Paper Research

Academy of Management Journal
Engaged and productive misfits: How job crafting and

leisure activity mitigate the negative effects of value
incongruence
Journal: Academy of Management Journal
Manuscript ID: AMJ-2014-0850.R3
Manuscript Type: Revision
Person-organization/person-environment fit < Organizational Behavior <

Topic Areas, Job design, roles, and tasks < Organizational Behavior <
Keywords:
Topic Areas, Motivation < Attitudes, Cognitions, and Affect <
Organizational Behavior < Topic Areas
The work life of misfits – employees whose important values are

incongruent with the values of their organization – represents an under-
researched area of the person-environment fit literature. The unfortunate
reality is that these individuals are likely to be disengaged and
unproductive at work. In this manuscript, we entertain the possibility that
employees can protect themselves from this situation if they engage in
alternative actions that supplement the fundamental needs that go unmet
from value incongruence. We integrate theorizing about the motivational
Abstract:
role of need fulfillment and work/non-work behaviors in order to examine
whether two actions in particular – job crafting and leisure activity – can
potentially mitigate the negative effects of value incongruence on
employee performance. In a field study of employees from diverse
organizations and industries, the results suggest that both job crafting and
leisure activity indeed act as a buffer, mitigating the otherwise negative
effects of value incongruence on employee engagement and job
performance (both task performance and citizenship behavior).
Page 1 of 55 Academy of Management Journal
1
2
3
4
5
6 Engaged and Productive Misfits: How Job Crafting and Leisure
7
8
Activity Mitigate the Negative Effects of Value Incongruence
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 Ryan M. Vogel
16 Pennsylvania State University-Erie
17 rvogel@psu.edu
18
19
20
21 Jessica B. Rodell
22 University of Georgia
23 jrodell@uga.edu
24
25
26
27 John W. Lynch
28 University of Georgia
29 jwlynch@uga.edu
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Journal Page 2 of 55
2
1
2
3
4 ENGAGED AND PRODUCTIVE MISFITS: HOW JOB CRAFTING AND LEISURE
5
6 ACTIVITY MITIGATE THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF VALUE INCONGRUENCE
7
8
9
10 The work life of misfits – employees whose important values are incongruent with the values of
11
12 their organization – represents an under-researched area of the person-environment fit literature.
13
14
The unfortunate reality is that these individuals are likely to be disengaged and unproductive at
15
16
17
work. In this manuscript, we entertain the possibility that employees can protect themselves from
18
19 this situation if they engage in alternative actions that supplement the fundamental needs that go
20
21 unmet from value incongruence. We integrate theorizing about the motivational role of need
22
23 fulfillment and work/non-work behaviors in order to examine whether two actions in particular –
24
25 job crafting and leisure activity – can potentially mitigate the negative effects of value
26
27 incongruence on employee performance. In a field study of employees from diverse
28
29 organizations and industries, the results suggest that both job crafting and leisure activity indeed
30
31 act as a buffer, mitigating the otherwise negative effects of value incongruence on employee
32
33 engagement and job performance (both task performance and citizenship behavior).
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
3
1
2
3
4 The topic of value congruence – the alignment of employee and company values – poses
5
6 an interesting dilemma in today’s workplace. In both research and practice, there has been an
7
8 overwhelming focus on the importance and benefits of “fit” between an employee’s values and
9
10 the company’s values (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011). Such alignment is believed to help
11
12 strengthen organizational culture, improve efficiency, and retain employees (e.g., Edwards &
13
14
Cable, 2009; Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989). Despite the benefits of alignment, value
15
16
17
incongruence may also serve an important function in the workplace. “Misfit” – defined here as
18
19 when employees’ important values are incongruent with the values of their organization (Kristof,
20
21 1996) – presents an opportunity for increased diversity in priorities and perspectives to emerge
22
23 within an organization. Such diversity can lead to increased creativity (e.g., Hoever, van
24
25 Knippenberg, van Ginkel, & Barkema, 2012). Similarly, some level of misfit can help
26
27 organizations avoid rigidity and stagnation, which detract from organizational effectiveness
28
29 (Harrison, 2007; Schneider, 1987).
30
31 From the perspective of the employee, however, the experience of misfit has been
32
33 associated with uniformly negative outcomes. The misalignment of important values can leave
34
35 misfits with a sense that they do not belong and feeling unfulfilled by their work (Edwards &
36
37 Cable, 2009; Edwards & Shipp, 2007; Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010). For example, an
38
39 individual who strongly values personal status and being looked up to by others would see little
40
41 meaning in – and feel out of place working for – an organization whose predominant value
42
43 system emphasizes teamwork and interdependence. As a result, the experience of misfit can be
44
45 stressful, uncomfortable, and associated with negative work attitudes and behaviors. Indeed,
46
47 misfits have greater intentions to quit, are more likely to turn over, and are likely to experience
48
49
lower job satisfaction, engagement, and performance (Edwards & Cable, 2009; Kristof-Brown,
50
51
52
Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Rich et al., 2010; Schneider, 1987).
53
54
Moreover, the nature of today’s business environment has increased the prevalence of the
55
56 misfit phenomenon (Moore, 2010; Sthapit, 2010). Recent trends in recruiting and hiring
57
58 approaches – such as “selling” applicants on the job and giving short windows for applicants to
59
60
4
1
2
3
4 decide on job offers – have resulted in more misfits working in organizations (Sthapit, 2010).
5
6 This situation is only predicted to worsen in the coming years, as the values of younger
7
8 employees and companies are particularly mismatched (Moore, 2010). Because individual values
9
10 are relatively stable over time (Rokeach, 1973), employees hired with initial value incongruence
11
12 are likely to continue to experience value incongruence throughout their tenure with an
13
14
organization. Although theorizing would predict that misfits ultimately quit their jobs
15
16
17
(Schneider, 1987), poor labor market conditions may impede this otherwise-natural correction.
18
19 Recent data indicate that a recuperating yet weak labor market has left many misfits unable to
20
21 find alternative employment despite their desire to move (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014;
22
23 Harding & Mackenzie, 2014; Light, 2010).
24
25 Given this state of affairs – the prevalence of misfits combined with mixed implications
26
27 for companies and employees – we believe that the topic of misfit deserves more specific
28
29 research attention. Specifically, we would like to consider the possibility that not all misfits are
30
31 destined to suffer a disengaging and unproductive work experience. Meta-analytic evidence has
32
33 shown that there is considerable variability in the effects of value congruence on performance
34
35 (cf. Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), suggesting there may be factors that offset the negative impact
36
37 of value incongruence. Uncovering these factors may not only demonstrate how employees can
38
39 survive in a company as misfits, but also how companies may benefit from having different
40
41 values among their employees while minimizing the performance detriments of value
42
43 incongruence.
44
45 In particular, we suggest that employees may have some direct control over whether or
46
47 not their experience of misfit is detrimental to their job performance. Recent trends in the
48
49
management literature highlight employees’ ability and desire to proactively manage their life
50
51
52
experiences (see Grant & Ashford, 2008 for a review). These scholars are acknowledging that
53
54
employees do not simply react to the world around them, but rather they behave in ways that
55
56 contribute to shaping their environment (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker, Bindl, & Strauss,
57
58 2010). Integrating this perspective with the traditional view of misfit introduces the possibility
59
60
5
1
2
3
4 that employees may be able to proactively combat the otherwise detrimental effects of misfit. In
5
6 a way, then, employees may “co-create” their environment, providing themselves with a buffer
7
8 from the experience of value incongruence, and ultimately improving their situation at work.
9
10 Adopting this perspective, our goal is to examine the following question: What proactive
11
12 behaviors might buffer the performance detriments of value incongruence? To explore potential
13
14
answers to this question, we draw from the literature on work/non-work domains (Edwards &
15
16
17
Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Although the majority of research on proactive
18
19 employee behavior has focused on the work domain (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker et al.,
20
21 2010), there is increasing acknowledgement that behavior outside of the workplace can also have
22
23 a significant impact on employees’ attitudes and experiences at work (Edwards & Rothbard,
24
25 2000; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Thus, we will consider the effectiveness of proactivity in both
26
27 work and non-work as a way of supplementing the core needs that misfits might be lacking.
28
29 One of the most direct forms of proactivity at work is job crafting, which refers to an
30
31 employee’s volitional actions to shape, mold, and redefine their job in an attempt to improve
32
33 their experience of work (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Wrzesniewski, LoBuglio, Dutton, &
34
35 Berg, 2013). Proactivity in the non-work domain can be seen in the choices that people make
36
37 regarding how to use their time; to the extent that they volitionally engage in activities that can
38
39 be fulfilling, they are behaving more proactively. Thus, we also examine employees’ leisure
40
41 activity – defined as the extent to which employees engage in non-work activities, such as
42
43 exercising, reading, or other hobbies (Gowen, Riordan, & Gatewood, 1999).
44
45 Thus, the purpose of this manuscript is to explore the potential of job crafting and leisure
46
47 activity to act as buffers for misfits. The model, depicted in Figure 1, is grounded by coupling
48
49
motivation theorizing about need fulfillment (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan,
50
51
52
1985, 2000; Kahn, 1990, 1992) with the work/non-work literature (e.g., Edwards & Rothbard,
53
54
2000; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). The underlying logic from this theorizing is that job crafting
55
56 and leisure activity should act as resources that satisfy employee needs that would otherwise be
57
58 deprived from experiencing value incongruence. Thus, job crafting and leisure activity have the
59
60
6
1
2
3
4 potential to offset the negative motivational effects of value incongruence on employee
5
6 performance (both task performance and citizenship behavior).
7
8 ---------------------------------------------------------
9
10
Insert Figure 1 about here
11
---------------------------------------------------------
12 Fit scholars tend to direct their focus toward the psychological experience of value
13
14
congruence, at the expense of specific examinations of value incongruence. Indeed, “misfit is a
15
16
17
subject that has been largely overlooked by researchers… we know little about how they behave
18
19 or cope” (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011: 38-39). By focusing on this experience of misfit, our
20
21 manuscript offers theoretical contributions to the value congruence literature and, more broadly,
22
23 to the person-environment (P-E) fit literature. For example, this manuscript refines and broadens
24
25 our understanding of one of the dominant theoretical frameworks in this area: the attraction-
26
27 selection-attrition (ASA) model (Schneider, 1987). ASA theory proposes that value
28
29 incongruence is likely to prompt misfits to experience negative work attitudes and, consequently,
30
31 to leave their organizations. Our study extends this view by painting employees in a more
32
33 proactive light, where misfits can combat this negative situation – essentially “co-creating” their
34
35 work experience so that it is more fulfilling and engaging for them, despite value incongruence.
36
37 Our research further contributes to the value congruence and P-E fit literatures by
38
39 examining both work (job crafting) and non-work (leisure activity) behaviors as ways to
40
41 compensate for value incongruence. This manuscript is the first that we know of to incorporate a
42
43 cross-domain perspective by considering the buffering effects of leisure activity. Although P-E
44
45 fit scholars have mainly focused on within-domain relationships (e.g. Edwards & Rothbard,
46
47 1999), recent research has demonstrated the value of considering how non-work endeavors can
48
49
impact work experiences (e.g., Trenberth & Dewe, 2005). Moreover, leisure activity has become
50
51
52
more important with each generation of employees (Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance,
53
54
2010), pointing to a need to better understand how it might impact experiences at work.
