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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0048-3486.htm

Work engagement, job crafting and Work

engagement in
innovativeness in the Indian the Indian IT
industry
IT industry
Anupama Sharma
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management (OBHR),
Indian Institute of Management Visakhapatnam, Received 7 November 2019
Revised 14 January 2020
Visakhapatnam, India, and Accepted 14 January 2020

Ranjeet Nambudiri
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management (OBHR),
Indian Institute of Management Indore, Indore, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of work engagement on job crafting and
innovativeness in the Indian information technology (IT) industry. The authors also theorized and examined
the moderating effect of perceived supervisory support (PSS) and openness-to-experience (OTE) in
aforementioned relationships respectively.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors base their arguments on the job-demands and resource (JDR)
theoretical model and broaden-and-build theory. Field data from 377 working IT professionals were collected
using the survey method. The model was tested using partial least squares (PLS) technique.
Findings – Results support the main effects hypothesis. The authors find a significant and positive
relationship between work engagement and job crafting behavior and innovativeness.
Research limitations/implications – The study makes a reasonable contribution to existing knowledge on
work engagement and its outcomes. However, the use of cross-sectional data may constrain causal inferences.
Practical implications – Innovativeness and job crafting behaviors are valuable to most organizations, but
more critical in IT organizations. As illustrated in this paper, work-engaged employees display higher levels of
innovativeness and job-crafting behavior. These results suggest that IT organizations should focus on work-
engagement for better productivity and faster growth.
Originality/value – This study is an attempt towards a better understanding of work engagement and its
micro level individual outcomes which have not been examined earlier.
Keywords Work engagement, Job crafting, Innovativeness, JDR model
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Highly engaged employees are more likely to put efforts in their assigned tasks, be creative
and innovative in problem solving and display initiative and enthusiasm at the workplace.
A recent Gallup study (2014), showed that disengaged employees exhibited reduced
productivity, increased absenteeism and increased turnover rate. The subject has attracted
the attention of professional managers and academic researchers because of the widely held
belief that an engaged workforce improves business outcomes and reduces labor costs (Kahn,
1990; Saks, 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2002). Work engagement also seems important because it
indicates the extent to which employees are energized and willing to give maximum effort
and focus to their job (Kahn, 1990). Employee attitudes and behavior have a significant
influence on organizational innovation and competitiveness (Ramamoorthy et al., 2005). As a
result, firms are increasingly interested in understanding factors which improve employees’
innovativeness and proactive behavior such as job crafting. We propose that engaged
employees are more likely to display innovative and proactive behavior at the workplace. Personnel Review
Extant literature has examined organizational level (Shuck and Wollard, 2010) and © Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
individual level outcomes of work engagement (Saks, 2006). However, research on individual DOI 10.1108/PR-11-2019-0607
PR outcomes of work engagement is largely limited to attitudinal variables like commitment,
satisfaction and turnover intention with organizational citizenship behavior being a notable
exception as a behavioral outcome. We attempt to fill this gap and study the relationship of
work engagement with job crafting behavior and innovativeness, two critical behavioral
outcomes of work engagement, which, to our knowledge, no other Indian research study has
explored.
India is an attractive destination for multinational corporations, owing to its large pool of
highly skilled technical professionals (Varma et al., 2005) and is poised to become the world’s
fourth largest economy by 2020 (Budhwar and Varma, 2010). The Indian information
technology (IT) industry has witnessed a remarkable double-digit annual growth rate for
over two decades (NASSCOM, 2015), contributing 9.5 percent to India’s GDP, 38 percent of
the services exports and direct employment to over 2.5 million. We believe that our research
is especially pertinent to the Indian IT industry, owing to several unique characteristics of IT
professionals. Research has shown that practices like empowerment, recognition and
competence development influenced organizational commitment of IT professionals (Pare
et al., 2000). Studies show that IT professionals are significantly motivated by recognition
from supervisors (Agarwal and Ferratt, 1999) and growth through promotional
opportunities (Aggarwal and Thite, 2003). Professional obsolescence is a big challenge for
IT professionals, and they need to continuously learn new technologies to stay relevant
(Nelson, 1991). The software industry being knowledge intensive and dynamic, expertise in a
particular domain is not considered as important as the ability to learn and adapt to change
(Arora and Athreye, 2002). IT employees tend to be highly analytical and they value
autonomy, professionalism and innovativeness (Aggarwal and Thite, 2003). We believe that
these occupational characteristics of Indian IT professionals provide a fertile research
context for this study.
Through this study, we propose and test the relationship of work engagement with
behavioral outcomes like job crafting behavior and innovativeness. We also believe that the
underlying constructs influencing the nature of this relationship have not been fully
understood. Based on the theoretical bases of the broaden-and-build theory and job demands
and resources (JD-R) theory we argue that perceived supervisory support and openness to
experience will moderate the relationship between work engagement and its outcomes.
Even though there are several studies on burnout and work engagement, very few of these
focus on IT professionals. Work engagement has not been studied much in the context of
behavioral outcomes of IT professionals. It also seems interesting to examine the relationship
of job crafting and innovative behavior with work engagement in a collectivist cultural
setting such as India where hard work and adherence to group norms are valued more than
individual achievement (Hofstede, 1984). This strengthens the case for our study, which aims
to contribute to the literature by expanding the work engagement research to a wider
international context.

