Chinese Management Studies

How HR practice, work engagement and job crafting influence employee

performance
Xiaoyu Guan, Stephen Frenkel,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Xiaoyu Guan, Stephen Frenkel, (2018) "How HR practice, work engagement and job crafting
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

influence employee performance", Chinese Management Studies, https://doi.org/10.1108/

CMS-11-2017-0328
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-11-2017-0328
Downloaded on: 27 May 2018, At: 07:15 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 81 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:320271 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-614X.htm

Employee
How HR practice, work performance
engagement and job crafting
influence employee performance
Xiaoyu Guan
School of Government, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China, and
Stephen Frenkel
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

UNSW Business School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – Scholars have adopted different theoretical perspectives to explain the influence of HR practice
on employee outcomes. However, few studies have investigated the role of human resource (HR) practice in
fostering higher in-role and extra-role employee performance by encouraging employee participation in job
design, a process referred to as job crafting. Drawing on human resource management (HRM) process theory
and the job crafting literature, this study aims to examine how work engagement and job crafting mediate the
relationship between employee perceptions of HR practice and employee performance.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors use survey on a sample of 455 employees working in
five Chinese manufacturing firms to test their theoretical model.
Findings – This study finds that where management maintains a strong HR system, employees are more
likely to be engaged in their work and participate in job crafting. In addition, job crafting on its own, and work
engagement and job crafting together, are shown to mediate the HRM–performance relationship.
Research limitations/implications – In a Chinese context, line managers (including supervisors) are
both important implementers of HR policy and vary in their adoption of particular roles. Yet our research did
not consider the role of these persons in facilitating work engagement or job crafting. Future studies could
usefully explore how these managers vary in their attitudes towards job crafting and the roles they play in
encouraging this important activity.
Practical implications – One important implication is that strong HR system with distinctive, consistent
and consensus HR practices should be used by managers to motivate employees to encourage work
engagement and job crafting behaviours.
Originality/value – This study enriches the theoretical framework to explain the underlying mechanism
between HRM and employee performance from job crafting perspective.

Keywords OCB, Work engagement, Task performance, Job crafting, HR practice

Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Strategic human resource management (HRM) research views job design as a means of
achieving the organization’s strategic goals (Becker and Huselid, 2010). Conceived as a top-
down process, management organises tasks into jobs that employees undertake as directed
(Hackman and Oldham, 1976). This approach is well suited to a predictable, stable economy
where job design is a management function, and employees are rewarded for conforming to
prescribed roles. However, in the contemporary, uncertain economy where product and
process innovation is valued, management relies on employees for job design, flexibility and Chinese Management Studies
co-operation (Griffin et al., 2007). Employee proactivity and relational aspects of work are © Emerald Publishing Limited
1750-614X
reflected in the recent job redesign theory, which emphasizes “designing from below” (Grant DOI 10.1108/CMS-11-2017-0328
 CMS and Parker, 2009). Employees are viewed as work role innovators; they are key participants
in the process of job crafting (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001).
Job crafting refers to employees’ self-initiated changes to jobs that aim to satisfy
employees’ goals by increasing available resources and reducing work demands (Tims et al.,
2012). This job-centred form of innovation arises from individual needs and social pressures
(Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001), encouraging employee involvement and use of
knowledge, skills and abilities that may improve work performance (Tims et al., 2015). We
are interested in how HR practice perceived by employees contributes directly, or through
mediation of job crafting and work engagement, to improved work performance.
Management can encourage job crafting by cultivating capability and motivation, and by
providing opportunities for employees to innovate. Extending this argument, it is probable
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

that HR practice influences employees perceived job discretion (i.e. amount of choice
employees have over important aspects of their work, such as methods and timing) (Snape
and Redman, 2010), job resources (i.e. autonomy and variety) and job demands (i.e. workload
and time pressure) (Van De Voorde et al., 2016).
Our study makes three contributions related to the above-mentioned issues. First, we
contribute to theorizing the HRM–performance relationship focusing mainly on HRM
process from an employee-centred, job design perspective. Our focus is on employee
perceptions of HR practice as it is implemented. This process views employees as potentially
active job designers capable of job crafting or job-related innovation, which impacts
individual performance. Thus, job crafting is posited as a novel behavioural mediator in the
HRM–performance relationship. Second, we respond to the call for more studies examining
the potential linkage between HRM, work engagement and performance (Truss et al., 2013).
Our study includes work engagement as a mediator between HR practice and employee
performance built on recent research (Alfes et al., 2012, 2013). Thus, we include both
attitudinal (work engagement) and behavioural (job crafting) concepts in explaining the
processes that connect HRM with employee performance. This enables us to compare the
relative strength of three different mechanisms through work engagement, job crafting and
both variables jointly. Our third contribution is to extend research on HRM process to small-
and medium-sized Chinese companies, an important unexplored context in regard to HRM
process-oriented research.

