Do older workers differ in job crafting behaviors and does this
Master thesis Human Resource Studies
Do older workers differ in job crafting behaviors and does this difference influence employability and engagement?
The influence of age on job crafting – testing a new questionnaire
Student: Maartje Machielsen
Student Number: 184393
Supervisor:
2 nd
supervisor:
Project theme:
Project Period:
Dr. T.A.M. Kooij
Dr. M.L. Van Engen
Job crafting among the (older) workforce
January – August 2015
Date: August 12th, 2015
1
Abstract
In a society where the workforce is aging, it is important to understand how employability and engagement of older employees can be supported. This research focused on job crafting practices that may be influenced by age and in turn may enhance engagement, internal- and external employability. To get a clear view, a distinction was made between two crafting practices (i) increasing in demands crafting and (ii) accommodative crafting. Increasing in demands was directed towards the increase of developmental-, interest- and strength resources and demands.
Accommodative crafting was directed towards lowering demands. A trend was found between age and increasing in demands crafting. In contrast, age did not have an influence on accommodative crafting practices of the employee. Increasing in demands crafting was positively associated with engagement and the two types of employability, in contrast to accommodative crafting which was not related to these concepts. Also, results of this study indicate that engagement, and both types of employability decrease as people age since older employees are less likely to take on extra tasks on their own proactive initiative.
Keywords : job crafting, age, aging, proactivity, internal employability, external employability engagement.
2
Preface
This research was conducted as part of my master study Human Resource Studies. I worked together in a thesis circle with master student Leonie Jacobs with guidance of Dorien Kooij. Earlier research provided limited insights in the process of job crafting which made the choice of researching job crafting appealing to me. Moreover, age was never included in these previous researches. To reduce this gap in literature we tried to validate the job crafting questionnaire which was made by Dorien Kooij. Although this questionnaire did not resulted in the expected outcomes, which was disappointing, the process of writing this thesis evolved almost fluently. Writing this project made me learn much about myself as a person and colleague, an insight which will benefit me in my professional career. Moreover, the knowledge of Dorien Kooij provided me with better insights on the positive aspects of an older workforce. I would like to thank my supervisor Dorien
Kooij who provided me with critical advice, and motivated me to look one step further in scientific writing and in performing the analysis. Also, I would like to thank the contact persons of the organizations which made it possible for me to distribute the survey. Finally, I want to thank
Leonie Jacobs, who provided me with feedback on several parts of this thesis.
3
Table of contents
4
5
1.Introduction
According to the Central Bureau of Statistics of the Netherlands the age of the Dutch workforce is increasing (CBS, 2014). This trend is evident worldwide, people are becoming older and work longer (United Nations, 2013). Since older workers can potentially be of great value to their companies, research on the effect of aging of the workforce has been increasing. This includes research on the influence of age on motivations and abilities (Ng & Feldman, 2008).
Findings state that as people experience aging several within-person changes and life events take place which results in a change of motivations, attitudes and abilities (Moghimi, Scheibe, &
Yperen, 2015). These findings are consistent with lifespan theories, such as the Selection
Optimization and Compensation model (SOC) (Baltes, 1997) and the Socio-emotional Selectivity
Theory (SST) (Cartensen, 1995). As a consequence of experienced aging, preferred resources and demands of the employee are changing as well (Kooij, De Lange, Jansen, Kanfer, & Dikkers,
2011). Moreover, these within-person changes result in a change of fit between the person and the job (P-J fit) while aging (Kooij et al., 2013). Employees can proactively shape certain aspects of the job as a strategy to restore the fit (Kooij, Tims, & Kanfer, 2015; Moghimi et al., 2015). This is also referred to as job crafting (Berg, Dutton, & Wrezniewski, 2008). Key to job crafting is the behavior of the employee who alters tasks or job characteristics on his own proactive initiative
(Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012). Job crafting can be clarified by the fit theory and the Job demands-
Resources model (JD-R model) (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). These theories state that creating a
P-J fit by crafting demands and resources has an influence on both the organization and the employee (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). An important job crafting outcome is the increase of employee engagement. Furthermore, employability changes as people are altering characteristics of their job (Tims et al., 2012).
In a society where the workforce is aging, it is important to understand how employability and engagement are influenced by job crafting since both might influence the financial performance of the organization (Macey, Schneider, Barbara, & Young, 2011). Employable employees are more flexible, adaptive and skilled and can be employed across different jobs which makes them able to adapt to the ever changing needs of the organization (Berntson & Marklund, 2007; Tims et al.,
2012). This study distinguishes internal and external employability since both are of different value
6
to the employee and organization (Cuyper & de Witte, 2008). People who perceive themselves as highly employable think that they can easily acquire a new job at another organization, which reduces the experience of job insecurity (Berntson & Marklund, 2007). Internal employability refers to how the individual perceives his or her opportunities in the current organization. In conclusion, aging individuals may have different needs compared to employees of a younger age
(Kooij, et al., 2011). These differences can have an influence on job crafting activities, which in turn may influence work engagement and both internal and external employability.
This research contributes to current literature about job crafting. It will be the first that makes use of the questionnaire of Kooij et al. (2015) which incorporates the needs of an aging workforce in a job crafting questionnaire for the first time. Also, insights of this research will provide information of the relationship between age and job crafting. This is of importance since the workforce is aging (United Nations, 2013). Moreover, previous research states that the job of older people often stays the same, this might decrease the fit with the job and can increase job crafting behavior (Ng & Feldman, 2009; Kooij et al., 2011). Organizations can benefit from the insights of this study since it provides information in the process of (successful) aging at work and desired work characteristics of the older employee. Also, this study is the first that researches the relationship between the crafting behaviors and both internal and external employability. This distinction is important since both have different benefits for the employee and organization
(Cuyper & De Witte, 2008). Organizations can use these insights to stimulate job crafting practices that enhance both internal and external employability.
As stated, this research will answer the following research question ; to what extent does age influence the dimension of job crafting an individual engages in, and how does the resulting crafting behavior mediates the relationship between age and the dependent variables engagement, internal and external employability?
7
First, the relationship between age and the two job crafting practices will be discussed. Thereafter the effect of the different job crafting practices on both engagement and employability will be examined.
8
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Aging
“Aging refers to gains, losses, reorganization and exchanges that occur in biological, psychological and social functioning over time” (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004, p. 443). People experience changes in abilities, motivations and desired goals, as a consequence of aging. This can be clarified by two lifespan theories; the Socio-emotional Selectivity Theory (SST; Cartensen, 1995) and the
Selection, Optimization and Compensation Theory (SOC; Baltes, 1997). Both emphasize biological potential and perceived time as drivers for employee change of motivation, goals and abilities (Kooij et al., 2013). The SST focuses on selectivity of social partners and the importance of social relationships which changes when the individual’s perception of time changes. The older the employee the more he or she perceives time as limited (Cartensen, 1995; Lang & Cartensen,
2002). As a consequence, older workers are more likely to prefer social interactions that are emotional meaningful such as generative and emotional intimate interactions (Kooij et al., 2011;
Lang & Cartensen, 2002). Contrary to younger adults who prefer social interactions that offer career advancement and growth. Furthermore, they are more likely to increase interactions as a tool to increase the possibility to learn from others (Lang et al., 2002; Levinson, 1968). The second life span theory, the SOC theory, states that successful development is the maximization of gains and minimization of losses (Baltes, Staudinger, & Lindenberger, 1999). This theory states that development and growth- related motives, aimed at reaching higher levels of functioning decline as people age which is in contrast to motives towards maintenance and regulation of losses that increase as people become older (Kooij et al., 2011). The prediction is based on three strategies an individual engages in, in order to achieve successful development namely (i) selection, (ii) optimization and (iii) compensation. (i) Selection refers to the process of choosing goals, which is influenced by the limitation of resources, time and energy. (ii) Optimization refers to the application of methods to achieve selected goals, which results in higher levels of functioning in the selected domains. (iii) Compensation refers to the use of alternative methods when previously used methods become unavailable due to loss of resources (Freund & Baltes, 1997). As a consequence, the preferred job characteristics and work design are changing too. An example is a construction worker that experiences losses in physical ability, which results in reduced focus on
9
these abilities and more reliance on e.g. his technological knowledge and sharing this knowledge.
This example illustrates that personal changes have an influence on desired job characteristics of the individual.
In conclusion, the two life span theories imply that as people age their abilities, goals and motivations change. These changes have an influence on desired outcomes for the individual in the work domain (Cartensen, 2006; Baltes, 1997). Since the job of older employees often stays the same, the previously described changes might decrease the fit between the individual and the job, also referred to as P-J fit (Ng & Feldman, 2009; Kooij et al., 2011). A fit can be created or restored by proactively shaping certain aspects of the job, also referred to as job crafting (Kooij et al., 2015;
Moghimi et al., 2015).
2.2. Job crafting
Job crafting is defined as “self-initiated change behaviors that employees engage in, intended to align their jobs with their own preferences, motives and passions” (Wrezniewski & Dutton, 2001, p. 179). Important in creating this fit is the match between demand-abilities and needs-supplies as better described in the JD-R Model (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005).
