Crafting broader and deeper: refining the boundaries of employee proactiveness

measurement with the Work-related Need Crafting Assessment Scale.

Baptiste P.C. Marescaux

School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway

Anja H. Olafsen

School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway

Miika Kujanpää

School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway

1
1. Introduction

The matter of employee proactiveness is a key element of the current organisational

behaviour literature. In most industries and job specialties, employees engage in processes

which are self-initiated, change oriented, and future focused (Parker, et al., 2010). Workers

may change the way they do their job, change the way they conceive their job, or actively

explore new possibilities and opportunities that would contribute to their work, their career,

or their personal fulfilment. Within this domain of employee cognitions and behaviours, the

concept of job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) has garnered extensive attention

across the past two decades.

By outlining how employees modify, on their own initiative, for their own benefit, their tasks,

their relationships, their personal perspective, and many more potential job aspects, job

crafting has opened the possibility to bring together and articulate a wide diversity of

employee self-oriented proactive processes. Bringing change into one’s own job demands and

resources could fit within the realm of job crafting (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Putting one’s own

approaching or avoidant work orientation into concrete actions and thought processes could

fit within the realm of job crafting (Bruning & Campion, 2018). Categories of crafting

processes grew from three (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) to four (Costantini et al., 2019) to

seven (Bruning & Campion, 2018) to eight (Bindl et al., 2019; Zhang & Parker, 2019). With

each further expansion it became clearer that there was a great breadth in the ways of

crafting, each with their own impact, each with their own purpose. We want to bring our own

contribution to this broadening process.

The concept of work-related need crafting and its operationalisation in the present paper offer

the opportunity to look at employee proactive processes through a new perspective. While

former models of job crafting have considered employee proactivity based on what job aspect

2
was modified (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), what category of demand or resource was

increased or reduced (Tims & Bakker, 2010), what work orientation was being enacted

(Bruning & Campion, 2018), we propose to consider employee proactivity based on what

need it fulfils. By looking at how crafting can affect the satisfaction and frustration of the

needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, we aim to integrate a broad diversity of

crafting processes within three key domains of work motivation and well-being. We also aim

to distinguish the behavioural and cognitive facets of crafting to see how they may interact,

and distinguish the resource and demands side of behavioural crafting to account for their

distinct purpose and impact on employee outcomes.

1.1. Work-related need crafting: definitions and dimensions

Work-related need crafting is defined as the ensemble of behavioural or cognitive processes,

initiated by an employee, aimed at increasing the satisfaction and reducing the frustration of

their basic psychological needs, through modifying the content and context of their job. There

are three basic psychological needs, drivers of motivation and well-being, which are

conceived as innate, essential, and universal (Deci & Ryan, 2000): the need for autonomy,

competence, and relatedness. The need for autonomy designates the desire for individuals to

choose actions and make decisions following their own volition. The need for competence

designates the desire for individuals to have a sense of mastery in the processes or tasks they

enact and the chance to develop one’s abilities. Finally, the need for relatedness designates

the desire of individuals to feel part of a community and have a sense of connection to those

surrounding them.

Beyond this categorisation per need, we also distinguish several forms of need crafting:

cognitive need crafting, and behavioural need crafting, the latter splitting into resource

crafting and demands crafting. Cognitive need crafting entails the ensemble of cognitive

3
changes enacted by an individual in the way they perceive, mentally organize, and reimagine

the content and context of their work in order to enhance satisfaction and reduce frustration

of basic psychological needs. On the other hand, behavioural need crafting designates

proactive and self-initiated behaviours enacted by an individual to change the content and

context of their work in order to enhance the satisfaction and decrease the frustration of the

basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Within this category,

need resources crafting designates proactive behaviours focused on enhancing need

satisfaction through creation of new personal, job, and social resources, or by shaping and

rechanneling existing resources, and need demands crafting designates proactive behaviours

targeted at enhancing need satisfaction and decreasing need frustration by shaping personal,

job, and social demands.

There are thus nine dimensions of crafting overall that we aim to operationalise with this

research (See Figure 1): three distinct forms of crafting, each entailing processes purported

for three distinct basic psychological needs. To put the operationalisation of work-related

need crafting in perspective with the existing literature, we must consider what assumptions

and taxonomies have been used when developing crafting scales up to now. We will thus look

at what aspects of job content or context are modified by job crafting, how they are modified,

and why they are modified (see Table 1 & 2). We will then consider how the what, the how,

and the why of crafting can be broadened and deepened when considered through the lens of

basic psychological needs.

