The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1746-5265.htm

The relationship of job Job crafting: a

mediator for
characteristics with in-role work
performance
and extra-role performance:
the mediating effect of job crafting
Loredana Mihalca Received 15 May 2023
Revised 30 September 2023
Department of Economics and Business Administration in German, 3 December 2023
Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania Accepted 8 December 2023

Lucia Ratiu
Department of Psychology, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Christoph Helm
Linz School of Education, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria, and
Gabriela Brendea and Daniel Metz
Department of Economics and Business Administration in German,
Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Abstract
Purpose – Drawing upon the job demands-resources model, the purpose of this study is to investigate the
differential relevance of contextual antecedents for job crafting dimensions (i.e. increasing structural and social
job resources) and consequently for various aspects of work performance (in-role and extra-role performance).
Despite considerable research on the role of job autonomy and social support in predicting job crafting, little
attention has been paid to how problem-solving, a knowledge job characteristic, relates to job crafting
dimensions.
Design/methodology/approach – Survey data were collected from 282 employees belonging to different
information technology companies in Romania. Structural equation modeling was used to examine the hypothesized
relations.
Findings – Problem-solving was positively related to both job crafting dimensions, whereas social support
was positively related only to increasing social job resources. Unexpectedly, job autonomy predicted
increasing structural resources only when social support was high, as the post-hoc analysis indicated.
Furthermore, increasing structural job resources fully mediated the relationship of problem-solving with in-
role performance and different types of extra-role behaviors, whereas increasing social resources did not act
as a mediator.
Originality/value – The current study is the first to show that problem-solving is an important predictor for
job crafting. Furthermore, this study contributes to the literature by revealing that crafting structural resources
represents an important mechanism that explains the positive relationship between work design (i.e. problem-
solving) and different performance facets.
Keywords Job crafting, Job characteristics, Problem-solving, Social support, In-role performance,
Extra-role performance
Paper type Research paper

This research was supported by UBB-NTT DATA advanced fellowship implemented through the Institute
for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology of the Babeș-Bolyai University (STAR-UBB Institute),
Romania.
The authors thank Thomas Jack for proofreading this article, and for his suggestions and comments on a
previous version of the article. Special thanks to Christoph Mengelkamp for his useful comments on the Baltic Journal of Management
results section, and to Manfred Schmitt for his clarifications on the use of post hoc tests for common method © Emerald Publishing Limited
1746-5265
variance. DOI 10.1108/BJM-05-2023-0191
BJM 1. Introduction
Rapid changes in the workplace due to emerging technologies and growing competing
demands have brought a paradigm shift in job (re)design from a traditional top-down, “one-
size-fits-all” approach towards a bottom-up, individualized approach (Parker and Grote,
2020). Traditional job (re)design approaches such as job characteristics theory (Morgeson and
Humphrey, 2006) propose that jobs should be designed to motivate employees, which
eventually increases their work engagement, well-being and performance. Alternatively,
bottom-up approaches consider employees as proactive agents who adjust the jobs to their
own characteristics (i.e. proactive behaviors such as job crafting; Tims and Bakker, 2010;
Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). Using the job demands-resources (JD-R) model, Tims et al.
(2012) conceptualized job crafting as the changes employees make to achieve a better fit
between job characteristics (i.e. job resources and demands) and their individual abilities and
needs. Specifically, employees may increase structural job resources (e.g. enhance autonomy)
or social job resources (e.g. seek support from colleagues), as well as challenging job demands
(e.g. seek more responsibilities), or decrease hindering job demands (e.g. reduce workload;
Tims and Bakker, 2010).
Job crafting is especially important for information technology (IT) employees, who are
under the constant pressure of keeping up with changing technologies (“continuous
learning”; Zaza et al., 2022) and dealing with increased problem-solving demands (Shih et al.,
2011). By proactively modifying job aspects (e.g. increasing social resources), IT employees
can deal effectively with the extensive job demands, and thus prevent negative consequences
such as the exhaustion and high turnover rates common in IT industry (Shih et al., 2011). High
turnover rates are also observed among IT employees in Romania (25% in 2022; Romania-
insider.com, 2023), wherein IT industry is one of the fastest-growing sectors with an annual
growth rate of approximately 14% (Employers’ Association of the Software and Service
Industry, 2021). The IT industry’s contribution to country’s gross domestic product (GDP)
has increased over the last years from 5.5% in 2017 to almost 7.5% in 2022 (National Institute
of Statistics, 2023). Given that the accumulation of job resources through job crafting may
help IT professionals to cope effectively with stressful job demands (Zaza et al., 2022), it is
important to understand how proactive changes in certain resources inherent in the IT work
(e.g. job autonomy) relate to performance.
Many studies have shown that increasing resources and challenging demands dimensions
of job crafting (i.e. approach- or promotion-focused job crafting; Zhang and Parker, 2019)
facilitate work engagement, job satisfaction and performance (Bakker et al., 2012; Tims et al.,
2013; for meta-analyses, see Lichtenthaler and Fischbach, 2019; Rudolph et al., 2017).
However, the evidence for the relationship between increasing structural and social resources
or challenging demands and work performance is inconclusive. Whereas some studies have
found that these job crafting dimensions are positively related to performance (e.g. Tims et al.,
2012), other studies have revealed positive relationships with performance only for increasing
structural resources (Tims et al., 2013; see Lee and Lee, 2018; Wang et al., 2016, for reviews).
Moreover, some studies have found only an indirect relationship between these job crafting
dimensions and performance via work engagement (Bakker et al., 2012; Tims et al., 2015). One
possible explanation for these inconsistencies is that job crafting dimensions have distinct
functions and thus they affect performance differently (Petrou et al., 2019). Whereas crafting
the level of structural and social resources enlarges the amount of resources on which
employees can count (Tims et al., 2013), crafting challenging demands provides employees
with opportunities to tap their abilities (Miraglia et al., 2017). In this study, we focus only on
the resource dimensions of job crafting and argue that they represent two different ways
through which employees may foster work performance: by relying on their own abilities to
create new job elements and facilitate growth (increasing structural resources) or by
increasing their support network (increasing social resources; Petrou et al., 2019).
 Only a few studies investigating the relationship between job crafting and performance Job crafting: a
(Gordon et al., 2015; Tims et al., 2015) have focused on both the accomplishment of job- mediator for
prescribed duties (in-role performance) and extra-role performance (organizational
citizenship behaviors). Organizational citizenship behaviors are behaviors not formally
work
included in the job description (e.g. helping others), but essential for organizational performance
effectiveness, as they affect productivity and performance quality (see Podsakoff et al., 2009,
for a meta-analysis). The value of these extra-role behaviors is growing in today’s highly
competitive work environment where in-role performance is no longer sufficient to guarantee
organizational effectiveness (Magdaleno et al., 2023). In this study, we examined the
distinctive relationships of the resource-focused job crafting dimensions with in-role
performance and two types of extra-role behaviors, that is, individually-directed
organizational citizenship behaviors and organizationally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors (Williams and Anderson, 1991). According to Williams and
Anderson (1991), it is important to distinguish between these two extra-role behaviors as
they have different antecedents. To our knowledge, there is only the study by Rofcanin et al.
(2016) that examined the relationship between job crafting, in-role performance and both
types of extra-role behaviors. However, the authors did not distinguish between increasing
structural and social resources and it remains unclear whether these job crafting dimensions
relate differently to in-role performance-, individually- and organizationally-directed
organizational citizenship behaviors.
Additionally, our study contributes to the literature by examining the differential
importance of contextual antecedents (job autonomy, social support and problem-solving) for
job crafting. Although several studies have investigated the role of autonomy and social
support in eliciting job crafting behaviors (Dierdorff and Jensen, 2018; Sekiguchi et al., 2017),
no known study has examined problem-solving as an antecedent of job crafting. This is
surprising given that employees are increasingly involved in jobs with high cognitive
requirements such as problem-solving due to the growth in competition and IT, and due to the
reorganization of work in recent years (Audenaert and Decramer, 2018).
Finally, the current study adds to the literature by examining whether job crafting
represents an intervening mechanism that might explain the association between certain
motivational job characteristics and work performance. Thus, the purpose of this study was
to examine whether job autonomy, social support, and problem-solving have a differential
importance for the resource-focused job crafting dimensions, and finally for in-role
performance and both types of extra-role behaviors.