Literature review and hypotheses development

Work engagement
Kahn (1990), conceptualized engagement as “the harnessing of organizational members’
selves to their work roles; in engagement people employ and express themselves physically,
cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (p. 694). Engaged employees are
energetic and passionate about their work, they look upon it as a challenge and not as a
stressful and demanding activity, and are often fully immersed in their job even at the cost of
personal time (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Engagement is likely to produce positive
individual level (personal growth and development) and organizational level outcomes
(performance quality).
 According to Maslach and Jackson (1981), engagement is characterized by energy, Work
involvement and efficacy, the direct opposites of the three burnout dimensions: emotional engagement in
exhaustion, depersonalization and reduced accomplishment at work. Engagement is hence
referred to as a positive antithesis of burnout. The alternative view considers work
the Indian IT
engagement as an independent, distinct concept yet negatively related to burnout. By industry
implication, work engagement is defined and operationalized as “... a positive, fulfilling, work-
related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli
et al., 2002, p. 74; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Vigor refers to high levels of energy, mental
resilience and persistence even in the face of difficulties. Dedication refers to being strongly
involved in one’s work, and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration,
pride and challenge. Absorption indicates being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in
one’s work, whereby time passes quickly, and one has difficulties with detaching one’s self
from work (Schaufeli et al., 2002). We adopted the conceptualization proposed by Schaufeli
et al. (2002) enabling the integration of engagement into the overarching and comprehensive
JD-R framework.
Job enrichment and role fit (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004), rewarding co-workers and
supervisory support, control (feeling of choice and autonomy), appropriate rewards and
recognition (Maslach et al., 2001), job characteristics, perceived fairness and perceived
organization support (Saks, 2006) are found to be the job resources that predict work
engagement. Based on the social exchange theory Saks (2006) argues that when employees
receive these job resources from their organization they repay by engaging themselves with
varying intensity. This work engagement, in turn, results in positive outcomes such as job
performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, reduced turnover intention,
organizational citizenship behavior (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004), higher customer
satisfaction ratings and increased revenue (Wagner and Harter, 2006).

Job crafting
In the absence of positive stimulants, like a well-designed job, employees may attempt to
change their work characteristics, designing work tasks, altering how they perceive their
work and negotiate job content when required. Simply put, this process of employees
remodeling and modifying their jobs is called job crafting (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001).
The term “job crafting” was coined by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) though the concept
was first discussed by Kulik, Oldham and Hackman in 1987. Kulik et al. (1987) suggested that
employees themselves may initiate redesigning their jobs with or without the involvement of
the supervisor or management.
Job crafting suggests that employees themselves redesign the job in order to fit their
abilities and preferences thus enhancing personal outcomes (Wrzesniewski and Dutton,
2001). Job crafting is a self-initiated change behavior of employees aimed at aligning their jobs
with their preferences, motives and passions (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). Employees go
for job crafting in order to enhance meaningfulness of their jobs, to gain greater control over
their roles, to build social networks and to nurture a positive self-image (Wrzesniewski and
Dutton, 2001). Unlike job design, which is top-driven, in job crafting employees proactively
reshape their own work roles within certain boundaries to assign meaning to their jobs (Tims
and Bakker, 2010).
Job-demand and resource theory approach. According to Tims and Bakker (2010, p. 4), job
crafting is defined as “the changes employees may make regarding their job demands and job
resources.” These are self-initiated changes that employees make in their own job demands
and resources to optimize their personal work goals (Tims et al., 2012). This conceptualization
is based on the JD-R model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008). Thus, employees may alter their
levels of job demands and job resources to align them with their abilities and preferences. The
PR JD-R model suggests that employees craft their jobs in three ways. First, they may increase
structural or social resources at work. Second, they may increase job demands and though
this may deplete energy it is potentially rewarding leading to increased satisfaction
(Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Finally, employees attempt to decrease hindering job demands. The
second and third dimensions differ in the nature of work demands. Some demands can be
hindering and therefore stressful (e.g., working with the demanding clients or supervisor),
while other demands can be challenging (e.g., high task complexity).