Theory and hypotheses

In the HRM literature, scholars have adopted different theoretical perspectives related to job
design to explain the influence of perceived HR practice on employee outcomes. Snape and
Redman (2010) used job characteristics theory (Hackman and Oldham, 1976) to explain the
mediating effect of perceived job influence between workplace level HRM practices and
employee in-role behaviour and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Van De Voorde
et al. (2016) applied job demands-resources (J-DR) theory (Demerouti et al., 2001a) to examine
the influence of empowerment-focused HRM on employee engagement through task-related
job resources and work demands. Evans and Davis (2005) incorporated the literature on
“role making” (i.e. role negotiation according to Katz and Kahn, 1978) to explain the
relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational performance.
However, the authors provide a theoretical framework with no empirical evidence. To our
knowledge, no study has tested the possible mediating role of bottom-up work design in the
form of employee job crafting on the HR–performance relationship.
In this study, we are interested in how employee perceptions of HR practice encourage
work engagement and in turn facilitate employee job crafting that contributes to high
individual performance. HR practice here refers to whether various HR practices taken
 together are perceived by employees as distinctive (understandable to employees), Employee
consistent (applied in a similar way) and implemented in a consensual manner (agreed to by performance
managers). According to Bowen and Ostroff (2004), if HR practice is perceived as having
these features, a strong climate will be created that will encourage employees to adopt
attitudes and behaviours aligned with the organization’s goals. One such attitude is work
engagement, which is defined as a positive work-related state of mind characterized by
vigour, dedication and absorption (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008). Engaged employees tend to
participate in proactive crafting behaviour (Salanova and Schaufeli, 2008), tailoring their
jobs to fit their work goals and the environment to achieve higher employee performance (Lu
et al., 2014; Tims et al., 2015). Figure 1 summarizes our conceptual model. We argue that a
strong HRM system or set of HR practices, perceived holistically by employees as being
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

supported by a strong climate, will encourage higher employee engagement in their work,
which in turn will facilitate worker participation in job crafting resulting in higher in-role
and extra-role performance. In what follows, we discuss the motivating logic underpinning
our hypotheses.

The mediating role of work engagement

As mentioned earlier, work engagement indicates a positive and fulfilling state of mind
characterized by vigour, dedication and absorption. In relation to HR practice, we propose
that employee work engagement mediates the relationship between HR practice and
employee performance. From a social exchange perspective, HR practice shapes employees’
beliefs about the nature of the exchange relationship with the organization, which impact
their work engagement and subsequent performance (Alfes et al., 2013; Karatepe, 2013).
When employees have positive perceptions of HR practice, this encourages the adoption of
attitudes and behaviours consistent with management values and organizational goals, as a
form of reciprocity for organizational support and investment (Alfes et al., 2013; Latorre et al.,
2016). Second, strong HR practice has an enabling role in facilitating psychological
empowerment and safety. Employees experience supportive HR practice tends to have more
job resources and believe themselves to be capable, significant and worthy organizational
members (Pierce and Gardner, 2004). This enhances employees’ role obligation for work

Figure 1.
Proposed model
linking perceptions of
HR practice and
employee
performance through
work engagement
and job crafting
 CMS engagement and participation in decision-making to achieve higher performance (Boxall
et al., 2011; Zacharatos et al., 2005). Third, HR policies and practices constitute a key source of
employees’ experience of organization justice or fair treatment in aspects such as resources
distribution and reward allocation (Frenkel et al., 2012a, 2012b). These characteristics
facilitate positive affect, increase trust and generate additional support for organizational
policies and decision-making (Lind and Van den Bos, 2002). Therefore, employees are likely
to be more involved in their work and perform at a higher level.
A strong HRM system also ensures that there are adequate incentives associated with
engagement that generate valued and desired work behaviours (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004).
Engaged employees experience a high level of connectivity and motivation with their work
tasks and strive toward in-role requirements and task-related goals. In addition, individuals
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

who invest their personal selves in their work roles are likely to carry a broader conception
of that role and are more likely to step outside of the formal boundaries of their job to assist
the organization and their co-workers (Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010). On the contrary, if
employees perceive a weak HRM system that sends ambiguous messages, they are likely to
develop idiosyncratic interpretations and have unclear expectations about their work. This
will limit their work engagement and negatively affect their task performance and OCB.
This reasoning leads to the following hypotheses:
H1a. Work engagement mediates the relationship between human resource practice
perceived by employees and their task performance.
H1b. Work engagement mediates the relationship between human resource practice
perceived by employees and their organizational citizenship behaviour.

The mediating role of job crafting

Prior research acknowledged that employees’ work attitudes have a significant role to play
in the HRM–employee performance chain, whereas the mediating role of employee
behaviour is given less attention (Alfes et al., 2013; Kehoe and Wright, 2013).We are
interested in how employee behaviour in job design may influence the relationship between
HR practice and employee performance.
Snape and Redman (2010) found HR practices enhance employees’ intrinsic motivation to
exercise higher levels of job influence and discretion. We argue that HR practice in a strong
HRM system encourages employee job crafting behaviours that increase job resources and
reduce hindrance job demands to achieve higher performance. Specifically, if the HR
practice is distinctive and understandable, employees tend to be more aware of training and
development resources and opportunities in the organization (Bednall et al., 2014).
Therefore, they are more likely to learn and develop their abilities and skills, which will
enable job effectiveness and participation in more complex and challenging tasks. In
addition, when there is agreement on HR practice among HRM policymakers and
supervisors, employees are less likely to experience role ambiguity and task conflict (Bowen
and Ostroff, 2004). They will have a better understanding of management expectations and
be more able to align their work behaviours towards organizational goals. As a result, they
are likely to make better use of resources and reduce hindrance job requirements to achieve
higher performance.
In addition, job crafting may create conditions that stimulate employees to voluntarily do
more than that is required (Demerouti et al., 2015). Through job crafting, employees are
likely to create more job resources, which are mobilized to not only accomplish goals and
perform tasks efficiently but also enable the pursuit of extra-role performance (OCB). In
 contrast, where HR practice in a weak HRM system context exists, idiosyncratic deals and Employee
political rivalry will tend to militate against co-operation, constructive job crafting and the performance
realization of organizational performance. Accordingly, we propose the following
hypotheses:
H2a. Job crafting mediates the relationship between human resource practice perceived
by employees and their task performance.
H2b. Job crafting mediates the relationship between human resource practice perceived
by employees and their organizational citizenship behaviour.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

