JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 1

Job Crafting: A Meta-Analysis of Relationships with Individual Differences, Job Characteristics,

and Work Outcomes

Cort W. Rudolph

Ian M. Katz

Kristi N. Lavigne

Saint Louis University

Hannes Zacher

University of Leipzig and Queensland University of Technology

Recommended Citation:

Rudolph. C.W., Katz, I.M., Lavigne, K.N., & Zacher, H. (2017, In Press). Job crafting: a meta-analysis

of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes.

Journal of Vocational Behavior.

Author Note

Cort W. Rudolph, Ian M. Katz, and Kristi N. Lavigne, Department of Psychology, Saint

Louis University, St. Louis, MO (USA). Hannes Zacher, Institute of Psychology, University of

Leipzig, Leipzig (Germany) and School of Management, Queensland University of Technology,

Brisbane (Australia). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cort W.

Rudolph, Saint Louis University, Morrissey Hall 2827 St. Louis, MO (USA), 63103,

[email protected], +1(314) 977-7299 Portions of this work were presented at the 32nd Annual

Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando FL (USA).
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 2

Abstract
Job crafting is a form of proactive work behavior that involves employees actively changing the

(perceived) characteristics of their jobs, including behaviors aimed at increasing challenging and

decreasing hindering job demands, as well as those directed at increasing structural and social

job resources (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Research on job crafting has rapidly increased over the

past decade, but findings have thus far not been quantitatively synthesized. We first integrate job

crafting as conceptualized by Tims and Bakker (2010) with a more general theoretical model of

proactive work behavior. Then, we present a meta-analysis (K = 122 independent samples

representing N = 35,670 workers) of relationships between job crafting behaviors and their

various antecedents and work outcomes derived from our model. We consider both overall and

dimension-level job crafting relationships. Notably, overall job crafting was found to be strongly

associated with proactive personality (rc = .543), promotion regulatory focus (rc = .509), and

work engagement (rc = .450). Differential results emerged when considering specific job crafting

dimensions. For example, increasing challenging job demands was associated with other-rated

work performance (rc = .422), whereas decreasing hindering job demands was related to turnover

intentions (rc = .235). Beyond these zero-order relationships, a meta-analytic confirmatory factor

analysis provide support for the operationalization of overall job crafting based upon the

proposed dimensions, with the exception of decreasing hindering demands. Additionally, results

of meta-analytic relative weights analyses speak to the unique relationships of all four job

crafting dimensions with different work outcomes.

Keywords: job crafting; job demands; job resources; meta-analysis; review

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 3

1. Introduction

Job crafting is a specific form of proactive work behavior that involves employees

actively changing the (perceived) characteristics of their jobs (Tims & Bakker, 2010;

Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). As job crafting is initiated by employees themselves, it has been

described as an individualized, bottom-up, and proactive approach to job re-design, compared to

top-down and “one-size-fits-all” approaches that are initiated by the organization (Demerouti &

Bakker, 2014; Grant & Parker, 2009; Parker, 2014; Parker & Ohly, 2008). Cumulative evidence

suggests that there is appreciable variability in relationships between discrete job characteristics

and employee outcomes such as job satisfaction and performance (Fried & Ferris, 1987;

Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Thus, in times of rapid organizational change, job

crafting may constitute a promising alternative to traditional job re-design approaches.

Researchers have argued that even in stable work environments and in jobs with low autonomy,

employees are able to make some changes to their job demands and resources (Petrou,

Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2016).

Job crafting is not a new concept. Nearly 30 years ago, Kulik, Oldham, and Hackman

(1987, p. 292) noted that “Another strategy for work redesign is a participative change process,

in which jobholders are actively involved in determining what changes will be made in their jobs

to improve the match with their own needs and skills […] employees may on occasion redesign

their jobs on their own initiative -- either with or without management assent and cooperation.”

Despite its longstanding definition, research concerning the antecedents, consequences, and

correlates of job crafting has only increased over the past decade. This increase is due in large

part to the publication of an article by Tims and Bakker (2010) that, based on the job demands-

resources (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2016; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et

al., 2001), positioned job crafting as a theoretically important mechanism linking characteristics
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 4

of the work environment to work outcomes. The JD-R model is a comprehensive theoretical

framework for understanding how job design elements influence occupational well-being and

work performance. The model describes how job demands and resources influence motivation-

enhancing (e.g., work engagement) and strain-enhancing (e.g., exhaustion) processes and work

performance. Accordingly, job crafting serves as an important link between work motivation and

the cultivation of both job and personal resources that, in turn, help increase person-job fit

(Bakker & Demerouti, 2016). To operationalize job crafting in terms of the JD-R model, Tims,

Bakker, and Derks (2012) published a widely-used scale designed to measure job crafting in

terms of proactive behaviors that employees engage in to increase challenging and to decrease

hindering job demands, as well as to increase structural and social job resources.

In this study, we present the results of a meta-analysis conducted to integrate extant

research on job crafting as conceptualized by Tims and Bakker (2010). To organize this effort,

we present a conceptual model (Figure 1) that extends existing theorizing by positioning job

crafting within well-established models of proactive work behavior (in particular, Bindl &

Parker, 2011, but also Crant, 2000; Frese & Fay, 2001; Grant & Ashford, 2008; and Parker,

Bindl, & Strauss, 2010). This model also builds upon recent theorizing on the antecedents and

outcomes of job crafting (Demerouti, 2014; Wang, Demerouti, & Bakker, 2017) as a means of

guiding hypotheses and corresponding empirical tests of the associations between job crafting

and a range of relevant antecedents and outcomes. Our overarching goals and contributions here

were three-fold, and address current needs that broadly characterize this literature.

First, applying our model, we meta-analytically synthesize relationships of job crafting

with individual differences, job characteristics, and individual-level work outcomes (Figure 1).

Second, because research based on Tims and Bakker’s (2010) conceptualization has adopted

different operationalizations of job crafting (e.g., Tims, et al., 2012; Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters,
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 5

Schaufeli, & Hetland, 2012), we considered job crafting in two different ways. On the one hand,

we considered relationships with the four specific job crafting dimensions outlined by Tims and

Bakker (2010), namely increasing challenging and decreasing hindering job demands, as well as

increasing structural and social job resources. On the other hand, acknowledging that research

has also conceptualized job crafting as a composite aggregation of these four dimensions (e.g.,

Akkermans & Tims, 2016; Bell & Njolli, 2016; Ingusci et al., 2016; Tims, Derks, & Bakker,

2016), we provide meta-analytic evidence for the interrelationships among the four forms of job

crafting. We also conduct a meta-analytic confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of these

relationships, and consider relationships of “overall” job crafting with associated antecedents and

outcomes. Building upon the latter point, we additionally offer a series of moderator analyses,

which address whether combining various job crafting dimensions yields substantially different

conclusions regarding such effects. By addressing this goal, we aim to provide some necessary

clarity surrounding the operation of overall versus dimension-level conceptualizations of job

crafting.

Third, we more closely examine the role of dimension-specific forms of job crafting by

decomposing the relative contribution of each of the four dimensions as predictors of work

outcomes via meta-analytic relative weights analyses. This goal specifically addresses the need

to understand the unique relationships between each job crafting dimension and the outcomes

considered within our integrative model. In summary, our study contributes to an enhanced

understanding of the nature of the job crafting construct by a) applying methods of quantitative

synthesis to test the associations implied by an integrative model, b) investigating how these

associations vary as a function of how job crafting is conceptualized, and c) exploring the

differential relationships that job crafting dimensions have with work outcomes.

2. Job Crafting: Conceptualization and Measurement

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 6

Job crafting can be differentiated conceptually from other proactive work behavior

constructs, such as personal initiative, taking charge, and voice (Parker & Collins, 2010; Tornau

& Frese, 2013, 2015), in that it is specifically directed at changing the (perceived) characteristics

of one’s job (Demerouti & Bakker, 2014). While other forms of proactive behavior may result in

changes to one’s job characteristics, the underlying intentions of these behaviors are more

broadly focused (Frese, Garst, & Fay, 2007). Additionally, although our meta-analysis

particularly focuses on the most commonly used approach to job crafting that has been offered

by Tims and Bakker (2010) and Tims et al. (2012), a number of alternative conceptualizations

and measures of job crafting do exist (see Table 1 for a summary).

Job crafting was first formally defined by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) as “the

physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their

work” (p. 179) and “the action employees take to shape, mold, and redefine their jobs” (p. 180).

Within this definition, physical changes refer to actual alterations of job characteristics, cognitive

changes involve psychological redefinitions and reinterpretations of job characteristics without

actual changes, and relational boundary changes entail altering the quantity or quality of

workplace relationships. Wrzesniewski and Dutton suggest that employees are motivated to

engage in job crafting to fulfill basic psychological needs for autonomy, positive self-image, and

relatedness (cf. Ryan & Deci, 2000). To this end, job crafting leads to changes in employees’

identity and perceived meaning of work which, in turn, lead to greater job satisfaction and

performance. Job crafting influences identity development because it helps increase the fit

between employees’ views and definitions of themselves and their work. Wrzesniewski and

Dutton (2001) also argue that job crafting influences employees’ understanding of the purpose of

their work (i.e., perceived meaning), because their job characteristics become more aligned with

their individual abilities and needs.

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 7

Recently, researchers have developed measurement instruments to capture the

dimensions of job crafting (i.e., physical, cognitive, and relational) proposed by Wrzesniewski

and Dutton (2001) (e.g., Ghitulescu, 2006; Niessen et al., 2016; Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013;

see Table 1). In parallel, a number of researchers have proposed alternative conceptualizations of

job crafting (e.g., Berg et al., 2010; Leana et al., 2009; see Table 1). The most widely known and

adopted theoretical model was developed by Tims and Bakker (2010), who define job crafting as

a form of proactive behavior that involves employees initiating changes in their (actual or

perceived) job demands and resources to increase the fit between these job characteristics and

their personal abilities and needs. Increased person-job fit, in turn, should lead to higher job

satisfaction, work engagement, and perceived meaningfulness of work. Further grounding job

crafting within the larger JD-R framework (e.g., Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti, Bakker,

Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001), Bakker (2011) updated this general model to suggest that job

crafting completes an in transitu feedback loop linking work engagement and performance to

enhanced job and personal resources.

Based upon the theory offered by Tims and Bakker (2010), Tims et al. (2012) suggested

that job crafting consists of four dimensions: Increasing challenging job demands involves

performing behaviors such as asking for more responsibilities and volunteering for special

projects. Decreasing hindering job demands entails performing behaviors that aim to minimize

physical, cognitive, and emotional demands, such as reducing workload and work-family

conflict. Increasing structural job resources includes performing behaviors that aim to increase

the autonomy, skill variety, and other motivational characteristics of the job. Finally, increasing

social job resources entails asking for feedback as well as advice and support from supervisors

and colleagues.
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 8

On the basis of factor-analytic evidence, Petrou and colleagues (2012) collapsed two of

the dimensions in Tims and Bakker’s (2010) conceptualization -- increasing structural and social

job resources -- into one increasing job resources dimension and only differentiated between

three types of job crafting. Likewise, Nielsen and Abildgaard (2012) developed a comparable,

but much less widely used job crafting scale for blue-collar workers that additionally includes the

dimensions “decreasing social job demands” and “increasing quantitative job demands.” Of note,

in our meta-analysis, we focus on the four dimensions of job crafting originally proposed and

represented in the measurement model offered by Tims and colleagues (2012), because these

dimensions directly map onto the widely accepted and studied theoretical model offered by Tims

and Bakker (2010) and because this scale is the most commonly used in the literature.

While these dimensions of job crafting are often considered independently in the

literature, research has also aggregated scores across these dimensions to represent overall job

crafting (e.g., Akkermans & Tims, 2016; Bell & Njolli, 2016; Ingusci et al., 2016; Tims, Derks,

& Bakker, 2016). Indeed, this operationalization suggests that different related dimensions of job

crafting reflect a latent, higher-order or composite job crafting construct. Considering various

theoretical models of job crafting (e.g., Tims & Bakker, 2010; Bakker, 2011), this overall

conceptualization is consistent with the idea that job crafting represents the orchestration of

related proactive behaviors that are jointly enacted and represent striving towards enhanced

person-environment fit.

Next, we will introduce an integrated theoretical model that explains links between

various antecedents and consequences of job crafting. Prevailing theoretical models have

variously positioned job crafting within the implied action-phase sequence of the JD-R (e.g.,

Tims & Bakker, 2010; Bakker, 2011), meaning that several constructs can be conceptualized

both as antecedents and outcomes of job crafting. For instance, work engagement is likely to
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 9

influence and to be influenced by job crafting (Bakker, 2010; Lu, Wang, Lu, Du, & Bakker,

2014). Given the non-experimental nature of the research considered by our meta-analysis, we

necessarily consider individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes to be

correlates rather than causal antecedents or outcomes of job crafting (see Figure 1). However,

we can consider theoretically grounded, empirically supported arguments for the classification of

these variables as antecedents or outcomes of job crafting on the basis of theory and research.

3. Integrative Theoretical Model of Job Crafting

3.1. Job Crafting as a Form of Proactive Behavior

There has recently been increasing interest in identifying different forms of proactive

work behaviors (Parker & Bindl, 2017), and empirical models have established a differentiated

nomological network of related proactivity constructs (e.g., personal initiative, taking charge,

voice; see Tornau & Frese, 2013). Moreover, a number of theoretical advancements have

proposed various antecedents and outcomes of proactive behavior (e.g., Bindl & Parker, 2011,

Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008). Job crafting involves proactive changes that employees

make to balance their job demands and resources with their personal capacities and needs.

However, job crafting has yet to be formally integrated into these more general models of

proactivity (e.g., Bindl & Parker, 2011). Two recent theoretical advancements put forward by

Demerouti (2014) and Wang, Demerouti, and Bakker (2017) hint at a variety of personal (e.g.,

proactive personality; general self-efficacy) and contextual antecedents (e.g., job resources, such

as job autonomy; job demands, such as workload), as well as positive (e.g., work engagement;

work performance) and negative (e.g., job strain) outcomes associated with job crafting.

These complimentary models of job crafting antecedents and outcomes very closely map

onto more general models of proactive work behavior found in the literature. For example, an

early model by Crant (2000) specifies individual differences (e.g., proactive personality, self-
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 10

efficacy) and contextual factors (e.g., norms, social support) as predictors of proactive work

behavior, and work performance and attitudes as outcomes. Frese and Fay (2001) offer a similar

model that focuses specifically on personal initiative, but that also specifies environmental and

person-level antecedents (i.e., personality; knowledge, skills, and abilities). Grant and Ashford

(2008) extend these models to include additional situational (e.g., ambiguity) and dispositional

(e.g., big five personality) antecedents to proactive work behavior. More comprehensive

extensions of these models by Bindl, Parker, and colleagues (Bindl & Parker 2011; Parker,

Bindl, & Strauss, 2010) specify distal individual differences (e.g., demographics, personality)

and situational antecedents (e.g., job design), proximal individual difference antecedents (e.g.,

goals, affect), as well as individual work performance, career, and well-being outcomes.

Likewise, the job crafting models offered by Demerouti (2014) and Wang et al. (2017)

are consistent with Tornau and Frese’s (2013) integrative and empirically supported proactivity

framework, which specifies both distal and proximal antecedents of proactive work behaviors,

including personality and job characteristics, as well as work outcome variables, including job

satisfaction and work performance. Thus, the conceptual model that serves as our theoretical

framework in this study is grounded within the integration of these various perspectives on job

crafting and proactive work behavior (see Figure 1). We next elaborate on this model and more

directly explain the nature of the proposed links tested in our meta-analysis. For reasons of

parsimony, we took a theory-driven and affirmative approach to justify our hypotheses, meaning

that we do not additionally justify why we do not expect certain relationships.

3.2. Job Crafting and Individual Differences

Consistent with general models of proactivity (e.g., Bindl & Parker, 2011; Frese & Fay,

2001; Grant & Ashford, 2008), our integrative model of job crafting presented in Figure 1

suggests that various personality characteristics and beliefs serve as individual difference
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 11

antecedents of job crafting. In our meta-analysis, we examine relationships between job crafting

and the traits included within the five-factor model of personality, as well as proactive

personality, promotion and prevention regulatory focus, and general self-efficacy.

