Are managers also 'crafting leaders'? The link between organizational rank, autonomy, and job crafting

Abstract

Although research has examined the role leaders may play in shaping job redesign behaviors among their subordinates, little is known about the way managers craft their jobs as compared to other employees. In two cross-sectional studies we tested whether organizational rank affects the frequency of job crafting (H1), and to what extent this relationship is mediated via perceived autonomy (H2). Study 1 (N=267) demonstrated that managers craft their jobs more frequently than non-managers by increasing structural job resources and seeking challenges at work. We also showed that autonomy explains the relationship between organizational rank and the frequency of increasing structural and social job demands, as well as seeking challenges. However, managers did not craft their jobs by decreasing job demands more often than regular employees. In Study 2 (N=262) we replicated this pattern of results, subsequently demonstrating that managers with shorter tenure use their autonomy to craft their jobs via decreasing job demands. We discuss the contributions and potential implications of these results.

Full text

Original Papers
* SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Faculty in Sopot, Polna 16/20, 81-745 Sopot, Poland
** Department of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland
Corresponding author: Marta Anna Roczniewska
This research was supported by a National Science Centre grant ‘PRELUDIUM’ awarded to Marta Roczniewska
on the basis of Decision No. DEC-2015/17/N/HS6/02897 of 2015-11-20.
Marta Anna Roczniewska*
Malwina Puchalska-Kamińska**
Are managers also ‘crafting leaders’?
The link between organizational rank, autonomy, and job crafting
Abstract: Although research has examined the role leaders may play in shaping job re-design behaviors among their
subordinates, little is known about the way managers craft their jobs as compared to other employees. In two cross-
sectional studies we tested whether organizational rank affects the frequency of job crafting (H1), and to what extent
this relationship is mediated via perceived autonomy (H2). Study 1 (N = 267) demonstrated that managers craft their
jobs more frequently than non-managers by increasing structural job resources and seeking challenges at work. We also
showed that autonomy explains the relationship between organizational rank and the frequency of increasing structural
and social job demands, as well as seeking challenges. However, managers did not craft their jobs by decreasing job
demands more often than regular employees. In Study 2 (N = 262) we replicated this pattern of results, subsequently
demonstrating that managers with shorter tenure use their autonomy to craft their jobs via decreasing job demands. We
discuss the contributions and potential implications of these results.
Key words: autonomy, positive psychology, managers, job crafting, organizational tenure, proactivity
“I’m not going to spend the rest of my life working my a** off and getting nowhere
just because I followed rules that I had nothing to do with setting up.”
Tess McGill in ‘Working Girl’ movie (1988)
Polish Psychological Bulletin
2017, vol. 48(2) 198–211
DOI - 10.1515/ppb-2017-0023
Tess, a working-class Staten Island woman employed
by one of Manhattan’s Financial District companies, feels
that her current work tasks and responsibilities do not
match her talent and ambitions. As a secretary working in
the mergers and acquisitions department of a Wall Street
investment bank, she does not merely answer the phone
or take notes during business meetings, but uses this
opportunity to learn something about the world of finances.
At one point, having read an article in The New York Post,
she comes up with a brilliant idea that would save a large
company from a foreign takeover.
The above description tells a story of someone who–
faced with a person-job misfit–chooses to transform
certain aspects of their job and adapt it to their own
preferences. Tess attempts to learn new things at work,
uses her capabilities to the fullest, and initiates a new
project unrelated to her core responsibilities. She actively
takes control of an unsatisfactory situation to bring about
positive change: a more desirable career, tailored to Tess’s
personality and competences. This act of job customization
is in line with what scholars have labeled job crafting
(Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2008; Tims & Bakker,
2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). A growing number
of papers on this phenomenon (over 90,000 hits in Google
Scholar; accessed: July 2016) indicate that job crafting
attracts the attention of scholars and practitioners.
Berg and colleagues (2008) suggest that job crafting
takes place in many organizations and across distinct
professions. It seems intuitive that the amount of such
customization should vary by the type of appointment.
Interestingly, to the best of our knowledge, no previous
studies have examined whether one’s rank in the
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/28/17 6:35 PM

Are managers also ‘crafting leaders’? The link between organizational rank, autonomy, and job crafting 199
organizational hierarchy allows to predict the frequency
of engaging in job crafting behaviors. While researchers
acknowledged that leaders can influence work environment
to affect the frequency of job crafting among their
subordinates (Wang et al., 2016; Wrzesniewski & Dutton,
2001), little is known about how a managerial position
actually affects the type and frequency of one’s job crafting.
The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we wish to
address the above-mentioned literature gap by exploring
the relationships between one’s rank in the organizational
hierarchy (managers vs. non-managers) and the frequency
of job crafting. Subsequently, we attempt to identify
a mechanism responsible for this relationship. Job
customization requires certain levels of autonomy (Tims
& Bakker, 2010), which may depend on one’s rank in
the company. Hence, individuals in higher positions
in the organizational hierarchy (managers) may have
more means to craft their jobs to their preferences than
individuals in lower positions (subordinates). We expect
this relationship to be mediated via increased autonomy.
Finally, the extent to which managers engage in job crafting
may depend on their tenure. Namely, it seems justified that
individuals change their jobs more often at the early stages
of their career; later on, the job becomes adjusted to their
preferences, so the need for crafting ceases.
This paper attempts to address the literature gap on
crafting among people holding higher organizational
ranks. We test two possible conditions affecting the
frequency of crafting: autonomy and tenure. To this date,
these variables haven’t been used jointly to explain why
and when managers engage in job redesign behaviors.
To accomplish these goals, we begin by discussing job
crafting’s theoretical underpinnings, including a review
of its antecedents and consequences. We then explain the
rationale behind our hypotheses, paying particular attention
to the role of autonomy in shaping job redesign behaviors
among managers. A description of two conducted studies is
then followed by careful consideration of their contribution
and limitations. We close our paper with a discussion of
future directions of research and advice for practitioners.
Theory and Hypotheses
What Is Job Crafting?
Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) introduced the
concept of job crafting to denote the process whereby
employees shape and change their jobs in three possible
ways. Firstly, individuals may initiate changes in the form,
scope or number of their tasks, e.g., inventing a new way
of filing documents. Secondly, employees may modify the
extent or nature of their social interactions at work, e.g.,
holding online meetings with team members instead of
traditional office meetings. Finally, people may engage
in cognitive crafting, for instance, they can change their
perception of the purpose of their job, e.g., a calling rather
than a means of earning money.
Tims and Bakker (2010) invoked the job demands-
resources theory (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, &
Schaufeli, 2001) to propose another perspective for
conceptualizing the job crafting phenomenon. They define
job crafting as the set of changes that individuals make
in their job demands and resources to achieve a better
fit between their job and personal abilities, needs and
preferences (Tims & Bakker, 2010). According to JD-R
model, job demands refer to those aspects of the job that
require physical or psychological effort, and are therefore
associated with certain physiological and psychological
costs (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Examples of demands
are emotionally demanding interactions with clients or
high work pressure. On the other hand, job resources
are associated with the aspects of the job that support
employees in achieving work goals, reducing job demands,
and stimulating personal growth (Bakker & Demerouti,
2007). These could be skill variety, performance feedback,
and learning opportunities. The main assumption of JD-R
model is that the interactions of specific job demands and
specific job resources determine employee well-being; for
instance, high job demands and low job resources produces
burnout, whereas increased challenge demands and job
resources evoke engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).
Consequently, given the JD-R framework, to craft their
jobs employees may increase their structural and social job
resources, e.g., by asking their supervisors for feedback.
Moreover, they may seek challenging job demands, e.g.,
by participating in a new project. They may also engage in
reducing hindering job demands, for instance, by avoiding
colleagues who are a source of distress.
Job crafting and other job-redesign behaviors differ
in that in the former employees engage in crafting on
their own initiative, without consulting the changes
with their supervisors. For example, idiosyncratic deals
require specific arrangements that are negotiated with the
organization. Additionally, the aim of job crafting is to
increase one’s job fit, and thus it should primarily serve
the individual, rather than the organization. A different
proactivity action–voice–is targeted at suggesting the
changes to organizational functioning that principally serve
the company rather than the individual expressing their
concerns (for further comparisons with other proactive
job behaviors see Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski &
Dutton, 2001). Interestingly, job crafting behaviors may end
up unnoticed by the supervisors (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,
2001), while still affecting the individuals who engage in
such behaviors, as well as their colleagues (Tims, Bakker,
Derks, & van Rhenen, 2013).
What Are the Consequences of Job Crafting?
Although individuals engage in altering the
characteristics of their jobs mostly to fulfill their personal
goals, job crafting behaviors may benefit both employees
and their companies. Job crafting is linked with higher
levels of job satisfaction and commitment (Leana,
Appelbaum, & Shevchuk, 2009). Recent findings suggest
that individuals optimize their person-job fit by crafting
their job demands and resources; as a consequence, the
fit affects employees’ job meaningfulness (Tims, Derks,
& Bakker, 2016). Moreover, job crafting influences
employees’ work engagement and job performance (Tims,
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/28/17 6:35 PM

