Content uploaded by Davide de Gennaro
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Davide de Gennaro on Jan 09, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
The Process of Reinventing a Job: A Meta–Synthesis of Qualitative Job Crafting
Research
Alessandra Lazazzara1, Maria Tims2, and Davide de Gennaro3
1Department of Social and Political Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 2 School of Business and
Economics, Department of Management and Organization, VU Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3
Department of Management, University “Parthenope” of Naples, Italy
This article is going to be published in Journal of Vocational Behavior.
• Recommended Citation: Lazazzara, A., Tims, M., & de Gennaro, D. (2019, in press).
The process of reinventing a job: A meta–synthesis of qualitative job crafting
research. Journal of Vocational Behavior. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2019.01.001.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Davide de Gennaro:
davide.degennaro@uniparthenope.it
2
The Process of Reinventing a Job: A Meta–Synthesis of Qualitative Job Crafting
Research
ABSTRACT
Two different research streams are encountered in the job crafting literature. The first,
defined as task, cognitive, and relational job crafting by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001),
has predominantly applied qualitative research designs to explore how employees craft their
jobs to better align them with their preferences, abilities, and motivations to enhance work
meaning and identity. The second stream, characterized by crafting job demands and job
resources (Tims & Bakker, 2010), focuses mostly on quantitative research designs and
examines the antecedents of job crafting and whether those antecedents are related to work-
related well-being and performance. Although the quantitative studies have recently been
meta-analyzed (Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2018; Rudolph, Katz, Lavigne, & Zacher, 2017),
the knowledge that is captured in the qualitative studies has not been formally integrated.
We contribute to a better understanding of job crafting by conducting a meta–synthesis of
the qualitative research. Analyzing 24 qualitative studies, we developed a process model of
job crafting that enhances an in-depth understanding of the processes associated with job
crafting. More specifically, we highlight the motives for job crafting (i.e., proactive or
reactive) and how the specific context may influence the form of job crafting in which
individuals engage. Next, the process model shows that personal factors connect job crafting
forms to the experienced job crafting consequences. The process model enables a better
understanding of the conditions under which job crafting is most likely to generate positive
or negative experiences.
Keywords: Job crafting, meta–synthesis, process model, qualitative research, literature
review, individual job redesign
3
Introduction
Although most jobs are initially designed by managers, employees also play an
important role in the way in which they perform their jobs by modifying their job
characteristics based on their own specific knowledge, skills, abilities, and motivations
(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). This proactive behavior is intended to better align the job
with the individual’s personal characteristics and is deemed job crafting. Because it is so
difficult for managers to design jobs that are good for all individuals (Grant & Parker, 2009),
job crafting provides an interesting new perspective on job (re)design (Wrzesniewski &
Dutton, 2001). Through job crafting, individuals shape their jobs in a manner that better fits
their unique characteristics without changing the core of their work (Bruning & Campion,
2018).
The large increase in studies focusing on job crafting is reflected in a recent meta–
analysis that used 122 independent samples comprising 35,670 employees (see Rudolph,
Katz, Lavigne, & Zacher, 2017). The meta–analysis provided a clear overview of the
quantitative literature that examined relations between job crafting and a variety of
individual differences, job characteristics, and work- and well-being-related outcomes. The
meta-analysis focused only on those studies that used the job crafting approach developed by
Tims and colleagues (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012). The choice for
this focus was based on the widely used job crafting scale developed by those authors.
Following the publication of this scale, the number of studies that investigated job crafting
expanded substantially (Rudolph et al., 2017), increasing the urgency to synthesize existing
knowledge.
Even more recent, a second meta-analysis on job crafting was published
(Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2018). This meta-analysis integrated role- and resource-based
job crafting by differentiating promotion- from prevention-focused job crafting. Promotion-
4
focused job crafting comprised increasing job resources, increasing challenging job
demands, expansion-oriented task, relational, and cognitive crafting, and prevention-focused
job crafting comprised decreasing hindering job demands, contraction-oriented task, and
relational job crafting. As a result, this meta-analysis included a broader range of job crafting
measures, resulting in 132 studies consisting of 46,780 employees.
However, in addition to this large increase in quantitative job crafting studies, it is
notable that, with some exceptions, earlier job crafting studies were primarily qualitative
(e.g., Berg, Grant, & Johnson, 2010a; Berg, Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2010b; Vuori, San, &
Kira, 2012), and similar to the quantitative approach, this qualitative literature continues to
grow. The uniqueness of each qualitative study renders it difficult to elucidate their
contribution to extant knowledge (Estabrooks, Field, & Morse, 1994), and the inductive
approach of much of the qualitative literature results in few attempts to translate themes into
concepts that were previously employed by other researchers (Morse, 2001). As a result, the
qualitative literature is logically more diverse and different from the quantitative literature.
For example, qualitative studies have focused on identifying workers’ hidden attempts to
craft their jobs (Berg et al., 2010a; Lyons, 2008), capturing reactions to work transitions
(Gascoigne & Kelliher, 2018), or capturing processes and experiences related to specific
work situations (Buonocore, de Gennaro, Russo, & Salvatore, 2018; Mattarelli &
Tagliaventi, 2015).
By contrast, quantitative studies have focused on, for example, more objective,
measurable individual factors that may make some individuals more prone to engage in job
crafting, e.g., those with an approach/avoidance temperament (Bipp & Demerouti, 2015),
proactive personality (Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012), and how dark personality traits (e.g.,
neuroticism, narcissism, and psychopathy) relate to specific forms of job crafting
(Roczniewska & Bakker, 2016). In other words, different types of research questions are
5
answered as a result of the various methodological approaches, in which qualitative studies
focus on underlying reasons, opinions, and motivations, while quantitative studies focus on
measuring defined variables to test hypotheses (Neuman, 2006). It is also notable that most
qualitative studies followed a theoretical perspective different from the quantitative studies:
the quantitative studies mostly followed the operationalization of job crafting as defined by
Tims and Bakker (2010), while the qualitative studies mostly followed Wrzesniewski and
Dutton’s (2001) task, relational, and cognitive crafting perspective as applied in the
qualitative study of Berg et al. (2010b). The differences between the two perspectives appear
large and resulted in researchers selecting one of the two job crafting perspectives in their
specific studies.
One such important difference between the two job crafting perspectives is related to
the aspect of cognitive crafting that is introduced by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) but is
not a component of Tims and Bakker’s (2010) approach. The latter authors reasoned that
changing how one views tasks or relationships is not a way to actively change concrete
aspects of work. At the same time, there are also similarities because task and relational
crafting could represent changes in job characteristics (e.g., adding tasks could result in more
variety or learning new skills; increasing the quality of relationships at work could be
perceived as crafting social resources such as support and feedback). In sum, due to the
differences between the two research streams and the lack of a systematic approach to distill
the knowledge present in the qualitative literature, we argue for the relevance of
systematically summarizing the qualitative job crafting studies to explore the knowledge that
they can provide about job crafting beyond the quantitative literature.
We therefore sought to contribute to this field by conducting a meta–synthesis (Hoon,
2013) of qualitative job crafting studies. A meta–synthesis is a combination and
interpretation of the results from a series of systematically selected qualitative studies with a
6
common theme (Douglas et al., 2008), closely approximating its quantitative equivalent, the
meta–analysis. Drawing on 24 qualitative studies, we focused on distilling the process by
which job crafting is motivated, shaped, and connected to specific outcomes. Hence, we not
only describe the specific job crafting forms that emerged in the qualitative literature but
also embed these forms of job crafting in a process model.
Although job crafting is often measured as a general behavior (e.g., by measuring
how often individuals engaged in it in the previous week, month, or in general), job crafting
is more accurately described as a process by which individuals initiate and create change
over time (Bruning & Campion, 2018; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). A process model
abstracts patterns from the available data that can model a sequence of events without losing
the connection with the particularities of the individual study (Tsoukas, 2009). Thus, we do
not focus on explaining and predicting effects, but on describing the patterns present in the
qualitative studies (Cornelissen, 2017).
This meta–synthesis contributes to the job crafting literature in two important ways.
First, we integrated the knowledge present in qualitative job crafting studies, which allows a
better understanding of the job crafting process. This integration is important because the
personal experiences that are reported in these studies provide a rich description of the
reasons why individuals engage in job crafting and provide information about the outcomes
of job crafting behaviors. This approach may, for example, help to develop a better
understanding of factors that may explain the negative consequences that job crafting can
generate for individuals. Currently, this lack of knowledge is perceived as an important
limitation in our understanding of job crafting (cf. Oldham & Hackman, 2010; Rudolph et
al., 2017). Because job crafting originates from a personal goal, the changes made by
individuals may not always be consistent with the needs of others (colleagues, supervisors).
For example, reducing or adding activities or relationships could, in specific situations, lead
7
to undesired results because coworkers need to take over or feel that they missed out,
respectively. Qualitative research may provide better insights into this important aspect of
job crafting because it captures the specific experiences and thoughts of individuals within
their specific situational context.
A second contribution of the current study is that we organized the various forms of
job crafting encountered in the literature according to the recently proposed “approach” and
“avoidance” forms of job crafting (Bruning & Campion, 2018). The large increase in interest
in job crafting has paralleled an increase in new forms of job crafting that, on closer
inspection, appear to be similar to and to overlap with existing forms of job crafting. Our
integration of the different forms of job crafting as approach and avoidance crafting helps to
clarify the overall pattern of when which forms of job crafting are utilized by employees and
what result these employees experience following this type of job crafting.
Moreover, we also uncovered the situations in which individuals did not engage in
job crafting although they wanted to. This information can provide insights for managers and
trainers who seek to enhance job crafting in their workforce. In sum, this study supplements
the knowledge generated by the quantitative meta–analysis of job crafting and enriches the
field with a process view on job crafting.
Theoretical Background
Job Crafting: Two Perspectives
Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) defined job crafting as any changes an individual
makes related to the task and/or relational boundaries of the job. These changes can be
physical or cognitive; physical changes refer to changes related to tasks and work
relationships, and cognitive changes refer to changing the way one views the job. More
specifically, task crafting is defined as those job–related changes that result in a different
number, scope or type of job tasks, while relational crafting involves initiatives to change the
8
quality and/or quantity of interactions with others at work. For example, a job crafter may
take on additional tasks because s/he finds them interesting, and/or may engage in less
interaction with those persons who divert attention from work or are emotionally
demanding. Cognitive crafting regards changing the way one views the job, which changes
how individuals approach their jobs. For example, employees who reframe the purpose of
their work to align it with their passions (Batova, 2018), or who cognitively emphasize the
positive aspects of their jobs (Vuori et al., 2012), engage in cognitive crafting.
This theoretical perspective on job crafting results in a focus on how job crafting can
help individuals reframe the purpose of the job and results in a job that is more meaningful
and satisfying for the individual (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Examples of outcomes
studied in research following this conceptualization of job crafting are a change in one’s
work identity, self–image, and the meaningfulness of work (Berg et al., 2010b; Mattarelli &
Tagliaventi, 2015; Wrzesniewski, LoBuglio, Dutton, & Berg, 2013). Studies following this
job crafting approach have been predominantly qualitative, with some exceptions (e.g.,
Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013; Vogel, Rodell, & Lynch, 2016).
Building on the notion of job crafting as introduced by Wrzesniewski and Dutton
(2001), Tims and Bakker (2010) used the Job Demands-Resources model (JD–R;
Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001) to study job crafting behaviors because
that model includes provisions for examining individual job redesign from the perspective of
a well–known theoretical job design framework. More specifically, in the JD–R approach,
two overarching job characteristics are distinguished, namely job demands and job resources
(Bakker & Demerouti, 2014), that function differently. Job demands refer to aspects of the
job that require the employee’s effort, and job resources refer to aspects of the job that help
individuals address job demands and provide opportunities for learning and development.