The JDR model distinguishes job resources and job demands. “Job resources refer to the physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that are functional in achieving work goals. They stimulate personal growth and reduce the impact of job demands. Job demands are the physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort or skills and are therefore associated with certain physiological and or psychological costs” (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, p.174). Individuals differ in preferred demands and resources, which can be due to different reasons e.g. age (Baltes
& Lang, 1997). When demands and resources of the job are not well matched with the employee’s preferences a realignment is needed to avoid negative consequences such as stress and turnover intentions (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Decreasing this misfit can be realized by taking proactive action by acting as a job crafter (Nielsen & Abildaard, 2012).
10
Previous research of Tims, Bakker and Derks (2012) distinguishes four job crafting practices; (i) increasing social job resources, (ii) increasing structural job resources, (iii) increasing challenging demands and (iv) decreasing hindrance demands. These dimensions are divided in two general categories; (i) accommodative crafting practices and (ii) increasing demands crafting (Kroon,
Kooij & Van Veldhoven, 2013; Kooij, et al., 2015). (i) Accommodative crafting are activities that are directed towards lowering demands, also referred to as regulating losses and functioning at an adequate level. This corresponds to the decrease of hindering demands and the increase of resources that are aimed to manage the regulation of loss in the research of Tims et al., (2012)
(Kooij et al., 2015). (ii) Increasing demands are directed towards the increase of developmental-, interest- and strength demands and resources. It is directed towards learning new skills and satisfying growth needs aimed at reaching higher levels of functioning. This crafting practice corresponds to an increase of challenging demands, an increase in social job resources and an increase of structural job resources of Tims et al., (2012). The other two components of increasing demands crafting, interest and strengths crafting, are based on activities that are relevant for older employees. These components describe that employees craft extra tasks in alignment with their own personal interests and strengths (Kooij et al., 2015). In conclusion, a jobholder can create a
P-J fit by influencing both demands and resources in order to match his or her own preferences with the job. This can be realized by crafting a job by the use of two job crafting dimensions.
As stated the SST and SOC theory describe the change in goals and abilities of individuals that arise due to the employee’s experience of aging. As a result, motives of employees change from growth towards maintenance and regulating of loss. This can influence the type of job crafting an individual engages in, in order to create or maintain a P-J fit. The growth motives are associated with increasing demands while regulating of loss and maintenance of resources is associated with accommodative crafting. Consequently the following hypotheses will be examined;
Hypothesis 1: age is positively associated with accommodative crafting.
Hypothesis 2: age is negatively associated with increasing demands crafting.
11
2.3 Outcomes of Job Crafting
Job crafting in order to create a P-J fit, may have an beneficial or hurtful impact on the employee and the organization (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Therefore research on the outcomes of job crafting, such as engagement and employability, has been expanded (Wrezniewski & Dutton,
2001). Both employability and engagement are of interest since they have an influence on financial performance of the organization and result in more adaptive and skilled employees (Macey et al.,
2011; Tims et al., 2012).
“Work engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorbtion” (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, &
Bakker, 2002, p. 74). (i) Absorption is referred to as concentration on work, which is characterized by time passing quickly and finding it difficult to detach oneself from one’s work (Schaufeli et al.,
2002). Previous research describes absorption as similar to the concept of flow (Gonzalez-Roma,
Schaufeli, Bakker & lloret, 2006). People get into the flow experience when they perceive a good balance between job demands and individual skills (Bakker, 2005). (ii) Vigor is defined as the feeling of high levels of energy and mental resilience while working. An employee who experiences vigor will show willingness to make efforts in his or her job, and is persistent in difficult situations (Schaufeli et al., 2002). (iii) Dedication is characterized by a strong psychological involvement in one’s work, combined with a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Bothma &
Roodt, 2012). It can be concluded that these three elements of engagement are positive for both the organization and employee ( Schneider, Macey, Barbera, & Martin, 2009)
Research states that employees who change their work environment in such a way that it becomes more resourceful, challenging and fitted are experiencing more positive feelings, such as engagement, than employees wo do not take proactive action (Bakker et al, 2012). This is also described in the JD-R model, which states that creating a balance between desired resources and demands results in more positive feelings. Also, people who craft their job are better able to reach their own goals, which is positively aligned with engagement (Bakker et al., 2004). Employees who do not balance their job demands and resources experience negative consequences such as
12
stress and turnover intentions (Demerouti et al., 2001). Based on previous research and the JD-R
Model it can be expected that the two dimensions of crafting have a positive influence on engagement. This is due to the motivations, abilities and goals of the employee that are being fulfilled by crafting which results in the following hypothesis;
Hypothesis 3: accommodative crafting is positively associated with engagement.
Hypothesis 4: increasing demands crafting is positively associated with engagement.
Current trends show that staying your entire work life at the same organization is not common anymore. People experience self-managed, boundary-less careers characterized by multiple jobs in multiple organizations and industries (Arthur, 1994). One of the causes of this trend is the increased pace of change, which can be caused by globalization, knowledge intensification and growth of the service sector (van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2005). As a result of these changes, almost every organization has experiences with structural redesigning by mergers, acquisitions and downsizing (Cummings & Worley, 2009). In turn, these experiences have an influence on the experienced job insecurity of employees (Wittekind, Raeder, & Grote, 2010). In order to cope with job insecurity, job loss and the rapid changing environment employees need to be adaptive, proactive and continuous learners (Fugate, Kinicki, & Ashforth, 2004; van der Heijde & van der
Heijden, 2005; Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012). This is incorporated in the concept of employability,
“an individual’s chance of a job on the internal and/or external labor market” (Forrier & Sels,
2003, p. 106). In addition Cuyper and de Witte (2008) have made a distinction between internal- and external employability. External employability refers to how the individual perceives his or her opportunities to attain a new job in the labor market (Rothwell & Arnold, 2007; Cuyper & de
Witte, 2008). People who are highly external employable can easily acquire a new job in another organization (Berntson & Marklund, 2007). Internal employability refers to how the individual perceives his or her opportunities in the current organization. Employees who are highly internal employable are employable in multiple jobs and rotate easily between jobs in the organization
(Cuyper & de Witte, 2008). As previously stated the two types of employability decrease a
13
person’s perception of job insecurity and increase the flexibility of the organization, being employable is therefore considered to be important for both.
Some researchers have found that employees who craft challenging resources and demands in order to fit with personal and organizational needs are rated to be more employable. In contrast to employees who make use of crafting in an accommodative way, who are rated less employable
(Tims et al., 2012). Accommodative crafting of employees implies that they cannot handle their current demands. Therefore adaptation of these demands are necessary. This can decrease the employability of the employee (Tims et al., 2012). Moreover, as the two definitions of the two types of employability state; employability includes rotation possibilities within the organization and in the external environment (Cuyper, & de Witte, 2008). It can therefore be assumed that when people drop certain demands of their job they are less employable, since they only focus on certain aspects of the job which makes rotation within and beyond the organization hard. This is confirmed by research of Hansson, DeKoekkoek, Neece, and Patterson (1997) who state that job mobility decreases among workers who decrease their demands. In contrast, increasing in demands crafting implies that employees can handle their current demands and are able to take on extra tasks. This makes them more able to rotate within and beyond the organization (Tims et al., 2012). These findings result in the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 5: accommodative crafting is negative associated with internal employability.
Hypothesis 6: crafting by increasing demands is positive associated with internal employability.
Hypothesis 7: accommodative crafting is negative associated with external employability.
Hypothesis 8: crafting by increasing demands is positive associated with external employability.
Based on the SOC, SST, the JD-R model and the fit theory it is expected that age has an indirect effect on internal-, external employability and engagement via job crafting. This is due to an employee’s experience of age which has an influence on desired work characteristics and the P-J
14
fit. This results in different crafting behaviors. In turn, these behaviors have an influence on engagement and both internal and external employability. This is hypothesized in the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 9: Age has a positive influence on engagement via accommodative crafting.
Hypothesis 10: Age has a negative influence on engagement via an increase in demands crafting.
Hypothesis 11: Age has a negative influence on internal employability via accommodative crafting.
Hypothesis 12: Age has a negative influence on internal employability via increasing demands crafting.
Hypothesis 13: Age has a negative influence on external employability via accommodative crafting.
Hypothesis 14: Age has a negative influence on external employability via increasing demands crafting.
Figure 1. Conceptual model of the relationship between the independent (age), dependent (internal and external employability and engagement) and mediating (job crafting) variables.
15
3. Method
3.1 Procedure
This explanatory research made use of a Dutch questionnaire (Appendix 1). Data were collected in nine different organizations, who were active in the profit or non-profit sector (Table 1). Of every organization at least three people filled out the questionnaire. The mix of organizations in the profit and non-profit sector resulted in respondents with different jobs, examples include recruitment consultants, bakers and nurses. Moreover, the sample includes organizations from different sizes, ranging from 10 – 7000 employees. The nine organizations were contacted on forehand through personal contacts or via social media. Following, a letter (Appendix 2) and an email attachment with the online version of the survey (Appendix 1) was sent to employees. An online survey was chosen to enhance anonymity in order to decrease social desirability.
3.2 Sample
In total 246 people have started the questionnaire. Due to missing values and drop outs 181 responses could be analyzed. Further descriptions of the sample can be found in table 2.