Sequential mediation of work engagement and job crafting

In this study, we further propose that HR practice influences employee performance jointly
through work engagement and job crafting. According to the JD-R theory (Schaufeli and
Bakker, 2004; Bakker and Demerouti, 2014), work environments that offer job resources
foster employees’ willingness to dedicate their effort and ability to engage in their work
tasks. In addition, employees who are engaged possess more personal resources, such as
self-reported optimism, self-efficacy, self-esteem, resilience and an active coping style
(Demerouti et al., 2010). These resources enable employees to remain engaged and proactive
at work and to think more innovatively about their work environment (Bakker et al., 2011;
Bindl and Parker, 2012), thereby combining job resources and personal resources to craft
their work for optimal performance.
Therefore, when employees perceive a strong context of HR practice with rich job
resources, this encourages a positive motivational state of work engagement and provides
opportunities for job crafting, leading to higher in-role and extra-role performance. This
causal chain is also consistent with the logic of reasoned behaviours in which attitudes are
likely to precede and predict behaviours (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Moreover, it should be
noted that job crafting does not refer to job redesign in its entirety, but rather to changing
particular elements of the job (Berg et al., 2008). In this way, a strong context of HR practice
specifies and informs employees where job crafting is feasible, providing them with the
relevant job resources that facilitate engagement. In this way, HR practices can activate
employee engagement and so encourage job crafting aligned to organizational goals (Alfes
et al., 2013). Hence the following hypotheses:
H3a. Human resource practice is positively related to task performance through the
sequential mediating effects of work engagement and job crafting.
H3b. Human resource practice is positively related to organizational citizenship
behaviour through the sequential mediating effects of work engagement and job
crafting.

Method
Participants and procedures
Our study was conducted among five small- and medium-sized firms (with less than 500
employees) in Zhejiang Province of Eastern China. With management support, one of the
authors distributed 500 matched questionnaires to mainly manufacturing manual workers
and their supervisors. Participants completed the survey on a voluntary basis and were
given a ten-yuan gift as a token of gratitude. Most employees completed the survey in the
canteen or in the dormitory after working hours. The surveys included demographic
 CMS variables and a cover letter that summarized the study’s purpose and assured the
respondents confidentiality and anonymity. The data were collected independently: one
survey completed by employees and the other by their supervisors. In addition, data
collection was time-lagged to reduce common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In the
first round, employees answered the survey about HR practice and 473 valid surveys were
collected with an initial response rate of 94.6 per cent. Then two weeks later, all employees
who participated in the first survey were invited to complete the second survey on work
engagement and job crafting. Their immediate supervisors responded to a shorter
questionnaire regarding employees’ task performance and OCB.
In total, 455 subordinate–supervisor dyads were matched, resulting in a response rate of
91.0 per cent. Nearly two-thirds of the employees were male (34.3 per cent female
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

employees). Of note, 20 per cent of the sample included younger generation employees below
25 years old. About half the employees had worked in their organizations for more than
three years (46.3 per cent above three years). Four-fifths of the sample were educated at high
school level and below (only 9.9 per cent were graduates). The questionnaire was
anonymous and did not require respondents to divulge any kind of identifying information
except an ID number, which enabled matching with their supervisors’ evaluation of their
performance.

Measures
HR practice. This variable comprised a 12-item scale based on Bowen and Ostroff’s study
(2004) and developed by Frenkel et al. (2012a, 2012b). The measure was designed to gauge
employees’ evaluations of major elements of content and process relating to HR practice.
Participants were asked to report the extent to which HR practices of their organization are
distinctive, consistent and consensually implemented by supervisors and line managers. A
sample item indicating distinctiveness is: “HR practices here help me a great deal to develop
my knowledge and skills”. A sample item indicating consistency is: “HR practices are
clearly communicated to employees”. A sample item indicating consensus is: “Managers
here agree on how to implement HR practices”. This scale yielded a coefficient alpha of 0.78.
The scale validity is acceptable with x 2/df = 2.10, incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.99, Tucker-
Lewis index (TLI) = 0.98, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.99, root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) = 0.03, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.03.
Work engagement. Work engagement was measured using the short nine-item version of
the Dutch Utrecht Work Engagement Scale developed by Schaufeli et al. (2006). These items
reflect three underlying dimensions assessed by three items each: vigour (e.g. “when I get up
in the morning, I feel like going to work”), dedication (e.g. “I am enthusiastic about my job”),
and absorption (e.g. “when I am working, I forget everything else around me”). This scale
yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88. The scale validity is acceptable with x 2/df = 4.32, IFI =
0.94, TLI = 0.95, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.05.
Job crafting. Job crafting was assessed using the 21-item job crafting scale developed by
Tims et al. (2012). The scale includes four dimensions, the first of which measures the
crafting of structural job resources with five items. A sample item is: “I try to develop my
capabilities”. The second dimension measures the crafting of social job resources with five
items. A sample item is: “I ask whether my supervisor is satisfied with my work”. The third
dimension measures the increases in challenging job demands with five items. A sample
item is: “if there are new developments, I am one of the first to learn about them and try them
out”. The fourth dimension measures the decreases in hindering job demands with six items.
A sample item is: “I try to ensure that I do not have to make many difficult decisions at
 work”. Overall, this scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88. The scale validity is acceptable Employee
with x 2/df = 4.76, IFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.96, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.04. performance
Task performance. Participants’ supervisors completed a separate in-role performance
scale question about their subordinates. It was measured with three items adapted from
Farh et al.’s study (1991) on employees’ performance regarding quality of work, efficiency of
work and accomplishment of work goals (1 = “poor”, 5 = “superior”). This scale yielded a
Cronbach’s alpha of 0.77. The scale validity is acceptable with x 2/df = 2.54, IFI = 0.99,
TLI = 0.98, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.03.
Organizational citizenship behaviour. OCB is evaluated by participants’ supervisors who
completed a scale that included four items adapted from Farh et al.’s study (1997).
Supervisors rated employees’ extra-role performance using a five-point Likert scale that
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

