Master thesis

Human Resource Studies

Stimulating job crafting behavior: an intervention study testing the influence of

internal locus of control and the effect on intrinsic motivation

Student: Dominique Roost

ANR: 469194

1st supervisor: Prof. dr. J.J.A. Denissen

2nd supervisor: Dr. T.A.M. Kooij

Project period: Feb. 2014 – Nov. 2014

Project theme: Intervention study job crafting

2

Abstract

This study tested if a job crafting intervention could positively stimulate employees’ level of job

crafting. In addition, the relationship between job crafting and intrinsic motivation was

investigated. Thereby, the possible mediating effects of job crafting on the relationship between

the job crafting intervention and intrinsic motivation were taken into account. Moreover, it was

tested if the personal characteristic internal locus of control predicts significant changes in job

crafting. Participants of the study were 86 Dutch employees of a health insurance company; 31

employees participated in the job crafting intervention and 55 employees were assigned to the

control group. All participants completed a pre- and post-test questionnaire. Unexpectedly, no

significant relationships were found. However, when conducting exploratory analyses a direct

significant relationship was discovered between job crafting with the focus on ‘decreasing

hindering job demands’ and intrinsic motivation.

Key words: job crafting, intervention, internal locus of control, intrinsic motivation

3

Introduction

Automation and ICT-technology, the globalization of markets and competition, organizational

innovations and restructuring, and the increasing amount of non-standard work have caused

many changes in the nature of work (Asford, George & Blatt, 2007; Kira, Eijnatten & Balkin,

2010). These current developments in the working environment pose challenges for employees’

sustainable abilities and motivation to work since employees continuously have to adapt to those

changes. As a result, the design of the job is today not only in the hands of the organization or its

managers (top-down approach). It is also increasingly expected that employees design their jobs

themselves to proactively adapt to these current trends (bottom-up approach) (Berg,

Wrzesniewki & Dutton, 2010).

Job crafting can help to implement more self-design into an individual’s work

environment. The job crafting concept was introduced by Wrzesniewki and Dutton (2001) and

can be seen as a specific form of proactive behavior (Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli &

Hetland (2012): it is self-initiated and focuses on how employees perceive their work

environment and act in accordance with their own preferences, values, and skills. The changes

that employees make in the job crafting process are primarily aimed at improving, for example,

the person-job fit or work motivation, and could be a way to find new meaningfulness in their

work (Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2012; Berg et al., 2010). Still, tools are missing to stimulate this

job crafting process. Therefore in this study a job crafting intervention is created so employees

can adapt to current trends, changes and expectations by getting more insight into job crafting

opportunities to actually craft their job.

Recent research of Peterson, Park, Nansook, Hall and Seligman (2009) showed that in

order to find their calling in work, employees have to be aware of their strengths and interests.

As means to implement effective job crafting, employees can use their own values, preferences

and skills (Berg et al., 2013). Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) argue the focus should be

on the positive qualities of people. Park, Peterson and Seligman (2004) agree because if people

use their strengths they feel more fulfilled, are happy to learn, and learn faster. Therefore, a job

crafting intervention was designed, where employees participated in a job crafting exercise in

which the focus is on aligning personal strengths and interests with their job.

In addition to this intervention, there may be personal characteristics influencing

employees’ adaptability towards job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Lyons, 2008). For

4

example there is a difference between employees who assign the cause or control of occurrences

to themselves and those who put them down to the external environment. Internal locus of

control refers to the tendency to believe that outcomes such as rewards are under one’s own

control, or are a result of one’s own actions (Rotter, 1966). The expectation is that employees

with a high level of internal locus of control will also have a higher level of job crafting because

they may be more confident that they can shape the boundaries of their work.

Grant & Parker (2009) and Oldham & Hackman (2010) acknowledge job crafting as

promising new approach to organizational behavior. Job crafting might be the underlying

explanation why employees are intrinsically motivated to perform certain tasks. Enhancing

strengths and interests by crafting work aspects could give employees new energy to perform

certain tasks and therefore could stimulate their level of intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation

refers to the ‘desire to expend effort based on interest in and enjoyment of the work itself’

(Grant, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). When people are intrinsically motivated, they fulfill a work

activity because they find it interesting, derive spontaneous satisfaction from the activity itself or

see it as an opportunity to explore, learn, and actualize potentials (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Coon &

Mitterer, 2010). Thus there is a large degree of overlap between the activity of job crafting and

the description of intrinsic motivation, which may indicate that job crafting strengthens intrinsic

motivation.

Employees who feel motivated toward their work are likely to be persistent, creative, and

productive (Amabile, 1993). From an organizational point of view, job crafting could be a way to

keep productive employees in the organization for a longer period of time since they can

continuously change job boundaries in a way it fits their own needs (Berg et al., 2010). Job

crafting could occur on all organizational levels (Wrzesniewki & Dutton, 2001; Lyons, 2008)

and therefore is an interesting concept to explore. Namely, if organizations and supervisors

encourage job crafting it can be used as a unique opportunity to maximize employee potential

and achieve multiple positive outcomes. Hence, it is interesting to study the motivational

outcomes that could result from the job crafting process.

Nonetheless, there is not much empirical evidence available on how to stimulate or

positively influence job crafting behavior. Only two studies (Van den Heuvel, Demerouti and

Peeters, 2012; Van Wingerden, Derks, Bakker and Dorenbosch, 2013) tried to actually stimulate

job crafting behavior. However, these studies were of qualitative nature and revealed both

5

positive and negative results. To explore this concept further, this study carried out an

intervention in which an online job crafting tool (Dorenbosch, 2013) was used to stimulate job

crafting behavior. Quantitative analyses was used to measure the relationship between job

crafting and intrinsic motivation and to measure the influence of internal locus of control.

Employees’ level of job crafting, intrinsic motivation and internal locus of control was measured

before (pre-test) and after the intervention (post-test). Comparing the changes between the

measures revealed if the intervention had a positive effect on the level of job crafting and if

employees’ level of intrinsically motivation increased.

To summarize, the first aim of this research was to discover if a job crafting intervention

positively stimulates the level of job crafting and if an employee will be intrinsically motivated

by participating in the job crafting intervention and job crafting process. The second aim of this

research was to determine the impact of the level of internal locus of control on an employees’

level of job crafting. Hence, the following research questions will be answered:

What are the effects of the job crafting intervention on employees’ level of job crafting? To what

extent does a change in job crafting positively influence employees’ level of intrinsic work

motivation? Can job crafting act as a mediator between the job crafting intervention and

intrinsic motivation? And what is the effect of internal locus of control on employees’ level of job

crafting?

Theoretical framework

Job crafting

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) believe that even in the most confined working environments,

employees have influence on the different aspects of their job. Based on this assumption, they

introduced the concept of job crafting, defined as “the physical and cognitive changes individuals

make in the task or relational boundaries of their work” (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p. 179).

The job crafting process is not a one-time activity but can be seen as an ongoing process:

employees continuously shape the boundaries of their work to create the ‘perfect job’ in a way

that it fits their personal strengths and interests (Berg, Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2010; Van

Vuuren & Dorenbosch, 2011). Within this process, employees use degrees of freedom of their

job to customize it so it fits their sense of what the job should be. Job crafting is not a formal job

6

requirement and usually takes place without the knowledge of a supervisor, or may not be

recognized by the management (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Ghitulescu, 2006).

Job crafting is often described as a multi-faceted aspect because the term outlines actions

employees take to shape and redefine their jobs by changing three specific aspects: the task, the

cognitive and the relational boundaries. Task crafting takes place when employees can alter the

boundaries of their job by taking on more or fewer tasks, expanding or diminishing the scope of

tasks, or changing how they perform tasks. Changing cognitive task boundaries refers to altering

how one sees the job (e.g. how employees perceive tasks or thinking about the tasks involved in

their job as a collective whole as opposed to a set of separate tasks) and changing relational

boundaries means exercising discretion on with whom to interact while doing the job

(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Berg, Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2010). The main purpose of job

crafting is that employees can make adjustments to their job to a certain extent so that it

optimally fits their interests, strengths and motives (Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2012).

Job crafting is an interesting concept to explore since it can lead to several positive

outcomes for both the individual employee and the organization. Employees can change different

boundaries in their job to create a better fit with what they want and can achieve in their job

(Tims & Bakker, 2010). As a result, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) state this enhances their

work identity and the positive meaning of work. Moreover, a proposition of Tims and Bakker

(2010) is that job crafting is beneficial for the organization since it can lead to more committed

employees, higher performances and reduced numbers of employee turnover.

To stimulate job crafting, a job crafting intervention was designed where interests,

strengths and motivates of individual employees were linked to different tasks/aspects of their

jobs. An online job crafting tool (Dorenbosch, 2013) was used which gave employees a

visualization of how their interests, strengths and motives currently were aligned within their job.

The intervention gave employees the opportunity to consciously reflect on their job and created

awareness of where they could shape some boundaries within their work. As a result, it was

expected that employees perceive more insight into how to job craft effectively. At the end of the

job crafting intervention participants formulated a personal job crafting goal on which they could

work in the subsequent weeks. The following hypothesis is expected:

H1: The job crafting intervention will positively stimulate an employees’ level of job crafting.

7

Job crafting and intrinsic motivation

Lyons (2008) discovered in a qualitative study with salespersons that 75% of his participants

engaged in some kind of job crafting. Besides this finding, results from participating in job

crafting were that employees received greater feelings of responsibility, achievement, and

competence, which in turn positively influenced intrinsic motivation since employees felt more

valued as organization members (Lyons, 2008).

Intrinsic motivation is based on positively valued experiences that employees get directly

from their work tasks (Deci, 1975: Deci & Ryan,1985; Thomas & Tymon, 1997; Thomas &

Velthouse, 1990). These positive experiences serve to get employees involved, committed, and

energized by their work (Thomas & Tymon, 1997). So, intrinsic motivation can be explained as

the positive feelings that people receive from their work. Research by Thomas (2000) explained

that positive feelings and experiences are stimulated by an increasing level of self-management

efforts which will make work personally fulfilling. A way to increase these self-management

efforts could be to integrate personal job crafting goals so employees could shape their own task

and/or relational boundaries. As a result, employees could feel more in control of their job which

in turn can lead to a higher level of intrinsic motivation.