The five factor model of personality (i.e., the "Big Five"; Digman, 1990) is defined by

trait conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism (i.e., low emotional stability), agreeableness,

and openness to experience. In their dynamic model of proactivity, Grant and Ashford (2008)

suggest that certain big five traits (i.e., conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to

experience) are important for the development of proactive work behaviors (see also Wu & Li,

2017). Expanding upon these predictions, we expect that all of the big five traits are related to

overall job crafting (see Bell & Njoli, 2016). Considering specific job crafting dimensions,

conscientious employees are task-oriented and persistent. Considering the latter, Grant and

Ashford (2008) emphasize the importance of persistence for the sustained enactment of proactive

work behavior. Conscientiousness should thus facilitate increasing challenging job demands,

decreasing hindering job demands, and increasing structural job resources. Extraverted

employees are outgoing and sociable, and are adept at managing social interactions (Aspendorf

& Wilpers, 1998). As such, Wu and Li (2017) suggest that extraversion is particularly important

for facilitating proactive behavior in relational contexts, thus higher extraversion should be

associated with higher levels of increasing social job resources. Emotionally stable employees

(i.e., those low in neuroticism) cope well with stressors, which should facilitate decreasing

hindering job demands. Moreover, more emotionally stable people tend to experience positive

emotions and have higher self-confidence (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997), which may support

the conviction to successfully influence change (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Agreeable

employees are friendly and team-oriented which, similar to extraversion, should enable

increasing social job resources. Finally, employees with high levels of openness to experience
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 12

are curious and creative, which may support the information-collection stages of proactive action

processes (see Frese & Fay, 2001). Thus, openness should relate positively to increasing

challenging and decreasing hindering job demands.

Considering proactive personality, employees who are generally more proactive are more

likely to engage in all forms of job crafting because they tend to show high levels of initiative,

identify opportunities, overcome barriers, and persevere until they reach their goals (Crant, Hu,

& Jiang, 2017; Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012). In a domain-general sense, self-efficacy refers to

people’s confidence in their ability to accomplish a given task successfully (Bandura, 2000). We

expect that general self-efficacy is positively related to increasing challenging demands and

increasing structural and social job resources, given that employees with high general self-

efficacy set ambitious goals for themselves, persist during goal pursuit, and use better strategies

to accomplish their goals (Bandura, 2000; Kanten, 2014).

According to regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997), people with higher levels of

promotion focus concentrate on their hopes, accomplishments, and gains while pursuing their

goals, whereas people with higher levels of prevention focus concentrate on safety,

responsibilities, and avoiding losses. We expect that employees with higher levels of promotion

focus show greater levels of increasing challenging demands and increasing structural and social

resources than employees with a lower levels of promotion focus. Moreover, we predict that

employees with higher levels of prevention focus will engage more in reducing hindering

demands and less in other forms of job crafting than employees with lower levels of prevention

focus. Research suggests that those with higher levels of promotion focus are more likely take

steps to improve their person-job fit in general, whereas employees with higher levels of

prevention focus are more focused on preventing negative outcomes (e.g., low performance,
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 13

negative evaluations) by reducing hindering job demands (Bipp & Demerouti, 2015; Petrou &

Demerouti, 2015; Wang et al., 2017).

3.3. Job Crafting and Job Characteristics

Our integrative model of job crafting also considers job autonomy and workload as

specific job characteristics. The inclusion of such job characteristics in our model mirrors past

models of proactivity, which have positioned job characteristics as important antecedents to

proactive work behaviors (e.g., Bindl & Parker, 2011; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Ohly & Schmitt,

2017). Consistent with the predictions of these models, we expect that job autonomy is positively

related to overall job crafting. Additionally, we expect positive relationships between job

autonomy and both increasing challenging job demands and increasing structural and social job

resources, because job autonomy provides employees with opportunities and necessary

information to make changes to their job characteristics based on their individual abilities and

needs (Lyons, 2008; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013). Moreover, we predict that workload is

positively related to decreasing hindering demands as well as increasing structural and social job

resources, because employees who experience a higher workload will be motivated to reduce the

demands that are placed on them and to seek resources that help them manage these demands

(Bakker & Demerouti, 2016).

3.4. Job Crafting and Work Outcomes

Our integrative model of job crafting delineates important work outcomes that are

consistent with the general model of proactive behavior by Bindl and Parker (2011; i.e., job

performance and well-being). Likewise, consistent with Crant’s (2000) model of proactive

behavior, we consider job attitudes as outcomes of job crafting. Recent qualitative literature

reviews have suggested that job crafting is associated with a variety of favorable work outcomes

(Demerouti & Bakker, 2014; Wang et al., 2017). In their model of proactive work behavior,
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 14

Bindl and Parker (2011) argue that proactive behavior is positively associated with job

performance and well-being. Expanding upon this model, we meta-analytically review

associations between job crafting and job attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction, turnover intentions),

indicators of occupational well-being (i.e., work engagement, job strain), and work performance

(i.e., self- and other-rated task performance, contextual performance) to gain a better

understanding of these potential consequences of job crafting.

3.4.1. Job attitudes. We expect that job crafting is positively related to job satisfaction

and negatively related to turnover intentions. One’s attitude toward their job should result in part

from improvements in job characteristics and perceived person-job fit due to engaging in job

crafting (Edwards & Shipp, 2007; Wang et al., 2017). In particular, we predict that increasing

challenging job demands and increasing structural and social job resources (but not decreasing

hindering job demands) are positively related to favorable job attitudes (i.e., higher job

satisfaction and lower turnover intentions).

3.4.2. Occupational well-being. Work engagement and job strain are important

indicators of occupational well-being and are integral to the JD-R (Demerouti et al., 2001).

Similar to job attitudes, work engagement and job strain should be influenced by job crafting via

improved job characteristics and perceived person-job fit. Previous research indeed suggests that

job crafting leads to improved employee well-being (Petrou et al., 2012; Petrou, Demerouti, &

Schaufeli, 2015; Tims, et al., 2013) and that these relationships are mediated by enhanced

person-job fit (Chen, Yen, & Tsai, 2014). We expect that increasing challenging job demands

and increasing structural and social job resources (but not decreasing hindering job demands) are

positively related to occupational well-being.

3.4.3. Work performance. Finally, we predict that job crafting, and particularly

increasing challenging job demands and increasing structural and social job resources, are
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 15

positively related to both self-rated and other-rated work performance and contextual

performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). These job crafting

behaviors should be positively related to work performance and contextual performance because

they improve person-job fit which, in turn, facilitates performance (Edwards, Caplan, &

Harrison, 1998; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). Several recent studies have

found that job crafting is positively related to work performance (e.g., Bakker et al., 2012;

Demerouti et al., 2015; Gordon, Demerouti, Le Blanc, & Bipp, 2015; Tims et al. 2015b).

However, findings regarding the relationship between job crafting and contextual performance

are somewhat mixed. For instance, Gordon and colleagues (2015) found that decreasing

hindering job demands was negatively related to contextual performance, whereas Tims et al.

(2015b) found a non-significant effect of decreasing hindering job demands on contextual

performance. Using meta-analytic methods, we aim to better understand the relationships

between job crafting dimensions and different forms of performance.

3.5. Descriptive Relationships with Demographic and Employment Characteristics

Finally, our integrative model of job crafting specifies several demographic and

employment characteristics. To be consistent with past meta-analytic models of proactivity

constructs (Tornau & Frese, 2013) we conceptualize these relationships here as descriptive,

rather than as substantive in nature. Moreover, because Bindl and Parker’s (2011) model of

proactivity specifies such demographic and employment characteristics as distal antecedents of

proactive work behaviors, we likewise consider these variables here. We examine descriptive

relationships between job crafting and five commonly assessed demographic and employment

characteristics: chronological age, gender, education, tenure, and work hours. Even though job

crafting theories (e.g., Demerouti, 2014; Tims & Bakker, 2010, Wang et al., 2017) do not make

specific predictions regarding these characteristics, it is still useful to understand the nature of
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 16

such relationships, not only for comparing findings with research on other forms of proactive

behavior (Tornau & Frese, 2013) and the planning of future research endeavors, but also for the

continued development of enhanced theories of job crafting. To this end, it would be helpful to

know whether job crafting is more or less common among younger or older employees, male or

female employees, more or less educated employees, employees with shorter or longer tenure,

and employees working fewer or more hours.

Some theorizing exists to support specific relationships between job crafting and

demographic and employment characteristics. Based on human capital theory (Becker, 1975), it

could be argued that older employees, as well as those with longer tenure and higher levels of

education may have greater accumulated job and general knowledge and thus are in a better

position to craft their jobs compared to younger employees and those with shorter tenure and

lower levels of education. Based upon action regulation theory, it could also be argued that older

and more experienced employees (i.e., relative to younger and less experienced employees) are

more likely to have developed cognitive routines in their work that are detrimental to behavioral

changes like job crafting (Zacher, Hacker, & Frese, 2016).

Research concerning gender differences in job crafting is somewhat equivocal. For

example, Petrou, Demerouti, and Xanthopoulou (2016) find that overall, men are more likely to

engage in job crafting than women, whereas Van Hoof and Van Hooft (2014) find the opposite.

There is also evidence for variability in this effect at the job crafting dimension level. For

example, Van Hoof and Van Hooft (2014) report that women were more likely than men to craft

via increasing structural job resources and increasing challenging job demands. Career

development research has found that women may be afforded fewer challenging work

experiences than their male counterparts (e.g., Lyness & Thompson, 2000; Ohlott et al., 1994;
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 17

Van Velsor and Hughes, 1990). Because the pursuit of challenging job assignments is an

important perquisite for career advancement in many cases (Mainiero, 1994; Ragins et al., 1998),

job crafting may represent a particularly important opportunity for women to proactively manage

their career progression. While formally untested, the results of our meta-analysis will shed light

on these possibilities and provide directions for future research and theorizing.

4. Method

4.1. Inclusion Criteria

As part of our efforts, we conducted two separate meta-analyses (i.e., a primary meta-

analysis of overall job crafting and specific job crafting dimension relationships, and an ancillary

meta-analysis of interrelations among the specific job crafting dimensions). Thus, we established

two sets of a priori inclusion/exclusion criteria. For the primary analysis, we set six inclusion

criteria to guide our literature searches. First, to qualify for inclusion, articles must have

measured job crafting in terms of either (a) increasing structural job resources, increasing social

job resources, increasing challenging job demands, or decreasing hindering job demands via the

instrument developed by Tims et al. (2012) or a related instrument that likewise captures these

dimensions of increasing and decreasing job demands and resources (e.g., Petrou et al., 2012;

Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012), or (b) overall job crafting via an aggregation of two or more of

these dimensions.

Studies adopting alternative measurement instruments (see Table 1) were excluded from

our analysis when such scales could not be readily mapped onto Tims and Bakker’s (2010)

theoretical framework and its related measurement model and associated scale items (i.e., Tims

et al., 2012). Across all of our literature search efforts and attempts to obtain unpublished data

and pre-press manuscripts, no studies measured multiple dimension of job crafting that
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 18

simultaneously map onto the Tims et al. (2012) and the Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001)

conceptualizations of job crafting. This is important to note, because this “gap” makes a direct

empirical comparison between these alternative job crafting theories via meta-analytic synthesis

impossible at this point in time.

In terms of conceptualizing overall job crafting in our analyses, we either coded such

relationships directly from studies that reported job crafting as a composite score (e.g., Tims et

al., 2016) or we computed a composite across available crafting dimension correlations using

Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) composite formulae to represent overall job crafting relationships.

This first inclusion criterion led to the exclusion of review articles (e.g., Demerouti, 2014;

Demerouti & Bakker, 2014; Nielsen, 2013), studies adopting exclusively qualitative

methodologies, and studies that investigated non-work forms of crafting (e.g., leisure crafting,

Petrou & Bakker, 2016).

Second, in addition to measuring job crafting in some capacity, at least one of the

individual differences, job characteristics, work outcomes, or demographic variables from our

integrative job crafting models must also have been measured (see Figure 1). Thus, studies that

only considered the psychometric qualities of job crafting scales were excluded from this

primary analysis, as were studies that did not measure at least one of the relevant antecedent or

outcome variables (e.g., Akin, Sarıçam, Kaya, & Demir, 2014).

Third, to avoid double counting (i.e., to maintain sample independence), we excluded

studies in which authors clearly used the same dataset and reported the same correlations in more

than one published study, unless different outcomes were clearly considered in both studies (e.g.,

Tims et al., 2013, and Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2015a, both use the same sample; however,

different outcome variables are reported in each study, and overlapping job crafting relationships
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 19

were only coded from one study; similar overlapping samples are also present in both Petrou &

Demerouti, 2015, and Petrou, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2016).

Related to this, in cases where both theses/dissertations and published versions of these

theses/dissertations were obtained via our literature searches, the study with more information

(i.e., a greater number of relevant job crafting relationships) was coded (e.g., Study 1 from

Chapter Six of Petrou’s, 2013 dissertation contains more complete information than the resulting

publication, Petrou et al., 2016). Similarly, in the case of one master’s thesis (Hekkert-Koning,

2014), the sample used and the relationships reported completely overlapped with a more recent

published work. Thus, we opted to code only the published work (Brenninkmeijer & Hekkert-

Koning, 2015) and excluded the thesis. Studies reporting results in languages other than English

were translated using translation software.

Consistent with meta-analytic best practices (e.g., Cooper, Hedges, & Valentine, 2009;

Higgins & Green, 2011), we sought to actively include unpublished master’s theses and doctoral

dissertations in our meta-analysis (K = 41). In some universities, groups of bachelor’s and

master’s students work together in “thesis circles” to complete such projects. In such cases, we

coded non-overlapping relationships that were unique to each individual study to ensure sample

independence. Such studies are noted in the references with the superscript “TC” and a number

representing thesis circle membership (e.g., TC1).

Fourth, whenever longitudinal analyses were reported, we coded relationships based on

time-one data for complete panel designs (e.g., Vogt, Hakanen, Brauchli, Jenny, & Bauer, 2016),

and between job crafting and relevant correlates at other time points for incomplete panel designs

(e.g., Nielsen & Abildgaard, 2012). Fifth, when an article reported results obtained from multiple

independent samples, each sample was included separately in the meta-analysis (e.g., De Beer,

Tims, & Bakker, 2016; Nielsen, Sanz-Vergel, Munego-Rodriguez, & Mirkko, in press).
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 20

Finally, diary research has shown that employees engage in job crafting on a daily basis

(Demerouti et al., 2015; Petrou et al., 2012; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2014). However, the

number of studies using such designs is still small relative to others (i.e., we identified K = 12

diary studies). To be consistent with our operationalization of job crafting, we considered data at

the between-person level of analysis only (i.e., within-person data aggregated to the between-

person level) from such studies.

For the ancillary meta-analysis of dimension-level intercorrelations, we adopted an

additional inclusion criterion. Specifically, to facilitate meta-analytic regression modelling and

relative weights analysis, we additionally needed to quantify the strength of the intercorrelations

between individual dimensions of job crafting. For this analysis, we only considered studies that

measured all four job crafting dimensions included in the Tims et al. (2012) job crafting scale.

Indeed, a number of studies excluded certain dimensions of the job crafting scale (e.g.,

Berdicchia, Nicolli, & Masino, 2016; Gordon, Demerouti, Le Blanc, & Bipp, 2015) and were

consequently omitted from this dimension-level analysis.

4.2. Literature Search

All literature searching was done between April 1, 2016 and June 20, 2016, with

supplementary literature searches conducted in December 2016 to support a revision effort. We

initially searched the electronic database, Google Scholar, with follow-up searches conducted

using EBSCOHost, Emerald, JSTOR, ProQuest, PsycINFO, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science.

All searches used the keyword “job crafting” as well as the individual dimensions of job crafting

as defined by Tims et al. (2012; i.e., “increasing structural job resources,” “decreasing hindering

job demands,” “increasing social job resources,” and “increasing challenging job demands”). For

each subsequent database, we noted all non-redundant articles (i.e., uniquely identified articles

not overlapping with previous searches).

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 21

Additionally, we conducted forward searches to find studies citing the original Tims and

Bakker (2010) theory development paper, along with the Tims et al. (2012) job crafting scale

development paper. To locate additional literature, we examined the reference lists of all

retrieved articles and conducted systematic forward searches of studies that cited each retrieved

article. This search process yielded an initial set of over 500 references. In a second step, based

on our inclusion criteria, we selected all relevant quantitative-empirical studies on job crafting

from these initial references by carefully examining the abstract, methods, and results of each

article. We also conducted searches within the conference programs of the Academy of

Management (years 2012 to 2015), the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

(years 2012 to 2016), and the European Association for Work and Organizational Psychology

(years 2011, 2013, 2015), and we contacted all authors whose abstracts mentioned job crafting.

Finally, to obtain unpublished data and in-press articles, we contacted researchers who have

published previously on job crafting, and we requested articles using professional mailing lists

and website postings. For one such unpublished dataset (Akkermans & Tims, 2016), a published

article was noted while this manuscript was under review (Akkermans & Tims, 2017).

Additionally, we searched for pre-press “online first” articles via various relevant journal

websites (e.g., Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of

Vocational Behavior, Human Relations).

