Build Coalitions to Fit: Autonomy Expectations, Competence Mobilization, and Job Crafting

• Published date: 01 September 2017
• Author: Miha Škerlavaj,Matej Černe,Sut I Wong
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21805
• Date: 01 September 2017

Human Resource Management, September–October 2017, Vol. 56, No. 5. Pp. 785–801

© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21805

Correspondence to: Sut I Wong, Department of Communication and Culture, BI Norwegian Business School,

Nydalsveien 37, 0484 Oslo, Norway, Ph: (47) 46410723, E-mail: sut.i.wong@bi.no.

BUILD COALITIONS TO FIT:

AUTONOMY EXPECTATIONS,

COMPETENCE MOBILIZATION,

AND JOB CRAFTING

SUT I WONG, MIHA ŠKERLAVAJ, AND MATEJ C

ˇERNE

Job crafting offers several benefi cial organizational outcomes, yet little is known

about what makes employees engage in it. In particular, the role of leaders in

infl uencing their subordinates to engage in job crafting has been insuffi ciently

studied. Drawing on role theory, we suggest that the congruence of leader-sub-

ordinate autonomy expectations nurtures subordinates’ experiences of hav-

ing their competences adequately utilized in their jobs. This experience, which

involves the competence mobilization of their work roles, subsequently fosters

subordinates’ engagement in job-crafting behavior. A two-stage fi eld study of 145

leader-subordinate dyads using cross-level polynomial regression and response

surface analysis supported the (in)congruence hypotheses. The results also dem-

onstrated that subordinates’ perceived competence mobilization mediates the

relationship between autonomy expectation (in)congruence and job crafting.

In addition, leader coalition as a moderator strengthens the effect of perceived

competence mobilization as a psychological condition for job crafting. Implica-

tions for practice and future research are discussed. ©2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: autonomy expectation congruence, job crafting, leader coalition

infl uence, perceived competence mobilization

There is a growing appreciation for job

crafting in today’s organizations, espe-

cially the ones that have adopted flatter

organizational structures or are more

heavily invested into performing non-

routine work. Job crafting is defined as the proac-

tive changes that individuals make to the task,

relational, and cognitive boundaries of their jobs

to make them fit better with their own prefer-

ences and competences (Wrzesniewski & Dutton,

2001). It represents employees’ efforts in altering

their jobs to better suit their skills and interests to

increase the meaningfulness of their work (Berg,

Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2013). Adding to the tra-

ditional top-down view of job design, job crafting

presents a bottom-up process in which employ-

ees leverage their autonomy at work to redefine

and perform their jobs (Berg, Wrzesniewski, &

Dutton, 2010). Previous research has revealed job

crafting to be associated with several beneficial

employee outcomes, including job performance

(Leana, Appelbaum, & Shevchuk, 2009; Tims,

Bakker, & Derks, 2012), work engagement (Tims,

Bakker, & Derks, 2015), job satisfaction (Parker,

786 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2017

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Given that job

autonomy involves a

process of sending

and receiving

role expectations

between leaders

and subordinates, it

is thus important to

consider how leaders’

and subordinates’

interactions, in

terms of their

respective autonomy

expectations, may

influence subordinate

job-crafting behavior.

which subordinates experience adequate opportu-

nities to use their skills in their current jobs (Lai &

Kapstad, 2009).

We also argue that leaders do not stay pas-

sive when discrepant expectations occur (Tsui,

Ashford, St. Clair, & Xin, 1995). Leader use of

influence tactics is considered an important influ-

ence on individual willingness to engage in cre-

ative ventures (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange,

2002), such as job crafting (Lyons, 2008), and to

align interests when they differ (O’Leary-Kelly,

Martocchio, & Frink, 1994). In particular, we look

at leaders’ use of coalition influence tactics, which

refers to enlisting the aid of or endorsements from

other people to persuade others about a new idea

or change (Yukl, Seifert, & Chavez, 2008). We sug-

gest that the extent to which leaders use coalition

influence tactics is likely to moderate the way in

which subordinates respond to autonomy expec-

tation discrepancies. Specifically, by showing a

“successful” example or a role model, leaders may

convince subordinates of how to relate the auton-

omy expected in their work roles to their compe-

tence development. We test our hypotheses using

a two-stage multisource field data set.

In investigating these relationships, our

intended contributions to the job-crafting litera-

ture are twofold. First, this study responds to recent

calls for research to study how job crafting occurs

(e.g., Berg, Wrzesniewski et al., 2010; Tims et al.,

2015). Specifically, we propose, describe, and test a

conceptual model in which perceived competency

mobilization represents a psychological condition

triggered by congruent autonomy expectations,

relating in turn to job crafting behavior. Second,

the literature suggests that leaders influence job

crafting with respect to providing employees with

the autonomy to engage in it (Wrzesniewski &

Dutton, 2001), yet leaders’ actual role in facilitat-

ing job crafting has been insufficiently studied.

The present study aims to explore the complexity

of leader-subordinate relations, in terms of their

autonomy expectation alignment and its interac-

tive influence on subordinates’ job crafting.

Congruence in Leader-Subordinate

Autonomy Expectations and Perceived

Competence Mobilization

Autonomy, defined as the extent to which

employees can control how and when they carry

out their work tasks (Spector, 1986), is considered

an important antecedent of job crafting (Berg,

Wrzesniewski et al., 2010; Leana et al., 2009;

Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). There is a com-

mon belief that the more autonomy employees

are provided with, the more likely these individu-

als will leverage this discretion to craft their jobs.

2007), and other positive psychological states

(Berg, Grant, & Johnson, 2010).

Although convincing evidence supports the

notion that job crafting matters (e.g., Tims et al.,

2012), deeper insights into when and how employ-

ees successfully engage in job crafting are still miss-

ing (Berg, Wrzesniewski et al., 2010). It is generally

agreed that an employee needs to have a certain

degree of autonomy in his or her assigned job role

to craft his or her job effectively (Wrzesniewski

& Dutton, 2001). However, having autonomy

at work is a necessary but insufficient condition

for job crafting (Berg, Wrzesniewski et al., 2010).

Employees also need to identify with the decision-

making responsibilities derived from the degree

of autonomy they are provided with at work to

act on the autonomy given to craft (Parker, 2007).

Given that job autonomy involves

a process of sending and receiving

role expectations between leaders

and subordinates (Humborstad &

Kuvaas, 2013), it is thus important

to consider how leaders’ and sub-

ordinates’ interactions, in terms of

their respective autonomy expecta-

tions, may influence subordinate

job-crafting behavior.

We draw the underlying logic of

our theorizing on role theory (Katz

& Kahn, 1978), which explains

roles—characteristic behavior pat-

terns—by presuming that persons

are members of social positions and

hold expectations for their own

behaviors and those of other people

(Biddle, 1986). Each social role is a

set of rights, duties, expectations,

norms, and behaviors that a per-

son has to face and fulfill (Biddle,

1979). This theoretical framework

is thus concerned with how indi-

viduals send and adopt specific role

expectations (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

Consequently, the extent to which

leaders and their respective subor-

dinates share mutual role expecta-

tions influences the way in which

they work together. Negative responses, such as

conflict and uncertainty, arise when their expec-

tations deviate from each other (Humborstad &

Kuvaas, 2013). In the current study, we propose

that congruence between the autonomy expec-

tations held by subordinates and their leaders

enables subordinates’ understanding of their roles

to craft their jobs. We propose that this relation-

ship is indirect, mediated by subordinates’ per-

ceived competency mobilization, or the degree to