EFFECT OF JOB CRAFTING ON EMPLOYEE WORK

ENGAGMENT AND JOB SATISFACTION

BY

MUHAMMAD MANSHA
A thesis submitted to The University of Agriculture, Peshawar in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

(HR/MANAGEMENT)

INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT AND COMPUTER SCIENCES
THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE PESHAWAR
KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA
JUNE, 2022
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this Research to my beloved friends and parents who supported me in every part of
my life. I also dedicate this work to my supervisor Prof. Dr. ____________who has
supported me throughout this research.

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I'd would like to express my sincere and profound appreciation to the Almighty God, with
whom all things are possible, for guiding and supporting me over the duration of this
research.

My sincere and heartfelt gratitude goes to Prof. ___________ for the research topic,
assistance, and support.

My thanks also go to the staff, students who helped me find the correct people to administer
my Research.

3
 DECLARATION

I hereby certify that this research is the result of my own original research and that no portion
of it has previously been presented for any other certificate in this Institution or elsewhere.

4
 CERTIFICATION

I hereby confirm that this study was supervised in accordance with the supervisor's criteria.

----------------------------- --------------------------------
Supervisor’s Name Date

5
 ABSTRACT

The aim of this study is to determine that how job creating methods influence job outcomes

(work engagement and Job satisfaction) means to check the relationship of job crafting with

work engagement and job satisfaction. This research was conducted on workers at Perseroan

Terbatas (PT). Petra Arun Gas (PAG) with a working population of 180 people. According to

the Krejcie and Morgan Sample Tables, up to 123 persons were sampled (in Sekaran &

Bougie, 2009). The basic random sampling approach was used to select the members of the

sample. Questionnaires are distributed to all samples to acquire primary data. With the help

of SPSS, data was examined using simple linear regression analysis methods. Job crafting has

a considerable impact on the two dependent variables of work engagement and job

satisfaction, according to the findings of the research data analysis.

Keyword: Job crafting, satisfaction, work engagement, research study

6
 INTRODUCTION

Background of the study

Job crafting starts with the habit of employees taking advantage of opportunities to create

their new works that can support their main work. Then Job crafting is considered important

to encourage individuals to consider how they act, interact and think about their work and to

redesign and personalize aspects of their work in ways that encourage Engagement, job

satisfaction and developing (Hetland et al., 2018; Cheng & O-Yang, 2018). Job crafting is

started by employees, from the bottom up, and not by managers from the top down, this is the

principle of crafting (Wingerden & Poell, 2017), there are three types of work craft

techniques: task, relational, and cognitive.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution is emerging and has influenced jobs of employees

all over the world, in a significant way. This impact may vary from job displacement to

significant job creation, which has implications for employees’ knowledge, job skills, and

behavior (World Economic Forum, 2017). Organizations that want to be responsive to change

must constantly reinvent themselves and as a consequence facilitate employees’ reskilling.

There is also a need for employees to be proactive and take their own responsibility to stay

connected to their jobs and changing work environments. Employees can proactively

optimize the fit between their (changing) job and their own talents, skills and interests by job

crafting (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). Job crafting can be defined as employees’ self-

initiated change behaviors that aim to align their jobs (and work environments) with their

own preferences, motives, and passions (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001; see also Berg et al.,

2007). Since research revealed that job crafting behavior is positively related to employee’

7
well-being (Bakker et al., 2012) and work performance (Leana et al., 2009), organizations,

senior management and researchers are interested in ways to stimulate job crafting behavior.

The workforce becomes more diverse, in terms of demographic characteristics

(Ployhart, 2006), and in terms of career (Strauss, Griffin, & Parker, 2012) and motivational

needs (Strauss et al., 2012; Tims & Bakker, 2010). Therefore, a top-down approach to meet

the needs of all employees is no longer a feasible option for organizations (Demerouti, 2014)

and it warrants examining how bottom-up or employee-initiated approaches affect work

motivation, career development, and task performance. Job crafting is an employee-initiated

approach which enables employees to shape their own work environment such that it fits their

individual needs by adjusting the prevailing job demands and resources (Tims &

Bakker, 2010). Job demands are work environment characteristics that require energy

and effort (e.g., workload, insecurity), whereas job resources are characteristics that provide

energy, motivate employees, and minimize the impact of demands (e.g., feedback, coworker

support; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Having sufficient job demands and resources is

necessary to flourish at work (e.g., Bakker, Van Veldhoven, & Xanthopoulou, 2010).

Given the value of a balance between these job characteristics for employee well-being and

performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), job crafting strategies can help employees create

the work environment that is beneficial to them. There is some evidence that job crafting

helps performance and well-being at work (e.g., Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012; Tims, Bakker,

& Derks, 2013). A few studies suggest job crafting can increase well-being, job and personal

resources, and adaptive performance (Gordon et al., 2018; Van Den Heuvel, Demerouti, &

Peeters, 2015) but it is unclear whether job crafting can increase both career satisfaction and

task performance. Career satisfaction represents an indicator of employees’ happiness with

how they are managing their own career (Strauss et al., 2012) and it greatly determines

8
whether employees want to stay within the organization (August & Waltman, 2004). Task

performance is an indicator whether employees are retained and get promoted within the

organization (Batt & Colvin, 2011). Therefore, Study 1 contributes to the job crafting

literature not only by examining the longitudinal relationships between job crafting and

motivational (work engagement), and performance outcomes (task performance) but also by

examining whether job crafting can contribute to higher satisfaction with one’s own career

over time.

In line with previous intervention studies (Gordon et al., 2018; Van Den Heuvel et al., 2015),

we developed an intervention based on job crafting theory (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001)

and experiential learning theory (Kolb & Kolb, 2012). This job crafting intervention aims to

increase the individual employees’ job crafting behavior such that they can create a fit

between their motivational, career, and task needs on the one hand, and the job demands and

job resources needed to fulfill these needs on the other hand. The second study aims to

contribute to the job crafting literature by examining whether an increase in job crafting

behavior explains how the intervention affects employees’ career satisfaction, task

performance, as well as their work engagement. This would provide some evidence on the

causal effects of job crafting, and would suggest employees can be trained to practice

individual job (re)design (i.e. job crafting) which helps them becoming more engaged and

better functioning in their job and to become more satisfied with their career.