Table 1
Composition of the Sample Size in the Organizations
Organization Frequency/ Profit/ Non Profit
Percentage
Organization 1
Organization 2
28 (15.5)
18 (9.9)
Non-Profit
Non-Profit
Health Care
Eldery Care
Organization 6
Organization 3
69 (38.1)
9 (5.0)
Non-Profit
Profit
Elderly Care
Food Manufacturer
Organization 4 7 (3.9) Profit Recruitment Organization
Organization 5 7 (3.9) Profit Recruitment Organization
Organization 7 24 (13.3) Profit Technological Installations
Organization 8 18 (9.9) Profit Employment Agency
Organization 9 3 (1.7) Profit Bakery
Total 181 (100)
16
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of the sample
Characteristic
Respondents
Gender
Total
Sample Size
1
Male
Female
Age Mean
SD
Organizations Nonprofit
Profit
Frequencies
246
181
52
129
43.060
11.74
117
64
Percentage %
100
73.5
28.6
71.3
50.844
64.6
35.4
Note: Sample Size was decreased due to incomplete questionnaires
.
3.3 Instruments
Six different variables were analyzed in order to research the influence of age on job crafting, employability and engagement. All variables, except age, were tested on validity and reliability.
To check the construct validity, factor analysis was conducted. Factors were included based on the content interpretation, the KMO (> 0.6), the eigenvalue >1.0 and the screeplot. Next to factor analysis reliability was tested by the measurement of Cronbach’s α .
3.3.1 Age
Age is a continuous variable which was measured by “what is your current age” .
3.3.2 Job Crafting
Job crafting was measured by the use of a new crafting scale containing the two dimensions of job crafting (Kooij et al., 2015). Response categories on the two dimensions were rated by a 5-point scale ranging from 1: ( never ) till five ( very often ). Accommodative crafting was measured by a 6item scale including decreasing physical, emotional, cognitive and quantitative demands and increasing resources to successfully perform at work. An example of an item is: “ I try to simplify my tasks”.
Factor analysis of the dimension resulted in a KMO value .729 which is significant
(p<.05) .Cronbach’s α resulted in a value of .71. Increasing demands was measured by a 23-item
17
scale including the increase of instrumental social resources, challenging demands, the increase of quantitative demands and the increase of interest demands. An example of an item was: “ I change my job to make it more interesting”. Factor analysis showed a KMO value of 0.935, which is significant (p<.05). Cronbach’s α displayed an excellent value of .943. Further information regarding this questionnaire is provided in Appendix 3.
3.3.3 Work engagement
Work engagement was measured through the use of the 17-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
(UWES; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). An example of an item was “I am enthusiastic about my job”.
Response categories were rated by a seven-point scale ranging from: 1 ( Never ) to 7 ( Always ).
Factor analysis resulted in a KMO value of 0.931, which is significant (p<0.05). Furthermore, the analysis displayed three dimensions which is in congruence with theory stated before. These three dimensions can be measures in one broad dimension of work engagement (Kooij et al., 2011). The already validated scale resulted in a Cronbach’s α of 0.917. No items were deleted since they all contributed to the reliability of the scale.
3.3.4 Employability
Employability was measured by the use of an 8- item scale (Cuyper & De Witte, 2008; Akkermans,
Brenninkmeijer, Huisbers & Blonk, 2012). This questionnaire distinguishes internal and external employability by the measurement of four items for each dimension. An example of the measurement of external employability was
“My experience is in demand on the labor market”.
An example of the measurement of internal employability was “
At my current work I am employable to do different types of work
”. Response categories were rated by a five point scale ranging from: 1 ( do not agree ) to 5 ( agree entirely ). Factor analysis confirmed the two components of employability. Moreover Cronbach’s α for external employability resulted in 0.903 and the
Cronbach’s α for internal employability in a value of 0.818.
3.4 Control variables
To control for the influence of other variables on the effect of age on engagement and employability by the mediating effect of job crafting, four control variables were included
(Singleton & Straits, 2005). Organizational tenure, job tenure, hours of work per week and level
18
of education were chosen since they all have an influence on the dependent and mediating variables. Tims and Bakker (2010) state that the more hours you work the more possibilities there are to craft your job. Also, job- and organizational tenure have an influence on employability and job crafting since employees that work shorter in a job are more trying to alter aspects of their job in comparison to employees with a long job/organizational tenure (Van Dam, 2004; Berg et al.,
2010). Next to tenure, educational level has an influence on proactive behavior which is closely aligned to job crafting (Bindl & Parker, 2010). Also, the higher the education of an employee the more opportunities the employee might get to craft its job (Tims et al., 2011). Moreover, education also influences employability (Fugate et al., 2004). Engagement is controlled by hours of work per week, organization- and job tenure, since these variables influence absorbtion and dedication
(Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Employees in every organization and job can act as job crafters (Wrezniewski & Dutton, 2001).
However, there were some differences in crafting behaviors between organizations, therefore the influence of the organization was examined by the comparison of the means (one-way ANOVA).
Increasing demands crafting and engagement were not influenced by the type of organization, in contrast to the other mediator and dependent variables. Organization 1 and 7 had a significant different mean on accommodative crafting, in comparison to the other organizations. Also, organizations 1 and 5 have a significant different mean in the variable of internal employability.
At last, organizations 2, 4 and 7 have a significant different mean compared to the others on the variable external employability. Organizations that significantly differed from the other organizations were controlled for in the regression analysis.
3.5 Statistical analysis
In order to test the proposed conceptual model and hypotheses, SPSS 22 has been used. Firstly, the dataset was checked for misfits and outliers. Since no misfits or outliers were detected, an exploratory factor was applied to examine the variables. Hereafter, a regression analysis was executed to test the direct effects of the conceptual model. At last, the indirect effect of age via job crafting on engagement and the two factors of employability was measured by the application of the method of Preacher and Hayes (2008). This method is preferred above the method of Baron
19
and Kenny (1986) due to the small sample size (N=181). The method of Preacher and Hayes makes use of a bootstrapping mechanism (Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Preacher & Hayes, 2004). This entails that large number of mini samples are drawn from the dataset. In accordance with the advice of
Hayes (2009) a total of 5000 mini samples were performed. Another advantage of the syntax of
Preacher and Hayes (2008) is the possibility to test the effect of the two mediators in one model, this enables this method to control for the other mediator. The method of Preacher and Hayes provided regression values for the direct effects by taking into account multiple mediators.
However, it only resulted in unstandardized coefficients. Therefore regular regression analysis was preferred to examine the direct effects. The resulting values were checked with the values of
Preacher and Hayes, no differences in significance were found.
20
4. Results
This section displays the findings of the analyses to test the hypotheses. First, a correlation matrix will be examined to imply which variables are related. Followed by a regression analysis and a mediating analysis of Preacher and Hayes (2008).
4.1 Correlation analysis
Contrary to expectations, no significant relationship was found between age and accommodative crafting ( r= -.044
, p=.
551) (Table 3). Though, increasing demands shows to be marginally significant ( r= -.143, p= .055). Also, the crafting practice of increasing demands is positive significant related with both internal and external employability ( r= .303
, p= .00
; r= .359
, p= .00
, ) and engagement (r=.
314, p=.00) .
In contrast to accommodative crafting, which is not significant related to internal, external employability and engagement ( r= .056
, p= .45
; r=.
013 , p= .08
; r= .041
, p= .581). This implies that accommodative crafting is not significant related to any of the variables in this research besides the crafting practice increasing demands ( r=.
482 , p= .00
) . The control variables show to be significant related to age and the dependent variables. Therefore they may have an influence on the hypothesized relationships, and are taken into account in the regression analysis and the analysis of Preacher & Hayes (2008).
4.2 Hypothesis testing
The previous described correlation matrix already rejects a number of hypotheses, since there is no correlation between several variables. Especially accommodative crafting, which is not significantly related to all of the other variables. This implies that the hypotheses containing accommodative crafting can already be rejected. However to control for the values in the correlation matrix, a regression analysis and the method of Preacher and Hayes (2008) was still performed.
21
Table 3
Means, standard deviations, and pearson correlations
M SD 1. 2. 3.
1. Age
1
43.072 11.79 -
2. Increasing
Demands
2
3. Accommodative
3
4. Engagement
4
2.88
2.276
5.956
.638 -.143
.493 -.044
.930 .071
-
.482** -
.314** .041
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
-
5. Internal employability
5
6. External employability 6
7.
Education
7
8. Org tenure
8
9. Job tenure 9
3.249
3.036
3.06
12.57
.835 -.377** .303** .056
.953 -.338** .359** .130
1.165 -.226** .182*
9.634 .540** -.129
.039
-.130
.199** -
.043
-.108
.068
.316** -
.032
-.186*
.292** -
-.254** -.145 -
7.293 6.875 .418** -.006 .112 -.002 -.154* -.159* -.201** .356** -
10
.
Hours of contract 10 29.881 9.590 -.295** .302** .183* .170* .170* .191** .181* -.149*
1238910
N=182;
567
N=181;
4
N=180;
7
1=LBO/LTS/LEAO, 2=MAVO/MBO, 3=HAVO/VWO, 4=HBO and 5=WO;
10 hours of work stated in the employment contract ** Correlation is significant at p.<.01 (2-tailed); *Correlation is significant p<.05 (2-tailed)
-.081
4.2.1 Direct effects of the regression analyses
Results showed that hypothesis 1, which stated that age is positive associated with accommodative crafting, was not confirmed (
β=-.
042, p=.