1.2. What employees craft: tasks, relationships, roles and representations

1.2.1. Current literature perspective

When Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) introduce the concept of job crafting, they consider

that crafting targets three main aspects of a job: the tasks that the employee tackle, the

4
relationships they form, and the perspective they have over the coherence of their job (also

called job parsing). Tasks and relationships can be modified behaviourally, perspective can be

modified cognitively. This approach to job crafting and its models have been called role-

based models (Bruning & Campion, 2018). When Slemp and Vella-Broderick (2013)

operationalise role-based models with the Job Crafting Questionnaire, they follow a similar

taxonomy: task crafting, relational crafting, cognitive crafting. Expanding role-based models,

Bindl and colleagues (2019) build upon the Job Crafting Questionnaire with a new addition,

skill crafting, and integrate job parsing and work identity modifications within one category

of cognitive crafting. For role-based model, the primary way of distinguishing categories of

crafting is done by considering what is crafted: tasks, skills, relationships, cognitions.

When Tims and Bakker (2010) adapt job crafting to the job demands-resources (JD-R)

model, their taxonomy takes a different, and somewhat more abstract, approach: modifying a

certain amount of specific job aspects changes the level of overall job resources the employee

has, and modifying other job aspect changes the level of overall job demands the employee

has. This approach to job crafting and its models have been called resource-based models

(Bruning & Campion, 2018). Thus, rather than enhancing what job aspect is specifically

crafted, Tims and Bakker (2010) enhance the utilitarian value of this aspect: whether it is a

resource or a demand. They also distinguish between challenging demands, and hindering

demands. When Tims and colleagues (2012) operationalise this version of crafting with the

Job Crafting Scale, they distinguish 4 utilitarian categories of job content and context to be

crafted: structural resources, social resources, challenging demands, and hindering demands.

In resource-based models, only behavioural crafting is considered and cognitive crafting is

not part of the categories involved. Moreover, relational crafting (social resources) is not

considered for work relationships without utilitarian value.

5
Following on these two main strands, new taxonomies emerged. Bruning and Campion’s

(2018) inductive model of crafting brought a fresh look to crafting categories, broadening the

range of job aspects that could be impacted by crafting: work activities, work organisation,

meetings, relationships, tasks, knowledge and technology, mood and mindset. Zhang and

Parker (2019) integrative model, seeking to synthesise the resource-based models with the

cognitive-behavioural distinction, thus created a cognitive facet for each behavioural category

of crafting: employees modified their resources, their challenging demands and their

hindering demands, but also their thoughts, perceptions and perspectives of those resources,

challenging demands, and hindering demands.

We can thus see that with each added conceptualisation and operationalisation, there is a

broadening in terms of what aspects of a job can be modified by job crafting. There is,

however, still some developments to consider. For instance, Bindl and colleagues’ (2019)

scale provides a clear taxonomy regarding which aspects of a job are being crafted (task,

skills, relationships, cognitions). However, they consider cognitive crafting as distinct from

the other job aspects, concerning mainly meaning and job coherence, thus not including the

possibility for employees to proactively change the thoughts they have towards their tasks,

skills, and relationships (Hewett, 2022). Such comment can also be extended to Bruning and

Campion (2018) who focus cognitive crafting solely on improving mood and mindset. On the

other hand, Lopper and colleagues (2023), by operationalising Zhang and Parker’s (2019)

integrative model, provide a more balanced view in that regard, with the Approach-

Avoidance Job Crafting Scale having a cognitive and a behavioural facet for each category of

crafting. This balance does come at the cost of an imbalance in terms of job aspects being

crafted: three quarters of the scale focus on tasks, either their modification, or the thoughts

about them, while barely one eighth of the scale focuses on relationships. While we

acknowledge how current job crafting concepts have some clear potential in increasing the

6
satisfaction to the need for competence, and to a certain degree, autonomy (Bakker & van

Woerkom, 2017), we also want to consider how the need for relatedness can be further

integrated into crafting at both behavioural and cognitive level. Indeed, the recent literature

has started emphasizing the importance of non-instrumental relationships in the workplace

(Bannya et al., 2023) as a manifold domain of research, affecting employee well-being,

satisfaction and growth (Colbert et al., 2016).