Literature suggests that employees’ actual job crafting behavior in the workplace may depend
on their perceived opportunities to do so (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001; Wrzesniewski,
2003; Van Wingerden et al., 2013; Van Wingerden, 2016; Van Wingerden and Niks, 2017).
Insights in this proposed relation between employees’ job crafting perceptions and behavior
may offer opportunities to organizations that want to create optimal conditions for employee

9
well-being and performance. Therefore, the central aim of the present study is to examine the
proposed relation between employees’ perceived opportunities to craft and their actual job
crafting behavior, and in line with JD-R theory (Bakker and Demerouti, 2014), subsequently
their work engagement and performance.

Since the Fourth Industry's inception, job crafting has been a hot topic of debate. This

influence can range from job transfers to considerable employment creation, affecting

employee knowledge, skills, and behaviour (World Economic Forum, 2017). Organizations

that are responsive to change are constantly reforming themselves internally, which

necessitates the facilitation of employee rework (Menachery, 2018). This is done on purpose

in order for them to rise to the top of their market. Employees can use job crafting to optimise

the compatibility of their work (change) with their own talents, skills, and interests (Dash &

Vohra, 2018). They found that an increase in social support, autonomy, opportunities to learn,

and performance feedback resulted in greater work engagement 1 year later. Therefore, when

job resources increased, job satisfaction, work engagement, and intrinsic work motivation

also tended to increase. Finally, we include burnout in our model as a negative indicator of

employee well-being. High levels of job resources protect employees from burnout (Bakker,

Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007; Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Hofmann, 2011)

because having access to larger pools of resources allows employees to fulfill job demands

and protect themselves from strain. Burnout is operationalized by its two core dimensions:

exhaustion and cynicism/disengagement (Demerouti, Bakker, Vardakou, & Kantas, 2003;

Schaufeli & Taris, 2005). Exhaustion is defined as work-related fatigue resulting from

prolonged exposure to certain job demands. Cynical employees distance themselves from

their work and experience negative attitudes toward the work object, work content, or their

work in general (Demerouti et al., 2003). We expect that employees who craft more job

resources experience lower levels of burnout because they are better able to achieve their job

10
tasks. A study by Schaufeli et al. (2009) showed that a decrease in job resources resulted in

increased burnout one year later. This result suggests that high levels of job resources may

play a role in preventing burnout.

In the recent decade, the global economy appears to have had major issues. The ramifications

of the global economic crisis of 2008, which has been called as one of the largest economic

catastrophes in history, have become a worldwide crisis. It is critical for organisations to

generate new dynamics in order to overcome these challenging processes. As a result,

according to Grant and Parker (2009), the demand for compatibility and pro activeness

among organisations and employees is growing. Simultaneously, organisations must do more

with fewer employees, with fewer opportunities for job transfers. As a result, there will be a

greater burden and a demand for more efficient work (Heuvel et al., 2015). It is equally

critical that staff are happy with the work they do for the same reasons. Because it is well

understood that job happiness is a significant component in employee performance and

organisational success. Job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Berg, Dutton, &

Wrzesniewski, 2013) is the process through which people voluntarily reframe and restructure

their work to make it more meaningful. Job crafting takes place largely in three areas:

Taking on more or fewer tasks, expanding or diminishing the scope of tasks, or changing how

one performs tasks. Relational crafting: Changing the nature or extent of one’s interactions

with other people within or outside of the organization; Cognitive crafting: Altering how one

perceives tasks or thinking about the tasks involved in one’s job as a collective whole as

opposed to a set of separate tasks. Wrzesniewski's prior work on work orientation, or people's

relationships with their jobs (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997), paved the way for job construction.

People in diverse professions prefer to regard their job as a Job (work for income, financial

end), a Career (seeking progress, social status, and power), or a Calling (work is fulfilling, an

end in itself, work contributes to greater good as defined by the individual). When people

11
identify their profession as a calling, the perceived meaning of work is highest (Wrzesniewski

et al., 1997). Individuals actively craft components of callings into their employment when

they adapt them to better meet their unique abilities, interests, and values. The Wrzesniewski

and Dutton conceptualization is used in the majority of job crafting research, although some

research is also conducted using the Job Demand and Resource (JD-R) paradigm, which

suggests that all job features can be classified as either job demands or job resources. Tims

and Bakker (2010), the book's authors, define job crafting as "self-initiated modifications that

employees make to balance their employment objectives and resources with their personal

needs and talents."

Four broad and abstract categories can be used to classify these changes: Increasing

structural resources (e.g., requesting more autonomy or skill development), social resources

(e.g., asking for support and feedback), or challenging demands (e.g., taking on extra tasks

and projects) while reducing hindering demands (e.g., avoiding unpleasant people) (Bakker,

Tims, & Derks, 2012). The authors of the JD-R model regard cognitive craftsmanship to be a

passive rather than proactive adaptation. This may be restricting, because changing one's

mentality can lead to extremely tangible results (Crum & Langer, 2007). While Wrzesniewski

and Dutton and Tims and Bakker describe job crafting in similar ways, they classify job

crafting activities differently. While individuals engage in job crafting with the goal of

increasing the meaning of their work, research shows that it has a number of good individual,

group, and organisational consequences, most notably in the areas of employee well-being

and performance. Employee well-being at work can be described in terms of work

meaningfulness, work engagement and job satisfaction. By work engagement we mean a

positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterised by energy, dedication and

absorption (Bakker, 2011).

12
 Employee-initiated job crafting was found to be positively connected to work

engagement and job satisfaction and adversely related to burnout in a recent longitudinal field

study (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013). Moreover, job crafting and engagement seem to

reinforce each other, creating an upward spiral. Job crafting enhanced work engagement, and

work engagement boosted pro-active job crafting behaviours over time, according to

Hakanen and Peeters (2015), although job satisfaction did not boost future proactivity.