ranged from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). A sample item is “This employee
is willing to help colleagues solve work-related problems”. This scale yielded a Cronbach’s
alpha of 0.83. The scale validity is acceptable with x 2/df = 2.54, IFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, CFI =
0.98, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.03. The items used in the scales of this study are provided in
the Appendix.
Controls. In accordance with previous HR and performance research (Alfes et al., 2012;
Delmotte et al., 2012), several control variables – age, gender, education and tenure – were
included in the analysis to rule out the possibility of their influencing employees’ task
performance and OCB.

Confirmatory factor analysis and descriptive statistics

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using AMOS 22.0 to test the construct validity
of the scale variables of HR practice, work engagement, job crafting, task performance and
OCB. The full measurement model showed an adequate fit to the data: x 2/df = 2.29, IFI =
0.91, TLI = 0.90, CFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.05 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). The model
fit is superior compared with other parsimonious models (as shown in Table I). This
indicates that the participants could distinguish between the HR practices and job-related
attitudes, behaviours and performance. In addition, we use latent variable approach
(Bagozzi and Yi, 1990; Podsakoff et al., 2003) to test the common method variance. The
significance of the structural parameters is examined both with and without the common
latent methods variance factor to see whether adding it would significantly improve the
model fit. Results showed that this was not the case (D x 2 (D df = 32, n = 455) = 153.92, n.s.).
Therefore, the influence of common method variance did not appear to be a major concern in
this study.

Model x2 Df x 2/df IFI TLI CFI RMSEA SRMR

Zero model 6,818.26 496 13.83

One-dimension model: HR þ WE þ JC þ JP þ OCB 3,542.59 455 7.79 0.52 0.47 0.52 0.12 0.15
Two-dimension model A: HR þ WE þ JC, JP þ OCB 2,168.45 450 4.82 0.73 0.70 0.73 0. 09 0.09
Two-dimension model B: HR þ WE,JC þ JP þ OCB 2,290.66 450 5.09 0.71 0.68 0.71 0. 10 0.11
Three-dimension model: HR þ WE þ JC, JP, OCB 2,093.07 448 4.67 0.74 0.71 0.74 0.09 0.09
Four-dimension model A: HR þ WE,JC, JP, OCB 1,649.03 445 3.71 0.81 0.79 0.81 0.08 0.08
Four-dimension model B: HR,WE þ JC, JP, OCB 1,525.62 445 3.43 0.83 0.83 0.83 0. 07 0.08
Full measurement model: HR,WE,JC, JP, OCB 1,007.77 441 2.29 0.91 0.90 0.91 0. 05 0.05
Table I.
Notes: HR: HR practice; WE: work engagement; JC: job crafting; JP: job performance; OCB: organizational Fit statistics for the
citizenship behaviour measurement models
 CMS Table II presents means, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables.
The alpha coefficients are shown on the diagonal. HR practice is positively and significantly
correlated with work engagement (r = 0.45, p < 0.01) and job crafting (r = 0.21, p < 0.01). In
addition, work engagement is positively and significantly related to job crafting (r = 0.25,
p < 0.01). Job crafting is positively and significantly associated with task performance (r =
0.18, p < 0.01) and OCB (r = 0.21, p < 0.01). These results are consistent with our
expectations based on the hypotheses outlined earlier.

Testing the multiple mediator model

Following Preacher and Hayes (2004), we test for mediation using a bootstrap method based
on 5,000 iterations with a 95 per cent confidence interval. The PROCESS Model 6 for
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

sequential mediation was used to analyse the results in three steps. First, we test for the
mediating effect of work engagement in relation to perceptions of HR practices and
performance (H1). Second, we investigate the mediating effect of job crafting on HR
practices and performance (H2) and third, we analyse the serial mediation model, including
sequential mediation by work engagement and job crafting on the above relationship (H3).

