiting participation, discussion, dialogue and feedback, may influence job crafting initiatives aimed at changing job resources and job demands, with effects that are respectively positive and negative on performance and self-competence. Here is the complete set of hypotheses:

Participants and procedure

The study was conducted in an Italian manufacturing company with the voluntary participation of several employees at different levels. The human resources director was informed about the purpose and the methodology of the study, which he reported to all employees. Then, 230 questionnaires were distributed to those who chose to participate. Every employee was clearly informed about the anonymity of the entire process. All participants were asked to describe their job crafting actions, to evaluate their own perceived competence, to describe the characteristics of their supervisors’ style of control, to indicate their supervisors’ names and to put the completed form inside a closed box. After about 3 weeks, the filled forms were collected and 25 (among supervisors and managers) were asked to provide the performance data about their collaborators. All of them were also informed about the anonymity of the process. A total of 162 questionnaires were completely filled. Overall, 162 employees evaluated their supervisors (25 in total) on promotive and restrictive control, while 25 supervisors evaluated the performance of 162 employees. About 72% of respondents are workers with production duties, 15% are supervisors with supervising and administrative duties and 13% are managers. The average age is 38.9 (SD=12.72), the minimum 18 and maximum 67; 56% were male; the average job tenure is 8.6 years (SD=9.44). About 17.9% have a bachelor degree, 70.4% a high school diploma, while 11.7% have a middle school diploma.

Measures

The translation of the questionnaire from English to Italian was validated through the back translation method (Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, Reference Brislin, Lonner and Thorndike1973).

Data analysis and results

In Table 1 means, SDs and intercorrelations of all variables are reported.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations of the variables

Note. n=162. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001, Cronbach’s α is listed in parentheses on the diagonal. Gender: male=1; female=0. Education: 1=middle school diploma or less; 2=high school diploma; 3=bachelor degree or more. Position: 1=production staff/ production duties; 2=direct supervisors/administrative duties; 3=managers/managerial duties.

Before testing our hypotheses, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses (we utilized AMOS 21.0) in order to verify the structural validity of the individual scales. We compared the eight-factor model with a six-factor model (in which promotive control, restrictive control, self-competence and overall performance load on their respective factors, increasing structural resources and increasing social resources load on one factor, increasing challenging demands and decreasing hindering demands load on another factor), with a five-factor model (in which all items related to job crafting loaded on a single latent variable) and with a single-factor model (where we constrained all observed items to load on a single latent variable). The eight-factor model exhibits an acceptable fit [χ²=830.37 (df=602), comparative fit index (CFI)=0.94, incremental fit index (IFI)=0.94, Tucker Lewis index (TLI)=0.93, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.05], whereas the six-factor model [χ²=1802.83 (df=615), CFI=0.67, IFI=0.67, TLI=0.64, RMSEA=0.11], the five-factor model [χ²=1985.31 (df=620), CFI=0.62, IFI=0.62, TLI=0.59, RMSEA=0.12] and the single-factor model [χ²=3116.22 (df=631), CFI=0.30, IFI=0.31, TLI=0.27, RMSEA=0.16] show a poorer fit of the data.

Owing to the nested composition of our sample (employees are nested within supervisors), we tested for possible statistical dependence in our data. If the nonindependence phenomenon is detected, a multilevel analysis is required (Hox, Reference Hox2002). To assess this possibility, we calculated ICC(1)s for all variables included in the study (Bliese, Reference Bliese2000). According to Hox (Reference Hox2002), in general, coefficients of 0.05–0.09 indicate a low effect, coefficients of 0.10–0.14 represent a moderate effect and coefficients of 0.15 above indicate a large effect. Since the ICC(1)s of all variables were <0.05, we decided to apply ordinary least squares regression analysis in our research.

Finally, Harman’s one-factor test was used to empirically address the common method variance issue. The results of the factor analysis did not indicate a single-factor structure, so common method variance does not seem a serious concern.

The total, direct and indirect effects of promotive control and restrictive control on overall performance were estimated by the SPSS version of the PROCESS macro (Hayes, Reference Hayes2013) and are reported in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2 Model A: Regression results of promotive control as independent variable (PROCESS)

Note. n=162. Standard errors in parentheses. Entries are unstandardized coefficient estimates. DHID=decreasing hindering demands; ICHD=increasing challenging demands; ISOR=increasing social resources; ISTR=increasing structural resources; OP=overall performance; PC=promotive control; SC=self-competence. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.

Table 3 Model B: Regression results of PROCESS (restrictive control as independent variable)

Note. n=162. Standard errors in parentheses. Entries are unstandardized coefficient estimates. DHID=decreasing hindering demands; ICHD=increasing challenging demands; ISOR=increasing social resources; ISTR=increasing structural resources; OP=overall performance; RC=restrictive control; SC=self-competence. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.

We separately conducted four multiple mediation analyses. In the first two analysis, promotive control was entered as the predictor variable, self-competence as dependent variable in one analysis and overall performance in the other, and increasing structural resources, increasing social resources, increasing challenging demands, decreasing hindering demands as proposed multiple mediators. Afterwards, we repeated the analysis with restrictive control as the predictor variable. We controlled for age, gender, job tenure, education and position of participants in each analysis.

In model A, the indirect positive effect of promotive control on self-competence is significant via increasing structural resources (B=0.04 [0.01, 0.10]) and via increasing challenging demands (B=0.05 [0.02, 0.10]), but it is not significant via increasing social resources or decreasing hindering demands. The indirect positive effect of promotive control on performance is significant via increasing structural resources (B=0.10 [0.03, 0.24]), via increasing challenging demands (B=0.10 [0.03, 0.20]) and via decreasing hindering demands (B=0.04 [0.01, 0.11]). However, this latter effect results from a combination of relationships (a negative effect of promotive control on decreasing hindering demands and another negative effect of decreasing hindering demands on performance), which is the opposite, for both effects, of what we expected. The same effect is not significant via increasing social resources. Thus, H1a, H1c, H2a, H2c and H2d are supported, while H1b, H1d and H2b are not supported.

In model B, the indirect negative effect of restrictive control on self-competence is significant via increasing structural resources (B=–0.02 [–0.06, –0.01]) and via increasing challenging demands (B=–0.03 [–0.07, –0.01]), but it is not significant via increasing social resources or decreasing hindering demands. The indirect negative effect of restrictive control on performance is significant via increasing structural resources (B=–0.05 [–0.13, –0.01]) and via increasing challenging demands (B=–0.05 [–0.12, –0.01]), but it is not significant via increasing social resources and decreasing hindering demands. Thus, H3a, H3c, H4a and H4c are supported, whereas H3b, H3d, H4b and H4d are not supported.

Lastly, our results show that job crafting fully mediates the relationship between promotive control and self-competence (total effect B=0.08, p<.05; direct effect B=–0.01, p=.97) and between promotive control and performance (total effect B=0.17, p<.05; direct effect B=–0.05, p=.51) (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Schematic representation of the model

Also, job crafting fully mediates the relationship between restrictive control and self-competence (total effect B=–0.09, p<.01; direct effect B=–0.03, p=.33) and partially mediates the relationship between restrictive control and performance (B=–0.28, p<.001; B=–0.17, p<.01).