55
56 TRADITIONAL PERSPECTIVE OF VALUE INCONGRUENCE
57
58 Values, defined as fundamental and stable beliefs about preferred end states or behaviors
59
60
7
1
2
3
4 (Rokeach, 1973), describe how individuals see themselves at their core, thereby guiding their
5
6 judgments and choices, influences their attitudes, and shaping their behaviors (Meglino &
7
8 Ravlin, 1998). A situation of value congruence – where individual values match organizational
9
10 values – is generally considered ideal for employees (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). For example,
11
12 an employee who highly values autonomy is more likely to thrive in an organization that
13
14
prioritizes freedom than in an organization characterized by micromanagement. The underlying
15
16
17
reasoning is that a match between an individual and his/her work environment satisfies one or
18
19 more of a person’s basic psychological needs (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 1985;
20
21 Edwards & Shipp, 2007; Heine, Proulx, & Vohs, 2006; Kahn, 1990; Ryan & Deci, 2000). These
22
23 needs can range from a desire to be connected with others to having freedom over one’s own
24
25 actions to longing for a sense of purpose or meaning (Baumeister & Vohs, 2005; Deci & Ryan,
26
27 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Williams, 1997). Such needs are so innate and essential that people
28
29 are not necessarily directly aware of the particular needs that are driving their goals or behaviors
30
31 (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Regardless, fulfilling these needs can have a vast and profound impact on
32
33 employee attitudes and behaviors.
34
35 Value incongruence (or “misfit”), however, is generally detrimental for employees (e.g.
36
37 Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). As employee values diverge
38
39 from organizational values, their core needs become deprived which is harmful to employee
40
41 attitudes and behaviors (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Edwards & Shipp,
42
43 2007). It is important to note that misfit may be detrimental regardless of the direction it takes –
44
45 whether an employee values something more or less than their company (Cable & Edwards,
46
47 2004). Consider, for example, a situation of mismatch regarding salary. Value congruence is not
48
49
an issue of whether an employee is satisfied with his/her current level of pay.1 Rather, value
50
51
52
congruence merely captures whether the employee feels that he or she prioritizes pay issues to
53
54
the same degree as the organization.
55
56
1
57 That issue would be captured more clearly in what is referred to as “needs-supplies fit,” which could be used to
58 capture whether the amount of money needed by the employee is actually provided by the organization.
59
60
8
1
2
3
4 Kahn’s (1990, 1992) seminal theorizing speaks to the motivational implications of value
5
6 congruence (and, thus, incongruence). Employees experiencing value congruence see their true
7
8 self as being aligned with their company’s expectations of them (Chatman, 1989; Edwards &
9
10 Shipp, 2007; Kahn, 1990, 1992). This alignment reinforces an individual’s preferred self-image,
11
12 making it more likely that they view their job as compelling and worthwhile (Kahn, 1992) –
13
14
something that can fulfill a variety of psychological needs (Baumeister & Vohs, 2005; Deci &
15
16
17
Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Williams, 1997). Indeed, Greguras and Diefendorff (2009)
18
19 found that perceived value congruence enabled employees to feel that they belonged, were
20
21 competent, and had discretion over their actions.
22
23 Because it satisfies core needs, value congruence is considered intrinsically motivating
24
25 (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In particular, value congruence should foster job engagement – where
26
27 employees invest their whole selves (cognitively, behaviorally, and emotionally) into their jobs –
28
29 which has implications for their job performance (Kahn, 1990, 1992; Rich et al., 2010).
30
31 Employees who fully invest themselves into their work should exhibit stronger task performance
32
33 and citizenship behavior because such a holistic investment facilitates persistence to goal
34
35 accomplishment, increased attention to work tasks, and greater cooperation with others (Kahn,
36
37 1990). In support of this theorizing, Rich et al. (2010) found that perceived value congruence
38
39 increased job engagement and, ultimately, task performance and citizenship behavior.
40
41 At the opposite end of this experience are employees whose values do not fit with their
42
43 organization’s values. These employees perceive that they are expected to act like someone they
44
45 are not (Kahn, 1990, 1992). They are likely to sense that they are lacking something important
46
47 and valuable to them – that a fundamental need is not quite fulfilled (Edwards & Shipp, 2007).
48
49
For example, misfits are likely to have fewer and less enjoyable interpersonal work relationships
50
51
52
than those who fit (Edwards & Cable, 2009), leaving belongingness needs unfulfilled
53
54
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Edwards & Shipp, 2007). Because misfits’ time is spent pursuing
55
56 goals contrary to their ideal self and core values, they are also likely to believe that their work
57
58 lacks meaning (Kahn, 1990, 1992). As a result, misfits should be less willing to fully engage and
59
60
9
1
2
3
4 invest themselves into their work, causing their job performance to suffer (Kahn, 1990, 1992).
5
6 A BUFFERING PERSPECTIVE ON VALUE INCONGRUENCE
7
8 Despite the ability of value congruence to fulfill employees’ needs, there are also other
9
10 sources of potential need fulfillment in an individual’s life that could contribute to well-being,
11
12 engagement, and quality performance (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Kahn, 1990, 1992; Ryan & Deci,
13
14
2000). Indeed, employees proactively engage in all sorts of actions – both within the work
15
16
17
domain and outside of the work domain – that present the opportunity to satisfy their basic
18
19 needs. Thus, the performance implications of misfit may not be as simple and straightforward as
20
21 traditionally assumed. Instead, to create a more comprehensive understanding of the implications
22
23 of misfit, we should also take into account these other sources of need fulfillment. In this section,
24
25 we theorize about the potential buffering role of two forms of proactive behavior – job crafting
26
27 and leisure activity – that may provide this opportunity for employees.
28
29 The satisfaction of needs is subject to the principles of substitution and satiation
30
31 (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Heine et al., 2006). These principles suggest that: (1) if someone’s
32
33 needs are not provided by a particular source, they may be filled by other means, and; (2) if a
34
35 need is sufficiently satisfied, other potential sources should offer diminishing returns. Baumeister
36
37 (2012) illustrated this process through the idea of hunger. He suggested that although hunger
38
39 could be brought on by thoughts of a hamburger, this need could just as easily be satisfied with a
40
41 sandwich or plate of spaghetti and not necessarily a hamburger. In addition, this sandwich is
42
43 likely less satisfying to a person who has just consumed a large meal than to one who has not
44
45 eaten in several hours.
46
47 Applied to the current context, this theorizing suggests that other sources of need
48
49
satisfaction – such as job crafting (Berg, Grant, & Johnson, 2010; Rich et al., 2010) and leisure
50
51
52
activity (Clary et al., 1998; Gowen et al., 1999) – may serve as a substitute for the needs lacking
53
54
due to value incongruence. These activities, however, should be less relevant to employees who
55
56 have achieved a better fit with the values of their organizations because their needs are already
57
58 fulfilled to a greater extent (i.e. satiated). In the following sections, we describe how the
59
60
10
1
2
3
4 proactive nature of job crafting and leisure activity can fulfill employees’ basic needs and, thus,
5
6 may buffer the de-motivational consequences of misfit on job performance.
7
8 Job Crafting as a Buffer of Misfit
9
10 The goal of job crafting is to change the parameters of one’s job to suit personal needs,
11
12 preferences, and abilities (Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2013). Wrzesniewski and her
13
14
colleagues have stressed that any employee, even those without formal discretion over their role,
15
16
17
can craft their job in significant ways (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Wrzesniewski et al.,
18
19 2013). Job crafting occurs in two general forms – changes to either (or both) the design of one’s
20
21 job and the social environment at work (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Changes in job design
22
23 include introducing new approaches to help improve one’s work, adding preferred tasks or
24
25 minimizing unenjoyable tasks, and changing standard procedures of the job (e.g., Leana,
26
27 Appelbaum, & Shevchuk, 2009). Such changes can satisfy employees’ core needs. For example,
28
29 changes to the job can enhance meaning an employee obtains from their job, allow them to feel
30
31 more competent at their job, or provide them with more autonomy in their job (Hackman &
32
33 Oldham, 1980; Kahn, 1990, 1992).
34
35 Crafting the social environment at work includes changes to the quality or amount of
36
37 interactions with others or altering the nature of relationships in ways that change one’s job
38
39 (Leana et al., 2009; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). In particular, job crafting can offer
40
41 employees the opportunity to increase interactions with and create stronger connections to
42
43 colleagues or clients whom they prefer, and minimize (or avoid) interactions that they expect to
44
45 be unpleasant. Crafting the social environment in these ways can provide employees with more
46
47 supportive and rewarding interactions, as well as higher quality group dynamics – offering
48
49
fulfillment for employees in terms of, for example, meaning and belonging (Baumeister & Leary,
50
51
52
2005; Berg et al., 2010; Kahn, 1990).
53
54
By substituting for needs unsatisfied due to value incongruence in these ways, job
55
56 crafting should buffer the motivational consequences of misfit on job performance. According to
57
58 Kahn’s (1990, 1992) theorizing, the situations that result from job crafting – where task
59
60
11
1
2
3
4 characteristics and the social environment are tailored to the employee’s own preferences – set
5
6 the stage for greater job engagement. In particular, crafting one’s job to better fulfill needs such
7
8 as meaning, autonomy, and competence enhances employees’ beliefs that they will personally
9
10 benefit from investing themselves in their work – something that Kahn (1990) considered a
11
12 psychological condition necessary for greater engagement. Furthermore, environments
13
14
characterized with high quality work interactions and relationships should provide employees
15
16
17
with a sense of safety and belonging – where they feel that they can display their true self to
18
19 others – which also fosters job engagement (Kahn, 1990). Thus, we expect that job crafting will
20
21 help satisfy needs for misfits, thereby mitigating the otherwise negative impact of value
22
23 incongruence on job engagement. On the other end of the spectrum – where employees
24
25 experience greater value congruence – we expect that job crafting will have relatively little
26
27 impact, as the needs of these employees are presumably met due to being a good fit.
28
29 Hypothesis 1: The negative effect of value incongruence on job engagement will be
30
31 weaker when job crafting is high than when job crafting is low.
32
33 Through this impact on employee engagement, job crafting should also buffer the
34
35 negative implications of value incongruence for job performance, both in terms of task
36
37 performance and citizenship behavior. Task performance refers to in-role behaviors that are
38
39 directly related to a job’s core tasks (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Engaged employees should
40
41 exhibit stronger task performance because they work harder and for longer periods of time, pay
42
43 more attention to their tasks, and emotionally connect to their role (Kahn, 1990; 1992; Rich et
44
45 al., 2010). Citizenship behavior refers to discretionary behaviors that, although not directly
46
47 related to the core tasks of one’s job, also contribute to an organization’s effective functioning
48
49
(Organ, 1988). In Kahn’s (1990) theorizing about the role of engagement, he proposed that
50
51
52
engaged employees would have a broader concept of their work role. In this way, engagement
53
54
has been considered to be an indicator of an employee’s willingness to go beyond their formal
55
56 job descriptions and act in ways that help their employer (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011;
57
58 Rich et al., 2010). In particular, we consider the impact of engagement on, what Williams and
59
60
12
1
2
3
4 Anderson (1991) termed, citizenship behaviors directed at the organization (OCB-O) given that
5
6 this focuses matches the organizational target of value incongruence (Lavelle, Rupp, &
7
8 Brockner, 2007). These behaviors include employee actions such as speaking up to improve
9
10 organizational functioning and looking out for the company’s best interests.
11
12 Given the proposed buffering effect of job crafting on job engagement, we argue that job
13
14
crafting should ultimately influence the indirect relationship between value incongruence and job
15
16
17
performance. By substituting for value incongruence, job crafting may buffer employees from
18
19 the otherwise negative impact on employees’ job performance through their engagement
20
21 (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Kahn, 1990, 1992; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Despite a lack
22
23 of fit for these individuals, they may be able to remain engaged and productive in their jobs
24
25 because they have found alternative sources that are fulfilling and provide the necessary
26
27 physiological resources to do so.
