View
62
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Presentation for the 31st ICP congress, 24 to 29 July, 2016, Yokohama, Japan
Marjan Gorgievski, Jason Gawke, Tom Junker
Changes in the world of work have increased
demands for self-direction and worker initiative (e.g.,
Crant, 2000; Grant & Parker, 2009; Sullivan & Baruch,
2009).
This has led to an increased need to understand the
how and why of pro-active worker behavior.
This study aimed to understand the motives for and
outcomes of pro-active work behavior (job crafting and
employee intrapreneurship) from a kaleidoscope
career perspective.
PA Work and P-E fit behavior
Strategic and venturingbehavior
“self-initiated, anticipatory action that aims to change and improve the situation or oneself.” Parker & Collins, 2010, pp. 635
Basic assumption: Career patterns change throughout the life span, with the emphasis shifting between:
Challenge – seeking career advancement and personal growth through stimulating work experiences.
Balance – desire to balance work and private life.
Authenticity – need for work activities to be congruent with personal values and beliefs.
Based on the KCM we expect:
H1 - Need for challenge and authenticity (not balance) predict pro-active work behavior (crafting challenge demands and resources and employee intrapreneurship)
H2 - Corporate entrepreneurial behavior additionally predicts job crafting (more challenge demands and resources).
H3 - Crafting challenges, crafting resources and corporate entrepreneurial behavior predicts fulfillment of need for authenticity and need for challenge.
H4 - Crafting challenge demands, crafting resources and corporate entrepreneurial behavior predicts work engagement
Needs Action Fulfilment and engagement
H1
H2
H4
H3
Longitudinal study with a 12 week time lag N = 641 civil servants, 59.8 % male, 80% higher
educated (bachelor)
Measures T1 and T2◦ KCM needs (Maniero & Sullivan, 2005) ◦ KCM Need fulfilment, developed for this study◦ Job crafting (Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2012)◦ Employee Intrapreneurship (Gawke, Gorgievski, Bakker,
2015)◦ Work engagement, 9 item version (Schaufeli, Bakker &
Salanova, 2006)
Method: SmartPLS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1 gender
2 age 0,23
Time 1
3 Need for autonomy -0,01 -0,05 0,72
4 Need for balance -0,07 -0,13 0,28 0,81
5 Need for challenge -0,03 -0,12 0,37 0,21 0,77
6 autonomy fulfilment 0,06 -0,05 0,47 0,20 0,27 0,78
7 balance fulfilment 0,03 -0,08 0,12 0,45 0,13 0,45 0,86
8 challenge fulfilment 0,05 -0,03 0,11 0,13 0,37 0,59 0,36 0,81
9 crafting challenges -0,07 -0,16 0,33 0,03 0,54 0,19 0,01 0,17 0,77
10 crafting resources -0,05 -0,16 0,28 0,14 0,51 0,27 0,07 0,35 0,69 0,74
11 intrapreneurship 0,17 0,03 0,30 -0,02 0,42 0,19 -0,04 0,24 0,54 0,54 0,89
12 work engagement 0,06 0,04 0,14 0,01 0,33 0,46 0,17 0,54 0,33 0,42 0,29 0,92
Time 2
13 autonomy fulfilment 0,06 -0,08 0,31 0,14 0,20 0,64 0,35 0,46 0,14 0,24 0,17 0,41 0,76
14 balance fulfilment 0,01 -0,09 0,08 0,33 0,07 0,27 0,69 0,21 0,02 0,04 -0,04 0,10 0,38 0,85
15 challenge fulfilment 0,08 -0,07 0,09 0,11 0,31 0,49 0,30 0,72 0,18 0,32 0,24 0,50 0,59 0,30 0,81
16 crafting challenges -0,01 -0,17 0,29 0,03 0,54 0,17 0,02 0,16 0,73 0,56 0,50 0,23 0,17 0,05 0,20 0,76
17 crafting resources -0,02 -0,17 0,28 0,10 0,52 0,23 0,04 0,29 0,64 0,75 0,52 0,35 0,26 0,01 0,35 0,71 0,76
18 intrapreneurship 0,19 0,02 0,23 0,00 0,39 0,20 0,01 0,27 0,46 0,47 0,80 0,24 0,16 0,01 0,28 0,56 0,55 0,88
19 work engagement 0,04 0,03 0,11 -0,03 0,29 0,42 0,15 0,52 0,24 0,34 0,23 0,79 0,46 0,15 0,58 0,28 0,40 0,26 0,92
Career needs T1 Behaviour T1
H1 ? H2-4 ?
Need for
balance
Need for
authenticity
Need for
Challenge
Crafting
resources
Crafting
Challenges
Employee
Intrapreneurship
Crafting
resources
Crafting
Challenges
Employee
intrapreneurship
KC
M N
eeds
Pro
acti
ve w
ork
behavio
rPro
activ
e w
ork
behavio
rPartial support Hypothesis 1, Need for challenge (not authenticity) predicts pro-active work behaviorFull support Hypothesis 2, intrapreneurship predicts craftingresources and challenges
,07 (.03)
,15 (.03)
,20 (.03)
,14 (.03)
,12 (.03)
No vice versa.
Proactive behavior did not predict need fulfilment nor workengagement.
Only work engagement predicted KCM need fulfillment.
Balance
Fulfilment T1
Authenticity
Fulfilment T1
Challenge
Fulfilment T1
Work
Engagement
Work
Engagement
Balance
Fulfilment T2
Authenticity
Fulfilment T2
Challenge
Fulfilment T2
KC
M N
eed
fulf
ilm
ent
KC
M N
eed
fulfilm
ent
,15 (.04)
,15 (.04)
Wave 1 Wave 2
The engaged and challengeseeking intrapreneur….
Limiting factor: time frame. ◦ Too long to capture relationships between behavior
and work engagement?
◦ To short to capture changes in employee intrapreneurship and need fulfilment?
Could work engagement be a mediator?
Self-reports: ◦ Do other people agree with the subjective reports
of employee behavior?
Practical relevance KCM?
Limiting factor: time frame. ◦ Too long to capture relationships between behavior
and work engagement?
◦ To short to capture changes in employee intrapreneurship and need fulfilment?
Could work engagement be a mediator?
Self-reports: ◦ Do other people agree with the subjective reports
of employee behavior?
Practical relevance KCM?Thank you!
Recommended