9
Using the distinction between job demands and job resources, job crafting was
conceptualized as comprising four forms: increasing structural job resources (i.e., mobilizing
job characteristics that help to achieve work goals and develop the self, such as autonomy,
variety, and opportunities for development); increasing social job resources (i.e., mobilizing
job characteristics in the relational sphere, such as feedback, social support, and coaching);
increasing challenging job demands (i.e., creating access to job demands that require effort
but are rewarding when attained (LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005), such as volunteering
to start new projects); and decreasing hindering job demands (i.e., making sure one’s work is
less demanding by, for example, reducing emotional or cognitive demands; Tims et al.,
2012).
In their meta-analysis, Rudolph and colleagues (2017) organized the quantitative job
crafting literature using an integrative perspective based on general models of proactive
work behaviors (e.g., Bindl & Parker, 2011). As such, the authors examined personality
characteristics, work characteristics, and demographics as antecedents of job crafting and
work performance, job attitudes, and work-related well-being as outcomes of job crafting.
Common antecedents and outcomes studied in this approach are proactive personality (e.g.,
Bakker et al., 2012), general self-efficacy (see Rudolph et al., 2017), work engagement (e.g.,
Mäkikangas, 2018; Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2018), job performance (e.g., Bakker et al.,
2012; Gordon, Demerouti, Le Blanc, & Bipp, 2015), and job satisfaction (e.g., De Beer,
Tims, & Bakker, 2016).
Bridging the Two Job Crafting Approaches
Recently, an attempt was made to better integrate the two research streams by
developing a job crafting taxonomy. Bruning and Campion (2018) first classified the two job
crafting perspectives as “role crafting” (i.e., Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), which relates to
the task and social boundaries of work, and “resource crafting” (i.e., Tims et al., 2012),
10
which relates to increasing job resources and managing job demands. Although this
distinction may eloquently capture some differences between the two job crafting
approaches by stating that role crafting leads to personal enrichment and resource crafting
leads to increased efficiency, the differences may not be that black and white in practice.
For example, the role–based perspective, in which task and relationship crafting are
positioned, may also result in a more efficient job, as evidenced by improvements in work
processes that involve the job crafter (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013), while the resource–
based perspective is not predominantly concerned with increased efficiency, as evidenced by
the relation between this crafting approach and a better work experience, such as person-job
fit or work engagement (Tims, Derks, & Bakker, 2016). Bruning and Campion (2018) then
introduced approach and avoidance behaviors as two general themes in job crafting
activities. Approach crafting is directed toward solving problems, improving the work
situation, and accepting and interpreting stressors in a positive way, whereas avoidance
crafting seeks to reduce or eliminate aspects of the job. Similarly, Bipp and Demerouti
(2015), using the JD–R approach to job crafting, found that employees with an approach
temperament, that is, a general sensitivity to positive stimuli (Elliot & Thrash, 2010), were
most likely to increase their job resources and challenging job demands, indicating that they
actively added resources and challenges to their jobs. By contrast, employees with an
avoidance temperament (i.e., a general sensitivity toward avoiding negative or undesirable
stimuli) tended to engage in decreasing hindering job demands; these individuals attempted
to reduce specific aspects of the work.
Rudolph and colleagues (2017) also meta-analytically examined how well the four job
crafting dimensions proposed by Tims et al. (2012) fit together, shedding important light on
the overall job-crafting construct. More specifically, although all four job crafting
dimensions loaded significantly on the same factor, decreasing hindering job demands
11
loaded much lower (.047) than the other three job crafting dimensions (i.e., increasing social
job resources: .482; increasing structural job resources: .641; increasing challenging job
demands: .811) and explained scant variance in the overall job crafting factor. Furthermore,
this job crafting dimension indicated opposite relations with outcomes such as job
satisfaction, turnover intentions, and work engagement compared with the other three job
crafting dimensions. These findings also indicate the value of the idea of distinguishing
between approach and avoidance types of job crafting, which were also reflected in
expansion-oriented and reduction-oriented discussions of job crafting (Laurence, 2010;
Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), and promotion- and prevention-oriented forms of job
crafting (Bindl, Unsworth, Gibson, & Stride, 2018; Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2018).
Building on this earlier work, Zhang and Parker (2018) propose that job crafting can
indeed be organized as approach or avoidance crafting at the highest hierarchical level,
followed by whether the job crafting is behavioral or cognitive (i.e., job crafting form), and
whether it involves changing job demands or job resources (i.e., job crafting content). This
hierarchical structure seems to be the first one to actually bring the different job crafting
perspectives together and also reviews the literature accordingly.
Together, these findings strongly align with the idea that job crafting can be
represented by an approach and avoidance dimension. We therefore deem the distinction
between approach and avoidance crafting to be informative to categorize the different forms
of job crafting we encounter in the qualitative studies and to describe the processes that
determine when individuals are most likely to engage in approach/avoidance job crafting and
what outcomes they experience following these forms of crafting.
Method
To construct an evidence–informed summary of the qualitative job crafting literature
and to build a process model, we conducted a meta-synthesis of the qualitative evidence
12
(Hoon, 2013; Walsh & Downe, 2005). A meta-synthesis is concerned with understanding and
describing issues, key points, and recurring themes within a research stream (Dixon-Woods,
Booth, & Sutton, 2007). Similar to a meta-analysis, meta-synthesis integrates and combines
studies on a specific topic to produce comprehensive and interpretive findings. However,
unlike a meta-analysis, which combines data from different studies to evaluate an overall
effect, a meta-synthesis develops and expands the results by evaluating the uniqueness of a
study within a comprehensive and interpretive whole (Clemmens, 2003).
Drawing on the meta–synthesis method proposed by Hoon (2013) and Walsh and
Downe (2005), our study involves six sequential steps of synthesizing the qualitative findings
to build a process model, which we outline below.
Step 1: Framing the research question. Using the existing job crafting literature, we
set out to meta-synthesize the qualitative research that may provide insights into the
processes that motivate job crafting and its relations to outcomes. Informed by the qualitative
literature review, it was noted that an in-depth overview of all factors related to the
occurrence and consequences of job crafting was lacking because many studies focused on
specific components of the job crafting process (e.g., job crafting forms and their antecedents
or outcomes). We therefore guided the meta-synthesis using the following research question:
What processes can be identified that illustrate when and how individuals engage in job
crafting, and with what consequences?
Step 2: Locating relevant research. The second step was about identifying studies
that may be considered relevant to our meta-synthesis by a computerized search using
scientific search engines (e.g., Scopus, Web of Science) and databases (e.g., EbscoHost
Business Source Complete, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Google Scholar) to find citations
containing the primary keyword “job crafting”. Moreover, the search string included the
following additional keywords: “qualitative study”, “interview”, “case study”, “focus
13
group”, “ethnography”, and “process”; we also searched the literature with the secondary
keywords “individual job redesign” and “proactive behaviors at work”. Finally, we searched
for publications (published and unpublished) using scientific networks, reference lists, and
active authors in the field of job crafting to further identify job crafting studies. The search
focused on published and unpublished studies because a synthesis of the literature should be
comprehensive and exhaustive on the subject by selecting the maximum number of primary
resources (Kisamore & Brannick, 2008) and this also limits the potential of publication bias
(Kepes, Banks, McDaniel, & Whetzel, 2012).
Step 3: Making decisions about inclusion/exclusion criteria. To ensure that the
sample of articles used for the analysis was appropriate, we applied the following inclusion
criteria (based on recommendations from Atkins and colleagues (2008), who established an
overview of criteria for evaluating qualitative data): (1) a qualitative research design with
data collected from focus groups, interviews, observations, ethnographic reviews, or
narrative approaches; (2) the main theme of the study was related to job crafting; (3) use of
primary data; (4) clearly stated research questions; (5) appropriate and justified qualitative
approach related to research questions; (6) clear description of the study context; (7) clear
description of the role of the researcher; (8) clear description of the sampling method; (9)
clear description of the data collection; (10) clear description of the method of analysis; and
finally, (11) consistent with our research question, we only included studies that focused on
the process related to job crafting instead of just one aspect.
The initial search of published qualitative job crafting studies yielded a set of 76
published contributions. This search was extended with 39 unpublished studies obtained via
cross-checking of reference lists, scientific networks, and active researchers in the field.
After a first screening of titles and abstracts, we found 33 studies to be false positives since
job crafting was not their main topic of investigation (e.g., job crafting was used to explain
14
results). Then, after obtaining the studies’ full text versions, all authors independently
reviewed all the papers and together reached a final agreement on the dataset for this study,
excluding studies if they were quantitative (n = 21); failed to state the research method, the
theoretical framework, or the study context (n = 15); focused on only one aspect of the job
crafting process (n = 8); did not provide an adequate description of the research question (n
= 4), the appropriateness of the qualitative methodology (n = 4), or the role of the researcher
(n = 3); or did not use purposefully collected data (instead they used, for example, existing
data that functioned as an illustrative example) (n = 3). Overall, 81 studies (70% of the total
number of contributions) were read in their entirety, and 24 of these met the inclusion
criteria and were ultimately incorporated into the meta–synthesis.
Step 4: Extracting and coding data. The fourth step in the meta-synthesis approach
was to extract, code, and classify evidence from the selected studies (Noblit & Hare, 1988).
Because our objective was to develop a process model, we content-analyzed the source
material and coded for two types of information: (1) forms of job crafting, and (2) processes
surrounding job crafting that described why individuals crafted their jobs and the resulting
experience after crafting.
We used an open-coding approach (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Strauss & Corbin,
1998) to classify insights generated by the researchers of the primary studies especially
focusing on the Results and Discussion sections (Hoon, 2013). During this stage, we were
mindful of the different settings in which primary studies were conducted and initially coded
each primary study for the descriptive characteristics (e.g., setting, sample, data sources; see
Supplementary Online Material) and then developed a list of open codes. All the coauthors
read through the same three randomly selected studies to identify relevant codes. Then, two
researchers independently coded the remaining articles according to the defined criteria.
15
Working with two coders reduces mistakes in data recording and avoids omitting relevant
constructs (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
We followed an iterative approach (Locke, 2001), continuously iterating between our
data and the emerging conceptualizations and comparing codes by engaging in a discussion
when disagreements emerged. We used Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ; Cohen, 1972) to
estimate the level of agreement between the coders. Initially, when all the coauthors codified
the first three studies, a fair level of agreement was reached: κ = .38 (Landis & Koch, 1977).
By discussing the reasons for our disagreements, particularly regarding terminological
differences, we were able to identify and correct differences in the encoding process.
Following this phase, in the final coding process, the observed agreement, that is, the
percentage of agreement between the judgments of two raters when they independently
coded the same data, reached a value of κ = .85; by calculating the amount of the chance
agreement, that is, the probability that two coders classified data in the same way by chance,
within this coefficient (κ = .60), the final consensus reached the value of κ = .61, reflecting a
substantial agreement between the raters (Artstein & Poesio, 2008; Landis & Koch, 1977).
Step 5: Analyzing different conceptualizations and comparisons. Because our first–order
codes highlighted specific patterns, we started to place concepts and themes identified in the
previous phase into reciprocal relations to create a link among them. Whereas the initial
concepts mainly represented job crafting forms and process variables related to when and
how job crafting occurs, we moved back and forth between our data and existing theory and
developed a set of more generalizable categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). We grouped our
concepts into theoretical categories so that the emerging constructs were grounded in our data
but were elaborated on with the help of extant theory. In doing so, we lifted the data to a
more theoretical level and moved from a case–specific level to a cross–study level of
analysis.
