Explaining Feeling of Energy and Happiness in the Workplace based on Components of Job Crafting

Management and Administrative Sciences Review www.absronline.org/journals e-ISSN: 2308-1368, p-ISSN: 2310-872X Volume: 3, Issue: 1, Pages: 41-52 (January 2014) © Academy of Business & Scientific Research

*Corresponding author: Mohsen Golparvar, Associate Professor, Psychology PhD, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Islamic Azad University, Esfahan Branch, Esfahan, Iran.

E-Mail: [email protected]

41

Research Paper

Explaining Feeling of Energy and Happiness in the Workplace based on Components of Job Crafting

(A study of staff of Art and Cultural Organization of Isfahan Municipality, Iran)

Mohsen Golparvar1*, and Afsaneh Rezaie2

1. Associate Professor, Psychology PhD, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Islamic Azad University,

Esfahan Branch, Esfahan, Iran.

2. MA in I/O Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Islamic Azad University, Esfahan

Branch, Esfahan, Iran.

Job crafting is among the variables that have a potential power to influence on individuals’ cognitive and emotional states in the workplace. In this study, the role of components of the job crafting for a feeling of energy in the workplace and the job happiness has been considered. For this purpose, through a correlation study, by choosing 296 staff of art and cultural organization of Isfahan municipality who answered the questionnaire of job crafting, a feeling of energy at work, and job happiness, and the research hypothesis were examined through Pearson correlation coefficient and regression analysis. The regression analysis results indicated that structural resources crafting and social resources crafting can respectively predict psychological happiness, challenging job demands crafting can predict social happiness, structural resources crafting can predict job’s spiritual happiness, and structural resources crafting, social resources crafting, and challenging job demands crafting can predict feeling of energy at work.

Keywords: Job crafting, job happiness, feeling of energy at work, Iran;

INTRODUCTION

In any organization, leading behavior and managing staff individual and collective effectiveness require attention to some factors which improve individuals’ energy and positive affects level in the workplaces (Fritz, & Sonnentag, 2009; Spreitzer, Porath, & Gibson, 2012). There are different factors which cause individuals feel fatigue or exhaustion or mutually feel of energy, joy and happiness in the workplace. In a simple look, we can divide factors which cause energy, joy

and happiness in individuals in the workplace into several general categories known as structural and social factors (environment, culture, leadership, the quality of relationship with colleagues and supervisor, evaluation systems of performance and promotion), individual and personal factors (the level of positive affects, some personal characteristics, temperaments, interpersonal skills and business skills), and occupational factors (stress, job characteristics, procedures, and

Explaining Feeling of Energy and Happiness in the Workplace Research Paper

42

methods of performing duties and business skills) (Grant, & Parker, 2009; Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010; Ohly, Sonnentag, Niessen, & Zapf, 2010; Oldham, & Hackman, 2010; Shoss, Witt, & Vera, 2011; Cilla, 2011). Each of these factors, independently or in interaction with other factors, can underlie experiencing positive affects and a feeling of energy in individuals. Among factors considered in recent years, many researchers and theorists have focused on the role of factors related to the job in experiencing happiness and a feeling of energy (Grant, & Parker, 2009). The underlying idea of the role of occupational factors in individuals’ experiencing positive states and affects is that since most of the people spend much of their waking hours at work and in relation to others, many of their negative or positive states will also happen in the context of performing duties and business affairs (Demerouti, & Bakker, 2014). In the past decade, the job crafting among factors related to the job, has been seriously considered to experience states and positive affects.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Job crafting

Job crafting is a variable which has already been introduced and considered by theorists in the field of behavior in the workplaces (Tims, & Bakker, 2010; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012). But due to the limitation in its measurement (Tims et al, 2012; Nielsen, & Abildgaard, 2012; Slemp, & Vella-Brodrick, 2013), until recently the job crafting was used less in studies as a variable influencing emotional and cognitive state. Crafting is spontaneous behaviors and behaviors focused on job development with the aim of change which individuals do to align the process of performing duties with preferences, motivations, and interests (Lyons, 2008; Berg, Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2010; Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012; Kirkendall, 2013). This phenomenon can generally cover three areas. The first area is focused on the time when staff tries to change the content and the amount of their own duties (Tims et al, 2012). This dimension is called structural crafting of job or duties. In the second area, staff may try to change some dimensions of their occupation in order to expand