Results
As shown in Table III, perceptions of HR practice are positively related to work engagement
(b = 0.49, p < 0.01). However, work engagement was not significantly correlated with either
task performance (b = 0.01, p > 0.1) or OCB (b = 0.04, p > 0.1). Therefore, H1a and 1b are
not supported. When job crafting was entered, the results showed that HR practice was
positively related to job crafting (b = 0.14, p < 0.05). Meanwhile, job crafting was positively
and significantly correlated with both task performance (b = 0.19, p < 0.01) and OCB (b =
0.22, p < 0.01). Thus, H2a and 2b are supported. The relationship between the two
mediators, namely, work engagement and job crafting, was significant and positive (b =
0.15, p < 0.01). This also provides initial support for H3 regarding the sequential mediation
of work engagement and job crafting between HR and performance.
We also test alternative models in which perceptions of HR practice may be related to
task performance and OCB through different pathways (Table IV). Results indicate that HR
practice leads to performance through the mediating role of job crafting (task performance:
effect = 0.025, 95 per cent CI between 0.006 and 0.057; OCB: effect = 0.029, 95 per cent CI

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Age 2.35 1.04

2. Gender 1.35 0.48 0.13**
3. Tenure 2.53 1.16 0.44** 0.03
4. Education 1.20 0.55 0.13** 0.01 0.17**
5. HR practice 3.68 0.55 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.78
6. Work engagement 4.03 0.70 0.15** 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.45** 0.88
7. Job crafting 4.06 0.53 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.21** 0.25** 0.88
8. Task performance 3.53 0.61 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.18** 0.77
Table II. 9. OCB 3.56 0.66 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.13** 0.12* 0.21** 0.67** 0.83
Means, standard
Notes: Age: 1 = below 25, 2 = 25-35, 3 = 35-45, 4 = above 45; 2; Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female; 3; Tenure 1=
deviations and below 1 year, 2 = 1-3 years, 3 = 4-5 years; 4; Education: 1 = below college, 2 = college, 3 = bachelor, 4 =
correlations of the master and above; task performance and OCB are rated by supervisors; alpha reliabilities are along the
study variables diagonal in italic; N = 455l; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
 between 0.007 and 0.070), or through the sequential mediation of work engagement and job Employee
crafting (task performance: effect = 0.014, 95 per cent CI between 0.005 and 0.032; OCB: performance
effect = 0.016, 95 per cent CI between 0.005 and 0.036). This further supports H2 and H3.

Discussion
This study examined how work engagement and job crafting influenced the HR practice–
employee performance relationship. We found that job crafting was more strongly related to
employees’ in-role and extra-role performance than work engagement, and that job crafting
mediated both the relationship between employee perceptions of HR practice and employee
performance, and the relationship between HR practice, work engagement and performance.
These results invite discussion against the background of previous research.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

Our finding that employee perceptions of HR practice are positively related to work
engagement (b = 0.49, p < 0.01) is similar to that of Alfes et al. (2013) (b = 0.51, p < 0.01),
Boon and Kalshoven (2014) (b = 0.33, p < 0.01) and Van De Voorde et al. (2016) (b = 0.33, p <
0.01, regarding the vigour dimension of work engagement). These studies support the
motivational function of the HR practice in relation to employee engagement. However, their
explanations derive from different perspectives. For example, Boon and Kalshoven (2014)
investigated high-commitment HRM and its impact on employee engagement and
commitment using conservation of resources theory. On the other hand, Van De Voorde et al.
(2016) used JD-R theory (Demerouti et al., 2001) to show how empowerment-focused HRM
influenced work engagement and labour productivity. In our study, we use an HR theory
informed by employees’ interpretive and behavioural processes – work engagement and job

Work engagement Job crafting Task performance OCB

Variables Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p

HR practice 0.491 0.059 <0.001 0.135 0.055 0.015 0.023 0.065 0.718 0.061 0.070 0.386
Engagement – – – 0.151 0.045 <0.001 0.005 0.053 0.934 0.037 0.058 0.528
Job crafting – – – – – – 0.188 0.062 0.002 0.215 0.067 0.001
Age 0.089 0.034 0.009 0.019 0.030 0.534 0.062 0.035 0.073 0.027 0.038 0.467
Gender 0.055 0.067 0.416 0.010 0.058 0.859 0.029 0.067 0.667 0.038 0.073 0.600
Tenure 0.015 0.030 0.626 0.020 0.026 0.443 0.073 0.030 0.016 0.016 0.033 0.633
Table III.
Education 0.003 0.058 0.962 0.041 0.050 0.412 0.034 0.058 0.560 0.055 0.063 0.380
Constant 2.126 0.259 <0.001 2.994 0.242 <0.001 2.784 0.337 <0.001 2.350 0.366 <0.001 Regression,
R2 R2 = 0.181 R2 = 0.078 R2 = 0.044 R2 = 0.045 coefficients, standard
F-value F(5,455) = 16.003, F(6,455) = 5.067, F(7,454) = 2.340, F(7,454) = 2.387, errors and model
p < 0.001 p < 0.001 p = 0.024 p = 0.021 summary

Task Performance OCB

Model Effect SE LLCI ULCI Effect SE LLCI ULCI

1. HR ! WE ! TP/OCB 0.002 0.029 0.056 0.057 0.018 0.028 0.039 0.072

2. HR ! JC ! TP/OCB 0.025 0.013 0.006 0.057 0.029 0.016 0.007 0.070
3. HR ! JC ! WE ! TP/OCB 0.000 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.010
Table IV.
4. HR ! WE ! JC ! TP/OCB 0.014 0.006 0.005 0.032 0.016 0.007 0.005 0.036
Comparison of
Notes: HR: HR practice; WE: work engagement; JC: job crafting; TP: task performance; OCB: possible structural
organizational citizenship behaviour models
 CMS crafting, respectively – to demonstrate the relationship between HR practice and employee
performance.
Contrary to previous studies (Rich et al., 2010; Christian et al., 2011) which motivated our
first hypothesis, we found that work engagement was not significantly related to employee
performance. Three reasons could explain this. First, employees were not able to perform
more effectively because of technological constraints or co-ordination requirements.
Individual performance also depends on the efforts and performance of co-workers in the
team or production line. Second, as demonstrated by our results, work engagement only
combined with job crafting can improve performance. It is possible that in the absence of job
crafting from below or job re-design by management, the current job does not fit employees’
abilities and interests, which results in low performance. Third, other unmeasured
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