In total, our meta-analytic database contained 1,429 effect sizes coded from K = 108

sources representing K = 122 independent samples and a total of N = 35,670 workers. Our

ancillary meta-analysis of the intercorrelations between the Tims et al. (2012) job crafting

dimensions was based upon a total of K = 42 independent samples, representing a subset of N =

13,440 workers. All included studies are marked with an asterisk (i.e., *) in the reference list.
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 22

While coding, we took efforts to contact authors to clarify information (e.g., the dummy

coding pattern of gender) or missing data (e.g., scale reliabilities; intercorrelations among job

crafting dimensions to facilitate composite formation). In most cases, such issues were quickly

and easily clarified (i.e., in only K = 4 cases, we were unable to receive the required information

for inclusion, and such studies were subsequently excluded). We additionally excluded one study

that reported untenable correlations (i.e., Rofcanin, Berber, Koch, & Sevinc, 2015).

4.3. Measures of Constructs

4.3.1. Included relationships. We meta-analyzed relationships between overall job

crafting, job crafting dimensions, and the set of a priori identified individual differences, job

characteristics, and work outcomes (Figure 1). Consistent with past research and best

methodological practices, we included such relationships in our meta-analytic models in cases

where these relationships were represented in at least three (K ≥ 3) independent samples that

measured each of the four dimensions of job crafting that were originally included in the Tims et

al. (2012) scale. As Valentine, Pigott, and Rothstein (2010) note, even when K = 2, meta-analysis

is superior to other means of synthesis (e.g., the “cognitive algebra” by which one tries to

mentally integrate findings across studies). Moreover, a number of previous meta-analyses in the

organizational sciences have adopted this K ≥ 3 criterion (e.g., Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng, &

DuBois, 2008; Choi, Oh, & Colbert, 2014; Kirca et al., 2012; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, &

Topolnytsky, 2002; Viswesvaran et al., 2002; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995). Ultimately only 2%

(i.e., 3) of the 115 effect sizes reported in our meta-analysis are based on K= 3 studies; the

average number of studies included across these 115 estimates is approximately K = 12. Initially,

we set out to code relationships that eventually did not meet our minimum K ≥ 3 criterion for

each of the four Tims et al. (2012) dimensions (e.g., individual differences, including positive

and negative affect and psychological capital; job characteristics, including skill variety and
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 23

feedback, and work outcomes, including counterproductive work behaviors and organizational

commitment). Supplemental analyses and results characterizing these data are available from the

first author.

When overlapping variables were not available in at least three samples, we made efforts

to combine relevant variables into a typology of synthetic construct groupings. This was the case

for three work outcomes investigated here: 1) other-rated task performance was composed of

supervisor, peer, and customer-rated task performance, 2) job strain was composed of burnout

and emotional exhaustion, and 3) contextual performance was composed of self- and other-rated

organizational citizenship behaviors and self-rated contextual performance. It should be noted

that when coding effect sizes for demographic characteristics, age and tenure were

conceptualized chronologically (i.e., in years). Gender was operationalized as dummy coded

categories, such that higher values were indicative of females (i.e., 0 = Male, 1 = Female).

Education was operationalized such that higher scores indicate higher levels of educational

attainment. Additionally, tenure was considered in terms of both job (e.g., Berdicchia, 2015) and

organizational (e.g., Peeters, Arts, & Demerouti, 2016) tenure.

4.3.2. Composite and dimension-level job crafting. For overall job crafting,

relationships were either directly coded from primary studies (i.e., those reporting aggregated job

crafting scores; e.g., Solberg & Wong, 2016; Tims et al., 2016) or were combined from

dimension-level relationships using composite formulae from Hunter and Schmidt (2004). In

both cases, these relationships represent the association between a combination of job crafting

dimensions and a given correlate.

With respect to relationships at the dimension level, we coded heterogeneous job crafting

dimensions that most directly map onto the theoretical model offered by Tims and Bakker (2010)

and the corresponding Tims et al. (2012) measure of job crafting. The scaling of job crafting
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 24

offered by Petrou et al. (2012) combines the two resource-based crafting dimensions into one

larger homogenous cluster of job crafting behavior (i.e., increasing job resources). As such, we

did not code such homogenous clusters. However, because the items included in this cluster do

generally map onto those of the Tims et al. (2012) scale, these dimensions were considered when

computing composite correlations to represent overall job crafting relationships.

4.4. General Overview of Meta-Analytic Procedures

Following an exhaustive literature search, each of the first three authors independently

coded approximately one-third of all studies applying the a priori determined inclusion criteria

outlined above. Coding correlations and reliabilities directly from primary studies does not

require subjective judgements (Cooper, 1998; 2009; Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Whetzel &

McDaniel, 1988). Indeed, initial calibration coding on a random subset of 10 studies yielded

perfect agreement among the three coders. Nonetheless, the coding team met for weekly coding

calibration meetings, during which each study was individually considered by the team and any

disagreements encountered were discussed until agreement was reached via consensus.

We corrected observed correlations for sampling and measurement error, and combined

effect size estimates using Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) random-effects procedure. First, we

corrected for sampling error by calculating sample size-weighted correlations. Second, where

possible (i.e., for multi-item scales), we corrected for the lack of perfect reliability, as it is well-

established that unreliability attenuates zero-order correlations (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).

Artifact distributions were used for cases in which a study did not report the reliability estimate

for a given construct (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).

In addition to the sample-size weighted correlation (r) and the sample size-weighted and

reliability-corrected correlation (rc), we report the 95% confidence interval and the 80%

credibility interval for rc, as well as the variance attributable to statistical artifacts (% var). A
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 25

sample size-weighted and reliability-corrected correlation is considered statistically significant

when its associated confidence interval does not include zero. If a credibility interval includes

zero, moderators are likely present (Geyskens, Krishnan, Steenkamp, & Cunha, 2009).

Alternatively, the 75% rule can be applied (i.e., a moderator is likely to be present when the

percentage variance accounted for by statistical artifacts is < 75%, see Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).

4.5. Meta-Analytic Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Given the conceptualization of overall job crafting in primary research, consideration of

the latent structure of job crafting bears some attention. The use of overall job crafting here and

in past research begs the question, to what extent is this an accurate representation of the job

crafting construct? Our meta-analysis of intercorrelations among Tims et al. (2012) dimensions

can partially speak to this concern. We subjected these correlations to a CFA, specified as a

single latent variable representing overall job crafting, with each of the four Tims et al. (2012)

dimensions loading onto this factor (see Figure 2).

4.6. Meta-Analytic Multiple Regression Models

Estimating bivariate dimension-level job crafting and work outcome relationships is

important for understanding how job crafting operates at the dimension level; however, to more

closely address the unique and relative contribution of Tims et al.’s (2012) job crafting

dimensions to the prediction of work outcomes, we also ran a series of meta-analytic multiple

regression models. While it is unlikely that the substantive conclusions drawn from such models

depend upon corrections for statistical artifacts (e.g., attenuation due to measurement error;

Michel, Viswesvaran, & Thomas, 2011), some have cautioned against this practice (LeBreton,

Scherer, & James, 2014). To be more conservative in our estimates of these effect, we ran these

models using uncorrected (i.e., sample size-weighted but not reliability-corrected) meta-analytic

esimates. Moreover, as suggested by Viswesvaran and Ones (1995), the sample size for each
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 26

regression model was the harmonic mean of the sample size across the relevant correlations

considered. For such models, each work outcome was regressed simultaneously onto all four

Tims et al. (2012) job crafting dimenions.

When the predictors included in a regression model are correlated, the relative

contribution of each predictor to the model R2 cannot be accurately determined by examining the

regression weights alone (LeBreton, Ployhart, & Ladd, 2004). To determine the relative

contribution of each of the job crafting dimensions to the prediction of each work outcome, we

conducted a relative weights analysis (Johnson, 2000). We repeated these analyses for each work

outcome of interest. Relative weights analysis produces two types of coefficients – relative

weights and rescaled relative weights. Relative weights reflect the proportion of variance

explained in an outcome that is attributed to each of the predictor variables (e.g., any given job

crafting dimension), while the rescaled relative weights reflect the percentage of predicted

variance that is accounted for by each predictor variable (i.e., calculated by dividing the relative

weights by the model R2; LeBreton, Hargis, Griepentrog, Oswald, & Ployhart, 2007).

4.7. Publication Status Sensitivity Analyses

Consistent with best practices for conducting meta-analysis (e.g., Cooper, Hedges, &

Valentine, 2009; Hunter & Schmidt, 2004), we took active steps to locate and obtain as many

unpublished data sources as possible. Despite these efforts, the possibility of the so-called “file-

drawer” problem (Rosenthal, 1979) could still result in publication bias and unduly affect the

results presented here. Conversely, it might be argued that the consideration of a relatively large

number of unpublished studies might itself present a systematic artifact that abides further

consideration. We conducted two separate sensitivity analyses to address the influence of

publication status on our conclusions. To ensure a reasonable distribution of published and

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 27

unpublished studies, we considered only the three highest K outcomes from our primary analysis

(i.e., work engagement, job satisfaction, and self-rated work performance) for both analyses.

The first sensitivity analysis directly addresses the possibility of publication bias.

Publication bias occurs when the results observed from primary studies (i.e., those that are

readily available to review) systematically differ from the results in the population of all possible

primary studies (McDaniel, Rothstein, & Whetzel, 2006). To address this, we used trim-and-fill

procedures to examine the extent to which “missing” studies would change the conclusions

drawn here. The trim-and-fill method is a funnel plot symmetry approach, which both identifies

and corrects for publication bias (see Duval & Tweedie, 1998; 2000).

Whereas the first sensitivity analysis addresses whether the exclusion of unpublished data

could affect our conclusions, the second sensitivity analysis considered whether the inclusion of

unpublished data has a commensurate influence. To address this, we employed cumulative meta-

analysis. In cumulative meta-analysis, studies are sorted by a variable of interest (i.e., in this

case, publication status). Then, a series of iterative meta-analyses are conducted, each adding one

additional effect size at a time. We ordered publication status into blocks as 1 = published

studies, 2 = unpublished conference papers, 3 = unpublished data, and 4 = unpublished theses or

dissertations, which were then sequentially entered into a cumulative meta-analysis.

Such cumulative results can be examined for evidence of what McDaniel (2009) calls

“drift.” Meta-analytic results from the studies “first” entered into the cumulative analysis

represent estimates of the population mean from published studies. Meta-analytic results from

later stages of this iterative process represent those from the addition of unpublished studies to a

distribution that already contains published studies. If unpublished studies are somehow biasing

the conclusions, the cumulative results will “drift” in either a more positive or a more negative

direction (i.e., reflecting the direction of this bias) as unpublished studies are added.
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 28

4.8. Overall Job Crafting Moderator Analysis

We did not hypothesize nor model substantive moderators of job crafting relationships

for two reasons. First, tests of moderators must be firmly grounded within theory and, in contrast

to assumptions about main effects, existing theories of job crafting inconsistently delineate the

role and operation of substantive moderators (e.g., Demerouti, 2014; Tims & Bakker, 2010).

Second, for the few cases where there is a delineation of theoretically justifiable moderators,

there is an inconsistent and relatively diffuse representation of such moderators within primary

studies. As such, we offer tests of homogeneity as evidence for future research to consider

conditional effects that may influence the strength of relationships between job crafting, its

dimensions, and the other variables considered here.

Although substantive moderators could not be addressed here, we did consider an

important methodological moderator representing the construction of overall job crafting. While

a growing number of studies consider overall job crafting as an aggregation of the four Tims et

al. (2012) job crafting dimensions, there is also speculation that the decreasing hindering job

demands dimensions represents a unique withdrawal (e.g., Demerouti, 2014; Tims et al., 2013)

or prevention-focused form of job crafting (e.g., Lichtenhaler, 2016) separate from the other

three dimensions. Our relative weights analyses can speak to the unique relationships that each

of these job crafting dimensions have with the outcomes considered in Figure 1. However, it is

likewise important to ascertain what influence (if any) the differential inclusion of these

dimensions has on the overall construal of job crafting. Whereas our meta-analytic CFA can

speak to the tenability of this overall operationalization from a factor structure perspective, the

aim of this moderator analysis is to determine how the construction of overall job crafting affects

its relationship with relevant antecedents and outcomes.

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 29

When coding overall job crafting for our primary analyses, we additionally coded the

composition of overall job crafting as either 1 = “excludes decreasing hindering job demands”

and 2 = “includes decreasing hindering job demands,” based upon the way that job crafting was

operationalized and measured within each primary study. Thus, we considered the inclusion or

exclusions of decreasing hindering job demands across primary studies to be a natural

independent manipulation, rather than a synthetic and dependent construal.

For this analysis, we considered any effects that contained at least K = 2 for each

subgroup (i.e., to facilitate a comparison of least two studies each that either includes or excludes

the decreasing hindering job demands dimension). Consistent with best practices (Cooper,

Hedges, & Valentine, 2009), we used weighted least squares regression models to estimate these

conditional effects. As with our primary meta-analytic framework, we used Hunter-Schmidt

random effects estimators and sample-size weighting for effect sizes. To be most conservative,

we considered raw (i.e., uncorrected for predictor and criterion unreliability) correlations as

inputs in these models.

We report omnibus Q-statistics and associated inferential tests for significant moderator

effects along with I2 estimates. The I² statistic is an expression of the inconsistency of studies’

results that indexes the percentage of variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity

(interpreted as the proportion of the total variation among effect sizes that is due to systematic

differences between effect sizes rather than by chance alone; see Higgins and Thompson, 2002;

Higgins et al., 2003; Shadish & Haddock, 2009; pp. 263). Higher I² (i.e., those closer to 100%)

suggest that a larger proportion of residual heterogeneity remains unaccounted for after

moderators are modelled (e.g., values between 50% and 100% suggest “substantial” to

“considerable” levels of heterogeneity, see Higgins & Green, 2011). Likewise, following the

suggestions of Hunter and Schmidt (1990), we report 95% confidence intervals for each
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 30

subgroup effect size to allow for direct comparisons between different levels of the moderator.

Non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals suggest that moderator subgroups are statistically

different from one another (p < .05).

5. Results

We first summarize the results of our meta-analytic CFA, and then turn to our primary

meta-analysis of zero-order effects and relative weights analyses. Finally, we discuss sensitivity

and moderator analyses. Given the number of relationships we have considered, the summary of

the zero-order effects focuses only on relationships with overall job crafting; we then expand

upon notable dimension-level relationships in our discussion. Complete zero-order meta-analytic

results of job crafting and its dimensions are summarized in Tables 2-5. Table 2 summarizes

findings for individual differences, Tables 3 and 4 summarize findings for job characteristics and

work outcomes, respectively, and Table 5 summarizes finding for demographic variables. All

effects summarized below are statistically significant (p < .05), except where noted.

5.1. Testing the Latent Structure of Job Crafting

We specified a one-factor CFA model, in which all four Tims et al. (2012) job crafting

dimensions loaded onto a single latent factor representing overall job crafting (see Table 6 &

Figure 2). The fit of this model was satisfactory (χ2(2) = 241.70, p < .05, CFI = .97, TLI = .90,

RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .04). Whereas the pattern of meta-analytic intercorrelations (see Table

6) suggest that the Tims et al. (2012) job crafting dimensions exhibit a generally positive

manifold (Spearman, 1904), a low standardized factor loading was observed between the

decreasing hindering job demands dimension and the latent job crafting factor. While fit of this

model to the data would suggest that these multiple forms of job crafting can be represented as

an aggregate score, these results also hint that some caution should be exercised when construing

job crafting as an “overall” construct (Akkermans & Tims, 2016; Bell & Njolli, 2016; Ingusci et
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 31

al., 2016; Tims, Derks, & Bakker, 2016). Notwithstanding this finding, however, we further

consider evidence for the operation of decreasing hindering job demands both in terms of its

predictive capacity and in terms of its construction, below.

5.2. Testing the Integrative Model of Job Crafting

5.2.1. Job crafting and individual differences. Considering big five personality

dimensions, we find positive relationships between overall job crafting and agreeableness, (rc =

.272), conscientiousness (rc = .200), extraversion (rc = .224), and openness to experience (rc =

.218). In contrast, neuroticism is unrelated to overall job crafting. Proactive personality is

positively related to overall job crafting (rc = .543), as is general self-efficacy (rc = 395).

Considering regulatory focus, we find that promotion focus is positively related to overall job

crafting (rc = .509) and that prevention focus is likewise positively related to overall job crafting

(rc = .157)

5.2.2. Job crafting and job characteristics. Job autonomy (rc = .279) and workload (rc

= .164) are both positively related to overall job crafting.

5.2.3. Job crafting and work outcomes. Job satisfaction is positively related to overall

job crafting (rc = .288); however, overall job crafting was not significantly related to turnover

intentions.

5.2.4. Occupational well-being. Work engagement is positively related to overall job

crafting (rc = .450), while job strain is negatively related to overall job crafting (rc = -.125).

5.2.5 Work Performance. Both self-rated work performance (rc = .274) and other-rated

work performance are positively related to overall job crafting (rc = .184). Additionally,

contextual performance is positively related to overall job crafting (rc = .314).