571) (Table 4). This declares the low total explained variance of .002. Further, hypothesis 2 which stated that age is negative associated with increasing demands crafting, was not confirmed (
β
= -.142, p =.055). However, this study incorporates a low sample size therefore a trend can be recognized between age and increasing demands. This is due to a value of significance of .055 (Table 5). The total variance explained by age in increasing demands crafting was 14.2%. Next, hypothesis 3 which stated that accommodative crafting is positively associated with engagement was not confirmed (
β=.
039, p = .606) (Table 6). This results in a low total variance explained of 2%. The fifth hypothesis, which stated that accommodative crafting had a negative influence on internal employability, was not confirmed either (
β
=.053, p =.482) (Table 7). The total variance explained resulted in a low value of 3%. Also, the seventh hypothesis which stated that accommodative crafting is negative associated with external
10.
-
22
employability was not confirmed (
β
=.125, p =.094). However, it should be noted that adding the control variables in the regression analysis result in a positive significant effect on external employability (
β
=.140, p =.045) (Table 8). This implies that adding more variables make the model more complete, which is also described by the significant R 2 change of .176 ( p = .028).
In contrast to accommodative crafting, increasing demands crafting was significant and positively related with the dependent variables. Hypothesis 4, which stated that increasing demands is positive associated with engagement, was confirmed ( β =.313, p =.001) (Table 6). The variance explained by increasing demands crafting was 9.8%. The control variable hours of work per week had no significant effect on engagement (
β
=.081, p >.05). Also, the sixth hypothesis which stated that crafting by increasing demands is positive associated with internal employability was confirmed (
β
=.301, p =.000) (Table 7). This resulted in a total variance explained of 9.1%. Only the control variable “organization 5” had a significant influence on internal employability ( β
=-
.235, p <.01). The final direct regression that entailed increasing demands, the eight hypothesis, hypothesized that crafting by increasing demands was positively related with external employability. This hypothesis was confirmed too (
β
=.358, p =.000) (Table 8). Increasing demands explained 12.8% of external employability. The control variables education (
β
= .204
, p< .01
) , organization 2 (
β
=-.147, p <.05) and organization 4 (
β
=.195, p <.01) display a significant influence on external employability.
23
Table 4
Results of the regression analysis between Age and Accommodative Crafting
Predictor B
Model 1
SE β B
Model 2
SE Β
Constant
Age
Organizational Tenure
2.350
-.002
.140
.003 -.042
1.997
.002
-.007
.206
.004
.004
.039
-.145
Job Tenure
Hours in contract
Organization 1
.012**
.008*
.006
.004
Organization 7
R
2
ΔR²
.002
.002
-.279** .099
.037 .044
.122
.121
F .322 4.04**
Note:*: p<0.05, **: p<0.01; Dependent variable = Age
Table 5
Results of the regression analysis between Age and Increasing Demands Crafting
Predictor B
Model 1
SE Β
.164*
.163*
-.206**
.060
Constant
Age
R 2
ΔR²
3.241
-.008
F
Note:*: p<0.05, **: p<0.01; Dependent variable = Age
.180
.004
.142
.020
3.671
-.142
24
.
.
Constant
Crafting Practice
B
Table 6
Results of the Regression Analysis between Crafting Practices and Engagement
Model 1
1
Model 2
1
Predictor B SE Β
5.758 .333
.074
.143
.039
B SE
5.440 .364
.013
.144
.016 .007
β
.007
.168*
Model 3
2
Model 4
2
SE β
4.640** .307
.455* .104
.313**
B SE
4.511** .329
.419** .109
.008 .007 Hours in contract
R
2
ΔR²
.002
.002
.029
.027
.098
.098
.104
.027
F .267 2.593 19.229** 10.205**
Note:*: p<0.05, **: p<0.01;
1=
Dependent variable = Accommodative Crafting;
2=
Dependent Variable = Increasing Demands Crafting. Model 1 and 2 crafiting practice = Accommodative crafting; Model
3 and 4 crafting practice = increasing demands crafting.
β
.288**
.081
.
22
Table 7
Results of the Regression Analysis between Crafting Practices and Internal Employability
Model 1
1
Model 2
1
Model 3
2
Predictor B SE Β B SE β B SE
Constant
Crafting Practice
Hours in contract
3.043**
.089
.295
.127
.053
2.82** .345
-.014 .125
.021** .007
Model 4
β B
2
SE
-.008 .392** .093 .301** .332** .095
.243**
2.117** .275 2.101** .306
.013 .007
β
.255**
.149
Organization 1
Organization 5
R
2
ΔR²
.003
.003
-.302 .178
-.328* .141
.132
.129
-.132
-.191*
.091
.091
-.174
-.403
.169
.137
.189
.098
F .497 6.643** 17.751** 10.177**
Note:*: p<0.05, **: p<0.01;
1=
Dependent variable = Accommodative Crafting;
2=
Dependent Variable = Increasing Demands Crafting. Model 1 and 2 crafiting practice = Accommodative crafting; Model
3 and 4 crafting practice = increasing demands crafting.
-.119
-.235**
.
23
Table 8
Results of the Regression Analysis between the Crafting Practices and External Employability
Model 1
1
Model 2
1
Model 3
2
Predictor B SE β B SE β B SE β
Constant
Crafting Practice
2.483
.243
.335
.144
1.811
.125 .271
.351
.134
1.499** .308
Model 4
B
2
SE β
.1319** .320
.140* .532** .104 .358** .417** .101 .280**
Education
Organization 2
.200** .059
-.559* .221
.243**
-.177
.168* .058 .204**
-.466* .2013 -.147*
Organization 7
Organization 4
R
2
ΔR²
.016
.053
1.158**
.082
.352
.190
.045
.236
.128
.068
.959
.078
.341
.245
.057
.195**
.016 .174 .128 .117
F 2.832 8.095** 26.034* 1.229**
*
Note:*: p<0.05, **: p<0.01;
1=
Dependent variable = Accommodative Crafting;
2=
Dependent Variable = Increasing Demands Crafting. Model 1 and 2 crafiting practice = Accommodative crafting; Model
3 and 4 crafting practice = Increasing Demands Crafting.
24
.
Figure 2. Conceptual model with standardized values (β) between the relationship of independent (age), dependent (internal and external employability and engagement) and mediating (job crafting) variables without the influence of controlvariables. *: p<0.05, **: p<0.01.
4.2.2 Mediation by Preacher and Hayes
Preacher and Hayes (2008) describe that an indirect effect model with a Confidence Interval including 0.00 needs to be rejected. This criterion rejects the hypotheses that include accommodative crafting (Table 9, 10 & 11). To be specific, hypothesis 9 which stated that age has a positive influence on engagement via accommodative crafting, was not confirmed ( confidence interval: -.001, .004). Further, hypothesis 11 which stated that age has a negative influence on internal employability via accommodative crafting was not confirmed ( confidence interval : -.001,
.003). Finally, hypothesis 13 that described the expectation that age has a negative influence on external employability via accommodative crafting was not confirmed either ( confidence interval:
-.001, .003). However, the hypotheses that entailed increasing demands did not include 0.00 in their confidence intervals (Table 9, 10 & 11). This results in a confirmation, with an indirect effect of -.005, of hypothesis 10 which stated that age has a negative influence on engagement via an increase in demands crafting ( confidence interval : -.007, -.000). Also hypothesis 12 which stated that age has a negative influence on internal employability via increasing demands crafting was confirmed, with a total indirect effect of -.004 ( confidence interval : -.007, -.000). Finally hypothesis 14 which stated that age has a negative influence on external employability via increasing demands crafting was confirmed with an indirect effect of -.003 ( confidence interval: -
.009, -.000)
25
These significant results entail that as people age they are less likely to craft extra demands which results in a negative effect on engagement and both internal and external employability.
Table 9
Bootstrap Results of the Indirect Effects of Age on Internal Employability (ab path)
Confidence Interval
Mediators
1. Total Effect
2. Increasing Demands
Crafting
Data
-.003
Boot Bias SE Lower Upper
-.003 .000 .002 -.007 -.000
-.003 -.003 .000 .002 -.007 -.000
3. Accommodative Crafting .000 .000 .000 .001 -.001 .003
Note. CI Lower/Upper- endpoints of the bootstrap confidence interval (95%) for the indirect effect. Number of bootstrap resamples = 5000. Values of -.000 due to round off to 3 decimals.
Table 10
Bootstrap Results of the Indirect Effects of Age on External Employability (ab path)
Confidence Interval
Mediators
1. Total Effect
Data
-.004
Boot
-.004
Bias
.000
SE
.002
Lower
-.009
Upper
-.000
2. Increasing Demands
Crafting
-.004 -.004 .000 .002 -.009 -.000
3. Accommodative Crafting .000 .000 .000 .001 -.001 .003
Note. CI Lower/Upper- endpoints of the bootstrap confidence interval (95%) for the indirect effect. Number of bootstrap resamples = 5000. Values of -.000 due to round off to 3 decimals.
26
Table 11
Bootstrap Results of the Indirect Effects of Age on Workengagement (ab path)
Confidence Interval
Mediators
1. Total Effect
Data
-.004
Boot
-.004
Bias
.000
SE
.002
Lower
-.010
Upper
-.000
2. Increasing Demands
Crafting
-.005 -.005 .000 .003 -.011 -.000
3. Accommodative Crafting .001 .001 .000 .001 -.001 .004
Note. CI Lower/Upper- endpoints of the bootstrap confidence interval (95%) for the indirect effect. Number of bootstrap resamples = 5000. Values of -.000 due to round off to 3 decimals.