Work engagement and job crafting

Work engagement is a positive, fulfilling and work-related state of mind characterized by
vigor, dedication and absorption and is associated with proactive behavior at the workplace
(Schaufeli et al., 2006). Job crafting is a specific form of proactive behavior in which the
employees initiate changes in their job demands and resources to make their own job more
meaningful and satisfying. One can argue that employees with a proactive predisposition are
more likely to show initiative and persist till they realize meaningful change in their jobs. It
was observed that engaged employees were proactive, and this proactive behavior was
positively associated with job resources (Hakanen et al., 2008). Existing literature shows that
employees seek resources in order to mobilize more job resources to cope with job demands
and make the job inherently interesting (Tims and Bakker, 2010). Resource-seeking behaviors
may include asking advice from colleagues or supervisors, seeking performance related
feedback, or soliciting learning opportunities. Indeed, it seems evident that positive affect,
energy and enthusiasm are linked with proactive behaviors, such as initiative and active
feedback seeking. Thus, we propose that enthusiastic and vigorous employees are more
likely to craft their jobs.
Studies also suggest that employees who are engaged and perform well are able to create
and mobilize their own job and personal resources. In a yearlong follow-up study, Salanova
et al. (2006) found that work related flow experiences such as work absorption, work
enjoyment and intrinsic work motivation had a positive influence on personal resources like
self-efficacy, and goal clarity and organizational resources like social support climate.
Furthermore, employees who invest their resources while engaging themselves in the job are
likely to gain more resources. Hakanen et al. (2008) also advocated the link between work
engagement and personal initiative or future change in job resources.
The other form of job crafting includes increasing job demands at work. Employees may
create more challenges at their work if they feel that their current responsibilities are not
challenging enough and under-utilizing their abilities. However, increased “job demands” do
not lead to negative work outcomes and often result in positive feelings of goal attainment
and motivation (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Employees can increase job demands by voluntarily
taking up extra tasks and projects, learning new technologies, and pro-actively looking for
opportunities to contribute. The JD-R theory helps us to argue that employees who are highly
engaged tend to enhance their job challenges because they perceive access to greater
resources in order to manage these challenges.
Bakker et al. (2012) have shown that job crafting leads to work engagement. The more the
individual is able to make the job interesting, the more she will be engaged. However, they
noted that a reverse causal relationship is equally likely. Job crafting behavior could be an
outcome of organizational process that facilitates it, or emerging from more personal motives.
An engaged employee attaches more meaning to work and hence wants to succeed at it. This
personal motivation results in the employee being proactive, altering job demands and
mobilizing resources. This means that employees redefine tasks (take on additional tasks),
change relationship aspects of the job (with respect to clients and colleagues) and even alter
cognitive aspects of work (finding deeper meaning in work) thereby engaging in job crafting.
 Hence, we hypothesize Work
H1. Work engagement will be positively related with the employee’s job crafting engagement in
behavior. the Indian IT
industry
The moderation of perceived supervisory support in the relationship between work
engagement and job-crafting
Supervisor support is defined as perception of employees that their superiors care about
their well-being, value their contributions and are supportive (Eisenberger et al., 2002).
Crant (2000) noted that supervisory support is a stimulus for proactive behavior. We
argue that support from the supervisor enables employees to go beyond the call of
duty, take risks and pursue new opportunities to benefit themselves and the
organization.
All three aspects of job crafting (Tims and Bakker, 2010) involve a decision to challenge
the status quo. Job crafting choices are made consciously by the employee to fulfill personal
work goals. Job crafting decisions involve change, for instance “deciding to make the best
use of capabilities,” “asking supervisor to coach,” “offering to proactively help on new
projects.” Such decision-making by employees requires a degree of ownership and
confidence. Supervisory guidance, advice and emotional support help in enhancing
confidence and self-efficacy of employees (Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007), which in turn
enables them to reshape the boundaries of their own jobs and also in tasks demanding
collaboration. Thus, perceived supervisory support becomes an important factor in
fostering job crafting behavior.
We build upon these studies and argue that although engaged employees are fully
engrossed with their jobs, their direct supervisors may have an important role to play in
terms of whether an individual’s activated or energetic condition, translates into job crafting.
Thus we propose that,
H2. Perceived supervisory support will moderate the relationship between work
engagement and employee’s job crafting behavior such that the relationship will
be stronger when perceived supervisory support is higher in strength.
Innovativeness. Innovativeness is understood as “the openness to new ideas.” Hurt et al. (1977)
noted that innovativeness was associated with the willingness to change and awareness of
the need to innovate. Innovativeness also involves seeking feedback from clients and making
constant functional improvements (Hakanen et al., 2008). Individual innovativeness is known
as personal innovativeness (Agarwal and Prasad, 1998), or innovative work behavior
(Ramamoorthy et al., 2005). Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) argue that innovativeness is
multi-dimensional with “willingness to try new things” and “being creativity” as important
factors of the construct.
Innovative individuals reinvent the rules of the game and try to do things differently.
Thus, an individual’s openness to experience is important for being innovative. Individuals
who exhibited capabilities to experiment with new situations and look at the bigger picture
were more likely to be innovative (Morris, 1967).

Work engagement and innovativeness

Job and organizational factors like autonomy, time and social support are likely to affect
employee innovativeness either indirectly or in interaction with personality traits (Shalley
and Gilson, 2004). Bakker and Demerouti (2008) found that engaged workers were more
inclined to learn new things through their work activities. They further suggested that
engaged employees are more likely to search for task-related challenges to bring more
meaningfulness from their work and sustain their vigor, energy and dedication level.
PR Hakanen et al. (2008) observed a positive link between engagement and personal initiative
and innovation through a longitudinal study (Hakanen et al., 2008). This suggests that
engaged employees make constant improvements in their work and are open to feedback for
improvements.
Engaged employees are open to new experiences, and seek support and feedback (job-
resources) to fulfill their work-related goals (job-demands). Taking the JD-R model
(Bakker and Demerouti, 2008) as a reference point and by framing innovativeness in terms
of job demands and job resources, we are able to explain why engaged employees will
manifest innovativeness through their open approach towards new experiences and
challenges.
We also argue through the broaden and build theory (Fredrickson, 2003) which proposes
that positive emotions have the capability to broaden employees’ momentary thought-action
repertoires, for instance, energy sparks the urge to take up the extra work roles, and
dedication initiates the desire to execute the task accurately. This, in turn, enables employees
to build enduring personal, social and psychological resources. Work engagement, as a
positive motivational-affective state, broadens by bringing novel and creative actions, social
bonds and goal fulfillment, and subsequently builds physical, intellectual, social and
psychological resources. Hence, we hypothesize that
H3. Work engagement will be positively related with employee’s innovativeness.

Moderation of openness-to-experience between work engagement and innovativeness

Personality, often referred to as one’s emotions, thoughts and behavioral patterns, has been
described using the five-factor model (FFM) or Big Five model of personality. Openness-To-
Experience (OTE) is one of the least understood factors in the Big-Five model (Digman, 1990).
High-O (high on openness to experience) individuals are imaginative, intellectually curious,
behaviorally flexible, self-sufficient and non-dogmatic in their attitudes and values (Costa
and McCrae, 1992). Persons high on openness are likely to view workplace transitions
positively, exhibit creative and dynamic thinking, and are open to new alternatives.
Vishwanath (2005) found that individuals possessing innovativeness require a predisposition
to be open to new experiences. This dimension exhibits various individual behaviors such as
imagining new challenges, meeting new people, seeking out and accepting new information
to devise something novel.
Further, individuals high on openness are more likely to be self-motivated to actively
search for novel and varied experiences (McCrae and Costa, 1997). It is affirmed that
openness-to-experience strengthens the relationship between employees’ energy, passion,
determination to face the challenges and their creative expression and exploration. People
who are immersed and engaged at work will be more goal-oriented, particularly in a creative
context if they are high on openness to experience.
We argue that individual characteristics like being energetic, highly absorbed,
perseverant in achieving challenging goals, and seeking creative accomplishments,
could make it easier for employees with higher openness to experience to feel more
engaged and confident in their capacity to generate and use new ideas, rather than those
with low openness to experience. Hence, employees who are high in openness are likely to
exhibit higher levels of innovative work behavior if they are engaged and immersed in
their work.
Openness to experience as a personal resource will affect innovativeness in the context of
engaged employees. Our previous arguments, through the JD-R model, indicate that engaged
employees are open to new experiences, and seek greater job resources. Hence, engaged
employees will manifest innovativeness through their open approach towards new
experiences and challenges.
 H4. “Openness to experience” will moderate the relationship between work engagement Work
and employee’s personal innovativeness such that the relationship will be stronger engagement in
when “openness to experience” is higher in strength.
the Indian IT
Thus, in response to the aforementioned need for further research within the area of work industry
engagement, we propose a theoretical model (Figure 1) which examines the hitherto
unexplored consequences of work engagement.

