Leadership and Job Crafting: Relationships with Employability and Creativity

Transcription

1 Eindhoven, January 2015 Leadership and Job Crafting: Relationships with Employability and Creativity By: J. (Jolke) van de Riet Student identity number; in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Operations Management & Logistics Supervisors Pascale M. Le Blanc, Wido G.M. Oerlemans Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences Human Performance Management Group Eindhoven University of Technology

2 TUE. School of Industrial Engineering. Series Master Theses Operations Management and Logistics Subject headings: Job crafting, Psychological capital, Transformational leadership, Authentic leadership, Employability, Creativity

3 ABSTRACT In the rapid changing work environment, where uncertainty increases, it is increasingly difficult for managers to design formalized job descriptions that specify the tasks and behaviors that are important to individuals. It is important that employees themselves anticipate and adapt to these changes. One possible way to cope with these changes is job crafting. The goal of this master thesis is to provide insight into the relationship between possible antecedents, leadership and psychological capital, and job crafting and possible consequences, employability and creativity, and job crafting. A questionnaire was filled out by 171 employees from four different companies. Results based on this data show that employees engage more in job crafting behavior when they have a transformational or authentic leader. Transformational and authentic leaders increase employees psychological capital, employees with a higher level of psychological capital engage more in job crafting behavior. Employees psychological capital fully mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and authentic leadership and job crafting. Employees who have a higher psychological capital become more creative and better adapt and anticipate to changes (personal flexibility). Job crafting partially mediates the relationship between employees psychological capital and creativity and have a direct positive effect on employees creativity. I

4 PREFACE This master thesis marks the end of my Master, Operations Management & Logistics at the Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e). After graduating for my bachelor degree at the Fontys Hogeschool in 2011, I was not yet ready to work. Although I learned many practical competencies, learned much about myself and I grew as a person, I missed some theoretical knowledge. Therefore I entered the pre-master at the Eindhoven University of Technology. The time during my pre-master was though but I held on and after one and a half year I managed to finish my pre-master and entered the master program. Of course there were some struggles but I had a wonderful time. I choose Operations Management & Logistics for the opportunity to combine the technical side with the human aspects. With this research project I got the opportunity to do something what I really wanted to do. I would like to use this opportunity to express my gratitude to all persons who have assisted the completion of my project. Without them, I would not have been able to make my graduation project to a success. First of all, I would like to thank Dr. Pascale Le Blanc for the assistance, advice, feedback and effort during my research. Also for helping me with the research model. In the search of a proper and interesting research model, she helped me to explore my personal interests and gave me advice. This resulted in a research model in which I was excited to start. In the last stage of my research project she reduced my worries with positive feedback. Second, I would like to thank Wido Oerlemans for his enthusiasm and feedback in the last stage of my research. Third, I want to thank my father for always being there for me, help me when needed and the effort he made for me to make it possible to collect a great amount of data. Last but not least, I want to thank Pierre Vincent for the help and effort, for the second time in my study career. Jolke van de Riet Langenboom, January 2015 II

5 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY There is a global shift from manufacturing economies to service and knowledge economies (Grant and Parker, 2009). This drastically altered the nature of work in organizations. To keep pace with these important and rapid changes, work design theory and research is undergoing a transformation (Grant and Parker, 2009). When a work environment is highly uncertain, individuals, teams, and organizations must not only react and adapt to change, but must also anticipate and act upon the external environment in self-directed ways to achieve effective outcomes (Aragon-Correa, 1998). A behavior where individuals take initiative and employee proactivity is an important factor is job crafting. This research intended to attain a better understanding of the relationship between the antecedents of job crafting, PsyCap, transformational leadership, and authentic leadership, and the relation with possible consequences of job crafting, namely employability and creativity. Job crafting is redesigning one s job by shaping the task boundaries (either physically or cognitively) and/or the relational boundaries. Physically is the increase or decrease of ones job demands and cognitively is altering how one perceives the job. These changes are not specific arrangements that are negotiated with the organization, but are individual adaptions. Psychological capital represents an individual s positive psychological state of development that is characterized by four psychological resources: efficacy (confidence to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks), hope (one s ability to persevere toward a goal), optimism (a positive expectation about succeeding now and in the future), and resilience (being able to sustain and bounce back to attain success when beset by problems and adversity). Transformational leaders can arouse followers to high levels of performance by appealing to their values, emotions, attitudes, and beliefs. Authentic leaders are those who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and others values/moral perspectives, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character. Employability concerns the extent to which people possess the skills and other attributes to find and stay in work of the kind they want. III

6 To better understand these relationships, a questionnaire, with all measurement tools included, is designed. Based on the existing literature multiple hypotheses have been created. First, possible antecedents/predictors of job crafting are hypothesized namely, the effect of transformational leadership and authentic leadership on job crafting and the mediation effect of employees psychological capital. It was expected that employees with a transformational and/or authentic leader engage more in job crafting behavior through an increase of employees psychological capital. Second, possible consequences of job crafting are hypothesized namely, the effect of job crafting behavior on employability and creativity and the mediation effect of job crafting on the relationship between psychological capital and employability and creativity. It was expected that employees with a higher level of psychological capital become more employable and creative because they engage more in job crafting behavior. The data shows that all hypotheses were accepted, except the mediation effect of job crafting on the relationship between employees psychological capital and employability. Employees who have a leader who is a role-model, coach, and mentor, have a clear view for the future and act consistent with this view, and they are self-aware, engage more in shaping and controlling their work environment by increase challenging demands, increase their resources and/or decrease their demands. Transformational or authentic leaders increase their subordinates psychological capital, which leads to higher levels of job crafting behavior. Employees become more self-confident in their skills, more positive about the future, and more resilient in adversity so that employees will be more effective in shaping and controlling their work environment. Employees with higher levels of psychological capital become more employable. Employees who are more selfconfident in their skills, and positive about the future and resilient in adversity better anticipate and adapt to changes in their work environment and ensure that they stay competent for their job demands and find a balance between their work and private life. This effect is not due to the fact that employees with a higher psychological capital engage more in job crafting behavior. However, when employees engage in job crafting behavior they become more employable. Employees with a higher level of psychological capital become more creative. Employees whit a higher psychological capital control and shape their work environment and therefore become more creative. Another interesting IV

7 finding is that when employees have more work experience they decrease their demands more than when employees are in an earlier stage of their career, who increase their resources. Moreover, employees who have a leadership position and a higher educational degree engage more in job crafting behavior. FIGURE 1 RESEARCH MODEL The results of the study can be used for providing practical implications, organizations who are highly innovative and have a highly uncertain environment need creative employees and employees who can adapt and anticipate to changes and benefit from these changes. Organizations can select employees who are proactive and show initiative but organizations also have to put some effort in increasing employees employability. Organizations need to select transformational and/or authentic leaders who increase employees psychological capital. Employees with a higher level of psychological capital engage more in job crafting behavior which leads to more creative employees. Employees with a higher level of psychological capital also become more V

8 employable, thus anticipate and adapt more successfully to changes in their work environment. Despite the preparation of this study, limitations of this study are present as well. The questionnaire is distributed only one point in time and participants answered questions of predicting variables and criteria variables which may lead to common-method bias. There is also a non-response bias. Participants who completed the questionnaire may feel confident enough to answer questions of ones supervisor, which may bias the relation between one s supervisor and the effect on employees self-efficacy. A confirmatory factor analysis is not performed and reduces versions of the measurement tools are used. The model was tested with self-completion questionnaires. First, this study contributes to the scientific literature about the relationship between PsyCap and job crafting. This relationship was not studied before. Second, the two leadership styles in one study is a contribution to the scientific literature, there is not yet a study in which these two leadership styles are compared in relation to possible outcomes. Last, this study contributes about the relation of job crafting and creativity and PsyCap and employability. Future research is needed to gain better understanding in the relation of psychological capital and job crafting. This study explored this relationship for the first time thus further research is needed, a longitudinal research, other methods to gather data and with possible mediators. A study in which employees have a new supervisor, gives the opportunity to monitor the effect between leadership and employees psychological capital. Also work characteristics such as autonomy should be researched to give a better understanding in the relationship between PsyCap and jo crafting. Causes why employees do not decrease their demands or possible predictors should be studied to prevent health problems. VI

9 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract... I Preface... II Management summary... III 1. Introduction Theoretical background and hypotheses Job crafting Psychological capital Efficacy Confidence to succeed Hope The will and the way Optimism Realistic and flexible Resiliency Bouncing back and beyond Leadership Transformational leadership Authentic leadership Employability Creativity Full research model Method Participants Procedure Measures Leadership Pyschological capital Job crafting Employability Creativity Analysis Results Descriptive statistics Correlation PsyCap and job crafting Leadership and PsyCap Job crafting and employability Job crafting and creativity Control variables VII

10 4.2 Testing Hypotheses Direct effects Mediating effects Baron and Kenny Discussion Main findings Leadership PsyCap Job crafting Job crafting Employability and Creativity Other findings Theoretical implications Practical implications Research limitations Future research Conclusion Literature Appendix Appendix A: Procedure A.1 Introduction letter of the reseach A.2 Questionnaire A.3 Letter to employees Appendix B: Results B.1 Correlation matrix B.2 Regression tables H1-H B.3 Mediation regression tables VIII

11 1. INTRODUCTION There is a global shift from manufacturing economies to service and knowledge economies (Grant and Parker, 2009). This drastically altered the nature of work in organizations. To keep pace with these important and rapid changes, work design theory and research is undergoing a transformation (Grant and Parker, 2009). When a work environment is highly uncertain, individuals, teams, and organizations must not only react and adapt to change, but must also anticipate and act upon the external environment in self-directed ways to achieve effective outcomes (Aragon-Correa, 1998). Change-oriented work behaviors are critical to organizations undergoing change initiatives, as employees often need to get involved in changing work roles and organizational practices to successfully implement organizational change efforts (Hornung & Rousseau, 2007; Morrison & Phelps, 1999 in: Ghitulescu, 2013). However, very little change research has examined the adaptive and proactive employee behaviors that promote organizational change, and how managers can develop these behaviors in employees (Ghitulescu, 2013). One viewpoint in work design theories is the proactive perspective, which captures the growing importance of employees taking initiative to anticipate and create changes in how work is performed, based on increases in uncertainty and dynamism (Grant and Parker, 2009). Traditionally, work design researchers assumed that managers were responsible for structuring jobs for employees to carry out (Hackman and Oldham, 1976). However, as uncertainty increases, it is increasingly difficult for managers to design formalized job descriptions that specify the tasks and behaviors that are important to individual, group and organizational effectiveness (Griffin et al., 2007 in: Grant & Parker, 2009). A behavior where individuals take initiative and employee proactivity is an important factor is job crafting. Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) define job crafting as: the actions employees take to shape, mold and redefine their jobs. Job crafting differs from other redesign theories in that it is about proactive changes in the job design that are not specific arrangements that are negotiated with the organization (supervisor) (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Thus, they are made by the employee him/herself. Job crafting is a popular subject in studies on employees well-being and performance (e.g. Bakker et al., 2004; Bakker et al., 2010) nowadays, but there is relatively less research focusing on the antecedents of job crafting. This master thesis will focus on the 1

12 potential antecedent leadership. Grant and Parker (2009) emphasise that managers are an important factor for creating work designs in which employees can be stimulated to increase their proactive behavior. Support from supervisors seems very important in perceiving opportunities to craft (Bakker, A supervisor who understands the employee may offer the employee autonomy and thereby encourage self-initiation (Baard et al., 2004). The leadership styles that will be studied, in relation to job crafting, are transformational leadership and authentic leadership. Transformational leaders can arouse followers to high levels of performance by appealing to their values, emotions, attitudes, and beliefs (Bass, 1985). There are many researchers who defined this leadership style e.g. Bass (1985) and Podsakoff et al. (1990). Key dimensions are, Idealized influence, Inspirational motivation (Bass, 1985), Intellectual stimulation, Individual consideration (Bass, 1985, Podsakoff et al., 1990), articulating a vision, fostering the acceptance of group goals, and modelling behaviors consistent with the articulated vision (Podsakof et al., 1990). Avolio, Luthans, and Walumbwa (2004) define authentic leaders as those who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and others values/moral perspectives, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character. The underlying process by which transformational and authentic leadership might relate to job crafting is by enhancing employees psychological capital (PsyCap). Psychological capital represents an individual s positive psychological state of development that is characterized by four psychological resources: efficacy (confidence to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks), hope (one s ability to persevere toward a goal), optimism (a positive expectation about succeeding now and in the future), and resilience (being able to sustain and bounce back to attain success when beset by problems and adversity) (Luthans et al., 2007). Gooty et al. (2009) studied the relationship between transformational leadership and PsyCap and Rego et al. (2012) studied the relationship between authentic leadership and PsyCap. Furthermore there is research on the influence of transformational leadership on selfefficacy (Nielsen et al., 2009), on optimism (Tims et al., 2010), and on resiliency (Harland et al., 2005). 2

13 Previous research has already demonstrated the relationship of psychological capital with positive work attitudes and behaviors (Larsen & Luthans, 2006 and Avey & Reichard & Luthans & Mhatre, 2011) and good performance (Luthans & Avolio, & Avey & Norman, 2007). The relationship of PsyCap with job crafting has not yet been directly explored. In this study not only leadership, as a potential antecedent of job crafting, is studied, but also some of its outcomes. Where job crafting is a popular subject for the health and well-being of employees, employability concerns the extent to which people possess the skills and other attributes to find and stay in work of the kind they want (Rothwell and Arnold, 2004), thus ensure that people can and stay at work. One way to become more adaptive is to increase the workers employability through the possession of broader skills, together with a willingness to change freely between tasks (Guest, 1987 in: Nauta et al., 2009). Next to employability, this master thesis will focus on the outcome creativity. Creativity is important because, to survive and prosper, organizations need to take full advantage of their employees' creative potential, so that innovation, change, learning, performance, and competitiveness can be sustained (Rego et al., 2012). To summarize, the mediating role of PsyCap in the relationship between leadership and job crafting is tested, as well as the mediating role of job crafting in the relationship between PsyCap and employability and creativity. 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROU ND AND HYPOTHESES In this chapter the main research areas of interest are delineated. First job crafting is explained, followed by the psychological capital and leadership as potential antecedents, and the employability and creativity as potential consequences JOB CRAFTING An employee s job is made up of a set of task elements grouped together under one job title and designed to be performed by a single individual (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1992 in: Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Griffin (1987) defined it as a set of prescribed work activities a person normally performs during a typical work period. Crafting a job involves shaping the task boundaries of the job (either physically or cognitively), the relational boundaries of the job or both. Changing task boundaries means altering the 3

14 form or number of activities one engages in while doing the job, whereas changing cognitive task boundaries refers to altering how one sees the job, and changing relational boundaries means exercising discretion over with whom one interacts while doing the job. By changing any one of these elements, an individual alters the design of the job and the social environment in which he or she works (Wrzesniewski & Duttion, 2001). Although it may seem as though job crafting is a one-time effort, it is actually a continuous process that is likely to be affected by where employees find themselves in their careers. Employees are more likely to stimulate their job through increasing challenging job demands in early stages of their careers (Fried, Grant, Levi, Hadani, & Slowik, 2007). Thus job crafting is an improvised, creative process of individuals who adapt their jobs in ways that create a viable definition of the work they do and who they are at work. It is a self-initiated change behavior that employees engage in with the aim to align their jobs with their own preferences, motives, and passions. Whether this crafting is good or bad for the organization is an issue that is situationally dependent (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Task boundaries Employees achieve this by changing the number, scope, or type of job tasks done at work. By choosing to do fewer, more or different tasks than prescribed in the formal job, employees create a different job (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Relational boundaries A change in relational boundaries involves changing either the quality or amount of interaction with others at work, or both. Employees often can decide how frequently they wish to interact with others on the job and can also help determine the quality of those interactions (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Cognitive task boundaries Changing the cognitive boundaries can take many forms, but one likely involves employees altering how they perceive the job viewing it either a as set of discrete work tasks or as an integrated whole. Changing the view of the job in this way 4