1.2.2. Work-related need crafting perspective

Having considered the main strands in the crafting conceptualisation and measurement

literature, we are now going to look at how the concept of need crafting at work can

encompass modifications of job aspects at both behavioural and cognitive (more specifically

through need-based schemas) level. We shall look at these potential changes on a need per

need basis.

Crafting for competence is probably the form of need crafting which is the most in-line with

the existing literature. This is especially true for behavioural crafting. With the satisfaction of

the need for competence entailing the experience of feeling effective on tasks, overcoming

challenges and using and developing skills, competence behavioural crafting is likely to

encompass aspects of task crafting (Bindl et al., 2019; Slemp & Vella-Broderick, 2013), skill

crafting (Bindl et al., 2019) and challenge-oriented crafting (Lopper et al., 2023; Tims et al.,

2012). In terms of more specialised crafting constructs, competence behavioural crafting may

also encompass strengths crafting (Kooij et al., 2017) and developmental crafting (Kuijpers et

al., 2020). Outside of the crafting domain, there are also other types of proactive workplace

behaviours that would fit within the breadth of competence crafting, such as strengths use

(van Woerkom et al., 2016), and goal orientation: performance goal orientation is likely to

relate to the effectiveness aspect of competence crafting, while learning goal orientation is

7
likely to related to the skill development aspect of competence crafting (Button et al., 1996).

For cognitive competence crafting, there are fewer existing points of reference. The cognitive

modification of perspectives and expectations towards one’s own skills and effectiveness has

seldom been considered, let alone operationalised. Challenge-oriented cognitive crafting

(Lopper et al., 2023) entails aspects of reframing work challenges in a more positive manner,

while learning goal orientation does entail assumptions made about one’s skills and

effectiveness (Button et al., 1996). Such assumptions would be specifically the what that is

crafted by cognitive competence crafting. In sum, the operationalisation of competence

crafting can draw from a rich literature, both within and outside of the crafting thematic, and

will revolve around modifying tasks and modifying skills.

Crafting for autonomy can find some conceptual connections within the existing literature.

There, cognitive crafting might be the more addressed form. With the satisfaction of the need

for autonomy entailing the experience of self-endorsed choices and actions and of personally

relevant meaning in work, autonomy cognitive crafting is likely to encompass aspects of

cognitive crafting, whether it be oriented towards work identity (Slemp & Vella-Broderick,

2013) or job parsing (Bindl et al., 2019). Costantini’s (2022) further development of cognitive

crafting, entailing the reframing of personal interests at work, would also fit within autonomy

crafting. Thus, changing perspectives and expectations on the choices and meaning of one’s

job is likely to directly stem, among others, from finding meaning in one’s work identity and

coherence, as well as interest, in one’s job. Outside of the crafting domain, some aspects of

self-leadership (Houghton & Neck, 2002) would fit within the crafting domain, especially the

aspects regarding focus on natural rewards, which entails self-endorsed working style and

enjoyment seeking. For behavioural crafting, some aspects of task crafting (Slemp & Vella-

Broderick, 2013) entail crafting for enjoyment and some aspects of resource crafting (Tims et

al., 2012) entail crafting to work in a more self-endorsed manner. In terms of more

8
specialised crafting constructs, autonomy behavioural crafting may also encompass interests

crafting (Kooij et al., 2017). In sum, the operationalisation of autonomy crafting has a few

reference points in the existing literature, but there are clear areas that demands development.

Cognitive crafting for self-endorsement and meaning are not directly present in the literature,

while behavioural crafting for self-endorsement has had limited construction thus far.