5.2.6. Demographic and Employment Characteristics. Considering chronological age,

a negative relationship is observed with overall job crafting (rc = -.100). Likewise, tenure is
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 32

weakly and negatively related to overall job crafting (rc = -.105). Additionally, we find small,

positive relationships between overall job crafting and gender (rc = .027), education (rc = .110),

and work hours (rc = .098).

5.3. Summary of Meta-Analytic Multiple Regression Models

Below, we report the results of the relative weights analyses summarizing the relative

contribution of each of the Tims et al. (2012) job crafting dimensions to the prediction of work

outcomes. Note that full results of these models are reported in Table 7, and only the most

important predictors (i.e., in terms of absolute magnitude of variance explained) are summarized

below.

5.3.1. Job attitudes. As a set, job crafting explained R2 = 14% of the variance in job

satisfaction. Relative weights analysis indicated that increasing structural job resources

accounted for 54.72% of this explained variance. With respect to turnover intentions, our

analysis revealed that R2 = 6% of the variance in turnover intentions can be attributed to these

four job crafting dimensions. At the dimension level, decreasing hindering job demands

accounted for 69.57% of the variance explained in turnover intentions.

5.3.2. Occupational well-being. Considering work engagement, job crafting dimensions

accounted for R2 = 29% of the variance in work engagement, and increasing structural job

resources explained 58.74% of this total variability. The set of job crafting dimensions accounted

for R2 = 3% of the variance in job strain and decreasing hindering job demands explains 42.05%

of this effect.

5.3.3. Work performance. Considering self-rated job performance, job crafting

dimensions explained R2 = 12% of the variance in self-rated job performance. The relative

weights analysis showed that increasing structural job resources is the most important crafting

dimension in terms of self-rated job performance, accounting for 66.44% of the variance
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 33

explained across all four crafting dimensions. As a set, the four job crafting dimensions

accounted for R2 = 11% of the variance in other-rated job performance. Of the four dimensions,

increasing challenging job demands accounted for 67.83% of this variance explained. With

respect to contextual performance, job crafting explained R2 = 21% of the variance. Increasing

structural job resources accounted for 61.72% of this effect.

5.4. Publication Status Sensitivity Analyses

5.4.1. Trim-and-fill models. Trim-and-fill estimates for job satisfaction (rTF = .254) and

self-rated work performance (rTF = .243) were quite consistent with the raw zero-order estimates

found in Table 4. However, there was some evidence that publication bias may be affecting the

estimates of the work engagement parameter. Indeed, the trim-and-fill estimate was somewhat

higher than the zero-order effect (rTF = 0.440 versus r = .401), and the estimated number of

missing studies was K = 13. Some caution must be taken when interpreting these findings, as this

method has been noted to perform poorly (Terrin, 2003; Peters, 2007) when there is substantial

between-study heterogeneity (i.e., as observed for work engagement: % var = 15.08; I2 =

88.28%).

5.4.2. Cumulative meta-analysis. The total number of studies considered in the

cumulative meta-analysis of work engagement was K = 60. Initially, K = 25 published studies

were entered iteratively, followed sequentially by K = 35 unpublished data sources. The

observed cumulative effect after the initial entry of all published studies was rpub= 0.390 [95%

CI: 0.315; 0.466], whereas the observed overall cumulative effect including both published and

unpublished studies was rtotal = .401 [95% CI: 0.358; 0.445].

Likewise, the total number of studies considered in the cumulative meta-analysis of job

satisfaction was K = 20. Initially, K = 8 published studies were entered iteratively, followed

sequentially by K = 12 unpublished data sources. The observed cumulative effect after the initial
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 34

entry of all published studies was rpub= 0.283 [95% CI: 0.182l 0.385], whereas the observed

overall cumulative effect including both published and unpublished studies was rtotal = .254 [95%

CI: 0.173; 0.334].

Finally, the total number of studies considered in the cumulative meta-analysis of self-

rated work performance was K = 27. Initially, K = 12 published studies were entered iteratively,

followed sequentially by K = 15 unpublished data sources. The observed cumulative effect after

the initial entry of all published studies was rpub= 0.249 [95% CI: 0.172; 0.327], whereas the

observed overall cumulative effect including both published and unpublished studies was rtotal =

.233 [95% CI: 0.163; 0.303]. Across all three cumulative meta-analyses, the overlapping

confidence intervals between blocks of published and unpublished studies suggests no evidence

of so-called “drifts” (McDaniel, 2009) associated with publication status.

5.5. Results of Overall Job Crafting Moderator Analysis

In terms of formal tests of moderation, for all three of the antecedents (i.e., proactive

personality, general self-efficacy, and job autonomy) and one of the outcomes (i.e., other-rated

work performance), there was no evidence to suggest that the inclusion or exclusion of the

decreasing hindering job demands dimension substantially changed the strength of the observed

effects. The relationship for work engagement (QM(1) = 9.237, p = .002, I2 = 83.95%) was,

however, significantly lower with the inclusion of decreasing hindering job demands, rinclude =

.365 [95% CI: 0.323; 0.406], than without, rexclude = .512 [95% CI: 0.427; 0.598]. Likewise, the

relationship for self-rated work performance (QM(1) = 4.029, p = 0.045, I2 = 70.90%) was

significantly lower with the inclusion of decreasing hindering job demands, rinclude = .200 [95%

CI: 0.134; 0.266], than without, rexclude = .348 [95% CI: 0.219; 0.478].

6. Discussion
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 35

The main aims of this study were to integrate research on job crafting as conceptualized

by Tims and Bakker (2010) and Tims et al., (2012) by quantitatively synthesizing empirical

findings on relevant antecedents and outcomes of job crafting, investigating how these

associations vary as a function of how job crafting is conceptualized, and to examinine the

relative importance of different job crafting dimensions for predicting work outcomes. In the

following sections, we summarize and interpret our findings, discuss relevant limitations, suggest

implications for theory, and outline directions for future research.

6.1. Summary and Interpretation of Findings

Consistent with Bindl and Parker’s (2011) general model of proactive behavior, we

hypothesized that overall job crafting and some of its dimensions would be associated with

certain personality characteristics and beliefs. We found meaningful relationships between

overall job crafting and agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience,

proactive personality, general self-efficacy, and promotion and prevention regulatory focus. The

results for personality and general self-efficacy largely overlap with previous meta-analytic

findings for other forms of proactive behavior (i.e., personal initiative, taking charge, and voice;

Tornau & Frese, 2013). For instance, Tornau and Frese (2013) also found that conscientiousness,

extraversion, openness, and agreeableness were positively, and neuroticism was negatively

related to personal initiative. Findings for the job crafting dimensions were largely as expected

too, but there were also some unexpected results. For example, consistent with expectations, we

found that conscientiousness related positively to increasing structural job resources and

increasing challenging job demands. In contrast, associations between conscientiousness and

increasing social job resources and decreasing hindering demands were relatively small, and in

the case of the latter, negative.

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 36

As expected, extraversion was positively related to increasing social job resources and,

contrary to expectations, also to increasing structural job resources and increasing challenging

job demands. One potential explanation for the latter findings is that extraversion has underlying

elements of assertiveness, which is an important antecedent of proactivity (Major, Turner, &

Fletcher, 2006). Also counter to expectations, we observed a positive relationship between

neuroticism and decreasing hindering job demands, suggesting that less emotionally stable

employees show greater efforts to reduce hindering demands than more emotionally stable

employees. Neuroticism was further negatively related to increasing structural job resources and

increasing challenging job demands. As hypothesized, agreeableness related positively with

increasing social job resources, but also with the other job crafting dimensions in Tims and

Bakker’s (2010) model, including decreasing hindering job demands. Openness was positively

related to increasing structural job resources and increasing challenging job demands, but it was

also unexpectedly negatively related to decreasing hindering job demands. Perhaps the

underlying curiosity and creativity inherent in people with high openness to experience direct

their attention towards more productive expressions of job crafting (Demerouti et al., 2015).

All job crafting dimensions except for decreasing hindering job demands were positively

and meaningfully associated with proactive personality, general self-efficacy, and promotion

focus. These findings were consistent with expectations based upon the job crafting literature and

the proactivity literature more generally (e.g., Parker et al., 2011), which suggest that these traits

are associated with higher levels of job crafting behavior. In contrast, decreasing hindering job

demands had weak and negative relationships with these traits. It may be that employees with

high levels of proactive personality, general self-efficacy, and promotion focus, direct more

attention to “growth-oriented” job crafting behaviors than on decreasing hindering demands. We

predicted and found a positive relationship between prevention focus and decreasing hindering
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 37

demands. Unexpectedly, prevention focus was also weakly yet positively related to increasing

social job resources and increasing challenging job demands. With respect to the latter finding, it

may be that the concern for security and safety that characterizes people with a higher prevention

focus leads them to enact socially-focused forms of job crafting.

Consistent with the general model of proactive behavior (Bindl & Parker, 2011), we

further considered job characteristics as antecedents of job crafting. We found that overall job

crafting and all crafting dimensions -- except for decreasing hindering job demands -- were

positively related to job autonomy and workload. Consistently, Tornau and Frese (2013) found

that job autonomy was positively associated with personal initiative, however this study did not

examine workload. We expected most of these positive relationships based on proactivity and

job crafting theories; however, the positive association between workload and increasing

challenging job demands as well as the negative associations between job autonomy and

decreasing hindering job demands were contrary to our expectations. Future research should

explore why employees with a high workload would further increase their challenging job

demands, and why higher levels of job autonomy might prevent employees from decreasing

hindering demands. To the former point, the concept of active jobs (Karasek & Theorell, 1990)

may be particularly relevant. Additionally, some have speculated that engaging in job crafting

behaviors that decrease hindering job demands may signal withdrawal from work (e.g.,

Demerouti, 2014; Tims et al., 2013). Thus, such relationships may actually reflect a positive

process (e.g., job characteristics facilitating more adaptive crafting behaviors targeted at

increasing resources and challenging job demands).

Findings for job crafting and work outcomes were largely as expected based upon

theoretical considerations and consistent with meta-analytic findings for other forms of proactive

behavior (Tornau & Frese, 2013). Overall job crafting and its dimensions were positively related
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 38

to job satisfaction, work engagement, self- and other-rated work performance, and contextual

performance. Considering the relative weights analysis for dimension-level relationships,

increasing structural job resources accounted for the most variance across these outcomes, with

the exception of other-rated job performance which had the strongest associations with

increasing challenging job demands. More generally, these relationships are consistent with

theory suggesting that job crafting leads to improved person-job fit which, in turn, positively

impacts job attitudes, occupational well-being, and different forms of job performance.

Similarly, Tornau and Frese (2013) found that personal initiative was positively associated with

job satisfaction and task performance. Again, the only job crafting dimension for which we

found negative or non-significant associations with these favorable outcomes was decreasing

hindering job demands.

Overall job crafting was negatively related job strain and not significantly related to

turnover intentions; specific job crafting dimensions related differentially to these work

outcomes as reflected in both the zero-order analyses and the meta-analytic multiple regression

models. As expected, increasing structural job resources and increasing challenging job demands

related negatively to job strain and turnover intention. Further underscoring the argument that

decreasing hindering job demands reflects withdrawal behaviors, we found a positive

relationship between decreasing hindering job demands and job strain. However, it appears from

the relative weights analyses that increasing structural job resources and increasing challenging

job demands may serve to offset this negative influence. Likewise, we found a positive

relationship between decreasing hindering job demands and turnover intentions. While our

regression models and relative weights analyses suggest that job crafting as a set did not explain

much of the variance in turnover intentions, most of the variance that was explained could be

attributed to decreasing hindering job demands. We also observed non-significant relationships

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 39

between increasing social job resources and turnover intentions, and a small yet significant

negative relationship between increasing social job resources and job strain. These findings

contribute to enhanced theorizing regarding proactive behavior, as researchers have so far

neglected associations with occupational well-being and withdrawal (Parker & Bindl, 2017).

The general model of proactive behavior (Bindl & Parker, 2011) also considers

demographic and employment characteristics as antecedents. In our study, overall job crafting

was negatively related to age and tenure, and positively related to education and number of work

hours. Regarding gender, women reported higher levels of job crafting than men. In contrast,

Tornau and Frese (2013) found positive associations of personal initiative with age and

education, somewhat higher personal initiative among men compared to women, and a non-

significant association with tenure. The strongest negative relationships with age and tenure

emerged for increasing social job resources, whereas the other relationships were weak or non-

significant. One explanation for negative relationships of age and tenure with increasing social

job resources may be that older workers already have established work routines and networks

which they can rely on for social support and, thus, they may not need to further increase their

social resources (Zacher et al., 2016). Further research is needed that directly investigates the

roles of age and tenure for job crafting. For instance, more research should address why age and

tenure may relate differentially to various forms of job crafting, whether or not age and tenure

serve as boundary conditions for the effects of job crafting on various work outcomes, and --

from a social normative and age-role perspective -- whether or not job crafting is viewed

differently (i.e., as actions perceived by others) for younger and older workers (Kooij, Tims, &

Kanfer, 2015; Zacher & Kooij, 2017).

There were small yet significant gender differences observed for increasing structural and

social job resources. In both cases, the direction of these effects suggests that women engage in
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 40

job crafting to a greater extent then men. Consistent with a human capital argument (Becker,

1975), we find positive relationships between education and all job crafting dimensions except

for decreasing hindering demands, which was negatively related to education. This might suggest

that higher levels of education facilitate the accumulation of job knowledge and expertise which,

in turn, facilitate job crafting. Finally, number of work hours was associated with overall

crafting, and increasing structural job resources and challenging job demands, suggesting that

those workers who spend additional time at work are more likely to obtain job resources such as

autonomy and challenging job demands such as new projects. Alternatively, it may also be

possible that engaging in these job crafting behaviors leads to an increase in the number of work

hours.

Evidence gleaned across several analyses calls into question the role of decreasing

hindering job demands in tandem with the other dimensions of job crafting outlined by Tims and

Bakker (2010; Tims et al., 2012). The CFA model specified on the basis of meta-analytically

derived intercorrelations between these job crafting dimensions had a satisfactory fit, but also

suggested a very small factor loading and a small amount of variance explained between a

general factor of job crafting and the decreasing hindering job demands dimension. While this

factor analytic evidence seems damning in-and-of-itself, it also bears noting that for only two

variables (i.e., work engagement and self-rated work performance) did we observe evidence that

the inclusion of this dimension in the overall conceptualization of job crafting appreciably

changes the strength of the job crafting relationship. These findings have interesting implications

for the idea of “construct drift” (Nichols, 2006). Specifically, the adoption of alternative

operationalizations of job crafting that differ from the one originally proposed by Tims et al.

(2012) may lead to very different conclusions regarding these outcomes. Likewise, evidence

from both the zero-order meta-analysis and the relative weights analyses suggests that there are
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 41

unique patterns of correlations and predictive relationships associated with decreasing hindering

job demands. For example, the zero-order analyses suggest significant relationships with

neuroticism and prevention regulatory focus, whereas our relative weights analysis suggests that

decreasing hindering job demands is particularly relevant for the prediction of turnover

intentions and job strain.

In summary, our meta-analytic findings on overall job crafting are largely consistent with

propositions of the general model of proactive behavior (Bindl & Parker, 2011) and relevant

research on other forms of proactive behavior, such as personal initiative (Tornau & Frese,

2013). Our findings regarding the associations between overall job crafting and the antecedents

and outcomes considered here seem to suggest that overall job crafting is similar to other forms

of proactive behavior. However, differential results observed across job crafting dimensions and

the results of the CFA and relative weights analyses suggest that job crafting is not necessarily a

homogeneous construct. Indeed, specific job crafting dimensions are differentially associated

with both antecedents and work outcomes. In particular, the decreasing hindering demands

dimension appears to differ markedly from the other three job crafting dimensions, and this

observation deserves further attention in future research. The latter finding is also relevant to the

development of enhanced theoretical models of proactivity. Indeed, past syntheses of proactivity

constructs (Tornau & Frese, 2013) have not considered the possibly negative implications of

proactive work behaviors, making our contribution to this literature particularly important.

6.2. Theoretical Implications

In developing and testing our theoretical model, we focused attention on the integration

of job crafting as conceptualized by Tims and Bakker (2010) with more general models of

proactive work behavior. This integration should support future research concerning job crafting

and inspire the redevelopment of theoretical models of proactive work behavior. Another
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 42

important point to consider here is the integration of the various conceptualizations of job

crafting behaviors that have been proposed in the literature (see Table 1). Although our meta-

analysis could not address this integration empirically, we can offer some reasoned guidance to

support future efforts directed at this concern.