Marta Anna Roczniewska, Malwina Puchalska-Kamińska
200
Bakker, & Derks, 2015); these positive consequences are
observable at the individual as well as team level (Tims et
al., 2013). Interestingly, collaborative job crafting relates
to task performance especially among the less experienced
employees (Leana et al., 2009). Seeking job resources
is related to higher employee creativity at work, which
happens via increased work engagement and flourishing
(Demerouti, Bakker, & Gevers, 2015). Ghitulescu
(2006) observed that job crafting correlates with reduced
absenteeism. Engaging in job alteration behaviors can also
prove helpful during turbulent times. Task and relational
crafting can help employees deal with organizational
transformation (Kira, Balkin, & San, 2012).
However, to paint a more accurate picture of the job
crafting phenomenon, one should mention its potentially
dysfunctional aspects, which are highlighted when the
changes introduced by an employee are not in line with
organizational goals (Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2013).
To begin with, employees may introduce tasks to their daily
activities that could distract them from pursuing their main
responsibilities. Moreover, decreasing the level of hindering
job demands has been linked with counterproductive work
behaviors (Demerouti, Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015).
When employees reduce their workload, it follows that
their colleagues are likely to end up on the receiving end
of such a change. Scholars have also investigated more
sinister motives behind job crafting that may result from
certain personality traits, e.g., narcissism linked to seeking
social resources and reducing job demands (Roczniewska
& Bakker, 2016).
Who Engages in Job Crafting and When?
The results of qualitative and quantitative research by
Berg, Dutton, and Wrzesniewski (2008) suggest that job
crafting behaviors emerge in a wide array of jobs. Multiple
studies to date have demonstrated that the type and amount
of crafting one engages in depend on certain organizational
and personal characteristics. A proactive personality is a clear
predictor of engaging in job crafting behaviors: proactive
workers are more likely to increase their job resources, e.g.
ask for autonomy, create skill variety, and attend training
(structural resources), ask for feedback or help (social
resources), and set themselves challenges (Bakker, Tims,
& Derks, 2012). Cynicism, on the other hand, correlates
negatively with job crafting (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Job
crafting also depends on individual differences in self-
regulation; namely, promotion-oriented individuals craft their
jobs by increasing job resources and challenges, whereas
prevention-oriented individuals prefer to decrease the level
of hindering job demands (Brenninkmeijer & Hekkert-
Koning, 2015). While extraverts and narcissists seek social
job resources, higher scores in psychoticism are linked with
fewer crafting behaviors that involve asking for feedback
or advice from colleagues at work (Roczniewska & Bakker,
2016). Demographic variables also relate to the frequency of
engaging in job crafting behaviors. More frequent crafting
has been observed among individuals with higher education
(Leana et al., 2009), and among younger employees (Bipp &
Demerouti, 2014).
As for situational predictors, Wrzesniewski and
Dutton (2001) identify task interdependence as a negative
predictor of job crafting, and the level of freedom at work
as a positive predictor. Indeed, work discretion (the ability
to make choices and decisions regarding one’s job) relates
to both individual and collaborative job crafting (Leana
et al., 2009). Other studies demonstrated that a high level
of daily job demands combined with a high level of daily
job autonomy correlates with seeking job resources more
actively and with fewer attempts at reducing job demands
on a daily basis (Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, &
Hetland, 2012). Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) argued
that excessive supervision could inhibit job alteration
attempts. Wang, Demerouti, and Bakker (2016) suggest that
job crafting can be enhanced when leaders empower their
subordinates by building a climate of trust and support.
Why Would Managers Craft More?
As demonstrated above, the characteristics of both the
individuals and the work environment play a significant
role in boosting the rate of employees engaging in job
crafting. Several organizational variables listed in the
previous section (freedom, task independence, work
discretion) relate to autonomy at work. Hackman and
Oldham (1976) define autonomy as the liberty to organize
work, make decisions and determine methods to achieve
goals. Autonomy is a very important work characteristic
that has demonstrated to affect employees’ satisfaction,
commitment, and motivation; moreover, it is linked with
lower role ambiguity, reduced interest in quitting, and
higher performance (Spector, 1986). Increased autonomy
at work has also been associated with more opportunities
to cope with stressful work situations (Bakker, Demerouti,
& Euwema, 2005).
Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) posit that the
opportunity to autonomously choose what tasks to
undertake and how to perform them is a prerequisite for
job crafting. Indeed, studies have shown that day-level
autonomy is linked with day-level seeking of resources,
which, combined with high work pressure, decreases the
likelihood of reducing job demands (Petrou et al., 2012).
There is no denying that managers have more control over
their job environment and typically experience a higher
degree of autonomy compared to regular employees. This,
in turn, presents them with more opportunities to modify
certain aspects of their jobs. Accordingly, a qualitative
study conducted by Berg, Wrzesniewski, and Dutton (2010)
demonstrated that lower-rank employees believe to have
relatively less freedom to craft their jobs, since job design
limits them to the “prescribed ends as well as the means for
how to do their work” (p. 168). Given this line of reasoning
we expect the following:
H1. Managers craft their jobs more frequently than non-
managers by (a) increasing structural job resources,
(b) increasing social job resources, (c) seeking
challenges, and (d) reducing job demands.
H2. The relationship between one’s rank in the organiza-
tional hierarchy and the frequency of job crafting is
mediated by their perceived autonomy at work.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/28/17 6:35 PM