The relationship between job crafting and intrinsic motivation can be further explained

with the self-determination theory (SDT) of Deci and Ryan (1991). SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1991) is

a humanistic theory of motivation and well-being. The assumption of this theory is that

individuals have innate tendencies towards personal growth and innate psychological needs that

can be affected by their immediate environment (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The optimal conditions in

which these innate tendencies are enacted are defined by the needs for: 1) competence: people

need to gain mastery of task and learn different skills; 2) connection of relatedness: people need

to experience a sense of belonging and attachment to other people; and 3) autonomy: people

need to feel in control of their own behavior. These needs are seen as universal necessities that

are innate and not learned (Chirkov, Ryan, Kim & Kaplan, 2003).

Looking at the job crafting theory of Wrzeskniewski and Dutton (2001), job crafting

could be a way to fulfill the abovementioned needs if employees changes the boundaries of the

job. Job crafting may enhance the opportunity to implement and develop personal competencies

due to task crafting, and by relational crafting the employees fulfill the need to connect and relate

to other people.

8

Subsequently, job crafting is a form of proactive behavior that could fulfill the need for

autonomy; by being proactive and shaping the work boundaries employees feel they are in

control. By changing aspects of a job so that they fit their own needs, employees enhance their

motivation (Hakanen, Schaufeli & Ahola, 2008). By being proactive in job crafting, employees

might be able to find more motivating challenges (Hakanen et al., 2008). Therefore, the

following relationship is expected:

H2: Job crafting has a positive effect on employees’ level of intrinsic motivation.

The job crafting intervention is focused at helping employees to get more and/or new

insights into their tasks, interests and strengths and possibly discover opportunities to look at

their work differently. By formulating a specific goal, employees will be encouraged to integrate

job crafting into their daily work. For example employees might participate in new activities,

create ways to make uninteresting task less disturbing, look for new social relationships or create

a different work environment. Seeing new opportunities in their current job while focusing on

their personal strengths and interests can give employees new energy, which will lead to job

crafting and eventually to a higher level of intrinsic motivation. Therefore, a mediation effect of

job crafting is expected:

H3: Increase in job crafting mediates the relation between the job crafting intervention and

employees’ level of intrinsic motivation.

Locus of control as a predictor for job crafting

Various studies have mentioned that personal characteristics of employees could yield different

results in job crafting (Lyons, 2008; Bakker et al., 2012). One relevant concept for the

explanation of human behavior in organizations is locus of control, which refers to ‘the extent to

which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them’ (Rotter, 1966).

Employees assign the cause or control of occurrences to themselves or to the external

environment. Internal locus of control refers to the tendency to believe that outcomes such as

rewards are a result of own actions performed within a job (Rotter, 1966). Employees who

attribute control to outside forces are said to have an external locus of control (Spector, 1982).

9

A positive relationship is expected between internal locus of control and job crafting.

Giles (1977) compared two employee groups in his study, one group with high internal locus of

control and one group with low locus of control. Results of his study were that employees with a

high level of internal locus of control behaved more proactively and took control over their

current situations when they were not satisfied with their job. Not only do employees with a high

level of internal locus of control perceive greater control, they may also actually seek situations

in which control is possible (Spector, 1982). Therefore, it is more likely that employees with a

high level of locus of control perceive a higher level of involvement in job crafting because they

may have a stronger belief in their ability to shape the boundaries of their work. Employees with

a high level of internal locus of control rely on themselves and therefore it is expected they feel

more inclined to job crafting. These arguments result in the following hypothesis:

H4: Internal locus of control will be associated with higher levels of job crafting.

The job crafting intervention might give employees the opportunity to gain insights into how

they can apply their personal strengths and interests more to different tasks of their work. This

possibly creates awareness among employees that they can more or less accomplish whatever

they set out to accomplish, which relates to a higher level of internal locus of control. Therefore,

the following hypothesis is expected:

H5: The job crafting intervention will increase an individual’s level of internal locus of control.

Figure 1 gives a visualization of abovementioned hypotheses.

Figure 1: Conceptual model

10

Method

Research set-up

To address the conceptual model (figure 1) an experimental study was designed. The purpose of

this study was to explore the relationship between job crafting and intrinsic motivation, and to

determine the influence of a job crafting intervention and participants’ individual internal locus

of control. The expectation was that job crafting acts as a mediator.

In order to test the hypotheses, the Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design (Singleton &

Straits, 2005) was used to discover if a job crafting intervention influences a change in

participants’ individual level of job crafting. The participants received an invitation to

voluntarily take part in the study. Then they were divided into two groups: one intervention

group and one control group. A symbolization of this design is as follows:

Q₁ X Q₂

Q₃ Q₄

Participants were randomly (R) allocated to either the experimental group or control group by the

researchers. The experimental group received a pre-test questionnaire (Q₁), then participated in

the intervention (X) and after the intervention filled in a post-test questionnaire (Q₂). The control

group also completed the pre-test (Q₃) and post-test (Q₄) questionnaires but did not participate in

the job crafting intervention. Hence, results of the questionnaires of the experimental and control

group could be compared. To obtain cooperation of the control group to fill in the questionnaires,

this group was offered the job crafting intervention after the study.

Procedure

Data were gathered from one of the bigger health insurance companies located in the

Netherlands. Data collection took eight weeks and was performed by three master students of

Human Resource Studies from Tilburg University. The procedure started by persuading

employees of the organization to voluntarily participate in the job crafting intervention by giving

a presentation at an internal network meeting and by sending them an invitation by e-mail. Only

general information about the job crafting topic was provided (so no specific research purposes)

to prevent participants from influencing results. After inventory of the applications, a research

period of eight weeks started.

R

11

Data collection began with distributing an online questionnaire (pre-test) in week 1 to all

participants to measure their general level of job crafting, intrinsic motivation and locus of

control. The questionnaire had to be completed before the job crafting workshop (intervention).

In the third week, the researchers visited the organization and provided the experimental

group with a job crafting workshop in which a job crafting exercise was performed. The goal of

the job crafting exercise was to positively stimulate job crafting by letting employees evaluate

their job and how it can be improved to fit with personal strengths and interests. The job crafting

exercise was conducted via an online job crafting tool (Dorenbosch, 2013) and consisted of six

steps.

The first step was diagnosing tasks: participants were asked to make an enumeration of

their current tasks. Hereby it was important that the participants identified all tasks they currently

perform and not only the formal tasks as stated in their job description. Next, participants were

asked to make a division into small, medium or large tasks and the percentage of their weekly

work time spent on the separate tasks.

Subsequently, step 2 focused on task dynamics in which participants were challenged to

consider how their work had changed over time. A distinction had to be made between

traditional versus new tasks; so tasks which were part of the job since they started work in their

current position, versus tasks which were added later. Participants also had to specify if their

time division per task had changed over a period of time. A distinction had to be made if time

spent on a specific task had increased or decreased. In this way awareness and insight was

created among participants that their job develops continuously.

Next, step 3 focused on profiling tasks. Participants expressed their personal strengths,

interests and needs and matched these with their current tasks. This was also done with the

barriers or restrictions participants may experience in their job which could be of cognitive,

physical or emotional nature. To match needs, strengths, interests and/or work barriers with their

current tasks, awareness among participants was created of where there might be room left for

job crafting opportunities.

Subsequently, in step 4 setting task priorities was central. Participants had to determine

which task motivates them and which they still would like to perform in two years’ time. After

the previous four steps it was expected that participants had received a thorough understanding

of how their strengths and interests were integrated in their own work. Participants received a

12

clear summary of the information they filled in, and so might have been able to consider in step 5

which tasks contained job crafting opportunities.

Finally, in step 6, the participants selected one task to job craft that was attainable in the

following three weeks. By using the online job crafting tool (Dorenbosch, 2013), insight among

participants was created on which task they could work to create a more suitable job matched

with their strengths and interests. The participants had to prepare a plan, which included

specified actions and steps to achieve their goal.

Two weeks after the job crafting workshop (week 6) participants received a telephone

call from the researchers to discuss and evaluate the job crafting process. Hereby it was checked

if the researchers could provide the participants with any help or guidelines. In addition, the

researchers discussed with the participants whether they had worked on and/or achieved their

goals. Finally, in week 7 the post-test questionnaire was distributed to both the experimental and

control group. The questionnaire had to be completed by the end of week 8.

Population and sample

Data for this study was collected among employees from a health insurance company in Tilburg.

Participants were all Dutch-speaking employees who voluntarily participated in the study. In

total, the two questionnaires were completed by 86 employees. The participants were randomly

assigned to two groups by the researchers; 31 employees participated in the job crafting

intervention and 55 employees were assigned to the control group. Initially, participants were

equally distributed between the experimental and control group. However, employees

participated voluntarily which resulted in some last minute cancelations for the job crafting

workshop. Therefore, the number of participants in the experimental group is lower.

The demographic data of the participants are shown in table 1. In both the experimental

(71%) and control group (81.8%) the majority of the participants were female. Age ranged from

22 to 55 years with an average age of 30.71 years in the experimental group and 32.98 years in

the control group. Regarding the educational background most participants had completed higher

or academic education. In the experimental group 38.7% of the participants had achieved a

higher college degree and 58.1% an academic degree. In the control group 60% had achieved a

higher college degree and 20% an academic degree. On average the employees worked 33.70

hours a week. The experimental group worked slightly longer hours, namely on average 34.84

13

hours, than the control group (33.05 hours). Participants had been working for the company for

an average of 5.54 years. The experimental group’s tenure at the company was relatively shorter

compared to the control group (3.14 vs. 6.92 years). The average job tenure of the participants

was 3.03 years. The average job tenure of the experimental group was 2.63 years and of the

control group 3.26 years.