Method
Hypothetico-deductive method was used to empirically test the hypothesized
integrative model.

Sample design
The theoretical model is tested on a sample drawn from the IT industry in India. We ensured
that the respondent should be working full time, and he/she should have spent a certain
period of time in the current organization. After collecting the data, the sample was further
refined by eliminating responses of employees with less than six months of experience in the
current organization.
We collected 377 usable data points through a web-based online survey. Data analysis
was conducted using SmartPLS (Hansmann and Ringle, 2004). A partial least square (PLS)
model is usually analyzed and interpreted in two stages. In the first stage, the measurement
model was tested by performing validity and reliability analyses on each of the
measurements obtained using the model. In the second stage, the structural model was
tested by estimating the paths between the constructs in the model, determining their
significance as well as the predictive ability of the model. This sequence was followed to
ensure that reliable and valid measurements of the constructs are used before conclusions
were drawn about the nature of the relationships between various constructs.

Sample characteristics
The sample contained 60 percent male and 40 percent female respondents with the average
age and tenure being 30 years and 4.5 years, respectively. Sample characteristics are
presented in Table I.

Measures
All variables were measured using well established scales, using a seven-point Likert Scale
(ranging from 1 5 very strongly disagree: 7 5 very strongly agree) and are listed below.
Work engagement. Work engagement was measured using the nine-item Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006) which measures the level of engagement in
employees by means of three subscales (three items for each dimension), namely vigor-VI

Figure 1.
Proposed conceptual
model of work
engagement outcomes
PR Characteristics n 5 377

Gender
Male 227 60%
Female 150 40%
Age
25 years or less 65 17%
26–30 years 196 52%
>31 years 116 31%
Marital Status
Single 181 48%
Married 196 52%
Tenure
Table I. 0.5–3 years 160 42%
Characteristics of the 3–7 years 118 31%
sample >7 years 99 27%

(e.g., At my work, I feel bursting with energy), dedication-DE (e.g., I am enthusiastic about my
job), and absorption-AB (e.g., I feel happy when I am working intensely).
Job crafting. Job crafting was measured through 21 items of the four independent sub-
dimensions of the job crafting scale developed by Tims et al. (2012). The four scales were
“increasing structural job resources” (e.g., “I try to develop myself professionally”),
“increasing social job resources” (e.g., “I ask others for feedback on my job performance”),
“increasing challenging job demands” (e.g., “When an interesting project comes along, I offer
myself proactively as project co-worker”) and decreasing hindering job demands.
Perceived supervisory support. We used an existing measure of supervisor support
(Thompson and Prottas, 2005) having seven items. Sample items include, “My supervisor is
supportive when I have a work problem” and “I am allowed to make the decisions necessary
to do my job well.”
Innovativeness. The Innovativeness Scale (IS) (Hurt et al., 1977) determines the level of
innovativeness in individuals in general. IS consists of 10 items including reverse coded items
and is a shorter version of original IS. Sample items are “I am generally cautious about
accepting new ideas” (reverse coded) and “I find it stimulating to be original in my thinking
and behavior.”
Openness to experience. Openness to experience was measured with a 10-item set from the
Big Five Factor Markers by Goldberg (1992) which was derived from the International
Personality Item Pool (IPIP). Sample items include “I have a vivid imagination,” “I am not
interested in abstract ideas” (reverse coded), and “I spend time reflecting on things.”
Pre-test and pilot test. A pretest and a pilot survey were conducted to refine the research
instrument. The survey instrument was vetted for face validity by four academicians,
following which a few minor changes were made for clarity. We contacted 85 respondents for
the pilot survey and received 45 responses, of which 25 were male and 20 were female.
Cronbach’s alpha values for all the scales were greater than 0.7, which is acceptable
(Nunnally, 1978).

Results
Ex post analysis to address common method effects
Ex post analysis was conducted through Harman’s single factor test to check for common
method effects arising out of self-report data. Common method variance is present if either (1)
a single factor emerges from the factor analysis or (2) one general factor accounts for majority Work
of the covariance among the variables. Harman single factor test–variance explained by a engagement in
single factor is only 30 percent (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Results of the test allowed us to rule out
common method effect arising out of self-reported data.
the Indian IT
industry
Descriptive statistics and correlations
Means, standard deviations, correlations, and square roots of average variance extracted
(AVE) for all the variables are reported in Table II.

Hypothesis testing: using component-based partial least squares (CB-PLS)

We utilized SmartPLS v.2, to analyze the model. SmartPLS is a technique used for estimating
path coefficients in causal models and the software allows for the simultaneous testing of
hypotheses.