or change their relationship with colleagues or clients (Tims, & Bakker, 2010). This dimension is called social crafting (Tims et al, 2012). And finally in the third dimension, staff may try to change the recognition focused on their own job in order to make the meaning of their job change. Totally, it can be said that job crafting is not a separate event from life cycle and individuals’ job evolution (Demerouti, & Bakker, 2014). But, this phenomenon is a permanent process which will effect more likely on both employees states, and behaviors and on the social context individuals work in it (Salanova, & Schaufeli, 2008). In the precise meaning, the job crafting can bring positive outcomes in personal and organizational level alike (Demerouti, & Bakker, 2014). Research evidence shows that job crafting has a relationship with different behaviors and concepts within organizations which can lead to organizational effectiveness (Holstein, 2011; Sekiguchi, 2012; Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, & Hetland, 2012; van Mersbergen, 2012; Vreugdenhil, 2012; Demerouti, & Bakker, 2014). In this study, through different variables which can potentially have relationship with job crafting, the focus is on a feeling of energy and job happiness. Theoretically and practically a feeling of energy and job happiness are increasingly important for better managing staff’s individual and collective effectiveness (Atwater, & Carmeli, 2009; Kark, & Carmeli, 2009; Golparvar, Kamkar, & Javadian, 2012). And also, on the other hand, the role of job crafting for job happiness and feeling of energy at work, has been discussed in fewer studies.

Job happiness and Job Crafting

Happiness in a simple definition includes predominant positive affect states and overall satisfaction with life (Gibson, 2006; McMahon, 2006; David, Boniwell, & Ayers, 2012). In the field of organizational psychology, happiness in the workplace is being seriously considered from both hedonic and cognitive perspective (Fisher, 2010; Gupta, 2012). Among them, in the cognitive perspective, job happiness will appear in individuals when they feel they are in the way of achieving goals and totally the way of achieving crafting and progress (Sloan, 2005; Stearns, 2012; Weijers, Jarden, Angner, Burns, Chadwick et al,

Manag. Adm. Sci. Rev. e-ISSN: 2308-1368, p-ISSN: 2310-872X Volume: 3, Issue: 1, Pages: 41-52

Golparyar & Rezaie

2013). Research evidence shows that different individual factors (including both cognitive and affective factors) and job factors are able to create and also improve happiness in individuals and workplaces (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, & Ilies, 2010). For example, evidences of various studies show that a feeling of being valued, trustworthiness, meaningful tasks, autonomy, positive emotions, job enthusiasm, rewarding relationships, the extent to which job is challenged, and a feeling of being purposeful are related to individuals’ happiness in the workplace (Frey, & Stutzer, 2002; Holstein, 2011; Sekiguchi, 2012; Petrou et al, 2012; van Mersbergen, 2012; David et al, 2012; Vreugdenhil, 2012; Demerouti, & Bakker, 2014). Looking at the previous studies shows that the role of job crafting for job happiness has been discussed in fewer studies. But factors such as challenging jobs, a feeling of being purposeful and efforts toward the goals which has been introduced in some studies as correlates of happiness are also well considered in the context of job crafting (Tims et al, 2012; Nielsen, & Abildgaard, 2012; Slemp, & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). In this regard, in some studies, has been shown that when individuals can take control of their own internal and external factors of their job, they will feel joy and happiness (Fisher, 2010; Gupta, 2012). However, some other research evidence implies that job crafting, with its role in experiencing positive and negative affects in the workplace, can have a relationship with individuals’ joy and happiness (Tims, & Bakker, 2010; Tims et al, 2012). According to what mentioned above, it is expected to be a positive relationship between job crafting and job happiness.

A feeling of energy and Job Crafting

A feeling of energy at work which is in contrast to fatigue and exhaustion contains the power and ability to perform tasks with job vitality (Golparvar, Padash, & Atashpoor, 2010). Available research evidence indicates that job demands as job stressful factors along with the lack of social support in the workplace have positive relationship with a feeling of fatigue or the lack of energy (Atwater, & Carmeli, 2009; Kark, & Carmeli, 2009; Golparvar et al, 2012). Indeed, when an individual encounters with different stressful factors at work, gradually his feeling of energy