16
Indeed, after settling on a set of theoretical categories, we identified key aggregate
theoretical dimensions. These dimensions were “approach crafting”, “avoidance crafting”,
and “crafting in other domains” for the job crafting conceptualizations and “motives”,
“context”, “personal factors”, and “consequences” for the job crafting process variables.
Moreover, the resulting aggregate dimensions served as the basis for our job crafting process
model. To evaluate which events, patterns, and factors facilitate or hinder job crafting, we
used a causal network approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994). We created a within–case
processual matrix in which each row represented a study in our dataset and each column
represented the categories resulting from the preliminary coding stage. This matrix thus
provided a summary of the types of variables that were consistent with or constrained other
variables and revealed underlying themes and patterns.
The final step was to connect specific variables and relations in an overarching
model. To move to a cross–study level of analysis, we created meta-causal network
sequences of the variables identified in each study. Using a compare–and–contrast exercise
at the cross–case study level (Miles & Huberman, 1994), we matched each case–specific
causal network to determine how specific relations performed across the complete set of
studies. To ensure the validity of these relations, two researchers conducted this analysis
jointly and divergent judgments regarding potential relations were assessed and resolved to
capture the relevant issues emerging from the studies. Moreover, to obtain an outsider
perspective and thereby verify our ideas, we engaged in informal (e.g., internal seminars
with fellow department members) and formal (e.g., conference session) meetings with other
researchers not involved in the study to discuss emerging patterns and solicit critical
questions regarding the data collection and analytical procedure (Corley & Gioia, 2004).
Step 6: Synthesizing findings. The last phase synthesized the concepts that had
emerged to systematize specificities related to qualitative job crafting research and to
17
formulate a job crafting process model. Overall, a process model emerged that connected
motives, context, personal factors, and consequences of job crafting based on the distinction
between approach and avoidance behaviors. Notably, the data also revealed patterns that
could explain both the inability to craft and crafting outside the job in other domains. The
findings are explained in detail in the following sections.
Results
Job Crafting Conceptualizations
Due to the large number of job crafting conceptualizations encountered in the data,
we discuss these results here before we present the process model. A complete overview of
all forms of job crafting is presented in Table 1. Below, we describe examples of approach
crafting, avoidance crafting, and crafting in other domains.
Insert Table 1 about here
Approach crafting. In the approach crafting domain, we identified forms that were
previously adopted in the job crafting literature and identified several new forms. In some
cases, new forms of job crafting overlapped with old ones. In other situations, new job
crafting forms emerged. Within the task-crafting subdomain, examples of strategies
identified in previous work (e.g., Berg et al., 2010b; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) were
adding extra tasks, altering the scope or nature of tasks, and developing skills and abilities.
However, in the qualitative literature, authors also proposed more nuanced labels or
descriptions of crafting strategies to fit the specific study contexts. For example, Fuller and
Unwin (2017) described a specific form of “altering the scope or nature of tasks” in the
context of hospital porters, who expanded their job by making conversation or “entertaining”
patients and directly practicing healthcare although that was not prescribed in their job. The
authors defined these job crafting behaviors as caring moves. Meged (2017) described
certified guides who spent the low season maintaining and upgrading their qualifications or
18
who lived abroad to be closer to the host country’s culture as practicing a specific crafting
form of developing skills and abilities. Similarly, other scholars (Renkema, Broekhuis,
Ahaus, & Tims, 2018; Vuori et al., 2012) discussed developing oneself professionally, which
refers to developing skills and knowledge to address work situations more effectively.
Although labeled at a more specific level, these job crafting behaviors overlap with task
crafting.
Others, instead, have integrated new elements into previously existing
conceptualizations, thereby further advancing them. For example, the so-called work role
expansion (Bruning & Campion, 2018) strategy combines elements of task crafting
(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), increasing challenging job demands (Tims et al., 2012), and
job expanding techniques (Berg et al., 2010a), and refers to incumbents’ not only changing
their tasks by including elements not originally prescribed in the job description but also
integrating personal and work domains. Among the newest task-crafting forms, the work
organization tactic addresses reshaping systems and strategies to organize the tangible
elements of work—e.g., setting deadlines, organizing tools and procedures in a certain order,
and creating behavioral protocols and regulations, which can involve managing behavior or
physical surroundings (Bruning & Campion, 2018). A more specific form of work
organization is prioritizing tasks, which refers to the prioritization of certain tasks over others
to improve efficiency and task execution (Cohen, 2013; Singh & Singh, 2016). Other authors
discussed innovation practices (Kossek et al., 2016) as a general crafting strategy to
undertake new activities to generate greater involvement; others go further in the innovation
process by introducing recognition of job-expanding ideas (i.e., an increase in existing
responsibilities and activities) and recognition of new business ideas (i.e., an injection of new
management philosophies and thinking) as new forms of task crafting (Mattarelli &
Tagliaventi, 2015).
19
Moreover, an emerging topic within the job crafting literature is making proactive
changes related to the adoption of specific technologies. Adoption involves the use of
technology or other information systems to change the work process (Bruning & Campion,
2018). Similarly, other scholars mentioned the proactive use of technology to maintain
increased flexibility (Sturges, 2012) or performing one’s own tasks in more innovative ways
(Grant-Vallone & Ensher, 2017) although they did not define any specific technology-related
crafting forms.
In the relational crafting subdomain, the notions of actively changing relationships
with others at work (e.g., Berg et al., 2010b; Grant-Vallone & Ensher, 2017; Piekkari, 2015)
and creating additional relationships (e.g., Batova, 2018; Murray, 2014; Piekkari, 2015)
were the most cited behaviors, although additional relational forms of crafting emerged. For
example, Bruning and Campion (2018) introduced social expansion as workers’ attempt to
systematically seek feedback, change interactions with others or take on self–adopted team
roles. Similarly, asking colleagues for feedback and advice or building personal relationships
with partners, purchasers, customers, or colleagues represent a means of receiving support
and assurance from colleagues (Renkema et al., 2018); gaining confidence and appreciation
(Grant-Vallone & Ensher, 2017; Lyons, 2008; Piekkari, 2015); setting the stage for future
relationship building (Lyons, 2008); and finding new meaning at work (Singh & Singh,
2016). In a similar vein, the idea of proactively creating a network is especially important for
self–employed professionals or those whose jobs are characterized by high autonomy or job
insecurity (e.g., Buonocore et al., 2018; Meged, 2017) and is useful for those seeking
emotional and instrumental support (Kossek, Piszczek, McAlpine, Hammer, & Burke, 2016).
Furthermore, some individuals experience a reciprocal social exchange through quid pro quo
(Kossek et al., 2016), which is suggested as a type of relational crafting, in which individuals
decide to dedicate part of their time to performing the activities of other colleagues and
20
expect them to return the favor in the future. Finally, persuading others to take over tasks or
coordination of projects (Murray, 2014) was mentioned as a new form of relational crafting.
With regard to the cognitive crafting domain, results showed that incumbents make
psychological changes to the perception of their jobs by either redefining their view of the
type/nature of tasks or relationships involved in their own jobs or reframing them as a
meaningful whole that positively impacts others rather than remaining a collection of
separate tasks (Berg et al., 2010b). Piekkari (2015) described individuals who focus on the
impact of their job on other people’s lives or on overall organizational success. In some
cases, people may reframe the purpose of their jobs (Batova, 2018; Singh & Singh, 2016) or
of the work role (Berg et al., 2010b). Additionally, managers were perceived as cognitively
crafting their jobs by changing their mental relationships (Kira, Balkin, & San, 2012).
Employees also actively focused on making one’s work emotionally less intense (Renkema et
al., 2018). Moreover, individuals may use cognitive crafting to forge an “esteem enhancing”
identity (Fuller & Unwin, 2017), or to create and define a new socially accepted work
identity (Janssen, Wallenburg, & de Bont, 2016).
Another cognitive activity is called metacognition (Bruning & Campion, 2018), which
is characterized by cognitive changes and involves sensemaking, organization, and the
manipulation of one’s own psychological states. A specific form of metacognition may be
stakeholder prioritization (Kossek et al., 2016), which refers to the prioritization of certain
groups over others when making decisions. Similarly, the construction of fairness emerged as
a cognitive crafting form concerning beliefs about fairness through which employees
interpret and enact their roles and make decisions (Kossek et al., 2016). Moreover, people
may emphasize the positive qualities of work to find the pleasant side of the job (Piekkari,
2015; Vuori et al., 2012).
21
Avoidance crafting. Task crafting may not only have an additive effect (e.g., adding
tasks and activities); individuals may also decide not to perform some activities by reducing
the number of tasks, responsibilities, requirements, and effort expenditures, hence engaging
in avoidance task crafting (e.g., Bruning & Campion, 2018; Gascoigne & Kelliher, 2018;
Sturges, 2012). Broadly speaking, reducing one’s workload (Gascoigne & Kelliher, 2018) is
a common way of engaging in avoidance crafting; other types may be more specific, such as
reducing non–critical or non–routine tasks to increase efficiency and reduce resource
constraints (Singh & Singh, 2016) or avoiding risky situations/cases (Renkema et al., 2018).
Moreover, individuals may avoid some activities by delegating tasks to subordinates and
peers (Gascoigne & Kelliher, 2018). Another similar form is called work role reduction
(Bruning & Campion, 2018), which involves managers delegating tasks or formal
responsibilities because they want to avoid a specific task. Furthermore, individuals may
engage in avoidance task crafting by demonstrating rigidities and rule-bound interpretations
of their jobs, which implies strictly applying formal rules and procedures at work and being
inflexible or closed to any exceptions (Kossek et al., 2016). In other situations, they may just
say “no” when some unwanted activities are requested (Kira et al., 2012).
Avoidance relational crafting also takes different forms. For example, individuals
may attempt to decrease meetings and time devoted to socializing with colleagues (Sturges,
2012). Similarly, social reduction is an alternative avoidance job crafting form adopted by
those who try to reduce unnecessary interactions at work to help them achieve work-life
balance (Sturges, 2012) or when the level of competition is high and people are reluctant to
share information with colleagues (Meged, 2017). People may also reduce interaction as a
form of self-protection in cases of risky situations by not disclosing or reporting critical
information (Renkema et al., 2018). Otherwise, reducing interaction with management and
coworkers can be a strategy aimed at saving time and being more efficient with customers
22
(Rafaeli, 1989). More specifically, employees may ignore customers who attempt to
influence their jobs as an attempt to maintain control over them (Rafaeli, 1989).
Finally, avoidance cognitive crafting is the most passive way to address one’s own
job. In this subdomain, individuals use the traditional form of cognitive job crafting
(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) by accepting a situation (Van Wingerden, Derks, Bakker, &
Dorenbosch, 2013) or reducing cognitive demands (Bruning & Campion, 2018). A new form
of avoidance cognitive crafting is withdrawal crafting, which involves distancing oneself
either mentally or physically from a person, situation, event, or environment (Bruning &
Campion, 2018). Another new form is offloading of responsibility for incidents or critical
situations onto colleagues (Renkema et al., 2018).