Testing the measurement (outer) model

Measurement model assessment enables evaluation of reliability and validity of the
construct measures. Internal reliability was examined through Cronbach’s alpha and
composite reliability. The composite reliability measures range from 0.88 to 0.939 for all
constructs, whereas Cronbach’s alpha ranges from 0.838 to 0.927 (Table II). Construct
validity was tested through convergent validity (extent to which measures of a variable are
correlated) and discriminant validity (a measure is not unduly related to other similar, yet
distinct, constructs) (Hair et al., 2012). Convergent validity on the construct level is
established through the average variance extracted (AVE). AVE for each reflectively
measured construct was high (all values are ≥ 0.528), indicating convergent validity of all
the constructs. Discriminant validity was assessed using Fornell and Larcker’s (1981)
method. As shown in Table II, it is evident that the square root of each construct’s AVE is
greater than its highest correlation with any other construct. AVE, CR and Cronbach’s
alpha, the main parameters corresponding to the measurement model appear in Table II.
The reliability of individual items is reported in Table III. Item reliability is considered
adequate where factor loadings exceed 0.40. Indicators with outer loading between 0.4 and
0.7 should be considered for removal only when deleting them results into better composite
reliability (Hair et al., 2012). Hence, we removed items with loading lower than 0.4 from
further analysis.
Table IV showing PLS analysis results for the structural model reports the path
coefficients (standardized beta coefficient), their significance level and the R square values,
while Table V summarizes the hypotheses results. Results for various relationships
hypothesized in the theoretical model are shown under respective columns. Statistical

Variable Mean SD CA CR AVE 1 2 3 4 5

1. Work engagement 4.30 1.25 0.92 0.93 0.63 0.79

2. Job crafting 4.42 1.34 0.87 0.89 0.53 0.57** 0.72
3. PSS 4.52 1.30 0.87 0.89 0.60 0.44** 0.27** 0.77
4. Innovativeness 4.67 1.35 0.87 0.90 0.62 0.23** 0.30** 0.14* 0.78
5. OTE 5.01 1.24 0.83 0.88 0.55 0.24** 0.46** 0.27** 0.51** 0.74 Table II.
Note(s): CA 5 Cronbach’s Alpha, CR 5 Composite Reliability, AVE 5 Average Variance Extracted, Descriptive statistics
PSS 5 Perceived Supervisory Support, OTE 5 Openness to Experience; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 (two-tailed); (based on full
Boldfaced diagonal elements are the square roots of the AVE statistics measurement model)
PR Item Loading Item Loading

Work engagement 1 0.76 Job crafting 1 0.46

Work engagement 2 0.75 Job crafting 2 0.74
Work engagement 3 0.87 Job crafting 3 0.51
Work engagement 4 0.79 Job crafting 4 0.75
Work engagement 5 0.78 Job crafting 5 0.56
Work engagement 6 0.76 Job crafting 6 0.52
Work engagement 7 0.82 Job crafting 7 0.73
Work engagement 8 0.85 Job crafting 8 0.81
Work engagement 9 0.72 Job crafting 9 0.75
Job crafting 10 0.27
Innovativeness 1 0.71 Job crafting 11 0.33
Innovativeness 2 0.68 Job crafting 12 0.42
Innovativeness 3 0.69 Job crafting 13 0.67
Innovativeness 4 0.77 Job crafting 14 0.52
Innovativeness 5 0.72 Job crafting 15 0.44
Innovativeness 6 0.46 Job crafting 16 0.73
Innovativeness 7 0.70 Job crafting 17 0.23
Innovativeness 8 0.68 Job crafting 18 0.70
Innovativeness 9 0.47 Job crafting 19 0.80
Innovativeness 10 0.65 Job crafting 20 0.75
Job crafting 21 0.67
Openness to experience 1 0.41
Openness to experience 2 0.49 Perceived supervisory support 1 0.82
Openness to experience 3 0.69 Perceived supervisory support 2 0.56
Openness to experience 4 0.40 Perceived supervisory support 3 0.74
Openness to experience 5 0.74 Perceived supervisory support 4 0.70
Openness to experience 6 0.66 Perceived supervisory support 5 0.79
Table III. Openness to experience 7 0.62 Perceived supervisory support 6 0.76
Factor loadings from Openness to experience 8 0.72 Perceived supervisory support 7 0.84
final Openness to experience 9 0.68
measurement model Openness to experience 10 0.79

significance of each path in the theoretical model was determined by the t-value for a given
relationship. Results for proposed hypothesis are drawn and discussed with the help of
this table.

Testing the relationship between work engagement and job crafting

The path coefficient value for the relationship between work engagement and job
crafting was calculated as 0.57. Bootstrapping algorithm was run to check the
significance of the relationship. The t-statistic of the bootstrap process was recorded as
15.42. This shows that path coefficient value holds true at 99 percent confidence level
(1 percent significance level). Coefficient of determination (R square) value was recorded
as 0.33 (which represents the amount of variance in the endogenous constructs explained
by (all of) the exogenous constructs linked to it) (Hair et al., 2012). Therefore, hypothesis
H1 was supported.
The path coefficient value of the interaction term (work engagement 3 perceived
supervisory support → job crafting) was recorded as 0.15, showing that, perceived
supervisory support negatively moderated the relationship between work engagement and
job crafting. However, the t-statistic of the bootstrap process was recorded as 1.12, which
shows that the negative effect of perceived supervisory support as a moderator is not
significant. Hence, it can be concluded that, hypothesis H2 was not supported.
 Relationships Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Work
engagement in
Moderating effects on job crafting behavior the Indian IT
H1 WE 0.57** (15.42) 0.54** (15.2) 0.54** (15.2)
PSS 0.01 (0.13), ns 0.01 (0.13), ns industry
H2 WE*PSS 0.15 (1.12), ns
R2 0.32 0.34 0.35
Moderating effects on innovativeness behavior
H3 WE 0.30** (6.00) 0.16** (3.19) 0.16** (3.19)
OTE 0.47** (8.62) 0.47** (8.62)
H4 WE*OTE 0.02 (0.19), ns
R2 0.29 0.30 0.30
Note(s): WE 5 Work engagement, PSS 5 Perceived supervisory support, OTE 5 Openness to experience, Table IV.
t values in parentheses, ns 5 not significant Structural model
**p < 0.01 results

Research hypothesis Path coefficient (β) t-value Result

H1: WE → JC 0.57** 15.42** Supported

H2: WE 3 PSS → JC 0.15 1.12 (ns) Not supported
H3: WE → INNO 0.30** 6.00** Supported
H4: WE 3 OTE → JC 0.02 0.19 (ns) Not supported Table V.
Note(s): **p < 0.01; WE 5 Work Engagement, JC 5 Job Crafting, PSS 5 Perceived supervisory support, Hypothesis test
INNO 5 Innovativeness, OTE 5 Openness to experience results

Testing the relationship between work engagement and innovativeness

The path coefficient value for the relationship between work engagement and innovativeness
was 0.30, while the t-statistic of the bootstrap process was recorded as 6.00. This shows that
path coefficient value holds true at 99 percent confidence level (1 percent significance level).
Coefficient of determination (R square) value was recorded as 0.30 Therefore, hypothesis H3
is supported.
The path coefficient value of the interaction term (work engagement 3 openness-to-
experience → innovativeness was recorded as 0.02, showing that, openness-to-experience
negatively moderated the relationship between work engagement and innovativeness. The t-
statistic of the bootstrap process was recorded as 0.19, which shows that the negative effect of
openness-to-experience as a moderator is not significant. Hence, hypothesis H4 was not
supported.