contextual factors found in previous studies, e.g. leader-member relations and perceived
organizational support, may moderate this relationship and impair employee performance
(Alfes et al., 2013). If employees cannot obtain enough work support and resources (e.g.
supervisor support, performance feedback) from the organization, even engaged employees
may not be able to cope with job demands and role conflicts to achieve high performance.
The above argument extends Van De Voorde et al. (2016)’s finding that a particular type
of HR practice (empowerment-centred) is positively related to job resources (including job
variety and job autonomy) and negatively related to job demands. By incorporating an
employee-centred perspective based on employee job crafting, we show how HR practice
fosters higher employee performance through employee innovation.

Practical implications
Our study points to the need for managers to develop HR practice that motivates employees
to maintain or increase engagement and job crafting behaviours that facilitate performance.
Hence, HR managers need to work closely with line managers to ensure agreement on HR
policy and practice-related decisions. Regular meetings should be held that encourage open
communication and discussion among these managers on how HR practices should be
implemented. In addition, HR principles and practices should be explained clearly and
simply to employees so that principles are consistent over time and practices do not vary
across departments. Implementation along these lines will encourage a strong HRM climate
in which employee are clear about management intentions and expectations and employee
work responsibilities. Where the content of HRM policies embody fairness and a
commitment to employee well-being, these processes will evoke a high level of employee
engagement and encouragement to participate in constructive job crafting aimed at
improving individual performance that is aligned with management’s goals.
Our results reveal that engaged employees who craft their jobs by increasing job
resources and reducing hindrance demands tend to demonstrate superior performance.
Therefore, managers are advised to encourage job crafting by providing frequent informal
and formal individual feedback on successful and challenging job crafting initiatives. In
addition, performance appraisals should include incentives and rewards for job crafting that
improve performance. Moreover, opportunities for job crafting training and knowledge
sharing among employees could be increased by holding regular job design workshops
where employees are encouraged to suggest job changes that in especially promising
instances will be supported by time off for project planning and implementation including
summary analyses. A library of successful job crafting projects including methodologies for
change could be developed for learning and application purposes.
 Limitations and future research Employee
Our study includes several limitations whose acknowledgement points to future research performance
possibilities. First, our analysis was confined to a single level of analysis, that of individual
employees. Our model needs to be extended in this respect and in regard to the connection
between individual and organizational performance (Lepak et al., 2006). Second, we did not
measure and include the influence of contextual variables. Moderating hypotheses based on
these variables would be useful in future studies. Third, our research did not consider the
role of line managers (including supervisors) in facilitating work engagement or job crafting.
Yet these persons are both important implementers of HR policy and vary in their adoption
of particular roles (Shipton et al., 2016). Future studies could usefully explore how these
managers vary in their attitudes towards job crafting and the roles they play in encouraging
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

this important activity.

References
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Alfes, K., Shantz, A. and Truss, C. (2012), “The link between perceived HRM practices, performance and
well-being: the moderating effect of trust in the employer”, Human Resource Management
Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 409-427.
Alfes, K., Shantz, A.D. and Truss, C. (2013), “The link between perceived human resource management
practices, engagement and employee behaviour: a moderated mediation model”, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 330-351.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1990), “Assessing method variance in multitrait-multimethod matrices: the case of
self-reported affect and perceptions at work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 5, p. 547.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2014), Job Demands–Resources Theory, John Wiley & Sons, Wellbeing,
pp. 1-28.
Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008), “Positive organizational behavior: engaged employees in
flourishing organizations”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 147-154.
Becker, B.E. and Huselid, M.A. (2010), “SHRM and job design: narrowing the divide”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 2-3, pp. 379-388.
Bakker, A.B., Albrecht, S.L. and Leiter, M.P. (2011), “Key questions regarding work engagement”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-28.
Bednall, T.C., Sanders, K. and Runhaar, P. (2014), “Stimulating informal learning activities through
perceptions of performance appraisal quality and human resource management system
strength: a two-wave study”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 45-61.
Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E. and Wrzesniewski, A. (2008), “What is job crafting and why does it matter”,
Retrieved Form the Website of Positive Organizational Scholarship on April, Vol. 15.
Bindl, U.K. and Parker, S.K. (2012), Feeling Good and Performing Well? Psychological Engagement and
Positive Behaviors at Work, Edward Elgar, New York.
Boon, C. and Kalshoven, K. (2014), “How high-commitment HRM relates to engagement and
commitment: the moderating role of task proficiency”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 53
No. 3, pp. 403-420.
Bowen, D.E. and Ostroff, C. (2004), “Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: the role of the
‘strength’ of the HRM system”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 203-221.
Boxall, P., Ang, S.H. and Bartram, T. (2011), “Analysing the ‘black box’of HRM: uncovering HR goals,
mediators, and outcomes in a standardized service environment”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 1504-1532.
 CMS Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S. and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), “Work engagement: a quantitative review and
test of its relations with task and contextual performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. pp. 89-136.
Delmotte, J., De Winne, S. and Sels, L. (2012), “Toward an assessment of perceived HRM system
strength: scale development and validation”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 1481-1506.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B. and Gevers, J.M. (2015), “Job crafting and extra-role behavior: the role of
work engagement and flourishing”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 91, pp. 87-96.
Demerouti, E., Cropanzano, R. and Bakker, A. (2010), “From thought to action: employee work
engagement and job performance”, in Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds ), Work
Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, Hove, East
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