Crafting in other domains. The last aggregate dimension refers to “other domains”
because it is related to broader aspects of a job, such as the spatial (i.e., where to perform the
job) and temporal (i.e., when to perform the job) dimensions or life spheres (e.g., leisure
time, work-life balance) that are not strictly work-related. For example, Sturges (2012)
discussed choosing a job as a crafting strategy related to decisions made before applying for
a job on the basis of aspects such as workplace location, time requirements, or allowed
flexibility. Locational crafting refers to employees’ managing where to spend work time by
either opting for conducting some activities at home to improve work-life balance and well-
being (Sturges, 2012), or preferring to stay at work even when the task can be performed at
home to cooperate with colleagues (e.g., teachers correcting homework at school; Van
Wingerden et al., 2013). Moreover, individuals may focus on reducing travel time to save
time and economical resources by moving closer to their workplaces (Sturges, 2012). In
some situations (e.g., early stages of career), people may engage in the crafting strategy of
prioritizing work for a certain period in return for potential future benefits (e.g., career
opportunities or stability), but in other phases, they may attempt to negotiate the contents of
23
their work by defining work-life balance crafting (Gascoigne & Kelliher, 2018) and
choosing to invest more time and effort in relationships with family and friends (Grant-
Vallone & Ensher, 2017) or meeting colleagues during free time (Piekkari, 2015).
Another crafting conceptualization identified in the analyzed papers concerns
temporal crafting (Sturges, 2012), referring to the way people manage their workloads
during the day (i.e., the pace and intensity of the work time). Finally, leisure crafting refers
to the way in which individuals craft their free time. Berg and colleagues (2010a) suggested
two forms: vicarious experiencing considers seeking fulfillment by the involvement of other
people (friends, family or even famous people), not necessarily by a first-hand experience;
conversely, hobby participating involves directly engaging in activities outside the work
domain to increase one’s sense of joy and meaning.
Overall, our data suggest that all the job crafting conceptualizations included in our
dataset can be grouped into three overarching categories: approach crafting, avoidance
crafting, and crafting in other domains. Many conceptualizations are consistent with the
classical threefold taxonomy of task, relational crafting, and cognitive crafting
(Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001); however, new conceptualizations of job crafting that
stretch, expand, or question the three traditional categories also emerged. Some of these
types can be effectively captured by previously existing labels (e.g., adding extra tasks, job
expanding), while others are new (e.g., metacognition, adoption), or context-dependent (e.g.,
caring moves, quid pro quo). Moreover, in some cases, job crafting forms are not related to
the job itself but involve crafting in different life domains. After empirically deriving these
job crafting categories, we integrated them into a process model that aims to describe how
and why job crafting occurs and leads to specific consequences.
A Process Model of Job Crafting
24
Modeling a sequence of events in terms of what happens, in which contexts, and with
what consequences is crucial to disentangle how job crafting occurs and to describe the
underlying patterns present in the qualitative studies. In addition to Table 1, which presents
an overview of job crafting forms, Table 2 summarizes the variables identified in each paper
that influenced whether job crafting occurred, how it was accomplished, and what the
experienced results were. Specifically, “motives” refers to factors that motivate individuals
to undertake job crafting, “context” introduces the salient properties of the situation,
“personal factors” relate to personal characteristics influencing individuals’ ability to attain
the goals they attempt to achieve with job crafting, and “consequences” refers to positive or
negative experiences resulting from job crafting. We have thus combined a pattern of
sequencing variables that were determined to be meaningful across all studies and built a
meta-causal network (Miles & Huberman, 1994; see Table 3).
Insert Tables 2 and 3 about here
Job crafting motives. The starting point of the job crafting process is related to the
individual’s motivation to craft. We observed that those factors may be of two key types:
proactive and reactive motives. Proactive motives refer to employees wanting to initiate job
crafting to reach desirable goals, while reactive motives are related to the need to cope with
adversity. Desirable goals in the proactive domain were determined to be individual or job-
related. For example, those trying to pursue individual goals may be motivated by the need
to satisfy additional callings (Batova, 2018; Berg et al., 2010a), improve self–image (Singh
& Singh, 2016), increase meaningfulness (Piekkari, 2015; Vuori et al., 2012), improve
person-job fit (Van Wingerden et al., 2013), create a positive occupational identity (Janssen
et al., 2016), or rethink their roles (Grant-Vallone & Ensher, 2017). Furthermore, desirable
goals related to the job are adapting a part–time job by proactively reducing time and
workload (Gascoigne & Kelliher, 2018), improving work performance (Lyons, 2008),
25
connecting more effectively with customers (Lyons, 2008), developing knowledge (Singh &
Singh, 2016), reaching a better work–life balance (Sturges, 2012), and working toward
realizing career aspirations (Batova, 2018; Singh & Singh, 2016).
In contrast, in the reactive domain, employees seek to cope with structural or job-
related adversity. Structural adversity refers to a generalized situation in which employees
are exposed to high competitiveness (Meged, 2017), or feel threatened by organizational
changes (Vuori et al., 2012). Employees may also experience job–related adversity when
low–grade status jobs provide a lack of social validation and workers feel they have to
protect themselves from such negative cues (Fuller & Unwin, 2017; Rafaeli, 1989).
Moreover, employees may be motivated to craft by the need to compensate for missed
callings (Berg et al., 2010a) and hindrances to the experience of authenticity (Vuori et al.,
2012). However, some specific negative job characteristics, such as lack of resources (Singh
& Singh, 2016), lack of autonomy, high workload and pressure (Buonocore et al., 2018;
Renkema et al., 2018), and the need to manage multiple demands and requests (Kossek et
al., 2016) may also function as reactive motives for job crafting.
Contextual conditions. The contextual variables were ultimately central in
explaining the pattern linking individual proactive and reactive motives to different job
crafting forms. We identified contextual characteristics related to the organizational climate
and job design components. With regard to organizational climate, the data revealed that
supportive contexts are characterized by a social environment that stimulates and supports
job crafting efforts, such as high social support, openness, a proactive-oriented
organizational culture, and a shared organizational identity (Batova, 2018; Mattarelli &
Tagliaventi, 2015; Piekkari, 2015; Rafaeli, 1989), as opposed to constraining contexts that
are characterized by low social support (Batova, 2018; Piekkari, 2015; Rafaeli, 1989) and
minimal collaboration (Gascoigne & Kelliher, 2018; Rafaeli, 1989). Similarly, the concept
26
of supportive job design refers to those contexts in which individuals have greater autonomy
and discretion to choose their own courses of action, as indicated by codes such as weak
situation, rank, and flexibility (Berg et al., 2010a; Kira et al., 2012; Kossek et al., 2016; Van
Wingerden et al., 2013), unlike those situations characterized by high pressure to behave in a
prescribed manner (e.g., the so-called “Ten Commandments”, the organization’s rules for
cashiers in Rafaeli, 1989), which are labeled constraining job design contexts.
Notably, it appears that job characteristics play a double role: some of them may
represent a proactive or reactive motive for job crafting because they activate the individual
to change the work situation (e.g., improve job performance, alleviate work pressure);
however, they were also observed to act as enablers of approach job crafting by creating a
supportive context, or as stimulating avoidance crafting or crafting in other domains when
the work environment was considered to be constraining, as discussed next.
More specifically, supportive contexts appear to enable those driven by both
proactive and reactive motives to engage in approach crafting behaviors. For example, it is
more likely that proactive motives are linked to approach crafting when reinforced by high
recognition and social support (e.g., Batova, 2018; Cohen, 2013; Gascoigne & Kelliher,
2018; Lyons, 2008). However, a supportive context also allows for the linking of reactive
motives and approach crafting behaviors: In cases of a misalignment between personal
values, needs, and preferences, and the job (Berg et al., 2010a) or in cases of job design
constraints (e.g., lack of resources, work overload and pressure, managing multiple
demands), a flexible and supportive environment still allows for approach crafting to address
the reactive motives (Singh & Singh, 2016).
In contrast, the situation is slightly more complicated and nuanced when employees
face constraining contexts. In this respect, the more common situation is that in which a
constraining context leads people to engage in avoidance crafting regardless of whether they
27
are driven by reactive or proactive motives (Batova, 2018; Bruning & Campion, 2018;
Kossek et al., 2016; Mattarelli & Tagliaventi, 2015; Singh & Singh, 2016). In these
situations, individuals are less likely to engage in approach crafting because they perceive
that this form of crafting would be more difficult or even impossible to undertake because of
contextual constraints. Another finding is that because of the feeling of not being able to
overcome such contextual constraints, people just stop any crafting attempts (Cohen, 2013;
Fuller & Unwin, 2017; Lyons, 2008). This situation occurs, for example, when individuals
must address high competition or job insecurity (Buonocore et al., 2018; Meged, 2017) or in
the case of a lack of crafting opportunities (Cohen, 2013). However, there are also some rare
instances in which employees initiate approach crafting even in constraining contexts.
Indeed, Berg and colleagues (2010a) suggested that in some cases, to seed the ground
for job crafting, adaptive moves may be required, depending on how counter-normative
those changes are. In another case, despite approach crafting representing a deviant behavior
in a very strong context, employees who considered approach crafting to be a low-risk, high-
gain situation because they were relatively invisible in the organization were more likely to
initiate approach crafting (Fuller & Unwin, 2017). Another illustrative example is that of
physicians working in public and professional accountability systems who, to react to
perceived patient pressures, the necessity of applying high-risk procedures, emotional
pressures, and the perceived threat of litigation, have activated both approach (e.g., task
emphasizing, making one’s work emotionally less intense) and avoidance crafting (e.g.,
avoiding risky situations/cases, offloading responsibility onto others) (Renkema et al., 2018).
Finally, we encountered instances in which employees working in constraining
contexts deliberately chose to shift their crafting efforts to other domains. Individuals, for
example, engaged in leisure crafting by sports to manage the intensity and the anxiety of
organizational change (Kira et al., 2012).
28
Personal factors. Job crafting may result in both positive and negative outcomes, but
the link between job crafting and its consequences appears to be dependent on what happens
while individuals attempt to craft their jobs. Many participants in the primary studies
described which aspects were prominent in determining positive or negative job crafting
outcomes. They mentioned personal characteristics that in some cases had a supportive
effect and in others had a constraining effect on the achievement of intended job crafting
goals. Thus, after engaging in job crafting, employees may perceive, for example, an
increase in their self-confidence, which, in turn, may lead them to invest more energy in job
crafting to reach their initial goals (e.g., Batova, 2018; Buonocore et al., 2018; Janssen et al.,
2016).
In other cases, people felt motivated to persist in their job crafting efforts after
noticing that they had been able to influence other people by obtaining recognition for what
they were doing (e.g., Batova, 2018) or by involving them in the job crafting process as well
(e.g., Fuller & Unwin, 2017; Mattarelli & Tagliaventi, 2015). Occasionally, personality traits
or personal characteristics were mentioned as supportive factors that helped employees who
had activated job crafting pursue their goals. Having a prosocial (e.g., Batova, 2018) or a
goal orientation (e.g., Cohen, 2013) was considered useful in obtaining recognition while
crafting a job, or in taking advantage of the new opportunities that emerged during the job
crafting process. Conversely, constraining personal factors may be a result of not being able
to properly manage personal resources such as time, energy, and abilities (e.g., Berg et al.,
2010a; Berg et al., 2010b). For example, participants in the study by Van Wingerden et al.
(2013) reported that they did not have sufficient time to coordinate a new way of working
with their colleagues. Furthermore, after beginning to craft their jobs, people may realize
that the goals motivating them are unattainable, and therefore they may give up or feel
frustrated (e.g., Berg et al., 2010b).