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

2.1 Job crafting within the job demands-resources model
Job crafting was conceptualized within the JD-R model (Tims and Bakker, 2010) as the
initiatives aimed at changing job resources and demands to improve the person-job fit. Job
resources represent characteristics of work that motivate employees, facilitating achievement
of goals and growth (e.g. autonomy, social support; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Conversely,
job demands refer to work characteristics that require extended effort, being thus related to
psychological costs such as burnout (e.g. workload; Bakker et al., 2005).
As already stated, one way of crafting job aspects according to the JD-R model is by
increasing the level of resources, either structural or social (Tims et al., 2012). By increasing
structural resources, employees enhance their opportunities to acquire new knowledge and
skills, as well as their ability to make autonomous work decisions (Berdicchia and Masino,
2019). Crafting social resources enables employees to gain support and feedback from
supervisors and colleagues, thus promoting interpersonal interactions at work (Miraglia et al.,
2017). According to the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 2001), employees who
BJM accumulate high levels of resources are more capable of gaining further resources (gain spiral
assumption), which finally contributes to positive organizational outcomes (e.g. work
performance; Demerouti et al., 2015).

2.2 Antecedents of job crafting

Job crafting is shaped by both personal and work context characteristics (Rudolph et al., 2017;
Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). The most important work context characteristics for job
crafting are the task context (e.g. job autonomy) and social context characteristics (e.g. social
support; Dierdorff and Jensen, 2018). Research on the JD-R model has identified autonomy
and social support as the main job resources (cf. motivational job characteristics; Morgeson
and Humphrey, 2006) in dealing effectively with job demands and enabling job crafting
behaviors (e.g. Zhang and Parker, 2019). Although no previous study has examined problem-
solving as an antecedent of job crafting, we argue that problem-solving, conceptualized
according to job characteristics theory (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006) as a motivational job
characteristic, may also stimulate job crafting. Drawing on prior research, we posit that
motivational job characteristics enable resource-focused job crafting, because they not only
activate employees to change their work situation (e.g. improve person-job fit), but also create
flexible and supportive contexts that act as enablers of job crafting (Lazazzara et al., 2020).

2.3 Job autonomy

The most widely studied task characteristic is job autonomy (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006),
defined as the degree of freedom and discretion employees have in scheduling their work, making
work-related decisions and choosing work procedures (Hackman and Oldham, 1976). More than
other job characteristics, job autonomy has been found to facilitate positive work outcomes (e.g.
performance) through the motivational mechanisms of experienced responsibility and
meaningfulness (Humphrey et al., 2007). Job autonomy has also been shown to promote extra-
role behaviors (Magdaleno et al., 2023). Following the reciprocity norm, employees who are
granted freedom to make work decisions, feel obliged to behave in ways that benefit others at
work and organization overall (Magdaleno et al., 2023). Furthermore, job autonomy satisfies the
basic need for autonomy that is essential for self-determined motivation (see self-determination
theory – SDT; Ryan and Deci, 2000), which is positively related not only to performance
(Demerouti et al., 2015), but also to proactive behaviors (Zhang and Parker, 2019).
Job crafting theory (Tims et al., 2012; Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001) proposes that
autonomy stimulates job crafting by indicating employees that they have the freedom to
make job changes to fulfill their needs. The sense of freedom and responsibility provided by
job autonomy makes employees more likely to proactively adjust work roles to their needs
(Magdaleno et al., 2023). When job autonomy is high, employees are more likely to strive for
greater control and to explore new opportunities for learning and growth, while using own
capacities extensively (Berdicchia and Masino, 2019). Likewise, autonomy creates the
conditions for increased seeking of social resources such as help and guidance from
colleagues (Miraglia et al., 2017).
H1. Job autonomy is positively related to (a) increasing structural resources and (b)
increasing social resources.

2.4 Social support

Social support is broadly defined as the interpersonal interactions employees have at work
and the degree of assistance and support received from colleagues (Morgeson and Humphrey,
2006). It represents one of the most important resources in highly demanding environments,
given its beneficial effects on reducing strain (Audenaert et al., 2020). Jobs with high social
support levels offer friendship opportunities (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006) and the Job crafting: a
opportunity to receive feedback, guidance and useful information to successfully achieve mediator for
work goals (Dierdorff and Jensen, 2018). Moreover, according to SDT, social support helps
employees to satisfy their psychological need for relatedness (Deci and Ryan, 2000), which
work
further promotes better performance (Dubbelt et al., 2019). Social support also stimulates performance
extra-role behaviors, not only due to reciprocity, but also due to the positive emotions that
employees experience in supportive work environments (cf. Magdaleno et al., 2023).
Furthermore, social support helps employees to overcome the constraints that limit job
crafting opportunities (Wang et al., 2020). The more emotional and instrumental support
employees receive at work, the more initiatives they take to improve work and obtain additional
structural and social resources (Audenaert et al., 2020). Specifically, colleagues’ appreciation
and support help employees feel more confident in exploring new opportunities to enlarge their
knowledge and skills, since this support functions as a signal that they have a backup in
overcoming challenges (Audenaert et al., 2020). Moreover, it is reasonable to expect that
employees who receive strong social support are more likely to seek higher levels of social
resources to secure even more guidance and recognition from colleagues (Miraglia et al., 2017).
H2. Social support is positively related to (a) increasing structural resources and (b)
increasing social resources.