Engaged workers actively manage their workplace wellbeing by proactively changing their

work environment in order to stay engaged (Bakker, 2011). This finding resonates with the

realization I came to after being able to transform my work experience. According to

research, Individual and collective job crafting are both positively connected to job

performance (Berg, Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2010; Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010;

Tims et al., 2013a). Tims and colleagues (2013a) discovered that job crafting at both the

group and individual level improved occupational health professionals' job performance

through the mechanism of greater work engagement. Job crafting can thus lead to not only

more meaningful but also more productive work.

Job crafting is also linked to higher levels of resilience and resourcefulness, as well as lower

absenteeism (Ghitulescu, 2007). Fritz and colleagues (Fritz, Lam, & Spreitzer, 2011)

investigated the efficacy of the strategies knowledge workers use to maintain their energy at

work. Learning-oriented (e.g., learning something new), relational (e.g., doing something to

make a colleague happy), and meaning-related (e.g., pondering on how I may make a

difference at work) were the self-reported strategies that were most connected to high vitality.

All of these activities are included in the definition of job crafting.  While enhanced

adaptation, innovation, and cooperation have been highly supported by research as good

outcomes of job crafting, greater adaptability, job satisfaction, and performance are emerging

13
as outcomes deserving of more inquiry. These are becoming more valuable in organisations

as the nature of work changes. Some promising studies have been already conducted.

In the domain of change readiness and adaptation, Hornung and Rousseau (2007) showed that

increasing autonomy led to more positive responses to change in a study of hospital

personnel. Individuals that engage in cognitive job constructing or meaning-making adapt

better to organisational change (Van den Heuvel, Demerouti, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2010).

Job crafting prompted by a misalignment of people's work and professional identities can

lead to meaningful corporate innovation (Mattarelli & Tagliaventi, 2012). Offshore R&D

(research and development) personnel who were frustrated with their professions' limited

scope banded together to proactively propose new markets, industries, and services, allowing

them to keep meaning and professional identity while also benefiting their employer. This

form of job crafting had to be apparent to management, and both local and home office

managers actively supported and recognised it. Job crafting can be viewed as a type of

creative problem solving and introducing innovations to work processes (Petrou, Demerouti,

Peeters, Schaufeli, & Hetland, 2012). Managers can no longer rely on staff to simply

complete their assigned responsibilities; they must instead expect them to adapt to changes

and introduce modifications to their job (Grant & Parker, 2009). Finally, idiosyncratic

changes to jobs and working conditions can be tried out by individuals before being approved

as best practise or standard working conditions for the entire business (Rousseau et al., 2006).

These empirically supported positive job crafting outcomes, as well as new areas of promise,

provide a strong business rationale for introducing and encouraging job crafting in

organisations, and can be used to gain management buy-in, which is critical for implementing

any intervention.

14
Problem statement

Past literature highlighted the impact of job crafting on job satisfaction across the globe and

in different organization settings (e.g., Menachery et al., 2018, Bakker et al., 2018).

Moreover, many studies showed that job crafting has positive impact on job satisfaction

(Hakanen and Peter, 2015). However, all of these studies have focused on the direct link

between job crafting and employee work engagement. These studies recommended that the

link between job crafting and employee work engagement. Thus, the present research is an

attempt to fill the gap by between job crafting and employee work engagement in the context

of Perta Arun Gas of Pakistan.

Objectives of the study

1. To examine the effect of job crafting and job satisfaction.

2. To examine the effect of job crafting and employee work engagement.

Hypothesis of the study

H0: Job crafting has insignificant effect on job satisfaction.

H1: Job crafting has significant effect on job satisfaction.

H0: Job crafting has insignificant effect on work engagement.

H1: Job crafting has significant effect on work engagement.

15
Significance of the study

This study offers many contributions to the job crafting and job satisfaction in literature.
First, this study provides a link between job crafting and job satisfaction. the methodological
contribution of the present study as that it validates the scale of job crafting, job satisfaction,
and employee work engagement using EFA because of minor modification in the scale.
Third, this study contextually fills the gap by taking hospitality employees. Lastly, this study
is helpful for researchers, practitioners, and academicians to know the link between job
crafting and job satisfaction, work engagement.

LITERATURE REVIEW
The resurgence of interest in craft work as a phenomenon presents a promising area for
organisational psychology research. Job crafting is a type of proactive work behaviour that
entails reshaping and changing tasks or relationships that shape work in order to keep it
interesting, motivating, and healthy (Demerouti, 2015). Job crafting is a type of proactive
work behaviour in which individuals actively change the qualities of their jobs (Tims &
Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Work crafts have been shown to boost job
engagement, creativity, and performance in recent studies (Gordon, Demerouti, Le Blanc,
Bakker, Bipp, & Verhagen, 2018; Bruning & Campion, 2019; Luu, 2020).

2.1 Job Crafting

Employee-initiated behavioral change that tries to fit their work (and work environment) with
their own preferences, reasons, and passions is known as job crafting (Wrzesniewski &
Dutton, 2001). Employees that are engaged in the craft of work proactively based on the
compatibility of their talents, strengths, and interests with a changing workplace. Employees
can stay challenged in their work while also maintaining their level of excitement and energy
by doing so.

The work should be redesigned and defined in such a way that it is easier for them to
complete it with the best possible results (Berg, Dutton, Wrzesniewski, 2013; Tims, Derks, &
Bakker, 2016). Craft work can be divided into two types, according to Leana, Appelbaum,
and Shevchuk (2009): solo craft and collaborative craft. When an employee actively
participates in modifying the scope of his responsibilities while shaping the actual style of

16
working, this is referred to as individual craft. Employees who work together to establish how
to adjust task boundaries to fulfil agreed work goals are referred to as collaborative craft.
Conversely, hindering job demands are considered stressful because they unnecessarily
thwart personal growth and goal attainment and hinder optimal functioning (LePine et al.,
2005). Previous studies have shown that hindering job demands may be related to burnout
because employees must invest considerable resources to cope with these demands (Hakanen,
Schaufeli, & Ahola, 2008; Schaufeli et al., 2009). In this study, we focus on the process by
which employees proactively decrease their level of hindering demands. Doing so may allow
employees to restore their energy levels and focus their efforts on their core work tasks,
which may decrease their level of burnout and increase their levels of work engagement and
job satisfaction. For example, when experiencing excessive cognitive demands, employees
may improve their job characteristics by revising their work methods and schedules (Bunce
& West, 1996).