15 fundamentally changes how employees approach the job (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Tims, Bakker & Derks (2012) distinguish three conceptually different dimensions which are different from the three of Wrzesniewski (2001): First, increasing job resources, second, increasing challenging job demands, and third, decreasing hindering job demands. Tims et al. (2012) used the Job Demand-Resource (JD-R) model of Demerouti et al. (2001). This model is based on characteristics of work environments. According to Demerouti et al. (2001) there are two general categories, job demands and job resources. Job demands refer to those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort or skills and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs. Job resources refer to those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that are either/or functional in achieving work goals, reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological cost, and stimulate personal growth, learning, and development (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). These two categories of work characteristics evoke two relatively independent psychological processes. According to the health impairment process, high job demands, which require sustained effort, may exhaust employees resources and lead to energy depletion and health problems (see Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinneau, 1975 in: Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). By contrast, according to the motivational process, the availability of job resources leads to organizational commitment and work engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004 in: Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Job resources, due to their (intrinsic and extrinsic) motivational potential, foster employees to meet their goals. In turn, employees may become more committed to their job, because they derive fulfilment from it (Hackman & Oldham, 1980 in: Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). These two perspectives can be compared. The dimension changing task boundaries of Wrzesniewski, includes an increase or a decrease in the amount of job tasks which is the same as the increase in job demands of the JD-R model. It also includes doing other tasks then prescribed which may entail seeking for challenging job demands. The dimension changing relational boundaries of Wrzesniewski, includes changing the amount or quality of interactions with other employees which may entail increasing resources. 5

16 Resources can be a supervisor or another employee, they can, for example, help with the task or provide feedback which helps the employee to accomplish the task. The difference in these two perspectives is that Wrzesniewski includes a cognitive change which is not included in the JD-R model. The following two sections will elaborate on the antecedents of job crafting. The first antecedent is employees psychological capital PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL F. Luthans et al. (2007), defined Psychological Capital (PsyCap) as: An individual s positive psychological state of development that is characterized by: (1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success EFFICACY CONFIDENCE TO SUCCEED Albert Bandura (1997) referred to the probability that people estimate that they can take on a particular task as an estimate of their self-efficacy. The probability that the individual associates with being able to do just that is the level of self-efficacy (Luthans et al., 2007). Although originally described as applying to a very specific domain of activity, there is increasing recognition that individuals can also have a generalized level of self-efficacy across a common domain of challenges and tasks (Parker, 1998 in: Luthans et al., 2007). Efficacy can be found in human knowledge, skills, abilities, IQ (or EQ) or personality traits but more important human s Psycap makes a large input into who he or she is, what he or she believes he or she can do, does and who he or she can become (Luthans et al., 2007). 6

17 Efficacy motivates to choose and welcome challenges and to use the strengths and skills to meet those challenges. It encourages and energizes to pursue ones goals and invest the time and hard work that may be necessary to accomplish them. It helps to preserve when one is faced with obstacles that may otherwise lead to abandonment, and thus, it also relates to ones hope, optimism and resiliency. It is something that people learn about themselves and develop over time amongst others through success experiences and modelling (e.g. leaders). It is an aspect of one self and ones awareness about who one is that can be positively changed or developed with relatively short interventions to spur people on to what they can become (Luthans et al., 2007). Efficacy is also influenced by others, what other people tell affects one own self-evaluation (Luthans et al., 2007). Self-efficacious people are distinguished by five important characteristics. 1, They set high goals for themselves and self-select into difficult tasks. 2, They welcome and thrive on challenge. 3, They are highly self-motivated. 4, They invest the necessary effort to accomplish their goals. 5, When faced with obstacles, they persevere (Luthans et al., 2007) These five characteristics equip high-efficacy individuals with the capacity to develop independently and perform effectively, even with little external input for extended periods of time. People with high efficacy do not wait for challenging goals to be set for them, they continuously challenge themselves with higher and higher self-set goals and by seeking and voluntarily opting for difficult tasks. Self-doubt, scepticism, negative feedback, social criticism, obstacles and setbacks, and even repeated failure, which can be devastating for people with low efficacy, have little impact on highly efficacious individuals (Bandura & Locke, 2003 in: Luthans et al., 2007). Bakker and Tims (2010) cite Speier & Frese (1997) who examined the mediation of selfefficacy between control & complexity and personal initiative where personal initiative is a behavior resulting in an individual's taking an active and self-starting approach to work and going beyond what is formally required in a given job (Speier & Frese, 1997). When employees, who have a high self-efficacy, face complexity they are more likely to take initiative. This initiative can include changing the task itself (Speier & Frese, 1997). Bakker and Tims (2010) also cited Morrison & Phelps (1999) who examined a form of 7

18 extra-role behavior taking charge. Taking charge entails voluntary and constructive efforts by individual employees to effect organizationally functional change with respect to how work is executed within the contexts of their jobs, work units, or organizations. It is similar to other forms of extra-role behavior in that it is discretionary (that is, not formally required) (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). A construct of taking charge in this article is role innovation, that is a change or improvement in a job role or the procedures for performing that role (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979 in: Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Morrison & Phelps (1999) argue that employees with high self-efficacy will tend to attach a higher likelihood of success to taking charge and will thus be more likely to attempt this behavior. Self-efficacy has been identified as a critical antecedent of proactive behavior because individuals who are confident in their capabilities are more likely to judge that their actions will be successful (e.g., Morrison & Phelps, 1999). More specifically, role breadth self-efficacy (Parker, 1998, 2000), or individuals confidence in their ability to take on more proactive, integrative, and interpersonal tasks, such as implementing new work procedures, has been shown to be a strong driver of proactive behaviors such as making suggestions (Axtell et al., 2000 and Morris & Phelps, 1999). Therefore it is hypothesized that: H1.a: Employees self-efficacy is positively related to job crafting HOPE THE WILL AND THE WAY C. Rick Snyder (1991) defined hope as a positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful (1) agency (goal-directed energy) and (2) pathways (planning to meet goals). Hope is a cognitive or thinking state in which an individual is capable of setting realistic but challenging goals and expectations and then reaching out for those aims through self-directed determination, energy, and perception of internalized control. This is called agency or willpower. The other component of hope pathways or waypower is that people are capable of generating alternative paths to their desired destinations should the original ones become blocked (Snyder, 1994 in: Luthans et al., 2007). There is a continuous reiteration between agency and pathways, in which one s willpower and determination motivate the search for new pathways, while the creativity, innovation, and resourcefulness involved in developing 8

19 pathways in turn ignite one s energy and sense of control, which when taken together, result in an upward spiral of hope (Snyder, 1993 in: Luthans et al., 2007). If one has the potential to control in terms of going down alternative pathways that just might work, then hope remains and can even grow (Luthans etl al., 2007). Hopeful employees tend to be independent thinkers. They possess an internal locus of control, they need a high degree of autonomy in order to express and utilize their agency. They have very strong needs for growth and achievement and are intrinsically motivated by enriched jobs. Hopeful employees tend to be creative and resourceful (Luthans et al., 2007). This dimension of PsyCap is not independently studied but I argue that with the definition of Luthans et al. (2007) it is plausible to assume that hope is positively related to job crafting. The component waypower is defined as generating alternative pathways and pathways means the planning to meet goals. Thus in my vision, employees are generating new tasks and actions to meet the same goal. This could mean that employees generate tasks outside their job description or seek for alternative resources to meet their goals (Luthans et al., 2007). Therefore it is hypothesized that: H1.b: Employees hope is positively related to job crafting OPTIMISM REALISTIC AND FLEXIBLE Optimism is not just about predicting that good things will happen in the future. More importantly, optimism depends on the reasons and attributions one uses to explain why certain events occur, whether positive or negative, past, present, or future (Luthans et al., 2007). Seligman (1998) defines optimism as an explanatory style that attributes positive events to personal, permanent, and pervasive causes and interprets negative events in terms of external, temporary, and situation-specific factors (Luthans et al., 2007). Those with high optimism are also able to express their thanks and appreciation to relevant others and to factors that may have contributed to their success. They are able to capitalize on the opportunities that the situation may present them with, develop 9

20 their skills and abilities, and thus improve their chances in the future. By the same token, in bad times, they are able to sift through the noise, find the facts, learn from their mistakes, accept what they cannot change, and move on (Luthans et al., 2007). This dimension of PsyCap is not independently studied but I argue that with the definition of Luthans et al. (2007) it is plausible to assume that optimism is positively related to job crafting. Optimistic employees who are faced with success relate this success to themselves (Luthans, 2007), thus this success was cause of their own actions instead of that is was a coincidence. So when an employee faces success (s)he can seek for more challenge the next time. When optimistic employees failed they relate this failure to the environment, thus the failure was not cause of their own abilities and actions (Luthans, 2007). They learned from this failure and they may increase their resources or change their actions or tasks the next time. In line with this, Carver (1986) found that people high in optimism were more likely to seek and receive social support (Van den Heuvel et al., 2010). Therefore it is hypothesized that: H1.c: Employees optimism is positively related to job crafting RESILIENCY BOUNCING BACK AND BEYOND Luthans (2002) defined resiliency as the capacity to rebound or bounce back from adversity, conflict, failure, or even positive events, progress and increased responsibility. Masten (2001) recognized three components of resiliency namely asset factors, risk factors and influence processes. Masten focused on developing and changing perception of influences through cognitive, emotional, and behavioural processes. Greene and Conrad (2002) define resilience as "the capability of individuals to cope successfully in the face of significant change, adversity, or risk (Harland et al., 2005). Resiliency asset Masten and Reed (2002) define a resiliency asset as a measurable characteristic in a group of individuals or their situation that predicts a positive outcome in the future on a specific outcome criterion. Thus, factors that increase levels of resiliency. Gorman (2005) supports the integral role of both personal- and relationship based assets in 10

21 enhancing resiliency by showing that those who can discover and hone their talents and then find effective mentors to be their champions have higher chances of bouncing back and becoming successful (Luthans et al., 2007). This dimension of PsyCap is not independently studied but I argue that with the definition of Luthans et al. (2007) it is plausible to assume that resiliency is positively related to job crafting. In my vision employees alter their work behavior to successfully achieve their goals in case of organization or environment change or adversity. Altering can mean finding an effective mentor (a resiliency asset described by Masten and Reed, 2001). It also can include in my opinion, employees reducing their job demands in stressful times to bounce back from adversity or increasing resources to rebound adversity. In line with this Maddi (2005) argues that resilient employees are more likely to perceive a new requirement as a challenge (Van den Heuvel et al., 2010). Therefore it is hypothesized that: H1.d: Employees resiliency is positively related to job crafting There is research that job craften increases employees psychological capital (Bakker, 2010 and Bakker et al., 2011) but there is little research of psychological capital influencing job craften. However, Van den Heuvel et al. (2010) argues that employees with more personal resources will create job resources themselves, Luthans argues that personal resources seem to help engaged workers to control their work environment successfully (Luthans et al., 2008) and employees who feel self-efficacious valuable and optimistic may create a resourceful work environment (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). Therefore it is hypothesized that: H1: Employees with a high psychological capital are more likely to craft their jobs The second antecedent that can affect job crafting is leadership. In this study this effect will be mediated by employees psychological capital. First transformational leadership will be discussed and related to the four dimensions of PsyCap, followed by authentic leadership. 11

22 2.3 LEADERSHIP TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP Transformational leadership is a term that was coined by several theorists including Bass (1985, 1996), Burns (1978), and Podsakoff et al.(1990). Burns (1979) introduced the theory to describe the behaviour of inspirational political leaders. Transformational leadership is the interplay between leaders and followers in which each raises the other to higher levels of ethics, morality, and motivation (Landy & Conte, 2006). Transformational leaders motivate others to do more than they originally intended and often even more than they thought possible. They set more challenging expectations and typically achieve higher performances (Shamir, 1991). Bass (1985) said that leaders could arouse followers to high levels of performance by appealing to their values, emotions, attitudes, and beliefs. Bass (1985) further developed the transformational leadership theory, where four components of transformational leadership are identified; Leadership is charismatic (idealized influence) such that the follower seeks to identify with the leader and emulate him or her. The leadership inspires the follower with challenge and persuasion, providing a meaning and understanding. Enthusiasm and optimism are displayed and the leader gets followers involved in envisioning attractive future states. The leader creates clearly communicated expectations that followers want to meet and also demonstrates commitment to goals and the shared vision. The leadership is intellectually stimulating, expanding the follower s use of his or her abilities. Leaders stimulate their followers' efforts to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, refraining problems, and approaching old situations in new ways. Creativity is encouraged. There is no public criticism of individual members' mistakes. New ideas and creative problem solutions are solicited from followers, who are included in the process of addressing problems and finding solutions Finally the leadership is individually considerate, providing the follower with support, mentoring and coaching. New learning opportunities are created along with a supportive climate. Individual differences in terms of needs and desires are recognized. (Bass, 1985) Podsakoff et al. (1990) defined transformational leadership in a slightly different way. Podsakoff et al. (1990) distinguish six key behaviors, providing individualized support and intellectual stimulation are in line with the definition of Bass (1985). The Leader 12

23 identifies and articulates a vision and develop and inspire others with his or her vision of the future. The leader provides an appropriate model for employees to follow that is consistent with his or her values, the leader sets an example for employees to follow. The leaders fosters the acceptance of group goals by promoting coorporation among employees. Finally, the leader demonstrates his or her expectations for high performance (Podsakoff et al., 1999) Gooty et al. (2009) studied the effect of transformational leaders on performance via psychological capital. Despite the focus of this study was on goal accomplishment, the study examines the influence of transformational leadership behaviors on psychological capital. Results of this study support the relationship between followers perceptions of transformational leadership and positive psychological capital. The results of different studies will be presented below, for each of the aspects of PsyCap. Self-efficacy A transformational leader s role-modelling can serve as a clear roadmap for what constitutes desirable behavior toward goal attainment. Such role-modelling then serves as a platform that helps followers to develop confidence in their skills (Bandura, 2000 in: Gooty et al., 2009), thus enhance their self-efficacy. Followers perceptions of the transformational leader s behavior of intellectual stimulation open a broad range of thought patterns with respect to work problems, and the followers repertoire of possible solutions to a given problem significantly expands. This allows followers to believe in their ability to persevere toward goals (Gooty et al., 2009). Transformational leaders make an effort at connecting with each follower and so seek to infuse meaning into every individual s role within the organization (Avolio, 1999 in: Gooty et al., 2009). Such individualized consideration is manifested via counselling, mentoring, coaching, and delegation of challenging tasks. The leader acts as a powerful contextual source that augments the followers confidence in their ability to set goals and accomplish those goals, even when faced with adversity ( Bass, 1990 in: Gooty et al., 2009). Therefore it is hypothesized that: H2.a: Transformational leaders enhance followers self-efficacy 13

24 Hope Hope is not studied directly related to transformational leadership. However, Inspirational motivation in the form of vision and sense of mission is assumed to raise levels of optimism and enthusiasm (Dubinsky et al., 1995 in: McColl-Kennedy and Anderson, 2002). This vision can raise followers hope for reaching ones goals. Also inspirational motivation in the form of talking optimistically about the future will raise followers hope. Therefore it is hypothesized that: H2.b: Transformational leaders enhance followers hope Optimism Avolio et al. (1999) say that when followers perceive their leaders as behaving positively, they expect those followers to behave in a similarly positive fashion in an attempt to emulate their leaders. According to Bandura s (1977) social learning theory, individuals learn by attending to and observing the behavior of credible role models (Walumbwa et al., 2010). Inspirational motivation in the form of vision and sense of mission is assumed to raise levels of optimism and enthusiasm (Dubinsky et al., 1995 in: McColl-Kennedy and Anderson, 2002). The intellectual stimulation which opens a broad range of thought patters with respect to work problems, and depends upon followers repertoire of possible solutions to a given problem can also be related to one s optimism. This can change someone s perception of a problem being under his or her own control rather than being dependent upon external factors. Therefore it is hypothesized that: H2.c: Transformational leaders enhance followers optimism Resiliency Bass (1990) notes that a leader who looks beyond his or her self-interest reduce panic and increase confidence, which would tend to engender approach-coping behaviors (and thus resilience) in subordinates (Harland et al., 2005). Transformational leaders also create a commitment to group goals via a higher sense of purpose (Avolio, 1999 in: Gooty et al., 2009). A shared goal commitment emerges characterized by a climate of collaboration, with all the group members energized toward the same goal. This climate serves as a social support mechanism that followers can draw on in overcoming obstacles to goal accomplishment (Gooty et al., 2009). Transformational leaders 14