At its core (i.e., as it is understood most generally both by Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001,

and Tims & Bakker, 2010), job crafting refers to various proactive efforts enacted to enhance

person-environment fit (see also Wang, et al., 2017). Person-environment fit has been the focus

of proactive work behavior research for some time. For example, Parker and Collins (2010)

differentiated three higher-order categories of proactive work behaviors that vary in the type of

change (i.e., “proactive goals”) individuals seek to bring about (i.e., proactive person-

environment behavior, proactive work behavior, and proactive strategic behavior). Most relevant

to the present discussion, proactive person-environment fit behavior refers to those actions that

aim to achieve enhanced fit between one’s personal attributes and that of the work environment.

Parker and Bindl (2017) further suggest that job crafting is a specific proactive strategy to bolster

supplies-values fit at work (i.e., the extent to which one’s work environment supplies the

attributes that one values; Edwards, 2008; see also Ashford & Black, 1996 for a corollary

argument). Curiously, little empirical research to date has directly examined the relationship

between person-environment fit and job crafting (Lu, Wang, Lu, Du, & Bakker, 2014; Niessen,

Weseler, & Kostova, 2016).

If a “bridge” were to be built between the models of job crafting offered by

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and Tims and Bakker (2010), person-environment fit could

thus serve as an important theoretical linkage between these two perspective and various models

of proactive work behavior outlined here. In a more fine-grained sense, certain dimensions of job

crafting from each model could be mapped onto one another. For example, while somewhat
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 43

distinct, increasing social job resources as defined by Tims and Bakker (2010) could be argued to

reflect attempts at relational crafting as defined by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001). Likewise,

increasing challenging job demands and decreasing hindering job demands map onto the general

idea of task crafting insomuch as changing task boundaries means that employees modify the

quantity (i.e., number) or quality (i.e., content) of their job tasks.

Despite these clear content overlaps, linkages between cognitive crafting as defined by

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and those dimensions outlined by Tims and Bakker (2010) are

less clear. Moreover, each of these proposed relationships requires thorough empirical

consideration before a differentiated nomological network of job crafting behaviors and their

outcomes can be established. We hope that these propositions serve as a call for more research

on such an integrative perspective on job crafting. One additional benefit of such an integration

across job crafting models may be to build a stronger empirical case for the role that job crafting

plays for those long-term outcomes that could not be considered in our meta-analysis, but that

are associated with the cultivation of meaning at work (e.g., Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski,

2013). We would argue that this represents a “missing piece” that is vital to fully realizing the

integration of these two literatures.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

Meta-analysis can be generally criticized on several fronts. For example, some would

argue that meta-analysis inappropriately combines and summarizes divergent relationships. We

have addressed this issue here by focusing our efforts not only on an overall conceptualization of

job crafting but also on dimensions of job crafting that are based on widely accepted theoretical

models. Additionally, some would criticize meta-analysis for either being reflective of the

quality of the research that is available in the literature or dependent upon significant findings

that have been published (i.e., the so-called “file drawer” problem). With respect to the former
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 44

issue of study quality, we did exclude one study that was deemed to report untenable job crafting

effects. Considering the latter issue of the file drawer problem more directly, we took

comprehensive steps to locate and include unpublished data sources in our analyses, which

should preclude such a criticism from being levied against this work. Our publication status

sensitivity analysis and trim-and-fill analyses generally supports this conclusion.

We acknowledge four additional limitations to the generalizability of our results that bear

further consideration and elaboration as part of future research efforts. First, the focus of our

meta-analysis was on the bivariate associations between job crafting and a variety of individual

differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes that a) map onto theory and b) are most

representative of the job crafting literature at this point in time. However, more complex

relationships between job crafting and such variables must be considered in future investigations.

For example, future research needs to examine mediators of these relationships, such as objective

and subjective person-job fit (Gordon et al., 2015). Speaking to this idea, Oldham and Hackman

(2010) questioned whether the beneficial outcomes of job crafting derive from actual changes in

job characteristics or from being involved in job crafting activities. Indeed, the primary studies

considered here cannot tease apart such reciprocal causal processes. However, future research

must endeavor to do so. Related to this, future research must consider various boundary

conditions that facilitate/mitigate job crafting. We would argue that this is a concern for job

crafting research as well as theory, which has inconsistently represented the role of moderators.

Across job crafting models (e.g., Demerouti, 2014; Wang et al., 2017), only the model by Tims

and Bakker (2010) specifies possible moderators (i.e., work characteristics and personality). In

the broader literature on proactivity, Bindl and Parker (2011) offer that situational judgment,

affect, and values are important moderators of the influence of proactive behavior on work

outcomes.
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 45

Considering further the notion that crafting may have reciprocal relationships with certain

variables, more research is needed on the cyclical effects of job crafting, job characteristics, and

work outcomes. For instance, work engagement, person-environment fit, and leader-member

exchange quality are likely to be both predictors and outcomes of job crafting (Bakker, 2011;

Schaufeli, Bakker, & Van Rhenen, 2009; Wang et al., 2017). Non-experimental research cannot

demonstrate causal relationships, and any meta-analysis of such non-experimental studies is

likewise unable to do so. As such, an additional limitation of the present research is that all

primary works considered herein are correlational in nature and, except for a relatively small

subset of multi-wave panel studies and daily-diary, are cross-sectional/single time point and/or

comprised of self-reports of work behaviors, including job crafting. While experimentally

manipulating job crafting may be unrealistic, organizational interventions designed to enhance

job crafting are within reason. So far, however, there is only very limited research on job crafting

interventions (Demerouti & Bakker, 2014; Gordon et al., 2013; Van Mersbergen, 2012).

A second limitation to note is that a majority of research to-date has focused on positive

outcomes rather than dysfunctional consequences of job crafting. Our analysis does suggest that

decreasing hindering job demands is associated with higher turnover intentions and higher job

strain, however relatively few studies have investigated these relationships and their causal

direction is unclear. Indeed, there is the possibility that job crafting facilitates the introduction of

certain inefficiencies into work processes, and the discretionary nature of job crafting --

particularly task and relational focused actions -- may lead to conflict among team members

(Demerouti et al., 2015; Oldham & Hackman, 2010).

Third, beyond the within-person conceptualization of job crafting that is adopted by daily

diary studies, job crafting is generally understood at the between-person level of analysis. As job

crafting dictates some degree of discretion in the enactment of one’s job role (e.g., through the
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 46

enhancement of resources and through the enlargement and contraction of job demands) it is

necessary to take a more nuanced multilevel perspective on job crafting. Indeed, job crafting

must be understood at the individual level, but also as manifestations at the team and

organizational levels (Tims et al., 2013), as well as in terms of cross-level job crafting (Leana et

al., 2009) and collaborative job crafting (McClelland, Leach, Clegg, & McGowan, 2014). At

present, our meta-analysis cannot address such multilevel effects as primary studies have yet to

widely adopt such operationalizations.

Finally, further research is needed on job crafting and time, including intraindividual

variation in job crafting over short durations and longer-term longitudinal research. Existing

daily diary studies on job crafting have shown that job crafting varies substantially both within

and between individuals (Demerouti et al., 2015; Petrou et al., 2012). Moreover, longitudinal

studies on job crafting (e.g., Tims et al., 2015) suggest that job crafting has longer-term effects

on work performance. To this general idea, we were not able to include several immediate and

long-term work outcomes of job crafting suggested by Wang et al. (2017) in the current meta-

analysis. These outcomes deserve further primary research attention, including needs

satisfaction, work meaning and identity, health, psychological ownership, employability, and

organizational effectiveness.

7. Conclusion

We conceptually integrated job crafting into a general model of proactive behavior and

conducted a comprehensive meta-analytic study of the relationships between job crafting and its

associated dimensions with various individual differences, job characteristics, and work

outcomes. Generally, we found that relationships for overall job crafting were similar to those

found in studies on other forms of proactive behavior, whereas more differentiated results

emerged when considering the four job crafting dimensions. Specifically, decreasing hindering
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 47

demands seems to be less reflective of the overall job crafting construct and differently

associated with antecedents and outcomes than the other three job crafting dimensions. Based

upon these findings, future research should be cautious about the use of aggregate job crafting

scores in this way. Likewise, a more complete “unpacking” of the adaptive and

counterproductive implications of decreasing hindering job demands is warranted on the basis of

these results. In sum, our findings suggest that job crafting is associated with individual

differences and job characteristics, and that job crafting, in turn, is related to employees’ job

attitudes, occupational well-being, and different forms of work performance.

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 48

References
*References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

Akin, A., Sarıçam, H., Kaya, Ç., & Demir, T. (2014). Turkish version of job crafting scale (JCS):

The validity and reliability study. International Journal of Educational Researchers, 5,

10-15.

*Akkermans, J. & Tims, A. B., (2016). Unpublished raw data.

Akkermans, J., & Tims, M. (2017) Crafting your career: How career competencies relate to

career success via job crafting. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 66, 168-

195. doi: 10.1111/apps.12082

Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire

for control. Journal of Applied psychology, 81(2), 199-214. doi: 10.1037/0021-

9010.81.2.199

Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of

personality and social psychology, 74(6), 153-1544. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1531

*TC6Baartman, L., Borsboom, S., Brugmans, F., & Hols, M., (2013). De aanleiding tot job

crafting: Verbanden met motivatie on self-efficacy (Unpublished bachelor’s thesis).

Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Bakker, A. B. (2010). Engagement and "job crafting": Engaged employees create their own great

place to work. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives,

issues, research and practice (pp. 229-244). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 20, 265-269. doi:10.1177/0963721411414534

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328. doi:10.1108/02683940710733115

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 49

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2016). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and

looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. doi:10.1037/ocp0000056

*Bakker, A. B., Rodríguez-Muñoz, A., & Vergel, A. I. S. (2016). Modelling job crafting

behaviours: Implications for work engagement. Human Relations, 69, 169-189.

doi:10.1177/0018726715581690

*Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The

role of job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65, 1359-1378.

doi:10.1177/0018726712453471

Bandura, A. (2000). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E.

A. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp. 120-136).

Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Becker, G. S. (1975). Human Capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special

reference to education (2nd ed.). New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

*Bell, C., & Njoli, N. (2016). The role of big five factors on predicting job crafting propensities

amongst administrative employees in a South African tertiary institution. SA Journal of

Human Resource Management, 14, 1-11. doi:10.4102/sajhrm. v14i1.702

*TC3Berg, M., Buurma, S., Christiaanse, J., & Petit, M., (2014). Job crafting: Het eigen werk

invulling geven, werkt dat? (Unpublished doctoral bachelor’s thesis). Utrecht University,

Utrecht, Netherlands.

*Berdicchia, D. (2015). The relationship between LMX and performance: The mediating role of

role breadth self-efficacy and crafting challenging job demands. Electronic Journal of

Management, 1, 1-28.
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 50

*Berdicchia, D., Nicolli, F., & Masino, G. (2016). Job enlargement, job crafting and the

moderating role of self-competence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31, 318-330.

doi:10.1108/JMP-01-2014-0019

Berg, J. M., Grant, A. M., & Johnson, V. (2010). When callings are calling: Crafting work and

leisure in pursuit of unanswered occupational callings. Organization Science, 21(5), 973-

994. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0497

Bindl, U., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-

oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 567-598. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Bipp, T., & Demerouti, E. (2015). Which employees craft their jobs and how? Basic dimensions

of personality and employees' job crafting behaviour. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 88, 631-655. doi:10.1111/joop.12089

*Bipp, T., Wassiliwizky, M., Dröscher, A., & Esser, K. (2016). [Work characteristics and job

crafting within the job-demands-resources model]. Unpublished raw data.

*Blascos, N. (2013). De terugkeer van vrouwen op de werkvloer na de geboorte van het eerste

kind: Conflict tussen privé en werk, job crafting en het welzijn [The return of women in

the workplace after the birth of the first child: Conflict between work and private life, job

crafting and welfare] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utrecht University, Utrecht,

Netherlands.

*Boon, C., ter Hoeven, C. L., & Kalshoven, K. (2015, January). Daily job crafting and well-

being: The role of flexible work designs and task proficiency. Academy of Management

Proceedings, 16326.
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 51

*TC2Boumans, J. (2015). The effect of job crafting intervention and proactive personality on

work engagement (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tilburg University, Tilburg,

Netherlands.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The

meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109. doi:

10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3

*Brenninkmeijer, V., & Hekkert-Koning, M. (2015). To craft or not to craft: The relationships

between regulatory focus, job crafting and work outcomes. Career Development

International, 20, 147-162. doi:10.1108/CDI-12-2014-0162

*Brink, T. (2015). Zelf sturen naar duurzaam werk: De invloed van job crafting bij mensen met

een arbeidsbeperking [Self-steering towards sustainable employment: The impact of job

crafting in people with occupational disabilities] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utrecht

University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

*Chan, F. (2013). Effects of job crafting on work engagement and performance (Unpublished

master’s thesis). The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.

Chen, C. Y., Yen, C. H., & Tsai, F. C. (2014). Job crafting and job engagement: The mediating

role of person-job fit. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, 21-28.

doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.10.006

*Chinelato, R. S. D. C., Ferreira, M. C., & Valentini, F. (2015). Evidence of validity of the job

crafting behaviors scale. Paidéia, 25, 325-332. doi:10.1590/1982-43272562201506

Choi, D., Oh, I. S., & Colbert, A. E. (2015). Understanding organizational commitment: A meta-

analytic examination of the roles of the five-factor model of personality and

culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1542-1567. doi:10.1037/apl0000014

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 52

Cooper, H. M. (1998). Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews (Vol. 2).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Eds.). (2009). The Handbook Of Research

Synthesis And Meta-Analysis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435-462.

doi:10.1177/014920630002600304

Crant, J. M., Hu, J., & Jiang, K. (2017). Proactive personality: A twenty-year review. In S. K.

Parker & U. K. Bindl (Eds.), Proactivity at work: Making things happen in organizations

(pp. 193-225). New York, NY: Routledge.

*Cullinane, S., Bosak, J., Flood, P., & Demerouti, E. (2013, May). The impact of daily

motivational and health impairment processes on job crafting behaviour: Evidence from

a lean manufacturing context. Paper presented at the Sixteenth European Association of

Work and Organizational Psychology, Munster, Germany.

*De Beer, L., Tims, M., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). Job crafting and its impact on work engagement

and job satisfaction in mining and manufacturing. South African Journal of Economic

and Management Sciences, 19, 400-412. doi:10.17159/2222-3436/2016/v19n3a7

Demerouti, E. (2014). Design your own job through job crafting. European Psychologist, 19,

237–247. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000188

Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Job crafting. In M. C. W. Peeters, J. de Jonge & T. W.

Taris (Eds.), An introduction to contemporary work psychology. London, UK: Wiley.

*Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Gevers, J. M. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: The

role of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87-96.

doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.001
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 53

*Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Halbesleben, J. R. (2015). Productive and counterproductive

job crafting: A daily diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20, 457-

469. doi:10.1037/a0039002

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-

resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

*DeNuzio, M. M. & Naidoo, M. (2015, April). Job crafting mediates the approach–avoidance

traits—work engagement relationship. Paper presented at the Thirtieth Conference of the

Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

*Derlage, M. A. (2014). De rol van persoon-baanfit in het verband tussen

loopbaancompetenties, job crafting en duurzame inzetbaarheid [The person fit Role in

the relationship between career competencies, job crafting and sustainable employability]

(Unpublished master’s thesis). Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review

of Psychology, 41, 417-440. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221

*Dust, S. B. (2014). The motivational effects of work characteristics needs-supplies fit on active

employee behaviors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Drexel University, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania.

*Duursma, I. (2013). Inzetbaarheid en de relatie tot veranderende omstandigheden op de

arbeidsmarkt: De rol van inzetbaarheid, in de relatie tussen werkhulpbronnen, job

crafting en werkbevlogenheid [Employability and the relation to changing conditions on

the labor market: The employability role in the relationship between work resources, job

crafting and work engagement] (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Amsterdam,

Amsterdam, Netherlands.
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 54

Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (1998). Practical estimates of the effect of publication bias in meta-

analysis. Australasian Epidemiologist, 5, 14-17.

Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: a simple funnel plot–based method of testing

and adjusting for publication bias in meta analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455-463.

doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x

Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., & DuBois, D. (2008). Does mentoring matter? A

multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 254–267. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.005

Edwards, J. R. (2008). Person–environment fit in organizations: an assessment of theoretical

progress. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 167-230. doi: 10.1080/19416520

802211503

Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1998). Person-environment fit theory:

Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research. In C. L.

Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 28-67). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Edwards, J. R., & Shipp, A. J. (2007). The relationship between person-environment fit and

outcomes: An integrative theoretical framework. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.),

Perspectives on organizational fit (pp. 209-258). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

*Eguchi, H., Shimazu, A., Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., Kamiyama, K., Hara, Y.,Inoue, A., Ono, M.,

& Kawakami, N. (2016). Validation of the Japanese version of the job crafting

scale. Journal of Occupational Health, 58, 231-240. doi:10.1539/joh.15-0173-OA

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 55

*Ellis, A. M. (2015). Building resources at home and at work: Day-level relationships between

job crafting, recovery experiences, and work engagement. (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.