Employee engagement refers to the employee's relationship with his or her work, whereas
work engagement refers to the employee's relationship with the organisation (Mäkikangas,
2018). Job engagement is defined as "using members of the organisation for their work roles:
during the role play, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively,
emotionally, and mentally." Cognitive, emotional, and bodily participation are three
components of work motivation (Demerouti, Bakker, De Jonge, Janssen 2001). According to
Bakker and Demerouti (2014), work craft conduct by an individual that raises work resources
and job demands that challenge reasoning has a favourable impact on work engagement. The
development of obstructive work demands, on the other hand, is not seen to be directly
related to job participation (Bakker 2014).

2.2. Job Crafting and work engagement

Work engagement have been studied previously (Harju, Hakanen, & Schaufeli, 2016;
Wingerden & Poell, 2017; Ogbuanya & Chukwuedo, 2017; Mäkikangas, 2018). Each job,
according to Bakker and Demerouti (2007), has two characteristics: task demands and
resources (work). According to the JDR model, high job demands combined with substantial
resources lead to high levels of motivation, participation, and work involvement (Tuckey,
Bakker, & Dollard, 2012). Increased organisational performance can be aided by employee
involvement in their work. Workers' high job crafting causes workers' involvement in the task
itself (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013). Empirical results further show that reducing the scope

17
of the job is either unrelated or negatively related to health, work engagement, and task
performance (e.g. Bruning & Campion, 2018; Demerouti, et al., 2015; Lichtenthaler &
Fischbach, 2018; Rudolph et al., 2017; Tims et al., 2015; Weseler & Niessen, 2016) even in
the long term (Petrou et al., 2018, 2015).

2.3. Job Crafting and job satisfaction

Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as "a measure of one's work or experience in terms of
positive emotions or enjoyment at work" and "people's feelings (like or dislike) at work"
(Spector, 1997). Individual feelings that lead to being more productive, creative, and
committed to work are referred to in these definitions. Employee happiness can also relate to
job satisfaction, which is linked to creativity in the work environment. Job satisfaction refers
to employees' feelings of accomplishment and success at work.

Generally thought to be linked to personal well-being and productivity (Cheng & O-Yang,
2018). Job satisfaction entails doing work that one enjoys, doing it well, and getting paid for
it. Job satisfaction also refers to a person's enthusiasm for and enjoyment of their work. Job
satisfaction is the most important factor in achieving recognition, pay, promotion, and other
goals that contribute to emotions of fulfilment (Ibrahim & Yusra, 2016). Furthermore,
because fatigue is caused by psychological stress, as established by the JD-R model, work
crafting behaviour can minimise weariness (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012). Job satisfaction
suffers as a result of such exhaustion and strain (Lee & Ok, 2012; Lewin & Sager, 2007).

In the service business, the association between craft work and job satisfaction has
been studied (Tims et al., 2013; Cheng, Chen, Teng, & Yen, 2016). Employee happiness
might rise if they have the necessary skills for their employment (Tims et al., 2013). There is
some evidence that job crafting in the form of seeking resources and challenges increases
employees’ performance (Bakker et al., 2012; Leana, Appelbaum, & Shevchuk, 2009; Petrou,
Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015). Job crafters may be better at fulfilling the formal job
requirements (Goodman & Svyantek, 1999), because they ask for feedback or help during the
process of task fulfillment and take on challenging assignments. On the contrary, decreasing
demands has been found to negatively predict both in-role performance (Gordon, Demerouti,
Le Blanc, & Bipp, 2015; Petrou et al., 2015) and extra-role performance (Demerouti et
al., 2015) because it reduces the scope of the job and indicates withdrawal behavior (Lee &
Lee, 2018). Based on the JD-R model, which proposes that job resources are motivational

18
(Bakker, 2011; Demerouti et al., 2001), we expect that employees who increase their job
resources will experience higher levels of work engagement.

Work engagement is defined as an active, positive, work-related state characterized

by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy,
willingness to put effort into the job, and persistence in the face of difficulties. Dedication
implies enthusiasm and to feel challenged by the job. Absorption is the quality of being fully
concentrated and focused on the job. We also include job satisfaction because it is the most
common operationalization of workrelated well-being (Blanchflower & Oswald, 1999). A
cross-national study that examined the determinants of job satisfaction (Sousa-Poza & Sousa-
Poza, 2000) supports our claim that job resources may fuel job satisfaction.

The study showed that the most important determinants of job satisfaction were
interesting work, good relationships with managers and colleagues, high salaries, and
independent work. Although work engagement and job satisfaction are both predicted by job
resources, they are different concepts (Alarcon & Lyons, 2011). Based on the circumplex
model of affect (Posner, Russell, & Peterson, 2005), these constructs can be mapped onto two
affective dimensions. The first dimension ranges from pleasure to displeasure, and the second
dimension ranges from active to inactive. An engaged employee experiences high levels of
pleasure and activation, whereas a satisfied employee is characterized by high levels of
pleasure and inactivation (Bakker & Oerlemans, 2011). These dimensions allow researchers
to conceptualize various aspects of employee well-being. An employee engages in the third
type of job crafting when (s)he considers a specific task boring but reframes this task as
boring but important. The task does not change, but the employee views it in a more positive
manner. These changes allow employees to make their work more engaging and meaningful
(Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Because job crafting involves
initiating changes in the job design, it is operationalized according to the types of job
characteristics suggested in the Job Demands Resources (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti,
2007; Demerouti et al., 2001): job demands and job resources (see also Tims, Bakker, &
Derks, 2012).

Job characteristics that require sustained effort from employees and are, therefore,
associated with certain costs are labeled job demands. Job characteristics that contribute
toward achieving workrelated goals, reducing the effect of job demands and associated costs,
and stimulating personal development are called job resources. This distinction allows the

19
model to be applied to many occupations and jobs. Moreover, this distinction allows
researchers to assess which job characteristics employees change when they craft their jobs.
In line with the JD-R model, job crafters change either the level of job demands, the level of
job resources, or both. In this study, we incorporate Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, De Witte,
and Vansteenkiste’s (2010) distinction between challenging and hindering job demands
within the JD-R model. These authors aimed to explain why some job demands have been
found to be related to positive outcomes and others to negative outcomes. For example, time
pressure or workload was significantly and positively related to work engagement in several
studies (see Bakker, Van Emmerik, & Euwema, 2006; Sonnentag, 2003). These demands are
called challenging demands.