Discussion
Our results indicate that engagement is positively and significantly related with behavioral
outcomes like job crafting and innovativeness. Data supported the notion that engaged
employees are likely to indulge in job crafting behavior and innovativeness. We also proposed
that perceived supervisory support would moderate the work engagement and job crafting
linkage. However, our results did not support this hypothesis. We revisited the literature of work
engagement, examined fresh literature from the domain of social support and also conducted
post-survey semi-structured interviews with eight respondents drawn from the original sample
to try and understand why the hypothesized moderating effect was not supported.
We believe that one reason for lack of support for the moderation of perceived supervisory
support could be low experience of managers in Indian IT companies, a context where
PR experienced managers are considered to be a scarce resource (Arora and Athreye, 2002).
Often, Indian IT organizations promote young software professionals to managerial roles
despite having inadequate experience. In a study on Indian IT professionals Aggrawal and
Thite (2003) noted “Due to a dearth of project managers, Indian organizations tend to promote
software professionals at a very early stage of their careers when they are still finding their
technical depth” (p. 256). Thus, a professional with less experience is frequently expected to
take on the role of a project leader/manager. Sometimes professionals are pushed into
leadership positions without adequate training and role models. However, despite their
reluctance for project management positions, Indian software professionals aspire for the
title. Thus, managers are not able to add adequate value to their subordinates in their role as
team leaders. Eisenberger et al. (2002) found that the perceptions of how the supervisor is
valued by subordinates are dependent on supervisor status, tenure, and upward (or outward)
mobility. Hence, we believe that given the context specificity of the Indian IT industry,
respondents may not have perceived their supervisors as being capable of providing the
support which enabled job crafting behavior.
We also argue that support provided by supervisor is being substituted by support from
other sources like colleagues. A possible reason for this could be the high power distance in
Indian culture (Hofstede, 1991). Relationship between the supervisor and the employees in
India is characterized by position or legitimate power. Data from our post-survey interviews
revealed that this could be a significant factor affecting the nature of relationship between
work engagement and job crafting behavior. Some respondents stated that when they were in
the need of support while mobilizing resources (job crafting), they sought help from peers and
informal groups rather than the supervisor. Perceptions of support were also dependent on
the nature of relationship with the supervisor, and also on the extent to which the
organization culture was supportive. Data also indicated that supervisory influence was seen
as being less significant in Indian IT industry. Some respondents suggested that, the IT
industry is driven by stringent deadlines and deliverables were rigidly established through
Service Level Agreements. In such situations, not much support can be expected from the
supervisor in case of inclusive redesigning of work characteristics. House (1981) suggested
that social interactions at the workplace may be both positive and negative. Supervisory
support may be required for job crafting (like a hygiene factor) but may not ensure an
increase in job crafting. Perhaps, supervisory support cannot be expected to promote job
crafting for an engaged employee beyond a level that the individual is already accustomed to
as suggested by Parker and Sprigg (1999), who noted that proactive individuals would be less
inclined to possess feelings of helplessness. Future research should explore this relationship
and use other samples to find out if the result of this study is consistent. Findings from our
post-survey interviews suggest that the social capital theory may provide useful insights into
the moderation of peer support (or social capital) in the relationship between work
engagement and job crafting.
We hypothesized and tested a positive link between work engagement and employee’s
innovativeness behavior. Results from the study supported our hypothesis and emphasizes
the notion that engaged employees will devise and apply new innovative ways in their work
roles leading to higher levels of employee performance. Our findings support practitioner
studies like Gallup’s recent report (2010-2012) which says that the “30 million engaged
employees in the U.S. come up with most of the innovative ideas, create most of a company’s new
customers, and have the most entrepreneurial energy” (p. 5).
However, data did not support the hypothesized moderating role of openness-to-
experience in the relationship between work engagement and innovativeness behavior.
People high in openness to experience tend to be immersed and engaged at work (Bakker
and Xanthopoulou, 2013). We believe that, hence, the degree to which work engagement
impacts innovative behavior may have subsumed the influence of openness to experience on
work engagement. We examined some other probable explanations for this result. Job Work
enrichment, role fit, job characteristics and job resources are some of the organizational engagement in
factors which predict work engagement (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Among individual
factors, absorption, curiosity, emotional fit, employee motivation, employee/work/family
the Indian IT
status, feelings of choice and control, involvement in meaningful work, linking individual industry
and organizational goals, perceived organizational support, self-esteem, self-efficacy, core
self-evaluation, and value congruence are some antecedents of work engagement (Shuck
and Wollard , 2010). People join those work settings where they are able to fully express
themselves according to their skills, abilities, and personality (Holland, 1973). We argue that
by the time people have chosen a domain where they feel engaged, they may also have
chosen an environment that they believe best suits their disposition or personality. Indian IT
professionals value autonomy, professionalism and innovativeness. The Indian IT industry
comprises learning organizations where organizational routines are discouraged, questions
are welcomed and the environment is conducive for free flow of creative and innovative
ideas (Aggarwal and Thite, 2003). For instance, Infosys Technologies believes in “making
the innovation obsolete before the competition, encouraging essential attributes such as
speed, imagination and excellence, surrounding oneself with smarter people and cheering
any idea without cynicism” (Aggarwal and Thite, 2003, p. 263). We therefore argue that,
owing to the typical nature of the Indian IT industry, where the organizational climate
seems more suitable for a particular personality type (openness to experience), the
explanatory power of the personality trait may have been overwhelmed by the context. Bing
and Lounsbury (2000) also note that openness may be of varying importance to different
organizational settings and cultures. Finally, though we exercised abundant caution by
pretesting the scale with subject matter experts and a sample of potential respondents, it is
possible that the larger proportion of reverse coded items in the openness to experience scale
may have confounded the respondents. Thus, while we do believe that openness to
experience may intervene in the relationship between engagement and innovativeness, we
also suggest that the relationship needs to be tested in different industrial contexts, before a
firm conclusion can be drawn.