28
29 Hypothesis 2: The negative indirect effect of value incongruence on (a) task performance
30
31 and (b) citizenship behavior (via job engagement) will be weaker when job crafting is
32
33 high than when job crafting is low.
34
35 Leisure Activity as a Buffer of Misfit
36
37 An alternative option to buffer the negative consequences of misfit may lie outside of the
38
39 workplace. Researchers are increasingly acknowledging that non-work activities play a
40
41 significant role in work experiences (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006).
42
43 Latack and Havlovic (1992) speculated that leisure activity – such as personal hobbies, exercise
44
45 and sports, and community involvement – could provide employees with an opportunity to deal
46
47 with negative situations at work (see also Gowen et al., 1999). Because people have considerable
48
49
freedom to choose the type of leisure activities to pursue, such activities present a unique
50
51
52
opportunity for people to fulfill their needs and desires. The inherent discretion over leisure
53
54
activity can provide individuals with a sense of autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In addition,
55
56 people may choose hobbies (such as playing a musical instrument in a band) so that they can
57
58 master something and demonstrate their competence, as well as to socialize and satisfy
59
60
13
1
2
3
4 belongingness needs (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). There is also evidence that
5
6 community involvement provides employees with greater meaning and connections to others
7
8 (Clary et al., 1998; Geroy, Wright, & Jacoby, 2000).
9
10 By offering this sense of fulfillment, leisure activity may serve as a substitute for value
11
12 incongruence (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). In its most traditional sense, motivation theorizing
13
14
may imply that this process would foster greater involvement in that particular leisure activity
15
16
17
(Deci & Ryan, 1985; Kahn, 1990, 1992; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Incorporating ideas from the
18
19 work/non-work literature, however, presents the possibility that leisure activity may also have
20
21 motivational implications for the workplace. General theorizing about non-work activities
22
23 (Burke & Greenglass, 1987; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000), as well as more specific research on
24
25 leisure activities, suggest that leisure activities can serve as a substitute for unmet needs in the
26
27 workplace (e.g., Grant, 2012; Heine et al., 2006; Tinsley & Eldredge, 1995; Tinsley, Hinson,
28
29 Tinsley, & Holt, 1993).
30
31 Using Kahn’s (1990) terminology to describe this process, it is possible that leisure
32
33 activity creates a sense of psychological availability for job engagement. Kahn (1990, 1992)
34
35 theorizes that a state of psychological availability exists when employees have the physical,
36
37 emotional, and physiological resources necessary to engage in their jobs. Although Kahn (1990)
38
39 admitted that life outside of work – such as leisure activity – could sometimes divert energy that
40
41 could otherwise be devoted to work, he also theorized that such activity has the potential to
42
43 increase energy and availability for work. Theorizing about the synchronization of work and
44
45 non-work domains echoes this suggestion – that non-work activities can spillover to work and
46
47 compensate for deficiencies that people experience at work (Burke & Greenglass, 1987;
48
49
Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; see also Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Scholars have found that
50
51
52
leisure activity creates positive emotional states that spill over into the workplace (Hecht &
53
54
Boies, 2009; Hills & Argyle, 1998). Moreover, there is evidence that various forms of leisure
55
56 activity serve as a form of recovery for employees – renewing their energy supply and enabling
57
58 them to remain focused at work (Sonnentag, 2003; Sonnentag, Mojza, Demerouti, & Bakker,
59
60
14
1
2
3
4 2012; Trougakos, Beal, Green, & Weiss, 2008).
5
6 Ultimately, then, we expect that leisure activity may compensate for needs unsatisfied
7
8 from value incongruence – acting as a buffer from the otherwise detrimental effects on job
9
10 engagement and performance that befall misfits (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Burke &
11
12 Greenglass, 1987; Kahn, 1990, 1992). Moreover, as was the case with job crafting, the principle
13
14
of satiation should also be applicable to leisure activity. For employees with greater value
15
16
17
congruence, leisure activity will be less relevant and impactful because the needs of these
18
19 employees are already satisfied to a greater extent (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
20
21 Hypothesis 3: The negative effect of value incongruence on job engagement will be
22
23 weaker when leisure activity is high than when leisure activity is low.
24
25 Hypothesis 4: The negative indirect effect of value incongruence on (a) task performance
26
27 and (b) citizenship behavior (via job engagement) will be weaker when leisure activity is
28
29 high than when leisure activity is low.
30
31 METHOD
32
33 Participants and Procedures
34
35 Our study design included three time points and two sources. To achieve sufficient
36
37 variance on both individual and organizational values, we recruited participants through online
38
39 classified advertisements, similar to others studies in top management journals (e.g., Colquitt,
40
41 Baer, Long, & Halvorsen-Ganepola, 2014; Judge, Simon, Hurst, & Kelley, 2013; Rodell &
42
43 Judge, 2009). To qualify for the study, participants had to be at least 18 years old, work full-time
44
45 (at least 35 hours per week), and provide the name, email address, and mailing address for a
46
47 supervisor who could complete one survey on their behalf. Upon responding to the
48
49
advertisement, participants received their first survey (time 1), which measured value
50
51
52
congruence, job crafting, and leisure activity, as well as general personality and demographics.
53
54
Three weeks later, we emailed participants the second survey (time 2), which measured job
55
56 engagement. Three weeks after the second survey, we emailed supervisors their survey (time 3),
57
58 which included measures of the participants’ job performance (task performance and citizenship
59
60
15
1
2
3
4 behavior). Several steps were taken to ensure the legitimacy of supervisors. For example, we
5
6 removed potential participants who either provided their own name and/or email address instead
7
8 of a supervisor’s name and/or email address, or “suspicious” email addresses (i.e., it was clearly
9
10 the participant’s personal address). Further, we carefully checked whether participants’ and
11
12 supervisors’ physical mailing addresses were identical; when they were, we contacted the
13
14
participant directly to determine whether there was a legitimate explanation (e.g., both were the
15
16
17
physical address of the organization). We also inspected email and physical addresses for
18
19 participants attempting to complete the study more than once. For their time, participants
20
21 received $5, and both participants and supervisors were entered into a drawing for $500.
22
23 Initially, 404 participants expressed interest in the study by completing the first survey.
24
25 Of these, 302 completed the second survey, and 206 supervisors responded to their survey. To
26
27 bolster response rates, we sent up to four reminders to participants and/or their supervisors. After
28
29 matching responses and addressing missing data and outliers, the final dataset included 193
30
31 respondents, representing a 47.8% participation rate. For participants, 55.0% were female, 61.5%
32
33 were Caucasian, the average age was 34.96 years (SD = 10.49), and the average organizational
34
35 tenure was 5.65 years (SD = 4.73). For supervisors, 46.1% were female, 64.1% were Caucasian,
36
37 the average age was 41.85 years (SD = 11.49), and the average organizational tenure was 8.94
38
39 years (SD = 6.23). The sample represented many industries; the four most common were finance
40
41 and banking, information technology, education, and healthcare.
42
43 Measures
44
45 Value incongruence. Value incongruence was measured using the 24 items of the Work
46
47 Values Survey (WVS) from Cable and Edwards (2004). The WVS is based on the circumplex
48
49
model of human values developed by Schwartz (1992) and is designed to assess eight core
50
51
52
individual and organizational work values: altruism, relationships, pay, security, authority,
53
54
prestige, variety, and autonomy. Following Cable and Edwards (2004), participants assessed
55
56 both their personal values – by answering the question “How important is this to you?” – and
57
58 their organization’s values – by answering the question “How important is this to your
59
60
16
1
2
3
4 company?” – with respect to each of the 24 items (three items for each work value). Participants
5
6 used a five-point scale ranging from 1 = Not At All Important to 5 = Extremely Important.
7
8 Coefficient alphas for individuals’ values ranged from .80 to .91; for the organization’s values,
9
10 they ranged from .83 to .93.
11
12 Not all values are equally important to each employee, and employees likely do not
13
14
prioritize the same values as one another (Rokeach, 1973). The extent to which a particular value
15
16
17
is relevant to an individual’s job attitudes and behaviors (such as engagement and performance)
18
19 is likely dependent on the relative importance of that value to that person. Indeed, researchers
20
21 have acknowledged that misfit is likely more detrimental when it occurs with more strongly held
22
23 values (Edwards, 1992; Edwards, 1996; Locke, 1976). Thus, we could reasonably expect that the
24
25 value considered most important to an individual plays the most significant role in explaining job
26
27 attitudes and behaviors, and that there would be diminishing explanatory power from the values
28
29 deemed less important. Because this study centers around the potential outcomes of value
30
31 incongruence – and not on the differences between value congruence for the eight values – we
32
33 focused our analyses on the most important value to each participant.
34
35 To determine the most important value, we asked each participant to rank order the eight
36
37 core values. Participants were provided with definitions of these values that were drawn from the
38
39 organizational literature (e.g., “Altruism: doing things to help others without payment or material
40
41 reinforcement”) and ranked the relative importance of each dimension from 1 = Most Important
42
43 to 8 = Least Important. Rather than simply using the highest-rated value for each participant,
44
45 which could result in equal ratings for multiple values, asking participants to rank order the
46
47 values allowed us to most clearly determine the one value considered most important to each
48
49
individual. Indeed, in 71.5% of the cases, the rank ordering approach was necessary to determine
50
51
52
the individual’s most important value. Value incongruence was operationalized using the three
53
54
items representing the rating for the individual and organization on the particular value ranked as
55
56 most important to the individual.
57
58 Job crafting. Job crafting was measured with Leana et al.’s (2009) four-item measure.
59
60
17
1
2
3
4 On a five-point scale ranging from 1 = Almost Never to 5 = Very Often, participants were asked
5
6 to rate how often they engaged in each of the listed behaviors. Sample items included, “Introduce
7
8 new approaches to improve my work” and “Change minor work procedures that I think are not
9
10 productive.” The coefficient alpha was .83.
11
12 Leisure activity. Participants were shown a list of common leisure activities (e.g.,
13
14
exercising, entertainment, other hobbies) and asked to rate their agreement with each of seven
15
16
17
items adapted from Gowen et al.’s (1999) measure of leisure involvement, using a five-point
18
19 scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. Sample items included “I do
20
21 these activities quite frequently” and “I devote a lot of my time to these activities.” The
22
23 coefficient alpha was .93.
24
25 We conducted supplementary analyses to support the positioning of job crafting and
26
27 leisure activity as proactive behaviors – initiatives that people take to influence themselves
28
29 and/or their environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Grant & Ashford, 2008). Following Hinkin
30
31 and Tracey’s (1999) recommendations for assessing content validity, we surveyed 148
32
33 individuals about the extent to which various survey items – for job crafting, leisure activity, and
34
35 a direct measure of proactive behavior (Sonnentag, 2003) – reflected the definition of proactive
36
37 behavior provided above (on a scale of 1 = Extremely Bad Match to 7 = Extremely Good
38
39 Match). The mean ratings for job crafting and leisure activity items were on the high end of this
40
41 scale (5.25 and 4.82, respectively). Indeed, the mean ratings for these behaviors were in the same
42
43 general position on the response scale as the means for the direct proactive behavior items (5.54),
44
45 though the difference was statistically significant. Moreover, when rated for frequency on their
46
47 typical Likert scales, job crating and leisure activity were moderately correlated with proactive
48
49
behavior (.46 and .34, respectively). Combined, these results suggest that although our measures
50
51
52
of job crafting and leisure activity are not redundant with proactive behavior, these behaviors
53
54
could be placed under a “proactivity” umbrella.
55
56 Job engagement. Participants rated their job engagement with Schaufeli and Bakker’s
57
58 (2003) nine-item measure, using a five-point scale ranging from 1 = Almost Never to 5 = Very
59
60
18
1
2
3
4 Often. Sample items included “At work, I feel bursting with energy” and “I am immersed in my
5
6 work.” The coefficient alpha was .93.