25 encourage followers to interpret information in novel ways, thus leading them to view obstacles as developmental challenges and so build their ability to bounce back from adversity (Bass, 1990 in: Gooty et al., 2009), and thus enhance their resiliency. Therefore it is hypothesized that that: H2.d: Transformational leaders enhance followers resiliency All the behaviors above act in tandem toward achieving followers increased effort via higher motivation and a belief in a more positive future. In sum, transformational leadership, when perceived as such by followers, acts as a contextual condition that helps their PsyCap prosper (Gooty et al., 2009). Therefore it is hypothesized that: H2: Transformational leadership enhances employees psychological capital AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP Authentic leadership is defined as a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development (Walumbwa, 2008 in: Rego et al., 2012). The authentic leadership construct comprises four dimensions: Self-awareness is the degree to which the leader demonstrates an understanding of how (s)he derives and makes sense of the world and is aware of his or her strengths, limitations, how others see him or her, and how (s)he impacts others (Kernis, 2003; Walumbwa et al., 2008 in: Rego et al., 2012); Balanced processing is the degree to which the leader shows that (s)he objectively analyzes the relevant data before coming to a decision and solicits views that challenge deeply held positions (Gardner et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008 in: Rego et al., 2012); Internalized moral perspective refers to the degree to which the leader sets a high standard for moral and ethical conduct, guides actions by internal moral standards and values (versus group, organizational, and societal pressures), and expresses decision making and behaviors that are consistent with such internalized values (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008 in: Rego et al., 2012); Relational transparency is the degree to which the leader presents his/her authentic self 15

26 (as opposed to a false or distorted self) to others, openly shares information, and expresses his/her true thoughts and feelings, reinforcing a level of openness with others that provides them with an opportunity to be forthcoming with their ideas, challenges, and opinions (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008 in: Rego et al., 2012). The most important difference between transformational leadership and authentic leadership is that authentic leaders do not act as a leader because they are in such a position but they act out of values and conviction (Shamir and Eilam, 2005). They engage in leadership because they have a value-based cause or a mission they want to promote (Shamir and Eilam, 2005). Authentic leadership is not a style on its own, a transformational leader can be authentic as well. Authentic leadership is about leaders self-concepts and the relationships between their self-concepts and their actions (Shamir and Eilam, 2005). Gardner et al. (2005) argue that authentic leaders draw from the positive psychological states that accompany optimal self-esteem and psychological well-being, such as confidence, optimism, hope and resilience, to model and promote the development of these states in others. Rego et al. (2012) studied authentic leadership as a predictor of creativity through a (partial) mediation of psychological capital and Walumbwa et al. (2011) researched the role of authentic leadership on group psychological capital, where the group psychological capital is enhanced through individual group members psychological capital. The results of different studies will be presented below, for each of the aspects of PsyCap. Self-efficacy Observing exemplary behaviors and psychological strengths in authentic leaders (i.e., through vicarious learning), and receiving constructive criticism and feedback in a respectful and developmental manner from them, employees may develop more confidence in their abilities to pursue goals (Ilies et al., 2005; Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007 in: Rego et al., 2012). When authentic leaders solicit views that challenge deeply held positions and openly share information with employees, one may expect that employees become more self-confident (Kirkman & 16

27 Rosen, 1999; Walumbwa et al., 2008 in: Rego et al., 2012). Walumbwa et al. (2011) studied the relationship of authentic leadership with psychological capital of the whole group. Walumbwa et al. (2011) argues that when an authentic leader utilizes members ideas, members become more confident in their abilities. In other words, leaders sharing information provides group members with opportunities to develop collective intuition, expand their knowledge, learn from each other, and acquire new skills. This in turn raises group members individual and in turn collective efficacy (Jones & George, 1998 in: Walumbwa et al., 2011). Therefore it is hypothesized that: H3.a: Authentic leaders enhance followers self-efficacy Hope Avolio et al. (2004) observe: Because authentic leaders have the ability to remain realistically hopeful and trustworthy, such leaders can enhance followers' hope by establishing not only their willpower, but also by including in their comments positive aspects of the waypower or directions to pursue that enhance a follower's sense of selfefficacy. Authentic leaders provide senses of self- determination, security, and trust, which enable followers to focus their energies on goal-related endeavors and on finding different pathways for solving problems and benefitting from opportunities (Avolio et al., 2004; Edmondson, 1999; Ilies et al., 2005 in: Rego et al., 2012). Over time, because authentic leaders are viewed as more credible sources of input and feedback (Walumbwa et al., 2008 in: Rego et al., 2012), employees likely persevere toward goals and, when necessary, redirect paths to goals in order to succeed. Positive emotions and self-efficacy that employees develop when led by authentic leaders may also make them more able to sustain their willpower and to develop waypower for reaching challenging goals (Avolio et al., 2004; Gardner & Schermerhorn, 2004; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007 in: Rego et al., 2012). Walumbwa et al. (2011) argues that authentic leaders are depicted as having the ability to remain realistically hopeful (i.e., agentic thinking), even when they encounter extremely difficult situations, and they are also future-oriented in their pathways for thinking and action (Luthans & Avolio, 2003 in: Walumbwa et al., 2011). Walumbwa et al. (2011) propose that such leaders are more likely to stick closer to objective information in building group members hope. Thus, over time, these authentic leaders are viewed as a more credible source of input and feedback to their group members when a significant challenge or problem arises. They also are likely to 17

28 achieve this through their genuine character, their focus on employee involvement, strength development, and participation (Ilies et al., 2005 in: Walumbwa et al., 2011). Thus, these authentic leadership characteristics and actions all seem fundamental to nurturing collective hope (Walumbwa et al., 2011). Therefore it is hypothesized that: H3.b: Authentic leaders enhance followers hope Optimism Several authors suggest that authentic leadership fosters employees' optimism (Avolio et al., 2004; De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008; Gardner & Schermerhorn, 2004; McColl- Kennedy & Anderson, 2002 in: Rego et al., 2012). For example, Gardner and Schermerhorn (2004) note that one task of the authentic leaders is to raise optimism. Avolio et al. (2004) stress that authentic leaders influence employees' optimism by increasing their identification with the leaders and encouraging their positive emotions. De Hoogh and Den Hartog (2008) reveal that ethical leadership (an authentic-like leadership; Avolio et al., 2004) relates significantly with employees' optimism about their future. In their view, by being fair, caring about followers' feelings, promoting transparent and open communication, rewarding ethical conduct, and investing followers with voice, such leaders make employees more positive and optimistic about their organization and work situation, and more willing to remain and contribute to its success. In short, because authentic leaders tend to use more active, adaptive, and positive approaches toward problem solving, they are more likely to motivate and challenge employees to do the same (Peterson, 2000; Walumbwa et al., 2009 in: Rego et al., 2012). Walumbwa et al. (2011) argues that one way authentic leaders can influence group members optimism is by increasing their awareness and understanding about the importance of group goals and success. By doing so, authentic leaders model desired members behavior. In this case, the desired behavior is one that exudes realistic optimism among group members. Authentic leaders are more likely to exhibit enhanced active and adaptive coping skills and are less likely to adopt avoidant coping styles when faced with challenges or setbacks (Luthans & Avolio, 2003 in: Walumbwa et al., 2011). When leaders use active, adaptive, and positive approaches toward problem solving, they are more likely to motivate and challenge group members to do the same 18

29 (Peterson, 2000 in: Walumbwa et al., 2011), resulting in high levels of collective optimism (Walumbwa et al., 2011). Therefore it is hypothesized that: H3.c: Authentic leaders enhance followers optimism Resiliency Gardner and Schermerhorn (2004) argue that one task of the authentic leader is strengthening resilience. These leaders may carry out such a task through several routes (Gardner et al., 2005; Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007 in: Rego et al., 2012), including: (a) promoting good interpersonal relationships, thus developing conditions so that employees receive social support in adverse times, this support being important for sustaining resilience; (b) increasing employees' selfconfidence and psychological safety, which makes them more able to face problems and adversities with resilience; (c) promoting employees' positive emotions, these emotions helping to develop resilience (Tugade et al., 2004 in: Rego et al., 2012). As the authors argue, authentic leaders capitalize on individual resilience by ensuring that others have the support they need to (1) recover from adversity, and (2) not only withstand but thrive when faced with high levels of positive change. They anticipate potential adversity or strains, make contingency plans to support and help employees cope with them, and are available and responsive when such persons reach out to them. (Rego et al., 2012). Walumbwa et al. (2011) argues that through the heightened self-awareness, authentic leaders understand what they are capable of accomplishing (Gardner et al., 2005 in: Walumbwa et al., 2011). They are more likely to be role models of resiliency for their group members. This perspective is supported by social learning theory (e.g., Bandura, 1977), which suggests that groups may emulate the values and behaviors of influential role models (Walumbwa et al., 2011). Therefore it is hypothesized that: H3.d: Authentic leaders enhance followers resiliency Due to the reasons explained above, synergistic effects upon the several PsyCap capabilities may occur when leaders are authentic. Yammarino et al. (2008) suggest that authentic leaders influence positive psychological capabilities such as PsyCap. (Rego et al., 2012). Therefore it is hypothesized that: H3: Authentic leadership enhances employees psychological capital 19

30 The following two sections will elaborate on two possible consequences of job crafting: employability and creativity. 2.4 EMPLOYABILITY Employability refers to the continuous fulfilling, acquiring, or creating of work through the optimal use of one s competences (Van der Heijde & Van der Heijden, 2006). Highly employable workers enable organizations to meet fluctuating demands for new products and services. Changes in organizational structure, technology, and job assignments require workers to adopt new roles, modify existing work behaviour, and acquire new skills (Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000 in: Nauta et al., 2009). Careers increasingly have become boundaryless, in the sense that during career progression, more boundaries are crossed (e.g., occupational, departmental, and organizational) in comparison to earlier and more predictable hierarchical careers (De- Fillippi & Arthur, 1996; in: van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2006). When careers are less predictable, a thorough diagnosis of competencies, or employability, is a crucial starting point for all career policy activities. Employees openness to develop themselves and to adapt to changing work requirements has been referred to as employability orientation, which has been shown to be an important precursor of actual employability (Van Dam, 2004 in: Nauta et al., 2009). Employability concerns the extent to which people possess the skills and other attributes to find and stay in work of the kind they want (Rothwell & Arnold, 2004). Employability is a critical requirement for enabling both sustained competitive advantage at the firm level and career success at the individual level (van der Heijde & van der Heijden 2006). A sound measurement instrument for employability enables individual employees to keep track of their competences and career needs (van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2006). Hall and his colleagues contend that to be successful within today s work environment, workers need to be highly adaptable, and manage multiple identities (Hall, 1976, 2002; Hall & Mirvis, 1995 in: Fugate, 2004) The instrument of Van der Heijden (2005) consists of the following five dimensions of employability: 1 occupational expertise, the expertise needed to perform the various tasks and responsibilities of a job adequately. 2 anticipation and optimization, preparing 20

31 for, and adapting to the future changes in a personal and creative manner, and striving for the best possible results. 3 personal flexibility, the capacity to easily adapt to all kinds of changes in the internal and external labour market that do not pertain to one s immediate job domain. The second and the third dimensions are two different types of adaptations, the second dimension is a self-initiating proactive variant and the third dimension is a passive, reactive variant. 4 corporate sense, the participation and performance in different work groups, including organizations, teams, occupational communities and other networks, which involves sharing responsibilities, knowledge, experiences, feelings, credits, failures, goals etc. 5 balance, compromising between opposing employers interests as well as one s own opposing work, career, and private interests (employee), and between employers and employees interests. Tims et al. (2012) studied the relation of job crafting on employability where they cite Fried et al. (2007) who proposed that employees may be more likely to craft stimulating jobs (i.e., craft more challenging job demands) when they feel that it will advance them in their careers. In other words, by crafting more difficult tasks for example, employees show that they are ready for promotion. Sustaining high employability requires efforts from the employee to learn new skills or to stay up to date about developments in their profession. This view partly overlaps with job crafting in which employees shape their jobs in order to attain personally valued outcomes (i.e., work). As a result of crafting more job resources and/or challenging job demands, employees may thus become more employable. (Tims et al., 2012). Job crafting was positively correlated with the active constructs of proactive personality and personal initiative. In support of criterion validity of the job-crafting conceptualization and measurement, results indicated that self-reports of job crafting correlated positively with colleague ratings of work engagement, employability and performance (Demerouti & Bakker, 2014). Van Bloois et al. (2010) studied, if employability is individually designed or relationally negotiated. Van Bloois et al. (2010) cite Fugate et al. (2004), who stressed the importance of individual factors in explaining why some employees are more employable than others. In particular, they emphasized the role of proactive personality. Proactive employees are not mere passive performers of prescribed jobs, but rather active shapers of their work environment, work content, and developmental opportunities. This attitude pays off, as former research has shown that proactive 21

32 people perform better (Crant, 1995 in: Van Bloois et al., 2010) and are more successful in their careers (Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999 in: Van Bloois et al., 2010). Based on these findings, it can be expected that proactive employees are more employable. But what exactly makes proactive people score higher on employability? Which behavioral processes mediate between proactive personality and employability? The individual part of their study implies the behavior job crafting. By crafting one s job, employees may stretch the boundaries of their job, which enables them to learn broader skills compared to colleagues who routinely do their job. This process of learning-on-the-job is likely to increase their employability. (Van Bloois et al., 2010) This master thesis will focus on the dimensions personal flexibility and balance. Though these dimensions have not been independently studied in relation to job crafting. I argue that these dimensions are positively related to job crafting. Personal flexibility Ghitulescu, (2013) argues that employees who enjoy increased job resources will be more willing to try new things and have increased ability to adapt to changes. Adaptive behavior describes actions aimed at responding to changing demands arising in the work environment (Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000 in Ghitulescu, 2013)). Ghitulescu (2013) also argues that challenge demands are associated with more adaptive behaviors. Thus increasing challenging demands and resources, which is part of job crafting can enhance one s personal flexibility. Therefore it is hypothesized that: H4.a: Job crafting is positively related to employees personal flexibility Balance A misfit between employers interest and personal interest decrease employees wellbeing and can cause a burnout and can lead to dissatisfaction. Bakker et al. (2008) argue that job demands are predictors of work-family conflict. Work family conflict is a within-person across-domains transmission of demands and consequent strain from one area of life to another. Controlling and changing one s own demands can prevent these negative outcomes. Also employees who increase their resources are better able to cope with demands and this has a positive influence on their work-life balance. Thus, job crafting can enhance employees balance. Therefore it is hypothesized that: 22

33 H4.b: Job crafting is positively related to employees balance All of these above dimensions are part of the employability of employees. Thus: H4: Job crafting is positively related to employees employability 2.5 CREATIVITY Employee creativity refers to the creation of valuable, useful new products, services, ideas, procedures, or processes by individuals working together in a complex social system (Woodman et al., 1993). Gordon et al. (2015) studied the relationship of job crafting on creativity. They argue that bottom-up work strategies like job crafting promote employees to proactively take control over their work to improve their performance and creativity (Hornung, et al., 2010 in: Gordon et al., (2015). Here the JD-R model of Demerouti et al. (2001) is used. They found a positive effect of increasing job resources and reducing job demands on creative performance. They defined creative performance as the production of novel and useful ideas, products, services, or organizational processes, as the basis of organizational innovation resulting in performance that generates creative ideas (e.g., find new solutions to problems). Futhermore, Binnewies et al. (1999) argues that a high level of personal initiative is associated with the generation of creative ideas (Fritz & Sonnetag, 2007). Personal initiative is a work behavior defined as self-starting and proactive that overcomes barriers to achieve a goal (Frese & Fay., 2001). Oldham & Cummings (1996) argue that complex, challenging jobs (i.e., those characterized by high levels of autonomy, skill variety, identity, significance, and feedback) are expected to support and encourage higher levels of motivation and creativity than are relatively simple, routine jobs (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). When jobs are complex and challenging, individuals are likely to be excited about their work activities and interested in completing these activities in the absence of external controls or constraints. The level of interest and excitement produced by a job's design is then expected to foster creative achievements at work. In addition, complex jobs may actually demand creative outcomes by encouraging employees to focus simultaneously on 23