Because it was preferable to have two comparable groups, an independent-samples T-test

was conducted to compare the demographic characteristics between the experimental and control

group. Since the researchers allocated participants randomly to either the control or experimental

group, differences between these groups could occur based on coincidence. The independent-

samples T-test showed that there were significant differences in educational background (t = -

3.848, p = .000), contract hours (t = -2.187, p = .032) and organizational tenure (t = 2.945, p

=.004). This means, based on these demographic characteristics, the experimental group and

control group are not completely equivalent. As shown in table 1, participants in the

experimental group had a higher educational background, worked slightly more hours a week

and the organizational tenure was less, compared to the control group.

Table 1: Demographic characteristics participants

Variables Mean / % Mean

Difference

Sig. (two-tailed)

Total group 100% (N=86)

Experimental group 36.05% (N=31)

Control group 63.95% (N=55)

Gender .11 .274

Total group Male 22.1% (N=19)

Female 77.9% (N=67)

Experimental group Male 29.0 % (N=9)

Female 71.0 %(N=22)

Control group Male 18.2% (N=10)

Female 81.8% (N=45)

Age (years) 2.27 .139

Total group 32.16

Experimental group 30.71 (SD=5.80)

Control group 32.98 (SD=7.26)

Educational background -.62 .000*

Total group Primary school

Secondary school 4.7% (N=4)

Secondary vocational education 9.3% (N=8)

14

Higher education 52.3% (N=45)

Academic education 33.7% (N=29)

Experimental group Primary school

Secondary school

Secondary vocational education 3.2% (N=1)

Higher education 38.7% (N=12)

Academic education 58.1% (N=18)

Control group Primary school

Secondary school 7.3 (N=4)

Secondary vocational education 12.7 (N=7)

Higher education 60.0 (N=33)

Academic education 20.0 (N=11)

Contract hours -1.79 .032*

Total group 33.70

Experimental group 34.84 (SD=2.91)

Control group 33.05 (SD=3.99)

Organizational tenure 3.78 .004*

Total group 5.54

Experimental group 3.14 (SD =5.15)

Control group 6.92 (SD =6.28)

Job tenure .63 .403

Total group 3.03

Experimental group 2.63 (SD =3.64)

Control group 3.26 (SD =3.04)

Note: *p<.05

Measures

In this study a questionnaire was distributed two times (pre-test and post-test) which measured

the variables job crafting, intrinsic motivation and internal locus of control. All items were

translated to Dutch. In the pre-test questionnaire demographic information was asked about the

respondents like gender, age, educational level, contractual hours, organizational tenure and

tenure in current position.

To test the validity of the scales, a factor analysis (principal components analysis) was

executed. The scale needs to fulfill several requirements to be suitable for factor analysis. The

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) should be above .6 and Bartlett’s

Test of Sphericity should be significant (p < .05) (Pallant, 2010). Kaiser’s criterion was used to

determine the number of components extracted from the factor analysis. Factors with

eigenvalues greater than one were considered as one variable since they represent a substantial

15

amount of variation (Field, 2009). In addition, the scatterplot and pattern matrix were checked to

evaluate if there was accordance with Kaiser’s criterion. Loadings in the pattern matrix should be

higher than .3 to indicate an acceptable fit with the component. Next, the reliability of the scale

was tested using Cronbach’s alpha (α) coefficient. According George and Mallery (2003) a

Cronbach’s alpha above .90 is referred to as ‘excellent’, above. 80 as ‘good’ and above .70 as

‘acceptable’.

Job crafting

Job crafting was measured with the job crafting scale of van Woerkom and Kooij (2013) which

focused on crafting towards strengths (based on the Short Measure of Character Strength by

Furnham and Lester, 2012) and crafting towards interests (based on shortened version of the

Person Globe Inventory by Tracy, 2010). Example questions were: ‘I organize my work in a way

that it fits my strengths’ and ‘I actively look for tasks that fit my interests’. The scale consisted of

12 items and was answered on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (never) to 7 (always).

Factor analysis was conducted to check the suitability of the scale. The KMO index

was .86 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p = .000) and so verified sampling

adequacy to run a principal component analysis (PCA). PCA revealed the presence of three

components with eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 (5.71, 1.25 and 1.07) and in

combination explained 66.97% of the variance. However, the scree plot indicated a presence of

two components. When evaluating the different items it could be concluded that the third

component consisted of two items with the focus on customers. Since the sample consists of

employees of a health insurance company who were not all in direct contact with customers, it

was decided to remove the two items from the scale to prevent biased results. A new PCA was

run and clearly indicated two components (eigenvalues 5,16 and 1,09) which in combination

explained 62.43% of the variance. Therefore it was decided to split the scale in two variables: job

crafting towards strengths (component 1 with five items) and job crafting towards interests

(component 2 with five items). Reliability analysis was carried out for both variables and showed

a ‘good’ reliability for job crafting towards strengths (α .83) and interests (α .85). The

‘Cronbach’s Alpha if item deleted’ was smaller than the Cronbach’s Alpha of the scale for all

items, except for one item in the scale ‘job crafting towards strengths’ (Cronbach’s Alpha if item

16

deleted .83) with a ‘corrected item-total correlation’ of .50. Due to the small difference the item

was kept in the scale.

In the post-test questionnaire the same items were included as in the pre-test, only in the

post-test ‘the last three weeks’ was added before each item. This addition was done because it

was expected that the level of job crafting increased in the weeks after the intervention. An

example question was: ‘The last three weeks I organized my work in a way that it fits my

strengths’. The Cronbach’s Alpha of ‘job crafting towards strengths (α .80) and ‘job crafting

towards interests’ (α .83) indicated a ‘good’ reliability.

Intrinsic motivation

Intrinsic motivation was measured with the self-regulation scale of Ryan and Connell (1989).

The following introduction question was asked: ‘Why are you motivated to do your work?’ The

four answering options were ‘Because I enjoy the work itself,’ ‘Because it is fun’, ‘Because I

find the work engaging’, and ‘Because I enjoy it’. The four items were answered on a 7-point

Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Factor analysis showed a KMO-index of .76 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was

significant (p = .000). PCA was conducted on the four items and clearly showed the presence of

one component based on the scree plot and Kaiser’s criterion of eigenvalue greater than one

(eigenvalue 2,78). This one component explained 69.52% of the variance. The reliability of the

scale was indicated as ‘good’ based on a Cronbach’s Alpha of .85. One item could be deleted

from the scale namely ‘because I enjoy the work itself’ because as indicated by ‘Cronbach’s

Alpha if item deleted’ the Cronbach’s Alpha would rise to .86. The corrected item-total

correlation of this item was .57 and so above the desired value of .3. Due to the small

dissimilarity and limited questions of this scale it was decided to not remove this item.

The same intrinsic motivation scale was included in the post-test questionnaire, only in

the introduction of the scale it was pointed out that participants have to indicate to what extent

the items are applicable at that moment. Cronbach’s Alpha of the intrinsic motivation scale in the

post-test questionnaire was ‘good’ (α .84).

17

Locus of control

Internal locus of control was measured with the Work Locus of Control Scale of Spector (1988)

which focused on work related locus of control. The scale was applicable for this study because

it fits within the working environment where data for the study was gathered. Originally, this

scale consisted of 16 items; 8 items which measured the level of internal locus of control and 8

items which measured the level of external locus of control. This study focused only on internal

locus of control and therefore the 8 external locus of control items were deleted from the scale.

Example questions of the internal locus of control scale were: ‘In most jobs, people can pretty

much accomplish whatever they set out to accomplish’ and ‘most people are capable of doing

their jobs well if they make the effort’. The 8 items were answered on a 6-point scale from 1

(totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree).

Factor analysis was performed and showed a KMO index of .59 which did not exceed the

preferred KMO index of >.6. A KMO index greater than .05 was referred to as barely acceptable

according to Kaiser (1974) (as stated in Field, 2009). Since Bartlett’s tests of sphericity was

significant (p = .000) and the KMO index nearly entered the acceptable KMO bar of .6, the

decision was made to still execute a PCA. The PCA revealed the presence of three components

(eigenvalues 2.44, 1.38 and 1.08) explaining respectively 30.46%, 17.29% and 13.49% of the

variance. However, a one-component factor solution was chosen since this corresponded with

previous literature (Spector & O’Connell, 1994). Looking at the content of the questions it was

hard to identify common themes within the 8 internal locus of control items. Also, a one-

component factor solution showed a simpler structure than a two or three-component factor

solution. Reliability analysis indicated a Cronbach’s alpha of .66 which was near the preferred

Cronbach’s alpha size of .7. However, with a short scale (less than 10 items) it is common to find

low Cronbach’s alpha values (Pallant, 2010). ‘Cronbach’s if item deleted’ was higher than .66

for two items: ‘A job is what you make of it’ (α .67) and ‘People who perform their jobs well

generally get rewarded for it’ (α .67). In addition, both items showed a lower ‘corrected item-

total correlation’ than .3. Due to the small dissimilarity in the Cronbach’s alpha it was decided to

first compare these results with the post-test questionnaire to find out if it was better to keep or

remove these items from the scale.

The scale in the post-test questionnaire showed a ‘good’ internal consistency with a

Cronbach’s alpha of .80. ‘Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted’ of all items was smaller than .80 and

18

the ‘correct item-total correlations’ were all above .3 (ranging from .38 to .72). Due to these

results and the small dissimilarities in the pre-test questionnaire, it was decided to keep all items

in the scale.

Control variables

Control variables were added to the analysis to meet the requirements of spuriousness and

causality. In this way the influence of the control variables was excluded from the relationship

between the independent and dependent variables as formulated in the hypotheses. Data of the

following control variables were collected: gender, age, education, contract hours, tenure in the

company and tenure in current function.