Implications for research

This study makes a few important contributions to the theory of work engagement. First, this
study posits inter-linkages and interdependencies between variables from different
theoretical perspectives. This way, we not only weaved the proposed model with the
underlying theories (Job Demands-Resources model and Broaden and Build theory) but also
helped in expanding the scope of theory. The results provide empirical and theoretical
evidence to support the inclusion and explanatory ability of work engagement in the JD-
R model.
This study advances the literature across a number of growing research areas like
engagement, and job crafting. Research in organizational behavior has long emphasized a
sequential link between affect, cognition and behavior. However, though there is a large tract
of literature on affective outcomes of work engagement (e.g., commitment, satisfaction),
research examining behavioral outcomes of work engagement has largely been limited to
organizational citizenship behavior. Our results indicate a positive and significant
relationship between work engagement and two important behavioral outcomes, namely
job crafting behavior and innovativeness. Hence, we feel that this is a significant and useful
contribution in the arena of work engagement.
We assert that this research fills a gap in the literature on work engagement and the JD-R
model may be one of the first to examining whether individuals’ personality (openness-to-
experience) and personal resources (perceived supervisory support) moderate the relationship
PR between work engagement and behavioral outcomes. Although we did not find support for the
interaction relationships, our post-survey interviews indicate that the hypothesized
relationships are plausible, however, further research is warranted through multiple samples.
National culture has a significant influence on employee perceptions of work experiences,
thus impacting work engagement (Mercer, 2007). Thus, the outcomes of engagement in Indian
context will be different from the West. The Indian IT industry has been growing incessantly,
for over two decades now and not only is it among the largest creators of jobs in India, it is also
seen as an aspirational destination for young technology professionals. Thus, it was
important to study work engagement and related outcomes in Indian IT industry context.