Sussex, pp. 147-163.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The job demands-resources
model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, p. 499.
Evans, W.R. and Davis, W.D. (2005), “High-performance work systems and organizational
performance: the mediating role of internal social structure”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31
No. 5, pp. 758-775.
Farh, J.L., Dobbins, G.H. and Cheng, B.S. (1991), “Cultural relativity in action: a comparison of self-
ratings made by Chinese and US workers”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 129-147.
Farh, J.L., Earley, P.C. and Lin, S.C. (1997), “Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and
organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 2,
pp. 421-444.
Frenkel, S.J., Li, M. and Restubog, S.L.D. (2012a), “Management, organizational justice and emotional
exhaustion among Chinese migrant workers: evidence from two manufacturing firms”, British
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 121-147.
Frenkel, S., Restubog, S.L.D. and Bednall, T. (2012b), “How employee perceptions of HR policy and
practice influence discretionary work effort and co-worker assistance: evidence from two
organizations”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 20,
pp. 4193-4210.
Grant, A.M. and Parker, S.K. (2009), “Redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational and
proactive perspectives”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 317-375.
Griffin, M.A., Neal, A. and Parker, S.K. (2007), “A new model of work role performance: positive
behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50
No. 2, pp. 327-347.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 250-279.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.
Karatepe, O.M. (2013), “High-performance work practices and hotel employee performance: the
mediation of work engagement”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 32,
pp. 132-140.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations, Scientific Research Publishing,
Wuhan.
Kehoe, R.R. and Wright, P.M. (2013), “The impact of high-performance human resource practices on
employees’ attitudes and behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 366-391.
 Latorre, F., Guest, D., Ramos, J. and Gracia, F.J. (2016), “High commitment HR practices, the Employee
employment relationship and job performance: a test of a mediation model”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 328-337.
performance
Lind, E.A. and Van den Bos, K. (2002), “When fairness works: toward a general theory of uncertainty
management”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24, pp. 181-223.
Lepak, D.P., Liao, H., Chung, Y. and Harden, E.E. (2006), “A conceptual review of human resource
management systems in strategic human resource management research”, Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 217-271.
Lu, C., Wang, H., Lu, J., Du, D. and Bakker, A.B. (2014), “Does work engagement increase person–job
fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 84 No. 2,
pp. 142-152.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

Pierce, J. L. and Gardner, D.G. (2004), “Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: a review
of the organization-based self-esteem literature”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 5,
pp. 591-622.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 717-731.
Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635.
Salanova, M., and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008), “A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator
between job resources and proactive behavior”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 116-131.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 293-315.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire a cross-national study”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 66
No. 4, pp. 701-716.
Shipton, H., Sanders, K., Atkinson, C. and Frenkel, S. (2016), “Sense-giving in health care: the
relationship between the HR roles of line managers and employee commitment”, Human
Resource Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 29-45.
Snape, E. and Redman, T. (2010), “HRM practices, organizational citizenship behaviour, and performance:
a multi-level analysis”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47 No. 7, pp. 1219-1247.
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Derks, D. (2012), “Development and validation of the job crafting scale”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 173-186.
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Derks, D. (2015), “Job crafting and job performance: a longitudinal study”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 914-928.
Truss, C., Shantz, A., Soane, E., Alfes, K. and Delbridge, R. (2013), “Employee engagement,
organisational performance and individual well-being: exploring the evidence, developing
the theory”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 14,
pp. 2657-2669.
Van De Voorde, K., Veld, M. and Van Veldhoven, M. (2016), “Connecting empowerment-focused HRM
and labour productivity to work engagement: the mediating role of job demands and resources”,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 192-210.
Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2001), “Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of
their work”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 179-201.
 CMS Zacharatos, A., Barling, J. and Iverson, R.D. (2005), “High-performance work systems and occupational
safety”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 1, pp. 77-93.

Further reading
Aldridge, A.P. (1976), Authority and Restrictive Practices, Blackwell, London.
Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M. and Griffeth, R.W. (2003), “The role of perceived organizational support and
supportive human resource practices in the turnover process”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 99-118.
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. (2000), Manufacturing Competitive Advantage:
The Effects of High Performance Work Systems on Plant Performance and Company Outcomes,
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