In addition, proactive personality was included as a control variable since it was expected

that employees with a more proactive personality take more initiative in improving current

circumstances by identifying opportunities for change and taking more action (Bateman & Crant

1993; Tims & Bakker, 2010) and therefore it is more likely they perceive a higher level of job

crafting. Proactive personality was measured with the shortened Proactive Personality Scale

(PPS) by Bateman & Crant (1993). The scale consisted of six items and were answered on a 5-

point Likert scale from one (totally disagree) to five (totally agree). An example question was:

‘When I see something I don’t like, I change it’. Factor analyses indicated a KMO-index of .81

and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity was significant (p = .000). PCA confirmed the presence of one

component with a good reliability of .82 (α).

Statistical analysis

Data from the questionnaires was analyzed with the statistical program SPSS (version 22). First,

data was screened for missing values, errors and outliers and the normality was assessed. The

descriptive statistics were explored by analyzing the frequencies of the continuous and

categorical variables.

Second, the internal consistency of the scale was tested by performing a reliability

analysis. Next, factor analyses were conducted to check the suitability of the scale.

Subsequently, a scatterplot was generated to find out if there was a linear relationship

between two variables. In addition, violations of the assumption of homoscedasticity were

examined. After testing the aforementioned assumptions, a Pearson correlation analysis was

19

carried out to describe the strengths and direction of the linear relationship between two variables

(Pallant, 2010) and to discover the significance of these relationships.

Since the job crafting intervention was performed by three workshop leaders, a one way

anova was performed to evaluate if there were significant differences in the mean scores across

the groups. A post-hoc test indicated the specific variations between the groups.

Multiple regression was applied to test the hypotheses. Before assessing, multiple

regression assumptions of multicollinearity were checked. Hierarchical multiple regression was

used to indicate how well a particular predicator variable was able to predict an outcome when

effects of another variable were controlled for (Pallant, 2010). Within the multiple regression

analysis, an independent-sample T-test was carried out to test if there are significant differences

of the means between the experimental and control group in the pre- and post-test questionnaire.

Finally, to test the mediating effect of hypothesis 3, the indirect effect method of Preacher

and Hayes (2004) was used. Preacher and Hayes (2004) based their mediation method on the

traditional approach of Baron and Kenny (1986). According to this method several conditions

have to be met to demonstrate a mediation effect (illustrated by figure 2). First, a significant

correlation has to exist between the independent variable X and dependent variable Y (path c).

Second, X should significantly predict M (path a) and third, M should significantly predict Y

when controlling for X (path b). Additionally, Preacher and Hayes (2004) test the significance of

the indirect effect with a self-designed syntax including a bootstrap approach provided by SPSS.

Figure 2: Illustration of expected mediation effect

20

Modification for this research

As mentioned before, the PCA of the job crafting scale clearly demonstrated the presence of two

components: ‘job crafting towards interests’ and ‘job crafting towards strengths’. Since

reliability analyses showed a good internal consistency of both scales (α .83) and α .85), it was

decided to execute multiple regression analyses on both components.

The first time that a distinction was made in job crafting towards ‘strengths’ and

‘interests’ was in a pilot study of Van Duijn, Lansbergen and de Jager (2013). However, they

used a longer version of the job crafting scale of Van Woerkom and Kooij (2013) which makes

results of the PCA of Van Duijn, Lansbergen and de Jager (2013) not entirely comparable with

this study. Therefore, this dichotomy in job crafting was not implemented in this study from the

beginning since the shortened version of the job crafting scale of Van Woerkom and Kooij

(2013) was not empirically tested before.

Initially, hypothesis 1, 2, 3 and 4 focused on job crafting in general. As a result of the

PCA, these hypotheses were slightly altered as follows:

H1a: The job crafting intervention will positively stimulate the level of job crafting towards

strengths.

H1b: The job crafting intervention will positively stimulate the level of job crafting towards

interests.

H2a: Increase in job crafting towards strengths has a positive effect on employees’ level of

intrinsic motivation.

H2b: Increase in job crafting towards interests has a positive effect on employees’ level of

intrinsic motivation.

H3a: Increase in job crafting towards strengths mediates the relation between the job crafting

intervention and employees’ level of intrinsic motivation.

H3b: Increase in job crafting towards interests mediates the relation between the job crafting

intervention and employees’ level of intrinsic motivation.

H4a: Internal locus of control will be associated with higher levels of job crafting towards

strengths.

H4b: Internal locus of control will be associated with higher levels of job crafting towards

interests.

21

Results

Descriptive statistics

The relationship between the job crafting intervention, job crafting, locus of control, intrinsic

motivation and the different control variables was investigated using Pearson product-moment

correlation coefficient. Preliminary analyses were performed to ensure there was no violation of

the assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity

Table 2 revealed insignificant correlations between the job crafting intervention and job

crafting towards strengths T2 (r = -.03, p > .05) and interests T2 (r = .03, p > .05). This could

imply that the job crafting intervention did not stimulate the desired level of job crafting, which

is not in line with hypothesis 1a and 1b. In addition, the correlation between the job crafting

intervention and internal locus of control T1 was positive, but also not significant (r = .05,

p > .05). This could mean that hypothesis 5 is not supported. The correlation matrix showed a

positive significant correlation between job crafting towards strengths and intrinsic motivation (r

= .29, p < .05) which is in line with hypothesis 2a. However, the positive correlation between job

crafting towards interests and intrinsic motivation was not significant (r = .17, p > .05) as

expected by hypothesis 2b. However, a positive significant correlation was found between

internal locus of control T2 and job crafting strengths T2 (r = .38, p < .01) which supports

hypothesis 4a. The correlation between internal locus of control T2 and job crafting towards

interests T2, as stated by hypothesis 4b, was not significant (r = .22, p > .05).

Results from the correlation matrix revealed that not all control variables correlated

significantly with the dependent variables. Therefore, only the control variables which

significantly correlated with the dependent variable were included in the multiple regression

analyses. Proactive personality was included in all regression analyses since the correlation with

all dependent variables was highly significant. Moreover, a one way ANOVA was performed

and revealed a significant difference (p = .01) between workshop leaders on the dependent

variable job crafting towards strengths. Therefore, a dummy variable was created for workshop

leader and added as a control variable in the regression analysis (when analyzing the dependent

variable job crafting towards strengths).

Table 2: Means, standard deviations and correlations

Independent-samples t-test

Since the total sample was divided into two groups, one control group and one experimental

group, there is a possibility that the baseline scores measured by the pre-test questionnaire differ

between the groups. With an independent-samples t-test it was tested if participants of the two

groups scored significantly different on the mean scores of these baseline values. The

independent-sample t-test was conducted with the scores of the pre-test questionnaire of both

groups on the dependent variables: job crafting towards strengths and interests, intrinsic

motivation, and internal locus of control. Results in table 3 indicate that participants in the

control group and experimental group significantly differ at the baseline in job crafting towards

interests (p < .05) with regards to the mean scores. Therefore it was decided to add the

intervention as a control variable in the multiple regression analyses of the relationship between

job crafting and intrinsic motivation, and between locus of control and job crafting.

Table 3: Independent-samples t-test

Regression analyses

Multiple hierarchical regression was used to test the different hypotheses. While interpreting

results, the assumption of multicollinearity was checked. Multicollinearity exists when there is a

strong correlation (>.90) between independent variables (Berry, 1993; Field, 2009). If this is the

case, two prediction variables overlap significantly which could lead to misleading outcomes of

the regression analyses (Keith, 2006). As a result it is difficult to indicate the individual

contribution of one predictor (Field, 2009). To avoid the problem of multicollinearity the

correlation matrix was checked for high correlations. The correlation matrix (table 2) showed no

correlations above .9, so the assumption of multicollinearity was not violated. Additionally, the

variance inflation factor (VIF) in the SPSS output was reviewed. According to Myers (1990),

24

concerns about multicollinearity have to be raised at a VIF value above 10, which did not occur

in any of the regression analyses.

To test hypothesis 1a and 1b, multiple regression analysis was used to test for the

explained variance in the dependent variables, job crafting towards ‘strengths’ and ‘interests’.

Variables were entered in different blocks; the control variables and baseline values of job

crafting towards ‘strengths’ and ‘interests’ (T1) were added in the first block, the independent

variable ‘job crafting intervention’ was added in the second block. As a result, the change of the

dependent variable can be predicted. Regarding job crafting towards strengths, the control

variables in model 1 explained 45.1% of the variance. Three variables had a significant influence

on job crafting towards strengths (T2), namely job crafting towards strengths (T1) (β = .35, p

< .01), workshop leader (β = .28, p < .05 and β = -.26, p < .05) and proactive personality (β

= .28, p < .05). After adding the job crafting intervention in model 2, the total variance explained

was 47.1%, F (8, 72) = 8.01, p <.001, including the control variables contract hours, education,

organizational tenure, proactive personality and workshop leader and controlled for the stability

of ‘job crafting towards strengths’ (T1). Adding the job crafting intervention in model 2 caused

an R square change of .02, F change (1, 72) = 2.65 p > .10, but was insignificant (β = -.30,

p >.10). This means hypothesis 1a was rejected.

Regarding job crafting towards interests, control variables in model 1 explained

40.0% of the variance in job crafting towards interests, whereby only the baseline value job

crafting towards interests (β = .55, p < .01) had a significant influence. After adding the job

crafting intervention, the total variance explained by model 2 was 42.5%, F (7, 73) =

7.72, p <.001. Hereby the control variables and the stability of ‘job crafting towards interests’

(T1) were taken into account. After adding the job crafting intervention in model 2, R square

change was .025, F change (1, 71) = .38, p >.10. However, the relationship between the job

crafting intervention and a change in crafting towards interests was not significant (β = -.18

p > .10). Therefore, hypothesis 1b was rejected. Tables 4 and 5 present the results of hypotheses

1a and 1b. Also the correlation matrix revealed no significant correlation between the job

crafting intervention and both job crafting towards ‘strengths’ and ‘interests’.