7
8 Task performance. Supervisors rated participants’ task performance on a five-point
9
10 scale, ranging from 1 = Unsatisfactory to 5 = Outstanding, on the six dimensions (e.g.,
11
12 “Dependability,” “Know-how and judgment”) from Graen, Novak, and Sommerkamp (1982).
13
14
The coefficient alpha was .92.
15
16
17
Citizenship behavior. Citizenship behavior was measured with eight items from Lee and
18
19 Allen (2002) that capture citizenship behavior targeted at the organization. The five-point scale
20
21 ranged from 1 = Almost Never to 5 = Very Often. Example items included, “Attends functions
22
23 that are not required but that help the company’s image” and “Offers ideas to improve the
24
25 functioning of the company.” The coefficient alpha was .93.
26
27 Analytical Strategy
28
29 The overall hypothesized model includes the indirect effect of the incongruence of two
30
31 variables (Individual’s values and Organization’s values) moderated by a third variable (either
32
33 Job crafting or Leisure activity). Because there was not precedent for this type of analysis in the
34
35 literature, we derived equations for conditional indirect effects of a congruence effect by
36
37 integrating procedures for polynomial regression (Edwards & Parry, 1993) and moderated-
38
39 mediation (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). These equations, along with computations for evaluating
40
41 the slope and curvature of the moderated direct and indirect effects, are in the Appendix.
42
43 Our hypotheses – that negative effects of value incongruence will be tempered by job
44
45 crafting or leisure activity – suggest that the shape of the surface along the line of incongruence
46
47 will be different at high versus low levels of the moderators. To provide more context for
48
49
interpreting our results, we have included a Figure that represents our expectations (see Figure
50
51
52
2). The line of incongruence (indicated by a dashed line) exists along the floor of the graph, from
53
54
the point where individual values are low and organizational values are high to the point where
55
56 individual values are high and organizational values are low. When the moderator is low, we
57
58 expect that the slope of the surface along the line of incongruence will not be significantly
59
60
19
1
2
3
4 different than zero (i.e., no differences between misfits whose values are greater than those of the
5
6 organization and misfits whose values are less than those of the organization) and the curvature
7
8 of the surface will be significant and negative (i.e., a concave surface). In contrast, when the
9
10 moderator is high, we expect that both the slope and curvature of the surface along the line of
11
12 incongruence will be not significantly different than zero, indicating a flat surface.2
13
14
---------------------------------------------------------
15
16 Insert Figure 2 about here
17 ---------------------------------------------------------
18
19 We followed other procedures outlined by researchers who have employed either the
20
21 polynomial regression or moderated-mediation methodologies in a path analytic framework (e.g.,
22
23 Edwards & Cable, 2009; Edwards & Lambert, 2007). Further, because product terms can
24
25 produce Type I errors due to non-normal distributions (Shrout & Bolger, 2002), we produced
26
27 bias-corrected confidence intervals from 1,000 bootstrapped estimates for all parameter estimates
28
29 (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Finally, we investigated the influence of
30
31 several control variables that might offer alternative explanations for the effects of our model.
32
33 Our results did not significantly change while controlling for respondents’ perceptions of person-
34
35 job fit, respondents’ proactive personality, respondents’ organizational tenure, the industry in
36
37 which the respondent worked, or a set of dummy-coded variables representing the specific value
38
39 cited as most important by each respondent. Thus, following recent advice about the superfluous
40
41 inclusion of control variables (Becker, 2005; Carlson & Wu, 2012), we did not include any of
42
43 these control variables in our final model.
44
45 RESULTS
46
47 The means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among the variables are
48
49
presented in Table 1. Because of strong correlations between the moderators and between the
50
51
52
2
53 Our hypotheses did not involve effects for employees who have low congruence (i.e., where individual and
54 organizational values are both low) versus those who have high congruence (i.e., where individual and
55 organizational values are both high); thus, we did not focus analyses on the shape of the surface along the line of
56 congruence. However, an anonymous reviewer pointed out that our data and analyses contained information that
57 would allow us to examine congruence effects; these post-hoc analyses are presented at the end of the results
58 section.
59
60
20
1
2
3
4 dependent variables, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) separately on these
5
6 measures. Results of the CFA on the moderators showed the two-factor model where job crafting
7
8 and leisure activity were kept separate was a better fit to the data (χ2 (43) = 122.07, p < .001; CFI
9
10 = .94; RMSEA = .10; SRMR = .037) than the one-factor model (χ2 (44) = 359.34, p < .001; CFI
11
12 = .76; RMSEA = .19, SRMR = .124; ∆χ2 (1) = 237.27, p < .001). Results of the CFA for the
13
14
dependent variables showed the two-factor model where task performance and citizenship
15
16
17
behavior were kept separate was a better fit to the data (χ2 (76) = 272.26, p < .001; CFI = .90;
18
19 RMSEA = .12; SRMR = .042) than the one-factor model (χ2 (77) = 528.39, p < .001; CFI = .78;
20
21 RMSEA = .17, SRMR = .08; ∆χ2 (1) = 256.13, p < .001). Further probing of these results using
22
23 exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM; see Marsh et al., 2009 for in-depth rationale
24
25 for and explanation of this technique) indicated that model fit did not significantly improve by
26
27 allowing individual items to load onto multiple factors. Together, these results support the
28
29 distinctiveness of our measures.
30
31 Hypothesis 1 and 2 focused on the interactive effects of value incongruence and job
32
33 crafting. Table 2 shows the path analytic results for the equations including job crafting in
34
35 predicting job engagement, task performance, and citizenship behavior. Hypothesis 1 predicted
36
37 that job crafting would interact with value incongruence in predicting job engagement, such that
38
39 the negative effects would be weaker when job crafting was high. The significant F-statistic (F =
40
41 3.44) of Step 2 of this equation indicates that job crafting significantly interacted with value
42
43 incongruence in predicting job engagement.
44
45 ---------------------------------------------------------
46
47
Insert Tables 1 and 2 about here
48 ---------------------------------------------------------
49
The slope and curvature of the surface along the line of value incongruence at high and
50
51
52
low levels of the moderator were computed by substituting values one standard deviation above
53
54
and below the mean of job crafting (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003) into Equation 5 (see
55
56 the Appendix). As shown in Table 3 and illustrated in Figure 3, at low job crafting, the slope of
57
58 the surface along the line of value incongruence was not significantly different than zero (qslope =
59
60
21
1
2
3
4 .25, 90% CI = [-.30, .74]); this result indicates that there is not a directional effect – there is no
5
6 significant difference in engagement between misfits whose personal values were greater than
7
8 organizational values compared to misfits whose personal values were lesser than organizational
9
10 values. The curvature of the surface along the line of value incongruence was significant and
11
12 negative (qcurvature = -.39, 90% CI = [-.70, -.12]), indicating a concave surface. The negative
13
14
curvature suggests that job engagement decreased as employee values diverged from
15
16
17
organizational values. In contrast, at high job crafting, both the slope and curvature of the surface
18
19 along the line of value incongruence were not significantly different than zero (qslope = .10, 90%
20
21 CI = [-1.06, 1.13]; qcurvature = -.12, 90% CI = [-.67, .47]), indicating a flat surface. In other words,
22
23 when job crafting was high, value incongruence did not significantly relate to job engagement.
24
25 Combined, this specific pattern of results supports Hypothesis 1. It suggests that misfits
26
27 with lower levels of job crafting are more likely to suffer the negative effects of value
28
29 incongruence on job engagement, but misfits with higher levels of job crafting were buffered
30
31 against the negative effects of value incongruence on job engagement.
32
33 ---------------------------------------------------------
34 Insert Table 3 and Figure 3 about here
35 ---------------------------------------------------------
36
37 Hypothesis 2 predicted that the indirect effects of value incongruence on (a) task
38
39 performance and (b) citizenship behavior would be moderated by job crafting, such that the
40
41 negative indirect effects would be weaker when job crafting was high. To determine whether the
42
43 effects of value incongruence carried through to supervisor-rated job performance, the effects of
44
45 job engagement on task performance and citizenship behavior were estimated while controlling
46
47 for the effects of the first stage of the model (i.e., the terms representing value incongruence, job
48
49
crafting, and their interaction). Referring back to Table 2, job engagement had significant
50
51
52
positive effects on task performance (b = .24) and citizenship behavior (b = .39). Following
53
54
procedures outlined above, the slope and curvature of the indirect effect of value incongruence
55
56 on task performance along the line of incongruence were computed at high and low levels of job
57
58 crafting. As shown in Table 3 and illustrated in Figure 4a, when job crafting was low, the surface
59
60
22
1
2
3
4 of the indirect effect along the line of incongruence was concave, as evidenced by a non-
5
6 significant slope (qslope = .06, 90% CI = [-.06, .20]) and a significant and negative curvature
7
8 (qcurvature = -.10, 90% CI = [-.21, -.03]). This suggests that as individual and organizational values
9
10 diverged (i.e., as value incongruence increased), task performance decreased. In contrast, when
11
12 job crafting was high, the surface of the indirect effect was flat, as evidenced by a non-significant
13
14
slope (qslope = .03, 90% CI = [-.25, .28]) and non-significant curvature (qcurvature = -.03, 90% CI =
15
16
17
[-.18, .11]). This suggests that value incongruence did not have indirect effects on task
18
19 performance when job crafting was high.
20
21 Similarly, we evaluated the slope and curvature of the indirect effect of value
22
23 incongruence on citizenship behavior. Table 3 and Figure 4b show that when job crafting was
24
25 low, the indirect effect had a non-significant slope (qslope = .10, 90% CI = [-.11, .29]) and
26
27 significant and negative curvature (qcurvature = -.15, 90% CI = [-.30, -.05]), which suggests a
28
29 concave surface along the line of incongruence. When job crafting was high, both the slope
30
31 (qslope = .04, 90% CI = [-.41, .43]) and curvature (qcurvature = -.05, 90% CI = [-.27, .17]) of the
32
33 indirect effect were not significant, indicating a flat surface. Together, these results provide full
34
35 support for Hypotheses 2 (a) and (b) and suggest that high job crafting buffers misfits against the
36
37 negative indirect effects of value incongruence on performance (via job engagement).
38
39 Hypotheses 3 and 4 focused on the interactive effects of value incongruence and leisure
40
41 activity. Table 4 shows the path analytic results for the equations including leisure activity.
42
43 Hypothesis 3 predicted that leisure activity would interact with value incongruence in predicting
44
45 job engagement, such that the negative effects would be weaker when leisure activity was high.
46
47 The significant F-statistic (F = 2.39) of Step 2 of this equation indicates that leisure activity
48
49
significantly interacted with value incongruence in predicting job engagement.
50
51
52
---------------------------------------------------------
53 Insert Figure 4 and Table 4 about here
54 ---------------------------------------------------------
55
56 As shown in Table 5, when leisure activity was low, the surface along the line of value
57
58 incongruence was consistent with our predictions. It had a non-significant slope (qslope = .31,
59
60
23
1
2
3
4 90% CI = [-.20, .86]), indicating there were not significant differences in engagement between
5
6 misfits whose personal values were greater than organizational values and misfits whose
7
8 personal values were lesser than organizational values. The surface had a significant and
9
10 negative curvature (qcurvature = -.32, 90% CI = [-.62, -.07]), indicating a concave surface. Thus, as
11
12 shown in Figure 6, when leisure activity was low, job engagement decreased as individual values
13
14
diverged from organizational values (i.e., as value incongruence increased). In contrast, when
15
16
17
leisure activity was high, the negative effect of value incongruence was mitigated. The shape of
18
19 the surface along the line of incongruence showed a significant slope (qslope = -.90, 90% CI = [-
20
21 2.09, -.00]) and non-significant curvature (qcurvature = .30, 90% CI = [-.17, .87]. These results
22
23 (shown in Figure 5) support Hypothesis 3 that misfits with lower levels of leisure activity are
24
25 more likely to suffer the negative effects of value incongruence on job engagement, but misfits
26
27 with higher levels of leisure activity were buffered against these negative effects. Although not
28
29 hypothesized, the pattern of results further suggests that leisure activity not only mitigates the
30
31 negative effect of value incongruence on job engagement, but also positively impacts job
32
33 engagement for misfits whose individual values are lower than the organization’s values.