Are managers also ‘crafting leaders’? The link between organizational rank, autonomy, and job crafting 201
Study 1
Method
Participants and procedure
The study was conducted both online and offline.
In the first case, the participants (N = 180) completed
questionnaires implemented into Google Forms, while
the participants in the direct procedure (n = 87) used
the pen-and-paper tool. All participants took part in the
study voluntarily and received no remuneration for their
participation. There were 105 individuals holding managing
positions (39.3%). We introduced the study as a survey on
‘The Perception of Work’. The sample consisted of 93 men
(34.8%) and 174 women (65.2%). Participants’ mean age
was 34.49 (SD = 8.78). Participants worked an average of
39.52 hours per week (SD = 10.97). The sample was diverse
in terms of market sectors (73% private, 27% public).
Measures
Job crafting was assessed using four subdimensions
of the Polish version (Roczniewska & Retowski, 2016)
of the job crafting scale originally developed by Tims,
Bakker, and Derks (2012). The dimensions of the scale
are: increasing structural job resources (e.g. “I try to
develop my capabilities”; α = .83), increasing social job
resources (e.g. “I ask colleagues for advice”; α = .67),
increasing challenging job demands (e.g. “When there is
not much to do at work, I see it as a chance to start new
projects”; α = .84) and decreasing hindering job demands
(e.g. “I make sure that my work is mentally less intense”;
α = .75). Job crafting was also measured as one construct;
α = .78. Each dimension of the scale consists of five items,
except for decreasing hindering job demands, which
includes six items. Items were rated on a 5-point scale,
ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often).
Perceived autonomy was assessed with a three-item
scale (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004) created on
the basis of Karasek’s (1985) job content instrument. The
scale was translated into Polish by one of the authors of this
manuscript. Example items are “I can decide on my own how
to execute my work” and “In my job, I have the freedom to
decide how to do my work”; α = .90). Items were rated on a
5-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
To determine one’s organizational rank, we asked the
participants whether they held a managing position of any
sort (e.g., a supervisor, a foreman, a director, a chief, etc.)
at the time. We coded their answers into two categories:
0 = no and 1 = yes.
Analysis strategy
To verify the hypotheses about the relationship
between the rank in the organizational hierarchy and
the frequency of job crafting (H1) as mediated via job
autonomy (H2), we used mediation analyses in the
regression model. The rank in the organizational hierarchy
(0 = non-manager, 1 = manager) acted as a predictor, four
types of job crafting–as dependent variables, and perceived
autonomy–as a mediator (see Figure 1).
We conducted mediation analyses using the PROCESS
macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013). We conducted four
independent mediations using Model 4 (Hayes, 2013)
for four types of job crafting. To test the significance of
indirect effects, we used a 95% bootstrap confidence
interval based on 5,000 bootstrap samples. The bootstrap
procedure estimates more accurate confidence intervals
of indirect effects, since it resamples from the data set
and estimates the indirect effect in every new sample
(MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). According
to the procedure, the mediation effect is considered
significant when the average assessment of indirect effect
is within a 95-percent confidence interval that does not
contain zero (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). As recommended
by Hayes (2013), in the text and tables we report the non-
standardized values of the correlation coefficient.
Results and Discussion
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and
intercorrelations of the study variables. The reliability
coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) are on the diagonal.
Table 1 demonstrates that the correlations between
one’s organizational rank and job crating were positive and
statistically significant for increasing structural resources
(r = .14, p = .021) and for challenging job demands
(r = .28, p < .001). There was no significant relationship
between the organizational rank and increasing social
resources (r = .04, not significant [NS]), or with decreasing
hindering job demands (r = .00, NS). The correlation
between organizational rank and autonomy was positive
and statistically significant (r = .44, p < .001). Moreover,
autonomy correlated significantly with three out of four job
Figure 1
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/28/17 6:35 PM

Marta Anna Roczniewska, Malwina Puchalska-Kamińska
202
crafting behaviors: increasing structural resources (r = .47,
p < .001), increasing social resources (r = .18, p = .003),
and increasing challenging job demands (r = .44, p < .001).
There was no significant correlation between autonomy and
decreasing hindering job demands (r = .01, NS). Table 1
demonstrates significant positive correlations between
job crafting behaviors: increasing structural resources and
increasing social resources (r = .25, p < .001), increasing
structural resources and increasing challenging job
demands (r = .56, p = < .001), and finally–increasing
social resources and increasing challenging job demands
(r = .34, p = < .001). There were no statistically significant
correlations between decreasing hindering job demands and
other kinds of job crafting.
Table 2 presents the results of mediation analyses in
the relationship between organizational rank and the four
job crafting behaviors as mediated by autonomy. To verify
Hypothesis 1, we examined the relationship between rank in
the organizational hierarchy and the frequency of job crafting
in its four forms (paths c)1. As presented in Table 2, results
were in line with H1a, indicating that managers craft their
work more often by increasing structural resources (Point
Table 1. Means (M), Standard deviations (SD), and Zero-order Correlations Between Variables in Study 1
Descriptives Correlations
MSD R A IStR ISoR SC RHD
Organizational Rank (R)a–– –
Autonomy (A) 3.93 0.88 .44*** (.88)
Increasing Structural Resources (IStR) 4.20 0.64 .14* .47*** (.64)
Increasing Social Resources (ISoR) 3.18 0.78 .04 .18** .25*** (.78)
Increasing Challenges (SC) 3.53 0.84 .28** .44*** .56*** .34*** (.84)
Reducing Hindering Demands (RHD) 2.90 0.78 -.00 .01 -.05 -.01 .03 (.78)
Note. N = 267. Values in parentheses on the diagonal indicate Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for scales’ reliabilities.
*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05
a Coding: 0 = Non-manager, 1 = Manager
Table 2. The Mediation Analysis for Autonomy in the Relationship Between Organizational Rank
and Job Crafting in Study 1
Autonomy (M)
Organizational Rank (X)
Increasing Structural
Resources (Y)
Increasing Social
Resources (Y)
Increasing Challenges
(Y)
Reducing Hindering
Demands (Y)
X– > M (a) 0.79; 95%
CI [0.59; 0.98]
0.79; 95%
CI [0.59; 0.98]
0.79; 95%
CI [0.59; 0.98]
0.79; 95%
CI [0.59; 0.98]
M– > Y (b) 0.37; 95%
CI [0.28; 0.46]
0.18; 95%
CI [0.06; 0.30]
0.38; 95%
CI [0.26; 0.49]
0.01; 95%
CI [-0.11; 0.13]
X– > Y (c) 0.18; 95%
CI [0.03; 0.34]
0.06 95%
CI [-0.14; 0.25]
0.47; 95%
CI [0.27; 0.67]
-0.00; 95%
CI [-0.19; 0.19]
X (M)– > Y (c’) -0.11; 95%
CI [-0.26; 0.05]
-0.08; 95%
CI [-0.30; 0.13]
0.17; 95%
CI [-0,03; 0.38]
-0.01; 95%
CI [-0.22; 0.20]
Indirect Effect 0.29; 95%
CI [0.20; 0.40]
0.14; 95%
CI [0.06; 0.24]
0.30; 95%
CI [0.20; 0.42]
0.01; 95%
CI [-0.08; 0.11]
X = predictor (organizational rank), M = mediator (autonomy), Y = dependent variable (job crafting)
a–c’ = paths
CI = confidence interval
Lower and upper bounds given in square brackets
1 Due to the uneven number of participants in the groups (105 managers, 162 non-managers), we conducted a parallel analysis using a nonparametric
test (Mann-Whitney U) to compare ranks between managers and non-managers for the 4 job crafting behaviors. The pattern in the obtained results was
the same.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/28/17 6:35 PM