Crafting for relatedness is probably the form of need crafting which is the least in-line with

the existing literature. This is especially true for cognitive crafting. With the satisfaction of

relatedness entailing the experience of meaningful connection, belonging, and reciprocal

caring, the main existing connection, at the behavioural level, is with relational crafting

(Bindl et al., 2019; Slemp & Vella-Broderick, 2013) social expansion crafting (Bruning &

Campion, 2018) and a specialised scale of relational job crafting (Rofcanin et al., 2019),

though it is important to note that relatedness behavioural crafting is broader than relational

crafting. Indeed, crafting for meaningful connection and belonging goes further than

relationship building and networking, as it does not only consider the quantity of

relationships and frequency of interactions, but also their quality and emotional value. There

are also a few relations-oriented items in Lopper and colleagues (2023) resource crafting sub-

scale which include a valuation of the relationship quality. At the cognitive level, apart from a

single item in Lopper and colleagues’ (2023) scale, the crafting of perceptions and

expectations towards relationships and work interactions must look outside of the crafting

domain for reference. The constructs of perspective taking and empathy (Grant & Berry,

2011), may represent a form of cognitive relatedness crafting, reframing perceptions of others

and thus, of one’s relationship to them. In terms of job aspects, the primary target thus far in

the literature has been work relationships, but relatedness crafting could also look into

crafting towards specific social events, crafting towards specific social groups, and crafting

towards one’s interpersonal style. In sum, the operationalisation of relatedness crafting can

9
take reference in the literature on relational crafting, but only to a certain point. Crafting for

belonging and crafting to enhance relationship quality and connection have been thus far

understudied aspects of crafting at work.

From this first outlook at the what of job crafting and how it extends to work-related need

crafting, we can see that at the behavioural level, need crafting can broaden which job aspects

are being modified, while at the cognitive level, need crafting, by fleshing out changes in

perspectives and expectations, can deepen how these various job aspects are experienced.

Bearing this in mind, we shall now look at how job aspects have been modified in the crafting

literature.

1.3. How employees craft: increasing, reducing, optimising

1.3.1. Current literature perspective

In the job crafting literature, the manner in which job aspects are crafted can be categorised in

three main approaches: doing more of something, doing less of something, and doing the

same amount of something, but differently. These approaches matter greatly as they can

enable to distinguish the quantity of effort and proactiveness that different forms of crafting

can take.

For role-based models (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), the how of job crafting was not

initially the primary lens of analysis since it focused on the what (tasks, relationships…).

However, when Slemp and Vella-Broderick (2013) operationalised it with the Job Crafting

Questionnaire, they focused mainly, at the behavioural level, on the “doing more” and “doing

differently” aspects.

On the other hand, in the “resource-based” strand of the crafting literature (Tims & Bakker,

2010), the how of crafting was very much the primary lens of analysis as resources and

demands were a good way of framing the range of these crafting approaches: employees do

10
more of what brings resources, and do less of what brings hindering demands. In the case of

challenging demands, employees were expected to do more as well but only to a certain

extent. The categories of crafting were thus, initially: increasing resources, increasing

challenges, reducing demands. Another form of crafting was later added: optimising demands

(Demerouti & Peeters, 2018). This brought another interesting distinction as reducing

demands entailed doing less of the job aspects which were straining, whereas optimising

demands entailed engaging with those demanding job aspects differently in order to reduce

their straining impact, thus showing the difference between doing less, and doing differently.

In regard to doing more or doing less, a broader perspective was applied to job crafting:

approach crafting and avoidance crafting (Bruning & Campion, 2018). Approach crafting

synthesised all of the “do more” forms of crafting, while avoidance crafting synthesised the

“do less” forms and the articulation provided by the binary was used in the subsequent

literature and operationalisations.

In the role-based strand of crafting literature, Bindl and colleagues (2019) distinguished

between promotion and prevention crafting for each of the job aspects that would be

modified: promotion crafting entailed expanding tasks, relationships and skillsets, while

prevention crafting entailed channelling and focusing efforts towards specific tasks,

relationships and skillsets. In the resource-based strand of crafting literature, the approach-

avoidance binary was combined to the other existing binaries in order to form a

comprehensive framework of crafting categories (Zhang & Parker, 2019). By combining the

demands-resources binary, the behavioural-cognitive binary, and the approach-avoidance

binary, eight categories of crafting were obtained.

11
 1.3.2. Work-related need crafting perspective

Having considered the main strands in the crafting conceptualisation and measurement

literature, we are now going to look at how the concept of work-related need crafting can

encompass these different manners of crafting.

In terms of “doing more”, “doing less”, and “doing differently”, work-related need crafting

would mainly align these approaches with the potential for need satisfaction or need

frustration in work experiences, in other words: doing more of what brings need satisfaction,

doing less of what brings need frustration, and doing differently what brings need frustration.