2.5 Problem-solving
Problem-solving is a knowledge characteristic that reflects the degree to which a job requires
the production of novel and unique solutions, being associated with high creative cognitive
processing (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006). Jobs with high levels of problem-solving involve
dealing with non-routine problems and finding innovative solutions (Humphrey et al., 2007),
which provide employees the chance to demonstrate and reinforce their sense of competence
(Ryan and Deci, 2000). Additionally, increased problem-solving requirements foster intrinsic
motivation, thus promoting positive work outcomes (e.g. performance; Humphrey et al., 2007).
We argue that problem-solving also fosters extra-role behaviors, because it has been found
that employees with high problem-solving requirements establish more contacts with
colleagues and cooperate more responsively with them (Fuchs and Reichel, 2023), facilitating
the social and psychological context of the organization.
Although research has investigated the effects of problem-solving on proactive behaviors
such as personal initiative (e.g. Tornau and Frese, 2013), the relationship between problem-
solving and job crafting has yet to be established. We postulate that problem-solving
stimulates job crafting, because it activates the necessity to identify and approach resources
required to solve and find unique solutions to problems (Morrison et al., 2005). Specifically,
when challenged to solve problems, employees are more likely to initiate job crafting
behaviors to acquire new knowledge, develop new skills and increase their cognitive abilities
(Audenaert and Decramer, 2018). Furthermore, when problem-solving demands are high,
employees are more likely to request support and feedback from colleagues, as this helps
them to gain knowledge, expertise and new skills (Daniels et al., 2013).
H3. Problem-solving is positively related to (a) increasing structural resources and (b)
increasing social resources.

2.6 Job crafting and work performance

Although many researchers have argued that job crafting is positively related to various
aspects of performance (Lee and Lee, 2018), some studies did not find significant relationships
between resource-focused job crafting dimensions and in-role (e.g. Tims et al., 2015) or extra-
role performance (e.g. Gordon et al., 2015). However, we argue that increasing structural and
BJM social resources is positively related to in-role performance and both types of extra-role
behaviors for several reasons. First, by increasing job resources employees create highly
resourceful and supportive work environments, which eventually enhance their performance
(Miraglia et al., 2017). Resourceful environments characterized by increased autonomy and
developmental opportunities, as well as enhanced social support foster employees’
willingness to commit their efforts and abilities in performing tasks that are formally, but
also not formally prescribed (Magdaleno et al., 2023).
Second, increased job resources support performance extrinsically, because resources are
instrumental in achieving work goals (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007) and intrinsically, because
motivation and work engagement are increased through the satisfaction of basic needs (Deci and
Ryan, 2000). Motivated and engaged employees approach their tasks with energy and persistence,
leading to better in-role performance (Christian et al., 2011). Extra-role performance is also likely to
improve, because such employees exhibit concern for colleagues and organization overall (Tims
et al., 2015). There is considerable evidence on the positive relationship between resource-focused
job crafting dimensions and in-role as well as extra-role performance through increased levels of
work engagement (Demerouti et al., 2015; Dubbelt et al., 2019).
Third, by increasing job resources employees diminish the discrepancy between available and
preferred amounts of resources (Tims and Bakker, 2010), which makes the work environment
better fitted to their personal needs and abilities (Dubbelt et al., 2019). As the improved person-job
fit drives employees to perform better and to display organizational citizenship behaviors (see
Kristof-Brown et al., 2005, for a meta-analysis), it is understandable why resource-focused job
crafting leads to higher in-role and extra-role performance (Rudolph et al., 2017).
Finally, job crafting allows employees to extend their pool of resources (Hobfoll, 2001),
which helps them protect existing resources and acquire further resources. Specifically,
employees who accumulate resources via increased opportunities for development or via
social interactions are better able to gain additional task and social resources, which further
improves performance (Miraglia et al., 2017).
H4. Increasing structural resources is positively related to (a) in-role performance,
(b) individually-directed organizational citizenship behaviors and (c) organizationally-
directed organizational citizenship behaviors.
H5. Increasing social resources is positively related to (a) in-role performance,
(b) individually-directed organizational citizenship behaviors and (c) organizationally-
directed organizational citizenship behaviors.

2.7 The mediating role of job crafting

We propose that job crafting of increasing structural and social resources acts as a mediating
mechanism, linking job characteristics with in-role performance and extra-role behaviors.
According to the gain spiral assumption (Hobfoll, 2001), job characteristics represent
resources on which employees can build additional resources through job crafting (Bakker
and Demerouti, 2007), which in turn positively affects work performance. Following this
logic, when employees benefit of high levels of job resources (e.g. autonomy) they are more
likely to accumulate further resources through increasing structural and social resources,
which promotes better performance (cf. Miraglia et al., 2017). Specifically, the development of
new knowledge and skills and the expansion of support network enable employees to
accomplish their tasks successfully and align jobs to their own characteristics, which
eventually improves both in-role and extra-role performance (Rofcanin et al., 2021). Hence, we
posit that higher levels of autonomy, social support and problem-solving are likely to activate
the accumulation of structural and social resources, which is further used to promote task
performance and extra-role behaviors towards colleagues and organization.
 H6. The positive relationship between job autonomy and (a) in-role performance, Job crafting: a
(b) individually-directed organizational citizenship behaviors and (c) organizationally- mediator for
directed organizational citizenship behaviors is mediated by the resource-focused job
crafting dimensions.
work
performance
H7. The positive relationship between social support and (a) in-role performance,
(b) individually-directed organizational citizenship behaviors and (c) organizationally-
directed organizational citizenship behaviors is mediated by the resource-focused job
crafting dimensions.
H8. The positive relationship between problem-solving and (a) in-role performance,
(b) individually-directed organizational citizenship behaviors and (c) organizationally-
directed organizational citizenship behaviors is mediated by the resource-focused job
crafting dimensions.

3. Method
3.1 Participants and procedure
Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants from four IT multinational companies
with branches in Romania. An email describing the purpose of the study, including a link to
an online survey was sent to the human resources (HR) representative within each company,
who forwarded it to all employees. The email also provided notification that participation is
voluntary and confidentiality is assured.
A total of 282 employees completed the online survey (50.4% from Company A, 15.2% from
Company B, 25.6% from Company C, 5.3% from Company D [1]), representing a response rate
of 18.0%. The majority of the participants were male (57%), with a mean age of 29.30 years
(standard deviation (SD) 5 5.32) and median job tenure of 14 months (range: 0–240 months).
Participants were well-educated, with 93.6% holding at least a bachelor’s degree. They held a
variety of positions, including software developers (36.5%), business consultants (24.5%),
testers (9.6%), business support consultants (6.7%), managers (5.3%) and others.

3.2 Measures
Unless otherwise indicated, all items were self-reported on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from
1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).
Job autonomy was measured using a five-item scale adapted from Morgeson and
Humphrey’s (2006) work design questionnaire (WDQ). A sample item is “My job allows me to
plan how I do my work”. Cronbach’s α for this scale was 0.82.
Problem-solving was assessed using the four-item problem-solving scale of WDQ
(Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006). A sample item is “My job often involves dealing with
problems that I have not met before”. Cronbach’s α was 0.70.
Social support was measured using five items from the social support scale of WDQ
(Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006). An example item is “People I work with take a personal
interest in me”. Cronbach’s α was 0.73.
In-role performance. We used four items from the measure of in-role performance
developed by Williams and Anderson (1991) to assess the accomplishment of job-prescribed
duties. An example item is “I adequately complete assigned duties”. Cronbach’s α was 0.76.
Extra-role behaviors were measured with eight items from the Williams and Anderson’s
(1991) scales. An example item of the individually-directed organizational citizenship behaviors
measure is “I help others who have heavy working loads” (α 5 0.70) and of the
organizationally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors measure is “I give advance
notice when unable to come to work” (α 5 0.67).
BJM Increasing structural and social job resources were measured with two subscales adapted
from the job crafting scale (Tims et al., 2012). Increasing structural resources subscale
included four items (α 5 0.78; e.g. “I make sure that I use my capacities to the fullest”),
whereas increasing social resources subscale included five items (α 5 0.77; e.g. “I ask
colleagues for advice”). The response options ranged on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very often).