Are managers also ‘crafting leaders’? The link between organizational rank, autonomy, and job crafting 203
Estimate [PE] = 0.18; Bias Corrected [BC] 95% Confidence
Intervals [CI] [0.03; 0.34]), and with H1c, demonstrating
that they seek challenging job demands (PE = 0.47; BC 95%
CI [0.27; 0.67]) more often than non-managers. However,
results did not confirm H1b, which stated that managers
craft they work more often by increasing social resources
(PE = 0.06; BC 95% CI [-0.14; 0.25]), or H1d predicting
a significant relationship with reducing hindering job
demands (PE = -0.00; BC 95% CI [-0.19; 0.19]).
To verify Hypothesis 2, we examined whether the
relationship between rank in the organizational hierarchy
and the frequency of job crafting is mediated by perceived
autonomy at work. Table 2 demonstrates that the relationship
between rank in the organizational hierarchy and perceived
autonomy (path a) was significant (PE = 0.79; BC 95%
CI [0.59; 0.98]). Subsequently, the relationship between
perceived autonomy was significant for three out of four
job crafting behaviors (path b): increasing structural
resources (PE = 0.37; BC 95% CI [0.28; 0.46]), increasing
social resources (PE = 0.18; BC 95% CI [0.06; 0.30]) and
seeking challenging job demands (PE = 0.38; BC 95% CI
[0.26; 0.49]). There was no significant correlation between
perceived autonomy and reducing hindering job demands
(PE = 0.01; BC 95% CI [-0.11; 0.13]).
Including autonomy as a mediator in the relationship
between the organizational rank and job crafting
demonstrates that the direct relationship between these
variables was not significant (path c’) for increasing
structural resources (PE = -0.11; BC 95% CI [-0.26; 0.05]),
seeking challenging job demands (PE = 0.17; BC 95% CI
[-0.03; 0.38]) or increasing social resources (PE = -0.08;
BC 95% CI [-0.30; 0.13])2. As expected, indirect effects
were significant for increasing structural job resources
(PE = 0.29; BC 95% CI [0.20; 0.40]), increasing social
job resources (PE = 0.14; BC 95% CI [0.06; 0.24]), and
increasing challenging job demands (PE = 0.30; BC 95%
CI [0.20; 0.42]), indicating that the mediation of autonomy
occurs between the organizational rank and these three job
crafting behaviors.
The results of Study 1 supported the majority of
our assumptions. First, in line with Hypotheses 1a and
1c, we demonstrated that managers craft their jobs more
frequently by increasing their structural job resources
and challenges at work than non-managers. This pattern
is consistent with the conclusions of the qualitative
study by Berg, Wrzesniewski, and Dutton (2010), where
managers reported to be more active in redesigning their
jobs. Proactivity is inscribed in the role of leaders (see
e.g., historiometric research on presidents: Deluga, 1998),
who are more inclined and better equipped to shape their
organizational environment than non-leaders.
Surprisingly, our findings did not confirm
Hypothesis 1b, indicating that managers do not craft their
work more often than other employees by increasing
social job resources (e.g., asking others for feedback or
advice on one’s work). One reason for this might be that
a managerial position in the organizational hierarchy
results in a relatively independent and individual mode
of work, which makes one less likely to consult decisions
or ask for advice. Similarly, asking for feedback can be
difficult, since high-ranking employees often have no
immediate supervisors. Another explanation may invoke
cultural specificities affecting managerial styles. Since
Poland is a country scoring high in the power distance
dimension (Hofstede, 2011), a typical supervisor would
tell subordinates what to do rather than take their ideas and
decisions into account.
Our results demonstrate that higher organizational
ranks provide more opportunities for job crafting. Based
on in-depth interviews with managers and non-managers,
we assumed that subordinates believe to have less freedom
and power to change certain aspects of their jobs compared
with their supervisors (Berg et al., 2010). Indeed, in
line with Hypothesis 2, our study demonstrated that the
relationship between occupying a managerial position and
more frequent job crafting is mediated through perceived
autonomy at work. When autonomy is introduced into
the model, the direct relationship between organizational
rank and crafting ceases to be significant, which suggests
that being a manager allows to explain crafting behaviors
only to the extent to which it is associated with perceived
autonomy. The relationship between autonomy and job
crafting has been established previously (Petrou et al.,
2012). This study demonstrates that work discretion can
serve as a mechanism explaining why certain organizational
positions or roles allow for more crafting than others.
Interestingly, managers tend to craft more than non-
managers through perceived autonomy at work with
regard to three out of four crafting behaviors listed by
Tims and Bakker (2010). Namely, they seek structural and
social jobs resources, as well as challenging job demands
more often than individuals occupying lower positions
in the organizational hierarchy; however, contrary to
Hypothesis 1d, there seems to be no difference between
these groups with regard to reducing hindering demands
(e.g., decreasing workload or emotional demands at work).
Therefore, it would seem that to tailor their jobs to their
own purposes managers would employ expansion-oriented
rather than withdrawal-oriented behaviors (seeking, rather
than reducing). Indeed, an additional analysis3 revealed that
when engaging in job crafting, managers most frequently
choose to increase their structural job demands, then to
2 Traditional Sobel tests were conducted to determine whether the reduction in the effect of the independent variable, after including the mediator in the
model, was significant and–therefore–whether the mediation effect is statistically significant. Their results were identical to those of the bootstrapping
procedure.
3 A repeated-measures GLM analysis for managers revealed that the frequency of crafting depends on its type, F (3,312) = 74.00; p < .001. Managers
crafted their jobs most frequently by increasing structural jobs resources (M = 4.31, SD = 0.62), then–by increasing challenges (M = 3.82, SD = 0.84),
next–by increasing social job resources, (M = 3.21, SD = 0.84) and finally by reducing job demands (M = 2.90, SD = 0.87). All of the pairwise
comparisons (with Bonferroni adjustment) were statistically significant.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/28/17 6:35 PM

Marta Anna Roczniewska, Malwina Puchalska-Kamińska
204
seek challenges, then to increase social job resources, and
finally―to reduce their job demands.
Although autonomy appears to form a precondition for
job crafting, it does not necessarily mean that the additional
freedom and independence that managers have necessarily
translates into more frequent job redesign behaviors. Once
people make changes to their job so that its design meets
their expectations to a greater degree, in all likelihood
they will engage in job crafting less frequently. Therefore,
reaping the benefits of work autonomy to engage in job
crafting may depend on one’s period of employment with
a particular company (organizational tenure). In other
words, supervisors whose organizational tenure has been
relatively shorter may use their autonomy to change their
jobs to a larger extent, while more experienced managers
may not utilize their autonomy to engage in more crafting,
as they may deem further changes unnecessary. Therefore,
we predict that organizational tenure, defined as the number
of years working for a particular employer, moderates
the extent to which autonomy explains crafting among
managers. Namely:
H3. Only for the employees with a relatively short
organizational tenure autonomy mediates the
relationship between being a manager and job crafting
behaviors.
Study 2
Method
Participants and procedure
The procedure was analogous to the procedure
employed in Study 1; however, this time all participants
(N = 280) took part in an online study. As in the previous
study, all participants were volunteers. The sample
consisted of 102 men (36.4%) and 178 women (63.6%),
with a mean age of 33.98 years (SD = 8.60). There were
104 individuals holding a managerial position (36.4%).
In line with Study 1, the sample was diverse in terms
of market sectors (71.1% – private; 27.1% – public;
1.8% – unknown). On average, the participants worked
41.36 hours per week (SD = 14.32), and their mean
organizational tenure was 5.11 years (SD = 6.27). We
excluded from analysis the participants who did not report
their organizational tenure (n = 6) and those whose tenure
was shorter than half a year (cf. Tims et al., 2012) (n = 18).
Measures
As in Study 1, we employed Polish adaptations of the
Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012) and the Autonomy
Scale (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004). Moreover,
we asked the participants about their organizational rank.
To verify our new hypothesis, we added an extra question
about participants’ organizational tenure. The question was
mandatory.
Analysis strategy
To verify Hypothesis 3 about the moderating role
of tenure on the relationships observed previously, we
employed a moderated mediation analysis, in which
organizational rank acted as a predictor, job crafting
types―as a dependent variables, and autonomy at work―
as a mediator. Organizational tenure moderated path b (see
Figure 2).
To test Hypothesis 3 we employed a moderated
mediation analysis (Model 14) using the PROCESS macro
for SPSS (Hayes, 2013). We calculated a 95% confidence
interval (CI) based on 5,000 bootstrapping samples for
computing conditional indirect effects at various values of
the moderator. To determine the moderation of mediation
we analyzed the index of moderated mediation (Hayes,
2015). An interval estimate of the index of moderated
mediation provides an inferential test as to whether
the indirect effect is linearly related to the moderator
(Hayes, 2015). If the CI excludes zero, one can infer
that the relationship between the indirect effect and
the moderator differs from zero, evidencing moderated
mediation. Conversely, if the CI includes zero, there is
no evidence for moderated mediation (Hayes, 2015). We
conducted a separate analysis for each kind of job crafting
behavior.
Figure 2
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/28/17 6:35 PM