29
Another interesting constraining factor is related to the finding that when people start
thinking about crafting a job to obtain, for example, career advancement or a new position,
they are not fully aware of what this entails until they experience it. Thus, difficulties
managing an unexpected overload or increased responsibility may emerge along the way,
rendering the expected positive outcomes more difficult to reach (Berg et al., 2010a;
Buonocore et al., 2018; Kossek et al., 2016).
Job crafting consequences. Meaningfulness, esteem-enhanced occupational identity,
and job satisfaction are among the most common positive experiences resulting from job
crafting (Buonocore et al., 2018; Fuller & Unwin, 2017; Kossek et al., 2016; Meged, 2017).
In this sense, “positive experiences” refer to the intended consequences of job crafting
resulting from having been able to craft in the way one wanted. However, job crafting may
also have a downside as it may lead to undesirable experiences. Indeed, regrets, overload,
strain, stress, conflict at home (Berg et al., 2010b; Bruning & Campion, 2018; Sturges,
2012), health problems (e.g., sleep problems, physical injuries; Kossek et al., 2016; Meged,
2017), and job–related issues (e.g., lower interaction, career marginalization, work
intensification; Batova, 2018; Gascoigne & Kelliher, 2018) are examples of negative
experiences resulting from job crafting. While avoidance crafting is always related to
negative experiences, approach crafting can result in either positive or negative experiences
according to the type of personal factors described above.
More specifically, when people perceive supportive personal factors (e.g., increased
self-confidence, personality traits), approach crafting is associated with positive experiences,
such as meaningfulness, esteem–enhanced occupational identity, and job satisfaction
(Buonocore et al., 2018; Fuller & Unwin, 2017; Kossek et al., 2016; Meged, 2017). When
people encounter constraining personal factors along the job crafting process, such as a lack
of personal resources or a lack of self-confidence, even approach crafting may result in
30
negative experiences (Gascoigne & Kelliher, 2018; Kossek et al., 2016; Meged, 2017; Van
Wingerden et al., 2013), or people decided to craft in other domains (Berg et al., 2010a;
Buonocore et al., 2018; Sturges, 2012) because they were unable to cope with such
constraining personal characteristics.
Figure 1 summarizes the sequence of events characterizing the job crafting process.
The gray boxes represent the influence of contextual and personal characteristics that
influence the job crafting process in determining how individuals craft and what
consequences they experience. Moreover, because the analyzed sequence of events is
intended to occur in a work domain, the “crafting in other domains” form was placed outside
of the work domain area because it involves aspects that are not strictly job-related. Finally,
the solid arrows in Figure 1 imply sequences of events that were reported quite often in the
analyzed studies. The broken lines indicate more occasional links.
Insert Figure 1 about here
Discussion
The goal of this meta–synthesis was to organize the findings from qualitative studies
into a process model that highlights when and how individuals craft their jobs and with what
results. In doing so, we adopted the approach and avoidance distinction that Bruning and
Campion (2018) and Zhang and Parker (2018) recently made and linked these types of job
crafting to their motives. The qualitative studies allowed identification of contextual factors
that link the specific motives to these forms of job crafting while also alluding to crafting in
other domains or contexts that do not allow job crafting to occur, even though the motives
for job crafting are present. We then identified the personal factors that could link the forms
of crafting to certain consequences. We hope to contribute to the job crafting literature with
this meta-synthesis by revealing the unique and rich contextual knowledge that is captured in
qualitative studies and identifying patterns across these studies that help to better understand
31
why certain relationships are more likely to occur than others. The next section discusses the
theoretical insights and compares them with existing job crafting overviews (i.e., Bruning &
Campion, 2018; Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2018; Rudolph et al., 2017; Zhang & Parker,
2018).
Theoretical Implications
Across the qualitative job crafting studies, several important mechanisms were
observed that influence job crafting behaviors and their consequences. Consistent with job
crafting theory, the job crafting process begins with a motivation to change some aspects of
one’s work. Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) indicated that the need for control over work,
the need for connections with others, and the need for a positive self-image are important
motivations for individuals who want to make changes in their jobs. Indeed, across the
studies, individuals reported motivations to improve self-image, to better connect with others
at work, and to obtain more control over work as reasons to engage in job crafting. The
meta-synthesis also identified several additional job crafting motivations. Most notable were
the often-mentioned goals to improve job performance, improve knowledge and skills, and
better align work with other aspects of life. These motivations for job crafting are more
closely related to the need to perform well than to the psychological needs proposed in job
crafting theory and emphasize work as a way to develop oneself (Parker, 2014).
In addition, given that almost all studies in our dataset applied the job crafting
perspective of Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) as their theoretical approach, the finding
that developing oneself is an important motive for job crafting corroborates the idea that
efficiency and performance motivations can also be perceived as a component of this job
crafting perspective and do not clearly distinguish the role- and resource-based distinctions
of job crafting as proposed by Bruning and Campion (2018).
32
Another important finding is that the work environment also spurs job crafting that
seeks to address the work situation. We have labeled this as a reactive motive for job
crafting. In other words, the job crafting is not motivated by an individual desire to improve
work meaning, oneself, or one’s functioning; it focuses on coping with a poor work
environment and thus gaining control over the job (e.g., lack of resources, work overload,
conflict; Berg et al., 2010b; Sturges, 2012). This finding is consistent with Tims and Bakker
(2010), who proposed that person-job misfit can motivate individuals to craft. In addition to
person-job misfit, we encountered adversity at the occupational and organizational levels
(e.g., dirty jobs, organizational change) that motivated individual job crafting. Comparing
these findings with the findings of the meta-analyses and review (Lichtenthaler & Fischbach,
2018; Rudolph et al., 2017; Zhang & Parker, 2018), we noted that the antecedents of job
crafting examined in these studies (i.e., personality traits, job characteristics, demographics)
were different from those reported in the present study.
The only overlap was observed in the role of job characteristics (Rudolph et al.,
2017; Zhang & Parker, 2018) as antecedents of job crafting. Although some studies reported
a negative relationship between role overload and approach crafting (e.g., Solberg & Wong,
2016), quantitative studies mainly consider autonomy and workload as positively related to
approach-oriented job crafting (i.e., increasing structural and social job resources and
increasing challenging job demands) and unrelated to avoidance-oriented job crafting (i.e.,
decreasing hindering job demands). In our meta-synthesis, we observed workload also to
represent a reactive motive for job crafting, thus providing more insight and depth as to why
individuals want to engage in job crafting compared with quantitative studies that assessed
which factors facilitate job crafting behaviors.
As we discuss next, the work context also emerged to be important in the job crafting
process. More specifically, the second contribution of the synthesis is that the process model
33
sheds light on the factors that may link motivation for job crafting to the form the job
crafting will assume. Although we first focused only on approach and avoidance forms of
job crafting, we also encountered crafting in other domains in the job crafting studies and
hence included this form of crafting in the process model. Consistent with other research
(Berg et al., 2010a; Leana, Appelbaum, & Shevchuk, 2009; Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters,
Schaufeli, & Hetland, 2012; Rudolph et al., 2017), a number of contextual factors were
identified that, across studies, indicated that a supportive work context was more likely to
link both proactive and reactive motives with approach forms of job crafting, whereas a
constraining work context was linked to avoidance forms of job crafting regardless of the
type of motives. This finding extends job crafting theory that has suggested an overall
pattern linking motivation to obtain desirable goals to approach crafting and motivation to
avoid threats to avoidance crafting (Bindl et al., 2018; Bruning & Campion, 2018; Zhang &
Parker, 2018).
Namely, with the processes described in the qualitative studies, this relation can now
be better understood. Although proactive motives relate to approach crafting and reactive
motives relate to avoidance crafting, the finding that individuals engage in approach crafting
despite reactive motives or engage in avoidance crafting in the case of proactive motives
provides interesting insights that imply that the context may intervene in determining which
job crafting forms will be activated. It is therefore not just a matter of motives, but rather of
supportive or constraining contexts that determines the behavior of workers: if an individual
perceives support for modifying his/her work, it is possible to actually make the changes
regardless of the motive that prompted that behavior.
Moreover, contextual characteristics are considered important antecedents of
proactive work behaviors (e.g., Bindl & Parker, 2011; Ohly & Schmitt, 2017; Zhang &
Parker, 2018). At best, however, these characteristics can explain the form of job crafting
34
individuals engage in because the motivation to enact change impels individuals to search
their surroundings for opportunities to craft (e.g., Cohen, 2013; Fuller & Unwin, 2017).
Hence, we identified support for Wrzesniewski and Dutton’s (2001) notion of opportunities
to craft that in fact help individuals translate their job crafting motivation into actual
behavior. Additionally, we could add more nuances to predict which factors, in addition to
control and task interdependence, determine which form of job crafting individuals will use
(approach, avoidance, or crafting in other domains) and which factors will completely stifle
job crafting behaviors.
Another interesting aspect that emerged from the process model concerns a neglected
aspect of the literature: the negative consequences that job crafting can generate for
individuals. Although scholars have already addressed this issue (e.g., Oldham & Hackman,
2010; Petrou et al., 2012), the question, “Under what conditions are certain forms of crafting
costly or likely to produce negative side effects for individuals and organizations (e.g.,
burnout, stress, or reduced performance)?” (Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2013, p. 22), has
not been addressed deeply. Consistent with previous literature, our meta-synthesis confirms
that avoidance crafting most likely results in negative consequences (Bruning & Campion,
2018; Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2018; Rudolph et al., 2017; Zhang & Parker, 2018), such
as work intensification, health problems, and turnover.
Moreover, the meta-synthesis also allows for a more nuanced view of why job
crafting may sometimes result in positive consequences and at other times in negative
consequences. The process by which these results are achieved relates to personal factors
that individuals used to explain whether their job crafting activity was consistent with their
initial motivation. In other words, in their explanations, individuals perceived certain
characteristics that, after engaging in specific forms of job crafting, helped to explain their
outcomes. Again, there were supportive (e.g., being able to influence others, realistic goals
35
that could be achieved with the crafting; Berg et al., 2010a; Sturges, 2012) and constraining
(lack of time or energy, lack of self-confidence) personal factors that related the form of job
crafting to the outcome of job crafting. Interestingly, our results suggest that approach
crafting can result in either positive or negative experiences depending on factors that
indicated whether the crafting was the right strategy (i.e., consistent with personal
characteristics and realistic motivations that can be achieved with the crafting; supportive
personal factors) or whether it was constrained by factors such as problems during the job
crafting attempt (e.g., interference by other people; Gascoigne & Kelliher, 2018). Indeed, the
frustration resulting from not being able to meet proactive goals generates negative
experiences (Kossek et al., 2016; Meged, 2017; Van Wingerden et al., 2013) or a shift
towards an interest in crafting in other domains (Berg et al., 2010a; Buonocore et al., 2018;
Sturges, 2012).
In sum, the process model recognizes the complexities surrounding job crafting from
the initial motivation to craft to the positive/negative outcome of the job crafting and
provides a better understanding of when individuals engage in which form of job crafting
and with what consequences.
Future Research Directions
One of the first things that became evident after coding the qualitative job crafting
papers was that there were many different and new labels used to describe the specific job
crafting behaviors encountered in the study. Although authors used the task, relational, and
cognitive crafting dimensions defined by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) as their guiding
framework, they added new labels under these three forms of job crafting. Providing
specifications within forms of job crafting allows a better understanding of what individuals
change in their work. However, we caution against calling too many behaviors job crafting.
36
It is thus recommended that researchers clearly indicate why they define certain behaviors as
job crafting.