34 multiple dimensions of their work, whereas highly simple or routine jobs may inhibit such a focus (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Thus, job crafting may increase one s job into a more complex/challenging one which enhances employees creativity. Therefore it is hypothesized that: H5: Job crafting is positively related to employees creativity 2.6 FULL RESEARCH MODEL A possible explanation when and/or why employees craft their job is due to their leaders. Leaders can act as a role-model, can be intellectually stimulating and/or show to their subordinates that they have values and visions for the future, and they demonstrates beliefs that are consistent with their actions. This can enhance subordinates psychological capital (self-efficacy, hope, optimism and, resiliency) which may lead to job crafting. Through job crafting employees may adapt or anticipate to changes and may be find a balance between their work and private life. Job crafting may also lead to more creativity. To conclude all of the hypotheses described in this chapter can be graphically represented as shown in figure 1, in figure 2 the aggregated research model is graphically represented. All hypothesis described in this chapter are direct effects, but derived from the full research model there are some mediation effects as well. It is expected that transformational and authentic leadership will positively relate to higher levels of PsyCap among employees. In turn higher levels of PsyCap will be associated with higher levels of job crafting. It is also expected that higher levels of employees PsyCap will positively relate to higher levels of job crafting. In turn higher levels of job crafting behavior will be associated with higher levels of employees creativity and employability. Therefore four hypotheses are added: H6: PsyCap mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and job crafting H7: PsyCap mediates the relationship between authentic leadership and job crafting H8: Job crafting mediates the relationship between PsyCap and employability H9: Job crating mediates the relationship between PsyCap and creativity 24

35 FIGURE 2 FULL RESERACH MODEL FIGURE 3 AGGREGATED RESEARCH MODEL 25

36 3. METHOD In this chapter the research method will be explained. First the participants and the procedure by which they were recruited will be described. Second, the measurement tools used in this study will be described, and last, the method of analysing the data in order to test the hypotheses. 3.1 PARTICIPANTS Participants are employees from four different organizations and ten different departments. In total 663 employees were contacted, 596 employees of company 1, 59 employees of company 2, 3 employees of company 3, and 5 employees of company 4 (The latter two companies did not want to participate but agreed to the researchers personal network to ask direct colleagues in their department). 210 employees were willing to fill in the questionnaire and 171 employees completed the questionnaire, this is an overall response rate of 25,79%. From the 171 respondents who completed the questionnaire 71,9% was male and 28,1% female, with an average age of 47 (SD= 10,09). The minimum age is 25 years and the maximum age is 64 years. 6,4% of the participants held a MAVO/LBO degree, 46,8% held a degree of HAVO/MBO, 30,4% held an HBO degree, and 6,4% a WO degree. The majority (94,7%) of employees worked as part of a team and work full time (83,6%). The average years of work experience is 27 years (SD=11,09), the minimum is 2 years and the maximum is 46 years. 19,9% of the respondents held a leadership position (these participants, which held a leadership position, answered the questions of their direct supervisors, thus not about themselves). 3.2 PROCEDURE The recruitment strategy consisted of two approaches. The first approach that was used was via the researcher s personal network. Human Resources was contacted by the 26

37 researcher s personal network, and this study was introduced. The research was introduced through a letter (appendix A.1) and with this letter, the questionnaire in pdf (appendix A.2) was also presented to the company. Privacy was guaranteed through the explanation that the results are not presented on an individual or organizational level but for the study sample as a whole. Eight companies were contacted via the researcher s personal network and four agreed to participate. The second approach was a search on? the internet to find moderate sized companies with an affinity for innovation in the area around Eindhoven. These companies were contacted via , they received the same letter (appendix A.1) with the questionnaire attached (appendix A.2). However, some of these companies were already involved in survey research (or intended to in 2015), whereas others were facing a reorganization and found the subject was too sensitive in time of reorganization. In the end, none of these companies wanted to participate. Although hard-copy questionnaires were available, all companies preferred the online questionnaire. After formal approval by the HR manager, all employees received an e- mail (Appendix A.3) with the link to the questionnaire. The online questionnaire was designed at This website offers students from several universities (including students of the TU/e) a business package for free. This website also enables to make answers on questions obligatory, thus there were no missing values in the data. However, there were 20% incomplete questionnaires. These incomplete questionnaires were removed from the data. No reminder was sent, but a letter of gratitude instead. In this letter everyone was thanked for participating and the privacy of the data was highlighted again. This might have convinced employees who were hesitant at first to fill in the questionnaire after receiving the letter of gratitude. 3.3 MEASURES This part describes the measurement tools used in the questionnaire. All measurement tools have proven to be valid and reliable in previous studies. However, some of these measurement tools have been shortened for the current study in order to increase the 27

38 response rate. When the original items were in English, the Dutch version is used or translated, because it was expected that all participants are Dutch LEADERSHIP Transformational leadership In order to asses if employees have a leader who is transformational the Charismatic Leadership in Organizations (CLIO) questionnaire from de Hoogh, den Hartog & Koopman (2004) was used. The questionnaire has 11 items rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Encourages employees to be independent thinkers Is able to make others enthusiastic for his/her plans Encourages/stimulates employees to seek/explore different perspectives when solving problems Has vision and a clear perspective of the future Involves employees in decisions that are important for their work Stimulates employees to develop their talents Demonstrates that he/she is convinced of his/her ideals, beliefs and values Delegates challenging responsibilities to employees Gives the employees the feeling that they are working on an important common assignment Ensures that conditions are defined in such a way that employees are able to function as well as possible Talks to employees about what is important to them Authentic leadership In order to asses if employees have an authentic leader, a subset of Avolio, Gardner & Walumba Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (2008) was used. Eight items were rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Transparancy Moral ethics Balanced proces Self-awareness Says exactly what he or she means Is willing to admit mistakes when they are made Demonstrates beliefs that are consistent with actions Makes decisions based on his/her core beliefs Solicits views that challenge his or her deeply held positions Listens carefully to different points of view before coming to conclusions Seeks feedback to improve interactions with others Accurately describes how others view his or her capabilities 28

39 3.3.2 PYSCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL To measure the psychological capital of the employees, a subset of items from the questionnaire of Luthans & Avolio, Youssef (2007) is used. The questionnaire is made up of 8 items rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), that cover four dimensions: self-efficacy (2 items), optimism (2 items), hope (2 items), and resilience (2 items). Self-efficacy Optimism Hope Resiliency I know how to solve difficult problems when they arise at work At work i meet my goal, even when unexpected situations occur If I have to face with bad situation, I believe that everything will change to be better I m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to work I see myself as being pretty successful at work Usually I am meeting the work goals that I have set for myself I can be on my own so to speak at work if I have to I can get through difficult times at work because I've experienced difficulty before JOB CRAFTING To measure employees job crafting behaviors, the job crafting scale of Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli & Hetland (2012) was used. Job crafting was assessed with three dimensions: Increasing challenging demands (3 items), decrease job demands (3 items), and increase job resources (4 items). These items were rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Increase challenging demands Decrease demands Increase resources When there is not much to do at work, I seek or ask for new tasks I ask for more responsibilities I regularly aks for more challenging tasks I try to ensure that my work is emotionally less intense I make sure that my work is mentally less intense I try to ensure that my work is physically less intense I ask others for feedback on my job performance I ask colleagues for advice I ask my supervisor to coach me I try to learn new things at work 29

40 3.3.4 EMPLOYABILITY In order to asses the level of employability of employees, the questionnaire of van der Heijden (2006) is used. The original questionnaire consist of 47 items rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), that cover five dimensions: occupational expertise, anticipation and optimization, personal flexibility, corporate sense, and balance. Only a subset of the relevant dimensions personal flexibility (3 items) and balance (3 items) are used. Personal flexibility Balance I easily adapt to changes in my workplace I adapt to developments within my organization I anticipate quickly and take advantage of changes in your working environment The time I spend on my work and career development on the one hand and my personal development and relaxation on the other are evenly balanced After working, I am generally able to relax My work and private life are evenly balanced CREATIVITY In order to asses employees creative work behavior, the questionnaire of Janssen and Huang (2008) is used. The questionnaire consists of 8 items rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). I suggest new ways to achieve goals I come up with new and practical ideas to improve performance I search out new technologies, processes, techniques, and product ideas I suggest new ways to increase quality I am a good source of creative ideas I promote and champion ideas to others I come up with creative solutions to problems I suggest new ways of performing work tasks 3.4 ANALYSIS First, the data was checked for missing values (incomplete questionnaires). All incomplete questionnaires were removed from the data. Second, descriptive statistics were performed where the mean, standard deviation and Cronbach s alpha were calculated. Although in studies where these separate questionnaires are used, the 30

41 internal consistency requirement of Cronbach s alpha of >0,60 (Hair et al., 2006) is met, the internal consistency was tested with Cronbach s alpha for this study as well, due to the shortened questionnaires as described in paragraph 3. Third, the correlations between each of the study variables were tested, including the control variables. The control variables that were tested are gender, age, years of work experience, if participants work part-time or fulltime, if they have a leadership position, and educational degree. Years of work experience was tested because employees are more likely to stimulate their job through increasing challenging job demands in early stages of their careers (Fried, Grant, Levi, Hadani, & Slowik, 2007). Age and work experience could be a control variable because employees can be more self-confident, hopeful, optimistic or resilience if they faced many successes or when they faced failures they could turn this around into future successes and thus employees who are older and have more work experience could have a higher level of psychological capital. Gender could play a role, women may increase their resources more because they are less afraid of losing face and may want to have feedback from others more than men. It is possible that when employees work part-time that they engage less in job crafting due to the availability of time. Employees which have a leadership position and have an higher educational degree have a function in which their tasks are less formalized, thus there more room for job crafting. The direct effects (H1-H5) were tested with linear hierarchical regression and the Baron and Kenny test (1986) is used test for testing mediation (H6-H9). 4. RESULTS This chapter describes the results of the data analysis. First the internal consistency with Cronbach alpha s per dimension and variable are computed as well as descriptive statistics are presented. Second regression analyses are performed to test the direct effects of hypotheses H1 through H5. Finally, the mediation hypotheses (H6-H9) were tested using the Baron and Kenny(1986) test statistic. 31

42 4.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS An overview of the descriptive statistics can be found in table 1. Table 1 shows the mean, standard deviation, and Cronbach s alpha of the different scales that were included in the questionnaire. Cronbach s alpha measures the internal consistency of a construct. Alpha scores of 0,60 and higher are considered acceptable for exploratory studies (Hair et al., 2006). As can be seen in table 1 every scale, except resiliency, had a value higher than 0,6. TABLE 1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS (MEAN, SD, CRONBACHS ALPHA) Variable Dimension Mean SD α Transformational leadership 3,20 0,70 0,91 Authentic leadership 3,10 0,71 0,88 PsyCap 3,82 0,52 0,82 Self-efficacy 3,93 0,57 0,72 Hope 3,75 0,67 0,73 Optimism 3,64 0,78 0,69 Resiliency 3,96 0,66 0,53 Job crafting 2,71 0,43 0,63 Increase challenging demands 3,22 0,80 0,66 Decrease demands 1,73 0,61 0,65 Increase resources 3,18 0,62 0,65 Employability 3,67 0,62 0,82 Personal flexibility 3,71 0,64 0,75 Balance 3,62 0,78 0,80 Creativity 3,62 0,62 0,93 32

43 Furthermore, there is an high average score of 3,96 on a scale of 1-5. The other dimensions self-efficacy, hope, and optimism score high as well, which resulted in a high mean for the variable PsyCap of 3,82 on a scale of 1-5. The variable job crafting has a low mean value. This is caused by the dimension decrease demands in particular, which has an very low mean of 1,73 on a scale of 1-5. The other two dimensions increase challenging demands and increase resources have an mean of 3,22 and 3,18 on a scale of 1-5 which indicates that participants have on average a neutral opinion. The variables employability and creativity have a value of respectively 3,67 and 3,62 on a scale of 1-5. Participants agreed on average between neutral (3) to agree (4) on the statements of employability and creativity. Participants have on average a neutral opinion about if their leaders are transformational and authentic or not, with a score of respectively 3,20 and 3,10. All standard deviations are below one. The standard deviation of increase challenging demands is relatively high. 4.2 CORRELATION This part first describes the results of the correlations between variables and second, the correlations with possible control variables. In the paragraphs the correlations are presented for the proposed hypotheses (H1-H5), described in chapter 2. In appendix B.1 the whole correlation matrix is shown. 33

44 4.2.1 PSYCAP AND JOB CRAFTING TABLE 2 CORRELATION MATRIX PSYCAP AND JOB CRAFTING Self-efficacy 1 0,65** 0,34** 0,65** 0,82** 0,27** -0,23** 0,29** 0,19* 2. Hope 1 0,42** 0,56** 0,83** 0,30** -0,14 0,23** 0,23** 3. Optimism 1 0,31** 0,70** 0,19* -0,02,022** 0,21** 4. Resiliency 1 0,79** 0,26** -0,20** 0,15* 0,14 5. PsyCap 1 0,32** -0,18* 0,28** 0,25** 6. Increase challenging demands 1-0,12 0,54** 0,82** 7. Decrease demands 1-0,16* 0,32** 8. Increase resources 1 0,74** 9. Job crafting 1 As presented in table 2, hope and optimism are significantly and positively correlated with the dimensions, increase challenging demands (r=0,30**; r=0,23**) and an increase in resources (r=0,19*; r=0,22**). Self-efficacy and resiliency are significantly and positively correlated with the dimensions, increase challenging demands (r=0,27**; r=0,26**) and increase resources (0,27**; r=0,15*) and significantly and negatively correlated with the dimension decrease demands (r=-0,23**; r=-0,20**). The overall level of PsyCap is significantly and positively correlated with the dimensions, increase challenging demands (r=0,32**) and increase resources (r=0,28**) and with the overall level of job crafting (r=0,25**) and significantly and negatively correlated with the dimension, decrease demands (r=-0,18*). Self-efficacy (r=0,19*), hope (r=0,23**), and optimism (r=0,22**) are significantly and positively correlated with the overall level of job crafting. Resiliency is not significantly correlated with the overall level of job crafting. 34

45 4.2.2 LEADERSHIP AND PSYCAP TABLE 3 CORRELATION MATRIX LEADERSHIP AND PSYCAP Transformational leadership 2. Authentic leadership 3. Self-efficacy 4. Hope 5. Optimism 6. Resiliency 1 0,89** 0,24** 0,11 0,22** 0,13 0,22** 1 0,25** 0,12 0,20* 0,16* 0,23** 1 0,65** 0,34** 0,65** 0,82** 1 0,42** 0,56** 0,83** 1 0,31** 0,70** 1 0,79** 7. PsyCap 1 As presented in table 3 transformational leadership is significantly and positively correlated with the dimensions, self-efficacy (r=0,24**) and optimism (r=0,22**). Transformational leadership is also significantly and positively correlated with overall level of PsyCap (r=0,22**). Moreover, authentic leadership is significantly and positively correlated with the dimensions, self-efficacy (r=0,25**), optimism (r=0,20*) and resiliency (r=0,16*). Authentic leadership is also significantly and positively correlated with overall level of PsyCap (r=0,23**). 35