*Esteves, T., & Lopes, M. P. (2016). Crafting a calling: The mediating role of calling between

challenging job demands and turnover intention. Journal of Career Development, 44, 34-

48. doi:10.1177/0894845316633789

*Ficapal-Cusí, P., Torrent-Sellens, J., Boada-Grau, J., & Hontangas-Beltrán, P. M. (2014). Job

change without changing job? Exploring job crafting in Spain. IN3 Working Paper

Series.

Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the

21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187. doi:10.1016/S0191

3085(01)23005-6

Frese, M., Garst, H., & Fay, D. (2007). Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships between

work characteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural

equation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1084-1102. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.92.4.1084

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and

meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287-322. doi:10.1111/j.1744-

6570.1987.tb00605.x

*Gerbrandij, F. (2015). Bevlogenheid en betrokkenheid op de werkvloer: De rol van job crafting

en psychologisch kapitaal [Engagement and commitment in the workplace: The role of

job crafting and psychological capital] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utrecht University,

Utrecht, Netherlands.
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 56

Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J.-B. E., & Cunha, P. V. (2009). A review and evaluation

of meta-analysis practices in management research. Journal of Management, 35, 393-

419. doi:419.10.1177/0149206308328501

Ghitulescu, B. (2006). Job crafting and social embeddedness at work (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation) University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.

*Gordon, H. J. (2015). Craft your job! Improving well-being, decision making, and performance

in healthcare (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Eindhoven University of Technology,

Eindhoven, Netherlands.

*Gordon, H. J., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P. M., & Bipp, T. (2015). Job crafting and performance

of Dutch and American health care professionals. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14,

192-202. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000138

Gordon, H., Demerouti, E., LeBlanc, P., Bipp, T., & Bakker, A. B. (2013, May). Bottom-up job

(re)design: The test of two job crafting interventions among healthcare professionals.

Paper presented at Work, Stress, and Health 2013, Los Angeles (USA).

Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002

Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational

and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 317-375.

doi:10.1080/19416520903047327

*TC6Harderwijk, R., Raaijmakers, J. G. J., & Rutjes, R., (2013). Job crafting binnen het job

demands-resources model met regulatiefocus als moderator (Unpublished bachelor’s

thesis). Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 57

*Harju, L. K., Hakanen, J. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2016). Can job crafting reduce job boredom

and increase work engagement? A three-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 95-96, 11-20. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2016.07.001

Hekkert-Koning, H. (2014). The need for job crafting in a changing work environment: A study

at the relationships between regulatory focus, job crafting and work outcomes work

engagement and perceived employability (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utrecht

University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

*Herpin, R. (2013). Not just for kids: The impact of bullying on academic and job performance

(Unpublished master’s thesis). East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina.

*Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M. C. (2015). The job crafting intervention: effects on

job resources, self efficacy, and affective well being. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 88, 511-532. doi:10.1111/joop.12128

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.

doi:10.1037//0003-066X.52.12.1280

Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of

interventions (Vol. 4). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Higgins, J., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics

in Medicine, 21, 1539-1558. doi:10.1002/sim.1186

Higgins, J., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in

meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, 557-560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

*Holm, D. (2014). Need satisfaction through career behaviour: Three studies of the

kaleidoscope career model in a demanding work environment (Unpublished master’s

thesis). Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 58

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & 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, 92, 1332-1356.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in

research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

*Ingusci, E., Callea, A., Chirumbolo, A., & Urbini, F. (2016). Job crafting and job satisfaction in

a sample of Italian teachers: the mediating role of perceived organizational

support. Electronic Journal of Applied Statistical Analysis, 9, 675-687.

doi:10.1285/i20705948v9n4p675

*Janse, S. (2015). The effect of perceived overqualification on job crafting and the moderating

role of personal resources (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tilburg University, Tilburg,

Netherlands.

Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor

variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1–19.

doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3501_1

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job

and life satisfaction: the role of core evaluations. Journal of applied psychology, 83(1),

17-34. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.17

*Kanten, P. (2014). The antecedents of job crafting: Perceived organizational support, job

characteristics and self-efficacy. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 3,

113-128.

Karasek, R. A. & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the

Reconstruction of Working Life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 59

Kirca, A. H., Hult, G. T. M., Deligonul, S., Perryy, M. Z., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2012). A multilevel

examination of the drivers of firm multinationality: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Management, 38, 502-530. doi:10.1177/0149206310369177

*Kooij, T. A. M. (2016). Unpublished Raw Data.

Kooij, D. T. A. M., Tims, M., & Kanfer, R. (2015). Successful aging at work: The role of job

crafting. In P. M. Bal, D. T. A. M. Kooij & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Aging workers and

the employee-employer relationship (pp. 145-161). New York, NY: Springer.

*TC3Kooiman, D. (2015). Work functioning of health-impaired workers: The role of leadership

behavior on job crafting (Unpublished master’s thesis). Leiden University, Leiden,

Netherlands.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of

individuals'fit at work: a meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–

group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281-342. doi:

10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x

*Kroon, B., Kooij, T. A. M., & van Veldhoven, M. J. P. M. (2013). Job crafting en

bevlogenheid: Zijn er verschillen tussen teams met een restrictieve dan wel onbegrensde

werkcontext? Gedrag en Organisatie, 26, 46-65.

Kulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (1987). Work design as an approach to person-

environment fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 278-296. doi:10.1016/0001-

8791(87)90044-3

*Lazazzara, A., Quacquarelli, B., Ghiringhelli, C., & Nacamulli, R. C. (2015). Understanding the

effect of autonomy, skill variety, organizational learning culture and related HR policies
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 60

and practices on job crafting. Academy of Management Procedings, 2015(1), 17635.

doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2015.17635abstract

Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work process and quality of care in early

childhood education: The role of job crafting. Academy of Management Journal, 52,

1169-1192. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.47084651

LeBreton, J. M., Scherer, K. T., & James, L. R. (2014). Corrections for criterion reliability in

validity generalization: A false prophet in a land of suspended judgment. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 7, 478-500. doi:10.1111/iops.12184

LeBreton, J. M., Hargis, M. B., Griepentrog, B., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2007). A

multidimensional approach for evaluating variables in organizational research and

practice. Personnel Psychology, 60, 475–498. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00080.x

LeBreton, J. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Ladd, R. T. (2004). A Monte Carlo comparison of relative

importance methodologies. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 258–282.

doi:10.1177/1094428104266017

*Lewis, R. (2016). Unpublished raw data.

*Lichtenthaler, P. W., & Fischbach, A. (2016). The conceptualization and measurement of job

crafting: Validation of a German version of the job crafting scale. Zeitschrift für Arbeits-

und Organisationspsychologie, 60, 173-186. doi:10.1026/0932-4089/a000219

*Lichtenthaler, P. W., & Fischbach, A. (2016). Job crafting and motivation to continue working

beyond retirement age. Career Development International, 21, 477-497.

doi:10.1108/CDI-01-2016-0009

Lu, C. Q., Wang, H. J., Lu, J. J., Du, D. Y., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Does work engagement

increase person–job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 84, 142-152. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.12.004

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 61

*Lunt, A. J. (2013). The role of job crafting in work-related coaching (Unpublished master’s

thesis). Massey University, Albany, New Zealand.

*Luschen, M. (2013). De rol van jobcrafting en de regulatiefocus in het job-demands resources

Model (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Lyness, K.S. & Thompson, D.E. (2000). Climbing the corporate ladder: do female and male

executives follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 86-101.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.86

Lyons, P. (2008). The crafting of jobs and individual differences. Journal of Business and

Psychology, 23, 25-36. doi:10.1007/s10869-008-9080-2

Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the Big

Five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology,

91(4), 927-935. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.927

*Mäkikangas, A., Aunola, K., Seppälä, P., & Hakanen, J. (2015, May). Work engagement-team

performance relationship: Shared job crafting as a moderator. Paper presented at the

European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP) congress,

Oslo, Norway.

*Mäkikangas, A., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B (2016). Unpublished raw data.

Mainiero, L.A. (1994). Getting anointed for advancement: the case of executive women.

Academy of Management Executive, 8, 53-67. doi:10.5465/AME.1994.9503101081

McClelland, G. P., Leach, D. J., Clegg, C. W., & McGowan, I. (2014). Collaborative crafting in

call centre teams. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 464-486.

doi:10.1111/joop.12058
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 62

McDaniel, M. A. (2009, April). Cumulative meta-analysis as a publication bias method.

In Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New

Orleans, LA.

McDaniel, M.A., Rothstein, H.R. & Whetzel, D.L. (2006). Publication bias: A case study of four

test vendors. Personnel Psychology, 59, 927-953. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00059.x

Michel, J. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Thomas, J. (2011). Conclusions from meta-analytic structural

equation models generally do not change due to corrections for study artifacts. Research

Synthesis Methods, 2, 174-187. doi:10.1002/jrsm.47

*Miraglia, M. (2013). Should I stay (at home) or should I go (to work): individual and contextual

antecedents of absenteeism and presenteeism. Evidence from a privatized Italian

organization (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Sapienza Universita Di Roma, Rome,

Italy.

*Mitra, P., DeNuzio, M., & Sommer, K. (2014, May). Job crafting: A way to satisfy

psychological needs at work. Paper presented at the Twenty-Ninth Society for Industrial

Organizational Psychology Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate

workplace change. Academy of management Journal, 42(4), 403-419. doi:

10.2307/257011

*Mulder, D. (2012). Job crafting: Het crossover effect van job crafting tussen werk koppels [Job

crafting: The crossover effect of job crafting work between couples] (Unpublished

master’s thesis). Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 63

continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of

antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20-52.

doi: 10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842

*TC2Netten, S. (2015). Intervention study to craft new possibilities: Job crafting; influenced by

role breadth self-efficacy and a predictor of person-job fit (Unpublished master’s thesis).

Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.

Nichols, D. S. (2006). The trials of separating bath water from baby: A review and critique of the

MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical Scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(2), 121-

138. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8702_02

Niessen, C., Weseler, D., & Kostova, P. (2016). When and why do individuals craft their jobs?

The role of individual motivation and work characteristics for job crafting. Human

Relations, 69(6), 1287-1313. doi:10.1177/0018726715610642

*Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J. S. (2012). The development and validation of a job crafting

measure for use with blue-collar workers. Work & Stress, 26, 365-384.

doi:10.1080/02678373.2012.733543

Nielsen, K. (2013). How can we make organizational interventions work? Employees and line

managers as actively crafting interventions. Human Relations, 66, 1029-1050.

doi:10.1177/0018726713477164

*Nielsen, K., Sanz-Vergel, A., Munego-Rodriguez, A., Mirkko (in press). Job crafting: A multi-

method, cross-cultural validation of a job crafting questionnaire. Work & Stress.

Ohlott, P.J., Ruderman, M.N. & McCauley, C.D. (1994). Gender differences in managers’

developmental job experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 46-67.

doi:10.2307/256769
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 64

Ohly, S. & Schmitt, A. (2017). Work design and proactivity. In S. K. Parker & U. K. Bindl (Ed.)

Proactivity at work: Making things happen in organizations (pp. 387-410). New York,

NY: Routledge.

Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of

job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 463-479.

doi:10.1002/job.678

*Oprea, B., & Iliescu, D. (2015). Burnout and job insecurity: the mediating role of job

crafting. Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 13, 232-244.

*Oprea, B., & Ștefan, M. (2016). Scala pentru modificarea postului: Adaptare la limba

română. Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 13, 39-52.

*TC3Optenkamp, M. (2015). How leadership behaviour and employee job crafting may promote

the work functioning of health-impaired employees (Unpublished master’s thesis). Leiden

University, Leiden, Netherlands.

Parker, S. K. (2014). Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health,

ambidexterity, and more. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 661-691.

doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115208

Parker, S.K. & Bindl, U.K. (2017). Proactivity at work: A big picture perspective on a construct

that matters. In S. K. Parker & U. K. Bindl (Eds.), Proactivity at work: Making things

happen in organizations (pp. 1-21). New York, NY: Routledge.

Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive

motivation. Journal of Management, 36, 827-856. doi:10.1177/0149206310363732

Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple

proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 633-662.

doi:10.1177/0149206308321554
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 65

Parker, S. K., & Ohly, S. (2008). Designing motivating work. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen & R. D.

Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 233-384). New York,

NY: Routledge.

*Peeters, M. C., Arts, R., & Demerouti, E. (2016). The crossover of job crafting between

coworkers and its relationship with adaptivity. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 25, 819-832. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2016.1160891

*Peral, S. L. (2016). Exploring the effects of job crafting on subjective well-being amongst South

African high school teachers (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Johannesburg,

Johannesburg, South Africa.

*Petrou, P. (2013). Crafting the change: The role of employee job crafting behaviors for

successful organizational change. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Utrecht

University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Petrou, P., & Bakker, A. B. (2016). Crafting one’s leisure time in response to high job strain.

Human Relations, 69, 507-529. doi:10.1177/0018726715590453

*Petrou, P. & Bakker, A.B. (2016, April). The role of organizational transparency and frequency

of organizational change in job crafting. In A. Sanz-Vergel (Chair), Understanding job

crafting -Part 2: Underlying mechanisms, boundary conditions and crossover effects.

Symposium conducted at the 12th EAOHP Conference, Athens.

*Petrou, P., & Demerouti, E. (2015). Trait-level and week-level regulatory focus as a motivation

to craft a job. Career Development International, 20, 102-118. doi:10.1108/CDI-09-

2014-0124

*Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a job

on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 33, 1120-1141. doi:10.1002/job.1783

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 66

*Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2015). Job crafting in changing organizations:

Antecedents and implications for exhaustion and performance. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 20, 470-480. doi:10.1037/a0039003

Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2016). Crafting the change: The role of employee

job crafting behaviors for successful organizational change. Journal of Management.

Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206315624961

*Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulo, D. (2016). Regular versus cutback-related change:

The role of employee job crafting in organizational change contexts of different nature.

International Journal of Stress Management, 24, 62-85. doi:10.1037/str0000033

*Plomp, J., Tims, M., Akkermans, J., & Bakker, A. B. (2016). Career competencies and job

crafting: How proactive employees influence their well-being. Career Development

International, 21, 587-602. doi:10.1108/CDI-08-2016-0145

*Plomp, J., Tims, M., Akkermans, J., Khapova, S.N., Jansen, P.W.G., & Bakker, A.B. (2015).

Proactive Personality and Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Job Crafting and Career

Competencies. Paper presented at the Dutch HRM Network conference, Utrecht.

*Pondman, A. (2015). The usefulness of job crafting: A study on the relationships between

regulatory focus, job crafting, career competencies and positive work outcomes

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation of master’s thesis). Utrecht University, Utrecht,

Netherlands.

*Pool, I. O. (2016). To which extent does job crafting mediate or (negatively or positively)

moderate the relationship between human resource management and work engagement?

(Unpublished master’s thesis). Deltion College, Zwolle, Netherlands.

*Puttenstein, S. (2014). The negative effects of proactive behavior (Unpublished master’s thesis).

University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 67

Ragins, B.R., Townsend, B. & Mattis, M. (1998). Gender gap in the executive suite: CEOs and

female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling. Academy of Management

Executive, 12, 28-42. doi:10.5465/AME.1998.254976

*Randag, V. (2014). Job crafting: De invloed op de extra inzet en prestaties van werknemers van

de gemeente Leiderdorp [The impact on the extra deployment and performance

employees of the municipality Leiderdorp] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utrecht

University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

*Robinson, L. (2012). Does feeling in control make you take control at work?: A study on the

relationship between work locus of control and job crafting (Unpublished master’s

thesis). University of London, London, United Kingdom.

*Roczniewska, M. (2016). Work regulatory focus and job crafting. Unpublished manuscript.

*Roczniewska, M. & Bakker, A. (2016) Who seeks job resources, and who avoids job demands?

The link between (dark) personality traits and job crafting. Journal of Psychology, 8, 1-

20. doi:10.1080/00223980.2016.1235537

*Roczniewska, M. & Puchalska, M. (2016). The link between perceived autonomy and job

crafting. Unpublished manuscript.

Rofcanin, Y., Berber, A., Koch, S., & Sevinc, L. (2015). Job crafting and I-deals: a study testing

the nomological network of proactive behaviors. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 27, 2695-2726. doi:10.1080/09585192.2015.1091370

*Rokitowski, L. (2012). Moderating effects of situational and interpersonal variables on

perceived overqualification and job crafting relationships (Unpublished master’s thesis).

State University of New York, Albany, New York.

Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological

Bulletin, 86, 638-641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 68

Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and

counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing

approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66-80. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

*Savenije, M. (2014). Job crafting: Its relationship to job performance and how this is

moderated by proactive personality and person-job fit (Unpublished bachelor’s thesis).