Bruning and Campion (2018) drew upon existing job crafting research to clearly
articulate what features a behavior should have to be labeled job crafting: the behavior must
be self–targeted to benefit the job crafter; the behavior must be self–initiated (volitional) and
intended to make a change to one’s work; the behavior should result in a significant,
noticeable change in the task or the social or cognitive dimensions of the job; the change
should be (semi)permanent; and the change should be different from crafting in another role.
Zhang and Parker (2018) further added that job crafting does not need formal approval
because it occurs in the zone of acceptance of others and that job crafting targets the intrinsic
characteristics of one’s job, instead of extrinsic characteristics such as pay. Applying these
defining characteristics to the studies synthesized here, it became clear that researchers
should be careful not to use the term “job crafting” too liberally to avoid construct drift over
time (Suddaby, 2010); construct drift occurs when the original and intended meaning of the
construct is lost and what remains are different constructs that carry the same name.
An example is location crafting, which indicates that the individual has the choice to
work at different locations and is supported by organizational systems to do so. Although the
individual decides what is best for him/her on a given day, it is unlikely that the employee
made this change to the job proactively by him/herself. Similarly, the definition of work–life
balance crafting is difficult to fit into the above characteristics of job crafting because some
of the crafting behaviors described already occur before doing a job, such as choosing a job
(Kossek et al., 2016). Finally, “new business ideas crafting” appears to be more related to
the generation of innovative ideas, which is a crucial corporate entrepreneurship mechanism
(Ireland, Covin, & Kuratko, 2009), rather than job crafting.
37
Another aspect that appears to contrast with job crafting theory concerns self-
employed workers: because job crafting “occurs in the context of employees’ prescribed
jobs, which are marked by prescribed tasks, expectations, and positions in the organizational
hierarchy” (Berg et al., 2010b, p. 159), these workers are not often studied in the job crafting
literature. However, qualitative studies have proposed job crafting behaviors also for the
self–employed, people such as chartered accountants or certified tourist guides (Buonocore
et al., 2018; Meged, 2017). In our sample, the self–employed all worked in well-defined
contexts characterized by restrictive legislation (e.g., self–employed accountants’ activities
were regulated by professional norms that limited their job discretion; certified tourist guides
normally possess a specific qualification generally issued by an appropriate authority). Thus,
in a broader sense, such types of professional contexts may therefore provide the self–
employed with clear guidelines regarding how to behave at work, which may function
similar to a job description.
Since alternative forms of work arrangements are increasing (e.g., freelancers, gig
workers, crowd workers) (Deloitte, 2018), job crafting researchers may need to redefine and
update some of the defining characteristics of job crafting to enable studying those workers
with boundaryless, ubiquitous, and digital workplaces (Prus, Nacamulli, & Lazazzara, 2017).
Indeed, the adoption of new technologies is already part of emerging job crafting forms
(Bruning & Campion, 2018; Grant-Vallone & Ensher, 2017; Sturges, 2012); however,
despite the growing interest among HR professionals in new technologies, its role in shaping
proactivity at work has not yet been fully explored.
Another recommendation for future research is to better account for the diverse
contexts in which job crafting occurs. In the process model, contextual workplace factors
appeared to be important in motivating job crafting and deciding about the form of job
crafting. As such, they have a different role from the quantitative studies that primarily
38
examined contextual factors as antecedents of job crafting. Our findings indicate that
individuals may be proactively and reactively motivated to craft to satisfy their needs for
control (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), while the availability of control in the work
environment (i.e., levels of existing autonomy) may help to determine the form of job
crafting.
Related to this point, given that the context plays a role in determining the form of
job crafting, it may be necessary to reconsider the way job crafting behaviors are examined.
Especially in quantitative research, a continuous stream of new measures for job crafting are
published, but none of them clearly accounts for the context in which the measure is
expected to fit most effectively (but note the exception of Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012, who
adapted the job crafting scale to better fit blue-collar workers). Conversely, to provide a
greater in-depth understanding of how context may influence job crafting, qualitative case
studies and, in particular, longitudinal case studies could help to examine whether
individuals display preferences for different (combinations of) job crafting forms and how
the social context may inform these preferences.
Study Limitations
Although our meta–synthesis has made progress in the job crafting literature by
elaborating on a process model across a diverse set of studies and contexts, the following
limitations should be considered when evaluating the findings. In a meta-synthesis study, the
first risk concerns not locating papers relevant to the specific research question addressed,
which results in a nonexhaustive inclusion of eligible studies (Aytug, Rothstein, Zhou, &
Kern, 2012). In our search strategy, we attempted to include a heterogeneous set of studies.
The selected papers included data from more than 900 participants (study range of 8-196
participants), who were either directly interviewed or shared their experiences as part of a
focus group and represented a broad range of sectors, countries, and occupations (see
39
Supplementary Online Material). Moreover, since publication bias is a well-known problem
in these types of studies (Kepes et al., 2012), we attempted to avoid this by including
unpublished studies in our search.
To collect unpublished studies and to overcome the file-drawer problem, in addition
to searching electronic databases, we used other search techniques, such as looking through
the reference lists of published studies, citation searches, and contacting research groups
known for conducting relevant research on job crafting. Furthermore, we applied a
systematic, explicit, and transparent search process to guarantee rigor in the selection and
evaluation of articles using relatively objective criteria. We followed Atkins and colleagues’
(2008) criteria for evaluating qualitative data to determine whether a paper was relevant for
the meta-synthesis, and at least two researchers evaluated each paper. However, all these
precautions cannot guarantee full coverage of qualitative job crafting papers.
Another specific issue in locating relevant research for our study was that job crafting
as a concept was introduced in the seminal work by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001).
However, as noted by Tims et al. (2012), other authors had previously asserted that
employees may redesign their jobs on their own initiative even without the involvement of
management (see for example Kulik, Oldham, & Hackman, 1987). Therefore, it follows that
using “job crafting” as a keyword mainly resulted in papers published after the term was
coined. To overcome this limitation, we used additional keywords (i.e., “individual job
redesign” and “proactive behaviors at work”) and cross-checked the reference list of
identified papers to determine whether other authors had cited qualitative studies that were
considered to be examples of job crafting behavior. We then included those that fit our
inclusion criteria (i.e., Rafaeli, 1989).
Another inherent limitation of a meta-synthesis is that data from primary studies can
be incorrectly extracted or interpreted (Aytug et al., 2012). To correctly extract data, we
40
applied a set of techniques and procedures (i.e., coding, causal network approach) that guide
researchers in synthesizing data and allow an iterative comparison across qualitative data
sources (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Moreover, because of the large number of included
studies, each identified construct was based on an adequate number of papers. Finally, since
the findings are derived from the perceptual assessment of job crafting by participants from
primary studies, the risk that the meta-synthesis multiplies any bias in the primary studies
through the synthesizing process remains. However, we attempted to mitigate this possibility
by coding all data with more than one person and engaging in continuous discussion within
our team of trained researchers regarding what was coded in each study and how to ensure
sensitivity toward the contextual considerations (Hoon, 2013).
Practical Implications
As evident from our meta–synthesis, job crafting manifests itself in many different
activities that can all be grouped under approach crafting, avoidance crafting, and crafting in
other domains. Moreover, the results indicated that approach crafting in particular is linked
to positive experiences and likely to result in successfully attaining the intended goals of the
crafting. It is therefore recommended that this type of job crafting be facilitated among
employees. Building on our results, managers can play an active role in motivating
individuals to undertake proactive behaviors by promoting initiatives and supporting
experimentation (e.g., Lazazzara, Quacquarelli, Ghiringhelli, & Nacamulli, 2015) or
assisting them in pursuing their unanswered callings (Berg et al., 2010a). Social support and
organizational culture play an important role in the implementation of these practices, which
often represent an under–the–radar type of self–training (Lyons, 2008) that is difficult to
identify but strongly affects organizational outcomes. Organizations can offer more latitude
at both an individual (Lyons, 2008) and collective (Mattarelli & Tagliaventi, 2015) level,
41
also seeking out appropriate and innovative solutions with employees (Van Wingerden et al.,
2013).
At the same time, employees could be made aware of the potential negative results of
approach and avoidance crafting: even though these behaviors allow one to move toward
desired states or reduce perceptions of employees’ strain (Bruning & Campion, 2018;
Rafaeli, 1989), both may generate unintended consequences (e.g., work intensification,
stress, turnover), rendering it necessary for managers to play the role of coach in this process
(Lazazzara et al., 2015) to direct these proactive behaviors in the right way. Several
intervention studies have described how job crafting can also be stimulated among
employees and guided in such a way that individuals are most likely to reap positive
outcomes (Gordon et al., 2015; Van Wingerden et al., 2013).
42
References
Numbers in superscript indicate studies included in the meta–synthesis.
Artstein, R., & Poesio, M. (2008). Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics.
Computational Linguistics, 34(4), 555–596. doi: 10.1162/coli.07-034-R2.
Atkins, S., Lewin, S., Smith, H., Engel, M., Fretheim, A., & Volmink, J. (2008). Conducting
a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: lessons learnt. BMC medical research
methodology, 8(21), 1–10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-21.
Aytug, Z. G., Rothstein, H. R., Zhou, W., & Kern, M. C. (2012). Revealed or concealed?
Transparency of procedures, decisions, and judgment calls in meta-analyses.
Organizational Research Methods, 15(1), 103–133. doi: 10.1177/1094428111403495.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands–resources theory. In P. Y. Chen, & C.
L. Cooper (Eds.), Work and wellbeing: wellbeing: a complete reference guide (Vol.
III, pp. 1–28). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell019.
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.
1Batova, T. (2018). Work motivation in the rhetoric of component content management.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 32(3), 308–346. doi:
10.1177/1050651918762030.
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.), Purpose and meaning in the workplace
(pp. 81–104). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2Berg, J. M., Grant, A. M., & Johnson, V. (2010a). When callings are calling: Crafting work
and leisure in pursuit of unanswered occupational callings. Organization Science,
21(5), 973–994. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0497.
43
3Berg, J. M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2010b). Perceiving and responding to
challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3), 158–186. doi: 10.1002/job.645.
Bindl, U.K., & Parker, S. (2011). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-
oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology (Vol. II, pp. 567–598). USA: American Psychological
Association.
Bindl, U. K., Unsworth, K. L., Gibson, C. B., & Stride, C. B. (2018). Job crafting revisited:
Implications of an extended framework for active changes at work. Journal of Applied
Psychology. doi: 10.1037/apl0000362.
Bipp, T., & Demerouti, E. (2015). Which employees craft their jobs and how? Basic
dimensions of personality and employees’ job crafting behaviour. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(4), 631–655. doi:
10.1111/joop.12089.
4Bruning, P. F., & Campion, M. A. (2018). A role-resource approach-avoidance model of job
crafting: A multimethod integration and extension of job crafting theory. Academy of
Management Journal, 61(2), 1–24. doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.0604.
5Buonocore, F., de Gennaro, D., Russo, M. & Salvatore, D. (2018). An explorative study on
antecedents of job crafting among self–employed and employed accountants. In P.
Canonico et al. (Eds.), Organizing in the shadow of power (pp. 477–504). Studi Moa,
Editrice Minerva Bancaria.
Clemmens, D. (2003). Adolescent motherhood: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. MCN:
The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing, 28(2), 93–99.
Cohen, J. (1972). Weighted chi square: An extension of the kappa method. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 32(1), 61–74. doi: 10.1177/001316447203200106.