3.3 Control variables

We controlled for employees’ age (in years), job tenure (in months), gender, educational level and
job position, as they have been shown to influence job crafting (Berdicchia and Masino, 2019;
Rudolph et al., 2017). Older and long-tenured employees are less inclined to craft their jobs
(Berdicchia and Masino, 2019), whereas well-educated employees and those with high job positions
(managers) are more likely to initiate job crafting (Rudolph et al., 2017). We also controlled for the
affiliation to company, as the work context can shape job crafting (Wang et al., 2020).

4. Analytical approach
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the validity and distinctiveness of
the study measures. To test our hypotheses, a structural equation modeling (SEM) was
employed. In particular, a mediation model with job characteristics as predictors,
performance facets as outcomes, and job crafting dimensions as mediators was tested. The
CFA and SEM models were estimated using R package “MplusAutomation” (Hallquist and
Wiley, 2018) in combination with Mplus 8 (Muthen and Muthen, 1998–2017).
To avoid dropouts due to missing data, we used full-information maximum likelihood
estimation and the robust maximum likelihood estimator, as this estimator allows for
corrections to standard errors, when data deviate from normality (Finney and DiStefano, 2006).
We used bootstrapping (1,000 samples) to estimate the standard errors and confidence intervals
(CIs) for the indirect effects of job characteristics on performance facets via job crafting
dimensions (MacKinnon et al., 2004). Due to sample clustering (employees nested in companies),
we checked whether affiliation to company led to dependencies between employees in terms of
variables. As all intra-class correlations varied between 0.00 and 0.02, there is no indication of
considerable dependencies between employees, and thus we did not use multilevel modeling [2].
To control for potential confounders, we tested whether the dimensions of job crafting and
performance differ based on demographic characteristics. Specifically, each control variable was
included in the model as a manifest variable. Results showed that none of the control variables was
significantly related to all dimensions of job crafting and performance (only a few paths were
significant; see Appendix 1. Therefore, control variables were not considered in the final model.
As the self-reported data used in this study were collected at once, common method variance
(CMV) may be a concern (Podsakoff et al., 2012). We conducted Harman’s one-factor test, which
indicated that the single factor explained only 20.3% of variance, lower than the cut-off value of
50% (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We also performed a CFA to compare our hypothesized eight-factor
model with a one-factor model in which all items loaded onto a single factor. The comparison of
the two models using chi-square difference test yielded a significant change in chi-square (Δ
χ 2 5 716.25, Δ df 5 28, p < 0.001) indicating a superior fit to the data for the eight-factor model.
Thus, both tests indicated that CMV is not a serious concern in this study.

5. Results
5.1 CFA
The results of CFA showed that the eight-factor model has an acceptable fit to the data:
χ 2 5 790.000, df 5 531, χ 2/df 5 1.488, comparative fit index (CFI) 5 0.90, Tucker–Lewis index
(TLI) 5 0.89, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 5 0.04 [0.04–0.05],
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) 5 0.06. All correlations between variables Job crafting: a
were significant (ps < 0.05), except for the correlations between job autonomy and increasing mediator for
social resources, social support and increasing structural resources, and social support and
in-role performance (see Appendix 2 for the latent correlations).
work
The correlation coefficients between the two types of extra-role behaviors (0.71), and performance
between in-role performance and organizationally-directed organizational citizenship
behaviors (0.80) were quite large raising the question whether these constructs are
empirically distinguishable. We conducted model comparison tests for the two pairs of
constructs to check for their empirical distinctiveness. In Model 1 and Model 3, we assumed a
two-factor structure for individually- and organizationally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors, and for in-role performance and organizationally-directed
organizational citizenship behaviors, respectively, whereas in Model 2 and Model 4 we
assumed a single-factor structure for the two pairs of constructs. Model comparison (see
Table 1) showed that the two-factor models (Models 1 and 3) yielded significantly higher fit
indices than the single-factor models (Models 2 and 4), providing evidence that these
constructs are empirically distinct.

5.2 Structural model and hypotheses testing

The overall fit of our hypothesized model (see Figure 1) was acceptable: χ 2 5 790.000,
df 5 531, χ 2/df 5 1.488, CFI 5 0.90, TLI 5 0.89, RMSEA 5 0.04 [0.04, 0.05], SRMR 5 0.06.
Although CFI and TLI were marginal, the other fit indices were good, indicating that our
mediation model reasonably accounted for the data. The model also has substantial
explanatory power, since significant proportions of the variance in the mediators (13% in
increasing structural resources and 11% in increasing social resources) and in the outcomes
(32% in in-role performance, 32% in individually-directed organizational citizenship
behaviors, 33% in organizationally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors) were
explained. Standardized path coefficients for all direct effects are presented in Table 2.
H1 stated that job autonomy is positively related to both dimensions of job crafting,
however the results indicated that job autonomy did not significantly predict increasing
either structural resources (β 5 0.05, p 5 0.561) or social resources (β 5 0.16, p 5 0.189).
Thus, H1 was not supported.

Model χ2 p-value df χ 2/df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR ΔCFI ΔRMSEA

Two-factor model for OCBI 25,966 0.131 19 1,37 0.977 0.966 0.036 0.040
and OCBO (Model 1)
Single-factor model for OCBI 51,274 <0.001 20 2,56 0.896 0.854 0.074 0.055 0.081 0.038
and OCBO (Model 2)
Two-factor model for OCBO 27,686 0.090 19 1,46 0.970 0.956 0.040 0.039
and in-role performance
(Model 3)
Single-factor model for 39,762 0.005 20 1,99 0.932 0.904 0.059 0.047 0.038 0.019
OCBO and in-role
performance (Model 4)
Note(s): In Model 2 and Model 4, the single-factor was obtained by fixing the latent correlation of the two
latent factors to 1. OCBI 5 individually-directed organizational citizenship behaviors,
OCBO 5 organizationally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors, CFI 5 comparative fit index, Table 1.
TLI 5 Tucker–Lewis index, RMSEA 5 the root mean square error of approximation, SRMR 5 the Comparison of
standardized root mean square residual measurement models
BJM 0.20*

0.26*

32%

Job
OCBI
autonomy
13%

0.55** Increasing 0.62**

structural 33%
resources 0.39*
Problem-
0.38** OCBO
solving 0.44**
11%
Increasing 0.74**
0.26**
social 32%
resources
Social In-role
support performance

0.24*
0.20*

Note(s): To keep the diagram readable, measurement models (i.e., factor loadings) and
nonsignificant structural paths are not visualized. Moreover, indirect effects of the predictors
Figure 1. are only reported in the text. OCBI = individually-directed organizational citizenship
Results of the behaviors, OCBO = organizationally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors.
structural model *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