At the behavioural level, resources need crafting would entail both “doing more” and “doing

differently”, while demands need crafting would entail “doing differently”. At the cognitive

level, need crafting would entail both “thinking more” and “thinking differently”.

At the cognitive level, we aim to enhance the transformative aspect of cognitive crafting in

comparison with previous operationalisations that included aspects of reminding (Slemp &

Vella-Broderick, 2013), being aware, and perceiving (Lopper et al., 2023), that describe

rather static cognitive functions or even dispositional factors. Instead, we want to frame

cognitive need crafting through processes of reframing, exploration and active reflection that

show how the employee can see their role in new ways. Crafting is an ongoing process of

change, and in that regard, it is also an ongoing cognitive process of change.

From this first outlook at the how of job crafting and how it extends to work-related need

crafting, we can see that at the cognitive level, need crafting develops further the breadth and

depth of transformative cognitive processes at hand in modifying perspectives and

expectations. Part of this broadening and deepening at the cognitive level comes from the

necessity to, within the concept of work-related need crafting, strengthen the why of crafting,

as we are about to discuss.

12
 1.4. Why employees craft: autonomous and controlled drivers

1.4.1. Current literature perspective

In the job crafting literature, the purpose of job crafting is primarily framed as a self-

beneficial intent, but beyond that, the factors and drivers at hand very much depend upon

which model of job crafting is referred to.

In the “role-based” strand of crafting literature (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), the why of

job crafting was conceptualised through three intrinsic needs: the need for control over job

and work meaning, the need for positive self-image, and the need for human connection with

others. These three needs have clear similarities to basic psychological needs and as such,

basic psychological needs have been used as antecedents (Bindl et al., 2019) and outcomes

(Slemp & Vella-Broderick, 2014) of role-based job crafting. When looking at the

operationalisations themselves, the purpose or reason of specific crafting processes is

acknowledged or not, depending on the items. For instance in relational crafting, some items

entail making friends with people with similar interests (Slemp & Vella-Broderick, 2013)

while others entail spending time with a variety of people (Bindl et al., 2019), the former item

indicating that mutual interests may be a good basis for building a meaningful connection

with another person, while the latter item considers that having a variety of social interactions

is an end in itself, regardless of whether these interactions are beneficial or not. Likewise for

task crafting, some items entail introducing new tasks that suit the employee’s interests

(Slemp & Vella-Broderick, 2013), while other items entail simply taking on additional tasks

(Bindl et al., 2019), there again, the former item clearly indicating the specific value of

specific tasks while the latter considers additional tasks as an end in themselves, regardless of

whether they are of interest to the employee or not. This semantic discrepancy within scales

is also clearly present in the other strand of the crafting literature.

13
In the “resource-based” strand of the crafting literature (Tims & Bakker, 2010), the why of

crafting was conceptualised through the job demands-resources theoretical framework

(Demerouti et al. 2001). The purpose of crafting is thus to gain resources, be energised by

challenging demands, and reduce the impact of hindering demands. The issue at hand there,

is that the concepts, and indeed inherent value, of resources and demands are stuck between

an objective organisational interpretation and a subjective individual interpretation. For

instance, the first operationalisation of job crafting in that strand (Tims et al., 2012) based its

resource crafting items on the most influential work characteristics in the work design

literature (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006) in terms of predicting employee work engagement.

This work design approach to job crafting considers what the employee can craft through the

lens of those who design the employee’s job: in other words, the employee can only craft the

job aspects that the organisation would consider as beneficial for them. While there is clear

evidence that the work characteristics are important for employee motivation, health and

well-being, the subjectivity of the employee in the crafting process is still not acknowledged.

1.4.2. Work-related need crafting perspective

This divide between objective and subjective perspectives on the drivers of crafting is

particularly important within the framework of Self-Determination Theory (SDT). We argue

that employees can craft a great variety of job aspects, and do so in a great variety of

manners, but that all this crafting stems from, and goes towards, intrinsic fulfilment. We aim

to systematically integrate a subjective appraisal of what constitutes need satisfaction or

frustration to the current operationalisation of work-related need crafting through the design

and validation of the Work-related Need Crafting Assessment Scale (WoNCAS).