4.3 Post-hoc analysis
The relationship between age and the crafting practices was not significant (p<.05), only a trend was discovered between age and increasing in demands crafting (p<.06). In order to get a better insight in the role of age in the job crafting process, a post hoc test was performed to test the possibility of age as a moderating factor between the crafting practices and the dependent variables. Results of this analysis imply a rejection of the possibility of age as a moderating factor since the values of significance are >.05. ( p = .324
; p =.879
, p =.922).
27
5. Discussion
The primary goal of this study was to provide literature and practice with a better insight in the process of job crafting of older employees and the outcomes of this behavior. Earlier research has provided information about job crafting, but has never examined the role of age in this process.
Different crafting behaviors might occur, as a consequence of the employee’s experience of aging.
To research this effect a new job crafting questionnaire was constructed by Kooij (2015), this questionnaire distinguished accommodative and increasing in demands crafting. The following research question was investigated: to what extent does age influence the dimension of job crafting an individual engages in, and how does the resulting crafting behavior mediates the relationship between age and the dependent variables engagement, internal and external employability
This study found limited evidence for the influence of age on both of the crafting practices. Only a trend between age and increasing in demands crafting was found, in contrast to accommodative crafting that was not influenced by age. These findings are not in line with previous research of
Moghibi et al. (2015) and Kooij et al. (2015) who state that as people age certain within-person changes arise which changes desired job characteristics. In turn, this should have an influence on the person job fit and in the resulting crafting behavior. The non-found effect can be due to the lack of measurement of the P-J fit. This research assumed that as people age the P-J fit changes, this assumption is in line with previous researches that include P-J fit as a antecedent of job crafting
(Vreugdenhill, 2012; Tims & Bakker, 2010). However, some researchers have advised to measure the P-J fit since this results in a better understanding of the job crafting process (Tims et al., 2012;
Vreugdenhill, 2012). There are multiple questionnaires that measure the P-J fit, an example is the five item scale of Lauver and Kristof-Brown (2001). Another cause of the non-significant result is the measurement of age, which was only measured by “what is your current age”. Research states that chronological age alone is not the only indicator of age (Cleveland & Shore, 1992).
Characteristics of the employee such as subjective health, general health and the future time perspective (FTP) play a big role in the experience of age (Carp & Carp, 1981). Subjective health is defined by how old a person feels, looks and acts and has an influence on the employee and the experienced P-J fit (Barak, 1987; Kaliterna, Larsen, & Brkljacic, 2002). The construct of FTP
28
describes the time individuals think they have left and how they see that time (Cate & Johnson,
2007). People who perceive their time as limited are looking for more emotional meaningful interactions whereas people who have a large FTP are more motivated for opportunities. The experience of the FTP can be largely due to health of the employee (Cate & Johnson, 2007; Zacher
& Frese, 2009; Kooij & Van de Voorde, 2011). However, health and FTP were not included in this research and it was assumed that people have the same FTP and face the same decrease in health while aging. To illustrate, the question; “I change the way I do my work, in order to enable me to do my work” assumes that as people are chronological older they are more likely to experience a decrease in physical abilities which results in decreasing demands crafting. However this is not the same for everyone (Carp & Carp, 1981). This research can increase validity by measuring health and FTP. Next to the measurement of age, previous research of emotional labor states that personality can influence the decrease or increase in demands of employees (Zapf, 2002;
Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012). This implies that people craft their job in line with their personal preferences, that are not simply due to age. These personal preferences were not included. An example of such a factor is the personality trait cynism, which declares less interest in the organization and is related to decreasing demands ( Richardsen, Burke, & Martinussen, 2006; Tims et al., 2012). Also, a negative self-image influences the crafting dimensions. People who are afraid that they are not able to reach certain goals try to decrease these demands since they are afraid of unfavorable judgements of others and themselves (Bipp & Demerouti, 2014). To conclude, the contrasting motives to apply accommodative crafting, next to age, can explain the lack of significant results between decreasing in demands crafting and both internal and external employability.
Opposed to what was expected, accommodative crafting was not related to the dependent variables in this research. The explanation for the non-significant result can be declared by the inconsistencies in the accommodative scale. The scale cannot only be categorized by hindering demands but also by changing ways of doing in order to successfully perform at work e.g. the use of extra devices in order to perform well. Changing ways of doing is a component which can increase employability since people focus on certain aspects of their work. This provides them
29
with more in depth knowledge of specific features of their work and makes people who craft in this way more employable (Kooij et al., 2015). This is also confirmed by the positive relationship between accommodative crafting and external employability when control variables are included.
However, as previously stated decreasing demands can also imply that people cannot handle their current demands, which makes them less able to rotate across different jobs within or outside the organization (Tims et al., 2012). These contrasting components in the accommodative crafting scale result in the non-significant relationship between accommodative crafting and the other variables found in this research. Also, previous research of Nielsen and Abildgaard (2012) found no relationship between decreasing demands and their dependent variables. Only Tims Bakker and
Derks (2012) found a significant effect of decreasing demand and engagement.
Contrary to accommodative crafting, increasing in demands crafting was positive related to engagement and both types of employability. Also the effect of age, on the dependent variables by the mediating effect of increasing in demands crafting was confirmed. This implies that as people age they are less likely to craft by increasing demands, which decreases engagement and both types of employability.
5.1 Limitations, strengths and recommendations
5.1.1 Limitations
The results of this study need to be interpreted with caution since this study is not randomly conducted. Organizations were contacted based on probability, which resulted in a sample of
63.9% of organizations in the nonprofit/nursery sector and 36.1% in the profit sector (Table 2).
This has an influence on the results of this research since this is not a representative reflection of the labor market of the Netherlands (CBS, 2012). Moreover, a lot of women filled out the questionnaire (71.1%). Research of Wiersma (1990) state that women are interested in other aspects of their job in comparison to men. This might influence the validity of this study since women are thus likely to craft other demands and resources due to for example more role conflict
(Wiersma, 1990). However, previous research states that employees in every organization, sector and with a different gender craft their job (Berg, Wrezniewski & Dutton, 2013). Moreover, gender had no significant influence on both of the crafting practices. Therefore, the influence of the
30
probability sample might be small. Moreover, organizations that significantly differed from the other organizations in the sample were controlled for in the regression analysis. This implies that the type of organization should have no influence on the outcomes of the analyses.
The second limitation is also due to the small sample size (n=181). Even though a total of 246 respondents have opened the questionnaire, only 181 of the responses could be used for analysis.
This large difference was due to non-complete questionnaires. The highest dropout rate was recorded after filling out the descriptive statistics such as age and gender, and the start of the actual questions. The high dropout rate might be due to the number of questions on the first page of the questionnaire (35 items) or the total number of questions (142 items). The resulting sample size of
181 is too low since this study aims to refer to the entire labor force (Bartlett, Kortlik, & Higgins,
2001). Therefore, it is advised to increase the sample size. This can be realized by decreasing the number of items on a page since these can be a demotivating factor in filling out the questionnaire.
Moreover, it is recommended to decrease the total number of items in the survey. However, it should be noted that the current sample size does include enough respondents to apply factor analysis (Floyd & Widaman, 1995).
Another limitation is the questionnaire used to measure job crafting. Since previous research does not include the perspective of the aging individual a new job crafting questionnaire was constructed by Kooij (2015). In the resulting questionnaire it was expected that job crafting incorporated three dimensions namely (i)accommodative, (ii)utilization and (iii)developmental crafting. However factor analysis confirmed only two dimensions, which were not in line with expected three. Moreover, the process of distinguishing these dimensions demonstrated difficulties. The screeplot resulted in 2 dimensions which was not in congruence with the eigenvalues that resulted in 5 dimensions (Appendix 3, Figure 1 & Table 1). Forced oblique rotation in different components led to the resulting two factors. Moreover, as stated before accommodative crafting incorporates content problems since the practice incorporated both changing ways of doing and decreasing hindering demands. However it should be noted that accommodative crafting results in a cronbach’s alpha >.7, which is considered as good and implies that the variable is reliable.
31
The final limitation is the increased chance on social desirable answers by the use of a questionnaire. Social desirability can be describes as “the phenomenon whereby the individual presents themselves as having more socially desirable or respectable characteristics” (Krosnick,
1999 p.545). However, this research does not include sensitive subjects for which people should pretend to have more respectable characteristics. This implies that the chances of social desirability are not significantly high. Moreover, this research guaranteed anonymity which decreases the chance on social desirability (Kelman, 1961). However it should be noted that the concept of employability can also be measured by the use of colleagues or supervisors opinions which decreases the effects of social desirability and increases the validity of the research (e.g. research of Van der Heijde & Van der Heijden, 2005). Therefore, it is strongly recommended to make use of additional measures, such as third parties perceptions to measure employability.
5.1.2 Strengths
This research incorporates several essential strengths too. The most important strength is the test of a new questionnaire, aimed to measure job crafting. Since previous research does not capture the needs of older employees in a job crafting questionnaire (e.g. Tims et al., 2012) a new questionnaire was designed by Kooij (2015). This research is the first that made use of it and provides new theoretical and practical insights in the questionnaire. Factor analysis revealed only two dimensions instead of the expected three dimension, this implied that the content of the dimensions changed from (i) accommodative, (ii) developmental and (iii) utilization to (i) accommodative crafting and (ii) increasing demands crafting. Further research is necessary to examine this difference. This is vital to get a better insight in the job crafting process of the aging workforce.