University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and

resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 30, 893-917. doi:10.1002/job.595

*Schultz, L. (2010). Sneak peek in the black box: How change resources are related to positive

organizational outcomes (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utrecht University, Utrecht,

Netherlands.

Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (2009). Combining estimates of effect size. In H. Cooper,

L.V. Hedges, & J.C. Valentine (Eds.). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-

analysis (2nd ed., pp. 257-277). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

*Shoof, B. (2012). De rol van persoonlijke hulpbronnen bij het ontstaan van bevlogenheid [The

personal resources role in genesis of involvement] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utrecht

University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

*Siddiqi, M. A. (2015). Job crafting of service employees and performance: An empirical

evidence of linkages. Asian Journal of Management, 6, 149-158. doi:10.5958/2321-

5763.2015.00022.0
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 69

Slemp, G. R., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2013). The job crafting questionnaire: A new scale to measure the

extent to which employees engage in job crafting. International Journal of Wellbeing, 3(2), 126-

146. doi:10.5502/ijw.v3i2.1

*TC1Smulders, E. (2014). Job crafting: De sleutel tot bevlogen werknemers [Job crafting: The

key to engaged employees] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utrecht University, Utrecht,

Netherlands.

Solberg, E., & Wong, S. I. (2016). Crafting one's job to take charge of role overload: When

proactivity requires adaptivity across levels. Leadership Quarterly, 27, 713-725.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.03.001

Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence, objectively determined and measured. American

Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–292.

*TC5Swart, H., Köll, C., Fuselier, L., & Lamping, T., (ND). De rol van regulatiefocus en job

crafting op bevlogenheid en competentie binnen het JDR-model (Unpublished bachelor’s

thesis). University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.

*Taylor, C. F., (2015). Coworking: Crafting lives alongside each other (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.

*Tims, M., & Akkermans, J. (2015). Supporting self-management: The role of career competencies and

job crafting in young employees’ work-related well-being. Paper presented at the Dutch HRM

Network conference, Utrecht.

Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job

redesign. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36, 1-9.

doi:10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841

*Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting

scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173-186. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 70

*Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job

resources, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 230-240.

doi:10.1037/a0032141

*Tims, M., B. Bakker, A., & Derks, D. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy–

performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 490-507.

doi:10.1108/JMP-05-2012-0148

*Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2015a). Examining job crafting from an interpersonal

perspective: Is employee job crafting related to the well-being of colleagues? Applied

Psychology, 64, 727-753. doi:10.1111/apps.12043

*Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2015b). Job crafting and job performance: A

longitudinal study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 914-

928. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2014.969245

*Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., Derks, D., & van Rhenen, W. (2013). Job crafting at the team and

individual level: Implications for work engagement and performance. Group &

Organization Management, 38, 427-454. doi:10.1177/1059601113492421

Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person–job

fit and meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 44-53.

doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007

Tornau, K., & 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: An International Review, 62, 44-96. doi:10.1111/j.1464-

0597.2012.00514.x

Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2015). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on

the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 71

[Corrigendum]. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 64, 626-636.

doi:10.1111/apps.12045

*Travagliante, F., Babic, A., & Hansez, I. (2016, April). Importance of work-related needs

between job crafting, burnout and engagement. Paper presented at the Thirty-First

Conference of the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, Anaheim, California.

*Urlings, C. (2014). Coping en job crafting: De mate van conceptuele onderscheidbaarheid

tussen coping en job crafting, gemeten bij werknemers uit verschillende sectoren [Coping

and job crafting: The degree of conceptual distinctness between coping and job crafting,

measured in workers in various sectors] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utrecht

University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Valentine, J. C., Pigott, T. D., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). How many studies do you need? A

primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral

Statistics, 35, 215-247. doi:10.3102/1076998609346961

*Van Dam, K., Nikolova, I., & Van Ruysseveldt, J. (2013). Het belang van ‘leader-member

exchange’(LMX) en situationele doeloriëntatie als voorspellers van job crafting. Gedrag

& Organisatie, 26(1), 66-84.

*van de Riet, J. (2015). Leadership and job crafting: Relationships with employability and

creativity (Unpublished master’s thesis). Eindhoven University of Technology,

Eindhoven, Netherlands.

*Van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M. C. (2015). The job crafting intervention:

Effects on job resources, self-efficacy, and affective well-being. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, 88, 511-532. doi:10.1111/joop.12128

*TC1van der Meulen (2014). Ervaren inzetbaarheid: Wat is de samenhang met

persoonskenmerken en job crafting? [Experienced employability: What is the

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 72

relationship with personal characteristics and job crafting?] (Unpublished master’s

thesis). Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

*van der Ven, C. (2014). Job crafting and its crossover between colleagues: Do goal orientation

and transformational leadership matter? (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utrecht

University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

*van Gelderen, B. R., & Bik, L. W. (2016). Affective organizational commitment, work

engagement and service performance among police officers. Policing: An International

Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 39, 206-221. doi:10.1108/PIJPSM-10-2015-

0123

*van Hoof, M. L., & van Hooft, E. A. (2014). Boredom at work: Proximal and distal

consequences of affective work-related boredom. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 19, 348-359. doi:10.1037/a0036821

*van Mersbergen, J. (2012). The test and evaluation of a job crafting intervention in healthcare

(Unpublished master’s thesis). Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven,

Netherlands.

*van Noije, A. (2013). Investing in sustainable employees: The impact of talent management

practices and job crafting on employees’ vigor moderated by generations (Unpublished

master’s thesis). Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.

*van Teeffelen, S. (2015). Job crafting and well-being: The mediating role of person-job fit

(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Van Velsor, E. & Hughes, M.W. (1990). Gender differences in the development of managers:

How women managers learn from experience, Technical Report No. 145, Center for

Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 73

*TC6 Van Willigenburg, P., C. (2013). Job crafting at work: Job crafting and regulatory focus in

the job demands-resources model (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utrecht University,

Utrecht, Netherlands.

*van Wingerden, J., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2016). A test of a job demands-resources

intervention. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31, 686-701. doi:10.1108/JMP-03-

2014-0086.

*Van Wingerden, J., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2016). The longitudinal impact of a job

crafting intervention. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26,

107-119. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2016.1224233

*Van Wingerden, J., Derks, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2015). The impact of personal resources and

job crafting interventions on work engagement and performance. Human Resource

Management, 56, 51-67. doi:10.1002/hrm.21758

*Vermeul, C. (2014). The influence of employees’ and line managers’ attributions on job

performance: A quantitative study on employee HR attributions, HRM co-production and

line manager implementation attributions at Benchmark Electronics (Unpublished

master’s thesis). University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.

*Visser, D. (2012). Boredom, job design and job crafting: Integrating job crafting in traditional

job design theory (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam,

Netherlands.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis

and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865-885.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01784.x

Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2002). The moderating influence of job

performance dimensions on convergence of supervisory and peer ratings of job

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 74

performance: Unconfounding construct level congruence and rating difficulty. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 87, 345–354. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.345

*Vogt, K., Hakanen, J. J., Brauchli, R., Jenny, G. J., & Bauer, G. F. (2015). The consequences of

job crafting: A three-wave study. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 25, 353-362. doi:10.1080/1359432x.2015.1072170

*Volman, M. (2011). Putting the context back in job crafting research: Causes of job crafting

behavior (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.

Wang, H. J., Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2017). A review of job crafting research: The role

of leader behaviors in cultivating successful job crafters. In S. K. Parker & U. K. Bindl

(Eds.), Proactivity at work: Making things happen in organizations (pp. 77-104). New

York, NY: Routledge.

*Wang, H. J., Demerouti, E., & Le Blanc, P. (2015, May). Daily empowering leadership, job

crafting and basic needs satisfaction. Paper presented at the European Association of Work

and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP) congress, Oslo, Norway.

*Westerlaken, F. (2012). Op weg naar bevlogenheid en job crafting: Een bestuurskundig

onderzoek naar de invloed van taakeisen en energiebronnen op de bevlogenheid en job

crafting van [On the way to engagement and job crafting: An administration research into

the impact of job demands energy and enthusiasm to the job and crafting] (Unpublished

master’s thesis). Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Whetzel, D. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (1988). Reliability of validity generalization data

bases. Psychological Reports, 63, 131-134. doi:10.2466/pr0.1988.63.1.131

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active

crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179-201.

doi:10.5465/AMR.2001.4378011
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 75

Wu, C.-H. & Li, W.-D. (2017). Individual differences in proactivity: A developmental

perspective. In S. K. Parker & U. K. Bindl (Eds.) Proactivity at work: Making things

happen in organizations (pp. 226-257). New York, NY: Routledge.

*Zacher, H. (2016). Unpublished raw data.

Zacher, H., Hacker, W., & Frese, M. (2016). Action regulation across the adult lifespan (ARAL):

A meta-theory of work and aging. Work, Aging and Retirement, 2, 286-306.

doi:10.1093/workar/waw015

Zacher, H., & Kooij, D. T. A. M. (2017). Aging and proactivity. In S. K. Parker & U. K. Bindl

(Eds.), Proactivity at work: Making things happen in organizations (pp. 258-294). New

York, NY: Taylor & Francis/Routledge

JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 76

Table 1
Conceptualizations and Measures of Job Crafting

Citation Job Crafting Dimensions Examples of Job Crafting Behaviors and/or Relevant Scale Items
Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001 Task Crafting Taking control over job tasks; modifying the quantity (i.e., number) or
quality (i.e., content) of job tasks.
Relational Crafting Altering the quantity or quality of workplace relationships.
Cognitive Crafting Psychological redefinitions and reinterpretations of job characteristics.
Ghitulescu (2006) Task Crafting “How often do you teach concepts in small steps that are more
manageable for some students in your math classes?”
Relational Crafting “In an average month, about how many times do you talk to
administrators about math instruction?”
Cognitive Crafting “My job is very significant and important – the results of my work are
likely to significantly affect the lives or well-being of other people.”
Leana, Appelbaum, & Shevchuk (2009) Individual Crafting “How often do you introduce new approaches on your own to improve
your work in the classroom?”
Collaborative Crafting “How often do you decide together with your coworkers to change
minor work procedures that you think are not productive (such as lunch
time or transition routines)?”
Tims & Bakker (2010) Increasing Job Demands Adding job tasks; volunteering for interesting project groups; taking
over tasks from their supervisor.
Decreasing Job Demands Asking colleagues to help them with their tasks; reducing the number of
interactions with demanding customers or colleagues.
Increasing Job Resources Seeking social support; enhancing job autonomy.
Berg, Grant, & Johnson (2010) Job Crafting Task Expanding (e.g., highlighting assigned tasks); Job Expanding
(e.g., adding tasks); Role Reframing (e.g., altering role perceptions).
Leisure Crafting Vicarious Experiencing; Hobby Experiencing
Volman (2011) Task Crafting “I, by myself, made work more challenging.”
Relational Crafting “I, by myself, ask advice from my co-workers to solve difficulties in
my job.”
Tims, Bakker, & Derks (2012) Increasing Structural Job Resources “I try to develop my capabilities.”
Increasing Social Job Resources “I ask my supervisor to coach me.”
Increasing Challenging Job Demands “When an interesting project comes along, I offer myself proactively as
a project co-worker.”
Decreasing Hindering Job Demands “I try to ensure that I do not have to make many difficult decisions at
work.”
Nielsen & Abildgaard (2012) Increasing Challenging Job Demands “When a new task comes up, I sign up for it.”
Decreasing Social Job Demands “I try to avoid emotionally challenging situations with my customers.”
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 77

Increasing Social Job Resources “I ask for feedback on my performance from customers.”
Increasing Quantitative Job Demands “When there isn’t much to do, I offer my help to colleagues.”
Decreasing Hindering Job Demands “I ensure that my work is the least burdening/straining.”
Petrou, et al. (2012) Seeking Resources “I ask others for feedback on my job performance.”
Seeking Challenges “I ask for more tasks if I finish my work.”
Reducing Demands “I try to ensure that my work is emotionally less intense.”
Slemp & Vella-Brodrick (2013) Task Crafting “Change the scope or types of tasks that you complete at work.”
Relational Crafting “Engage in networking activities to establish more relationship.”
Cognitive Crafting “Think about how your job gives you purpose.”
Niessen, Weseler, & Kostova (2016) Task Crafting “…I concentrate on specific tasks.”
Relational Crafting “…I usually limit the amount of time I spend with people I do not get
along well with, and only contact them for things that are absolutely
necessary.”
Cognitive Crafting “…I try to look upon the tasks and responsibilities I have at work as
having a deeper meaning than is readily apparent.”
Lichtenthaler & Fischbach (2016) Promotion-Focused Job Crafting Identical items to Tims, Bakker, & Derks (2012) "increasing"
dimensions.
Prevention-Focused Job Crafting Identical items to Tims, Bakker, & Derks (2012) "decreasing"
dimension.
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 78

Table 2
Summary of Meta-Analytic Relationships: Individual Differences as Correlates of Job Crafting

Job Crafting Correlate Type of Job Crafting K N r rc SDrc CIL CIU %Var CVL CVU
Big Five Agreeableness Overall Job Crafting 5 2,944 0.198 0.272 0.220 0.224 0.319 13.580 -0.010 0.554
Structural 5 2,944 0.279 0.404 0.112 0.356 0.453 51.772 0.260 0.548
Social 5 2,944 0.089 0.130 0.227 0.077 0.182 8.292 -0.162 0.421
Challenging 5 2,944 0.169 0.246 0.126 0.195 0.298 31.421 0.085 0.408
Hindering 5 2,944 0.105 0.154 0.157 0.101 0.206 17.222 -0.047 0.355
Big Five Conscientiousness Overall Job Crafting 5 2,944 0.154 0.200 0.086 0.154 0.246 28.590 0.090 0.310
Structural 5 2,944 0.208 0.285 0.066 0.237 0.332 43.954 0.200 0.370
Social 5 2,944 0.017 0.024 0.051 -0.026 0.074 55.717 -0.042 0.089
Challenging 5 2,944 0.114 0.157 0.079 0.108 0.206 34.599 0.056 0.258
Hindering 5 2,944 -0.043 -0.060 0.118 -0.110 -0.010 19.237 -0.211 0.091
Big Five Extraversion Overall Job Crafting 6 3,075 0.194 0.224 0.176 0.185 0.263 7.329 -0.001 0.450
Structural 6 3,075 0.169 0.205 0.101 0.163 0.247 21.512 0.075 0.335
Social 6 3,075 0.142 0.176 0.149 0.133 0.219 11.809 -0.015 0.367
Challenging 6 3,075 0.246 0.302 0.088 0.261 0.342 25.548 0.189 0.414
Hindering 6 3,075 -0.022 -0.028 0.175 -0.071 0.016 8.974 -0.252 0.197
Big Five Neuroticism Overall Job Crafting 7 3,566 -0.017 -0.021 0.116 -0.062 0.019 18.510 -0.170 0.127
Structural 7 3,566 -0.100 -0.132 0.147 -0.175 -0.090 14.411 -0.321 0.056
Social 7 3,566 -0.003 -0.004 0.042 -0.048 0.040 66.871 -0.058 0.050
Challenging 7 3,566 -0.046 -0.061 0.144 -0.104 -0.018 14.369 -0.246 0.123
Hindering 6 3,075 0.115 0.155 0.199 0.108 0.202 8.846 -0.101 0.410
Big Five Openness Overall Job Crafting 5 2,944 0.174 0.218 0.225 0.174 0.262 6.287 -0.070 0.506
Structural 5 2,944 0.267 0.352 0.187 0.308 0.396 12.612 0.113 0.591
Social 5 2,944 0.044 0.059 0.175 0.011 0.107 9.133 -0.166 0.284
Challenging 5 2,944 0.200 0.266 0.181 0.220 0.313 11.121 0.035 0.498
Hindering 5 2,944 -0.075 -0.100 0.084 -0.148 -0.052 31.167 -0.208 0.008
Proactive Personality Overall Job Crafting 12 4,189 0.474 0.543 0.036 0.516 0.570 69.974 0.497 0.590
Structural 10 4,434 0.518 0.631 0.000 0.605 0.657 100.000 0.605 0.657
Social 10 4,434 0.186 0.225 0.042 0.191 0.259 63.517 0.171 0.279
Challenging 11 4,636 0.526 0.639 0.105 0.614 0.664 17.330 0.505 0.773
Hindering 8 3,656 -0.045 -0.054 0.139 -0.093 -0.015 14.279 -0.231 0.124
General Self-Efficacy Overall Job Crafting 12 2,418 0.335 0.395 0.157 0.353 0.437 20.212 0.194 0.596
Structural 3 1,238 0.436 0.542 0.084 0.486 0.598 31.290 0.435 0.649
Social 4 1,511 0.150 0.193 0.086 0.129 0.256 37.751 0.082 0.304
Challenging 6 1,568 0.334 0.432 0.085 0.375 0.489 53.518 0.324 0.540
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 79