Are managers also ‘crafting leaders’? The link between organizational rank, autonomy, and job crafting 205
Results and Discussion
Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, and
intercorrelations of the variables in Study 2. The reliability
coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) are on the diagonal.
The pattern of correlations shows that managers craft
their work more often than other employees by increasing
structural resources (r = .16, p = .012) and challenging job
demands (r = .26, p < .001), but not through other types
of crafting behaviors (NS). A correlation between one’s
organizational rank and work autonomy was positive and
significant (r = .19, p =. 002), indicating that managers
experience more work discretion than non-managers.
Moreover, autonomy relates positively to three out of four
job crafting behaviors: increasing structural resources
(r = .47, p = .001), increasing social resources (r = .18,
p = .004), and increasing challenging job demands
(r = .35, p < .001). There was no significant correlation
between autonomy and decreasing hindering job demands
(r = .04, NS). Organizational tenure does not correlate
with organizational rank (r = .07, NS) or autonomy
(r = -.09, NS); however, we observed significant negative
correlations between organizational tenure and increasing
structural (r = -.14, p = .031) and social resources (r = -.23,
p <. 001), indicating that the longer an individual worked
for one organization, the less frequently they crafted their
resources. Correlations between organizational tenure
and increasing challenging job demands (r = -.04, NS) or
decreasing hindering job demands (r = -.01, NS) were not
significant. Furthermore, there were significant correlations
between job crafting behaviors: increasing structural and
social resources (r = .34, p < .001), increasing structural
resources and challenging job demands (r = .67, p < .001),
increasing social resources and challenging job demands
(r = .39, p < .001), increasing social resources and
decreasing hindering job demands (r = .12, p = .045).
Correlations between decreasing hindering job demands
and the other two crafting behaviors: increasing structural
resources (r = -.03, NS) and increasing challenging job
demands (r = -.07, NS) were not significant.
To examine Hypothesis 3, we conducted 4
independent moderated mediations. Their results are
presented in Table 4.
Table 3. Means (M), Standard deviations (SD), and Zero-order Correlations Between Variables in Study 2
Descriptives Correlations
MSD R A T IStR ISoR SC RHD
Organizational Rank (R)a–– –
Autonomy (A) 4.05 0.95 .19** (.91)
Tenure (T) 5.44 0.34 .07 -.09 –
Increasing Structural Resources
(IStR) 4.20 0.64 .16* .47*** -.14* (.79)
Increasing Social Resources (ISoR) 2.99 0.92 .10 .18** -.23*** .34*** (.78)
Increasing Challenges (SC) 3.60 0.85 .26*** .35*** -.04 .67*** .39*** (.82)
Reducing Hindering Demands
(RHD) 2.77 0.73 -.10 .04 -.01 -.03 .12* -.07 (.70)
Note. N = 262. Values in parentheses on the diagonal indicate Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for scales’ reliabilities.
** p < .001, ** p <.01, * p < .05
a Coding 0 = Non-manager, 1 = Manager
Table 4. The Indices of Moderated Mediation for the Effect of Organizational Rank on Job Crating Through
Autonomy with Organizational Tenure as a Moderator
Dependent Variable Index SE BC 95% CI
Increasing Structural Resources -0.003 0.003 [0.010; 0.002]
Increasing Social Resources -0.004 0.004 [-0.012; 0.003]
Increasing Challenges -0.003 0.005 [-0.013; 0.005]
Reducing Hindering Demands -0.007 0.004 [-0.016; -0.001]
SE = Standard Error
BC 95% CI = Bias Corrected 95% Confidence Intervals
Lower and Upper Bounds given in square brackets
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/28/17 6:35 PM

Marta Anna Roczniewska, Malwina Puchalska-Kamińska
206
As can be observed, the 95% bootstrap confidence
intervals based on 5,000 bootstrap samples for autonomy
as a mediator excluded zero only in the case of reducing
job demands. Thus, the indirect effect of organizational
rank on decreasing hindering job demands through
perceived autonomy at work was negatively moderated
by organizational tenure. The negative sign indicates
that the indirect effect decreases with an increase in the
moderator value. Table 5 demonstrates the indirect effects
of autonomy for particular values of the moderator
(organizational tenure).
The results demonstrate that only managers with
relatively shorter organizational tenure (< 7 years) craft
their jobs through autonomy by reducing hindering
demands. As evidenced by Table 5, the relationship is no
longer significant for managers who worked for 7 or more
years with the same organization, in which case they do not
reduce hindering job demands using their autonomy any
more often than other employees.
The indices were not significant for the other crafting
behaviors, suggesting that in these cases the effect is not
moderated by organizational tenure. To verify whether the
effect of mediation observed in Study 1 can be replicated
here, we tested simple mediation (Model 4).
First, we examined the relationship between
organizational rank and the frequency of four job crafting
behaviors (paths c). Table 6 shows the results to be in line
with H1a, indicating that managers craft their work more
often by increasing structural resources (PE = 0.20; BC
95% CI [0.05; 0.36]); as well as with H1c, demonstrating
Table 5. The Results of Indirect Effects of Autonomy in the Relationship Between Organizational Rank and
Reducing Hindering Demands Moderated by Tenure in Study 2
Tenure (in years) PE SE BC 95% CI
1.0a0.051 0.028 [0.010; 0.126]
1.5b0.048 0.027 [0.008; 0.119]
3.0c0.037 0.024 [0.003; 0.099]
7.0d0.010 0.020 [-.0.024; 0.055]
12.0e-0.025 0.028 [-.0.092; 0.023]
Percentiles = a10th, b25th, c50th, d75th, e90th
PE = Point Estimates
SE = Standard Error
BC 95% CI = Bias Corrected 95% Confidence Intervals
Lower and Upper Bounds given in square brackets
Table 6. The Mediation Analysis for Autonomy in the Relationship Between Organizational Rank
and Job Crafting in Study 2
Autonomy (M)
Organizational Rank (X)
Increasing Structural
Resources (Y)
Increasing Social
Resources (Y)
Increasing Challenges
(Y)
Reducing Hindering
Demands (Y)
X– > M (a) 0.38; BC 95%
CI [0.14; 0.61]
0.38; BC 95%
CI [0.14; 0.61]
0.38; BC 95%
CI [0.14; 0.61]
0.38; BC 95%
CI [0.14; 0.61]
M– > Y (b) 0.31; BC 95%
CI [0.23; 0.38]
0.16; BC 95%
CI [0.04; 0.28]
0.28; BC 95%
CI [0.18; 0.38]
0.05; BC 95%
CI [-0.05; 0.14]
X– > Y (c) 0.20; BC 95%
CI [0.05; 0.36]
0.18; BC 95%
CI [-0.05; 0.41]
0.44; BC 95%
CI [0.24; 0.65]
-0.15; BC 95%
CI [-0.33; 0.03]
X (M)– > Y (c’) 0.09; BC 95%
CI [-.0.06; 0.24]
0.12; BC 95%
CI [-0.11; 0.35]
0.34; BC 95%
CI [0.14; 0.54]
-0.17; BC 95%
CI [-0.35; 0.02]
Indirect Effect 0.11; BC 95%
CI [0.05; 0.19]
0.06; BC 95%
CI [0.01; 0.14]
0.10; BC 95%
CI [0.04; 0.19]
0.02; BC 95%
CI [-0.01; 0.07]
X = predictor (organizational rank), M = mediator (autonomy), Y = dependent variable (job crafting)
a–c’ = paths
CI = confidence interval
Lower and upper bounds given in square brackets
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/28/17 6:35 PM