Although challenging demands require extra effort to meet, employees react

positively to them. Employees view these demands as leading to personal gain or growth
when they are able to surmount them (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Hindering job demands, in
contrast, are appraised as stressful because they unnecessarily thwart personal growth and
goal attainment and hinder optimal functioning (LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005).
Employees initially attempt to withstand these hindering demands, sometimes by investing
more resources. When employees experience these health-threatening demands for a
prolonged period of time, they eventually require other coping methods. Because these
demands are associated with negative emotions, employees may withdraw from work or
decrease their work speed (Schaufeli & Taris, 2005). Using the refined JD-R model, Tims et
al. (2012) recently distinguished empirically between four job crafting dimensions. Two of
these dimensions refer to the type of job resources that are crafted: structural (e.g., autonomy
and variety) and social job resources (e.g., social support and feedback).

The other two dimensions refer to the level of job demands: challenging (e.g., new
projects) and hindering job demands (e.g., fewer cognitive demands). As mentioned above,
job crafting research has yet to determine whether employees who report crafting their jobs
also report a change in their level of job demands and resources (e.g., Oldham & Hackman,
2010). The present study seeks to provide empirical evidence for the theoretical assumption
that employees affect their job demands and resources through job crafting (Tims & Bakker,
2010).

Research suggests that employees often compare their current career status with their ideal
career status (Strauss et al., 2012). Assessing career needs based on individuals’ career goals,

20
job crafting can help employees to achieve their ideal career status. For example, younger
employees may value development opportunities more than older workers (Fried, Grant,
Levi, Hadani, & Slowik, 2007). Job crafting seems relevant for employees’ career
satisfaction, because engaging in job crafting is likely to enhance person-job fit (Oldham &
Hackman, 2010) by satisfying career needs and consequently increasing career satisfaction.
Reducing demands should be detrimental for one’s satisfaction with career because the
individual is involved in withdrawal and avoidance of work aspects in order to increase fit.

Looking at the empirical, longitudinal evidence of the specific dimensions of job crafting,
seeking resources behavior is consistently and positively related to work engagement and task
performance over time (e.g. Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2018; Petrou et al., 2015);
however, the (longitudinal) relationships between job crafting and career satisfaction are still
unknown. There is also no conclusive evidence about the links between seeking challenges
and work engagement and task performance over time (e.g. Tims et al., 2013, 2015) although
diary studies (e.g. Petrou et al., 2012) and cross-sectional studies (e.g. Demerouti,
Xanthopoulou, Petrou, & Karagkounis, 2017) show that they are in general positively related,
whereas longitudinal studies fail to provide support for their relationship (e.g. Petrou et
al., 2018; Tims et al., 2013). On a daily basis, seeking challenges is found to be positively
related to daily counterproductive work behavior (Demerouti et al., 2015). As evidence of
longitudinal studies is rather limited and because results may be influenced by the specific
occupational context, we do expect a positive relationship between seeking challenges and
outcomes based on the theoretical arguments presented above.

We believe that job crafting has an impact on job satisfaction, based on some of the
viewpoints indicated above. As a result, we construct the following hypothesis:

21
 METHODOLOGY
Population
Perseroan Terbatas was the site of this study (PT). Perta Arun Gas (PAG) is a firm that
specialises in regasification.

There are 180 people working for the company. The Krejcie and Morgan Sample Tables in
Sekaran & Bougie were used to take a sample of 123 participants for this study (2009).
Cooper and Schindler (2014) used the simple random sampling approach to collect member
samples for respondents.

Sampling design
The current study will employ a technique known as simple random sampling. The current

study's participants were on based of prior researcher's "suggestions." According to Sekaran

(2013), the research study's sample size should be ten times larger than the study variable.

According to Field (2013), the best appropriate sample size for a survey research is higher

than 30 but less than 500. The most appropriate sample size, according to Zhang et al.,

(2012), is 400. The study in hand, choose 180 employees in Perta Arun Gas (PAG) to

participate in the study based on these suggestions.

Data collection

The primary data was collected by delivering questionnaires to 123 respondents who were
chosen using a simple random sample method. The questionnaire was divided into two
sections, the first of which inquired about respondents' demographics such as gender, age,
marital status, and final educational attainment. The second section includes questions
concerning the variables that were investigated. There are five variables identified: job
crafting, work engagement, and job satisfaction as independent variables, and job crafting,
work engagement, and job satisfaction as dependent variables.

22
Variables and its measure
Job crafting is assessed using 12 items from prior research (Cheng & O-Yang, 2018), which
have been reduced to 8 for this study (e.g. "I rearranged my work to make it easy"; "I made
changes to the job to make it more quality ").

Previous research (Ogbuanya & Chukwuedo, 2017), cited from The Shortened Version of the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), consists of 17 instruments with three dimensions
(vigour, dedication, and absorption). This study adjusts for 8 instrument items, including
sample instrument questions for vigour (e.g., "I feel full of energy at work"), dedication (e.g.,
"I am excited about my work"), and absorption (e.g., "Time flies when I'm working").

According to earlier study (Cheng & O-Yang, 2018), job satisfaction is measured using five
instrument items (for example, "I feel my work is valuable" and "In my work, I feel I am
doing something important").

A five-point Likert scale was used to assess all instruments, ranging from "strongly disagree"
to "strongly agree." With the help of SPSS, questions about respondent characteristics such as
gender, age, education, and marital status were asked using a nominal scale.

Data Analysis
Before using SPSS to test the hypothesis, the data is checked for normality, validity, and
reliability. Meanwhile, use the formula to test the study hypothesis using simple linear
regression analytic tools:

If the regression analysis findings indicate a significance value (p> 0.0), Ho is accepted; if the
significance value (p0.0), Ha is accepted. This applies to both hypotheses investigated.