46 4.2.3 JOB CRAFTING AND EMPLOYABILITY TABLE 4 CORRELATION MATRIX JOB CRAFTING AND EMPLOYABILITY Increase challenging demands 1-0,12 0,54** 0,82** 0,31** 0,15* 0,26* 2. Decrease demands 1-0,16 0,32** -0,10-0,08-0,10 3. Increase resources 1 0,74** 0,31** 0,10 0,22** 4. Job crafting 1 0,29** 0,10 0,22** 5. Personal flexibility 1 0,53** 0,85** 6. Balance 1 0,90** 7. Employability 1 As presented in table 4 the two dimensions increase challenging demands (0,31**) and increase resources (r=0,31**) are significantly and positively correlated with the dimension personal flexibility. The dimension balance is only significantly and positively correlated with the dimension increase challenging demands (r=0,15*). The dimensions increase challenging demands (r=0,26**) and increase resources (r=0,22**) are significantly and positively correlated with the overall level of employability. The overall level of job crafting is significantly and positively correlated with the dimension personal flexibility (r=0,29**) and the overall level of employability (r=0,22**) JOB CRAFTING AND CREATIVITY TABLE 5 CORRELATION MATRIX JOB CRAFTING AND CREATIVITY Increase challenging demands 1-0,12 0,54** 0,82** 0,37** 2. Decrease demands 1-0,16* 0,32** -0,20** 3. Increase resources 1 0,74** 0,37** 4. Job crafting 1 0,301** 5. Creativity 1 36

47 As presented in table 5 the dimensions, increase challenging demands (r=0,37**), and increase resources (r=0,37**) are significantly and positively correlated with creativity and the dimensions, decrease demands (r=-0,20**) is significantly and negatively correlated with creativity. Note that decrease demands is again negatively correlated. The overall level of job crafting is also significantly correlated with the variable creativity (0,31**) CONTROL VARIABLES Control variables are variables whose effects may influence the relationships of the variables under study. Therefore, in the analyses These variables need to be controlled for. To check for control variables, correlations between possible control variables an the study variables are inspected. TABLE 6 CORRELATION MATRIX CONTROL VARIABLES As presented in table 6 only a having leadership position and educational degree correlate significantly and positively with some of the study variables. Leadership position correlates with transformational leadership (r=0,33**), authentic leadership (r=0,31**), job crafting (r=0,22**), and creativity (r=0,19*). Educational degree significantly correlates with PsyCap (r=0,16*), job crafting (r=0,22**), and creativity (r=0,29**). Not shown in Table 6 but in the matrix of appendix B.1 is that years of work experience does significantly correlate with the dimensions of job crafting, increase challenging demands (r=-0,17*), decrease demands (r=0,28**), and increase resources 37

48 (r=-0,33**). Therefore, in the next section the variables leadership position, educational degree, and work experience will be taken into account as control variables. 4.2 TESTING HYPOTHESES This part describes the tests of the hypotheses regarding the proposed relationship between the variables in the research model. Testing the hypotheses can be classified into two categories. The first category are the direct relationships, those between PsyCap and job crafting (H1), leadership and PsyCap (H2, H3), job crafting and employability (H4) and, job crafting and creativity (H5). The second category are the possible mediation effects that are derived from the direct effects (H6-H9). The mediating variables are PsyCap and job crafting. These two categories are described in more detail below DIRECT EFFECTS Hypotheses H1-H5 in the research model, formulated in chapter 2 are direct relationships. The hypotheses are tested with hierarchical linear regression, in which in model 1 only the control variables are inserted and in model 2 the control variables and the independent variable. The control variables are educational degree, leadership position, and years of work experience. Leadership position is coded 0=no 1=yes, and Education 1= Mavo/LBO, 2= Havo/MBO, 3=HBO, and 4=WO. PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL ON JOB CRAFTING First the hypotheses regarding the prediction of job crafting are tested (H1 including H1a-H1d). The dimensions of job crafting and the overall level of job crafting are regressed on the independent dimensions of PsyCap and the overall level of PsyCap. (This is graphically presented in figure 4). 38

49 FIGURE 4 RELATION BETWEEN PSYCAP AND JOB CRAFTING Hypotheses H1 including H1a to H1d propose a positive relationship between (the dimensions of) PsyCap and job crafting. Moreover, remind that all dimensions of PsyCap (except resiliency) and the overall level of PsyCap were significantly correlated with job crafting. The regression results for testing hypotheses H1 and H1a-H1d are shown in table 7-11 and appendix B.2. Before entering the dimensions of PsyCap and the overall level of PsyCap to the models (model 1) all models are significant due to all control variables, increase challenging demands (F(3,167)=3,43*), decrease demands (F(3,167)=4,96**), increase resources (F(3,167)=16,29**) and the overall level of job crafting (F(3,167)= 5,82**). Education and having a leadership position are positively related to increase resources and the overall level of job crafting. Thus, the higher the educational degree, the more employees increase their resources and craft their jobs. Moreover, if employees have an leadership position they are more likely to increase their resources and craft their jobs. Work experience is positively related to decrease demands and negatively related to increase resources. Thus, the longer people are working the more employees decrease their job demands and the less they increase their resources. Note that none of the effects of control variables are significant in the model with the dimension increase challenging demands but the model itself is. 39

50 TABLE 7 LINEAR REGRESSION SELF-EFFICACY ON JOB CRAFTING Increase challenging demands Decrease demands Increase resources Job crafting Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Control variable Education 0,13 0,10 0,04 0,07 0,15* 0,13 0,17* 0,16 Leadership position 0,11 0,08 0,00 0,03 0,30** 0,28** 0,21** 0,19** Work experience -0,13-0,12 0,299** 0,29** -0,29** -0,28** -0,08-0,07 Independent variable Efficacy 0,24** -0,22** 0,19** 0,14 Model F (3,167) (4,166) 3,43* 5,29** 4,96** 6,07** 16,29** 14,76** 5,82** 5,28** R2 0,06 0,11 0,08 0,13 0,23 0,26 0,10 0,11 ΔR2 0,06 0,05 0,08 0,05 0,23 0,03 0,10 0,01 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) First, the dimensions and the overall level of job crafting are regressed with the independent dimension self-efficacy (see table 7). Self-efficacy is significantly related to all the independent dimensions of job crafting, after controlling for the control variables. Self-efficacy is significantly and positively related to increase challenging demands (β =0,24**) and increase resources (β =0,20**) and significantly and negatively to decrease demands (β=-0,22**). Self-efficacy is not related to the total variable job crafting, the model itself is significant (F(4,166)=5,28**) but this is due to the significant effect of having a leadership position (β =0,19**). Thus employees which held an leadership position engage more in job crafting behavior. Therefore H1a is not supported. Though, self-efficacy is significantly related to all three dimensions of the overall level of job crafting. 40

51 TABLE 8 LINEAR REGRESSION HOPE ON JOB CRAFTING Increase challenging demands Decrease demands Increase resources Job crafting Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Control variable Education 0,13 0,10 0,04 0,06 0,15* 0,13 0,17* 0,15 Leadership position 0,11 0,09 0,00 0,01 0,30** 0,29** 0,21** 0,19** Work experience -0,13-0,12 0,30** 0,30** -0,29** -0,29** -0,08-0,08 Independent variable Hope 0,27** -0,13 0,17* 0,18* Model F (3,167) (4,166) 3,43* 6,02** 4,96** 4,54** 16,29** 14,08** 5,82** 6,01** R2 0,06 0,13 0,08 0,10 0,23 0,25 0,10 0,13 ΔR2 0,06 0,07 0,08 0,02 0,23 0,02 0,10 0,03 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) Second, the dimensions and the overall level of job crafting are regressed with the independent dimension hope (see table 8). Hope is significantly and positively related to the dimensions increase challenging demands (β=0,27**) and increase resources (β=0,66*), after controlling for the control variables. Hope is not significantly related to decrease demands but the model itself is significant (F(4,166)=4,54**) due to the significant effect of the control variable work experience (β=0,30**). This means that employees with more work experience engage more in decreasing their demands. Hope is significantly and positively related to the overall level of job crafting (β=0,18*), therefore, H1b is supported. 41

52 TABLE 9 LINEAR REGRESSION OPTIMISM ON JOB CRAFTING Increase challenging Decrease demands Increase resources Job crafting demands Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Control variable Education 0,13 0,12 0,04 0,04 0,15* 0,14 0,17* 0,16* Leadership position 0,11 0,09 0,00 0,00 0,30** 0,28** 0,21** 0,19* Work experience -0,13-0,12 0,30** 0,30** -0,29** -0,28** -0,08-0,07 Independent variable Optimism 0,16* 0,01 0,14* 0,17* Model F (3,167) (4,166) 3,43* 3,75** 4,96** 3,699** 16,29** 13,55** 5,82** 5,80** R2 0,06 0,083 0,08 0,082 0,23 0,246 0,10 0,123 ΔR2 0,06 0,025 0,08 0,000 0,23 0,02 0,10 0,028 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) Third, the dimensions and the overall level of job crafting are regressed with the independent dimension optimism (see table 9). Optimism is significantly and positively related to the dimensions increase challenging demands (β=0,16*) and increase resources (β=0,14*), after controlling for the control variables. Optimism is not significantly related to decrease demands but the model itself is significant (F(4,166)=4,96**) due to the significant effect of the control variable work experience (β=0,299**). This means that employees with more work experience engage more in decreasing their demands. Optimism is significantly related to the total variable job crafting (β=0,17*), therefore, H1c is supported. 42

53 TABLE 10 LINEAR REGRESSION RESILIENCY ON JOB CRAFTING Increase challenging demands Decrease demands Increase resources Job crafting Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Control variable Education 0,13 0,11 0,04 0,06 0,15* 0,14 0,17* 0,16* Leadership position 0,11 0,11 0,00 0,00 0,30** 0,30** 0,21** 0,21** Work experience -0,13-0,12 0,30** 0,29** -0,29** -0,29** -0,08-0,08 Independent variable resiliency 0,24** -0,19* 0,13 0,12 Model F (3,167) (4,166) 3,43* 5,41* 4,96** 5,43** 16,29** 13,23** 5,82** 5,08** R2 0,06 0,12 0,08 0,12 0,23 0,24 0,10 0,11 ΔR2 0,06 0,06 0,08 0,04 0,23 0,01 0,10 0,011 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) Fourth, the dimensions and the overall level of job crafting are regressed with the independent dimension resiliency (see table 10). Resiliency is significantly and positively related to the dimensions increase challenging demand (β=0,24**) and significantly and negatively related to decrease demand (β=-0,19*). Although the model with the dimension increase resources (F(4,166)=13,23**) and the model with the overall level of job crafting (F(4,166)=5,08**) are both significant, this is due to the significant effect of all three control variables. This means that employees with more work experience less engage in increasing their resources, employees who held a leadership position engage more in increase their resources and engage more in job crafting behavior and the higher employees educational degree the more they engage in job crafting behavior. Resiliency is not significantly related to increase resources and job crafting, therefore H1d is not supported. Though, resiliency is significantly related to two of the three dimensions of the overall level of job crafting. 43

54 TABLE 11 LINEAR REGRESSION PSYCAP ON JOB CRAFTING Increase challenging Decrease demands Increase resources Job crafting demands Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Control variable Education 0,13 0,09 0,04 0,06 0,15* 0,13 0,17* 0,15 Leadership position 0,11 0,08 0,00 0,22 0,30** 0,28** 0,21** 0,19* Work experience -0,13-0,11 0,30** 0,29** -0,29** -0,28** -0,08-0,07 Independent variable PsyCap 0,29** -0,16* 0,20** 0,20** Model F (3,167) (4,166) 3,43* 6,70** 4,96** 4,94** 16,29** 14,99** 5,82** 6,37** R2 0,06 0,14 0,08 0,11 0,23 0,27 0,10 0,13 ΔR2 0,06 0,08 0,08 0,03 0,23 0,04 0,10 0,03 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) Last, the dimensions and the overall level of job crafting are regressed with the independent overall level of PsyCap (see table 11). PsyCap is significantly and positively related to the dimensions increase challenging demands (β=0,29**) and increase resources (β=0,20**) and significantly and negatively related to the dimension decrease demand (β=-0,16*), after controlling for the control variables. The overall level of PsyCap is also significantly and positively related to the overall level of job crafting (β=0,20), after controlling for the control variables, therefore H1 is supported. LEADERSHIP ON PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL Second, the hypotheses regarding the prediction of PsyCap are tested (H2 including H2a to H2d) and H3 including H3a to H3d). The dimensions of PsyCap and the overall level of PsyCap are regressed on the independent variables transformational leadership and authentic leadership (graphically represented in figure 5). 44

55 FIGURE 5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEADERSHIP AND PSYCAP Transformational leadership TABLE 12 LINEAR REGRESSION TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ON DIMENSINOS OF PSYCAP Efficacy Hope Optimism Resiliency Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Control variable Education 0,1 0,12 0,13 0,13 0,07 0,06 0,09 0,08 Leadership position 0,10 0,03 0,08 0,05 0,11 0,04-0,01-0,06 Work experience -0,05-0,02-0,02-0,01-0,08-0,06-0,03-0,01 Independent variable Transformational leadership 0,21* 0,08 0,20* 0,14 Model F (3,167) (4,166) 1,98 3,26* 1,56 1,41 1,51 2,70* 0,57 1,109 R2 0,03 0,07 0,17 0,18 0,16 0,25 0,01 0,03 ΔR2 0,03 0,04 0,03 0,01 0,03 0,04 0,01 0,02 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) 45

56 TABLE 13 LINEAR REGRESSINO TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ON PSYCAP PsyCap Model 1 Model 2 Control variable Education 0,13 0,12 Leadership position 0,09 0,02 Work experience -0,06-0,04 Independent variable Transformational leadership 0,20* Model F (3,167) (4,166) 2,00 3,101* R2 0,04 0,070 ΔR2 0,04 0,04 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) Hypothesis 2 proposed that transformational leaders increase employees self-efficacy, hope, optimism, resiliency and therefore employees PsyCap. Remind that transformational leadership is significantly and positively correlated to self-efficacy, optimism and the overall level of PsyCap. The regression results for testing hypotheses H2a-H2d and H2 are shown in table 12, 13, and appendix B.2. Please note that control variables were not significantly related to any of the dimensions or the overall level of PsyCap before entering transformational leadership into the model. When entering transformational leadership to the model, the models with the dependent dimensions self-efficacy (F(4,166) = 3,263**), optimism (F(4,166)=2,696*), and the overall level of PsyCap (F(4,166)= 3,101*) become significant. In particular, transformational leadership is significantly and positively related to the dimensions efficacy (β=0,210**) and optimism (β=0,199*). Transformational leadership is also significantly and positively related to the overall level of PsyCap (B=0,199**) after controlling for education, work experience, and having a leadership position. Therefore H2, H2a and H2c are supported. H2b and H2d are not supported. 46

57 Authentic Leadership TABLE 14 LINEAR REGRESSION AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP ON DIMENSIONS OF PSYCAP Efficacy Hope Optimism Resiliency Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Control variable Education 0,1 0,12 0,13 0,13 0,07 0,06 0,09 0,08 Leadership position 0,10 0,01 0,08 0,04 0,11 0,05-0,01-0,07 Work experience -0,05-0,05-0,02-0,02-0,08-0,09-0,03-0,03 Independent variable Authentic leadership 0,24** 0,11 0,18* 0,18* Model F (3,167) (4,166) 1,98 3,83** 1,56 1,61 1,51 2,43* 0,57 1,70 R2 0,03 0,08 0,17 0,04 0,16 0,06 0,01 0,04 ΔR2 0,03 0,05 0,03 0,01 0,03 0,03 0,01 0,03 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) TABLE 15 LINEAR REGRESSION AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP ON PSYCAP PsyCap Model 1 Model 2 Control variable Education 0,13 0,12 Leadership position 0,09 0,02 Work experience -0,06-0,07 Independent variable Authentic leadership 0,22** Model F (3,167) (4,166) 2,00 3,56** R2 0,04 0,06 ΔR2 0,04 0,04 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) Hypotheses H3 including H3a to H3d propose that authentic leaders enhance employees self-efficacy, hope, optimism, resiliency and therefore employees PsyCap. Remind that authentic leadership is positively, significantly correlated to self-efficacy, optimism, resiliency and the overall level of PsyCap. The regression results for testing hypotheses H3a-H3d and H3 are shown in table 14, 15 and appendix B.2. Note that control variables were not significantly related to any of the dimensions of PsyCap, nor overall level of PsyCap before entering authentic leadership into the model. When 47