Hindering 6 1,768 -0.015 -0.019 0.161 -0.077 0.040 17.382 -0.224 0.187
Promotion Focus Overall Job Crafting 12 3,225 0.432 0.509 0.040 0.476 0.542 71.774 0.458 0.561
Structural 6 1,349 0.379 0.468 0.062 0.412 0.525 58.519 0.389 0.548
Social 9 2,193 0.356 0.445 0.052 0.399 0.491 65.805 0.378 0.512
Challenging 11 2,784 0.435 0.550 0.093 0.512 0.588 36.262 0.431 0.669
Hindering 12 3,225 0.021 0.026 0.095 -0.017 0.070 40.066 -0.095 0.148
Prevention Focus Overall Job Crafting 11 3,138 0.129 0.157 0.123 0.115 0.199 25.271 -0.001 0.315
Structural 5 1,262 0.014 0.018 0.000 -0.054 0.090 100.000 -0.054 0.090
Social 8 2,106 0.057 0.072 0.131 0.018 0.127 26.566 -0.096 0.240
Challenging 10 2,697 0.073 0.095 0.114 0.046 0.144 32.529 -0.051 0.241
Hindering 11 3,138 0.117 0.152 0.102 0.107 0.197 35.890 0.021 0.284

Note. K = cumulative number of studies; N = cumulative sample size; r = sample-sized weighted correlation; rc = sample size-weighted and reliability-corrected
correlation; SDrc = standard deviation of rc; CI = 95% confidence interval for rc; CV = 80% credibility interval for rc; %Var = variance attributable to statistical
artifacts (sampling error & unreliability); Social = Increasing Social Job Resources; Structural = Increasing Structural Job Resources; Challenging =Increasing
Challenging Job Demands; Hindering = Decreasing Hindering Job Demands.
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 80

Table 3
Summary of Meta-Analytic Relationships: Job Characteristics as Correlates of Job Crafting

Job Crafting Correlate Type of Job Crafting K N r rc SDrc CIL CIU %Var CVL CVU
Job Autonomy Overall Job Crafting 25 8,805 0.240 0.279 0.083 0.256 0.302 34.531 0.173 0.385
Structural 14 5,644 0.369 0.456 0.101 0.428 0.484 23.948 0.327 0.586
Social 16 5,957 0.098 0.121 0.078 0.090 0.152 40.408 0.022 0.220
Challenging 22 7,722 0.261 0.322 0.110 0.296 0.347 25.469 0.181 0.463
Hindering 18 6,714 -0.060 -0.076 0.100 -0.106 -0.046 29.898 -0.204 0.052
Workload Overall Job Crafting 12 2,878 0.144 0.164 0.088 0.123 0.205 40.601 0.052 0.276
Structural 4 716 0.162 0.195 0.140 0.109 0.282 28.461 0.016 0.375
Social 5 918 0.143 0.179 0.090 0.099 0.259 51.579 0.064 0.294
Challenging 11 2,288 0.143 0.181 0.128 0.130 0.233 32.267 0.018 0.345
Hindering 12 2,494 -0.001 -0.002 0.134 -0.052 0.048 30.266 -0.173 0.170

Note. K = cumulative number of studies; N = cumulative sample size; r = sample-sized weighted correlation; rc = sample size-weighted and reliability-corrected
correlation; SDrc = standard deviation of rc; CI = 95% confidence interval for rc; CV = 80% credibility interval for rc; %var = variance attributable to statistical
artifacts (sampling error & unreliability); Social = Increasing Social Job Resources; Structural = Increasing Structural Job Resources; Challenging =Increasing
Challenging Job Demands; Hindering = Decreasing Hindering Job Demands.
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 81

Table 4
Summary of Meta-Analytic Relationships: Work Outcomes as Correlates of Job Crafting

Job Crafting Correlate Type of Job Crafting K N r rc SDrc CIL CIU %Var CVL CVU
Job Satisfaction General Job Crafting 20 6,599 0.254 0.288 0.115 0.262 0.314 21.500 0.140 0.436
Structural 9 4,694 0.338 0.398 0.077 0.368 0.428 28.804 0.299 0.496
Social 17 6,163 0.207 0.248 0.123 0.219 0.277 19.883 0.090 0.406
Challenging 16 5,762 0.253 0.312 0.086 0.282 0.341 37.084 0.202 0.421
Hindering 17 5,658 -0.099 -0.124 0.204 -0.156 -0.091 10.197 -0.385 0.138
Turnover Intentions General Job Crafting 4 2,429 -0.019 -0.021 0.151 -0.066 0.023 8.236 -0.215 0.173
Structural 4 2,429 -0.133 -0.158 0.029 -0.204 -0.111 73.522 -0.194 -0.121
Social 3 2,240 -0.019 -0.022 0.015 -0.070 0.026 88.310 -0.042 -0.002
Challenging 4 2,429 -0.075 -0.091 0.106 -0.139 -0.043 17.480 -0.227 0.045
Hindering 3 2,240 0.202 0.235 0.023 0.189 0.282 77.232 0.207 0.264
Work Engagement General Job Crafting 60 21,635 0.401 0.450 0.135 0.438 0.463 15.075 0.277 0.623
Structural 32 12,814 0.500 0.591 0.074 0.576 0.607 36.526 0.496 0.687
Social 39 14,535 0.297 0.352 0.123 0.334 0.370 19.461 0.194 0.510
Challenging 48 16,412 0.380 0.454 0.133 0.438 0.470 20.438 0.284 0.625
Hindering 42 12,258 -0.074 -0.090 0.159 -0.112 -0.069 16.787 -0.294 0.114
Job Strain Overall Job Crafting 18 7,654 -0.108 -0.125 0.135 -0.151 -0.100 14.767 -0.298 0.047
Structural 9 3,342 -0.129 -0.157 0.159 -0.198 -0.117 13.434 -0.361 0.046
Social 10 3,726 -0.039 -0.046 0.092 -0.085 -0.008 31.447 -0.165 0.072
Challenging 15 5,425 -0.115 -0.140 0.126 -0.172 -0.108 20.050 -0.302 0.022
Hindering 16 5,631 0.119 0.150 0.168 0.118 0.183 13.752 -0.065 0.366
Self Rated Performance Overall Job Crafting 27 7,770 0.233 0.274 0.125 0.249 0.299 22.496 0.113 0.435
Structural 14 5,664 0.324 0.400 0.057 0.371 0.428 50.618 0.326 0.473
Social 16 6,125 0.106 0.133 0.119 0.102 0.165 22.507 -0.019 0.286
Challenging 23 7,300 0.243 0.310 0.126 0.283 0.338 25.105 0.149 0.472
Hindering 20 5,804 -0.055 -0.070 0.176 -0.103 -0.037 15.330 -0.296 0.155
Other Rated Performance Overall Job Crafting 7 1,024 0.158 0.184 0.174 0.115 0.254 22.827 -0.039 0.408
Structural 4 543 0.212 0.276 0.000 0.171 0.381 100.000 0.171 0.381
Social 6 930 0.167 0.211 0.118 0.132 0.291 42.111 0.061 0.362
Challenging 5 659 0.319 0.422 0.119 0.331 0.513 45.610 0.269 0.574
Hindering 4 721 -0.010 -0.013 0.189 -0.108 0.082 20.961 -0.255 0.229
Contextual Performance Overall Job Crafting 12 3,689 0.262 0.314 0.172 0.278 0.351 13.405 0.095 0.534
Structural 4 2,318 0.417 0.506 0.024 0.465 0.547 78.813 0.475 0.537
Social 6 2,782 0.125 0.152 0.000 0.107 0.196 100.000 0.107 0.196
Challenging 10 3,360 0.322 0.429 0.161 0.389 0.469 19.730 0.223 0.635
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 82

Hindering 10 3,360 -0.121 -0.161 0.083 -0.205 -0.117 43.541 -0.267 -0.055

Note. K = cumulative number of studies; N = cumulative sample size; r = sample-sized weighted correlation; rc = sample size-weighted and reliability-corrected
correlation; SDrc = standard deviation of rc; CI = 95% confidence interval for rc; CV = 80% credibility interval for rc; %var = variance attributable to statistical
artifacts (sampling error & unreliability); Social = Increasing Social Job Resources; Structural = Increasing Structural Job Resources; Challenging =Increasing
Challenging Job Demands; Hindering = Decreasing Hindering Job Demands; Self Rated Performance = self rated work performance; Other Rated Performance =
other rated work performance.
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 83

Table 5
Summary of Meta-Analytic Relationships: Demographics as Correlates of Job Crafting

Job Crafting Correlate Type of Job Crafting K N r rc SDrc CIL CIU %Var CVL CVU
Age Overall Job Crafting 50 14,469 -0.092 -0.100 0.095 -0.118 -0.083 31.369 -0.222 0.022
Structural 21 6,593 0.028 0.033 0.051 0.005 0.060 62.178 -0.032 0.098
Social 26 7,370 -0.167 -0.194 0.122 -0.220 -0.168 24.346 -0.351 -0.037
Challenging 33 9,347 -0.037 -0.043 0.145 -0.066 -0.019 18.468 -0.228 0.143
Hindering 29 8,470 -0.033 -0.039 0.126 -0.064 -0.014 22.678 -0.201 0.123
Tenure Overall Job Crafting 19 5,705 -0.095 -0.105 0.069 -0.133 -0.076 45.907 -0.193 -0.016
Structural 8 3,453 -0.025 -0.029 0.088 -0.067 0.009 27.679 -0.142 0.084
Social 8 3,453 -0.138 -0.158 0.119 -0.196 -0.121 17.602 -0.310 -0.006
Challenging 10 3,618 -0.083 -0.092 0.072 -0.128 -0.056 39.128 -0.185 0.001
Hindering 9 3,112 -0.056 -0.063 0.049 -0.103 -0.024 60.431 -0.127 0.000
Gender Overall Job Crafting 32 10,781 0.025 0.027 0.058 0.006 0.048 51.142 -0.047 0.101
Structural 13 4,022 0.062 0.070 0.000 0.035 0.105 100.000 0.035 0.105
Social 18 4,799 0.069 0.080 0.033 0.047 0.112 82.202 0.038 0.122
Challenging 23 6,657 0.021 0.024 0.099 -0.004 0.051 31.632 -0.103 0.151
Hindering 23 6,707 -0.020 -0.023 0.064 -0.051 0.005 53.107 -0.105 0.059
Education Overall Job Crafting 23 5,785 0.100 0.110 0.112 0.082 0.138 28.128 -0.034 0.253
Structural 9 3,502 0.098 0.116 0.097 0.077 0.154 28.401 -0.009 0.240
Social 13 4,006 0.113 0.131 0.081 0.095 0.166 40.714 0.027 0.234
Challenging 13 4,038 0.123 0.145 0.152 0.109 0.181 16.556 -0.050 0.340
Hindering 14 3,735 -0.052 -0.061 0.025 -0.099 -0.024 89.487 -0.093 -0.029
Work Hours Overall Job Crafting 8 1,764 0.088 0.098 0.091 0.046 0.150 40.307 -0.019 0.215
Structural 5 995 0.092 0.106 0.058 0.035 0.176 65.749 0.031 0.180
Social 5 995 -0.011 -0.012 0.031 -0.083 0.058 87.170 -0.052 0.027
Challenging 4 856 0.154 0.171 0.132 0.098 0.244 24.168 0.002 0.340
Hindering 4 778 -0.052 -0.060 0.000 -0.140 0.020 100.000 -0.140 0.020

Note. K = cumulative number of studies; N = cumulative sample size; r = sample-sized weighted correlation; rc = sample size-weighted and reliability-corrected
correlation; SDrc = standard deviation of rc; CI = 95% confidence interval for rc; CV = 80% credibility interval for rc; %var = variance attributable to statistical
artifacts (sampling error & unreliability); Social = Increasing Social Job Resources; Structural = Increasing Structural Job Resources; Challenging =Increasing
Challenging Job Demands; Hindering = Decreasing Hindering Job Demands.
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 84

Table 6
Meta-Analysis of Inter-Relationship Between Job Crafting Dimensions

Job Crafting Relationship K N r rc CIL CIU %Var CVL CVU

Social-Structural 42 13,440 0.306 0.398 0.378 0.418 18.811 0.211 0.585
Social-Challenging 42 13,440 0.390 0.507 0.489 0.526 31.598 0.369 0.646
Social-Hindering 42 13,440 0.133 0.174 0.152 0.196 12.375 -0.075 0.424
Structural-Challenging 42 13,440 0.521 0.671 0.655 0.687 23.220 0.510 0.832
Structural-Hindering 42 13,440 0.005 0.006 -0.016 0.028 22.198 -0.168 0.181
Challenging-Hindering 42 13,440 0.020 0.026 0.004 0.048 15.769 -0.189 0.242

Note. K = cumulative number of studies; N = cumulative sample size; r = sample-sized weighted correlation; rc = sample size-weighted and reliability-corrected
correlation; SDrc = standard deviation of rc; CI = 95% confidence interval for rc; CV = 80% credibility interval for rc; %var = variance attributable to statistical
artifacts (sampling error & unreliability). Social = Increasing Social Job Resources; Structural = Increasing Structural Job Resources; Challenging =Increasing
Challenging Job Demands; Hindering = Decreasing Hindering Job Demands
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 85

Table 7
Relative Weights Analysis

Job Satisfaction Dimension B SEB t-value p RW %R2

Social 0.113 0.011 10.169 <.001 0.024 16.635
R2 = .14 Structural 0.266 0.012 22.470 <.001 0.078 54.724
F = 356.50, p < .05 Challenging 0.073 0.012 5.933 <.001 0.029 20.266
Hindering -0.117 0.010 -11.537 <.001 0.012 8.375
Turnover Intentions Dimension B SEB t-value p RW %R2
Social -0.003 0.016 -0.159 0.874 0.001 1.009
R2 = .06 Structural -0.127 0.017 -7.530 <.001 0.015 24.654
F = 72.25, p < .05 Challenging -0.012 0.017 -0.682 0.495 0.003 4.772
Hindering 0.203 0.014 14.097 <.001 0.041 69.565
Work Engagement Dimension B SEB t-value p RW %R2
Social 0.142 0.008 17.805 <.001 0.046 15.599
R2 = .29 Structural 0.394 0.009 46.158 <.001 0.172 58.744
F = 1220.12, p < .05 Challenging 0.121 0.009 13.762 <.001 0.067 22.953
Hindering -0.097 0.007 -13.350 <.001 0.008 2.705
Job Strain Dimension B SEB t-value p RW %R2
Social 0.000 0.013 0.036 0.971 0.001 2.351
R2 = .03 Structural -0.094 0.014 -6.896 <.001 0.011 32.604
F = 64.63, p < .05 Challenging -0.069 0.014 -4.870 <.001 0.008 22.994
Hindering 0.121 0.012 10.372 <.001 0.014 42.051
Self-Rated Performance Dimension B SEB t-value p RW %R2
Social -0.011 0.011 -1.051 0.293 0.004 3.519
R2 = .12 Structural 0.272 0.012 23.606 <.001 0.077 66.435
F = 305.07, p < .05 Challenging 0.107 0.012 8.961 <.001 0.032 27.165
Hindering -0.057 0.010 -5.787 <.001 0.003 2.881
Other-Rated Performance Dimension B SEB t-value p RW %R2
Social 0.047 0.026 1.780 0.075 0.013 11.956
R2 = .11 Structural 0.056 0.028 2.003 0.045 0.021 19.875
F = 47.48, p < .05 Challenging 0.272 0.029 9.392 <.001 0.072 67.830
Hindering -0.022 0.024 -0.916 0.360 0.000 0.339
Contextual Performance Dimension B SEB t-value p RW %R2
Social -0.024 0.013 -1.825 0.068 0.006 2.939
R2 = .21 Structural 0.345 0.014 24.146 <.001 0.127 61.719
F = 351.92 p < .05 Challenging 0.154 0.015 10.465 <.001 0.057 27.857
Hindering -0.123 0.012 -10.052 <.001 0.015 7.485

Note. B = regression weight, SEB = standard error for B; RW = raw relative weight; %R2 = Rescaled raw relative
weight as a percent of total variance explained by model. Social = Increasing Social Job Resources; Structural =
Increasing Structural Job Resources; Challenging =Increasing Challenging Job Demands; Hindering = Decreasing
Hindering Job Demands
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 86

Figure 1
Conceptual Model & Overview of Relationships Investigated in Meta-Analysis
JOB CRAFTING META-ANALYSIS 87

Figure 2

Summary of Standardized Factor Loadings for Tims et al. (2012) Job Crafting Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Overall Job
Crafting

.482* .641* .811* .047*

Increasing Increasing Increasing Decreasing

Social Job Structural Job Challenging Hindering Job
Resources Resource Job Demands Demands
R2 = .232 R2 = .411 R2 = .657 R2 = .002

Note. χ2=241.70, p < .05, CFI = .97, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .04