Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure of job crafting concepts and integrative review

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2332
• Author: Fangfang Zhang,Sharon K. Parker
• Published date: 01 February 2019
• Date: 01 February 2019

THE JOB ANNUAL REVIEW

Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure of job

crafting concepts and integrative review

Fangfang Zhang |Sharon K. Parker

Curtin Business School, Curtin University,

Bentley, Western Australia, Australia

Correspondence

Fangfang Zhang, Curtin Business School, 78

Murray Street, Perth, WA, 6000, Australia.

Email: fangfang.zhang@student.curtin.edu.au

Summary

Two dominant perspectives of job crafting—the original theory from Wrzesniewski

and Dutton (2001) and the job demands resources perspective from Tims, Bakker,

and Derks (2012)—remain separate in research. To synthesize these perspectives,

we propose a three‐level hierarchical structure of job crafting, and we identify the

aggregate/superordinate nature of each major job crafting construct. The first level

of the structure is job crafting orientation, or approach versus avoidance crafting,

which we argue is an essential yet often neglected distinction in the literature.

We address the debate surrounding cognitive crafting and identify crafting form

(behavioral versus cognitive crafting) as the next hierarchical level of constructs.

Finally, we concur that job resources and job demands, or crafting content, capture

different ways that individuals craft their jobs. Using this integrated hierarchical

structure, we were able to review antecedents and outcomes from both perspectives.

We show, for example, that approach crafting in its behavioral form is very similar to

other proactive behaviors in the way it functions, suggesting a need for closer

synthesis with the broader proactive literature, whereas avoidance crafting appears

to be less proactive and often dysfunctional. On the basis of our review, we develop

a road map for future research.

KEYWORDS

approach–avoidance motivation, job crafting, job demands–resources model, proactive behavior,

work design

1|INTRODUCTION

With global economic and technological developments, there are

growing levels of uncertainty and complexity in the workplace, as well

as increasing diversity of the workforce. Against this background, it is

difficult, and sometimes impractical, for organizations to design favor-

able jobs that fit all employees (Grant & Parker, 2009). Consequently,

scholars have suggested that it is important to design flexible jobs in

which employees can proactively change their tasks and roles (Grant

& Parker, 2009). The self‐initiated behaviors that employees take to

shape, mold, and change their jobs have been referred to as job

crafting (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012; Tims & Bakker, 2010;

Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). This notion of job crafting has

increasingly been seen as a major advance in work design theory, with

its emphasis on bottom‐up, employee‐initiated work redesign distinct

from the traditional top‐down work design in which managers or

employers create jobs and roles (Grant, Fried, Parker, & Frese, 2010;

Hornung, Rousseau, Glaser, Angerer, & Weigl, 2010).

Likely reflecting its value in today's dynamic environment, the

amount of research on job crafting is burgeoning (see Figure S1).

Consistent with this growth in literature, review papers (Demerouti,

2014; Lee & Lee, 2018; Wang, Demerouti, & Bakker, 2016) and

meta‐analyses (Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2016a; Rudolph, Katz,

Lavigne, & Zacher, 2017) have emerged that have been helpful in

synthesizing the diffuse set of studies. Nevertheless, there are two

distinct theoretical perspectives on crafting (one is the job demands–

resources perspective from Tims et al., 2012, and the other is from

Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), which remain largely disparate.

Received: 1 December 2016 Revised: 14 September 2018 Accepted: 4 October 2018

DOI: 10.1002/job.2332

126 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J Organ Behav. 2019;40:126–146.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job

Although scholars (Bruning & Campion, 2018) have made progress in

integrating the two different frameworks, the issue has not been fully

addressed, as we discuss shortly. If a way to better synthesize

research from the different perspectives is not found, research on

job crafting will become—unnecessarily—two separate fields.

Our aim in this review is to take stock of what we know about job

crafting and, most crucially, to provide the conceptual synthesis and

construct clarification needed to move the area forward. In line with

recommended approaches (Short, 2009), we searched electronic data-

bases Web of Science, ProQuest, EBSCO Business Source Complete,

PsycINFO, and ScienceDirect to identify peer‐reviewed articles with

“job crafting”in their titles, keywords, or abstracts. This revealed 766

hits overall. Following the systematic search, duplicates were removed,

and the remaining titles and abstracts screened for inclusion. Among

141 eligible records, we excluded eight articles without access to full‐

text and eight job crafting intervention studies. Consequently, 125

articles were included, of which 118 were empirical (See Figure S2).