25

Table 4: Hierarchical multiple regression Table 5: Hierarchical multiple regression

predicting job crafting towards strengths predicting job crafting towards interests

Tables 6 and 7 demonstrate the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses to

test hypothesis 2a and 2b, which stated the relationship between the job crafting towards

strengths/interests and intrinsic motivation. Regarding ‘job crafting towards strengths’ and

intrinsic motivation, the control variables in model 1 explained 43.1% of the variance in intrinsic

motivation. Hereby, the baseline value of intrinsic motivation (T1) (β = .47, p < .01) and gender

(β = .22, p < .10) had a significant influence on intrinsic motivation (T2). After adding the

independent variable ‘job crafting towards strengths’ (T2) in model 2, the total variance

explained in the change of intrinsic motivation was 43.4%, F (6, 71) = 9.09, p <.001. Job crafting

towards strengths (T2) caused an R square change of .003, F change (1, 71) = .38, p > .10

towards the dependent variable ‘intrinsic motivation’. Hereby the control variables gender,

proactive personality and the job crafting intervention were included and the baseline values ‘job

crafting toward strengths’ (T1) and intrinsic motivation (T1) were controlled. The relationship

26

between ‘job crafting towards strengths’ and intrinsic motivation was not significant (β = .09,

p >.10), so hypothesis 2a was rejected.

Regarding hypothesis 2b, model 1 included the control variables which explained 44.8%

of the variance in intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation (T1) (β =.47, p <.01) and gender (β

=.22, p <.05) had a significant influence on intrinsic motivation (T2). After adding job crafting

towards interests (T2), model 2 still explained a total 44,8% of the variance in intrinsic

motivation, including the control variables gender, proactive personality and the job crafting

intervention, and the baseline values ‘job crafting towards interests’ (T1) and intrinsic motivation

(T1). R square change was .00, F change (1, 71) = .002, p > 10 so the relationship between the

job crafting towards interests and intrinsic motivation was insignificant (β = .01, p >.10). As a

result of the multiple regression analyses, hypotheses 2a and 2b were both rejected which means

that job crafting does not indicate an increase in employees’ level of intrinsic motivation.

Table 6: Hierarchical multiple regression Table 7: Hierarchical multiple regression

predicting intrinsic motivation predicting intrinsic motivation

27

To test hypotheses 3a and 3b, which indicated that job crafting towards ‘strengths’ and

‘interests’ acts as a mediator between the job crafting intervention and intrinsic motivation, the

mediation method of Preacher and Hayes (2004) was conducted. When evaluating the mediation

conditions, as mentioned above in the statistical analysis, it can be concluded that a mediating

effect does not exist. Namely, the correlation between the job crafting intervention and intrinsic

motivation was insignificant and the job crafting intervention did not predict a significant

increase in job crafting towards strengths (β = -.30, p >.10) and interests (β = .07, p > .10).

Further, a significant effect between job crafting strengths or interests with intrinsic motivation

was not supported (β = .09, p >.10 and β = .01, p >.10). Since none of the conditions for

mediation have been met, hypothesis 3a and 3b were rejected.

The next multiple regression analyses tested the relationship between internal locus of

control and job crafting towards ‘strengths’ (H4a) and ‘interests’ (H4b). Results of the regression

analyses are presented in tables 8 and 9. As in the previous regression analyses, control variables

and baseline values were added in the first model. Regarding ‘job crafting toward strengths’,

model 1 explained 36.2% of the variance. Only the baseline value job crafting towards strengths

(T1) (β =.43, p <.01) was significant. After adding internal locus of control in the second model,

the model as a whole explained 36.4% of the variance in ‘job crafting towards strengths’, F (5,

72) = 8.26, p < .001. However the addition of locus of control in the second model was

insignificant (β =.07, p >.10). Also the regression analysis focused on ‘job crafting towards

interests’ as the dependent variable revealed an insignificant contribution of internal locus of

control. Control variables and baseline values in model 1 explained 41.0% of the variance

whereby gender (β =-.19, p <.05) and job crafting towards interest (T1) (β =.58, p <.10) were

significant. After entering internal locus of control the contribution R square change was .00, F

change (1,71) = .06, p > .10. The beta value in the second model of internal locus of control was

insignificant (β = -.03, p >.10). Both hypotheses were rejected, in spite of the significant

correlation between internal locus of control (T2) and ‘job crafting towards strengths’ (r = .38, p

< .01).

28

Table 8: Hierarchical multiple regression Table 9: Hierarchical multiple regression

predicting job crafting towards strengths predicting job crafting towards interests

Hypothesis 5 expected an increase in employees’ level of locus of control after

participating in the job crafting intervention. Results of the multiple regression analysis are

displayed in table 10. Model 1 explained 45.9% of the variance in internal locus of control (T2)

with organizational tenure as a significant control variable (β =.22, p <.05) and internal locus of

control (T1) as a significant baseline value (β =.56, p <.01). After entry of the job crafting

intervention in model 2, the total variance explained by the model was 47.0%, F (6, 68) = 10.05,

p < .001. Hereby it was controlled for educational background, contract hours, organizational

tenure, proactive personality and the stability of internal locus of control (T1). R square change

was .01, F change (1, 68) = 1.36, p > .10. The contribution of the job crafting intervention was

not significant (β =.12, p >.10), therefore hypothesis 5 was rejected.

29

Table 10: Multiple regression analysis

predicting internal locus of control

Exploratory analyses

Previous results indicated a rejection of all hypotheses. Since the recently developed job crafting

scale of van Woerkom and Kooij (2013) revealed insignificant relationships it was decided to

test the hypotheses with a second job crafting scale. The second used scale was the 10 item job

crafting scale of Petrou et al. (2012), and is a shortened version of the job crafting scale of Tims,

Bakker and Derks (2012). Example questions were ‘I try to learn new things at my work’ and ‘I

ask colleagues for advice’. Questions were answered on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (never) to

7 (always). The job crafting scale of van Woerkom and Kooij (2013) focused on strengths and

interests and the scale of Petrou et al. (2012) made a distinction in job crafting between 1)

increasing challenging job resources, 2) hindering job demands and 3) increasing social job

resources. Therefore it was interesting to test the same hypotheses on the same participants with

another job crafting scale to discover if different results occurred.

Factor analysis was performed and indicated a KMO index of .747 and Bartlett’s test of

sphericity was significant (p= .000). PCA revealed the presence of three components (appendix

5), as confirmed by the literature (Petrou et al., 2012), with eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of

1 (3.74, 1.94 and 1.33) which in combination explained 70.1% of the variance.

30

Next, all hypotheses which included the variables job crafting towards ‘strengths’ and

‘interests’ were replaced by job crafting increasing challenging job resources, decreasing

hindering job demands and increasing social job resources. Subsequently, multiple hierarchical

regression was performed. Results were equivalent with the multiple regression analyses

performed with the job crafting scale of van Woerkom and Kooij (2013); almost all tested

relationships were insignificant (for results see appendix 7). However, one significant

relationship was found between the independent variable ‘job crafting decreasing hindering job

demands (job crafting DHJD)’ and the dependent variable ‘intrinsic motivation’. Model 1 with

control variables gender, proactive personality, the job crafting intervention and baseline values

job crafting DHJD (T1) and intrinsic motivation (T1) explained 42.4% of the variance in

intrinsic motivation. After adding job crafting DHJD (T2) in model 2, the total variance

explained was 45.8%. Job crafting DHJD (T2) explained an additional 3.4% of the variance in

intrinsic motivation, R squared change = .034, F change (1, 71) = 4.47 p < .05. The relationship

between these variables was negatively significant (β = -.22, p <.05) which means that an

increase in job crafting DHJD may cause a decrease in an individual’s level of intrinsic

motivation.

31

Conclusion and discussion

The primary objective of this study was to test if a job crafting intervention could positively

stimulate employees’ level of job crafting. In addition, the relationship between job crafting and

intrinsic motivation was investigated. Thereby, the possible mediating effects of job crafting on

the relationship between the job crafting intervention and intrinsic motivation were taken into

account. Moreover, it was tested if the personal characteristic internal locus of control predicts

significant changes in job crafting. The following research questions were formulated:

What are the effects of the job crafting intervention on employees’ level of job crafting? To what

extent does a change in job crafting positively influence employees’ level of intrinsic work

motivation? Can job crafting act as a mediator between the job crafting intervention and

intrinsic motivation? And what is the effect of internal locus of control on employees’ level of job

crafting?

Participants of the study were 86 Dutch employees of a health insurance company; 31

employees participated in the job crafting intervention and 55 employees were assigned to the

control group. All participants completed a pre- and post-test questionnaire. Unexpectedly,

results were not in line with the hypotheses, meaning no significant relationships were found.

However, when conducting exploratory analyses a direct significant relationship was discovered

between job crafting with the focus on ‘decreasing hindering job demands’ and intrinsic

motivation. The following paragraphs will discuss the results in more detail.

The job crafting intervention revealed insignificant results in increasing job crafting

towards strengths and interests, thus, from a statistical perspective, participating in a job crafting

intervention does not cause an increase in employees’ level of job crafting. This unexpected

result can be attributed to several explanations. First, the sample size power of the intervention

group might have been too small (N = 31) to reveal significant results (Pallant, 2010).

In addition, the pre-test questionnaire declared that the intervention group already scored

high on job crafting towards strengths (M = 4.34) and interests (M = 3.94) before participating in

the intervention. Also, the intervention group scored significantly higher on job crafting towards

interests than the control group. This might indicate that the intervention group was already

actively involved in job crafting and therefore it could be more difficult to improve on this

number. Second, the intervention process was perhaps not extensive enough, as it consisted of

one workshop and a telephone call with the participants within an eight-week period.