Another strength of this study is the division between internal and external employability combined with job crafting. Most of the studies of employability only included the component employability as one dimension such as Tims, Bakker and Derks (2012). However, the distinction between internal and external employability provides a better insight in the implications for both the employee and employer (Cuyper & de Witte, 2008). Therefore it is important to research the impact of crafting on the employability dimensions separately.
32
5.1.3 Recommendations
The validity of this research can be increased by the use of a random sample with an increased sample size. The sample size can be increased by the use of a questionnaire with less items, which decreases the chances of dropouts. Moreover, different respondents can be questioned to measure the different concepts in this study (e.g. employability measured by colleagues or managers). Also, it is advised to measure the P-J fit by for example the questionnaire of Lauver and Kristof-Brown
(2001). Besides, as previously stated it is recommended to measure health and FTP as moderating variables between age and the crafting. As previously explained these factors can have a large impact on the relationship between age and P-J fit. Health can be measured by the 12 item questionnaire of Ware, Kosinski and Keller (1996) and FTP by the 10 item questionnaire of Lang and Cartensen (2002) (Figure 5). Also, it is advised to examine this questionnaire further since it captures the needs and preferences of the aging individual. This can be valuable since people are becoming older and work longer (United Nations, 2013). By examining the questionnaire further, it should be researched if the crafting dimensions can be divided into the three dimensions which were expected at the construction of the questionnaire; (i) accommodative, (ii) utilization and (iii) developmental crafting. If this is not possible figure 5 is proposed for further research.
Figure 5. Proposed Conceptual model for further research
Next to the previously mentioned technical recommendations it is advised to examine other possibilities which employees can engage in in order to increase the P-J fit. It is widely
33
acknowledged that as people age preferences change (Moghimi et al., 2015; Kooij et al., 2015).
Therefore it can be expected that the fit between the employee and job changes. However, there might be other strategies that older employees use in order to increase the fit, instead of the use of job crafting (Vreugdenhill, 2012).
5.3 Theoretical and practical implications
This research provides new theoretical insights in the relationship between age and job crafting.
As earlier mentioned age is not related to the crafting practices, however a trend was discovered between age and increasing in demands crafting. This implies that with a larger sample size a relationship might be confirmed. Also, the influence of age, mediated by increasing in demands crafting, on engagement and both employability factors is confirmed. This confirms that as people age they are less likely to craft extra tasks which decreases engagement and employability. Further research is necessary to examine the influence of age on the job crafting practices, this can contribute to the knowledge of successful aging at work.
Furthermore, several practical implications can be given based on the results of this study. Both employability and engagement are positively related to crafting by the increase of demands. This implies that when employees craft by increasing demands, either because of developmental opportunities or interests, it results in positive effects for both the organization and employee.
Examples of these positive effects include more flexibility of the workforce and more career opportunities for the employee (Fugate et al., 2004; van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2005;
Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012). Therefore, it is recommended to promote job crafting among employees. This entails that strategies need to be obtained by organizations to promote the job crafting practice “increasing demands”. An example includes less specific job descriptions which results in more autonomy and opportunities to be proactive. Moreover, emphasizing co-worker and supervisor trust by for example teambuilding can result in more proactive behavior which is closely aligned with job crafting (Wrezniewski & Dutton, 2001; Parker, Williams, & Turner,
2006). Also, trust in the supervisor can be created by a better dialogue between the employee and employer by for example a restructuring of the developmental and appraisal interviews. As Botero
34
and van Dyne (2009) state, the developmental and appraisal interviews should be an open dialogue in which expectations of both are being shared. This entails that the interview should be used as a moment to discuss ability, motivations and opportunities and not only on evaluating previous work
(Boxall & Purcell, 2009). By applying this method the organization will be more aware of the underlying motives of the individual, which influence job crafting behaviors. Also, appropriate career plans can be made that suit the organization, job and employee and encourages the trust between employee and employer (Verbruggen, Forrier & Sels, 2008). Though, it should be noted that job crafting is still the act of employees’ own proactive behavior and not of the organization.
Otherwise these interventions can better be defined as performance management which is characterized by regulation of the organization.
To conclude, both the employee and employer benefit from increasing demands as a job crafting practice. To facilitate this job crafting behavior it is considered vital to give the employee more space and autonomy, in which he or she is able to craft. This space needs to be embedded in the organizational culture, which promotes and facilitates job crafting and proactive behavior. Trust can be created through an improved dialogue between the employee and employer. This can be realized by restructuring developmental and appraisal interviews. By applying these practices it is possible to be aware of the current needs and motives of the employee.
5.4 Conclusion
This study tried to examine the influence of age on accommodative- and increasing in demands crafting. Results have shown that job crafting is not significantly related to age, only a trend between age and increasing demands crafting was found. However, results do display differences in the two crafting practices. Increasing demands crafting, is positively associated with engagement, internal and external employability. Accommodative crafting was not related to both types of employability and engagement. The total effect of age, mediated by the job crafting practices, on the dependent variables was only positive significant in the case of the crafting dimension “increasing demands”. This implies that as people age they are less likely to craft in the increasing demands way which has a negative result on engagement, and both types of
35
employability. Although not all hypotheses are significant, it should be noted that this research can be very valuable since it tests the job crafting questionnaire that captured the needs of older employees for the first time. This is of importance since the workforce is aging and effects of this trend needs to be examined.
36
6. References
Akkermans, J., Brenninkmeijer, V., Huibers, M., & Blonk, R. W. (2012). Competencies for the contemporary career: Development and preliminary validation of the Career
Competencies Questionnaire. Journal of Career Development . doi: 0894845312467501
Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A new perspective for organizational inquiry. Journal of organizational Behavior , 15 (4), 295-306. doi:
.org/10.1002/job.4030150402
Bakker, A. B. (2005). Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak experiences. Journal of vocational behavior , 66 (1), 26-44. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.11.001
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal
of managerial psychology , 22 (3), 309-328. doi.org/10.1108/ 02683940710733115
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands ‐ resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human resource management , 43 (1), 83-104. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20004
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.
doi:10.1177/0018726712453471
Baltes, P. B. (1997). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental theory. American psychologist , 52 (4),
366. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.4.366
Baltes, P. B., Staudinger, U. M., & Lindenberger, U. (1999). Lifespan psychology: Theory and application to intellectual functioning. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 471–507. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.471
Baltes, M. M., & Lang, F. R. (1997). Everyday functioning and successful aging: the impact of resources. Psychology and aging , 12 (3), 433. doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.12.3.433
Barak, B. (1987). Cognitive age: a new multidimensional approach to measuring age identity. The
International Journal of Aging & Human Development . doi: org/10.2190/RR3M-VQT0-
B9LL-GQDM
37
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. personality and social psychology , 51
Journal of
(6), 1173. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bartlett, J. E., Kortlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research: determining appropriate sample size in survey research, Information Technology. Learning and
Performance Journal , 19( 1), 43–50
Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2008). What is job crafting and why does it matter. Retrieved form the website of Positive Organizational Scholarship on April , 15 ,
2011.
Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work. Purpose and meaning in the workplace , 81-104. doi: org/10.1037/14183-005
Berntson, E., & Marklund, S. (2007). The relationship between perceived employability and subsequent health. Work & Stress , 21 (3), 279-292. doi: 10.1080/02678370701659215
Bindl, U., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and changeoriented action in organizations ( 2),567-598 . Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. doi: org/10.1037/12170-019
Botero, I. C., & Van Dyne, L. (2009). Employee voice behavior interactive effects of LMX and
power distance in the United States and Colombia. Management Communication
Quarterly , 23 (1), 84-104.
doi: 10.1177/089331890933541
Bothma, F. C., & Roodt, G. (2012). Work-based identity and work engagement as potential antecedents of task performance and turnover intention: Unravelling a complex relationship. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology , 38 (1), 27-44. doi: org/10.4102/sajip.v38i1.893
Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2008). Strategy and Human Resource Management . Basingstoke and
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Carp, F. M., & Carp, A. (1981). Mental health characteristics and acceptance-rejection of old age. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 51 (2), 230. doi: org/10.1111/j.1939-
0025.1981.tb01369.x
38
Cartensen, L. L. (1995). Evidence for a life-span theory of socioemotional selectivity. Current directions in Psychological science , 151-156. doi: org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep11512261
Carstensen, L. L. (2006). The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science , 312 (5782), 1913-1915. doi: 10.1126/science.1127488
Cate, R. A., & John, O. P. (2007). Testing models of the structure and development of future time
perspective: maintaining a focus on opportunities in middle age. aging , 22 (1), 186.
doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.22.1.186
Psychology and
CBS (2014). AOW-leeftijd stijgt vanaf 2022 verder door koppeling aan levensduur, CBS, The
Netherlands.
CBS (2012). Banen en arbeidsvolume van werknemers, 2012, CBS, The Netherlands
Cleveland, J. N., & Shore, L. M. (1992). Self-and supervisory perspectives on age and work attitudes and performance. Journal of applied Psychology , 77 (4), 469. doi: org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.469
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological bulletin , 52 (4), 281. doi: org/10.1037/h0040957
Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (2014). Organization development and change . Cengage learning.
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2008). Gepercipieerde kans op een baan versus een betere baan:
Relaties met arbeidstevredenheid en welzijn. [Perceived chance of a job versus a better job: the relationships with job satisfaction and wellbeing]. Gedrag & Organisatie, 21,
475–492.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demandsresources model of burnout. Journal of Applied psychology org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
, 86 (3), 499. doi:
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological assessment , 7 (3), 286. doi: org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286
Forrier, A., & Sels, L. (2003). The concept employability: a complex mosaic. International journal of human resources development and management
10.1504/IJHRDM.2003.00241
, 3 (2), 102-124. doi:
39
Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (1997). Selection, optimization, and compensation as strategies of life management: correlations with subjective indicators of successful aging. and aging , 13 (4), 531. doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.13.4.531
Psychology
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational behavior, 65(1), 14-38. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.005
González-Romá, V., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Lloret, S. (2006). Burnout and work
engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles? Journal of Vocational
Behavior , 68 (1), 165-174. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.01.003
Hansson, R. O., DeKoekkoek, P. D., Neece, W. M., & Patterson, D. W. (1997). Successful aging at work: Annual review, 1992–1996: The older worker and transitions to retirement.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51 , 202–233. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1997.1605
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication
10.1080/03637750903310360 monographs , 76 (4), 408-420. doi:
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and psychological measurement .
doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
Kaliterna, L., Larsen, Z. P., & Brkljacic, T. (2002). Chronological and subjective age in relation
to work demands: Survey of Croatian workers. Experimental Aging Research , 28 (1), 39-
49. doi : 10.1080/036107302753365531
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development, and work motivation. Academy of management review , 29 (3), 440-458. doi:10.5465/AMR.2004.13670969
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public opinion quarterly , 25 (1), 57-78. doi: 10.1086/266996
Kooij, D. T., de Lange, A. H., Jansen, P. G., & Dikkers, J. S. (2013). Beyond chronological age.
Examining perceived future time and subjective health as age-related mediators in relation to work-related motivations and well-being. Work & Stress , 27 (1), 88-105. doi:
10.1080/02678373.2013.769328
40
Kooij, D. T. A. M., Tims, M., & Kanfer, R. (2015). Successful aging at work: The role of job crafting. In P. M. Bal, D. T. A. M. Kooij & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), employee-employer relationship
Aging workers and the
(pp. 145-161). New York: Springer.
Kooij, D. T. A. M., & Van De Voorde, K. (2011). How changes in subjective general health predict future time perspective, and development and generativity motives over the lifespan. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology doi: 10.1111/j.2044- 8325.2010.02012.x
, 84 (2), 228-247.
Kooij, D. T. A. M., De Lange, A. H., Jansen, P. G., Kanfer, R., & Dikkers, J. S. (2011). Age and work ‐ related motives: Results of a meta ‐ analysis. Journal of Organizational
Behavior , 32 (2), 197-225. doi: 10.1002/job.665
Kristof ‐ Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: a meta-analysis of person –job, person-organization, persongroup, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel psychology, 58
.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
(2), 281- 342. doi:
Kroon, B., Kooij, D. T. A. M., & van Veldhoven, M. J. (2013). Job crafting en bevlogenheid: zijn er verschillen tussen teams met een restrictieve dan wel onbegrensde werkcontext? Gedrag en Organisatie, 26 (1), 46-65.
Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual review of psychology , 50 (1), 537-567. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.537
Lang, F. R., & Carstensen, L. L. (2002). Time counts: future time perspective, goals, and social relationships. Psychology and aging , 17 (1), 125. doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.17.1.125
Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between employees' perceptions of person–job and person–organization fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 59 (3), 454-470. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1807
Moghimi, D. , Scheibe, S. , & Van Yperen, N. W. (2015). Job Crafting in Aging Employees.
In Encyclopedia of Geropsychology.
Springer-Verlag.
41
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 93 (2), 392. doi: org/10.1037/0021-
9010.93.2.392
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). A meta ‐ analysis of the relationships of age and tenure with innovation ‐ related behaviour. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology , 86 (4), 585-616. doi:.org/10.1111/joop.12031
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work.
9010.91.3.636
Journal of applied psychology , 91 (3), 636. doi: org/10.1037/0021-
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. Doi: 10.3758/BF03206553
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods , 40 (3), 879-891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J. S. (2012). The development and validation of a job crafting
measure for use with blue-collar workers. Work & Stress , 26 (4), 365-384. doi:10.1080/02678373.2012.733543
Richardsen, A. M., Burke, R. J., & Martinussen, M. (2006). Work and health outcomes among police officers: The mediating role of police cynicism and engagement.
Journal of Stress Management , 13
International
(4), 555. doi: org/10.1037/1072-5245.13.4.555
Rothwell, A., & Arnold, J. (2007). Self-perceived employability: development and validation of a scale. Personnel Review , 36 (1), 23-41. doi: org/10.1108/00483480710716704
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study. Educational and psychological
Measurement , 66 (4), 701-716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471
42
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M, González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach.
Journal of Happiness studies, 3 (1), 71-92. doi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326
Schneider, B., Macey, W. H., Barbera, K. M., & Martin, N. (2009). Driving customer satisfaction and financial success through employee engagement.
People and Strategy , 32 (2), 22.
Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B. C. (2005). Approaches to Social Sciences.
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. doi: .org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 80 (1), 173-186. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2013). World
Population Ageing 2013 . ST/ESA/SER.A/348.
Van Dam, K. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of employability orientation. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology
13594320344000237
, 13 (1), 29-51. doi: 10.1080/
Van der Heijde, C. & Van der Heijden, B. (2005). A competence-based and multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability. Human Resource Management,
45, 449-476. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20119
Verbruggen, M., Forrier, A., Sels, L., & Bollen, A. (2008). Investeren in employability: wiens verantwoordelijkheid? Gedrag en Organisatie, 21 (1), 56-70. doi: doi.org/ 10.2139/ ssrn.944388
Vreugdenhill, H. (2012). Do older employees use task crafting in order to reduce the perceived misfit with their job? (Master’s thesis, Tilburg University). Retrieved from: www.innovatiefinwerk.nl%2Fsites%2Finnovatiefinwerk.nl%2Ffiles%2Ffield%2Fbijlage
%2Fvreugdenhilh.pdf
Walk, T. (2012). Employee Engagement: Tools for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage by William H. Macey, Benjamin Schneider, Karen M. Barbera, and Scott A.
43
Young. Personnel Psychology , 65 (1), 207-210. doi: 10.1111/j.1744- 6570.
01242_ 3
Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey:
2011.
construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.
220-233. doi: .org/10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003
Medical care , 34 (3),
Wiersma, U. J. (1990). Gender differences in job attribute preferences: Work—home role conflict and job level as mediating variables. Journal of Occupational Psychology , 63 (3), 231-243. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00524.x
Wittekind, A., Raeder, S., & Grote, G. (2010). A longitudinal study of determinants of perceived employability. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 31 (4), 566-586. doi: 10.1002/job.646
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. doi:
10.5465/AMR.2001.4378011
Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2009). Remaining time and opportunities at work: Relationships between age, work characteristics, and occupational future time perspective. Psychology and aging ,
24 (2), 487. doi.org/10.1037/a0015425
Zapf, D. (2002). Emotion work and psychological well-being: A review of the literature and some conceptual considerations. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 237268. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00048-7
44
Appendix 1 The Dutch Questionnaire
External Employability
7. Appendix
De volgende stellingen gaan over uw inzetbaarheid binnen en buiten uw huidige organisatie.
Helemaal
Oneens
1
Oneens
2
Neutraal
3
Eens
4
Helemaal Eens
5
1.
Ik vind gemakkelijk een andere baan als ik mijn huidige baan verlies
2.
Ik zou snel ander werk kunnen vinden, als ik daarnaar zou zoeken
3.
Ik ben in staat om makkelijk van werkgever te veranderen, als ik dat zou willen
4.
Ik zou snel een andere, gelijkwaardige baan kunnen vinden
Internal Employability
De volgende stellingen gaan over uw inzetbaarheid binnen en buiten uw huidige organisatie.
Helemaal
Oneens
1
Oneens
2
Neutraal
3
Eens
4
Helemaal Eens
5
5.
Ik ben in mijn huidige werk inzetbaar voor verschillende soorten werk
6.
Ik ben in staat om bij mijn huidige werkgever door te stromen naar andere functies
7.
Ik kan in mijn huidige werk hogerop komen
8.
Ik zou binnen mijn huidige werk makkelijk kunnen veranderen van functie
Engagement
De volgende stellingen gaan over het enthousiasme waarmee u uw werk uitvoert.
Nooit Een paar keer per jaar
1 2
Eens per maand
3
Een paar keer per maand
4
Eens per week
5
Een paar keer per week
6
Dagelijks
7
45
1.
Op mijn werk bruis ik van de energie
2.
Ik vind het werk dat ik doe nuttig en zinvol
3.
Als ik aan het werk ben, dan vliegt de tijd voorbij
4.
Als ik werk voel ik me fit en sterk
5.
Ik ben enthousiast over mijn baan
6.
Als ik werk vergeet ik alle andere dingen om me heen
7.