H2 that posited a significant relationship between social support and the two job crafting
dimensions was only partially supported. The relationship between social support and
increasing structural resources was not significant (β 5 0.07, p 5 0.414), however the
relationship with increasing social resources was significant (β 5 0.24, p 5 0.027).
H3 stated that problem-solving is positively related to the job crafting dimensions and it
was supported as problem-solving had significant relationships with both increasing
structural (β 5 0.35, p < 0.001) and social resources (β 5 0.26, p 5 0.015).
H4 and H5 postulated that increasing structural and social resources, respectively are
positively related to all aspects of performance. As hypothesized, all performance dimensions
were significantly predicted by increasing structural resources (β 5 0.49 for in-role
performance, β 5 0.36 for individually-directed organizational citizenship behaviors, and
β 5 0.39 for organizationally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors, ps < 0.001).
However, increasing social resources was not significantly related to any of the performance
facets (β 5 0.03 for in-role performance, β 5 0.00 for individually-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors, and β 5 0.15 for organizationally-directed organizational citizenship
behaviors, ps > 0.05). Thus, H4 was supported, whereas H5 was rejected.
H6, H7, and H8 stated that job crafting dimensions mediate the positive relationships
between job characteristics and all performance facets. Results showed an indirect effect only
for problem-solving, which predicted all performance dimensions via increasing structural
resources (indirect effect 5 0.17, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 5 [0.06, 0.33] for in-role
performance; indirect effect 5 0.13, 95% CI 5 [0.05, 0.24] for individually-directed
organizational citizenship behaviors; indirect effect 5 0.14, 95% CI 5 [0.05, 0.27] for
organizationally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors), but not via social resources
(indirect effect 5 0.00, 95% CI 5 [ 0.04, 0.09] for in-role performance; indirect effect 5 0.00,
95% CI 5 [ 0.05, 0.06] for individually-directed organizational citizenship behaviors; indirect
effect 5 0.03, 95% CI 5 [ 0.00, 0.15] for organizationally-directed organizational citizenship
behaviors). No other indirect effects of job autonomy and social support via job crafting
dimensions on performance were found. Although social support had a significant direct
Paths Total effects Direct Effects Indirect effects
Predictor Mediator Outcome Total effect Total indirect Estimate p-value Estimate p-value Lower bound Upper bound

JA ISTR OCBI 0.166 0.020 0.146 0.227 0.019 0.592 0.049 0.092
JA ISR OCBI 0.001 0.978 0.043 0.040
PS ISTR OCBI 0.206 0.123 0.083 0.423 0.124 0.010 0.052 0.244
PS ISR OCBI 0.001 0.974 0.050 0.059
SS ISTR OCBI 0.217 0.025 0.241 0.038 0.024 0.445 0.097 0.027
SS ISR OCBI 0.001 0.974 0.050 0.048
JA ISTR OCBO 0.196 0.002 0.198 0.044 0.021 0.599 0.054 0.105
JA ISR OCBO 0.023 0.372 0.118 0.006
PS ISTR OCBO 0.033 0.176 0.143 0.223 0.136 0.018 0.045 0.268
PS ISR OCBO 0.039 0.255 0.002 0.154
SS ISTR OCBO 0.211 0.009 0.202 0.032 0.026 0.455 0.117 0.030
SS ISR OCBO 0.035 0.258 0.004 0.124
JA ISTR IP 0.279 0.022 0.257 0.009 0.026 0.592 0.062 0.130
JA ISR IP 0.004 0.849 0.081 0.020
PS ISTR IP 0.056 0.176 0.120 0.235 0.169 0.009 0.062 0.326
PS ISR IP 0.007 0.825 0.040 0.090
SS ISTR IP 0.008 0.027 0.035 0.663 0.033 0.438 0.120 0.042
SS ISR IP 0.006 0.831 0.035 0.090
Note(s): Significant parameters are in italic. JA 5 job autonomy, SS 5 social support, PS 5 problem-solving, ISTR 5 increasing structural resources, ISR 5 increasing
social resources, OCBI 5 individually-directed organizational citizenship behaviors, OCBO 5 organizationally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors, IP 5 in-role
performance
performance
mediator for
work
Job crafting: a

Table 2.
Results of mediation
BJM effect on both individually- (β 5 0.24, p 5 0.038) and organizationally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors (β 5 0.20, p 5 0.032), its indirect effect on these performance aspects via
job crafting was not significant (see Table 2 for the indirect effects). Thus, H8 was partially
supported, whereas H6 and H7 were rejected.

5.3 Post-hoc analyses

Contrary to H1, job autonomy did not significantly predict any of the job crafting dimensions. It
is possible that the relationship between autonomy and job crafting dimensions is contingent
on social support, as support received from colleagues can act as a protective resource that
helps employees initiate job crafting behaviors even when autonomy is high (Li et al., 2021). To
confirm this assumption, we tested the effect of the interaction between autonomy and social
support on the job crafting dimensions, using a latent interaction approach.
The effect of the latent interaction between autonomy and social support on increasing
structural resources was significant (β 5 0.10, p 5 0.033), whereas on increasing social resources
was not significant (β 5 0.10, p 5 0.225). This indicates that the effect of job autonomy on
increasing structural resources occurs only when social support is high. In the model including
interaction effects, only problem-solving had a significant main effect on increasing structural
resources (β 5 0.38, p < 0.001). For increasing social resources, the main effects of problem-
solving (β 5 0.31, p 5 0.010) and social support (β 5 0.26, p 5 0.034) were significant, whereas of
job autonomy was not significant (β 5 0.19, p 5 0.172). These findings confirm that problem-
solving is the most important predictor for both increasing structural and social resources. The
model including interaction effects showed no significant improvement in the model fit
compared to the model without interaction effects (see Table 3). The indirect effect of the
interaction between autonomy and social support was significant only for in-role performance
via increasing structural resources (b 5 0.07, p 5 0.041).

6. Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the contextual antecedents (job autonomy, social support
and problem-solving) of crafting structural and social resources and its relationship with different
performance facets (in-role performance, extra-role behaviors). Results indicate that problem-
solving is the most important predictor for both job crafting dimensions, whereas social support
significantly predicted only increasing social resources. Unexpectedly, job autonomy predicted job
crafting (i.e. increasing structural resources) only when social support was high, as post-hoc
analysis indicated. Moreover, increasing structural resources was positively related to all
performance facets, whereas increasing social resources was not associated with performance.
Finally, increasing structural resources fully mediated the relationship between problem-solving
and all performance facets, but increasing social resources did not act as a mediator. These
findings have several theoretical and practical implications, as discussed below.