14
2. Method

2.1. Research Design

2.1.1. Psychometric Scale design and validation

1. Item generation

The first part of the scale construction process was the construction of the items that

composed the scale. This began with the generation of an item pool that was thrice the

intended size of the final scale. The items in this pool came from both extant validated scales

in the literature, and data from interviews.

A thorough literature review was conducted on the existing scales related to job crafting, need

crafting, need satisfaction, need frustration, and need support. These items were compiled

into glossaries. In complement, the researchers conducted 18 interviews, exploring need-

related schemas, cognitive need crafting, and behavioural need crafting. The new crafting

behaviours, cognitions, and need-related schemas extracted from those interviews were added

to the glossaries.

Once the glossaries were complete with all the data gathered from all the aforementioned

sources, the researchers generated items. Nine categories of crafting were formed: cognitive

need crafting, behavioural need resources crafting, and behavioural need demands crafting,

each of which being applied to the distinct needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

The final scale is expected to have 4 items per category, and thus have 36 items in total. As

we need to triple that amount to follow best practice procedures and ensure a sufficient

amount of valid items that will pass through the various validation steps, we therefore

generated 12 items per category, and thus had 108 items in total.

15
 2. Content Validation

Once the item pool was complete, the items was submitted to both layman and experts

review. Four of the interviewees provided layman review, rating each item in terms of clarity

and relevance to their work context. Four researchers with extensive knowledge in the fields

of job crafting and basic psychological needs provided expert review, rating each items in

terms of theoretical relevance. All items that received low to average ratings were removed or

modified.

Once the item pool was fully updated following the double review process, the items were

then used in an initial study. The main goal of this study was to obtain item statistics in order

to see the sensitivity of each item, and also to conduct an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

to see how items group together and form factors without predefined constraints. This EFA is

meant to provide a first outline of the final scale’s factor structure. It might thus be that of the

9 categories that had been previously established at theoretical level, some may have to be

removed to be consistent with empirical results.

3. Construct Validation

Once a first viable factor structure is obtained through the EFA, and an ensemble of items

with valid psychometric properties is identified, a first usable version of the WoNCAS scale

will be assembled.

The scale will then be used in studies to confirm their factor structure, and establish their

content and criterion validity. Content validity will be tested by looking at the relation

between the need crafting categories and measures of job crafting, basic psychological need

satisfaction and frustration, and proactive workplace behaviours. Criterion validity will be

tested by looking at the capacity of the need crafting categories to predict health and well-

being outcomes, alongside with work performance.

16
 Work-Related
Need Crafting

Cognitive Behavioural
Crafting Crafting

Resource Demand
Crafting Crafting

Autonomy Autonomy Autonomy

Competence Competence Competence

Relatedness Relatedness Relatedness

Figure 1. Dimensions of work-related need crafting

17
 Scale What How Why

Tasks / Responsibilities (Resources) Developing reducing strain

Tims, Bakker, & Derks, Task-Oriented Social Interactions (Resources) Ensuring developing skills and knowledge
2012 Skills / Knowledge (Resources) Asking increasing effectiveness
Work (Demands) Initiating Increasing initiative

Tasks / Responsibilities (Resources) reducing strain

Petrou, Demerouti,
Task-Oriented Social Interactions (Resources/Demands) Asking developing skills and knowledge
Peeters, shifeli, &
Skills / Knowledge (Resources) Ensuring increasing effectiveness
Hetland, 2012
Work organisation (Demands) Increasing initiative

reducing strain
Tasks / Responsibilities (Resources/Demands) Seeking
developing skills and knowledge
Task-Oriented Social Interactions (Resources/Demands) Taking on
increasing effectiveness
Lopper, Horstmann, & Perspective on tasks (Resources/Demands) Passing on
Increasing initiative
Loppe, 2023 Skills / Knowledge (Resources) Deprioritising
Enhancing positive perspectives
Relationships (Resources/Demands) Being aware
Reframing challenging perspectives
Perspective on Relationships (Resources/Demands) Perceiving
Distancing from negative perspectives

Table 1: Semantic properties of resource-based job crafting scales

18
 Scale What How Why

Adding Having more tasks

Tasks Organising Having better tasks
Slemp & Vella-
Relationships Networking Having more relationships
Broderick, 2013
Perspective on role contribution Reminding self Having better relationships
Remaining aware Being aware of job purpose