23
Conceptual framework

Work engagement

Job crafting

Job satisfaction

Figure1: conceptual framework

24
 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Demographics

The gender, age, marital status, and most recent education of the respondents are listed in
Table 1. Male respondents are substantially larger than female respondents, according to the
results of the SPSS analysis. In terms of age, the respondents reported that 74 percent of them
were over the age of 50. Furthermore, the marital status of the interviewees reveals that the
majority of them are married. The Diploma (D3) education level was nominated as the
respondents' most recent education, followed by the bachelor's degree level. Table 1 has
further information.

Table 1: Respondent Characteristics

25
4.2 Reliability
The reliability test results are shown in Table 2. When it comes to interpreting study findings,
the reliability test is crucial. This examination determines whether the research tools are
dependable. If the instrument is constant from time to time, it is said to be reliable. Cronbac's
Alpha index for each of the three variables is greater than 0.60, indicating that the
instruments used to measure Job Crafting, Work Engagement, and Job Satisfaction are all
reliable.

Table 2: Reliability Test Result

4.3 Normality
The findings of the research data normality test are shown in Table 3. The purpose of a
normality test is to determine if the distribution of data in a group of data or variables is
normally distributed or not. The normality test can be used to determine if data is regularly
distributed or from a normal population. The Kolmogorov Smirnov method was employed to
test the data's normality in this investigation.

The significance value of 0.200 in the analysis in Table 1 is greater than 0.05, indicating that
the data for the job crafting variable in predicting the work engagement variable are normally
distributed.

26
 Table 3: Data Normality Test Result (Work Engagement)
Table 4 shows the results of the data normality test of the crafting variable with the work
satisfaction variable. The data for the variable is normally distributed, according to the test
results. Table 4 demonstrates this, with a significance value of 0.095 that is greater than 0.05.

Table 4: Data Normality Test Result (Job Satisfaction)

Effect of Job Crafting on Work Engagement

Table 5 shows the results of applying simple linear regression analysis techniques using
SPSS to examine the effect of job crafting on work engagement. The regression analysis
revealed that job crafting had a significant impact on work engagement at a significance level

27
of 0.000, which is less than 0.05. These findings back up previous study (Gordon et al., 2018;
Bruning & Campion, 2019; Luu, 2020).

Table 5: Effect of job crafting on Work Engagement

Table 6 shows the coefficient of determination test results. The coefficient of determination is
commonly described as the amount of variance explained by the independent variable by the
dependent variable. The R Square value for the job crafting variable is 0.185, which suggests
that the job crafting variable can explain 18.5 percent of the work engagement variable (Y1)
(X). The remaining 81.5 percent is influenced by factors not included in this model.

Table 6: Coefficient of determination of the Effect of Job Crafting on Work Engagement

Effect of Job Crafting on Job Satisfaction

Table 7 shows the findings of a simple linear regression analysis evaluating the effect of job
crafts on work satisfaction. Because the significance value of 0.001 is less than 0.05 (p0.05)
in the analysis, it can be inferred that job crafting has a substantial impact on job satisfaction.
Meanwhile, the coefficient of determination test in Table 8 can be used to determine the
extent of the influence. Tims et al., 2013; Cheng et al., 2016; Ibrahim & Yusra, 2016; Adam,
Ibrahim, Ikramuddin, & Syahputra, 2020) corroborate the conclusions of this study.

28
 Table 7: Effect of Job Crafting on Job Satisfaction
Table 8 shows the coefficient of determination, or the size, of job crafting's impact on job
satisfaction. The R Square value for the work crafting variable is 0.088, which suggests that
the job crafting variable can predict 8.8% of the job satisfaction variable, while the remainder
(99.91 percent) is predicted by other factors not included in this model.

Table 8: Coefficient of determination of the effect of job crafting on job Satisfaction

Figure 2 depicts the outcomes of the investigation in a conceptual framework. The effect of
job crafting on work engagement is 0.431 (43.1%), while the effect of job crafting on job
satisfaction is 0.296 percent, as shown in Figure 2. (29.6 percent). In other words, job crafting
is associated with 43.1 percent of work engagement and 29.6 percent of job satisfaction,
respectively, and the link is significant at the level (p0.05).

29
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework of Test Result

30
SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE WORK
Summary
The purpose of this study was to see how job crafting affect job outcomes i.e. work
engagement and job satisfaction, which entails looking at the relationship between job
crafting and work engagement and job satisfaction. Workers at Perseroan Terbatas were the
subjects of this study (PT). Petra Arun Gas (PAG) is a company that employs 180 employees.
Up to 123 people were sampled, according to the Krejcie and Morgan Sample Tables. In this
research three variables were used where job crafting was used as independent variable and
job satisfaction and work engagement were used as dependent variables. In this research the
members of the sample were chosen using a basic random sampling method. To collect
primary data, questionnaires were provided to all samples. Furthermore in this research Data
was analysed using simple linear regression analysis methods with the help of SPSS.
According to the findings of the research data analysis, job crafting has a significant impact
on the two dependent variables of work engagement and job satisfaction.

According to the study's findings, job crafting had a significant impact on workplace
engagement. This showed that increasing the usage of job crafting will help to increase the
use of work engagement moreover an increase in work crafting activities will have a
beneficial impact on employee satisfaction.

Conclusion
The hypothesis that was created is referenced in the conclusion drawn from the study's
findings. Several inferences can be derived from the analysis' findings. First, the findings of
the study revealed that job crafting has a major impact on workplace engagement. This
suggests that expanding the use of job crafting will have a positive impact on boosting the use
of work engagement.

Second, the findings of the study revealed that job crafting has a big impact on job
satisfaction. This suggests that any increase in job crafting activities will have a positive
influence on employee happiness.

This study employs three constructs: job crafting as an independent construct, job
engagement and job satisfaction as a dependent construct, and job crafting as a dependent
construct. These constructs, particularly the dependent constructs, are extremely limiting.
Furthermore, the sponsor's time constraint is quite short, only one month and a half, limiting

31
the number of respondents we may draw from the available population. Furthermore, because
research funding is limited, this study cannot be conducted in a more comprehensive and in-
depth manner.