32

Recently, Van Wingerden, Derks, Bakker and Dorenbosch (2013) studied the process of

a job crafting intervention in reducing workload in qualitative research. Van Wingerden et al.,

(2013) based their job crafting intervention on the proactive goal setting theory of Parker, Bindl

and Strauss (2010) with the focus on goal envisioning, generation, planning and striving. They

split the job crafting intervention into three sessions; 1) a job crafting workshop (four hours), 2)

an evaluation of the job crafting goals (two hours) and 3) an end evaluation (two hours). In a

self-evaluation, one third of the participants stated they achieved their job crafting goal. In this

study, the evaluation process was covered during a telephone call with the participants. However,

this evaluation process might not been extensive enough and possibly have led to insignificant

outcomes. Namely, as a result of the limited evaluation process it was difficult to provide

participants within the process with support to make any adjustments to the predefined goals.

Moreover, participants who failed to work on their job crafting goal explained during the

telephone call with the researchers that the job crafting workshop created awareness about

several crafting opportunities within their job but that they experienced difficulties implementing

the goal in their daily work. The main reasons mentioned were the short time period (the

telephone call was made two weeks after the workshop) and that it was challenging to set

priorities or changes to their daily routines. This is the first time, a study implemented a job

crafting intervention with an online tool in a quantitative research. A longer training session or

an additional reflection session could have helped employees in redirecting the job crafting

activities. This is also confirmed by a job crafting intervention pilot study of Van den Heuvel,

Demerouti and Peeters (2012) who also did not found an increase in job crafting. Here,

participants indicated they preferred more individual attention.

Another reason why hypotheses 1a and 1b were not supported could be due to

employees’ perceptions about job crafting opportunities and contextual factors. Shaping the

boundaries of work could be hard when employees experience less autonomy, a high level of

task interdependence and/or limited supervisory support (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).

Therefore, job crafting goals might be difficult to achieve. It is more likely that employees

succeed in job crafting when the organization provides them with opportunities (Wrzesniewski &

Dutton, 2001; Nielsen, 2013).

This study also found insignificant results between job crafting towards ‘strengths’ and

‘interests’ and individuals’ level of intrinsic motivation. However, explorative analyses revealed

33

a negative significant effect between job crafting focused on ‘decreasing hindering job demands’

and intrinsic motivation. This explorative finding might be a potential explanation for the

insignificant relationship between job crafting towards ‘strengths’ and ‘interests’ and intrinsic

motivation. Namely participants could feel they have a lot of barriers and restrictions in their job,

and therefore may formulate job crafting goals to decrease these hindering job demands, and not

to implement more strengths or interests in their work. When evaluating the job crafting goals

with participants was noticed that approximately a quarter of the participants’ goals were not

primarily focused on personal growth and psychological needs as previously explained by the

SDT theory (Deci & Ryan, 1991). When focusing on hindering job demands or negative aspects

of work, this could initially lead to a decreased level of intrinsic motivation. In this case this

could have occurred through the raised awareness of the hindering demands, or by unachieved

crafting goals to decrease the hindering job demands. Hence, positive effects might become

noticeable in the long term, when job crafting goals are reached and hindering job demands have

actually been reduced.

Further, the relationship between job crafting and intrinsic motivation was explained by

the SDT theory in such a way that involving in job crafting allows employees to meet their

growth tendencies and psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 1991). However, when these needs

are already fulfilled in their current work situation, there may be less motivation to craft their

jobs (Caldwell & O’Reilly, 1990).

Next, it was expected that personal characteristics influenced the level to which

participants participated in job crafting (Lyons, 2008; Bakker et al., 2012). Therefore, it was

studied if internal locus of control had positive associations with job crafting towards ‘strengths’

and ‘interests’. The correlation matrix confirmed this relationship by showing significant

correlations. On the other hand, the multiple regression analysis revealed insignificant results.

However, the performed regression analyses focused on changes in the dependent variables

between the pre- and post-test questionnaire. So this result probably occurred due to the fact that

there is a big step to take between ‘believing’ in shaping job boundaries and actually ‘changing’

these boundaries. The interval period between the pre- and post-test might have been too short to

discover significant changes in behavior. Another possible explanation could be that employees

were not ready for change (Lyons, 2008) and therefore no increase in job crafting was found.

34

Moreover, it was tested if the job crafting intervention could make a positive contribution

to employees’ level of internal locus of control. This anticipated effect was not supported by this

study. A reason for this finding could be that the content of the workshop might not have

matched the expectations or needs of all employees. The job crafting workshop was set up

interactively, thus the workshop leaders responded to the issues and topics initiated by the group

of participants. However, not all employees face the same boundaries in their job (Nielsen,

2013), so some discussed topics might have not been applicable or recognizable to every

employee. In addition, the workshop leaders were not able to discuss all topics in depth due to

the time limit. This may have resulted in a loss of job crafting opportunities, since not all

personal issues were addressed.

Limitations and implications for future research

This intervention study faced some limitations. The first limitation concerns the sample size,

which was relatively small with 86 participants. To gain more reliable and generalizable results it

is recommended to have a larger sample size.

A second limitation of this study is the use of the Work Locus of Control Scale of

Spector (1988). When analyzing the first questionnaire, factor analysis indicated a KMO index

of .585 and reliability analysis showed a Cronbach’s Alpha of .658, which both did not meet the

desired value. Hence, the results of the internal locus of control hypotheses are questionable.

Furthermore, the time reserved for the workshop might have been too limited. As

previously mentioned, some participants would have preferred more individual attention. More

depth could have been created if the workshop had lasted longer. Moreover, the research period

of eight weeks might have been too strict and not extensive enough. A recommendation for

future research would be to expand the job crafting intervention process with a return day in

which the focus will be on evaluating and redefining the job crafting goals. In addition,

participants indicated during the telephone call with the researchers that their perception of job

crafting opportunities had changed, but that it was hard to complete their goals two week after

the workshop. Therefore it would be interesting to follow participants throughout a longer period

to investigate whether more time led to more job crafting accomplishments.

Finally, a suggestion for future research would be to increase the scope of the job crafting

intervention by involving the supervisor (Wrzesniewki & Dutton, 2001) and colleagues in the job

35

crafting process. Leana, Appelbaum and Shevchuk (2009) already discovered collaborative job

crafting to be successful, so a job crafting session with a team or department might possibly be

more effective since employees could feel more encouraged to craft their job.

Unfortunately, this study revealed insignificant results, but that does not mean that the

participants’ perception about their job did not change. Hence, it would be interesting to perform

a qualitative study, to discover the causes of differences in achieving job crafting goals (as also

mentioned by Van Wingerden et al., 2013).

Theoretical and practical implications

A conclusion from this study is that job crafting is a rather complex topic and that there are still a

number of unresolved questions on how to stimulate and implement job crafting in organizations,

and in which way job crafting leads to outcomes such as intrinsic motivation. However, this

study contributed to existing job crafting literature by integrating a job crafting workshop in a

quantitative study for the first time. In addition, this was the first time an job crafting

intervention specifically focused on crafting towards ‘strengths’ and ‘interests’. A foundation is

laid to further investigate the job crafting process and how to stimulate this effectively.

Previous research explained that personality might be the reason why differences in the

level of job crafting occur (Lyons, 2008; Tims & Bakker, 2010). This study contributed to that

statement, since personal characteristics like proactive personality and internal locus of control

highly correlated with job towards ‘strengths’ and ‘interests’.

Another theoretical contribution of this study is the exploration of the negative significant

relationship between job crafting focused on ‘decreasing hindering job demands’ and intrinsic

motivation using the job crafting scale of Petrou et al. (2012). This finding might indicate that

job crafting does not always or immediately lead to positive effects as emphasized in previous

literature (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Berg et al., 2010; Tims & Bakker, 2010). There is a

possibility that when employees focus on decreasing negative aspects in their work, this

primarily leads to a decreased level of motivation since they are then really focused on these

negative aspects. Another possibility is that implementing a job crafting goal might lead to more

changes than employees initially thought. This could in theory in first instance lead to resistance

of change, since employees have to get used to new working conditions or job boundaries (Dent

36

& Goldberg, 1999). Job crafting might not always supply the desired results as previously

expected.

A practical implication of this study is that a job crafting intervention can contribute to

creating awareness of the extent to which individual employees’ strengths and interests are

integrated in their current jobs, as participants indicated during the workshop and telephone call

with the researchers.

It is notable that despite the created awareness about job crafting, this did not lead to

significant job crafting achievements. Also, since employees participated voluntarily in this

study after working hours which indicated they were motivated to craft their job. It might be

possible that the job crafting scales used in this study did not cover the job crafting actions of the

employees. For example, participants could have craft their job in a cognitive way by looking at

their job differently. In this study this specific form of job crafting was not covered. Therefore, to

optimize the job crafting intervention, more research is needed about job crafting measurement

instruments. In addition, future research should focus on the obstacles participants experience

during the job crafting process. Hereby it is important that there is more information whether

personal characteristics like locus of control or proactive personality are required to job craft

effectively. Lastly, more research is needed about organizational features like supervisor and

colleague support and their relatedness with job crafting. Individual and organizational features

may be able to make a difference in job crafting accomplishments.

37

References

Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human resource management review, 3(3), 185-

201.

Ashford, S. J., George, E., & Blatt, R. (2007). 2 Old Assumptions, New Work: The

Opportunities and Challenges of Research on Nonstandard Employment. The Academy of

Management Annals, 1(1), 65-117.

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), 1359-1378.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, M. .J. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A

measure and correlates summary. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–119.

Berg, J.M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2010). Perceiving and responding to challenges in

job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 31, 158-186.

Caldwell, D. F., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1990). Measuring person-job fit with a profile-comparison

process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 648.

Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from

individualism and independence: A self-determination perspective on internalisation of

cultural orientations, gender and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 84, 97–110

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination

in personality. Journal of research in personality, 19(2), 109-134.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in

personality. Nebraska symposium on motivation: perspectives on motivation, 38, 237-

288.

Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging “resistance to change”. The Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25-41.