58 entering authentic leadership to the models, the models with the dependent dimensions self-efficacy (F(4,166)=3,825**), optimism (F(4,166)=2,426*), and the overall level of PsyCap (F(4,166)=3,564**) become significant. Authentic leadership is significantly and positively related to the dimensions efficacy (β=0,236**),optimism (β=0,179*), and resiliency (β=0,180*). However, the model with resiliency is not significant. Authentic leadership is also significantly and positively related to the overall level of PsyCap (β=0,222**) after controlling for education, work experience, and having a leadership position. Therefore H3, H3a, H3c are supported. H3b and H3d are not supported. JOB CRAFTING ON EMPLOYABILITY Third, the hypotheses regarding possible consequences of job crafting are tested (H4 including H4a-H4). The dimensions of employability and the overall level of employability are regressed on the independent dimensions of job crafting and the overall level of job crafting. (This is graphically presented in figure 6). FIGURE 6 RELATION BETWEEN JOB CRAFTING AND EMPLOYABILITY Hypotheses H4 including H4a-H4d propose a positive relationship between job crafting and personal flexibility and balance and therefore employees employability. Remind that increasing challenging demands was significantly positively correlated with 48

59 personal flexibility, balance and the overall level of employability and that increasing resources was significantly and positively correlated with personal flexibility and the overall level of employability. Balance was not related to any of the dimensions of job crafting or to the overall level of job crafting. The regression results for testing hypotheses H4 including H4a to H4d are shown in table and appendix B.2. Before entering the independent dimensions and the overall level of employability into the model, the model with personal flexibility as dependent variable, is significant (F(3,167)=4,009**) due to the significant effect of having a leadership position (β=0,162*). This means that employees who held an leadership position better adapt and anticipate to changes. TABLE 16 LINEAR REGRESSION INCREASE CHALLENGING DEMANDS ON EMPLOYABILITY Personal flexibility Balance Employability Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Control variable Education 0,15 0,12-0,01-0,03 0,07 0,04 Leadership position 0,16* 0,14 0,02 0,00 0,10 0,07 Work experience -0,08-0,04 0,05 0,07-0,01 0,02 Independent variable Increase challenging demands 0,26** 0,17* 0,24** Model F (3,167) (4,166) 4,01** 6,305** 0,19 1,34 0,93 3,227** R2 0,07 0,36 0,00 0,03 0,02 0,07 ΔR2 0,07 0,07 0,00 0,03 0,01 0,06 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) First, the dimensions and the overall level of employability are regressed with the independent dimension increase challenging demands (see table 16). Increase challenging demands is significantly and positively related to the dimensions personal flexibility (β=0,262**) and balance (β=0,172*, however, the latter model itself is not significant) and the overall level employability (β=0,243**), after controlling for control variables. 49

60 TABLE 17 LINEAR REGRESSION DECREASE DEMANDS ON EMPLOYABILITY Personal flexibility Balance Employability Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Control variable Education 0,15 0,16-0,01-0,01 0,07 0,08 Leadership position 0,16* 0,16* 0,02 0,02 0,10 0,10 Work experience -0,08 0,05 0,05 0,08-0,01 0,02 Independent variable Decrease demands -0,06-0,10-0,10 Model F (3,167) (4,166) 4,01** 3,23* 0,19 0,56 0,93 1,12 R2 0,07 0,07 0,00 0,01 0,02 0,03 ΔR2 0,07 0,01 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,01 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) Second, the dimensions and the overall level of employability are regressed with the independent dimension decrease demands (see table 17). Decrease demands is not related to any of the dimensions and the overall level of employability. Note that all effects (albeit non-significant) are negative. TABLE 18 LINEAR REGRESSION INCREASE RESOURCES ON EMPLOYABILITY Personal flexibility Balance Employability Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Control variable Education 0,15 0,12-0,01-0,03 0,07 0,04 Leadership position 0,16* 0,09 0,02-0,02 0,10 0,03 Work experience -0,08-0,00 0,05 0,09-0,01 0,06 Independent variable Increase resources 0,25** 0,14 0,22* Model F (3,167) (4,166) 4,01** 5,44** 0,19 0,78 0,93 2,32 R2 0,07 0,12 0,00 0,02 0,02 0,05 ΔR2 0,07 0,05 0,00 0,02 0,01 0,04 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) Third, the dimensions and the overall level of employability are regressed with the independent variable increase resources (see table 18). Increase resources is 50

61 significantly and positively related to the dimension personal flexibility (β=0,251**) and the total variable employability (β=0,217*), after controlling for the control variables. Note that, though there is a significant effect on employability, the model is nonsignificant. TABLE 19 LINEAR REGRESSION JOB CRAFTING ON EMPLOYABILITY Personal flexibility Balance Employability Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Control variable Education 0,15 0,11-0,01-0,03 0,07 0,04 Leadership position 0,16* 0,11 0,02-0,01 0,10 0,06 Work experience -0,08-0,07 0,05 0,06-0,01 0,01 Independent variable Job crafting 0,24** 0,12 0,20* Model F (3,167) (4,166) 4,01** 5,50** 0,19 0,67 0,93 2,22 R2 0,07 0,12 0,00 0,02 0,02 0,05 ΔR2 0,07 0,05 0,00 0,01 0,01 0,03 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) Last, the dimensions and the overall level of employability are regressed with the independent overall level of job crafting (see table 19). Job crafting is significantly and positively related to the dimension personal flexibility (β=0,235**) and the overall level of employability (β=0,195*) after controlling for control variables. Note that, though there is a significant effect on employability, the model is non-significant. Therefore only H4a is supported. JOB CRAFTING ON CREATIVITY Last, the hypothesis regarding the other potential consequence of job crafting, i.e. creativity, is tested (H5). Creativity is regressed on the independent dimensions of job crafting and the overall level of job crafting. (This is graphically presented in figure 7). 51

62 FIGURE 7 RELATION BETWEEN JOB CRAFTING AND CREATIVITY TABLE 20 LINEAR REGRESSION DIMENSIONS OF JOB CRAFTING AND JOB CRAFTING ON CREATIVITY Creativity Creativity Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Control variable Control variable Education 0,27** 0,23** Education 0,27** 0,28** Leadership position 0,16* 0,13 Leadership position 0,16* 0,16* Work experience 0,00 0,04 Work experience 0,-- 0,06 Independent variable Independent variable Increase challenging demands 0,32** Decrease demands -0,21** Model F (3,167) Model F (3,167) 6,89** 10,71** (4,166) (4,166) 6,89** 7,27** R2 0,11 0,21 R2 0,11 0,15 ΔR2 0,11 0,10 ΔR2 0,11 0,04 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) 52

63 Creativity Creativity Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Control variable Control variable Education 0,27** 0,23** Education 0,27** 0,23** Leadership position 0,16* 0,07 Leadership position 0,16* 0,11 Work experience 0,00 0,09 Work experience 0,00 0,02 independent variable Independent variable Increase resources 0,31** Job crafting 0,23** Model F (3,167) Model F (3,167) 6,89** 9,36** (4,166) (4,166) 6,89** 7,83** R2 0,11 0,18 R2 0,11 0,16 ΔR2 0,11 0,07 ΔR2 0,11 0,05 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) Hypothesis H5 proposed a positive relationship between job crafting and creativity. Remind that increase challenging demands and increase resources are significantly and positively correlated with creativity and decreasing demands significantly and negatively correlated. The regression results for testing hypothesis H5 are shown in table 20 and appendix B.2. Before entering job crafting to the model, the model with control variables is significant (F(3,167)=6,889**, as well as the coefficients for education (β=0,273**) and having a leadership position (β=0,161*). This means that employees with an higher educational degree and who held an leadership position are more creative. All three separate dimensions are significantly related to creativity. Increase challenging demands (β=0,318**) and increase resources (β=0,309**) are significantly and positively related, whereas decrease demand is significantly and negatively related to employees creativity (β=-0,206**). The overall level of job crafting is significantly and positively related to creativity (β=0,232**) after controlling for education, work experience and leadership position. Therefore H5 is supported. 53

64 HYPOTHESES SUMMARY Hypotheses Hypotheses H1 Accepted H3 Accepted H1a Rejected H3a Accepted H1b Accepted H3b Rejected H1c Accepted H3c Accepted H1d Rejected H3d Rejected H2 Accepted H4 Rejected H2a Accepted H4a Accepted H2b Rejected H4b Rejected H2c Accepted H5 Accepted H2d Rejected MEDIATING EFFECTS After testing the direct effects the mediation effects are tested according to the Kenny and Baron (1986) test. The first test is the most commonly used test of mediation in social science. Mediation is a hypothesized causal chain in which one variable affects a second variable that, in turn, affects a third variable. The intervening variable, M, is the mediator. It mediates the relationship between a predictor, X, and an outcome. Graphically, mediation can be depicted in the following way: Paths a and b are called direct effects. The mediational effect, in which X leads to Y through M, is called the indirect effect. The indirect effect represents the portion of the relationship between X and Y that is mediated by M BARON AND KENNY To test for mediation Baron and Kenny (1986) proposed a four step approach in which several regression analyses are conducted and significance of the coefficients is examined at each step. Take a look at the diagram below to follow the description (note that c' could also be called a direct effect). 54

65 1. FIGURE 8 DIRECT AND INRECT EFFECT Step 1 is a simple regression analysis with IV predicting DV (figure 8: A) to test for significance for path c. Step 2 is a simple regression analysis with IV predicting M (figure X: B) to test for significance for path a. Step 3 is a simple regression analysis with M predicting DV (figure X8: B) to test for significance for path b. Step 4 is a multiple regression analysis with IV and M predicting DV to test for significance for path c and b. Some form of mediation is supported if the effect of M (path c) remains significant after controlling for IV. If IV is no longer significant when M is controlled, the finding supports full mediation. If IV is still significant (i.e., both IV and M both significantly predict Y), the finding supports partial mediation. Mediation was tested with hierarchical regression with the control variables work experience, education and having a leadership position. Regression tables are presented in appendix B.3. 55

66 MEDIATIOR PSYCAP Transformational leadership on job crafting TABLE 21 MEDIATION TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP - PSYCAP - JOB CRAFTING Job crafting Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Control variable Education 0,17* 0,17* 0,15 Leadership position 0,21** 0,15 0,15 Work experience -0,08-0,06-0,05 Independent variable Transformational 0,17* 0,14 Leadership Mediator PsyCap 0,17* Model F (3,167) (4,166) 5,82** 5,71** 5,79** R2 0,10 0,12 0,15 ΔR2 0,10 0,03 0,06 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) PsyCap may mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and job crafting,. The first step (path c) in testing this mediation is determining if the relation between transformational leadership and job crafting is significant. This effect is significant (β=0,174*). Step 2 is testing if the relationship between transformational leadership and PsyCap (path a) is significant, which is also the case (β=0,199*). The third step is testing if the relationship between PsyCap and job crafting (path b) is significant, this effect is significant (β=0,200**). Last is testing if the relation between transformational leadership and job crafting becomes non-significant (full mediation), or if the effect remains significant but decreases (partial mediation) or that the effect remains unchanged (no mediation) when PsyCap is entered to the model. The effect between PsyCap and Job crafting (path b) remained significant with an effect of B=0,174* and the effect between transformational leadership and job crafting (path c ) became non-significant β=0,139 (α=0,077). PsyCap fully mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and job crafting, therefore H6 is supported. Results are shown in table 21 and are graphically represented in figure 9. 56

67 FIGURE 9 MEDIATION BETWEEN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND JOB CRAFTING Authentic leadership on job crafting TABLE 22 MEDIATION AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP - PSYCAP - JOB CRAFTING Job crafting Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Control variable Education 0,17* 0,17* 0,15 Leadership position 0,21** 0,16* 0,15* Work experience -0,08-0,08-0,07 Independent variable Authentic 0,17* 0,13 Leadership Mediator PsyCap 0,17* Model F (3,167) (4,166) 5,82** 5,61** 5,678** R2 0,10 0,12 0,15 ΔR2 0,10 0,03 0,05 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) PsyCap may mediate the relationship between authentic leadership and job crafting,. The first step (path c) in testing this mediation is determining if the relation between authentic leadership and job crafting is significant. This effect is significant (β=0,165*). Step 2 is testing if the relationship between authentic leadership and PsyCap (path a), is 57

68 significant, this effect is significant too (β=0,222**). The third step is testing if the relationship between PsyCap and job crafting (path b) is significant, this effect is significant (β=0,200**). Last is testing if the relation between authentic leadership and job crafting becomes, non-significant (full mediation), or if the effect remains significant but decreases (partly mediation) or remains significant and the effect remains unchanged (no mediation), when PsyCap is entered to the model. The effect between PsyCap and Job crafting (path b) remained significant with an effect of β=0,173* and the effect between transformational leadership and job crafting (path c ) became nonsignificant B=0,126 (α=0,105). PsyCap fully mediates the relationship between authentic leadership and job crafting, therefore H7 is supported. Results are shown in table 22 and are graphically represented in figure 10. Note that there is also a significant and positive effect of the control variable having a leadership position (β=0,153*). This means that employees who held an leadership position engage more in job crafting behavior. FIGURE 10 MEDATION BETWEEN AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND JOB CRAFTING 58

69 MEDIATOR JOB CRAFTING PsyCap on employability TABLE 23 MEDIATION PSYCAP - JOB CRAFTING - EMPLOYABILITY Employability Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Control variable Education 0,07 0,02 0,00 Leadership position 0,10 0,06 0,04 Work experience -0,01 0,02 0,03 Independent variable PsyCap 0,42** 0,39** Mediator Job crafting 0,11 Model F (3,167) (4,166) 0,93 9,32** 7,95** R2 0,02 0,18 0,19 ΔR2 0,02 0,17 0,18 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) Job crafting may mediate the relationship between PsyCap and employability, the first step (path c) in testing this mediation is determining if the relation between PsyCap and employability is significant. This effect is significant (β=0,416***). Step two is testing if the relationship between PsyCap and job crafting (path a) is significant, this effect is significant (β=0,200**). The third step is testing if the relationship between Job crafting and employability (path b) is significant, this effect is significant (β=0,195*). Last is testing if the relation between PsyCap and employability becomes, non-significant (full mediation), or if the effect remains significant but decrease (partly mediation) or remains significant and the effect remains unchanged (no mediation), when job crafting is entered to the model. The effect between job crafting and employability (path b) became non-significant β=0,107 (α=0,140). and the effect between PsyCap and employability (path c ) remained significant β=0,394**. The requirement of a significant path b (relationship between job crafting and employability) is not met therefore, job crafting does not mediate the relationship between PsyCap and employability, H8 is rejected. Results are shown in table 23 and are graphically represented in figure

70 FIGURE 11 MEDATION BETWEEN PSYCAP AND EMPLOYABILITY PsyCap on creativity TABLE 24 MEDIATION PSYCAP - JOB CRAFTING - CREATIVITY Creativity Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Control variable Education 0,27** 0,23** 0,20** Leadership position 0,16* 0,13 0,10 Work experience 0,00 0,02 0,03 Independent variable PsyCap 0,36** 0,33** Mediator Job crafting 0,16* Model F (3,167) (4,166) 6,89** 12,66** 11,39** R2 0,11 0,23 0,26 ΔR2 0,11 0,12 0,14 Significance <0,05 * <0,01** (2-tailed) Job crafting may mediate the relationship between PsyCap and creativity, the first step (path c) in testing this mediation is determining if the relation between PsyCap and creativity is significant. This effect is significant (β=0,358***). Step 2 is testing if the relationship between PsyCap and job crafting (path a) is significant, this effect is significant (β=0,200**). The third step is testing if the relationship between Job crafting and creativity (path b) is significant, this effect is significant (β=0,232**). Last is testing 60