Mijn werk inspireert mij
8.
Als ik ' s morgens opsta heb ik zin om aan het werk te gaan
9.
Wanneer ik heel intensief aan het werk ben, voel ik mij gelukkig
10.
ik ben trots op het werk dat ik doe
11.
Ik ga helemaal op in mijn werk
12.
Als ik aan het werk ben, dan kan ik heel lang doorgaan
13.
Mijn werk is voor mij een uitdaging
14.
Mijn werk brengt mij in vervoering
15.
mijn werk beschik ik over een grote mentale (geestelijke veerkracht)
16.
Ik kan me moeilijk van mijn werk losmaken
17.
Op mijn werk zet ik altijd door, ook als het tegenzit
Job Crafting over the Lifespan Scale (JCL)
De volgende uitspraken gaan over uw gedrag op het werk. Geef aan hoe vaak u dit gedrag laat zien op uw werk door steeds het best passende cijfer te omcirkelen.
Nooit Soms Regelmatig Vaak Heel vaak
1 2 3 4 5
Accommodative Crafting
1.
Ik probeer mijn taken te versimpelen
2.
Ik verander mijn manier van werken zodat ik mijn werk aan kan
3.
Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder emotioneel inspannende taken verricht
4.
Ik zorg dat mijn werk niet te stressvol is
5.
Ik zorg ervoor dat ik minder mentaal inspannende taken verricht
6.
Ik probeer extra taken die niet tot de kern van mijn werk behoren kwijt te raken
Increasing Demands Crafting
1.
Ik maak mijn werk uitdagender
2.
Ik zoek naar taken die aansluiten bij mijn huidige kennis en vaardigheden
3.
Ik introduceer nieuwe manieren om mijn werk makkelijker te maken
4.
Ik maak zelf mijn taken afwisselender en dus interessanter
5.
Ik zorg dat ik leuke taken naar mezelf toe trek
6.
Als er nieuwe ontwikkelingen zijn, ben ik een van de eerste om ze te horen en uit te proberen
46
7.
Ik verander mijn werk zo dat ik mijn huidige kennis en capaciteiten optimaal kan benutten
8.
Ik zoek naar taken die aansluiten bij mijn interesses
9.
Ik verander mijn werk zo dat ik kan doen wat ik boeiend vind
10.
Ik trek taken naar me toe die mijn werk meer zinvol maken
11.
Ik zoek naar mogelijkheden om meer verschillende huidige vaardigheden in mijn werk te gebruiken (benut)
12.
Ik trek taken waar ik goed in ben naar me toe
13.
Ik zoek naar taken om mijn rol op het werk te verbreden
14.
Ik zoek naar taken waardoor ik me kan ontwikkelen
15.
Ik zorg dat ik mijn kennis kan delen met collega's
16.
Ik zoek naar taken om ongebruikte kennis en vaardigheden te kunnen benutten
17.
Ik trek taken waar ik van kan leren naar me toe
18.
Ik neem meer verantwoordelijkheden op me
19.
Ik coach regelmatig collega's al behoort dit officieel niet tot mijn taken
20.
Ik zoek naar mogelijkheden om collega's en/of klanten advies te geven al behoort dit officieel niet tot mijn taken
21.
Ik zorg dat ik regelmatig taken buiten mijn expertise op me neem
22.
Ik zorg dat mijn werk minder fysiek belastend is
23.
Ik zoek naar taken waarmee ik echt iets kan bereiken
Items that were deleted:
1.
Ik ga emotioneel belastende situaties uit de weg
2.
Ik vervang taken die ik door persoonlijke omstandigheden niet meer kan uitvoeren door andere taken
3.
Ik vervang taken die ik door persoonlijke omstandigheden niet meer kan uitvoeren door andere taken
4.
Ik vraag collega's om taken van mij over te nemen
5.
Ik beperk contact met mensen die me teveel energie kosten
6.
Ik vraag collega's om hulp met fysiek zware taken
47
Appendix 2 Letter to Respondents
Geachte medewerker naam organisatie ,
Mijn naam is Maartje Machielsen, student Human Resource Studies aan de Universiteit van
Tilburg. In het kader van mijn scriptie doe ik onderzoek naar (onbewuste) aanpassingen die mensen aan hun baan doen zodat een baan beter past bij eigen ambities, vaardigheden en motivaties. Een relevant onderwerp want hoe kun je als organisatie ervoor zorgen dat banen beter passen bij de werknemer, en wat is het effect hiervan voor de organisatie en werknemer?
Van belang is dat zoveel mogelijk mensen binnen Naam organisatie de vragenlijst invullen. U hoeft nergens uw naam in te vullen en uw antwoorden zijn volledig anoniem. Niet beantwoorde vragen maken het voor mij onmogelijk om juiste conclusies te trekken, het zou daarom fijn zijn als u de vragenlijst compleet zou kunnen invullen. Het invullen van de vragenlijst zal ongeveer
15 minuten duren.
Voor vragen of opmerkingen kunt u contact opnemen via email m.m.j.machielsen@uvt.nl
. Zou u de vragenlijst voor 15 mei willen beantwoorden met behulp van onderstaande link?
Tot slot wil ik benadrukken dat dit onderzoek alleen gericht is op mijn masterthesis, resultaten zullen enkel voor wetenschappelijke doeleinden gebruikt worden.
Alvast bedankt voor uw medewerking!
Maartje Machielsen
48
Appendix 3 Information regarding the Job Crafting Questionnaire
Job crafting was measured by the use of a new crafting scale containing the two dimensions of job crafting (Kooij, Tims, & Kanfer, 2015). Two sources of information were used to develop this scale; the items of Tims, Bakker and Derks (2012) and Kooij (Kooij et al., 2015). Kooij (2015) conducted interviews with employees in order to include items in the questionnaire that captured the needs of older employees. Dimensions were confirmed by the use of a Screeplot and the Eigen
Factor analysis (Catell, 1966, Kaiser, 1960;). However, defining the two dimensions showed difficulties in interpretation since results were not in congruence with each other, EV >1 resulted in five dimensions (Table 1) and the screeplot resulted in two dimensions (Figure 1). Eventually two dimensions were chosen which were in alignment with previous research (Kroon, Kooij &
Van Veldhoven, 2013). The two dimensions were measured by items that loaded .30 or higher.
This entailed that in total six items were deleted. As stated in table 2, convergent validity of the two dimensions was confirmed by the significant correlation between the two dimensions and proactivity (Bateman & Crant, 1993; 6 items; α =.762;) autonomy (Van Veldhoven & Meijman,
1994; 4 items, α=.863) and psychological empowerment (Janssen, Schoonebeek & Van Looy,
1997; 12 item; α=.875) . Since these concepts are closely related to job crafting it implies that the constructed questionnaire measures job crafting (Tims et al., 2012). The only exception was accommodative crafting which was not significant correlated with psychological empowerment
( r=.142
) (Table 2). Finally, to test if the dimensions were not multicollinear a VIF test was performed, which resulted in a value of 1. This indicated that there is no suspicion of multicollinearity (Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1995).
49
Figure 1: Screeplot of factor analysis job crafting scale
Table 1
Eigen values of the components of the Job Crafting Scale
Component Total % Of variance Cumulative %
1
2
10.590
2.601
35.516
8.970
35.516
45.486
.
3
4
5
1.554
1.090
.999
5.358
3.575
3.446
50.844
58.605
62.050
Note: Components after 6 were deleted due to an EV < 1
50
Table 2
Correlations between Crafting Dimensions and Convergent Variables
M SD 1. 2. 3.
1. Proactivity
1
3.623 .445 -
2.
3.
Autonomy 1
Accommodative
Crafting
2
.931
.273
.633
.493
.274**
.237**
-
.193** -
4. 5.
4. Increasing Demands
Crafting
2
2.882 .639 .535** .322** .470** -
5. Psychological empowerment 3
5.267 .803 .328** .575** .142 .434**
1 N=178; 2 N=181; 3 N=172; ** Correlation is significant at p.<.01 (2-tailed); *Correlation is significant p<.05 (2-tailed)
-
References
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202 of organizational behavior , 14 (2), 103-118.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate behavioral research , 1 (2), 245-276. doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
Hair, J. F., Black, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis: Text and
Readings.
Janssen, O., Schoonebeek, G., & Van Looy, B. (1997). Cognities van empowerment als de schakel tussen delegerend leiderschap en innovatief gedrag van werknemers. Gedrag en organisatie , 4 , 175-194.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and psychological measurement .
doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
Kooij, D. T. A. M., Tims, M., & Kanfer, R. (2015). Successful aging at work: The role of job crafting. In P. M. Bal, D. T. A. M. Kooij & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), employee-employer relationship
Aging workers and the
(pp. 145-161). New York: Springer.
51
Kroon, B., Kooij, D. T. A. M., & van Veldhoven, M. J. (2013). Job crafting en bevlogenheid: zijn er verschillen tussen teams met een restrictieve dan wel onbegrensde werkcontext? en Organisatie, 26 (1), 46-65.
Gedrag
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 80 (1), 173-186. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
Veldhoven, M. J. P. M., & Meijman, T. F. (1994). Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting met een vragenlijst: de vragenlijst beleving en beoordeling van de arbeid (VBBA) .
Nederlands Instituut voor Arbeidsomstandigheden NIA.
52