Expanding Having more tasks

Tasks
Bindl, Unsworth, Adding Developing skills
Skills
Gibson, & Stride, Meeting Having more relationships
Relationships
2019 Channelling Being aware of job purpose
Perspective on role coherence
Focusing Enhancing job coherence

Table 2: Semantic properties of role-based job crafting scales

19
References

Bakker, A. B., & van Woerkom, M. (2017). Flow at Work: a Self-Determination Perspective.
Occupational Health Science, 1(1–2), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-017-0003-
3

Bannya, A. R., Bainbridge, H. T. J., & Chan-Serafin, S. (2023). HR practices and work
relationships: A 20 year review of relational HRM research. Human Resource
Management, 62(4), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22151

Bindl, U. K., Unsworth, K. L., Gibson, C. B., & Stride, C. B. (2019). Job crafting revisited:
Implications of an extended framework for active changes at work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 104(5), 605–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000362

Bruning, P. F., & Campion, M. A. (2018). A role-resource approach-avoidance model of job

crafting: A multimethod integration and extension of job crafting theory. Academy of
Management Journal, 61(2), 499–522. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0604

Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational
research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 67(1), 26–48. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0063

Colbert, A. E., Bono, J. E., & Purvanova, R. K. (2016). Flourishing via workplace
relationships : moving beyond instrumental support. Academy of Management Journal,
59(4), 1199–1223.

Costantini, A. (2022). Rethinking work: How approach and avoidance features of cognitive
crafting are linked with job crafting behaviors and work engagement. Journal of
Management and Organization. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.79

Costantini, A., Demerouti, E., Ceschi, A., & Sartori, R. (2019). Evidence on the Hierarchical,
Multidimensional Nature of Behavioural Job Crafting. Applied Psychology, 70(1), 311–
341. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12232

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The Job Demands-
Resources Model of Burnout. In Journal of Applied Psychology (Vol. 86, Issue 3, pp.
499–512).

Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2018). Transmission of reduction-oriented crafting

among colleagues: A diary study on the moderating role of working conditions. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(2), 209–234.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12196

20
Hewett, R. (2022). Dissonance , reflection and reframing : Unpacking the black box of
motivation internalization. Journal of Management Studies.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12878

Houghton, J. D., & Neck, C. P. (2002). The revised self-leadership questionnaire:Testing a

hierarchical factor structure for self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
17(8), 672–691. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940210450484

Kooij, D. T. A. M., van Woerkom, M., Wilkenloh, J., Dorenbosch, L., & Denissen, J. J. A.
(2017). Job crafting towards strengths and interests: The effects of a job crafting
intervention on person-job fit and the role of age. Journal of Applied Psychology,
102(6), 971–981. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000194

Lopper, E., Horstmann, K. T., & Hoppe, A. (2023). The Approach-Avoidance Job Crafting
Scale: Development and Validation of a Measurement of the Hierarchical Structure of
Job Crafting. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 1–54.

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ):
Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the
nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321–1339.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321

Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of
proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732

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

Rofcanin, Y., Bakker, A. B., Berber, A., Gölgeci, I., & Las Heras, M. (2019). Relational job
crafting: Exploring the role of employee motives with a weekly diary study. Human
Relations, 72(4), 859–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718779121

Slemp, G. R., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2014). Optimising Employee Mental Health: The
Relationship Between Intrinsic Need Satisfaction, Job Crafting, and Employee Well-
Being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(4), 957–977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-
013-9458-3

Slemp, G. R., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2013). The Job Crafting Questionnaire: A new scale
to measure the extent to which employees engage in job crafting. International Journal
of Wellbeing, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v3i2.1

Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job
redesign. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1–9.
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

21
van Woerkom, M., Mostert, K., Els, C., Bakker, A. B., de Beer, L., & Rothmann, S. (2016).
Strengths use and deficit correction in organizations: development and validation of a
questionnaire. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(6), 960–
975. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1193010

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a Job : Revisioning Employees as Active
Crafters of Their Work. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201.

Zhang, F., & Parker, S. K. (2019). Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure
of job crafting concepts and integrative review. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
40(2), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2332

22