34
35 ---------------------------------------------------------
36 Insert Table 5 and Figure 5 about here
37 ---------------------------------------------------------
38
39 Hypothesis 4 predicted that the indirect effects of value incongruence on (a) task
40
41 performance and (b) citizenship behavior would be moderated by leisure activity, such that the
42
43 negative indirect effect would be weaker when leisure activity was high. Referring back to Table
44
45 4, job engagement had significant positive effects on task performance (b = .21) and citizenship
46
47 behavior (b = .36). As shown in Table 5 and illustrated in Figure 6a, when leisure activity was
48
49
low, the surface along the line of incongruence was consistent with our predictions. The slope of
50
51
52
the surface was not significantly different than zero (qslope = .07, 90% CI = [-.02, .23], and its
53
54
curvature was significant and negative (i.e., concave; qcurvature = -.07, 90% CI = [-.16, -.01]).
55
56 When leisure activity was high, the negative effect of value incongruence was mitigated. The
57
58 indirect effect along the line of incongruence was sloped negatively (qslope = -.19, 90% CI = [-
59
60
24
1
2
3
4 .55, -.01]), decreasing from low individual values/high organization values to high individual
5
6 values/low organizational values, and its curvature was not significant (qcurvature = .06, 90% CI =
7
8 [-.03, .22]). This suggests that high leisure activity buffered the indirect effect of value
9
10 incongruence on task performance for misfits.
11
12 Similarly, we evaluated the slope and curvature of the indirect effect of value
13
14
incongruence on citizenship behavior. Table 5 shows that when leisure activity was low, the
15
16
17
shape of the surface along the line of incongruence was consistent with our predictions: the slope
18
19 of the indirect effect was not significant (qslope = .11, 90% CI = [-.06, .34]) and the curvature was
20
21 significant and negative (qcurvature = -.11, 90% CI = [-.24, -.02]). Thus, as shown in Figure 6b,
22
23 when leisure activity was low, citizenship behavior decreased as individual and organizational
24
25 values diverged. In contrast, when leisure activity was high, the effect of value incongruence was
26
27 mitigated. Similar to the effect for task performance, the slope of the indirect effect along the line
28
29 of incongruence was significant and negative (qslope = -.32, 90% CI = [-.82, -.01]) and the
30
31 curvature was not significant (qcurvature = .11, 90% CI = [-.06, .35]). Together, these results
32
33 provide support for Hypotheses 4 (a) and (b) and suggest that high leisure activity buffers misfits
34
35 against the negative indirect effects of value incongruence on performance (via job engagement).
36
37 ---------------------------------------------------------
38 Insert Figure 6 about here
39 ---------------------------------------------------------
40
41 Post-Hoc Analyses and Robustness Checks
42
43 We conducted analyses to examine our assumption that incongruence on an individual’s
44
45 most important value is more predictive of the outcomes than is incongruence on values ranked
46
47 lower. First, we ran our hypothesized model that simultaneously included terms for both the most
48
49
important and second-highest ranked value. The change in explained variance was not significant
50
51
52
when the terms for the second-highest ranked value were added. Further, the results for the most-
53
54
important value were significant and consistent with those reported above. This pattern of results
55
56 suggests that (in)congruence on the most important value, indeed, best explains variance in the
57
58 outcome variables.
59
60
25
1
2
3
4 Next, we examined several ways of including information about the specific values (e.g.,
5
6 altruism, pay, prestige) in the analyses. For example, we ran analyses controlling for the specific
7
8 value ranked highest by each participant (coded into seven dummy-coded variables). The pattern
9
10 of results was essentially identical to the results we report above. Together, these additional
11
12 results support the idea that analyzing congruence on the top-ranked value for each respondent is
13
14
a reasonable and meaningful approach.
15
16
17
Although our research question is focused on the buffering effects of job crafting and
18
19 leisure activity for misfit (along the line of incongruence), our data and analyses also allow for
20
21 an investigation of the moderating effects of these variables along the line of congruence.3 In
22
23 other words, we can examine whether these proactive behaviors might also benefit employees
24
25 with low value congruence (i.e., where individual values and organizational values are both low)
26
27 compared to employees with high value congruence (i.e., where individual values and
28
29 organizational values are both high). The experience of low value congruence may leave core
30
31 needs unsatisfied, compared to high value congruence (Edwards & Shipp, 2007). Similar to the
32
33 experience of misfit as we theorized above, job crafting and leisure activity may buffer the
34
35 performance consequences of low value congruence by supplementing for those unsatisfied
36
37 needs.
38
39 We adapted the procedures listed in the Appendix to investigate the shape of the surface
40
41 along the line of congruence. The adapted equations can be obtained by contacting the authors.
42
43 Referring back to Figure 3, when job crafting was low, the slope of the surface along the line of
44
45 congruence was significant and positive (qslope = .59, 90% CI = [.09, 1.27], and its curvature was
46
47 significant and negative (i.e., concave; qcurvature = -.32, 90% CI = [-.66, -.04]). This suggests that
48
49
when job crafting was low, job engagement increases at a decreasing rate as value congruence
50
51
52
increases from low to high. When job crafting was high, both the slope and curvature of the
53
54
shape of the surface along the line of congruence were not significant (qslope = -.06, 90% CI = [-
55
56
57
3
58 We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
59
60
26
1
2
3
4 .61, .62]; qcurvature = .17, 90% CI = [-.13, .44]), indicating the surface along the line of congruence
5
6 was flat. These effects did not carry through to task performance or citizenship behavior. Thus, it
7
8 can be concluded that job crafting provides a buffer on job engagement for those with low value
9
10 congruence compared to those with high value congruence.
11
12 Referring back to Figure 5, when leisure activity was low, the slope of the surface along
13
14
the line of congruence was significant and positive (qslope = .90, 90% CI = [.37, 1.51], and its
15
16
17
curvature was significant and negative (i.e., concave; qcurvature = -.47, 90% CI = [-.81, -.19]). This
18
19 suggests that when leisure activity was low, job engagement increases at a decreasing rate as
20
21 value congruence increases from low to high. When leisure activity was high, the slope of the
22
23 surface along the line of congruence was not significant (qslope = -.45, 90% CI = [-.95, .36]) and
24
25 its curvature was significant and positive (qcurvature = .33, 90% CI = [.01, .57]), indicating a
26
27 convex surface. Upon examination of the surface, job engagement was greater when value
28
29 congruence is low or high than when it is at the mean level. These effects did not carry through
30
31 to task performance but did to citizenship behavior. Thus, it can be concluded that leisure
32
33 activity provides a buffer on engagement and citizenship behavior for those with low and high
34
35 value congruence compared to those with mean levels of value congruence.
36
37 DISCUSSION
38
39 The current economy has created an environment where misfits are prevalent in the
40
41 workplace. Unfortunately, a plethora of negative consequences are associated with such value
42
43 incongruence for these employees, including lower satisfaction, engagement, and job
44
45 performance (Edwards & Cable, 2009; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Rich et al., 2010). From a
46
47 company’s perspective, however, there may be unique benefits to retaining employees with
48
49
different values and perspectives (Harrison, 2007; Hoever et al., 2012; Schneider, 1987). In order
50
51
52
to realize such benefits, it is critical to understand whether and how misfits might be able to
53
54
mitigate these consequences so they can function more productively in a work environment that
55
56 does not share important personal values (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011). Adopting the view that
57
58 employees can proactively manage their lives (Grant & Ashford, 2008), this manuscript
59
60
27
1
2
3
4 represents a step toward understanding the types of behaviors – such as job crafting and leisure
5
6 activity – that may mitigate the negative consequences associated with value incongruence.
7
8 Theoretical and Practical Implications
9
10 At a global level, this study provides important insights into the work lives of misfits.
11
12 The vast majority of research in the value congruence literature has focused on one end of the fit-
13
14
misfit spectrum – on employees who fit well with their organizations (Kristof-Brown & Guay,
15
16
17
2011). Yet, the negative consequences associated with value incongruence (Kristof-Brown et al.,
18
19 2005) and the prevalence of misfits in organizations today make it necessary that we also
20
21 understand the experiences of misfits. By integrating motivational theorizing about need
22
23 satisfaction to the value congruence literature, we provide rationale for how misfits may
24
25 compensate for value incongruence and answer the call for increased research attention on
26
27 misfits (Judge, 2007; Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011).
28
29 Going a step further, this study offers a host of specific theoretical contributions to the P-
30
31 E fit and value congruence literatures. First, our results provide novel information relevant to the
32
33 dominant paradigm of the value congruence literature – ASA (Schneider, 1987). A key
34
35 assumption of this theory is that misfits are likely to leave their organizations in search of a work
36
37 environment in which they might better fit. Yet, the reported relationship between value
38
39 incongruence and turnover is not overly strong (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), suggesting this
40
41 assumption may be contingent on critical boundary conditions. Indeed, our manuscript shows
42
43 that misfits’ behaviors – specifically their job crafting and leisure activity – can suppress the
44
45 otherwise negative effects of value incongruence on their job engagement and performance. In
46
47 this way, our research highlights the possibility that misfits can be proactive “co-creators” of
48
49
their work environment, where they combat the downsides of their situation and create better
50
51
52
work experiences for themselves. Thus, our study adds nuance to Schneider’s (1987) famous
53
54
proposition, suggesting that some people make their own place.
55
56 In integrating the idea of co-creation, this study emphasizes the importance of individual
57
58 agency in the value congruence equation and calls for a broader perspective in this area of P-E fit
59
60
28
1
2
3
4 research. An important goal of interactionist research is to “determine when and to what extent
5
6 person and situation variables predict behavior” (Chatman, 1989: 333). With respect to
7
8 individual and organizational values, our study suggests that it is also critical to ask for whom?
9
10 Although value incongruence has strong implications for the performance of some employees,
11
12 others appear to have inoculated themselves against its effects through their own initiative.
13
14
Indeed, all employees cannot be conceptualized as “passive agents” (Chatman, 1989: 337), who
15
16
17
simply succumb to the work environment as it currently exists. Yet, values are stable and
18
19 enduring (Rokeach, 1973) and so it is difficult for an employee to make a meaningful impact in
20
21 this regard. This manuscript offers initial guidance on the individual-level factors researchers
22
23 should explore to better understand how value congruence can affect employees.
24
25 This study further contributes to the P-E fit and value congruence literatures by
26
27 incorporating the role of non-work behaviors. Traditionally, these literatures have focused
28
29 narrowly on the role of work factors to explain fit and its effect on outcomes (Edwards & Cable,
30
31 2009; Edwards & Rothbard, 1999; Erdogan, Kraimer, & Liden, 2004). By focusing on how
32
33 employees’ needs can be met through leisure activity, this manuscript infuses a broader
34
35 perspective into the value congruence literature. Ultimately, this inclusion underscores the
36
37 importance of accounting for cross-domain effects on the relationship between value
38
39 (in)congruence and its outcomes.