RECOMMENDATION

1. This study recommend that employees’ perceived opportunities to craft their jobs may
determine their actual job crafting behavior in the workplace. Managers should be aware
of the importance of these perceptions, as they wish to stimulate employees’ job crafting
behaviors.
2. This research study recommend this managers who positively influence employees’
perceived opportunities to craft before offering job crafting interventions in the
organization can create optimal conditions that may in fact strengthen intervention
effects. 
3. The current study also recommend for employees, this study underlines the importance
of taking charge of the congruence between their changing work environments and their
own preferences, motives, and passions.
4. The current study also suggest that managers underline that they support employees’ job
crafting behaviors, which may positively influence employees’ perceived opportunities
to craft. In addition, they can facilitate a dialog on the added value of job crafting
behavior in the workplace or stimulate job crafting through training 

Future Work

The results of this study can be extended in future studies by enhancing the results and adding
new variables to the investigation. Conducting research on multiple sample groups or adding
new characteristics such as personality, job crafting, leadership, or emotional commitment
can all help to make a bigger difference. Although this study provides evidence for the
proposed model and hypotheses, some limitations of our study need to be acknowledged. One
limitation is the self-report nature of our data. By using self-reports we cannot entirely avoid
the risk of common method bias, which may inflate the correlations between the variables.
However, employees’ evaluations of the job and their well-being may be subjective, and self-
reports may be the best method to capture these perceptions and feelings (Sousa-Poza and
Sousa-Poza, 2000). To diminish potential common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003) it
may be interesting to include different types of measures such as peer ratings of job crafting

32
behavior and work engagement (cf. Tims et al., 2012). In addition, future studies may also
pay attention to other ratings provided by supervisors, or clients, for example for measuring
in-role performance. This will give a more objective view in terms of observable behavior.

Second, a consequence of the cross-sectional nature of our data is that we cannot warrant
causality in our study design since predictor, mediators, and outcome variables are not
temporally separated. Future research should try to replicate our study using a longitudinal
design to examine the causal relationships among the study variables. Third, the present
studies included one heterogeneous convenience sample. A strength is that the sample
included employees from a variety of industries (e.g., health care, education, and professional
services). Nevertheless, all participants were Dutch employees, which may limit the
generalizability of our findings. Future research may further add to the generalizability of the
findings by replicating our study among employees in different countries and cultures.
Fourth, this study specifically focused on perceived opportunities to craft and its outcomes.
Future studies should also examine the antecedents of perceived opportunities to craft. These
insights may further support professionals and organizations that want to facilitate
employees’ job crafting behavior. Despite these limitations, the results of this study indicate
that the concept of job crafting is useful for studying how employees’ satisfaction and work
engagment contribute to their well-being and organizational outcomes.

REFERENCES
Adam, M., Ibrahim, M., Ikramuddin, I., & Syahputra, H. (2020). The Role of Digital
Marketing Platforms on Supply Chain Management for Customer Satisfaction and
Loyalty in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) at Indonesia. International Journal
of Supply Chain Management, 9(3), 1210-1220.
http://ojs.excelingtech.co.uk/index.php/IJSCM/article/view/5027

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

33
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands–resources theory. Wellbeing: A
complete reference guide, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell019

Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work.
Washington, DC. American Psychologycal Association, pp. 81–104.
https://doi.org/10.1037/14183-005

Bruning, P. F., & Campion, M. A. (2019). Exploring job crafting: Diagnosing and responding
to the ways employees adjust their jobs. Business Horizons, 62(5), 625-635.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.05.003

Chen, C.-Y., Yen, C.-H., & Tsai, F. C. (2014). Job crafting and job engagement: The
mediating role of person-job fit. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37,
21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.10.006

Cheng, J.-C., & O-Yang, Y. (2018). Hotel employee job crafting, burnout, and satisfaction:
The moderating role of perceived organizational support. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 72, 78– 85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.005

Cheng, J.-C., Chen, C.-Y., Teng, H.-Y., & Yen, C.-H. (2016). Tour leaders’ job crafting and
job outcomes: The moderating role of perceived organizational support. Tourism
Management Perspectives, 20, 19– 29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2016.06.001

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2014). Business Research Methods. 12th. Ed. McGraw-
Hill Companies, Inc., 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10020.

Dash, S. S., & Vohra, N. (2019). The leadership of the school principal. Management
Research Review, 43(2), 1-19. https://.doi.org/10.1108/mrr-11-2017-0384

Demerouti, E. (2015). Design Your Own Job Through Job Crafting. European Psychologist,
19(4), 237– 247. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000188

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., De Jonge, J., Janssen, P. P. M., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2001).
Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian.
Journal of Work Environment & Health, 27, 279–286.
https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.615

Gordon, H. J., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P. M., Bakker, A. B., Bipp, T., & Verhagen, M. A.
M. T. (2018). Individual job redesign: Job crafting interventions in healthcare. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 104, 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.002

34
Harju, L. K., Hakanen, J. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2016). Can job crafting reduce job boredom
and increase work engagement? A three-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 95-96, 11– 20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.07.001

Hetland, J., Hetland, H., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2018). Daily transformational
leadership and employee job crafting: The role of promotion focus. European
Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.01.002

Alarcon, G. M. (2011). A meta-analysis of burnout with job demands, resources, and

attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 549 –562.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.03.007

Alarcon, G. M., & Lyons, J. B. (2011). The relationship of engagement and job satisfaction
in working samples. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 145,
463– 480. doi:10.1080/00223980.2011 .584083

Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). Amos 6.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc. Bakker, A. B.
(2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 20, 265–269. doi:10.1177/ 0963721411414534

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs, P. J. G. (2003). A
multigroup analysis of the job demands-resources model in four home care
organizations. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 16 –38.
doi:10.1037/1072-5245.10.1.16

Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, D., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources
boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99, 274 –284.

Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. (2011). Subjective well-being in organizations. In K.

Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), Handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp.
178 –190). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An
emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22, 187–200.
doi:10.1080/02678370802393649

35
 Bakker, A. B., Van Emmerik, H., & Euwema, M. C. (2006). Crossover of burnout and
engagement in work teams. Work and Occupations, 33, 464 – 489.
doi:10.1177/0730888406291310

Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2008). What is job crafting and why does it
matter?Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Ross School of Business. Retrieved
from http://www.bus.umich.edu/Positive/ POS-Teaching-and-Learning/ListPOS-
Cases.htm Blanchflower,

D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (1999, May). Well-being, insecurity and the decline of American job
satisfaction. Paper presented at a Cornell University conference, Ithaca, NY.
Retrieved from http://www .dartmouth.edu/~blnchflr/papers/JobSat.pdf

Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC): The
general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52, 345–370.
doi:10.1007/BF02294361

Bunce, D., & West, M. A. (1996). Stress management and innovation interventions at work.
Human Relations, 49, 209 –232. doi:10.1177/ 001872679604900205

Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work: A
compendium and review of 249 measures and their use. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press Limited.

Cooley, E., & Yovanoff, P. (1996). Supporting professionals-at-risk: Evaluating

interventions to reduce burnout and improve retention of special educators.
Exceptional Children, 62, 336 –355.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–

462. doi:10.1177/014920630002600304

Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to
employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 834 – 848. doi:10.1037/a0019364

Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure “change”: Or should we?
Psychological Bulletin, 74, 68 – 80. doi:10.1037/h0029382

36
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499 –512.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Vardakou, I., & Kantas, A. (2003). The convergent validity of
two burnout instruments: A multitraitmultimethod analysis. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 19, 12–23. doi:10.1027//1015-5759.19.1.12

Doty, D., & Glick, W. (1998). Common methods bias: Does common methods variance
really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374 – 406.
doi:10.1177/109442819814002

Dugdill, L., & Springett, J. (1994). Evaluation of workplace health promotion: A review.
Health Education Journal, 53, 337–347. doi:10.1177/ 001789699405300311

Furda, J. (1995). Werk, persoon en welzijn: Eentoets van het JD-C model. [Work,
personality, and wellbeing: A test of the JD-C model]. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.

Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work process and quality of care in early
childhood education: The role of job crafting. Academy of Management Journal, 52,
1169 –1192. doi:10.5465/AMJ .2009.47084651

Le Blanc, P. M. (1994). De steun van de leiding: Eenonderzoeknaar het Leader Member

Exchange model in de verpleging [Leader’s support: A study of the Leader Member
Exchange model among nurses]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Thesis Publishers.

LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the
challenge stressor– hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent
relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48,
764 –775. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005 .18803921

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on
hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in
overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11,
320 –341. doi:10.1207/ s15328007sem1103_2

Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Safety at work: A meta-
analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout,

37
 engagement, and safety outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 71–94.
doi:10.1037/a0021484

Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2010). Not what it was and not what it will be: The future
of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 463– 479.
doi:10.1002/job.678

Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C. W., Schaufeli, W., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a
job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1120 – 1141. doi:10.1002/job.1783

Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-
hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and
withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art.
Journal of Manag

Ibrahim, Mahdani & Yusra. (2016). Work–family conflict and job satisfaction: the mediating
role of person– organization fit study on employees of the BRI Aceh Region. The
South East Asian Journal of Management, 10(2),173-182.
https://doi.org/10.21002/seam.v10i2.7734

Karatepe, O. M., & Eslamlou, A. (2017). Outcomes of job crafting among flight attendants.
Journal of Air Transport Management, 62, 34–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.02.005

Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work Process and Quality of Care in
Early Childhood Education: The Role of Job Crafting. Academy of Management
Journal, 52(6), 1169–1192. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.47084651

Lee, J. (Jay), & Ok, C. (2012). Reducing burnout and enhancing job satisfaction: Critical role
of hotel employees’ emotional intelligence and emotional labor. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1101– 1112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.01.007

Lewin, J. E., & Sager, J. K. (2007). A process model of burnout among salespeople: Some
new thoughts. Journal of Business Research, 60(12),
1216–1224.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.04.009

38
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (ed.),
Handbook of Indlustrial and Organizational Psychlology. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Luu, T. T. (2020). Linking authentic leadership to salespeople’s service performance: The

roles of job crafting and human resource flexibility. Industrial Marketing
Management, 84, 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.06.002

Mäkikangas, A. (2018). Job crafting profiles and work engagement: A person-centered

approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 106, 101–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.01.001

Menachery, T. J. (2018). Employees shaping their own jobs: how to enable job crafting?
Human Resource Management International Digest, 26(5), 27–29. doi:10.1108/hrmid-
05-2018-0106

Ogbuanya, T. C., & Chukwuedo, S. O. (2017). Job crafting-satisfaction relationship in

electrical/electronic technology education programme: Do work engagement and
commitment matter? Revista de Psicología Del Trabajo y de Las Organizaciones,
33(3), 165–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rpto.2017.09.003

Rudolph, C. W., Katz, I. M., Lavigne, K. N., & Zacher, H. (2017). Job crafting: A meta-
analysis of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work
outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 112– 138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.008

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: a multisample study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25(3), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2009). Research Methods for Business: A skill bulding approach,
5th. The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United
Kingdom, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Solberg, E., & Wong, S. I. (2016). Crafting one’s job to take charge of role overload: When
proactivity requires adaptivity across levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(5), 713–
725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.03.001

Spector, P.E. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences,
2455 Teller Road,Thousand Oaks, California 91320, SAGE Publications, Inc

39
Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual
jobredesign. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36,
1-9.https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting
scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1),
173–186.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., Derks, D., & Van Rhenen, W. (2013). Job crafting at the team and
individual level: implications for work engagement and performance. Group Organ.
Management. 38, 427–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113492421

Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person–
job fit and meaningfulness: A threewave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92,
44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007

Tuckey, M. R., Bakker, A. B., & Dollard, M. F. (2012). Empowering leaders optimize
working conditions for engagement: A multilevel study. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 17(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025942

Wingerden, J. van, & Poell, R. F. (2017). Employees’ Perceived Opportunities to Craft and
In-Role Performance: The Mediating Role of Job Crafting and Work Engagement.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01876

World Economic Forum (2017). Realizing Human Potential in the Fourth Industrial
Revolution: An Agenda for Leaders to Shape the Future of Education, Gender and
Work. World Economic Forum. 91-93 route de la Capite CH-1223 Cologny/Geneva
Switzerland, www.weforum.org

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Craffting a job: Revisioning employees as active
crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2),
179-201.https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378011

40