Model χ2 df p-value AIC BIC adjBIC

Model without interaction effects 12576.429 134 25420.858 25908.873 25483.961

Model with interaction effects 12573.959 136 0.085 25419.917 25915.217 25483.962
Table 3.
Model comparison for Note(s): Model without interaction effects is the model including job characteristics as predictors, different
the significance of performance facets as outcomes and job crafting dimensions as mediators. Model with interaction effects is the
latent interactions on model which includes the latent interaction between job autonomy and social support; AIC 5 Akaike
job crafting Information Criterion; BIC 5 Bayesian Information Criterion; adjBIC 5 sample size adjusted Bayesian
dimensions Information Criterion
6.1 Theoretical implications Job crafting: a
The current study contributes to the refined understanding of the situational predictors of mediator for
resource-focused job crafting dimensions and their outcomes in terms of performance.
Consistent with the assumption that job crafting is context dependent (Wrzesniewski and
work
Dutton, 2001), our findings indicate that job crafting dimensions are affected by knowledge and performance
social job characteristics (problem-solving and social support). Job autonomy as a task
characteristic did not predict job crafting (for similar results, see Niessen et al., 2016), but was
positively related to in-role performance and organizationally-directed organizational
citizenship behaviors, which is consistent with previous findings (Humphrey et al., 2007;
Magdaleno et al., 2023). A possible explanation for the unexpected lack of association between
autonomy and increasing structural resources could be that high levels of autonomy are already
too demanding for employees to seek even more challenges (e.g. gain greater autonomy; Wang
et al., 2016). This is because high levels of autonomy are often associated with ambiguities and
uncertainties (e.g. role ambiguity), which go along with depletion of cognitive resources and
strain (Li et al., 2021). In this case, employees are less likely to explore further opportunities to
gain autonomy and knowledge about job. Based on the finding that job autonomy predicts
increasing structural resources when social support is high, it can be argued that employees
need to have a good support network to confidently explore developmental opportunities when
levels of autonomy are high (Li et al., 2021). Compared to other occupations, IT employees have
high levels of autonomy (Shih et al., 2011). The lack of association between autonomy and
increasing social resources may be explained by the fact that high autonomy reduces the
requirements to depend on the help and support of colleagues (Magdaleno et al., 2023).
Our findings also suggest that situational factors have differential associations with the job
crafting dimensions. For example, increasing structural resources was predicted by problem-
solving, but not by social support. This study counts among the first to show that in jobs with
high problem-solving requirements, employees feel the need to gain not only structural
resources in terms of opportunities for learning, growth and greater responsibility, but also
social resources such as feedback and advice from colleagues. These findings are close to the
results of Daniels et al. (2013) that job resources such as autonomy and social support enable
employees to solve problems more effectively.
The finding that social support relates to increasing social resources is consistent with the
social embedded perspective (Berg et al., 2010), which postulates that interpersonal
relationships are crucial in facilitating job crafting (Sekiguchi et al., 2017). Similar to the
evidence on the beneficial effects of social support on extra-role behaviors (see Chiaburu and
Harrison, 2008, for a meta-analysis), we found that social support is positively related to both
individually- and organizationally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors.
Another major contribution of this study is the expansion of prior research that revealed
differential effects of job crafting dimensions on performance facets (Lee and Lee, 2018;
Rudolph et al., 2017). In particular, increasing structural resources was the most important job
crafting dimension for all performance aspects, whereas increasing social resources was not
related to any. This last finding was also found in other studies (e.g. Berdicchia and Masino,
2019) and may be explained by the fact that enhanced social support can diminish employees’
ability to develop autonomous problem-solving skills and to independently master their work
tasks. Thus, employees who seek social resources may perceive themselves as not being able
to achieve work goals or perform extra-role behaviors, when they do not rely on their own
abilities, but on the support from others (Berdicchia and Masino, 2019).
Finally, this study extends previous findings on the motivational mechanisms by which work
design influences different organizational outcomes (Humphrey et al., 2007), providing evidence
for the mediating role of job crafting. As expected, crafting structural resources acts as a
mediating mechanism through which work design affects performance dimensions. However,
crafting social resources was not a significant mediator for work design-performance relationship.
BJM It may be that motivational job characteristics enable more task-oriented changes (e.g. gain new
skills), which provide employees with essential resources for effective performance (cf. Magdaleno
et al., 2023). Furthermore, gaining structural resources is more under employees’ control (stable
resources), whereas acquiring social resources depends on the availability of others (transient
resources; Rofcanin et al., 2021). Thus, employees can better utilize stable resources to further gain
resources, which can be used to improve their performance (Hobfoll, 2001).

6.2 Practical implications

Knowing the drivers (i.e. job characteristics) and the mechanisms (i.e. job crafting) of
performance improvements is crucial for HR managers, who are interested in optimizing
employee performance. In the light of beneficial effects of crafting structural resources on all
performance facets, HR managers should design and implement interventions and HR
practices that encourage this job crafting dimension. When HR managers cannot apply job
(re)design strategies, they should facilitate and encourage job crafting aimed at increasing
structural resources. For example, employees should be offered opportunities for professional
development, more autonomy and additional responsibilities.
As our results indicate that social support and problem-solving are important drivers of job
crafting dimensions, implementing HR practices to enhance social support and problem-solving at
work may represent an effective approach to foster job crafting. For developing social support, HR
managers should encourage social contacts between co-workers and reciprocity in both giving and
receiving help, as well as interdependent work and information sharing (Daniels et al., 2013). In
eliciting support for problem-solving, HR managers should provide employees with training
programs that enhance the skills and knowledge required for solving problems. More generally,
organizations should ensure that employees have the necessary resources to effectively craft their
jobs, while simultaneously supporting job crafting behaviors aimed at increasing structural
resources, as these ultimately increase performance.

6.3 Limitations and future research

There are several potential limitations of this study. First, the data are self-reported, which may
cause CMV (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In addition to the statistical tests used to check for CMV, the
significant interaction effects found in this study provide further evidence that CMV was not a
concern (see Podsakoff et al., 2012). Although it is appropriate to capture job crafting with self-
reported measures, future studies should include data from different sources to better manage
CMV. Second, our data are cross-sectional and thus we cannot draw any conclusions about the
causal relationships between variables. In future studies, the use of longitudinal designs is
desirable to provide more conclusive results, especially about the mediating role of job crafting
in the job characteristics-performance relationship. Also of great importance is the
investigation of the boundary conditions under which each of the job characteristics fosters
or hinders job crafting dimensions. For example, the relationship between social support and
job crafting could be contingent on the type of social support (Shin et al., 2020), whereas the
relationship between problem-solving and job crafting could be affected by levels of social
support (cf. Daniels et al., 2013). An examination of other job crafting dimensions (e.g. increasing
challenging demands) in relation to the work design and performance facets is also expected.
Finally, as our study used a convenience sample, the findings can be generalized only to
well-educated employees from the IT industry. Future studies should replicate the findings in
other samples (e.g. white-collar workers) and other industries than IT.