40
41 From a practical perspective, this manuscript provides important information for
42
43 managers seeking to achieve a healthy balance between strong value congruence for individual
44
45 employees and sufficient diversity in workforce values. Notably, our results call into question
46
47 strong recommendations made in the popular press that hiring managers prioritize values above
48
49
other factors (e.g., Margolis, 2010; Rhoades, 2011). Chatman (1989) speculated that “some
50
51
52
optimal level of person-environment fit may exist… in terms of the proportions of high and low
53
54
‘fitters’ within an organization” (344). That is, although value congruence generates important
55
56 benefits for employees and organizations (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Schneider, 1987), a
57
58 homogenous workforce also presents significant drawbacks, such as increased rigidity, inability
59
60
29
1
2
3
4 to adapt to change, and stagnation (Harrison, 2007; Schneider, 1987). Greater diversity on values
5
6 also yields benefits, such as increased creativity (e.g., Hoever et al., 2012). Thus, understanding
7
8 potential behavioral buffers to value incongruence, such as job crafting and leisure activity, may
9
10 offer managers tools for helping employees manage incongruence on important values, and
11
12 ultimately finding the appropriate equilibrium in terms of high and low fitters. Moreover, an
13
14
individual’s tendency to engage in these behaviors may be an alternative—or, at the very least,
15
16
17
complementary—consideration during the selection process.
18
19 Beyond the contributions to the P-E fit literature, this study also adds to conversations
20
21 about job crafting and non-work behavior. Job crafting is a new and growing literature that
22
23 demonstrates a variety of gains of the behavior, such as positive emotions, satisfaction, and job
24
25 engagement (see Berg et al., 2013; Wrzesniewski et al., 2013). Our manuscript provides
26
27 evidence that job crafting can also help people compensate for significant pitfalls of their jobs –
28
29 in other words, not only can job crafting make a good situation better, but it may also help make
30
31 a bad situation tolerable. In an economy where value incongruence has become more prevalent,
32
33 this use of job crafting may be particularly constructive (Wrzesniewski, Berg, & Dutton, 2010).
34
35 Although organizational research in the realm of non-work is also growing, the vast
36
37 majority of that literature remains focused on the role of the family and work-family interactions
38
39 (Westring & Ryan, 2010). Not surprisingly, work and family often conflict (Greenhaus &
40
41 Beutell, 1985), leading to the conclusion that non-work pursuits detract from engagement and
42
43 productivity at work. Our results – that leisure activity can compensate for a negative work
44
45 experience – add to the growing evidence that work and non-work pursuits can exist in harmony
46
47 (e.g., Greenhaus & Powell, 2006).
48
49
Moreover, the specific pattern of this relationship demonstrated that leisure activity could
50
51
52
go beyond buffering the negative effects of misfit on performance to even improving the
53
54
performance of some misfits. We expected the relationship between misfit and performance to be
55
56 relatively flat when leisure was high – indicating that misfit was no longer detrimental to
57
58 performance. Instead, we saw an unexpected positive effect for employees with a specific form
59
60
30
1
2
3
4 of misfit – where their personal values were deemed less important than the organization’s value
5
6 (see Figures 5 and 6). The fact that even their most important value is, relatively speaking, less
7
8 important may indicate that work is simply less central to these individuals. It is possible,
9
10 instead, that the non-work domain is more central to these individuals – thus they are more
11
12 strongly motivated by leisure activity. From a work/non-work perspective, this finding lends
13
14
credence to the idea of enhancement effects between the two life domains (e.g., Greenhaus &
15
16
17
Powell, 2006; Hakanen, Peeters, & Perhoniemi, 2011).
18
19 These findings elevate the importance of understanding and incorporating leisure activity
20
21 into organizational studies. Moreover, our focus on leisure pursuits also expands the non-work
22
23 discussion beyond the traditional focus on family (Westring & Ryan, 2010). As newer
24
25 generations begin to join the workforce and bring with it their desire for life outside of work and
26
27 purpose in their activities (Twenge et al., 2010), research on non-work pursuits, and leisure in
28
29 particular, will be increasingly useful for organizations. Future research may benefit not only
30
31 from a continued focus on the role of leisure, but also from examining the role of specific forms
32
33 of leisure (e.g., exercise, entertainment, community involvement).
34
35 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
36
37 The nature by which we assessed fit – which involves participant ratings of both
38
39 individual and organizational values – introduces a potential for bias in reporting. In particular, it
40
41 is not clear whether participants are the best source for rating organizational values. It is possible
42
43 that this approach does not truly capture “objective fit.” However, we followed the
44
45 recommended method for assessing value congruence, which is purported to be superior to the
46
47 alternative method of collecting direct reports of perceived fit (Cable & Edwards, 2004; Edwards
48
49
& Cable, 2009; Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp, 2006).
50
51
52
Further, we tested hypotheses based on the value ranked as most important from the
53
54
employee’s perspective. This is a unique approach, as prior work has examined congruence on
55
56 each of eight values separately (e.g., Cable & Edwards, 2004). We pursued this direction because
57
58 our focus was on mitigating the consequences of value incongruence, regardless of the specific
59
60
31
1
2
3
4 value at its root. Research on values suggests that people prioritize values differently and their
5
6 actions are more influenced by more strongly held values (Edwards, 1992, 1996; Rokeach,
7
8 1973). An alternative route, however, would be to select the value ranked most important to the
9
10 company. Future research may want to examine the experience of misfit based on that particular
11
12 value. This approach may allow scholars to examine new research questions, such as whether
13
14
employees are labeled by others as misfits and the potential consequences of such an experience.
15
16
17
An assumption inherent in our theorizing is that value congruence, job crafting, and
18
19 leisure activities fulfill employee fundamental needs. Although prior theorizing and evidence
20
21 suggests that these experiences are capable of providing for many basic needs, such as meaning,
22
23 belonging, and competence (Berg et al., 2010; Clary et al., 1998; Geroy et al., 2000; Greguras &
24
25 Diefendorff, 2009), we do not directly test the role of need satisfaction in this study. In future
26
27 research, scholars may want to explore the precise needs at the heart of these relationships,
28
29 particularly the possibility that different employee actions – such as job crafting and leisure
30
31 activity – function by satisfying different fundamental needs.
32
33 Conclusion
34
35 Recently, a variety of forces have contributed to larger numbers of misfits existing in
36
37 organizations. Thus, it is important for researchers, employees, and managers to better
38
39 understand how misfits can mitigate the negative and unfortunate consequences associated with
40
41 value incongruence. This study offered one of the first examinations of proactive behavior that
42
43 helps provide a buffer against the motivational and performance detriments of value
44
45 incongruence. The results show that both crafting one’s job to improve the experience of work
46
47 and involvement in leisure activity can help misfits stay engaged and productive at work.
48
49
Managers may help employees remain productive in their jobs by providing opportunities for
50
51
52
employees to craft their jobs in meaningful ways and suggesting greater involvement in fulfilling
53
54
activities outside of working hours – particularly for misfits, whose needs are not fully satisfied
55
56 due to incongruence with organizational values.
57
58
59
60
32
1
2
3
4 APPENDIX
5
6 This integrated approach first involves the estimation of the mediator, job engagement,
7
8 on the moderated effects of value incongruence. The effects of value incongruence on job
9
10 engagement are represented by the equation:
11
12 M = a0 + a1I + a2O + a3I2 + a4IO +a5O2 + e, (1)
13
14
where M represents job engagement, I represents individual values, and O represents
15
16
17
organizational values. The I2, IO, and O2 terms are included because estimating (in)congruence
18
19 effects often requires nonlinear and interactive terms (e.g., Cable & Edwards, 2004; Edwards &
20
21 Parry, 1993).
22
23 Before evaluating the interactive effects, the direct effects of the moderator must be
24
25 controlled for:
26
27 M = a0 + a1I + a2O + a3I2 + a4IO +a5O2 + a6Z + e, (2)
28
29 where Z represents the moderator, job crafting or leisure involvement.
30
31 Finally, the five terms representing the interactive effects of value incongruence and the
32
33 moderator are added to the equation:
34
35 M = a0 + a1I + a2O + a3I2 + a4IO +a5O2 + a6Z + a7IZ + a8OZ
36
37 + a9I2Z + a10IOZ + a11O2Z + e, (3)
38
39 where IZ, OZ, I2Z, IOZ, and O2Z terms collectively represent the interactive effects of value
40
41 incongruence and the moderator.
42
43 The interactive effects of the moderators are tested by examining the incremental
44
45 explained variance of Equation 3 compared to Equation 2, as indicated by the F-statistic. If the
46
47 incremental explained variance is significant, the coefficients may be used further for hypothesis
48
49
testing (cf. Edwards, 1996).
50
51
52
Since the hypotheses involve the moderated effects of value incongruence, we are
53
54
primarily concerned with the shape of the surface along the line of incongruence (O = –I), where
55
56 important individual values diverge from organizational values. The shape of the surface can be
57
58
59
60
33
1
2
3
4 described in terms of its slope and curvature. Following recommendations by Edwards and Parry
5
6 (1993), these can be computed by substituting –I for O in Equation 3:
7
8 M = a0 + a1I – a2I + a3I2 – a4I2 + a5I2 + a6Z + a7IZ – a8IZ + a9I2Z – a10I2Z + a11I2Z + e. (4)
9
10 After re-arranging and collecting like terms, the equation becomes:
11
12 M = a0 + [a1 – a2 + (a7 – a8)Z]I + a6Z + [a3 – a4 + a5 + (a9 – a10 + a11)Z]I2 + e. (5)
13
14
The slope of the surface along the line of incongruence is represented by the quantity
15
16
17
[qslope = a1 – a2 + (a7 – a8)Z]. Positive values for qslope indicate a slope that increases along the line
18
19 of incongruence, from the point where individual values are low and organizational values are
20
21 high to the point where individual values are high and organizational values are low. Negative
22
23 values for qslope indicate a slope that decreases along the line of incongruence. Non-significant
24
25 qslope values indicate a non-increasing and non-decreasing slope. The curvature of the surface is
26
27 represented by the quantity [qcurvature = a3 – a4 + a5 + (a9 – a10 + a11)Z] (e.g., Edwards, 1996).
28
29 Positive values for qcurvature indicate the surface is convex (i.e., curved upward) along the line of
30
31 incongruence. Negative values for qcurvature indicate the surface is concave (i.e., curved
32
33 downward) along the line of incongruence. Non-significant qcurvature values indicate a surface that
34
35 is not curved. The slope and curvature of the surface can be evaluated at high and low levels of
36
37 the moderator by substituting values one standard deviation above and below the mean of the
38
39 moderator, Z (Cohen et al., 2003). Using response surface methodology, the coefficients can be
40
41 plotted to visually examine the form of the relationship (Edwards & Parry, 1993).