44
6Cohen, L. E. (2013). Assembling jobs: A model of how tasks are bundled into and across
jobs. Organization Science, 24(2), 432–454. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0737.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a
corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173–208. doi:
10.2307/4131471.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2017). Preserving theoretical divergence in management research: Why
the explanatory potential of qualitative research should be harnessed rather than
suppressed. Journal of Management Studies, 54(3), 368–383. doi:
10.1111/joms.12210.
De Beer, L. T., Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2016). Job crafting and its impact on work
engagement and job satisfaction in mining and manufacturing. South African Journal
of Economic and Management Sciences, 19(3), 400–412. doi: 10.17159/2222-
3436/2016/v19n3a7.
Deloitte (2018). The rise of the social enterprise: 2018 Global Human Capital Trends.
Deloitte Development LLC.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied psychology, 86(3), 499–512. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dixon-Woods, M., Booth, A., & Sutton, A. J. (2007). Synthesizing qualitative research: a
review of published reports. Qualitative Research, 7(3), 375–422. doi:
10.1177/1468794107078517.
Douglas, A. C., Mills, J. E., Niang, M., Stepchenkova, S., Byun, S., Ruffini, C., Lee, S. K.,
Loutfi, J., Lee, J., Atallah, M., & Blanton, M. (2008). Internet addiction: Meta-
45
synthesis of qualitative research for the decade 1996–2006. Computers in Human
Behavior, 24(6), 3027–3044. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.05.009.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2010). Approach and avoidance temperament as basic
dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 78(3), 865–906. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00636.x.
Estabrooks, C. A., Field, P. A., & Morse, J. M. (1994). Aggregating qualitative findings: An
approach to theory development. Qualitative Health Research, 4(4), 503–511. doi:
10.1177/104973239400400410.
7Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2017). Job crafting and identity in low-grade work: How hospital
porters redefine the value of their work and expertise. Vocations and Learning, 10(3),
307–324. doi: 10.1007/s12186-017-9173-z.
8Gascoigne, C., & Kelliher, C. (2018). The transition to part-time: How professionals
negotiate “reduced time and workload” i-deals and craft their jobs. Human Relations,
71(1), 103–125. doi: 10.1177/0018726717722394.
Gordon, H. J., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P. M., & Bipp, T. (2015). Job crafting and
performance of Dutch and American health care professionals. Journal of Personnel
Psychology, 14(4),192–202. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000138.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational
and proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317–375. doi:
10.1080/19416520903047327.
9Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Ensher, E. A. (2017). Re-crafting careers for mid-career faculty: A
qualitative study. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 17(5), 10–24.
Hoon, C. (2013). Meta-synthesis of qualitative case studies: An approach to theory building.
Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 522–556. doi: 10.1177/1094428113484969.
46
Ireland, R. D., Covin, J. G., & Kuratko, D. F. (2009). Conceptualizing corporate
entrepreneurship strategy. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 19–46. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00279.x.
10Janssen, M., Wallenburg, I., & de Bont, A. (2016). Carving out a place for new health care
occupations: An ethnographic study into job crafting. In H. Albach, H. Meffert, A.
Pinkwart, R. Reichwald, & W. von Eiff (Eds.), Boundaryless Hospital: Rethink and
Redefine Health Care Management (pp. 119–141). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. doi:
10.1007/978-3-662-49012-9.
Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M., & Whetzel, D. L. (2012). Publication bias in the
organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15(4), 624–662. doi:
10.1177/1094428112452760.
11Kira, M., Balkin, D. B., & San, E. (2012). Authentic work and organizational change:
Longitudinal evidence from a merger. Journal of Change Management, 12(1), 31–51.
doi: 10.1080/14697017.2011.652374.
Kisamore, J. L., & Brannick, M. T. (2008). An illustration of the consequences of meta-
analysis model choice. Organizational Research Methods, 11(1), 35–53. doi:
10.1177/1094428106287393.
12Kossek, E. E., Piszczek, M. M., McAlpine, K. L., Hammer, L. B., & Burke, L. (2016).
Filling the holes: Work schedulers as job crafters of employment practice in long-term
health care. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 69(4), 961–990. doi:
10.1177/0019793916642761.
Kulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (1987). Work design as an approach to
person-environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 278–296. doi:
10.1016/0001-8791(87)90044-3.
47
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
Laurence, G. (2010). Workaholism and expansion and contraction oriented job crafting: The
moderating effects of individual and contextual factors. ProQuest Dissertations
Publishing. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
13Lazazzara, A., Quacquarelli, B., Ghiringhelli, C., & Nacamulli, R. C. D. (2015). The effect
of autonomy, skill variety, organizational learning culture and HRM on job crafting.
In Academy of Management Proceedings (No. 1, p. 17635). Briarcliff Manor, NY:
Academy of Management. doi: 10.5465/ambpp.2015.17635abstract.
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. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.47084651.
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge
stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships
among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764–775.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.18803921.
Lichtenthaler, P.W., & Fischbach, A. (2018). A meta-analysis on promotion- and prevention-
focused job crafting. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. doi:
10.1080/1359432X.2018.1527767.
14Lyons, P. (2008). The crafting of jobs and individual differences. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 23(1–2), 25–36. doi: 10.1007/s10869-008-9080-2.
Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London, UK: Sage.
Mäkikangas, A. (2018). Job crafting profiles and work engagement: A person-centered
approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 106, 101–111. doi:
10.1016/j.jvb.2018.01.001
48
15Mattarelli, E., & Tagliaventi, M. R. (2015). How offshore professionals’ job dissatisfaction
can promote further offshoring: Organizational outcomes of job crafting. Journal of
Management Studies, 52(5), 585–620. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01088.x.
16Meged, J. W. (2017). Guides crafting meaning in a flexible working life. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 17(4), 374–387. doi:
10.1080/15022250.2017.1330845.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M.. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morse J. (2001). Qualitative verification. In J. Morse, J. Swanson, & A. Kuzel (Eds.), The
Nature of Qualitative Evidence (pp. 203–220). London: Sage.
17Murray, A. L. (2014). An exploratory study of teacher leaders who work between the
central office and schools. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Minnesota.
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches,
6th Edition, Pearson International Edition, USA.
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.
Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies.
London, UK: Sage.
Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: The future
of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3), 463–479. doi:
10.1002/job.678.
Ohly, S., & Schmitt, A. (2017). Work design and proactivity. In S. K. Parker, & U. K. Bindl
(Eds.), Proactivity at work: Making things happen in organizations (pp. 387–410).
New York: Routledge.
49
Parker, S. K. (2014). Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health,
ambidexterity, and more. Annual review of psychology, 65, 661–691. doi:
10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115208.
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C., 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. doi: 10.1002/job.1783.
18Piekkari, A. (2015). Finding meaningfulness in customer service: job crafting practices of
restaurant workers. Implications for employee well-being at Fazer Food Services.
Unpublished Master’s thesis, Aalto University School of Business.
Prus, I., Nacamulli, R. C., & Lazazzara, A. (2017). Disentangling workplace innovation: a
systematic literature review. Personnel Review, 46(7), 1254–1279. doi: 10.1108/PR-
10-2016-0267.
19Rafaeli, A. (1989). When cashiers meet customers: An analysis of the role of supermarket
cashiers. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 245–273. doi: 10.5465/256362.
20Renkema, E., Broekhuis, M. H., Ahaus, K., & Tims, M. (2018). Working your way around:
job crafting in a public and professional accountability context. Unpublished paper.
Rocznieska, 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. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2016.1235537.
Rudolph, C. W., Katz, I. M., Lavigne, K. N., & Zacher, H. (2017). Job crafting: A meta-
analysis of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work
outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 112–138. doi:
10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.008.
21Singh, V. L., & Singh, M. (2016). Techniques of job crafting: An exploratory study on
management consultants. South Asian Journal of Management, 23(2), 25–50.
50
Slemp, G. R., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2013). The Job Crafting Questionnaire: A new scale
to measure the extent to which employees engage in job crafting. International
Journal of Wellbeing, 3(2), 126–146. doi: 10.5502/ijw.v3i2.1.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
22Sturges, J. (2012). Crafting a balance between work and home. Human Relations, 65(12),
1539–1559. doi: 10.1177/0018726712457435.
Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and
organization. The Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 346–357. doi:
10.5465/amr.35.3.zok346.
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:
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.
Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person–
job fit and meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92,
44–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007.
Tsoukas, H. (2009). Craving for generality and small-N studies: A Wittgensteinian approach
towards the epistemology of the particular in organization and management studies. In
D. Buchanan, & A. Bryman (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Organizational Research
Methods (pp. 285–301). London: Sage.
23Van Wingerden, J., Derks, D., Bakker, A. B., & Dorenbosch, L. (2013). Job crafting in
schools for special education: A qualitative analysis. Gedrag en Organisatie, 1(26),
85–103.
51
Vogel, R. M., Rodell, J. B., & Lynch, J. W. (2016). Engaged and productive misfits: How job
crafting and leisure activity mitigate the negative effects of value incongruence.
Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1561–1584. doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0850.
24Vuori, T., San, E., & Kira, M. (2012). Meaningfulness‐making at work. Qualitative
Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 7(2), 231–
248. doi: 10.1108/17465641211253110.
Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005). Meta‐synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature
review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 50(2), 204–211. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2648.2005.03380.x.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active
crafters of their work. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201. doi:
10.2307/259118.
Wrzesniewski, A., LoBuglio, N., Dutton, J. E., & Berg, J. M. (2013). Job crafting and
cultivating positive meaning and identity in work. In Advances in positive
organizational psychology (pp. 281–302). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Zhang, F., & Parker, S. K. (2018). Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure
of job crafting concepts and integrative review. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
doi: 10.1002/job.2332.
52
Figure 1. The Job crafting process model.
53
Table 1. Job crafting conceptualizations.
First–order Categories
Second–Order
Themes
Aggregate
Dimensions
Adding extra tasks (3; 5; 7; 16; 18; 21); altering the scope or nature of tasks (2; 3; 6; 7; 15; 17); developing skills
and abilities (3; 5; 9; 14; 16); developing oneself professionally (20; 24); caring moves (responding to requests,
practising care) (7; 12); work role expansion (4; 14; 17); task emphasizing (2; 6; 20); work organization (4; 6;
21); job expanding (2; 12; 15); (technology) adoption (4; 9; 13; 22); altering the form of activities (2; 4; 12);
altering the number of activities (3; 4; 5; 8; 12; 22); specialization (10); additional responsibilities (2; 4; 5; 9; 10;
12; 15; 20; 21; 24); collaborative crafting (8; 13; 15; 19); prioritizing tasks (4; 6; 9; 11; 12; 21; 22; 23); creating
innovative practices (9; 12; 13; 17; 23); recognition of job expanding ideas (2; 12; 15); recognition of new
business ideas (15); (collective) refinement of job expanding ideas crafting (2; 12; 15); (collective) refinement of
new business ideas crafting (15); organizational crafting (3; 11; 13; 14; 24); redesigning tasks (6; 8; 13);
simplifying (21); influencing work content (1; 2; 4; 8; 23; 24); increasing structural support resources (16; 23).
Approach Task
Crafting
Approach
crafting
Actively changing relationships with others at work (3; 4; 9; 11; 18); creating additional relationships (1; 5; 17;
18); social expansion (4); building personal relationships (9; 10; 14; 16; 20); creating a network (5; 8; 16; 21);
tailoring relationships (1); altering the extent or nature of relationships (3; 4); altering the quality of interaction
(12); looking for support from supervisor (2; 9; 13; 14 15; 22; 23); Quid pro Quo (12); emotional support (12;
13); instrumental support (12); searching for information (21); adding in–role tasks (6; 21); increasing social
support resources (1; 6; 15; 18; 19; 23); persuading others to take over tasks or coordination of projects (17; 19);
capturing reaction (8; 19); engaging customers (19; 21).