Notes
1. 10 participants (3.5%) did not report their company. Companies A and B are large (more than 500
employees) and Companies C and D are middle size.
2. Although the use of the option Type 5 Complex in Mplus is recommended when the sample is Job crafting: a
clustered (employees nested in companies), with fewer than 25 clusters this option leads to biased
standard errors, and thus its use is not appropriate (Huang, 2018). mediator for
work
performance
References
Audenaert, M. and Decramer, A. (2018), “When empowering leadership fosters creative performance:
the role of problem-solving demands and creative personality”, Journal of Management and
Organization, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 4-18, doi: 10.1017/jmo.2016.20.
Audenaert, M., George, B., Bauwens, R., Decuypere, A., Descamps, A.M., Muylaert, J., Ma, R. and
Decramer, A. (2020), “Empowering leadership, social support, and job crafting in public
organizations: a multilevel study”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 367-392,
doi: 10.1177/0091026019873681.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art”, Journal
of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328, doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Euwema, M.C. (2005), “Job resources buffer the impact of job
demands on burnout”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 170-180,
doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170.
Bakker, A.B., Tims, M. and Derks, D. (2012), “Proactive personality and job performance: the role of
job crafting and work engagement”, Human Relations, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 1359-1378, doi: 10.
1177/0018726712453471.
Berdicchia, D. and Masino, G. (2019), “Leading by leaving: exploring the relationship between
supervisory control, job crafting, self-competence and performance”, Journal of Management
and Organization, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 572-590, doi: 10.1017/jmo.2018.67.
Berg, J.M., Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2010), “Perceiving and responding to challenges in job
crafting at different ranks: when proactivity requires adaptivity”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 31 Nos 2-3, pp. 158-186, doi: 10.1002/job.645.
Chiaburu, D.S. and Harrison, D.A. (2008), “Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-
analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 5, pp. 1082-1103, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1082.
Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), “Work engagement: a quantitative review and
test of its relations with task and contextual performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 89-136, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x.
Daniels, K., Beesley, N., Wimalasiri, V. and Cheyne, A. (2013), “Problem solving and well-being:
exploring the instrumental role of job control and social support”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 1016-1043, doi: 10.1177/0149206311430262.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000), “The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-
determination of behavior”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 227-268, doi: 10.1207/
s15327965pli1104_01.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B. and Gevers, J.M. (2015), “Job crafting and extra-role behavior: the role of
work engagement and flourishing”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 91, pp. 87-96, doi: 10.
1016/j.jvb.2015.09.001.
Dierdorff, E.C. and Jensen, J.M. (2018), “Crafting in context: exploring when job crafting is
dysfunctional for performance effectiveness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 5,
pp. 463-477, doi: 10.1037/apl0000295.
Dubbelt, L., Demerouti, E. and Rispens, S. (2019), “The value of job crafting for work engagement, task
performance, and career satisfaction: longitudinal and quasi-experimental evidence”, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 300-314, doi: 10.1080/1359432x.
2019.1576632.
BJM Employers’ Association of the Software and Service Industry (2021), available at: https://anis.ro/wp-content/
uploads/ANIS_RB_Studiu-privind-impactul-industriei-SWIT_FINAL.pdf (accessed 28
September 2023).
Finney, S.J. and DiStefano, C. (2006), “Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation
modeling”, in Hancock, G.R. and Mueller, R.O. (Eds), Structural Equation Modeling: A Second
Course (Quantitative Methods in Education and the Behavioral Sciences), Information Age
Publishing, pp. 269-314.
Fuchs, C. and Reichel, A. (2023), “Effective communication for relational coordination in remote work:
how job characteristics and HR practices shape user–technology interactions”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 518-522, doi: 10.1002/hrm.22161.
Gordon, H.J., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P.M. and Bipp, T. (2015), “Job crafting and performance of Dutch
and American health care professionals”, Journal of Personnel Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 192-202, doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000138.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 250-279, doi: 10.1016/0030-
5073(76)90016-7.
Hallquist, M.N. and Wiley, J.F. (2018), “MplusAutomation: an R package for facilitating large-scale
latent variable analyses in Mplus”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 621-638, doi: 10.1080/10705511.2017.1402334.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001), “The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process:
advancing conservation of resources theory”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 337-421,
doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00062.
Huang, F.L. (2018), “Multilevel modeling myths”, School Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 492-499, doi: 10.1037/spq0000272.
Humphrey, S.E., Nahrgang, J.D. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007), “Integrating motivational, social, and
contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the
work design literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1332-1356, doi: 10.1037/
0021-9010.92.5.1332.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D. and Johnson, E.C. (2005), “Consequences of individuals’ fit at
work: a meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–
supervisor fit”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 281-342, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.
00672.x.
Lazazzara, A., Tims, M. and De Gennaro, D. (2020), “The process of reinventing a job: a meta–
synthesis of qualitative job crafting research”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 116, 103267,
doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2019.01.001.
Lee, J.Y. and Lee, Y. (2018), “Job crafting and performance: literature review and implications for
human resource development”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 277-313, doi: 10.1177/1534484318788269.
Li, J., Han, X., Qi, J. and He, X. (2021), “Managing one’s career: the joint effects of job autonomy,
supervisor support, and calling”, Journal of Career Development, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 973-986,
doi: 10.1177/0894845320906464.
Lichtenthaler, P.W. and Fischbach, A. (2019), “A meta-analysis on promotion-and prevention-focused
job crafting”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 30-50,
doi: 10.1080/1359432x.2018.1527767.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M. and Williams, J. (2004), “Confidence limits for the indirect effect:
distribution of the product and resampling methods”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 99-128, doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4.
Magdaleno, J., Caballer, A., Sora, B., Garcıa-Buades, M.E. and Rodrıguez, I. (2023), “The mediating role
of job crafting of social resources in the relationship between job autonomy, self-efficacy, and
 organizational citizenship behavior”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, Job crafting: a
pp. 95-110, doi: 10.1007/s10672-022-09402-9.
mediator for
Miraglia, M., Cenciotti, R., Alessandri, G. and Borgogni, L. (2017), “Translating self-efficacy in job
performance over time: the role of job crafting”, Human Performance, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 254-271,
work
doi: 10.1080/08959285.2017.1373115. performance
Morgeson, F.P. and Humphrey, S.E. (2006), “The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and
validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 6, pp. 1321-1339, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321.
Morrison, D., Cordery, J., Girardi, A. and Payne, R. (2005), “Job design, opportunities for skill
utilization, and intrinsic job satisfaction”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 59-79, doi: 10.1080/13594320444000272.
Muthen, L.K. and Muthen, B.O. (1998-2017), Mplus User’s Guide, Eight Edition, Muthen and Muthen,
Los Angeles.
National Institute of Statistics (2023), available at: http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/
tables/insse-table (accessed 28 September 2023).
Niessen, C., Weseler, D. and Kostova, P. (2016), “When and why do individuals craft their jobs? The
role of individual motivation and work characteristics for job crafting”, Human Relations,
Vol. 69 No. 6, pp. 1287-1313, doi: 10.1177/0018726715610642.
Parker, S.K. and Grote, G. (2020), “Automation, algorithms, and beyond: why work design matters
more than ever in a digital world”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 1174-1204, doi: 10.1111/
apps.12241.
Petrou, P., Bakker, A.B. and Bezemer, K. (2019), “Creativity under task conflict: the role of proactively
increasing job resources”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2,
pp. 305-329, doi: 10.1111/joop.12250.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Blume, B.D. (2009), “Individual-and
organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 122-141, doi: 10.1037/a0013079.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63
No. 1, pp. 539-569, doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.
Rofcanin, Y., Berber, A., Koch, S. and Sevinc, L. (2016), “Job crafting and I-deals: a study testing the
nomological network of proactive behaviors”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 27 No. 22, pp. 2695-2726, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2015.1091370.
Rofcanin, Y., Las Heras, M., Jose Bosch, M., Stollberger, J. and Mayer, M. (2021), “How do weekly
obtained task I-deals improve work performance? The role of relational context and structural
job resources”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 555-565, doi: 10.1080/1359432x.2020.1833858.
Romania-insider.com (2023), available at: https://www.romania-insider.com/it-still-high-salary-
increases-lower-voluntary-turnover-fewer-hires-hybrid-work-and-more-days (accessed 28
September 2023).
Rudolph, C.W., Katz, I.M., Lavigne, K.N. and Zacher, H. (2017), “Job crafting: a meta-analysis of
relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 102, pp. 112-138, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.008.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new
directions”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 54-67, doi: 10.1006/ceps.
1999.1020.
BJM Sekiguchi, T., Li, J. and Hosomi, M. (2017), “Predicting job crafting from the socially embedded
perspective: the interactive effect of job autonomy, social skill, and employee status”, The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 470-497, doi: 10.1177/0021886317727459.
Shih, S.P., Jiang, J.J., Klein, G. and Wang, E. (2011), “Learning demand and job autonomy of IT
personnel: impact on turnover intention”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 6,
pp. 2301-2307, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.009.
Shin, Y., Hur, W.M. and Choi, W.H. (2020), “Coworker support as a double-edged sword: a moderated
mediation model of job crafting, work engagement, and job performance”, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 31 No. 11, pp. 1417-1438, doi: 10.1080/09585192.
2017.1407352.
Tims, M. and Bakker, A.B. (2010), “Job crafting: towards a new model of individual job redesign”, SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841.
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Derks, D. (2012), “Development and validation of the job crafting scale”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 173-186, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009.
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., Derks, D. and Van Rhenen, W. (2013), “Job crafting at the team and individual
level: implications for work engagement and performance”, Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 427-454, doi: 10.1177/1059601113492421.
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Derks, D. (2015), “Job crafting and job performance: a longitudinal study”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 914-928, doi: 10.
1080/1359432x.2014.969245.
Tornau, K. and Frese, M. (2013), “Construct clean-up in proactivity research: a meta-analysis on the
nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities”, Applied
Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 44-96, doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00514.x.
Wang, H., Demerouti, E. and Bakker, A.B. (2016), “A review of job-crafting research: the role of leader
behaviors in cultivating successful job crafters”, in Parker, S.K. and Bindl, U.K. (Eds),
Proactivity at Work: Making Things Happen in Organizations, Taylor and Francis, pp. 77-104.
Wang, H., Li, P. and Chen, S. (2020), “The impact of social factors on job crafting: a meta-analysis and
review”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 21,
pp. 8016-8054, doi: 10.3390/ijerph17218016.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 601-617, doi: 10.1177/014920639101700305.
Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2001), “Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of
their work”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 179-201, doi: 10.5465/amr.2001.
4378011.
Zaza, S., Riemenschneider, C. and Armstrong, D.J. (2022), “The drivers and effects of burnout within
an information technology work context: a job demands-resources framework”, Information
Technology and People, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 2288-2313, doi: 10.1108/itp-01-2021-0093.
Zhang, F. and Parker, S.K. (2019), “Reorienting job crafting research: a hierarchical structure of job
crafting concepts and integrative review”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 126-146, doi: 10.1002/job.2332.
 Appendix 1