42
43 Evaluating the moderated indirect effect of value incongruence on the dependent
44
45 variables, task performance and citizenship behavior, first involves estimating the direct effect of
46
47 job engagement while controlling for the moderated-indirect effect of value incongruence on the
48
49
dependent variables (Y):
50
51
52
Y = b0 + b1I + b2O + b3I2 + b4IO + b5O2 + b6Z + b7IZ + b8OZ
53
54
+ b9I2Z + b10IOZ + b11O2Z + b12M + e (6)
55
56 By substituting Equation 3 for M in Equation 6 and then re-arranging and collecting like
57
58 terms, the equation predicting the dependent variable becomes:
59
60
34
1
2
3
4 Y = b0 + a0b12 + (b6 + a6b12)Z + [(b1 + a1b12) + (b7 + a7b12)Z]I + [b2 + a2b12)
5
6 + (b8 + a8b12)Z]O + [(b3 + a3b12) + (b9 + a9b12)]I2
7
8 + [(b4 + a4b12) + (b10 + a10b12)Z]IO + [(b5 + a5b12) + (b11 + a11b12)Z]O2 + e (7)
9
10 To examine the curvature of the surface along the line of incongruence for the indirect
11
12 effect, –I is substituted for O in Equation 7. After re-arranging the equation and collecting like
13
14
terms, Equation 8 is:
15
16
17
Y = b0 + a0b12 + (b6 + a6b12)Z + [[b1 – b2 + (b7 – b8)Z + [(a1 – a2) + (a7 – a8)Z](b12)]I
18
19 + [(b3 – b4 + b5) + (b9 – b10 + b11)Z + [[a3 – a4 + a5 + (a9 – a10 + a11)Z](b12)]]I2 + e (8)
20
21 The slope of the curvature of the surface along the line of incongruence includes the term
22
23 representing the direct effect of value incongruence on the dependent variable (b1 – b2), the term
24
25 representing the direct effect of the moderator (b7 – b8), and the product term representing the
26
27 moderated indirect effect of value incongruence [(a1 – a2) + (a7 – a8)Z][b12]. The curvature of the
28
29 surface along the line of incongruence includes the term representing the direct effect of job
30
31 engagement (b3 – b4 + b5), the term representing the direct effect of the moderator [(b9 – b10 +
32
33 b11)Z], and the product term representing the moderated indirect effect of value incongruence [a3
34
35 – a4 + a5 + (a9 – a10 + a11)Z][b12]. By substituting values one standard deviation above and below
36
37 the mean of the moderator, Z, into the product term, the indirect effect of value incongruence can
38
39 be computed, tested for significance, and plotted using response surface methodology.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
35
1
2
3
4 REFERENCES
5
6 Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. 1993. The proactive component of organizational component: A
7
8 measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 103-118.
9
10 Baumeister, R. F. 2012. Need-to-belong theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E.
11
12 T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology, vol. 2: 121-140. Thousand
13
14
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
15
16
17
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. 1995. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
18
19 attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497-529.
20
21 Baumeister, R.F., & Vohs, K. D. 2005. The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. In C. R. Snyder, &
22
23 J. S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology, vol. 18: 608-618. Oxford
24
25 University Press.
26
27 Becker, T. E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational
28
29 research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research
30
31 Methods, 8: 274-289.
32
33 Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. 2013. Job crafting and meaningful work. In B. J.
34
35 Dik, Z. S. Byrne, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Purpose and meaning in the workplace: 81-
36
37 104. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
38
39 Berg, J. M., Grant, A. M., & Johnson, V. 2010. When callings are calling: Crafting work and
40
41 leisure in pursuit of unanswered occupational callings. Organization Science, 21: 973-
42
43 994.
44
45 Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
46
47 contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.,) Personnel selection in
48
49
organizations: 71-98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
50
51
52
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014. Job openings and labor turnover.
53
54
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2014.
55
56
57
58
59
60
36
1
2
3
4 Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. 1987. Work and family. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.),
5
6 International review of industrial and organizational psychology: 273-320. New York:
7
8 Wiley.
9
10 Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. 2004. Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and
11
12 empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 822-834.
13
14
Carlson, K. D., & Wu, J. 2012. The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in
15
16
17
management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15: 413-435.
18
19 Chatman, J. A. 1989. Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-
20
21 organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14: 333-349.
22
23 Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. 2011. Work engagement: A quantitative review
24
25 and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64:
26
27 89-136.
28
29 Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P.
30
31 1998. Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach.
32
33 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 1516-1530.
34
35 Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation
36
37 analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38
39 Colquitt, J. A., Baer, M. D., Long, D. M., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. K. 2014. Scale
40
41 indicators of social exchange relationships: A comparison of relative content validity.
42
43 Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 599-618.
44
45 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
46
47 behavior. New York: Plenum.
48
49
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 2000. The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
50
51
52
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11: 227-268.
53
54
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. 1998. Common method bias: Does common method variance really
55
56 bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1: 374-406.
57
58
59
60
37
1
2
3
4 Edwards, J. R. 1992. A cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being in organizations.
5
6 Academy of Management Review, 17: 238-274.
7
8 Edwards, J. R. 1996. An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit
9
10 approach to stress. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 292-339.
11
12 Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. 2009. The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied
13
14
Psychology, 94: 654-677.
15
16
17
Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. 2006. The
18
19 phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience
20
21 of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 802-827.
22
23 Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. 2007. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A
24
25 general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12:
26
27 1-22.
28
29 Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. 1993. On the use of polynomial regression as an alternative to
30
31 difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36:
32
33 1577-1613.
34
35 Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 1999. Work and family stress and well-being: An examination
36
37 of person-environment fit in the work and family domains. Organizational Behavior and
38
39 Human Decision Processes, 77: 85-129.
40
41 Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 2000. Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the
42
43 relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25:
44
45 178-199.
46
47 Edwards, J. R., & Shipp, A. J. 2007. The relationship between person-environment fit and
48
49
outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.),
50
51
52
Perspectives on organizational fit: 209-258. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
53
54
Erdogan, B., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. 2004. Work value congruence and intrinsic career
55
56 success: The compensatory roles of leader-member exchange and perceived
57
58 organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 57: 305-332.
59
60
38
1
2
3
4 Geroy, G. D., Wright, P. C., & Jacoby, L. 2000. Toward a conceptual framework of employee
5
6 volunteerism: An aid for the human resource manager. Management Decision, 38: 280-
7
8 286.
9
10 Gowen, M. A., Riordan, C. M., & Gatewood, R. D. 1999. Test of a model of coping with
11
12 involuntary job loss following a company closing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84:
13
14
75-86.
15
16
17
Graen, G. B., Novak, M., & Sommerkamp, P. 1982. The effects of leader-member exchange and
18
19 job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model.
20
21 Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30: 109-131.
22
23 Grant, A. M. 2012. Giving time, time after time: Work design and sustained employee
24
25 participation in corporate volunteering. Academy of Management Review, 37: 589-615.
26
27 Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. 2008. The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in
28
29 Organizational Behavior, 28: 3-34.
30
31 Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. 1985. Sources of conflict between work and family roles.
32
33 Academy of Management Review, 10: 76-88.
34
35 Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. 2006. When work and family are allies: A theory of work-
36
37 family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31: 72-92.
38
39 Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. 2009. Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-
40
41 environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination
42
43 theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 465-477.
44
45 Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
46
47 Hakanen, J. J., Peeters, M. C. W., & Perhoniemi, R. 2011. Enrichment processes and gain spirals
48
49
at work and at home: A 3-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of Occupational and
50
51
52
Organizational Psychology, 84: 8-30.
53
54
Harding, R., & Mackenzie, M. 2014. US jobs data puncture recovery hopes. Financial Times.
55
56 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e9a9f980-79fc-11e3-a3e6-00144feabdc0.html. Posted January
57
58 10, 2014.
59
60
39
1
2
3
4 Harrison, D. A. 2007. Pitching fits in applied psychological research: Making fit methods fit
5
6 theory. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit: 389-416.
7
8 New York: Erlbaum.
9
10 Hecht, T. D., & Boies, K. 2009. Structure and correlates of spillover from nonwork to work: An
11
12 examination of nonwork activities, well-being, and work outcomes. Journal of
13
14
Occupational Health Psychology, 14: 414-426.
15
16
17
Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. 2006. The meaning maintenance model: On the
18
19 coherence of social motivations. Personal and Social Psychology Review, 10: 88-110.
20
21 Hills, P., & Argyle, M. 1998. Positive moods derived from leisure and their relationship to
22
23 happiness and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 25: 523-535.
24
25 Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. 1999. An analysis of variance approach to content validation.
26
27 Organizational Research Methods, 2: 175-186.
28
29 Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. 2012. Fostering team
30
31 creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential. Journal of
32
33 Applied Psychology, 97: 982-996.
34
35 Judge, T. A. 2007. The future of person-organization fit research: Comments, observations, and a
36
37 few suggestions. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit:
38
39 417-445. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40
41 Judge, T. A., Simon, L. S., Hurst, C., & Kelley, K. 2013. What I experienced yesterday is who I
42
43 am today: Relationship of work motivations and behaviors to within-individual variation
44
45 in the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 199-221.
46
47 Kahn, W. A. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
48
49
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 692-724.
50
51
52
Kahn, W. A. 1992. To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45:
53
54
321-349.
55
56 Kristof, A. L. 1996. Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,
57
58 measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49: 1-49.
59
60
40
1
2
3
4 Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Guay, R. P. 2011. Person-environment fit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA
5
6 handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 3: 3-50. Washington, DC:
7
8 American Psychological Association.
9
10 Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. 2005. Consequences of individuals’
11
12 fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and
13
14
person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58: 281-342.
15
16
17
Latack, J. C., & Havlovic, S. J. 1992. Coping with job stress: A conceptual evaluation
18
19 framework for coping measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 479-508.
20
21 Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. 2007. Taking a multifoci approach to the study of
22
23 justice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: The target similarity model. Journal
24
25 of Management, 33: 841-866.
26
27 Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. 2009. Work process and quality of care in early
28
29 childhood education: The role of job crafting. Academy of Management Journal, 52:
30
31 1169-1192.
32
33 Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. 2002. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The
34
35 role of affect and cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 131-142.
36
37 Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social sciences. New York: Harper & Row.
38
39 Light, J. 2010. More workers start to quit. Wall Street Journal.
40
41 http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704113504575264432377146698.
42
43 Posted May 26, 2010.
44
45 Locke, E. A. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
46
47 Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 1297-1350. Chicago: Rand
48
49
McNally.
50
51
52
Margolis, S. L. 2010. Building a culture of distinction. Atlanta, GA: Workplace Culture
53
54
Institute.
55
56 Marsh, H. W., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, A., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. J. S., &
57
58 Trautwein, U. 2009. Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA:
59
60
41
1
2
3
4 Application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation
5
6 Modeling, 16: 439-476.
7
8 Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. 1998. Individual values in organizations: Concepts,
9
10 controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24: 351-389.
11
12 Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. 1989. A work values approach to corporate
13
14
culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual
15
16
17
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 424-432.
18
19 Moore, B. 2010. The worst generation? Accessed on February 1, 2015 at
20
21 http://nypost.com/2010/05/10/the-worst-generation/
22
23 O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. 1991. People and organizational culture: A
24
25 profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of
26
27 Management Journal, 34: 487-516.
28
29 Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
30
31 Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
32
33 Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. 2010. Making things happen: A model of proactive
34
35 motivation. Journal of Management, 36: 827-856.
36
37 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method bias in
38
39 behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
40
41 Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.
42
43 Rhoades, A. 2011. Built on values: Creating an enviable culture that outperforms the
44
45 competition. New York: Wiley.
46
47 Rich, L. R., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. 2010. Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on
48
49
job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 617-635.
50
51
52
Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. 2009. Can “good” stressors spark “bad” behaviors? The mediating
53
54
role of emotions in links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and
55
56 counterproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1438-1451.
57
58 Rokeach, M. 1973. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
59
60
42
1
2
3
4 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
5
6 motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55: 68-78.
7
8 Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. 2003. Test manual for the Utrecht Work Engagement scale.
9
10 Unpublished manuscript. Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
11
12 Schein, E. H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13
14
Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-453.
15
16
17
Schwartz, S. H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and
18
19 empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 1-65.
20
21 Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, M. 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New
22
23 procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7: 422-445.
24
25 Sonnentag, S. 2003. Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the
26
27 interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 518-528.