38

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (third edition). Sage publications.

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of

Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362.

Ghitulescu, B. E. (2006). Shaping tasks and relationships at work: Examining the antecedents

and consequences of employee job crafting (Doctoral dissertation, University of

Pittsburgh).

Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in

predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of applied

psychology, 93(1), 48.

Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). 7 Redesigning Work Design Theories: The Rise of

Relational and Proactive Perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317-

375.

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), 224-241.

Keith, T. Z. (2006). Multiple Regression and Beyond. Boston: Pearson Education.

Kira, M., van Eijnatten, F. M., & Balkin, D. B. (2010). Crafting sustainable work: development

of personal resources. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23(5), 616-632.

Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work process and quality of care in early

childhood education: The role of job crafting. Academy of Management Journal, 52(6),

1169-1192.

Lyons, P. (2008). The Crafting of Jobs and Individual Differences. Journal of Business

Psychology, 23, 25-36.

Myers, R. H. (1990). Classical and modern regression with applications. Belmont, CA:

Duxbury Press.

Nielsen, K. (2013). Review article: how can we make organizational interventions work?

Employees and line managers as actively crafting interventions. Human Relations, 66(8),

1029-1050.

Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, R. J. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: the future of

job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31 (2-3), 463-479.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS.

39

McGraw-Hill International.

Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal

of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(5), 603-619.

Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive

motivation. Journal of management.

Peterson, C., Park, N., Hall, N., & Seligman, M. E. (2009). Zest and work. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 161-172.

Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M., Schaufelli, W., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a job on a

daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 33, 1120-1141.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects

in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &

Computers, 36(4), 717-731.

Quinlan, D., Swain, N., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2012). Character strengths interventions:

Building on what we know for improved outcomes. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(6),

1145-1163

Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expactancies for internal versus external control reinforcement.

Psychological Monographs, 80,

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining

reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57(5),

749

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and

new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67.

Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.

American Psychological Association.

Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B.C. (2005). Approaches to Social Research. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Spector, P.E. (1982) Behavior in organizations as a function of employee’s locus of control.

Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 482-497.

Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of occupational

psychology, 61(4), 335-340.

40

Thomas, K. W. (2000). Intrinsic motivation at work: Building energy & commitment. Berrett-

Koehler Publishers.

Thomas, K. W., & Tymon Jr, W. G. (1997). Bridging the motivation gap in total quality. Quality

Management Journal, 4(2).

Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An

“interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of management review, 15(4),

666-681.

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, 173-186.

Van Wingerden, J., Derks, D., Bakker, A. B., & Dorenbosch, L. (2013). Job crafting in het

speciaal onderwijs: Een kwalitatieve analyse. Gedrag & Organisatie, 26, 85-103.

Vuuren, M. van & L. Dorenbosch (2011). Mooi Werk: naar een betere baan zonder weg te gaan.

Amsterdam: Boom.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active

crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.

41

Appendix 1: promotion job crafting workshop

42

Appendix 2: invitation job crafting workshop

43

Appendix 3: questionnaire

Leuk dat u zich heeft aangemeld voor de workshop Job Crafting. Voor aanvang van deze

workshop is het belangrijk dat u deze vragenlijst invult. Het invullen van de vragenlijst zal

ongeveer 10 minuten duren. De vragenlijst is niet geheel anoniem aangezien we u om

persoonlijke gegevens vragen, zoals uw email-adres. Dit is nodig om gegevens aan elkaar te

koppelen die op verschillende momenten verzameld worden. Het gebruik van persoonlijke

gegevens hebben wij zoveel mogelijk beperkt (we vragen bijvoorbeeld niet naar uw volledige

naam, initialen, of geboortedatum). Tevens zullen we, als de studie eenmaal is afgesloten, alle

persoonlijke gegevens apart van uw antwoorden op de overige vragen opslaan. Zo kan niemand

via uw persoonlijke gegevens een link naar uw antwoorden maken zonder een aparte sleutel, die

wij op een veilige plek zullen bewaren. Door rechts beneden op de blauwe knop te klikken, gaat

de vragenlijst van start.

Bedankt voor uw bijdrage en succes!

Algemene vragen

1. Wat is uw e-mailadres?

2. Wat is uw geslacht? Man

3. Wat is uw leeftijd?

4. Wat is uw hoogst afgeronde opleiding? Basisschool

Middelbare

school

MBO

HBO

Universiteit

5. Uit hoeveel uren bestaat uw contract?

8. Hoeveel jaar bent u werkzaam?

9. Hoeveel jaar bent u werkzaam binnen dit bedrijf?

10. Hoeveel jaar bent u werkzaam binnen deze functie?

Job crafting towards strengths and interests (pre-test) Nooit /

Altijd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Ik organiseer mijn werk zo dat het aansluit bij mijn sterke punten

2. In mijn werkzaamheden probeer ik mijn sterke kanten zoveel mogelijk uit te buiten

44

3. Ik zoek naar mogelijkheden om mijn werk aan te pakken op een manier die het best

bij mijn sterkte past

4. Ik overleg met collega’s over de taakverdeling, zodat ik zoveel mogelijk taken kan

uitvoeren die mij goed liggen

5. Ik zoek samenwerking met collega’s waarbij ik mijn sterke kanten kan benutten

6. Als ik kan kiezen met welke klanten ik werk, kies ik voor klanten die mij goed

liggen

7. Ik zoek actief naar taken die aansluiten bij mijn interesses

8. Ik organiseer mijn werkzaamheden zo dat ik kan doen wat ik boeiend vind

9. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik leuke taken naar mezelf toe trek

10. Ik zet projecten op met collega’s die mijn interesse delen

11. Ik ga nieuwe relaties aan in mijn werk om mijn werk interessanter te maken

12. Als ik kan kiezen met welke klanten ik werk, kies ik voor klanten die een vraag

hebben die aansluit bij mijn interesses

Job crafting towards strengths and interests (post-test)

In de afgelopen 4 weken…

Nooit/

Altijd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. …organiseerde ik mijn werk zo dat het aansluit bij mijn sterke punten

2. …probeerde ik in mijn werkzaamheden mijn sterke kanten zoveel mogelijk uit te

buiten

3. …zocht ik naar mogelijkheden om mijn werk aan te pakken op een manier die het

best bij mijn sterkte past

4. …overlegde ik met collega’s over de taakverdeling, zodat ik zoveel mogelijk taken

kon uitvoeren die mij goed liggen

5. …zocht ik de samenwerking op met collega’s waarbij ik mijn sterke kanten kan

benutten

6. …als ik kon kiezen met welke klanten ik werkte, koos ik voor klanten die mij goed

liggen

7. ….zocht ik actief naar taken die aansluiten bij mijn interesses

8. ...organiseerde ik mijn werkzaamheden zo dat ik kan doen wat ik boeiend vind

9. .zorgde ik ervoor dat ik leuke taken naar mezelf toe trek

10. …zette ik projecten op met collega’s die mijn interesse delen

11. …ging ik nieuwe relaties aan in mijn werk om mijn werk interessanter te maken

45

12. …als ik kon kiezen met welke klanten ik werk, koos ik voor klanten die een vraag

hadden die aansluit bij mijn interesses

Job crafting Tims and Bakker (2010) (pre-test)

Nooit/

Altijd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Ik vraag anderen om feedback over mijn functioneren.

2. Ik vraag collega’s om advies.

3. Ik vraag mijn leidinggevende om advies.

4. Ik probeer nieuwe dingen te leren op mijn werk.

5. Ik vraag om meer taken als ik klaar ben met mijn werk.

6. Ik vraag om meer verantwoordelijkheden.

7. Ik vraag om meer uitdagende klussen.

8. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder emotioneel inspannend werk moet verrichten.

9. Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder geestelijk inspannend werk hoef te verrichten.

10. Ik zorg voor minder fysiek zwaar werk.

Job crafting Tims and Bakker (2010) (post-test)

In de afgelopen 4 weken…

Nooit/

Altijd

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. … vroeg ik anderen om feedback over mijn functioneren.

2. … vroeg ik collega’s om advies.

3. … vroeg ik mijn leidinggevende om advies.

4. … probeerde ik nieuwe dingen te leren op mijn werk.

5. … vroeg ik om meer taken als ik klaar was met mijn werk.

6. … vroeg ik om meer verantwoordelijkheden.

7. … vroeg ik om meer uitdagende klussen.

8. … zorgde ik ervoor dat ik minder emotioneel inspannend werk moest verrichten.

9. … zorgde ik ervoor dat ik minder geestelijk inspannend werk hoefde te verrichten.

10. … zorgde ik voor minder fysiek zwaar werk.

46

Intrinsic motivation

Ik ben gemotiveerd om te werken omdat…

Helemaal mee

oneens/helemaal

mee eens

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. … het werk me zelf erg interesseert.

2. … werken leuk is.

3. … ik werken boeiend vind.

4. … ik werken een aangename bezigheid vind.

Internal locus of control

Deze vragen gaan over hoeveel persoonlijke controle u ervaart binnen uw werk.

Kies het antwoord dat het meest op u van toepassing is.

Helemaal mee

oneens/helemaal

mee eens

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Een baan is wat je ervan maakt.

2. In de meeste banen kunnen mensen bereiken wat ze van plan waren.

3. Als je weet wat je voor baan wilt, kun je een dergelijke baan ook vinden.

4. Als medewerkers ongelukkig worden door een beslissing die hun leidinggevende

heeft gemaakt, moeten ze de leidinggevende daarop aanspreken.

5. De meeste mensen zijn in staat om hun werk goed te doen, als ze er maar moeite

voor doen.

6. Promoties worden gegeven aan medewerkers die goed presteren.

7. Mensen die goed presteren worden daar in het algemeen goed voor beloond.

8. De meeste medewerkers hebben meer invloed op hun leidinggevende dan ze denken.

47

Appendix 4: Telephone script and response sheet

Stap 1 Introductie

Goedemorgen/Goedemiddag, U spreekt met (je voornaam en achternaam ) van de universiteit

van Tilburg. Ik bel naar aanleiding van de job crafting workshop, waar u op (datum) aan heeft

deelgenomen.