Are managers also ‘crafting leaders’? The link between organizational rank, autonomy, and job crafting 207
that they seek challenging job demands (PE = 0.44; BC
95% CI [0.24; 0.65]) more often than non-managers. We
did not confirm H1b, which stated that managers craft their
work more often by increasing social resources (PE = 0.18;
BC 95% CI [-0.05; 0.41]), or H1d, which predicted the
relationship to be significant for reducing hindering job
demands (PE = -0.15; BC 95% CI [-0.33; 0.03]).
It follows from Table 6 that the relationship between
organizational rank and autonomy (path a) was positive and
significant, suggesting that managers have more autonomy
than non-managers (PE = 0.38; BC 95% CI [0.14; 0.61]).
Subsequently, we examined the relationships between
autonomy and four job crafting behaviors (paths b). The
paths were positive and significant for increasing structural
resources (PE = 0.31; BC 95% CI [0.23; 0.38]), increasing
social resources (PE = 0.16; BC 95% CI [0.04; 0.28]), and
seeking challenging job demands (PE = 0.28; BC 95%
CI [0.18; 0.38]). The relationship was not significant for
reducing hindering job demands (PE = 0.05; BC 95% CI
[-0.05; 0.14]).
The direct effects (path c’) were not significant for
structural resources (PE = 0.09; BC 95% CI [-0.06; 0.24] and
increasing social resources (PE = 0.12; BC 95% CI [-0.11;
0.35])4. Indirect effects for structural resources (PE = 0.11;
BC 95% CI [0.05; 0.19]) and increasing social resources
(PE = 0.06; BC 95% CI [0.01; 0.14]) were significant,
indicating the occurrence of mediation. In the case of seeking
challenges, both the direct (PE = 0.34; BC 95% CI [0.14;
0.54]) and indirect effect (PE = 0.10; BC 95% CI [0.04;
0.19]) were significant, demonstrating that the relationship
between organizational rank and seeking challenges can both
be direct, and mediated through autonomy.
Our results partially confirmed our assumptions. In
Hypothesis 3 we expected that more frequent crafting of
one’s job through increased autonomy would be typical
only of managers with relatively shorter organizational
tenure, since the managers with longer tenure have
had enough time to adjust their jobs to their needs and
preferences. However, this observation demonstrated
to be true only in the case of decreasing hindering job
demands. We propose the following explanation. Firstly,
using autonomy to decrease hindering job demands by
managers with shorter organizational tenure may be due
to the increased need to feel safe and secure in the position
they occupy, which, in turn, may propel them towards the
prevention style of coping with difficulties (Brenninkmeijer
& Hekkert-Koning, 2015). Secondly, shorter tenure may
imply a relatively lower level of competence and reduced
ability to deal with a person-position misfit in an approach-
oriented way only.
In Study 2 we replicated all of our findings from
Study 1. The results indicate that managers craft their jobs
more often than non-managers. Individuals occupying
higher organizational ranks are bound to experience
more complexity in their work and hence–need more
job resources. Also, due to higher educational and skill
requirements for such positions, managers could feel
more entitled to define their modus operandi (Leana et
al., 2009). Furthermore, once again we demonstrate that
it is the autonomy (not the position itself) that allows
managers to craft more in an approach-oriented way by
increasing both kinds of resources―structural and social,
as well as by seeking job challenges. In the framework of
self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2002), autonomy
is one of the three innate psychological needs that–when
satisfied―enhance intrinsic motivation (Gagne & Deci,
2005); along with other two factors–competence and
relatedness–autonomy drives people to be proactive and
engaged (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Therefore, it seems that
in the context of work, enhanced autonomy is crucial
to motivate and allow employees to craft their jobs
(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Interestingly, findings
from Studies 1 and 2 did not confirm that autonomy allows
managers to craft their jobs by reducing hindering job
demands. These findings are consistent with Ryan and
Deci’s theory (2002) linking autonomy with proactivity.
This means that people who enjoy autonomy tend to
use approach-oriented strategies of coping rather than
avoidance (e.g., reducing demands).
In Study 2, we also demonstrate that the longer the
organizational tenure, the less frequently individuals craft
their jobs by increasing structural and social resources
(regardless of their organizational rank or autonomy).
These findings are partially in line with research
conducted by Bipp and Demerouti (Study 1; 2014), who
established that age acted as a negative predictor of all
job crafting behaviors. According to Tims and Bakker
(2010) employees change their levels of job demands
and job resources in order to align them with their own
abilities and preferences. We presume that one reason for
less frequent seeking of job resources by employees with
longer organizational tenure could be the fact that their
needs are satisfied as far as organizational supplies are
concerned, because they would have had enough time to
adjust their jobs to their preferences. Moreover, employees
who work in the same place for a longer period of time
possibly no longer exhibit strong motivation to develop
their capabilities (increasing structural resources), or ask
colleagues for feedback (increasing social resources), since
they already feel confident and well-equipped to perform
their jobs.
General Discussion
Study Contribution
A fit between job and one’s preferences and
attitudes has various positive consequences for both the
employees and their organizations. A meta-analysis on
the consequences of person-job fit demonstrated that
it relates positively e.g., to employee satisfaction and
performance (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson,
2005). On the other hand, studies demonstrate that misfit
is a stressor which leads to negative consequences, like
developing psychosomatic symptoms (Roczniewska
4 Sobel tests confirmed that the reduction in the effect of the independent variable is significant after including the mediator in the model.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/28/17 6:35 PM

Marta Anna Roczniewska, Malwina Puchalska-Kamińska
208
& Retowski, 2014). Therefore, it seems worthwhile to
examine actions that employees can take on their own
initiative to increase their job fit. Scholars have investigated
factors that affect job re-design behaviors. These may be
related to individual differences, such as personality traits
(Roczniewska & Bakker, 2016) motivational orientation
(Brenninkmeijer & Hekkert-Koning, 2015), or temperament
(Bipp & Demerouti, 2014). In this research, we focused
on situational rather than dispositional factors determining
the frequency of job redesign behaviors among employees.
Findings from our two studies elucidate when the
employees tend to be more willing to adjust their work to
their needs, as well as the reasons behind their choice of job
crafting behaviors.
In our two studies, we indicate that holding
a managerial position in an organization may lead to more
frequent job crafting; however, we also demonstrate that
it is the sense of autonomy that propels managers towards
proactively shaping their jobs to a larger degree compared
to non-managers. Work autonomy allows managers to
craft their jobs in an approach-oriented way by increasing
job resources and seeking job challenges. Karasek (1979)
introduced the concept of active jobs, denoting professions
with high demands (e.g., work pressure) and high levels
of control (e.g., leeway to make decisions regarding
one’s work). He argued that these challenging jobs make
employees learn actively and motivate them to develop
new behavior patterns. There is no denying that holding
a manager’s position is an active job with relatively more
autonomy and control, but also–consisting of constant
role demands. Our study corroborates Karasek’s theory
by demonstrating that a managerial position increases the
likelihood of shaping one’s job by seeking more resources
and challenges.
Interestingly, Study 2 shows that even without
autonomy in the picture, the relationship between being
a manager and seeking challenges remains pertinent. This
may suggest that, for managers, increasing challenges
at work is a desirable style of job crafting, regardless of
environmental conditions (such as their level of autonomy).
Higher ranks provide managers with greater rights and
opportunities to perform constructive actions, but come
with greater responsibilities too. This may be related with
the key leadership trait, i.e., drive, defined by researchers
as ambition, energy, tenacity and initiative (Kirkpatrick &
Locke, 1991). These characteristics may prompt managers
to engage in solving difficult problems and taking up
challenges, which is in line with the assumptions that an
active job empowers employees (Laschinger, Finegan,
Shamian, & Almost, 2001) and fosters skills development
(Witte, Verhofstadt, & Omey, 2007). Therefore, managers
may have a stronger need to seek new challenges compared
to other employees. Interestingly, studies on the Job
Demands-Resources Model (Demerouti et al., 2001)
demonstrate that balance between demands and resources
is crucial for explaining employees’ work engagement,
stress levels, and well-being (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014).
In a large study with over 12,000 participants–employees
of different occupations (Bakker, van Veldhoven, &
Xanthopoulou, 2010), researchers discovered that task
enjoyment and organizational commitment were highest
when employees were confronted with challenging and
stimulating tasks, and had sufficient access to job resources.
This may be another reason why managers, who―due to
their position and work conditions have a better access
to job resources―seek more challenges to experience
adequate levels of demands.
The pattern of results observed in Study 2 contributes
to the literature by showing that organizational tenure
has an impact on whether managers use their autonomy
to craft their jobs. In Study 1, we were unable to find
support for our hypothesis (1d) that managers craft
their jobs more often than other employees by reducing
hindering demands; however, in Study 2 we observed
that managers with shorter organizational tenure benefit
from their increased autonomy by avoiding difficulties
(hindering job demands). Therefore, when the manager’s
experience in a given organization is relatively low, they
are more likely to use their autonomy to reduce demands
of their role. Since reducing the amount of hindering
demands can restore employees’ energy levels (Bakker
& Costa, 2014), we presume that in the case of managers
with shorter organizational tenure, reducing job demands
may be triggered by lower levels of competence and
ability to deal with high demands involved in their role.
Leadership skills develop with experience (e.g., Mumford,
Marks, Connelly, Zaccaro, & Reiter-Palmon, 2000) and
as―a result―enable managers to use different methods
of coping with difficulties than simple avoidance. With
longer organizational tenure, autonomy does not translate
into choosing the withdrawal strategy. More experienced
managers appear to use their autonomy at work to choose
more approach-oriented strategies of job crafting, such as
seeking more resources. This is in line with research on
flow that links high levels of autonomy and competence to
behaviors focused on seeking challenges and opportunities
to grow (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009).
Furthermore, this study contributes to the literature
by examining how managers craft their jobs. This is
particularly important, because managers are leaders who
can model certain behaviors among their subordinates.
Therefore, outlining the conditions that allow managers to
engage in job crafting and set examples is vital. However,
understanding which managerial traits and leadership
styles promote crafting among employees is even more
important. Considering this, we encourage researchers to
examine factors responsible for successful transfer of job
crafting behaviors from leaders to subordinates, which may
involve trust (Brower, Lester, Korsgaard, & Dineen, 2009)
or Leader-Member Exchange (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden,
Brouer, & Ferris, 2012).
Study Limitations and Future Research
Certain limitations of this research must be
recognized. Firstly, both studies collected self-report data
in a cross-sectional study design (all measures taken at
the same time), which raises concerns about common-
method variance. Furthermore, we cannot make definite
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/28/17 6:35 PM

