Workaholism versus work engagement and job crafting: What is the role of self‐management strategies?

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12187
• Date: 01 April 2018
• Published date: 01 April 2018

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Workaholism versus work engagement and job

crafting: What is the role of self‐management

strategies?

Marijntje E.L. Zeijen

1,2

|Maria C.W. Peeters

1,3

|Jari J. Hakanen

4,5

1

Department of Social, Health and

Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University

2

Department of Work and Organizational

Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam

3

Industrial Engineering and Innovation

Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology

4

Development of Work and Organizations,

Finnish Institute of Occupational Health

5

Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies,

University of Helsinki

Correspondence

Marijntje Zeijen, Department of Work and

Organizational Psychology, Erasmus University

Rotterdam, Woudestein, 3000 DR Rotterdam,

Mandeville Building T16‐16A, The

Netherlands.

Email: zeijen@essb.eur.nl

Abstract

Job crafting refers to the proactive actions employees take to

redesigntheir jobs in order to get a better fitwith their competencies,

expectations, and wishes. So far, little is known about job crafting's

underlyingmechanisms. In this study, we examinehow two different

states of affective well‐being (workaholism and work engagement)

relate to job crafting 3 months laterand how these well‐being states

steer differentself‐management behaviours,which ultimately lead to

job crafting.Structural equationmodelling on a heterogeneoussample

(N= 287) revealed that work engagement and workaholism both

relate to expansive job crafting through different self‐management

strategies. Work engagement relates to challenge and resource

seeking via self‐goal setting and self‐observation strategies, whereas

workaholism associates with challenge and resource seeking only

through self‐goal setting. In addition, the results show a strong

relationship between workaholism and self‐punishment. Altogether,

the findings suggestthat self‐management strategies can function as

an explanatorymechanism for different job craftingbehaviours.

KEYWORDS

job crafting, self‐management, work engagement, wo rkaholism

1|INTRODUCTION

As work becomes more dynamic and decentralised, the need for employees to be proactive rapidly increases

(Crant, 2000). Being part of the contemporary workforce automatically implies that employees need to adapt to an

ongoing competition and uncertainty (Cowen, 2016). Whereas strong evidence exists for a negative impact of

uncertainty on employees' well‐being (De Witte, Pienaar, & De Cuyper, 2016), studies on proactive work behaviours

reveal a positive impact on well‐being (Tims, Bakker, Derks, & Van Rhenen, 2013). Hence, it is not surprising that

the proactivity concept of job crafting is becoming a highly promising research object. Job crafting refers to all self‐

initiated actions employees take to shape, mould, and redefine their jobs in order to create a better fit with their jobs.

Received: 16 September 2015 Revised: 26 December 2017 Accepted: 12 January 2018

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12187

Hum Resour Manag J. 2018;28:357–373. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltdwileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj 357

Although, job crafting reflects behaviour that is typically initiated by employees, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001)

argue that organisations and managers also play an important role in stimulating crafting behaviour. Moreover, as

job crafting has been related to many beneficial organisational outcomes, such as job satisfaction, work engagement,

and both self‐rated and other‐rated work performance and contextual performance (Rudolph, Katz, Lavigne,& Zacher,

2017), it becomes an increasingly important tool for modern HRM practices.

Although job crafting is widely studied nowadays, little is known about its working mechanisms. In this study, we

aim at contributing to this issue by examining mechanisms that might explain the associations between two different

well‐being states at work and job crafting. Two examples of oppositely motivated well‐being states concern work

engagement and workaholism (Schaufeli, Salanova, González‐Romá, & Bakker, 2002; Schaufeli, Shimazu, & Taris,

2009). Work engagement is characterised by vigour, dedication, and absorption, and employees who score high on

engagement tend to work hard because they like doing what they do (Van Wijhe, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2013).

Employees who score high on workaholism work hard because they feel a strong and irresistible drive to obtain

external incentives, such as appreciation or status (Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008).

In the present study, we examine how employees consciously steer their behaviour towards job crafting by

considering their self‐management strategies. Self‐management refers to how employees control their own behaviour

without the need of supervision (Breevaart, Bakker, & Demerouti, 2014; Houghton & Neck, 2002). Through self‐

management, individuals influence themselves to acquire the direction to behave and perform in desirable ways.

Examining how work engagement and workaholism predict self‐management strategies informs us how different

work motivations trigger proactive behavioural patterns.

According to behavioural change models, before actual behaviour change occurs, the change agent has a

cognitive strategy on what goals to achieve (Michie, van Stralen, & West, 2011). Translated to the present study, we

investigate how work engagement and workaholism (i.e., reflecting distinctive motivational states) cognitively steer

behaviours towards job crafting behaviours. As such, the current study not only contributes to the quest of unravelling

the job crafting mechanisms but also contributes to the literature on work engagement and workaholism by beingthe

first study to specifically examine how self‐management strategies associate with workaholism and work engagement.

2|JOB CRAFTING

Job craftingis a concept that explicitlytaps into the actionsemployees take independently fromtheir supervisors in order

to redesign their job in line with personal desires and perceived needs. Job crafting is theorised to stimulate the

experience of meaningfulness and identity at work, which accordingly increases the person–job fit, and consequently,

boosts employees' work motivation and work performance (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).

Research accumulatively demonstrates a positive impactof job crafting on employee work engagementand, in turn to

performance (Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, & Hetland, 2012; Rudolph et al., 2017; Tims, Bakker, & Derks,

2013; Tims, Bakker,Derks, & Van Rhenen, 2013). However, accordingto Guest (2014), in order to deliver its promising

benefits, engagement needs to be explicitly embedded within an integrated system of HRM policies, practices, and

procedures. To thispurpose, Albrecht, Bakker, Gruman, Macey, and Saks(2015) have developed a model that explains

how a strategic focus on engagement can lead to competitive advantage. In this model, four key engagement‐related

HR practicesare distinguished,namely, selection,socialisation,performance management,and learningand development.

Self‐initiated actionssuch as job crafting andvoice are considered tobe part of the learning anddevelopment possibilities

in organisations and as such can be stimulated by HR professionals in order to create engagement in the organisation.

According to Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), job crafting consists of three types of behaviours at work.

Employees may actively change the tasks at work, craft the interpersonal relationships at work, or adapt their

cognitive perceptions towards their work. In the present study, we explicitly focus on job crafting behaviour aimed

at changing the job characteristics. To this purpose, researchers embedded the job crafting concept into the job

demands–resources (JD‐R) model (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013).

358 ZEIJEN ET AL.