We bellen alle participanten om de voortgang van de job crafting doelstelling te evalueren. U

heeft in deze workshop ook een job crafting doel opgesteld voor de komende maand.

Ik ben benieuwd of het in de afgelopen twee weken is gelukt om aan uw job crafting doel te

werken. Allereerst ben ik benieuwd welk doel u gesteld heeft? In welke mate heeft u aan uw doel

kunnen werken?

Stap 2 Evaluatie job craften

- In welke mate heeft u aan uw doel gewerkt:

Antwoordmogelijkheden:

- Heeft u aan uw doel gedacht?

- Heeft u de intentie gehad om aan uw doel te werken?

- Heeft u daadwerkelijk geprobeerd aan uw doel te werken?

Doorvragen: Hierdoor krijgt de participant inzicht in stagnatie of succesmomenten om aan het

doel te werken.

Kunt u aangeven op een schaal van 1 tot 10 in hoeverre u het doel hebt kunnen bereiken?

Waarom wel/niet?

Wel: Wat goed/ wat fijn.

- Op welke manier heeft u aan het doel gewerkt?

- Wat was het resultaat?

- Heeft het u iets opgeleverd?

Niet:

- Waardoor is het niet gelukt om aan het doel te werken? / Hoe kwam dat?

- Welke obstakels kwam u tegen? / Wat zat er tegen?

Kunt u op een schaal van 1 tot 10 aangeven hoe tevreden u bent met het behaalde

resultaat?

- Wat kunt u nog meer doen in de komende weken?

48

Samenvatten: Je confronteert de participant met zijn/haar woorden daardoor stimuleer je

nogmaals om aan het doel te werken

Dus als ik het goed begrijp…

Stap 3 Stimuleren job craften

Nog niet voldoende aan het doel gewerkt: Stel open vragen: Deze vragen beginnen altijd met een

‘W’ wie, wat, waarom, waar.

- Wat heeft u nodig om als nog aan uw doel te werken en te behalen? / - Wat zou u kunnen

helpen of wie zou u kunnen helpen?

- Op welke manier zou u dat kunnen aanpakken?

- Wat zou u daar de komende weken aan kunnen doen, zodat de workshop voor u toch iets

concreets oplevert?

- Wat zou het u opleveren als het u toch nog gaat lukken?

(probeer ze het doel weer even voor ogen te laten krijgen)

Voldoende aan het doel gewerkt/ behaald:

- Zijn er voor u nog meer mogelijkheden om te job craften?

- Welke vervolg stap zou u willen ondernemen?

Stap 4 Afsluiting

Ik hoop dat u door dit gesprek verder aan uw doel kunt werken. Wij zouden het fijn vinden om te

zien dat u uw taken op een dusdanige manier kunt aanpassen dat de baan beter aansluit bij uw

interesses en sterke punten.

Als er nog vragen zijn naar aanleiding van dit gesprek kunt u ons mailen. Het mailadres is

jobcraftingcz@gmail.com. Dank voor het gesprek. Ik wens u een fijne dag toe.

Tot ziens.

49

Antwoordformulier

Naam: ............................................................................................................................................

Stap 1 Introductie:

- Welke mate heeft u uw kunnen werken?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

O O O O O O O O O O

Stap 2 Evaluatie Job Crafting:

- Allereerst ben ik benieuwd welk doel u gesteld heeft?

Doel: ..............................................................................................................................................

- Is het gelukt om aan uw opgestelde doel te werken?

O Ja

O Nee,

reden: .................................................................................................................................................

- In welke mate heeft u aan uw doel gewerkt?

Antwoordmogelijkheden:

o Heeft u aan uw doel gedacht,

o Heeft u de intentie gehad om aan uw doel te werken,

o Heeft u daadwerkelijk geprobeerd aan uw doel te werken.

In hoeverre heeft u het doel bereikt?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

O O O O O O O O O O

Kunt u op een schaal van 1 tot 10 aangeven hoe tevreden u bent met het behaalde resultaat?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

O O O O O O O O O O

Stap 3 Stimuleren Job Crafting

- Wat zijn de

vervolgstappen: .......................................................................................................................

50

Algemene Indruk

Klonk de participant gemotiveerd?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

O O O O O O O O O O

Waren de uitspraken doordacht of toch wat oppervlakkig?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

O O O O O O O O O O

Klonk de participant positief?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

O O O O O O O O O O

Vond de participant het telefoongesprek prettig?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

O O O O O O O O O O

Gaf de participant een geloofwaardige indruk?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

O O O O O O O O O O

Opmerkingen / indrukken telefoongesprek:

………………………………………………………………………………………......

51

Appendix 5: Factor analyses

Table 1: Job crafting (two- component solution)

Component 1 Component 2

Ik zoek samenwerking met collega’s waarbij ik mijn sterke kanten kan benutten. .80 -.01

Ik overleg met collega’s over de taakverdeling, zodat ik zoveel mogelijk taken

kan uitvoeren die mij goed liggen. .78 .14

In mijn werkzaamheden probeer ik mijn sterke kanten zoveel mogelijk uit te

buiten. .75 -.08

Ik zoek naar mogelijkheden om mijn werk aan te pakken op een manier die het

best bij mijn sterke punten past. .68 -.14

Ik organiseer mijn werk zo dat het aansluit bij mijn sterke punten. .65 -.23

Ik zorg ervoor dat ik leuke taken naar me zelf toetrek. -.12 -.93

Ik organiseer mijn werkzaamheden zo dat ik kan doen wat ik boeiend vind. .08 -.80

Ik ga nieuwe relaties aan in mijn werk om mijn werk interessanter te maken. -.05 -.73

Ik zoek actief naar taken die aansluiten bij mijn interesses. .20 -.67

Ik zet projecten op met collega’s die mijn interesses delen. .30 -.57

Eigenvalue 5.16 1.09

Variance explained 51.55% 10.88%

Maximum likelihood with oblimin rotation

Table 2: Proactive personality (one- component solution)

Component 1

Wat er ook gebeurt, als ik ergens in geloof dan maak ik het ook waar. .83

Ik neem graag verantwoordelijkheid voor mijn ideeën, ook als anderen hier bezwaar tegen

maken. .77

Ik blink uit in het identificeren van kansen. .74

Als ik iets zie wat mij niet bevalt, dan verander ik het. .70

Als ik in een idee geloof, zal niets mij tegenhouden om het uit te voeren. .70

Ik zoek altijd naar betere manieren om dingen te doen. .64

Eigenvalue 3.20

Variance explained 53.34%

Maximum likelihood with oblimin rotation

52

Table 3: Intrinsic motivation (one- component solution)

Component

1

Ik ben gemotiveerd om te werken omdat…

… werken leuk is. .90

… ik werken boeiend vind. .89

… ik werken een aangename bezigheid vind. .79

… het werk zelf me erg interesseert. .74

Eigenvalue 2.78

Variance explained 69.52%

Maximum likelihood with oblimin rotation

Table 4: Internal locus of control (three- component

solution)

Component 1 Component 2 Component 3

Promoties worden gegeven aan medewerkers die goed presteren. .75 .18 -.02

Mensen die goed presteren worden daar in het algemeen goed

voor beloond. .74 -.31 .08

De meeste mensen zijn in staat om hun werk goed te doen, als

ze er maar moeite voor doen. .69 .04 -.16

Een baan is wat je er van maakt. -.08 .81 .10

In de meeste banen kunnen mensen bereiken wat ze van plan

waren. .46 .58 -.02

Als je weet wat je voor een baan wilt, kun je een dergelijk baan

ook vinden. -.06 .48 -.42

Als medewerkers ongelukkig worden door een beslissing die

hun leidinggevende heeft gemaakt,

moeten ze de leidinggevende daarop aanspreken. -.02 -.07 -.86

De meeste medewerkers hebben meer invloed op hun

leidinggevende dan ze denken. .09 -.06 -.83

Eigenvalue 2.44 1.38 1.08

Variance explained 30.46% 17.29% 13.49%

Maximum likelihood with oblimin rotation

Appendix 6: factor analysis exploratory analyses

Table 5: Job crafting (three- component solution)

Component 1 Component 2 Component 3

Ik vraag om meer verantwoordelijkheden. .96 .00 .11

Ik vraag om meer uitdagende klussen. .92 .04 .08

Ik vraag om meer taken als ik laar ben met mijn werk. .75 -.10 -.06

Ik probeer nieuwe dingen te leren op mijn werk. .72 .01 -.15

Ik vraag anderen om feedback over mijn functioneren. .54 .05 -.40

Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder geestelijk inspannend werk hoef te

verrichten. -.21 .87 -.10

Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder emotioneel inspannend werk moet

te verrichten. -.03 .86 -.10

Ik zorg voor minder fysiek zwaar werk. .17 .62 .20

Ik vraag collega's om advies. -.05 -.05 -.91

Ik vraag mijn leidinggevende om advies. .19 .10 -.79

Eigenvalue 3.74 1.94 1.33

Variance explained 37.42% 19.38% 13.30%

Maximum likelihood with oblimin rotation

Appendix 7: correlation matrix exploratory analyses

Appendix 8: regression analyses exploratory analyses

Multiple hierarchical regression analyses testing the effect of the job crafting intervention on job crafting focused on 1) increasing

challenging job resources, 2) decreasing hindering job demands and 3) increasing social job resources.

56

Multiple hierarchical regression analyses testing the effect of job crafting focused on 1) increasing challenging job resources, 2)

decreasing hindering job demands and 3) increasing social job resources on intrinsic motivation.

57

Multiple hierarchical regression analyses testing the effect of internal locus of control on job crafting focused on 1) increasing

challenging job resources, 2) decreasing hindering job demands and 3) increasing social job resources.