Are managers also ‘crafting leaders’? The link between organizational rank, autonomy, and job crafting 209
conclusions about the causal relationships between tested
variables, as these should be tested in a longitudinal design.
For one thing, it is possible that people with proactive
personality are more likely to apply for leadership
positions in organizations (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991),
and―simultaneously―that they tend to engage in job
crafting more frequently (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Moreover,
proactive behaviors may also lead to promotion and explain
the positive relationship between crafting and being
a manager. These doubts should be addressed in future
longitudinal studies.
Another limitation is that we administered an online
procedure (in Study 1 – partially; in Study 2 – fully) to
collect the data, which translates into lower control over the
process. For instance, it may result in multiple submissions
by the same individual. However, because no awards were
given for participation, we believe this concern may be
irrelevant here. On the other hand, online participation
lowers researcher’s ability to monitor participants’
behavior to ensure that subjects are engaged and attentive
while filling in the questionnaires. Although the matter
of participants’ carelessness pertains also in pen-and-
paper research (Huang, Liu, & Bowling, 2015), it can be
augmented in online studies.
There may also be alternative explanations as to
why managers craft more than non-managers. This active
style of behavior is in line with the concept of charismatic
leadership (Steyrer, 1998), which states that leaders need
to distinguish themselves from competitors through their
behaviors to be endorsed by their followers. Hence, this
proactive way of job crafting could be more than merely
a strategy aimed at redesigning one’s job, perhaps, an action
fulfilling social expectations. What is interesting, Niessen,
Weseler, & Kostova (2016) found that an increase in job
crafting can be predicted by the need for a positive self-
image. Another explanation could be derived from the fact
that holding a managing position equips one with power,
which has certain psychological consequences. Keltner
and colleagues (2003) have proposed that power enhances
approach-related behaviors; this could explain why
managers seek more structural resources. At the same time,
power increases egocentricity (Galinsky, Magee, Ena Inesi,
& Gruenfeld, 2006), which would predict that individuals
do not reach out to others (social resources). Finally, power
is related to sensation-seeking and risk-taking (Anderson
& Galinsky, 2006; Strużyńska-Kujałowicz, 2013); this
aspect could be explanatory of why managers increase
challenging job demands and do not report to decrease
hindrance demands. Given these alternative explanations
(social expectations and power), in future studies it is
recommended to test them against autonomy as possible
mediators.
Another limitation may result from the way
organizational rank was operationalized in this study by
coding it into two dimensions only (managers vs. non-
managers). For instance, participants may have differed
with regards to the management level (first-line managers
vs. middle managers vs. top managers). It could be that the
frequency of increasing social job resources is lower for
employees in the highest managerial positions, like CEOs
(as compared to middle- or lower-level managers), because
such individuals lack supervisors to gain feedback from or
ask for help. Moreover, the size of the managed team may
also differ, affecting supervisor’s crafting. For instance,
leading a relatively large group seems be more demanding
and thus–may not prompt managers to engage in increasing
any more challenges at work. Widening the criteria in
future studies by differentiating between management
levels and the number of the subordinates may bring more
understanding to how crafting behaviors and frequency are
dependent on organizational rank.
Future studies should also investigate cultural
differences as moderators of the relationships observed
here. Such dimensions of culture as power distance or
individualism (Hofstede, 2011) may influence leadership
styles, and thus prompt managers to choose distinct styles
of crafting. For instance, we expect that in hierarchical and
individualistic cultures increasing social job resources to
be less common than in an egalitarian and collectivistic
one. Moreover, job autonomy varies across countries (Van
Hoorn, 2016), and therefore it may also influence the
frequency and type of job crafting among employees.
Practical Implications
Job crafting behaviors without doubt bring many
positive outcomes to organizations, as well as to employees.
Therefore, it is worth pointing out how to support such
proactive actions. It has become increasingly popular to
introduce job crafting interventions and workshops, in
which employees learn how to craft their work by seeking
resources and challenges. The results demonstrate that
job crafting interventions may e.g., lower the amount of
negative affect, as well as increase self-efficacy among
employees (e.g., Van den Heuvel, Demerouti, & Peeters,
2015). Importantly, our studies point to the significance
of perceived autonomy as a means to actually being
able to craft one’s job to a larger extent. Therefore,
supervisors should be aware that workshops alone may
not be sufficient, with the sense of work autonomy playing
a pivotal role in introducing changes to one’s job. Notably,
we demonstrated that autonomy translates into positive job
crafting, namely: seeking more resources and challenges,
rather than avoiding difficulties at work. We believe
these results call for encouraging proactivity through
empowering employees.
Concluding Remarks
In this paper we address the literature gap on a link
between organizational rank and job crafting behaviors.
We demonstrate that autonomy allows managers to craft
more frequently (as compared to individuals holding lower
organizational positions) by increasing job resources and
challenging demands. Moreover, managers with shorter
organizational tenure use their increased autonomy to
reduce hindering job demands. These findings add to the
growing body of research on antecedents of job crafting in
organizations. To the best of our knowledge, no previous
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/28/17 6:35 PM