28
29 Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E. J., Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. 2012. Reciprocal relations between
30
31 recovery and work engagement: The moderating role of job stressors. Journal of Applied
32
33 Psychology, 97: 842-853.
34
35 Sthapit, A. 2010. Employee misfits: An emerging issue in HR acquisition. Touch Stone, 5: 68-70.
36
37 Tinsley, H. E., & Eldredge, B. D. 1995. Psychological benefits of leisure participation: A
38
39 taxonomy of leisure activities based on their need-gratifying properties. Journal of
40
41 Counseling Psychology, 42: 123-132.
42
43 Tinsley, H. E., Hinson, J. A., Tinsley, D. J., & Holt, M. S. 1993. Attributes of leisure and work
44
45 experiences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40: 447-455.
46
47 Trenberth, L., & Dewe, P. 2005. An exploration of the role of leisure in coping with work related
48
49
stress using sequential tree analysis. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 33:
50
51
52
101-116.
53
54
Trougakos, J. P., Beal, D. J., Green, S. G., & Weiss, H. M. 2008. Making the break count: An
55
56 episodic examination of recovery activities, emotional experiences, and positive affect
57
58 displays. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 131-146.
59
60
43
1
2
3
4 Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. 2010. Generational differences
5
6 in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values
7
8 decreasing. Journal of Management, 36: 1117-1142.
9
10 Westring, A. F., & Ryan, A. M. 2010. Personality and inter-role conflict and enrichment:
11
12 Investigating the mediating role of support. Human Relations, 63: 1815-1834.
13
14
Williams, K. D. 1997. Social ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive interpersonal
15
16
17
behaviors: 133-170. New York: Plenum Press.
18
19 Wrzesniewski, A., Berg, J. M., & Dutton, J. E. 2010. Turn the job you have into the job you
20
21 want. Harvard Business Review, 88: 114-117.
22
23 Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. 2001. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters
24
25 of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26: 179-201.
26
27 Wrzesniewski, A., LoBuglio, N., Dutton, J. E., & Berg, J. M. 2013. Job crafting and cultivating
28
29 positive meaning and identity in work. In A. B. Bakker (Ed.), Advances in positive
30
31 organizational psychology, vol. 1: 281-302. London: Emerald.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
44
1
2
3
TABLE 1
4
5
6 Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations among the Study Variables a
7
8
9 Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10
1. Individual’s values 4.37 0.71 --
11
12 2. Organization’s values 3.48 1.07 .16* --
13
14 3. Job crafting 3.60 0.76 .22* .34* --
15
16 4. Leisure activity 3.89 0.72 .23* .26* .40* --
17
18 5. Job engagement 3.50 0.78 .10 .39* .40* .42* --
19
20 6. Task performance 4.33 0.63 .32* .09 .24* .29* .32* --
21
22 7. Citizenship behavior 4.05 0.70 .27* .30* .30* .28* .48* .69* --
23 a
n = 193. * p < .05. Coefficient alpha reliabilities are reported on the main diagonal in parentheses.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
45
1
2
3
TABLE 2
4
5
6 Path Analytic Results from the Estimated Model including Job Crafting a
7
8 Job Task Citizenship
9
10
Engagement Performance Behavior
11 Step 1 Step 2
12 Variables b s.e. b s.e. b s.e. b s.e.
13
14 Individual’s values (I) .14 .25 .22 .33 .40 .30 .14 .28
15
16 Organization’s values (O) .01 .13 .04 .16 -.19 .14 .01 .17
17 I2 -.08 .11 -.11 .14 -.09 .12 .02 .12
18 IxO .14* .08 .09 .10 .05 .08 .02 .10
19 O2 -.04 .04 -.05 .05 .11* .03 .07* .04
20 Job crafting (JC) .31* .08 .26 .20 -.02 .20 .05 .16
21
22
I x JC -.26 .35 .09 .35 .32 .29
23 O x JC -.17 .23 -.08 .21 -.30 .23
24 I2 x JC .06 .17 -.03 .15 -.14 .14
25 IxO x JC .07 .13 -.01 .11 .16 .13
26 O2 x JC .19* .07 .03 .04 -.06 .06
27
28 Job Engagement .24* .07 .39* .06
29
30 F-statistic 3.44* 14.87* 34.30*
31
32 ∆ R2 .07* .06* .13*
33 R2 .25* .31* .25* .32*
34
a
35 n = 193. Standard errors produced from 1,000 bootstrapped estimates. F-statistic and ∆ R2
36
37
for task performance and citizenship behavior are based on the change in variance explained
38 compared to the model excluding job engagement.
39 * p < .05, one-tailed.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
46
1
2
3
TABLE 3
4
5
6 Tests of Response Surfaces Along Line of Incongruence at High and Low Levels of Job Crafting
7
8
9 Slope of Surface Curvature of Surface
10 Dependent Level of Job
11 qslope 90% CI qcurvature 90% CI
Variable Crafting
12
13
14
15 Job Low .25 [-.30, .74] -.39* [-.70, -.12]
16 Engagement High .10 [-1.06, 1.13] -.12 [-.67, .47]
17
18 Task Low .06 [-.06, .20] -.10* [-.21, -.03]
19 Performance High .03 [-.25, .28] -.03 [-.18, .11]
20
21
22 Citizenship Low .10 [-.11, .29] -.15* [-.30, -.05]
23 Behavior High .04 [-.41, .43] -.05 [-.27, .17]
24
25 a
26
n = 193. 90% bias-corrected confidence intervals produced from 1,000
27 bootstrapped estimates.
28 qslope represents the slope of the surface along the line of incongruence (where
29 individual values and organizational values differ); qcurvature represents the
30 curvature of the surface along the line of incongruence. Values for task
31
performance and citizenship behavior represent the slope and curvature of the
32
33 indirect effect of value incongruence (via job engagement).
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
47
1
2
3
TABLE 4
4
5
6 Path Analytic Results from the Estimated Model including Leisure Activity a
7
8 Job Task Citizenship
9 Engagement Performance Behavior
10
11 Step 1 Step 2
12 Variables b s.e. b s.e. b s.e. b s.e.
13
14 Individual’s values (I) .03 .27 -.03 .30 .19 .26 -.04 .22
15
Organization’s values (O) .12 .15 .26 .16 -.10 .12 .08 .14
16
17 I2 -.03 .12 -.00 .13 -.02 .11 .10 .10
18 IxO .07 .08 -.03 .10 .01 .07 -.03 .09
19 O2 -.03 .04 -.04 .05 .09* .03 .06 .04
20 Leisure Activity (LA) .36* .08 .48* .17 .31 .20 .10 .18
21 I x LA -.89* .35 -.40 .32 -.26 .33
22
23
O x LA -.05 .22 .06 .20 -.10 .25
24 I2 x LA .40* .16 .15 .14 .14 .16
25 IxO x LA .06 .12 -.01 .11 .05 .14
26 O2 x LA .09 .06 -.02 .03 -.03 .04
27
28 Job Engagement .21* .07 .36* .06
29
30 F-statistic 2.39* 11.02* 28.78*
31 .05* .05* .11*
∆ R2
32
33 R2 .27* .31* .27* .31*
34
a
35 n = 193. Standard errors produced from 1,000 bootstrapped estimates. F-statistic and ∆ R2
36 for task performance and citizenship behavior are based on the change in variance explained
37
38
compared to the model excluding job engagement.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
48
1
2
3
TABLE 5
4
5
6 Tests of Response Surfaces Along Line of Incongruence at High and Low Levels of Leisure Activity
7
8
9 Slope of Surface Curvature of Surface
10 Level of
11 qslope 90% CI qcurvature 90% CI
Dependent Leisure
12
13 Variable Activity
14
15
16 Job Low .31 [-.20, .86] -.32* [-.62, -.07]
17 Engagement High -.90* [-2.09, -.00] .30 [-.17, .87]
18
19 Task Low .07 [-.02, .23] -.07* [-.16, -.01]
20
21
Performance High -.19* [-.55, -.01] .06 [-.03, .22]
22
23 Citizenship Low .11 [-.06, .34] -.11* [-.24, -.02]
24 Behavior High -.32* [-.82, -.01] .11 [-.06, .35]
25
26 a
27 n = 193. 90% bias-corrected confidence intervals produced from 1,000
28 bootstrapped estimates.
29 qslope represents the slope of the surface along the line of incongruence (where
30 individual values and organizational values differ); qcurvature represents the
31
curvature of the surface along the line of incongruence. Values for task
32
33 performance and citizenship behavior represent the slope and curvature of the
34 indirect effect of value incongruence (via job engagement).
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
1
2
3
FIGURE 1
4
5
6 Theoretical Model
7
8
9
10
11 Leisure
12
Activity
13
14
15 Task
16 Performance
17
18
19
20 Value Job
21 Incongruence Engagement
22
23
24
Citizenship
25
26 Behavior
27
28
29 Job
30 Crafting
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
50
1
2
3
FIGURE 2
4
5
6 Hypothesized Surface Plots a
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 Low Crafting/Leisure High Crafting/Leisure
33
34
35
a
36 I = Individual’s Values; O = Organization’s Values; The line of incongruence is depicted with the dotted line along the floor of
37 the graph
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
51
1
2
3
FIGURE 3
4
5
6 Relationship Between Value Incongruence and Job Engagement at High and Low Levels of Job Crafting a
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 3a. Low Job Crafting 3b. High Job Crafting
35
36
37
38 a
39
I = Individual’s Values; O = Organization’s Values; JE = Job Engagement; The line of incongruence is depicted with the dotted line
40 along the floor of the graph
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
52
1
2
3
FIGURE 4
4
5
6 Indirect Effect of Value Incongruence on (a) Task Performance and (b) Citizenship
7 Behavior (via Job Engagement) at High and Low Levels of Job Crafting a
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 4a.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
4b.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52 a
53
I = Individual’s Values; O = Organization’s Values; TP = Task Performance; OCB =
54 Citizenship Behavior; The line of incongruence is depicted with the dotted line along the floor of
55 the graph
56
57
58
59
60
53
1
2
3
FIGURE 5
4
5
6 Relationship Between Value Incongruence and Job Engagement at High and Low Levels of Leisure Activity a
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 5b. High Leisure Activity
35 5a. Low Leisure Activity
36
37
38
a
39 I = Individual’s Values; O = Organization’s Values; JE = Job Engagement; The line of incongruence is depicted with the dotted line
40 along the floor of the graph
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
54
1
2
3
4
FIGURE 6
5
6 Indirect Effect of Value Incongruence on (a) Task Performance and (b) Citizenship
7 Behavior (via Job Engagement) at High and Low Levels of Leisure Activity a
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 6a.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36 6b.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51 a
52
I = Individual’s Values; O = Organization’s Values; TP = Task Performance; OCB =
53 Citizenship Behavior; The line of incongruence is depicted with the dotted line along the floor of
54 the graph.
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
1
2
3
Biographical Sketch
4
5
6 Ryan M. Vogel is an assistant professor in the Department of Management at the Black School
7 of Business at Pennsylvania State University-Eerie. He received his Ph.D. from the University of
8 Georgia’s Terry College of Business. His research interests include employee fit/misfit, value
9 congruence, and abusive supervision.
10
11
12 Jessica B. Rodell is an associate professor in the Department of Management at the University of
13 Georgia’s Terry College of Business. She received her Ph.D. and MBA from the University of
14 Florida’s Warrington College of Business. Her research interests include employee volunteering,
15 justice, and emotions.
16
17
18 John W. Lynch is a PhD candidate in the Department of Management at the University of
19 Georgia’s Terry College of Business. His research interests include employee volunteering,
20 engagement, and identity management in the workplace.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Paper Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paper Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Academy of Management Journal

Engaged and productive misfits: How job crafting and

Journal: Academy of Management Journal

Manuscript ID: AMJ-2014-0850.R3

Manuscript Type: Revision

Person-organization/person-environment fit < Organizational Behavior <

The work life of misfits – employees whose important values are

You might also like