Becker, G.S. (1964), Human Capital Theory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Berg, J.M., Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2010), “Perceiving and responding to challenges in job
crafting at different ranks: when proactivity requires adaptivity”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3, pp. 158-186.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York.
Boxall, P. (2012), “Building highly-performing work systems: analysing HR systems and
their contribution to performance”, in Guest DE, Paauwe J. and Wright P. (Eds), HRM
and Performance: Achievements and Challenges, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
pp. 47-60.
Boxall, P. and Macky, K. (2009), “Research and theory on high-performance work systems:
progressing the high-involvement stream”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 3-23.
Do, B.R., Yeh, P.W. and Madsen, J. (2016), “Exploring the relationship among human resource
flexibility, organizational innovation and adaptability culture”, Chinese Management Studies,
Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 657-674.
Guest, D. (2002), “Human resource management, corporate performance and employee wellbeing:
building the worker into HRM”, Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 335-358.
Guest, D.E. (2011), “Human resource management and performance: still searching for some answers”,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2011), “Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 116-122.
Jackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S. and Rivero, J.C. (1989), “Organizational characteristics as predictors of
personnel practices”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 727-786.
Jiang, K.F., Takeuchi, R. and Lepak, D.P. (2013), “Where do we go from here? New perspectives on the
black box in strategic human resource management research”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 50 No. 8, pp. 1448-1480.
Kaufman, B.E. (2013), “16 the economic organization of employment: systems in human resource
management and industrial relations”, Handbook of Economic Organization: Integrating
Economic and Organization Theory, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p. 289.
Lepak, D.P. and Snell, S.A. (1999), “The human resource architecture: toward a theory of human Capital
allocation and development”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 31-48.
Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D.P. and Hong, Y. (2009), “Do they see eye to eye? Management and employee
perspectives of high-performance work systems and influence processes on service quality”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, p. 371.
Niessen, C., Weseler, D. and Kostova, P. (2016), “When and why do individuals craft their jobs? The role
of individual motivation and work characteristics for job”, Human Relations, Vol. 69 No. 6,
pp. 1287-1313.
 Nishii, L.H., Lepak, D.P. and Schneider, B. (2008), “Employee attributions of the ‘why’ of HR practices: Employee
their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 503-545.
performance
Paauwe, J. (2009), “HRM and performance: achievements, methodological issues and prospects”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 129-142.
Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., Lawthom, R. and Nickell, S. (1997), Impact of People Management
Practices on Business Performance, Institute of Personnel and Development, London.
Raineri, A. (2016), “Linking human resources practices with performance: the simultaneous mediation
of collective affective commitment and human Capital”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 28 No. 22, pp. 1-30.
Rothmann, S. (2008), “Job satisfaction, occupational stress, burnout and work engagement as
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

components of work-related wellbeing”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 3,

pp. 11-16.
Salanova, M., Agut, S. and Peir�o, J.M. (2005), “Linking organizational resources and work engagement
to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, p. 1217.
Sawhney, R. (2013), “Implementing labor flexibility: a missing link between acquired labor
flexibility and plant performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 31 No. 1-2,
pp. 98-108.
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Derks, D. (2013), “The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources,
and well-being”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, p. 230.
Van De Voorde, K., Paauwe, J. and Van Veldhoven, M. (2012), “Employee well-being and the HRM–
organizational performance relationship: a review of quantitative studies”, International Journal
of Management Reviews, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 391-407.
Wheeler, A.R., Halbesleben, J.R. and Shanine, K. (2013), “Exploring the middle range of person–
environment fit theories through a conservation of resources perspective”, Organizational Fit:
Key Issues and New Directions, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 170-194.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors
of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 601-617.
Zhang, M., Zhu, C.J., Dowling, P.J. and Bartram, T. (2013), “Exploring the effects of high-
performance work systems (HPWS) on the work-related well-being of Chinese hospital
employees”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 16,
pp. 3196-3212.

Appendix
Scales used in this study

HR practice
� HR practices here contribute to my work satisfaction.
� I was attracted to this company because of its good HR practices.
� Managers here do not implement HR policies properly.
� HR policies here are clearly communicated to employees.
� Managers here adopt a similar approach to managing employees.
� HR practices here make me feel more confident in my ability to do my job well.
� HR practices here help me to achieve my goals.
� HR practices here help me a great deal to develop my knowledge and skills.
 CMS � Managers here agree on how to implement HR policies.
� HR policies at this company are difficult to understand.
� HR practices do not really make a difference to the way managers behave here.
� HR practices here help me to achieve the company’s goals.

Work engagement
� At my work, I feel bursting with energy.
� At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.
� I am enthusiastic about my job.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

� My job inspires me.

� When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.
� I feel happy when I am working intensely.
� I am proud of the work that I do.
� I am immersed in my work.
� I get carried away when I am working.

Job crafting
� I try to develop my capabilities.
� I try to develop myself professionally.
� I try to learn new things at work.
� I make sure that I use my capacities to the fullest.
� I decide on my own how I do things.
� I make sure that my work is mentally less intense.*
� I try to ensure that my work is emotionally less intense.*
� I try to minimize contact with people whose problems affect me emotionally.
� I minimize contact with people whose expectations are unrealistic.
� I try to ensure that I do not have to make many difficult decisions at work.
� I organize my work so I do not have to concentrate for too long a period at once.
� I ask my supervisor to coach me.
� I ask whether my supervisor is satisfied with my work.
� I look to my supervisor for inspiration.
� I ask others for feedback on my job performance.
� I ask colleagues for advice.*
� When an interesting project comes along, I offer myself proactively as a co-worker.
� If there are new developments, I am one of the first to try them out.
� When there is not much to do at work, I see it as a chance to start new projects.
� I regularly take on extra tasks even though I do not receive extra salary for
them.
� I try to make my work more challenging by examining the underlying relationships
between aspects of my job (Note: * indicates items deleted in confirmatory factor
analysis.
 Task performance Employee
� Adequately complete assigned duties. performance
� Fulfil responsibilities specified in the job description.
� Perform tasks that are expected.

OCB
� Willing to assist new colleagues to adjust to the work environment.
� Willing to help colleagues solve work-related problems.
� Willing to cover work assignments for colleagues when needed.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 07:15 27 May 2018 (PT)

� Willing to coordinate and communicate with colleagues.

Corresponding author
Xiaoyu Guan can be contacted at: guanxiaoyubnu@outlook.com

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