Marta Anna Roczniewska, Malwina Puchalska-Kamińska
210
studies have investigated the joint effects of autonomy and
tenure in predicting crafting among individuals holding
higher organizational ranks.
References
Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A.D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536. http://doi.
org/10.1002/ejsp.324
Bakker, A.B., & Costa, P.L. (2014). Chronic job burnout and daily func-
tioning: A theoretical analysis. Burnout Research, 1, 112–119.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2014.04.003
Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model:
state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.
http://doi.org/10.1108/02656710210415703
Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands- resources theory.
In C. Cooper, & P. Chen (Eds.), Wellbeing: A complete reference
guide (pp. 37–64). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. http://doi.
org/10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell019
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M.C. (2005). Job resources buf-
fer the impact of job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 10(2), 170–180. http://doi.org/10.1037/1076-
8998.10.2.170
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job de-
mands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Hu-
man Resource Management, 43(1), 83–104. http://doi.org/10.1002/
hrm.20004
Bakker, A.B., van Veldhoven, M., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2010). Beyond
the Demand-Control Model: Thriving on High Job Demands and
Resources. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(1), 3–16. http://doi.
org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000006
Berg, J., Dutton, J., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2008). What is Job Crafting
and Why Does It Matter? Retrieved from Http://csinvesting.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/Job_Crafting-Theory_to_Prac Tice-Aug_
08.pdf. http://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2012.674245
Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and
meaningful work. In B.J. Dik, Z.S. Byrne, M.F. Steger (Eds), Pur-
pose and meaning in the workplace (pp. 81–104). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. http://doi.org/10.1037/14183-
005
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(2–3), 158–186. http://doi.org/10.1002/job.645
Bipp, T., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Which employees craft their jobs and
how? Basic dimensions of personality and employees’ job crafting
behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, 88(4), 631–655. http://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12089
Brenninkmeijer, V., & Hekkert-Koning, M. (2015). To craft or not to craft
The relationships between regulatory focus, job crafting and work
outcomes. Career Development International, 20, 147–162. http://
doi.org/10.1108/CDI-12-2014-0162
Brower, H.H., Lester, S.W., Korsgaard, M.A., & Dineen, B.R. (2009).
A Closer Look At Trust Between Managers and Subordinates: Un-
derstanding the Effects of Both Trusting and Being Trusted on Sub-
ordinate Outcomes. Journal of Management, 35(2)(859), 391–347.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307312511
Deluga, R. (1998). American presidential proactivity, charismatic lead-
ership, and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(3),
265–291. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90030-3
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Gevers, J.M.P. (2015). Job crafting and
extra-role behavior: The role of work engagement and fl ourishing.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87–96. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jvb.2015.09.001
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2015). Productive
and Counterproductive Job Crafting. A Daily Diary Study, 20(4),
457–469.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001).
The job demands-resources model of burnout. The Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. http://doi.org/10.1108/0268394
0710733115
Dulebohn, J.H., Bommer, W.H., Liden, R.C., Brouer, R.L., & Ferris, G.R.
(2012). A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Consequences of
Leader-Member Exchange: Integrating the Past With an Eye To-
ward the Future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759. http://
doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415280
Gagne, M., & Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work mo-
tiviation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362. http://
doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Galinsky, A.D., Magee, J.C., Ena Inesi, M., & Gruenfeld, D.H. (2006).
Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12),
1068–1074. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x
Ghitulescu, B. (2006). Shaping tasks and relationships at work: Exam-
ining the antecedents and consequences of employee job crafting.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the de-
sign of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Performance, 16(2), 250–279. http://doi.org/10.1016/0030-
5073(76)90016-7
Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford. http://doi.org/978-1-
60918-230-4
Hayes, A.F. (2015). An Index and Test of Linear Moderated Mediation.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 1–22. http://doi.org/10.1080
/00273171.2014.962683
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in
Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–26.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Huang, J.L., Liu, M., & Bowling, N.A. (2015). Insuffi cient effort respond-
ing: Examining an insidious confound in survey data. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 100(3), 828–845. http://doi.org/10.1037/
a0038510
Karasek, R. (1985). Job content questionnaire and user’s guide. Lowell:
University of Massachusetts.
Karasek, R.A. (1979). Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Men-
tal Strain: Implications for Job Redesign. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308. http://doi.org/10.2307/2392498
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.H., & Anderson. (2003). Power approach and
inhibition. Psychological Review, 11 0(2), 265–284. http://doi.org/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
Kira, M., Balkin, D.B., & San, E. (2012). Authentic Work and Organiza-
tional Change: Longitudinal Evidence from a Merger. Journal of
Change Management, 12(1), 31–51. http://doi.org/10.1080/146970
17.2011.652374
Kirkpatrick, S.A., & Locke, E.A. (1991). Leadership: do traits mat-
ter? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 48–60. http://doi.
org/10.5465/AME.1991.4274679
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C. (2005). Conse-
quences of individuals’ fi t at work: A meta-analysis of person-job,
person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fi t. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2005.00672.x
Laschinger, H.K., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Almost, J.M. (2001). Test-
ing Karasek’s demand—control model in restructured health-
care settings: effect of job strain on staff nurses’ quality of work
life. Journal of Nursing Administration, 31, 233–243. http://doi.
org/10.1080/14702430601135560
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.
http://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.47084651
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confi dence
limits for the indirect effect. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
39(1), 99–128. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901
Mumford, M.D., Marks, M.A., Connelly, M.S., Zaccaro, S.J., & Reiter-
-Palmon, R. (2000). Development of Leadership Skills: Experi-
ence and Timing. Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 87–114. http://doi.
org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00044-2
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow theory and research.
In S.J. Lopez, C.R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psy-
chology 2nd ed (pp. 195–206). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195187243.013.0018
Niessen, C., Weseler, D., & Kostova, P. (2016). When and why do indi-
viduals craft their jobs? The role of individual motivation and work
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/28/17 6:35 PM

Are managers also ‘crafting leaders’? The link between organizational rank, autonomy, and job crafting 211
characteristics for job crafting. Human Relations, 69(6), 1287–
1313. http://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715610642
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M.C.W., Schaufeli, W.B., & Hetland, J.
(2012). Crafting a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and
the link to work engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
33(8), 1120–1141. http://doi.org/10.1002/job.1783
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for es-
timating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Re-
search Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731. http://
doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553
Roczniewska, M., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). Who Seeks Job Resources, and
Who Avoids Job Demands? The Link Between Dark Personality
Traits and Job Crafting. The Journal of Psychology, 150(8), 1026–
1045. http://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2016.1235537
Roczniewska, M., & Retowski, S. (2014). The role of job satisfaction in
the person-organization fi t relationship, in terms of goal pursuit
strategies, and mental health. Medycyna Pracy, 65(5), 621–631.
http://doi.org/10.13075/mp.5893.00152
Roczniewska, M., & Retowski, S. (2016). Polska adaptacja Skali
Przekształcania Pracy [Polish adaptation of the Job Crafting
Scale]. Manuscript in preparation.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facili-
tation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.
American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2002). An overview of self-determination
theory. An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E.L. Deci, &
R.M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Determination Research
(pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.
Spector, P.E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis
of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human
Relations, 39(11), 1005–1016. http://doi.org/10.1177/00187267
8603901104
Steyrer, J. (1998). Charisma and the Archetypes of Leadership. Orga-
nization Studies, 19(5), 807–828. http://doi.org/10.1177/017084
069801900505
Strużyńska-Kujałowicz, A. (2013). Władza a postrzeganie i podej-
mowanie ryzyka [Power, risk perception and risk taking]. Przegląd
Psychologiczny, 56(3), 279–299.
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. http://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and valida-
tion of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1),
173–186. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2013). The Impact of Job Craft-
ing on Job Demands, Job Resources, and Well-Being. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 230–240. http://doi.
org/10.1037/a0032141
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2014). Job crafting and job perfor-
mance: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Work and Orga-
nizational Psychology, 24(6), 914–928. http://doi.org/10.1080/1359
432X.2014.969245
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., Derks, D., & van Rhenen, W. (2013). Job Crafting
at the Team and Individual Level: Implications for Work Engage-
ment and Performance. Group & Organization Management, 38(4),
427–454. http://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113492421
Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). Job crafting and its relation-
ships with person-job fi t and meaningfulness: A three-wave study.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 44–53. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jvb.2015.11.007
van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M.C.W. (2015). The job
crafting intervention: Effects on job resources, self-effi cacy, and
affective well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 88(3), 511–532. http://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12128
Van Hoorn, A. (2016). How Much Does Job Autonomy Vary Across
Countries and Other Extra-Organizational Contexts? The Interna-
tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 1, 1–44. http://doi.
org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1192052
Wang, H.J., Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). A review of job craft-
ing research: The role of leader behaviors in cultivating success-
ful job crafters. In S.K. Parker & U.K. Bindl (Eds.), Proactivity at
work. New York, NY: Routledge.
Witte, H. De, Verhofstadt, E., & Omey, E. (2007). Testing Karasek’s learn-
ing and strain hypotheses on young workers in their fi rst job. Work &
Stress, 21(2), 131–141. http://doi.org/10.1080/02678370701405866
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning em-
ployees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Re-
view, 26(2), 179–201. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2001.4378011
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/28/17 6:35 PM