Managerial implications
From a managerial viewpoint, this study underscores few recommendations for practicing IT
managers to enhance the effectiveness of action within the workplace. Innovativeness is the
key for IT organizations, as it gives them disproportionate rewards. The work of IT
companies warrant uniqueness in their solutions as a source of competitive advantage. Very
often, IT professionals either write solutions from scratch, or at the least adapt the solutions
per requirements. This requires innovativeness from employees, more so for organizations
using cutting-edge technologies, which rely heavily on employees learning and adaption to
new technologies.
Job crafting is also important to IT organizations, as they thrive when employees display a
high level of initiative. Job crafting behavior is especially valuable in senior management
roles and start-ups where organizations depend on the employee to be self-sufficient, so as to
cut down on the management costs.
Both, innovativeness and job-crafting are valuable to any organization, but more so in IT
organizations. As illustrated in this paper, work-engaged employees display higher levels of
innovativeness and job-crafting. Studies have consistently shown that employees are able to
achieve their best job performance in challenging, resourceful work environments, since such
environments facilitate their work engagement (Bakker et al., 2011).
The study is not without limitations. First, the use of cross-sectional data does not allow us
to make causal inferences. Reverse causality is possible for the relationships between work
engagement and outcomes. The objective of our study was not to establish the causal
relationships of work engagement with the other constructs, but to relate the construct to
other constructs in the nomological network. Longitudinal designs can explore these
relationships over time. However, longitudinal designs present the researcher with issues
pertaining to respondent attrition. High levels of employee attrition in the Indian IT industry
may have constrained a longitudinal design. We suggest that future research with
longitudinal design may be targeted towards more stable contexts, with greater data
stability. The present study relies on self-report measures which may be prone to various
biases such as social desirability. However, the biases were minimized by assuring the
respondent of anonymity and using only aggregate data for analytic treatment. Furthermore,
we had ex post methodological interventions to control the effects of self-report data.
While there is some literature on work engagement, there remain many important, yet
unanswered questions about the triggers, moderators, and outcomes of work engagement.
Post-survey interviews from our study indicated that social capital and peer support could
have an important intervening role to play in the relationship between work engagement and
its outcome. One can also ask if work engagement could have an endemic effect and set off a
chain reaction with employees in the same team displaying higher levels of work
engagement. More theory and research is needed linking specific forms of engagement to
particular individual and organizational outcomes. We believe that findings from this study
could be the important early steps in informing practicing managers of strategies to engage
their team members and support their attempts in eliciting positive behavioral responses and Work
performance. engagement in
the Indian IT
References
industry
Agarwal, R. and Ferratt, T.W. (1999), Coping with Labor Scarcity in Information Technology:
Strategies and Practices for Effective Recruitment and Retention, Pinnaflex Press,
Cincinnati, OH.
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1998), “A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness
in the domain of information technology”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 204-215.
Aggarwal, N.M. and Thite, M. (2003), “Human resource issues, challenges and strategies in the Indian
software industry”, International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 249-264.
Arora, A. and Athreye, S. (2002), “The software industry and India’s economic development”,
Information Economics and Policy, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 253-273.
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.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2008), “Towards a model of work engagement”, Career Development
International, Vol. 13, pp. 209-223.
Bakker, A.B. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2013), “Creativity and charisma among female leaders: the role of
resources and work engagement”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 24 No. 14, pp. 2760-2779.
Bakker, A.B., Tims, M. and Derks, D. (2012), “Proactive personality and job performance: the role of
job crafting and work engagement”, Human Relations, Vol. 65, pp. 1359-1378.
Bing, M.N. and Lounsburry, J.W. (2000), “Openness and job performance in U.S. based
Japanese manufacturing companies”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 14,
pp. 515-522.
Budhwar, P. and Varma, A. (2010), “Guest editors’ introduction: emerging patterns of HRM in the
new Indian economic environment”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 49 No. 3,
pp. 345-351.
Cavanaugh, M.A., Boswell, W.R., Roehling, M.V. and Boudreau, J.W. (2000), “An empirical
examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 65-74.
Costa, P.T. Jr and McRae, R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-
Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual, Psychological Assessment Resources,
Odessa, Florida.
Crant, J.M. (2000), “Proactive behavior in organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp. 435-462.
Digman, J.M. (1990), “Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 417-440.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, R., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L. and Rhoades, L. (2002), “Perceived
supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational support and retention”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 565-573.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2003), “Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations”, in Cameron, K., Dutton, J.
and Quinn, R. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, pp. 163-175.
Gallup (2014), State of the Global Workplace, available at: http://www.gallup.com/services/178517/
state-global-workplace.aspx (accessed 21 February 2015).
PR Goldberg, L.R. (1992), “The development of markers of the big- five factor ftructure”, Psychological
Assessment, Vol. 4, pp. 26-42.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Hofacker, C.F. (1991), “Measuring consumer innovativeness”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 209-221.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433.
Hakanen, J.J., Perhoniemi, R. and Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008), “Positive gain spirals at work: from job
resources to work engagement, personal initiative, and work-unit innovativeness”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 73, pp. 78-91.
Hansmann, K.W. and Ringle, C.M. (2004), SmartPLS Manual, University of Hamburg, Hamburg.
Hofstede, G. (1984), “The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 9, pp. 389-398.
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London.
Holland, J.L. (1973), Making Vocational Choices, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
House, J.S. (1981), Work Stress and Social Support, Addison-Wesley, MA.
Hurt, H.Y., Joseph, K. and Cook, C.D. (1977), “Scales for the measurement of innovativeness”, Human
Communication Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 58-65.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.
Kulik, C.T., Oldham, G.R. and Hackman, J.R. (1987), “Work design as an approach to person–
environment fit”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 31, pp. 278-296.
Maslach, C. and Jackson, S.E. (1981), “The measurement of experienced burnout”, Journal of
Occupational Behavior, Vol. 2, pp. 99-113.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), “Job burnout”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 52, pp. 397-422.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1997), “Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience”, in Hogan,
R., Johnson, J.A. and Briggs, S.R. (Eds), Handbook of Personality Psychology, Academic Press,
San Diego, CA, pp. 825-847.
Mercer, N. (2007), “Commentary on the reconciliation of cognitive and sociocultural accounts of
conceptual change”, Educational Psychologist, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 75-78.
Morris, W.T. (1967), “Intuition and relevance”, Management Science, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 157-165.
NASSCOM (2015), Indian IT-BPM Industry – The Transformation Catalyst, National Association of Software
and Service Companies, New Delhi, available at: http://164.100.105.198:8098/pasc/resources/PASC38_
Indian%20IT-BPM%20Industry-%20The%20Transformation%20Catalyst.pdf.
Nelson, R.R. (1991), “Educational needs as perceived by IS and end-user personnel: a survey of
knowledge and skill requirements”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 503-525.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw–Hill, New York.
Pare, G., Tremblay, M. and Lalonde, P. (2000), “The impact of human resources practices on IT
personnel commitment, citizenship behavior, and turnover intentions”, The Twenty First
International Conference on Information Systems 2000 Proceedings of the ICIS in Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia, ACM Digital Library, pp. 461-466.
Parker, S.K. and Sprigg, C.A. (1999), “Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: the role of job
demands, job control, and proactive personality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84,
pp. 925-939.
Podsakoff, S.B., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Method biases in behavioral
research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 879-903.
Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P.C., Slattery, T. and Sardessai, R. (2005), “Determinants of innovative work Work
behaviour: development and test of an integrated model”, Creativity and Innovation
Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 142-150. engagement in
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial
the Indian IT
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619. industry
Salanova, M., Bakker, A.B. and Llorens, S. (2006), “Flow at work: evidence for an upward spiral of
personal and organizational resources”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 7, pp. 1-22.
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. and Salanova, M. (2007), “Efficacy or inefficacy, that’s the question: burnout and work
engagement, and their relationships with efficacy beliefs”, Anxiety, Stress & Coping, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 177-196.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
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, pp. 701-716.
Shalley, C.E. and Gilson, L.L. (2004), “What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual
factors that can foster or hinder creativity”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp 33-53.
Shuck, B. and Wollard, K. (2010), “Employee engagement and HRD: a seminal review of the
foundations”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 89-110.
Thompson, C. and Prottas, D. (2005), “Relationships among organizational family support, job
autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 100-118.
Tims, M. and Bakker, A.B. (2010), “Job crafting: towards a new model of individual job redesign”, SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 1-9.
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Derks, D. (2012), “Development and validation of the job crafting scale”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80, pp. 173-186.
Varma, A., Pichler, S. and Srinivas, E.S. (2005), “The role of interpersonal affect in performance
appraisal: evidence from two samples–the US and India”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 16 No. 11, pp. 2029-2044.
Vishwanath, A. (2005), “Impact of personality on technology adoption: an empirical model”,
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 56 No. 8,
pp. 803-811.
Wagner, R. and Harter, J.K. (2006), The Great Elements of Managing, Vol. 12, The Gallup
Organization, Washington, DC.
Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2001), “Crafting a Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of
Their Work”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 179-201.

Corresponding author
Anupama Sharma can be contacted at: anupama@iimv.ac.in

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