71 if the relation between PsyCap and creativity becomes, non-significant (full mediation), or if the effect remains significant but decrease (partly mediation) or remains significant and the effect remains unchanged (no mediation), when job crafting is entered to the model. The effect between job crafting and employability (path b) remained significant with an effect of β=0,163* and the effect between PsyCap and creativity (path c ) remained significant and effect decreases β=0,325**. Job crafting partly mediates the relationship between PsyCap and creativity, therefore H9 is partly supported. Results are shown in table 24 and are graphically represented in figure 12. FIGURE 12 MEDIATON BETWEEN PSYCAP AND CREATIVITY MEDIATION SUMMARY Mediation Hypothesis Baron & Kenny TL PsyCap JC H6 Yes AL PsyCap JC H7 Yes PsyCap JC Employability H8 No PsyCap JC Creativity H9 Partially 61

72 5. DISCUSSION There is a global shift from manufacturing economies to service and knowledge economies (Grant and Parker, 2009). This drastically altered the nature of work in organizations. To keep pace with these important and rapid changes, work design theory and research is undergoing a transformation (Grant and Parker, 2009). When a work environment is highly uncertain, individuals, teams, and organizations must not only react and adapt to change, but must also anticipate and act upon the external environment in self-directed ways to achieve effective outcomes (Aragon-Correa, 1998). A behavior where individuals take initiative and for which employee proactivity is an important factor is job crafting. This research intended to attain a better understanding of the relationship between potential antecedents of job crafting, i.e., PsyCap, transformational leadership and authentic leadership and the relationship with possible consequences of job crafting namely, employability and creativity. In the discussion section, the main findings are presented, followed by the theoretical and practical implications, and finally research limitations as well as suggestions for future research are presented. 5.1 MAIN FINDINGS The main findings of this study are described below. The results of this study are graphically represented in figure

73 FIGURE 13 FULL RESEARCH MODEL RESULTS LEADERSHIP PSYCAP JOB CRAFTING The first part of this study (H1-H3 and H6-H7) dealt with the predictors/antecedents of job crafting. Here the relationship of PsyCap on job crafting, leadership on PsyCap and the mediation effect of PsyCap on the relationship between leadership and job crafting were tested, all hypotheses were supported. As expected, PsyCap was positively related to job crafting(h1). Employees who have a higher psychological capital engage more in job crafting behavior, thus employees who are more confident, have more positive views or thoughts about the future, and who are more resilient engage more in job crafting behavior, such as controlling and altering ones job demands and tasks. Leadership is positively related to PsyCap (H2&3) which means that transformational leaders and authentic leaders increase subordinates psychological capital. Leaders increase subordinates psychological capital by serving as a role-model (e.g. having a clear vision for the future, and acting consistent with this vision) in which subordinates want to emulate their leaders. Leaders also could increase subordinates psychological by giving feedback and stimulating employees to develop themselves in which employees develop confidence in their skills, and/or achieve more than they thought was possible. These 63

74 findings support those of Gooty et al. (2009), Rego et al. (2012) and Walumbwa et al. (2011). The relationship between Transformational leadership and PsyCap supports the findings of Luthans et al. (2007), who found that a supportive organizational climate can help develop employees psychological capital. Leaders can create appropriate conditions in which PsyCap among followers can be enhanced so employees will thrive (Gooty et al., 2009). This notion also supports Grant and Parker s (2009) ideas who emphasise that managers are an important factor for creating work designs in which employees can be stimulated to increase their proactive behavior, and are also in line with Bakker (2010) who suggests that, support from supervisors seems very important in perceiving opportunities to craft. PSYCAP JOB CRAFTING Contrary to what was hypothesised, self-efficacy is not related to the overall level of job crafting behavior of employees (H1a) but is significantly related to the three dimensions. Self-efficacious people are altering and controlling their work because self-efficacy is positively related to the independent dimensions increase challenging demands and increase resources. Thus self-efficacious employees seek more responsibilities and complex tasks and engage more in seeking feedback from their supervisor or colleagues or develop themselves in order to stay up to date with the latest developments. Other studies show that self-efficacy is a predictor of employees personal initiative (Speier & Frese, 1997) and taking charge (voluntary and constructive efforts by individual employees to effect organizationally functional change with respect to how work is executed within the contexts of their jobs) defend by Morrison & Phelps (1999). Selfefficacy is negatively related to decreasing demands, meaning that the more selfefficacious employees are the less likely they are to decrease their demands. Employees may feel confident enough to handle high work pressure. This negative relationship is also a possible explanation for the lack of a significant relationship with the overall level of job crafting. Because the overall level of job crafting is a aggregated variable of the three dimensions it is possible that the strong negative effect of decrease demands cancels out the positive effects of increase challenging demands and increase resources. Hope and optimism are positively related to job crafting behaviors of employees (H1b and H1c). Thus, the more hopeful and optimistic employees are, the more employees 64

75 engage in job crafting. Hope and optimism are positively related to the independent dimensions increase challenging demands and increase resources. Thus hopeful and optimistic employees seek more responsibilities and complex tasks, and engage more in seeking feedback from their supervisor or colleagues; Moreover, hopeful and optimistic employees put effort in staying up to date with the latest developments. Hope and optimism are not related to decreasing demands. One theoretical explanation for these relationships is that PsyCap is associated with proactivity rather than passivity. Thus proactive employees may be less likely to lower demands and more likely to seek challenges and resources. Hopeful employees are capable of setting realistic but challenging goals and then reaching out for those aims through self-directed determination (willpower; Luthans et al., 2007). In turn, this leads to an increase in challenging demands. In order to reach these goals, employees may increase their resources as well (waypower). Optimistic employees who face success, might increase their goals and thus increase challenging demands. On the other hand, optimistic employees who face failure might increase their resources to ultimately reach their goals. Contrary to what was hypothesised, resiliency is not related to job crafting behavior of employees (H1d) but is significantly related to two of the three dimensions. Resilient employees are altering and controlling their work. Resiliency is positively related to the independent dimension increase challenging demands and negatively related to the independent dimension decrease demands. The more resilient employees are the more they increase challenging demands. In contrast of what was hypothesized, more resilient employees did not engage in behaviors to decrease their demands. Resilient employees may experience less adversity then less resilient employees, in which employees do not feel the need to decrease their demands. This negative relationship is also a possible explanation for the lack of significance with the total variable job crafting. Because the overall level of job crafting is a aggregated variable of the three dimensions it is possible that the strong negative effect of decrease demands cancels out the positive effects of increase challenging demands and increase resources. 65

76 LEADERSHIP - PSYCAP Transformational leadership is positively related to the independent dimensions selfefficacy (H2a), which supports the findings of Tims and Bakker(2010) and Nielsen et al. (2009) and optimism (H2c), but not to hope and resilience (H2b and H2d) (which supports the finding of Harland et al. (2005), that transformational leadership not relates to resiliency). Thus transformational leaders increase their subordinates selfefficacy and optimism. Serving as a role-model, coach, and mentor helps subordinates to develop confidence in their skills. When transformational leaders behave positive, subordinates behave in a similarly positive fashion in an attempt to emulate their leaders. An explanation for the absence of a significant relationship with hope and resiliency is that these two dimensions defined by Luthans are more achievementoriented and possibly more related to intrinsic motivation than enhanced by a leader. Authentic leadership is positively related to the independent dimensions self-efficacy, optimism and resiliency (H3a&c&d). Authentic leaders increase their subordinates selfefficacy and optimism which supports the findings of Rego et al. (2012). Authentic leaders are seen as trustworthy which increases, subordinates confidence in their skills when receiving feedback. Authentic leaders also serve as a role model which increases subordinates optimism, and they stimulate psychological safety which enhances subordinates resiliency (Rego et al., 2012). An explanation for the absence of a significant relationship with hope is that this dimension defined by Luthans is more achievement-oriented and possibly more related to intrinsic motivation than enhanced by a leader. Difference transformational leadership and authentic leadership The effect of transformational (β=0,20) and authentic leadership (β=0,22) on PsyCap is almost the same and both are only positively related to self-efficacy and optimism, after controlling for the control variables. However, when the control variables are left out of the model authentic leadership is significantly and positively related to resiliency and transformational leadership is not. An explanation could be found in the proposed theories. In the theory of transformational leadership on resilience, the focus is on the behavior and actions of the transformational leader which facilitate resiliency (e.g. encourage followers to interpret information in novel ways and look beyond his/hers self-interest). In the theory of authentic leadership on resiliency, the focus is more on 66

77 the behavior and actions of the authentic leader to enhance employees state of mind to enhance employees resiliency (e.g. promoting employees' positive emotions, these emotions helping to develop resilience). Thus this study may imply that the focus should lay on behaviors that enhance employees state of mind to enhance resiliency instead of behaviors that facilitate resiliency. Thus the actions of a transformational leaders directly increase subordinates resiliency and the actions of an authentic leader helps the subordinate to increase their resiliency his/herself. MEDIATION There is a relationship of Leadership on job crafting, and this relationship is fully mediated by PsyCap (H6&7). Transformational and authentic leaders increase employees psychological capital which in turn helps employees to engage more in job crafting behaviors JOB CRAFTING EMPLOYABILITY AND CREATIVITY The second part of this study (H4-H5 and H8-H9) dealt with the consequences of job crafting. Only H5 and H9 are supported. In this part the relationship of job crafting on employability, on creativity and the mediation effect of job crafting on the relationships between PsyCap and employability and PsyCap and creativity was tested. As expected, job crafting was positively related to creativity. When employees engage more in job crafting behavior they become more creative. Job crafting was already a predictor of creativity (Gordon et al., 2015). JOB CRAFTING - EMPLOYABILITY Increase challenging demands is positively related to employees personal flexibility, balance and employability. Employees who increase challenging demands show more adaptive behaviors. Employees also find a better balance between their work and private life and thus become more employable. Ghitluscu (2013) proposed a relationship between increase challenging demands and employability but they did not, found a significant relationship. 67

78 Decrease demands is not related to employees personal flexibility, balance or employability. This finding is interesting and contrary to what was hypothesized. When controlling ones own demands, employees can prevent a burnout or dissatisfaction with work, which in turn may prevent a conflict between work and family. A possible explanation is the low mean of decrease demands in the study sample which means that employees on average did hardly engage in behaviors to decrease their demands. Because there is a relationship with increase challenging demands and increase resources, which are associated with starting behavior it could be that there is no relationship with decrease demands, which is associated with stopping behavior and thus the opposite of the other two dimensions. Increase resources is positively related to the dimension personal flexibility and employability, which supports Ghitulescu, (2013) but not to employees balance. Employees who engage more in increasing their resources, adapt and anticipate more to changes and developments in their work environment. Again contrary to what was hypothesized is that increasing ones resources is not positively related to balance as suggested by Bakker et al. (2008). When people engage more in increasing their resources they should be better able to cope with demands which has a positive influence on their work-private balance. A possible explanation for this finding is that participants did not feel a work-life conflict, the mean score was 3,62 on a scale of 1-5. In other words, they experience a good work-life balance which in turn could lead to the absence of significant relationships. JOB CRAFTING - CREATIVITY Gordon et al. (2015) found that increasing one s resources and decreasing one s demands are related with creativity. This study found a positive relationship between increasing one s resources and one s creativity as well, and found a negative relationship between of decrease demands and creativity. Increasing challenging demands and increasing resources are positively related to creativity. The more employees increase challenging demands and increase resources the more creative employees become. The more complex and challenging ones job is the more excited employees become in completing a task, which fosters creative achievements. Complex and challenging jobs can also demand creative outcomes by 68

79 encouraging employees to focus simultaneously on multiple dimensions of their work (Oldham and Cummings, 1996). Decrease demands is negatively related to creativity. The more employees decrease their demands the less creative they become. Simple or routine jobs inhibit focusing simultaneously on multiple dimensions which decreases employees creativity, which supports the findings of Oldham and Cummings (1996). MEDIATION Job crafting partially mediates the relationship between employees psychological capital and creativity. This partial mediation can be explained by the direct effect of psychological capital on creativity found in Rego et al. (2012). This means that the higher employees psychological capital the more creative employees become, partially, through crafting their jobs. Job crafting does not mediate the relationship between employees psychological capital and employability, there is however a positive direct effect of PsyCap on employability. The lack of mediation of job crafting on the relationship between PsyCap and employability can be explained due to the rejection of H4 in which job crafting is not related to employability OTHER FINDINGS There are some findings that are not related to any of the hypotheses which are nevertheless noteworthy. Authentic leadership has almost the same effect on employees psychological capital (β=0,222) as transformational leadership (β =0,199) and transformational leadership is positively correlated with creativity. Transformational leaders are intellectual stimulation which enhances exploratory thinking by providing support for innovation, autonomy, and challenge. Also transformational leaders are inspirational motivating which provides encouragement into the idea generation process by energizing followers to work towards the organization's vision (Bass and Avolio, 1995 in Gumusluoglu, 2009). The more work experience employees have, the more they decrease their demands and increase their resources. Employees in earlier stages in their career decrease their demands less which is consistent with Fried et al. 69

80 (2007) which suggested that employees in the beginning of their career seek for more challenging demands and thus increase their demands. When employees have a leadership position and higher educational degree, they engage more in job crafting behavior. Leaders and employees with a higher educational degree are more likely to have a function higher in the hierarchy which could mean that the tasks and actions are less formalized, and thus there is more room for job crafting. Hypotized was the mediating effect of job crafting on the relationship between PsyCap and employability, however job crafting does not mediate this relationship, there is a direct effect of employees psychological capital and employability. The capacity for generating new pathways (hope) seems essential to navigating discontinuous and unpredictable change processes (Weick & Quinn, 1999 in: Manuti, 2014), self-efficacious employees who successfully accomplish a task or cope with change, are more likely to believe they can do it again, optimistic employees expect success when faced with change and resilient employees have the capacity to bounce back from setbacks and positively coping with and adapting to changes (Manuti, 2014). Thus employees with higher level of psychological capital are more employable. 5.2 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS This study provides some novel contributions to the literature on employees work behavior, psychological capital, and leadership. The largest contribution is the positive relationship between PsyCap and job crafting and the mediating effect of PsyCap on the relationship between transformational leadership and authentic leadership on the one hand, and job crafting on the other hand. Job crafting is a popular predictor in health, work engagement, and performance (e.g. Bakker et al., 2004; Bakker et al., 2010) but there is still little research on its possible antecedents. Although there is some literature on the relationship of leadership with PsyCap and job crafting, as far as I know, this relationship was not yet empirically studied. The findings on relationships of the separate dimensions of PsyCap with the separate dimensions of job crafting also contribute to the literature. A second contribution is the effect and comparison of both leadership styles in one study. Although transformational leadership is a popular subject for e.g. performance studies and transformational leadership is compared with transactional leadership 70

81 (Bass et al., 2003) there is not yet a study were transformational and authentic leadership are compared. Different leaderships might have different consequences. Studying different leadership styles helps to find the right style for the desired outcome. Third, the effect of PsyCap and the underlying mechanism of job crafting on creativity. PsyCap was already a predictor of creativity (Rego et al., 2012), but this study provides a better understanding of the relationship between PsyCap and employee creativity, by showing that this relationship is partially mediated by job crafting. In particular, this study shows that employees with higher levels of psychological capital engage more in job crafting behavior, which in turn leads to more creativity. Fourth, the relationship between the dimensions and the overall level of job crafting and creativity. Although personal initiative and complex and challenging jobs are related to creativity, job crafting is a contribution because job crafting are changes by individual employees him/herself. There is already scientific literature that complex tasks can lead to creativity but these complex tasks were set by the researcher and not by the employee themselves. This study contributes with the finding that employees who engage more in job crafting behavior (make individual changes) become more creative. Fifth, the relationship between the dimensions and the overall level of job crafting and personal flexibility which supports the study of Van Bloois et al. (2010). Sixth, the relation between PsyCap and employability with the mediating effect of job crafting. Although job crafting does not mediate the relationship of PsyCap with employability, there is a direct effect. The higher employees level of psychological capital the better they adapt and anticipate to changes in the work environment. 5.3 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS Innovation is a must for a company s competitive advantage and long-term success. Creativity is the first step towards innovation, thus organizations need to take advantage of and facilitate the creativity of their employees (Rego et al., 2012). This study may help organizations and researchers to identify ways to address these needs. The findings suggest that employees psychological capital is an important predictor of creativity, and 71