Approach Relational
Crafting
Cognitively emphasizing the positive qualities of work (10; 18; 20; 22; 24); role reframing (1; 2; 3; 7; 10);
stakeholder prioritization (12; 13); construction of fairness (12); metacognition (4; 12); redefining perceptions of
the type or nature of tasks or relationships involved in one’s job (2; 3; 4; 6; 7; 10; 12); reframing perception of a
job as a meaningful whole that positively impacts others rather than a collection of separate tasks (2; 3; 5; 7; 9;
10; 17); cognitive shift (9; 11; 12); foreseeing positive outcomes (1; 2; 4; 5; 7; 12; 15; 23); envisaging the
underlying challenges positively (3; 12; 21; 24); reflecting on the opportunities (6; 7; 8; 14; 21); aligning
expectation (1; 3; 9; 12; 21); seeing the impact of the job on other people’s lives (18); making one’s work
emotionally less intense (20).
Approach Cognitive
Crafting
54
Table 1 (continued).
Reducing the number of tasks, responsibilities, requirements, and effort expenditures (4; 5; 8; 12; 20; 21; 22);
reducing the scope of the task (1; 4; 7; 12); work role reduction (4); rule–bound interpretation (12); reducing
workload (5; 8; 20; 22); delegation (4; 8; 12; 21); adaptation of availability schedules (12; 14); saying “no” (11);
reducing non–critical tasks (5; 21); reducing non–routine tasks (21); decreasing hindering job duties (4; 23);
avoiding risky situations/cases (20).
Avoidance Task
Crafting
Avoidance
crafting
Social reduction (4; 8; 16; 22); to cut down meetings and time devoted to socializing with colleagues (5; 22);
reducing relationships and interaction (5; 8; 19; 20; 22); ignoring a customer (19); rejecting (19).
Avoidance Relational
Crafting
Withdrawal crafting (4); passive cognitive job crafting at the individual and team level (2; 4; 23; 24); acceptance
of negative things (4; 11; 23); creating distance (4); offloading of responsibility for incidents or critical
situations onto colleagues (20; 22).
Avoidance Cognitive
Crafting
Locational crafting (22; 23); temporal crafting (22; 23); prioritizing work (6; 11; 12; 21; 22; 23); reducing
travelling time (22; 23); defining work−life balance (8; 9; 12; 16; 18; 22); choosing a job (12; 22); investing
more time and effort in relationships with family and friends (2; 9; 22); making compromises (12; 22); managing
work and out–of work relationships (22); meeting colleagues during free time (18).
Work–life Crafting
Crafting in
other domains
Vicarious experiencing (2); hobby participating (2); sport (11; 14).
Leisure Crafting
Note: Numbers in brackets indicate from which studies the categories are derived (see Reference list).
55
Table 2. Job crafting process variables.
First–order categories
Second–Order
themes
Aggregate
Dimensions
Additional callings (1; 2; 20); to improve self–image (1; 14; 21); to increase meaningfulness (1; 3; 5; 7; 12; 15; 16;
17; 18; 24); to improve person–job fit (23); to create a positive occupational identity (2; 7; 10); to rethink the role
(9); pro–social motivation (1; 2).
Individual goals
with a proactive
intention
Motives
To obtain control over the job (1; 5; 9; 12; 18; 19; 20); adapting part–time job (8); improving performance (14; 17;
19); to better connect with customers (14; 15; 19); to gain knowledge (4; 13; 14; 15; 20; 21; 24); work–life balance
(8; 9; 16; 18; 22); career aspiration (1; 21); saving time (19; 22; 23).
Job–related goals
with a proactive
intention
Coping with hardship (5; 8; 16; 24); reducing conflict (3; 4; 12; 22); coping with extremely high competition (5;
16); coping with re-organization threats (4; 15; 20; 24).
Reactivity to
structural adversity
Coping with shaming (dirty job) (7; 19); hindrances to experiencing authenticity (11; 24); compensating for missed
callings (2); lack of resources (21); managing multiple demands and requests (2; 12; 21); work overload and
pressure (5; 9; 19; 20; 21; 22); time pressure (5; 19; 20; 22).
Reactivity to job–
related adversity
High social support (1; 6; 15; 18; 19; 23); openness (1; 13; 15; 18; 19); proactivity-oriented organizational culture
(1; 13; 14; 18; 19); shared organizational identity (1; 11; 13; 18; 19); HR practices (e.g., training, coaching,
rewarding) (9; 13; 14); collaboration (1; 8; 9; 11; 13; 19).
Supportive climate
Context
Weak situation (2; 11; 12; 23); high autonomy and discretion (1; 2; 5; 9; 11; 12; 16; 18; 22); rank (2; 9; 11; 12; 15;
16; 22; 23); crafting opportunities (3; 6; 7; 8; 14; 15); high flexibility (2; 8; 11; 12; 15; 22; 23).
Supportive job
design
Low social support (1; 15; 18; 19; 23); low collaboration (1; 8; 13; 19); weak informal network (5; 19); lack of
managerial feedback (1;4; 7; 9; 13; 19; 20).
Constraining
climate
Strong situation (3; 7; 19); lack of power (3; 8; 16; 19); lack of autonomy (5; 9; 18; 20); workload (5; 8; 20; 22);
lack of crafting opportunities (2; 3; 6; 7; 11; 14); low flexibility (2; 11; 12; 22; 23); physical layout (4; 5; 19).
Constraining job
design
56
Table 2 (continued).
Personality traits or personal characteristics (e.g., prosocial orientation; empathy; goal orientation; resilience) (1; 5;
6; 12; 14; 16; 17; 21; 22; 23); choice of realistic and feasible goals to be reached via job crafting (2; 12; 13; 16;
22); being able to influence others (1; 7; 11; 13; 15; 19; 21; 23); increased self-confidence (1; 5; 7; 9; 10; 15; 23;
24).
Supportive
personal factors
Personal factors
Lack of personal resources (e.g., time, energy, ability) (2; 3; 8; 12; 16; 23); choice of too idealistic or not feasible
objectives to be reached via job crafting (11; 12; 16; 23); lack of self-confidence (3; 8; 12; 16; 23); not being able
to overcome resistance from others (6; 7; 8; 14; 21; 23); difficulties in managing overload or increased
responsibility following JC attempts (2; 5; 12).
Constraining
personal factors
Meaningfulness (1; 3; 5; 7; 12; 15; 16; 17; 18; 24); esteem-enhanced occupational identity (2; 5; 7; 10; 12; 16);
well–being (8; 13; 14; 15; 18; 22); new markets and ideas (6; 15; 16); better performance (14; 15; 17; 19; 24);
better relationships (1; 9; 14; 17; 18; 21; 22); enjoyment (1; 2; 9; 16); recognition (1; 6; 8; 14; 21); sense of control
(1; 5; 9; 12; 19); work–life balance (8; 9; 12; 16; 18; 22); satisfaction (1; 5; 7; 9; 12; 13; 16; 17; 21); engagement
(5; 22).
Positive
experiences
Consequences
Career marginalization (1; 8; 13); work intensification (1; 8); regret (3; 4; 22); strain (3; 4; 19; 22); sleep problems
(12; 16); health issues (9; 12; 16); stress (2; 3; 4; 16; 22; 23); physical injuries (12; 16; 19); conflict at home (3; 4;
22); lower interaction (1; 4; 8; 13; 22); turnover (4; 13; 19); work withdrawal (4); low customer satisfaction (19).
Negative
experiences
Note: Numbers in brackets indicate from which studies the categories are derived (see Reference list).
57
Table 3. Job crafting process variables and their codes for each study.
Paper
Motives
Context
Job crafting forms
Personal factors
Consequences
1. Batova (2018)
Proactive
Reactive
Supportive
Constraining
Approach crafting
Avoidance crafting
Supportive
Positive experiences
Negative experiences
2. Berg, Grant and Johnson (2010)
Proactive
Reactive
Supportive
Constraining
Approach crafting
Crafting in other domains
Absence of crafting
Supportive
Constraining
Positive experiences
Negative experiences
Crafting in other domains
3. Berg, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2010)
Proactive
Constraining
Approach crafting
Crafting in other domains
Constraining
Crafting in other domains
4. Bruning and Campion (2018)
Proactive
Reactive
Approach crafting
Avoidance crafting
N/A
Positive experiences
Negative experiences
5. Buonocore, de Gennaro, Russo and
Salvatore (2018)
Proactive
Supportive
Constraining
Approach crafting
Supportive
Constraining
Positive experiences
Negative experiences
6. Cohen (2013)
Proactive
Supportive
Constraining
Approach crafting
Absence of crafting
Supportive
Positive experiences
7. Fuller and Unwin (2017)
Reactive
Constraining
Approach crafting
Absence of crafting
Supportive
Positive experiences
8. Gascoigne and Kelliher (2018)
Proactive
Supportive
Constraining
Approach crafting
Avoidance crafting
Constraining
Negative experiences
9. Grant-Vallone and Ensher (2017)
Proactive
Supportive
Approach crafting
Crafting in other domains
Supportive
Positive experiences
Crafting in other domains
10. Janssen, Wallenburg and de Bont (2016)
Proactive
Supportive
Approach crafting
Supportive
Positive experiences
11. Kira, Balkin and San (2012)
Reactive
Supportive
Approach crafting
Avoidance crafting
Crafting in other domains
Supportive
Constraining
Positive experiences
Crafting in other domains
58
Table 3 (continued).
12. Kossek, Piszczek, McAlpine, Hammer
and Burke (2016)
Reactive
Supportive
Constraining
Approach crafting
Avoidance crafting
Supportive
Constraining
Positive experiences
Negative experiences
13. Lazazzara, Quacquarelli, Ghiringhelli and
Nacamulli (2015)
Proactive
Supportive
Approach crafting
Supportive
Positive experiences
14. Lyons (2008)
Proactive
Supportive
Constraining
Approach crafting
Absence of crafting
Supportive
Positive experiences
15. Mattarelli and Tagliaventi (2015)
Reactive
Supportive
Approach crafting
Supportive
Positive experiences
16. Meged (2017)
Proactive
Reactive
Supportive
Approach crafting
Supportive
Constraining
Positive experiences
Negative experiences
17. Murray (2014)
Proactive
Reactive
Approach crafting
Supportive
Constraining
Positive experiences
18. Piekkari (2015)
Proactive
Constraining
Approach crafting
N/A
Positive experiences
19. Rafaeli (1989)
Proactive
Reactive
Constraining
Approach crafting
Avoidance crafting
Supportive
Positive experiences
Negative experiences
20. Singh and Singh (2016)
Proactive
Reactive
Supportive
Approach crafting
Avoidance crafting
N/A
Positive experiences
21. Sturges (2012)
Proactive
Supportive
Constraining
Approach crafting
Avoidance crafting
Crafting in other domains
Supportive
Constraining
Positive experiences
Negative experiences
Crafting in other domains
22. Renkema, Broekhuis, Ahaus and Tims
(2018)
Reactive
Constraining
Approach crafting
Avoidance crafting
Supportive
Positive experiences
23. van Wingerden, Derks, Bakker and
Dorenbosch (2013)
Proactive
Supportive
Approach crafting
Supportive
Constraining
Positive experiences
Negative experiences
24. Vuori, San and Kira (2012)
Proactive
Supportive
Approach crafting
Supportive
Positive experiences