OCBI OCBO IP ISTR ISR

Std. Est p-value Std. Est p-value Std. Est p-value Std. Est p-value Std. Est p-value

Age 0.055 0.504 0.025 0.748 0.070 0.357 0.011 0.851 0.081 0.369
Job tenure 0.066 0.316 0.013 0.842 0.029 0.652 0.070 0.398 0.093 0.292
Gender 0.116 0.114 0.070 0.338 0.115 0.102 0.122 0.072 0.089 0.185
Company (dummy 1) 0.044 0.595 0.029 0.737 0.008 0.917 0.058 0.469 0.100 0.191
Company (dummy 2) 0.025 0.776 0.078 0.365 0.046 0.581 0.068 0.366 0.240 0.000
Company (dummy 3) 0.065 0.345 0.041 0.514 0.041 0.481 0.085 0.164 0.029 0.704
Educational level 0.013 0.855 0.168 0.019 0.071 0.338 0.054 0.425 0.020 0.749
Job position (dummy 1) 0.062 0.496 0.031 0.729 0.049 0.564 0.105 0.218 0.115 0.099
Job position (dummy 2) 0.062 0.380 0.033 0.634 0.024 0.767 0.033 0.630 0.037 0.669
Job position (dummy 3) 0.075 0.358 0.106 0.128 0.012 0.870 0.037 0.634 0.108 0.175
Job position (dummy 4) 0.019 0.786 0.043 0.598 0.020 0.746 0.085 0.274 0.009 0.885
Job position (dummy 5) 0.152 0.027 0.007 0.938 0.051 0.534 0.037 0.604 0.014 0.874
Job position (dummy 6) 0.036 0.529 0.016 0.811 0.018 0.789 0.052 0.526 0.085 0.260
Job position (dummy 7) 0.019 0.775 0.018 0.812 0.016 0.812 0.075 0.184 0.032 0.663
Note(s): Significant parameters are in italic. Age (in years), job tenure (in months), gender (0 5 male, 1 5 female), educational level (bachelor 5 0, master 5 1),
Company (Company A 5 0, Company B 5 1, Company C 5 2, Company D 5 3), and job position (developer 5 0, business consultant 5 1, tester 5 2, business
support consultant 5 3, business analyst 5 4, manager 5 5, support engineers 5 6, system engineers 5 7). Individually-directed organizational citizenship
behaviors (OCBI), organizationally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBO), in-role performance (IP), increasing structural resources (ISTR),
increasing social resources (ISR)
Source(s): Table created by author for the standardized effects of control variables
performance
mediator for

Standardized effects of
work
Job crafting: a

the dependent and

the control variables on
Table A1.

mediating variables
BJM Appendix 2

JA SS PS ISTR ISR IP OCBI OCBO

Job autonomy (JA) 1.00

Social support (SS) 0.38*** 1.00
Problem-solving (PS) 0.55*** 0.26** 1.00
Increasing structural 0.22** 0.04 0.36*** 1.00
resources (ISTR)
Increasing social 0.08 0.24** 0.24** 0.46*** 1.00
resources (ISR)
In-role performance (IP) 0.31*** 0.13 0.21** 0.51*** 0.25*** 1.00
OCBI 0.36*** 0.33** 0.35*** 0.43*** 0.25*** 0.54*** 1.00
OCBO 0.29*** 0.29** 0.20* 0.46*** 0.36*** 0.80*** 0.71*** 1.00
Table A2. Note(s): All correlations are statistically significant (ps < 0.05), except for the correlations between JA and ISR,
Latent correlations SS and ISTR, and SS and IP. OCBI 5 individually-directed organizational citizenship behaviors,
among the study OCBO 5 organizationally-directed organizational citizenship behaviors. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
variables Source(s): Table created by author

Corresponding author
Loredana Mihalca can be contacted at: loredana.mihalca@econ.ubbcluj.ro

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com