82 can be enhanced through transformational and/or authentic leadership. Employees psychological capital increases ones job crafting behavior which in turn increases employees creativity. Organizations in highly uncertain environments face rapid changes, these organizations need employees who can handle and benefit from these changes. Organizations must not only put effort in seeking employees with a proactive personality but must create a work environment where employees can control and shape their own work environment. This study finds that employees who have higher levels of psychological capital, adapt and anticipate better to changes in the organization. One way to facilitate this is to select transformational and/or authentic leaders who increase employees psychological capital. Organizations can either select transformational and/or authentic leaders or implement training and development actions aimed at increasing transformational leadership and authentic leadership, which in turn will increase employees psychological capital. When increasing employees psychological capital, leaders may also stimulate other positive consequences of this psychological strength, such as performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Rego et al., 2012). 5.4 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS The present study also has some limitations. First, the model was tested by means of hierarchical regression analyses. Ideally, the whole model would have to be be tested at once instead of testing each relationship separately. However, this is unfeasible given the large number of relationships and the limited number of respondents. Second, the model was tested using self-report questionnaires which are assessed at one point in time. Ratings of employees may be positively biased. Employees may feel that they are seeking for more responsibilities, adapt or anticipate to changes or are creative, but are they really? Another problem using self-reports is the possibility of common method bias. When employees provide data for predictors and criterion variable, they might try to be consistent in their answers and produce answers they think are expected from them (Prodsakoff et al., 2003). Participants were not told what the study subject was, other than employees work behavior in order to try to prevent common method bias. 72

83 Third is the limitation to prove causality. To tell whether, for example, PsyCap effects job crafting, longitudinal or experimental studies are needed. Fourth, there are two limitations with the sample. First, one organization is more strongly represented in the total sample than the other three. Second, the results are susceptible to non-response bias (Hudson et al., 2004) given there is only a twenty six percent response rate. Thirty employees stopped after reading the statements about their supervisor. This may imply that employees experience poor leadership or they are reluctant to report on the relationship between supervisor and employee. Afterwards I had discussions with a few participants. Comments were that, despite the guaranteed privacy, they were afraid that via the demographic questions the ratings about one s supervisor were traced back to them. Employees who completed the questionnaire may have felt confident enough to continue and answer questions even if these employees experience poor leadership, which may bias the results regarding the relation between leadership and employees self-efficacy. Moreover, some participants had a new supervisor and might have found it difficult to assess his/her leadership. In addition, organization 1 (see 3.1) which is well represented need employees who are strong and confident, which may bias the results. Employees of this organization are often confronted with danger on their daily jobroutine. A fifth limitation is the use of shortened scales to assess some of the variables, I also did not perform confirmatory factor analysis, which should be done in order to test whether measures of a construct are consistent with the researcher's understanding of the nature of that construct. The data do not allow an unquestionable determination of the hypothesized causality, other links and explanations are also plausible due to the use of a crossectional survey. For example, employees creativity may lead to job crafting behavior. Finally, the effects and explained variance are low thus further research is needed to uncover other mediators/moderators. 5.5 FUTURE RESEARCH Based on the theoretical and practical implications and limitations of this study, this paragraph will elaborate on suggestions for future research. This study found a relationship between employees psychological capital and job crafting and a mediation effect of psychological capital on the relationship between 73

84 transformational leadership, authentic leadership and job crafting. This relationship has not yet been studied before thus further research on this relationship is needed. A longitudinal study or other methods to gather data (e.g. leaders rating subordinates job crafting behavior) could help to verify this relationships. A longitudinal study were employees have a new leader, a baseline could be measured and the development of employees psychological capital could be monitored. Semi structured interviews or daily diaries might provide rich insights into the sources and consequences of PsyCap. The relationship between transformational and authentic leadership on PsyCap is also in need of further research. The influence of variables such as identification with the supervisor, psychological empowerment, work engagement, trust positive emotions need to be explored (Rego et al., 2012). These variables could mediate or increase the effect between leadership and psychological capital. Other ways to increase employees psychological capital could be studied and future research on the absence of the relationship between leadership and hope to gain better understanding is the absence or possible predictors to increase employees hope. Moderators, work engagement and work environment could give better insight in the positive relationship between job crafting and creativity and work characteristics such as autonomy should be studied for the relationship between employees psychological capital and job crafting. Autonomy is thought to stimulate proactivity by signalling to employees that they have the ability and opportunity to take on broader roles (Parker, 2000). Parker (1998) argued that autonomy not only directly increase the controllability of a task, but also facilitate enactive mastery experiences by giving employees the opportunity to acquire new skills and master new responsibilities. Thus when employees have autonomy the effect could be increased. Decrease demands was not related to personal flexibility and balance, a study to gain better understanding in this relationship is needed. The mean score of decrease demands was low, future research may find causes why employees not decrease their demands and find predictors to stimulate employees to decrease their demands. According to Bakker et al. (2008) demands is related to work-life conflict and Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) found that high job demands lead to exhaustion and health problems. Thus a predictor to stimulate employees to decrease their demands may prevent burn-out and other health problems. However, a remark must be made, 74

85 decreasing demands is not always desirable and only gives the desired effect if the workload is too high. Findings also could not support that job crafting increases employees employability future research should take a closer look whether there is a relationship with job crafting or not, and what other possible predictors could be to enhance employees employability. CONCLUSION This study found a positive relationship between transformational and authentic leadership and employees psychological capital, employees psychological capital and job crafting, and last job crafting and creativity. Also some mediating effects are found, the mediation effect of employees psychological capital on the relationship between leadership and job crafting, and a partial mediation of job crafting on the relationship between employees psychological capital and creativity. No mediation effect of job crafting is found on the relationship between employees psychological capital and employability. However, there is a positive relationship between employees psychological capital and employability. Leaders who are transformational and/or authentic increase employees self-efficacy and optimism. Employees who have higher levels of psychological capital engage more in job crafting behavior, increase challenging demands and increase their resources. Employees with high levels of self-efficacy and resiliency engage less in decreasing their demands. Employees who increase challenging demands and increase their resources become more creative but employees who engage in decreasing their demands become less creative. Employees with more work experience engage more in decreasing their demands and increase their resources and when employees held a leadership position and higher educational degree, they engage more in job crafting behavior. This study contributes with the studied relationship of PsyCap and job crafting and the mediation effect of PsyCap on the relationship between leadership and job crafting. This relationship has not yet been studied and this relationship provides insight in the antecedents of job crafting, where job crafting is mostly studied with possible consequences. This study also contributes to scientific literature with the relationship of employees psychological capital and employability and creativity. 75

86 LITERATURE Aragón-Correa, J. A. (1998). Strategic proactivity and firm approach to the natural environment. Academy of management Journal, 41(5), Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human resource development quarterly, 22(2), Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2006). Authentic leadership: Moving HR leaders to a higher level. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (vol. 25, ). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., Harrington, E shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 73: Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic Need Satisfaction: A Motivational Basis of Performance and Weil Being in Two Work Settings1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic Need Satisfaction: A Motivational Basis of Performance and Weil Being in Two Work Settings1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10),

87 Bakker, A. B. (2010). 19 Engagement and job crafting : engaged employees create their own great place to work. Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice, 229. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Dollard, M. F. (2008). How job demands affect partners' experience of exhaustion: integrating work-family conflict and crossover theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 901. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demandsresources model to predict burnout and performance. Human resource management, 43(1), Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. human relations, 65(10), Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2000). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp ). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B Handbook of Leadership, 3rd Ed. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), 207. Binnewies, C., Ohly, S., & Sonnentag, S. (2007). Taking personal initiative and communicating about ideas: What is important for the creative process and for creativity? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 77

88 Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French Jr, J. R., Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau Jr, S. R. (1975). Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences. Crant, J. M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, DeFillippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1996). Boundaryless contexts and careers: A competency-based perspective. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era (pp ). New York: Oxford University Press. De Hoogh AHB, Den Hartog DN. Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader's social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates' optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly 2008;19: Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum; Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Job crafting. An introduction to contemporary work psychology, Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied psychology, 86(3), 499. Dubinsky, A. J., Yammarino, F. J., Jolson, M. A., & Spangler, W. D. (1995). Transformational leadership: an initial investigation in sales management. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 15, Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). 4. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in organizational behavior, 23,

89 Fried, Y., Grant, A. M., Levi, A. S., Hadani, M., & Slowik, L. H. (2007). Job design in temporal context: A career dynamics perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7), Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2007). Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A look at job stressors and positive affect during the workday. Journal of Management. Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, Gardner WL, Avolio BJ, Luthans F, May DR, Walumbwa FO. Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly 2005;16: Gardner WL, Schermerhorn Jr JR. Unleashing individual potential: Performance gains through positive organizational behavior and authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics 2004;33(3): Gooty, J., Gavin, M., Johnson, P. D., Frazier, M. L., & Snow, D. B. (2009). In the Eyes of the Beholder Transformational Leadership, Positive Psychological Capital, and Performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(4), 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, accepted or in press. Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). 7 Redesigning Work Design Theories: The Rise of Relational and Proactive Perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), Greene, R., & Conrad, N Basic Assumptions and Terms. In R. Greene (Ed.), Resiliency: An 79

90 integrated approach to practice, policy, and research: Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers Press. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), Ghitulescu, B. E. (2013). Making Change Happen The Impact of Work Context on Adaptive and Proactive Behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(2), Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, Sixth Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall. Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Hall, D. T. (2002). Careers in and out of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hall, D. T., & Mirvis, P. H. (1995). The new career contract: Developing the whole person at midlife and beyond. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, Harland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J. R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2005). Leadership behaviors and subordinate resilience. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(2), Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: Hornung, S., & Rousseau, D. (2007). Active on the job proactive in change: How autonomy at work contributes to employee support for organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43,

91 Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16, Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23, Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management journal, 42(1), Larson, M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Potential added value of psychological capital in predicting work attitudes. Journal of leadership & organizational studies, 13(2), Luthans F, Avolio BJ. Authentic leadership: A positive developmental approach. In: Cameron KS, Dutton JE, Quinn RE, editors. Positive organizational scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler; p Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social and now positive psychological capital management: Investing in People for Competitive Advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33, Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge. Oxford University Press. Manuti, A. (2014). Organizational Resilience and Individual Employability: Psychological Capital and Change Management. Why Human Capital is Important for Organizations: People Come First,

92 Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience process in development. American Psychologist, 56, Masten, A. S., & Reed, M. J. (2002). Resilience in development. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp ). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of management Journal, 42(4), Nauta, A., Vianen, A., Heijden, B., Dam, K., & Willemsen, M. (2009). Understanding the factors that promote employability orientation: The impact of employability culture, career satisfaction, and role breadth self efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(2), Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Randall, R., & Munir, F. (2009). The mediating effects of team and self-efficacy on the relationship between transformational leadership, and job satisfaction and psychological well-being in healthcare professionals: a crosssectional questionnaire survey. International journal of nursing studies, 46(9), Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of management journal, 39(3), Parker, S. (1998). Enhancing role-breadth self efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, Parker, S. K From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49:

93 Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 2003; 88, p Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, Rego, A., Sousa, F., & Marques, C. (2012). Authentic leadership promoting employees' psychological capital and creativity. Journal of Business Research, 65(3), Rothwell, A., & Arnold, J. (2007). Self-perceived employability: development and validation of a scale. Personnel Review, 36(1), Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma: Theoretical notes and an exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(1), Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). What's your story? A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), Snyder, C. R. (1993). Hope for the journey. In A. P. Turnbull, J. M. Patterson, S. K. Behr, D. L. Murphy, J. G. Marquis, & M. J. Blue-Banning (Eds.), Cognitive coping, families, and disability (pp ). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks. 83

94 Snyder, C. R., Irving, L., & Anderson, J. (1991). Hope and health: Measuring the will and the ways. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology (pp ). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. Snyder, C. R. (1994). Hope and optimism. Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 2, pp ). San Diego: Academic Press. Speier, C., & Frese, M. (1997). Generalized self efficacy as a mediator and moderator between control and complexity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinal field study in East Germany. Human Performance, 10(2), Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1-9. Tims, Maria, Arnold B. Bakker, and Daantje Derks. "Development and validation of the job crafting scale." Journal of Vocational Behavior 80.1 (2012): Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2011). Do transformational leaders enhance their followers' daily work engagement?. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), Tugade MM, Fredrickson BL, Barrett LM. Psychological resilience and positive emotional granularity: Examining the benefits of positive emotions on coping and health. Journal of Personality 2004;72(6): Van Bloois, R., De Pater, I., & Nauta, A. (2010, June). The Route to Employability: Individually Designed or Relationally Negotiated?. In IACM 23rd Annual Conference Paper. Van Dam, K. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of employability-orientation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13,

95 Van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2010). Personal resources and work engagement in the face of change. Contemporary occupational health psychology: Global perspectives on research and practice, Van der Heijde, C. M., & Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2006). A competence-based and multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability. Human Resource Management, 45, Van Maanen, J. and Schein, E. H. (1977). 'Improving the quality of work life: Career development'. In: Hackman, J. R. and Suttle, J. L. (Eds) Improving Life at Work, Goodyear, Santa Monica, CA. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Measure. Journal of management, 34(1), Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Oke, A. (2011). Authentically leading groups: The mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(1), Walumbwa, F. O., Peterson, S. J., Avolio, B. J., & Hartnell, C. A. (2010). An investigation of the relationships among leader and follower psychological capital, service climate, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 63(4), Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2),

96 APPENDIX APPENDIX A: PROCEDURE A.1 INTRODUCTION LETTER OF THE RESEACH Beste, Ik ben Jolke van de Riet, student aan de Technische Universiteit te Eindhoven, master Technische Bedrijfskunde Ik ben voor mijn master thesis bezig met een onderzoek naar transformationeel leiderschap en authentiek leiderschap en de invloed hiervan op job crafting (het vormgeven/aanpassen van het werk door de medewerkers zelf). Daarnaast worden de uitkomsten, employability en creativity, van job crafting onderzocht. Innovatie staat in veel bedrijven centraal wat gepaard gaat met continue veranderende werkomstandigheden. Als bedrijf heb je medewerkers nodig die om kunnen gaan met deze veranderingen en het liefst voordeel kunnen halen uit deze veranderingen. Er is veel onderzoek gedaan naar welke eigenschappen medewerkers moeten hebben om zich aan te kunnen passen of opzoek gaan naar uitdaging. Mijn onderzoek richt zich op waar je als bedrijf/management kunt bijdragen om te zorgen dat medewerkers zich goed voelen en het werk zodanig gaan vormen/aanpassen dat het beter past bij henzelf. De vraag dan is of deze persoonlijke aanpassingen leiden tot het beter aanpassen aan veranderingen en creativiteit. Dit wordt getest aan de hand van een vragenlijst: Voor het verzamelen van gegevens voor mijn onderzoek ben ik op zoek naar bedrijven om mijn vragenlijst te verspreiden onder de medewerkers. Dit kan bijvoorbeeld een door u geselecteerd team of afdeling. Mijn vraag aan u is of er een mogelijkheid bestaat om mijn vragenlijst te verspreiden en zo ja, of we samen de mogelijkheden kunnen bespreken om dit op de juiste manier te doen zodat het niet te veel tijd kost voor de medewerkers en zo de respons rate verhogen. De informatie die wordt verzameld door middel van deze vragenlijst wordt alleen gebruikt voor deze Master Thesis. De resultaten zijn niet te herleiden tot individuele personen, maar worden op groepsniveau gepresenteerd. Met vriendelijke groet, Jolke van de Riet j.v.d.riet@student.tue.nl of jolke@jolke.com

97 A.2 QUESTIONNAIRE 87

98 88

99 89

100 90

101 91