1

We organize the findings from our analysis of these articles into

four main sections. In Section 2, we review how job crafting has been

conceptualized and measured. In Section 3, we identify common

aspects of job crafting across the two theoretical perspectives, which

are then integrated into a hierarchical structure. In Section 4, we use

the hierarchical structure to summarize key antecedents, outcomes,

explanatory mechanisms, and boundary conditions of job crafting

research. In Section 5, we identify significant issues that inhibit prog-

ress in this research field and develop an agenda for future research.

2|JOB CRAFTING: MOVING TOWARD

CONCEPTUAL CLARITY

Two conceptualizations of job crafting are widely accepted and

applied in research. Here, we discuss the defining characteristics of

job crafting identified in these dominant perspectives, efforts to bring

these perspectives together, and our approach to synthesizing the

perspectives.

2.1 |Different perspectives of job crafting

The first use of the term job crafting came from Wrzesniewski and

Dutton (2001), who defined it as “the physical and cognitive changes

individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work”

(p. 179). From this perspective, employees are assumed to revise their

work identities and to enhance the meaning of their work through

three types of crafting: task crafting, relational crafting, and cognitive

crafting. Task crafting involves changing the job's task boundaries by

changing the number, scope, or type of job tasks done at work (e.g.,

taking on more tasks that one is interested in). Relational crafting

refers to initiating changes in the relational aspects of the job, such

as changing the quality and/or amount of interaction with others at

work (e.g., a computer technician provides help to coworkers as a

way to connect with more people). Cognitive crafting involves altering

how one frames or views the job (e.g., a hospital janitor seeing the job

as healing ill people rather than simply cleaning).

The second dominant perspective derives from work design

theory. Tims et al. (2012) defined job crafting in terms of the job

demands–resources theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), as “the

changes that employees may make to balance their job demands and

job resources with their personal abilities and needs”(p. 174; also in

Tims & Bakker, 2010). Job demands refer to job aspects that require

sustained physical, emotional, or mental effort, whereas job resources

refer to job aspects that stimulate personal growth and development,

reduce job demands, or are functional in achieving work goals (Bakker

& Demerouti, 2007). Specifically, Tims et al. (2012) identified four

different dimensions of job crafting: (1) increasing structural job

resources (e.g., enhancing one's opportunity for development), (2)

increasing social job resources (e.g., asking for feedback from one's

supervisor), (3) increasing challenging job demands (e.g., taking on

extra tasks), and (4) decreasing hindering job demands (e.g., making

sure one's job is emotionally less intense). Both theoretical

perspectives indicate that employees can expand (e.g., by adding more

tasks or relationships) or shrink (e.g., by reducing their workload)

their jobs and roles.

These two conceptual perspectives on job crafting differ in

important ways. They differ in how they define the content of crafting,

with Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) focusing on changes in

task/relational/cognitive boundaries, whereas Tims et al. (2012)

focused on changes in job characteristics. They also differ with respect

to the purpose or aims underpinning crafting, with Wrzesniewski and

Dutton (2001) considering crafting as a way to improve meaning and

work identity, whereas Tims et al. (2012) considering crafting as a

way to balance job resources and demands so as to achieve person–

job fit. This incongruence in perspectives has brought some challenges

to the literature. First, there is confusion in judging which behaviors

are job crafting and which are not, as well as difficulties mapping the

construct across the perspectives. For example, Tims et al. (2012)

argued that job crafting can take other forms beyond task, relational,

and cognitive changes, such as employee self‐initiated skill develop-

ment. Likewise, although Demerouti (2014) argued that task crafting

can be seen as changing job demands and that relational crafting can

be interpreted as changing social resources, the integration of these

different types of crafting is not so straightforward. For example, an

employee who adds tasks (task crafting) might not only change job

demands as reasoned by Demerouti, but could also change his or

her task orskill variety, which Tims etal. (2012) refer to as “increasing

structural job resources.”Such confusion makes it challenging to

synthesize findings.

Second, there is an unresolved debate as to whether cognitive job

crafting is a type of job crafting. From the perspective of

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), the cognitive component of crafting

is crucial and indeed is viewed as the facet of crafting that aligns most

closely to meaning in work and work identity. These authors argued

that through reframing or redefining the way they perceive the work,

employees can achieve fit with environment directly, even without a

behavioral change (Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2013;

Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). From the job demands–resources per-

spective, however, scholars argued that cognitive crafting is more

1

This search was conducted in September 2018.

ZHANG AND PARKER 127