decreases and thus, he/she experiences a feeling of fatigue, psychological and physiological tension (Golparvar, & Vaseghi, 2011). In addition to research evidence, through opinions expressed in the field of resources, demands, and job performance (such as resources → job demands → performance theories), and also particularly through conservation resources theories, the relationship between job crafting and a feeling of energy can be well explained (Golparvar et al, 2010; Golparvar et al, 2012). According to resources theories, job demands, and conservation resources (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Rhenen, 2009; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009), when individuals encounter the mismatch state between their own available resources for performing duties and business affairs and demands focused on tasks and job responsibilities, they will be under pressure and their energy level will be decreased (Bakker, & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007; Carmeli, Brueller, & Dutton, 2009). According to what mentioned above, since when an individual is engaged in job crafting, he/she practically improves different resources such as skills, abilities, and his own individual and organizational facilities in different ways (Demerouti, & Bakker, 2014). So he/she will experience a feeling of joy and happiness more simple. Also, since due to its nature the job crafting has a spontaneous aspect, it is very likely that this aspect psychologically leads to a feeling of energy in individuals.

The Research Hypotheses

H1: There is a positive relationship between job crafting (structural job resources, hindering job demands, social job resources, and challenging job demands) and job happiness (psychological, social and spiritual).

H2: There is a positive relationship between job crafting (structural job resources, hindering job demands, social job resources, and challenging job demands) and a feeling of energy at workplace.

H3: There is a multiple relationship between components of job crafting (structural job resources, hindering job demands, social job resources, and challenging job demands) and job happiness (psychological, social and spiritual).


44

H4: There is a multiple relationship between components of job crafting (structural job resources, hindering job demands, social job resources, and challenging job demands) and a feeling of energy at workplace.

METHODOLOGY

Research Method and Participants

Research method of current research was correlation, and the sample used consisted of full time employees, from an art and cultural organization of Isfahan municipality, in Iran. The three hundred questionnaires (containing measures of job crafting, Feeling of energy, and job happiness) were distributed among employees and asking for their assistance in completing the questionnaires. Two hundred ninety six of the employees completed the questionnaire for a response rate of 98.7%. The average age of the respondents was 36.17 years (SD=7.01) and the average organizational tenure of the respondents were 11.08 years (SD= 5.08).

Instrument

Job Crafting: Job crafting was measured with the twenty one item scale adapted from Tims et al (2012). Golparvar (2013a) translated and validated this scale at Iranian work context. The scale measures four job crafting dimensions; increasing structural job resources (five items, An example item is: I try to learn new things at work), decreasing hindering job demands (six items, An example item is: I try to ensure that I do not have to make many difficult decisions at work), increasing social job resources (five items, An example item is: I ask others for feedback on my job performance), and increasing challenging job demands (five items, An example item is: I regularly take on extra tasks even though I do not receive extra salary for them). In this scale, responses are given along a 5-point scale from 1= never to 5=always. Cronbach’s alpha for the increasing structural job resources, decreasing hindering job demands, increasing social job resources, and increasing challenging job demands in Tims et als’ (2012) study were 0.79, 0.72, 0.76, and 0.71 respectively (Tims et al, 2012). In current

research, Cronbach’s alpha for the four dimensions of this scale were .81, .76, .77, and .73 respectively.

Job happiness: Job happiness was measured with the fifteen item scale developed by Golparvar (2013b). The scale measures three job happiness dimensions; psychological happiness (five items, an example item is: In a work day how much do you feel interest in your job duties?), social happiness (five items, An example item is: In a work day how much do you feel happy because of your relationship with your coworkers?), and spiritual happiness (five items, An example item is: In a work day how much do you feel your job is enjoyable spiritually?). In this scale, responses are given along a 7-point scale from 1= never to 7= always. Cronbach’s alpha for the three dimensions of job happiness (psychological happiness, social happiness, and spiritual happiness) in current research were 0.9, 0.87, and 0.92 respectively.

Feeling of energy at work: Feeling of energy at work was measured using nine items adapted from Atwater and Carmeli (2009). Golparvar et al (2010, 2012) translated and validated this scale at Iranian work context. Total score on this scale is considered for the assessment of feeling of energy and more the score indicates more feeling of energy. A sample item of this scale is: I am energetic when perform my work task. In this scale, responses are given along a 7-point scale from 1= never to 7= always.The reliability and validity of the scale have been demonstrated in Iran society (Golparvar et al, 2010). For instance, reliability of this scale in previous investigation was .88 (Golparvar et al, 2012). Reliability of questionnaire through Cronbach's Alpha in current research was .91.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed using SPSS-18 software, to compute descriptive statistics, correlations, and performing regression analysis. Table (1) presents some of the demographic variables of the participants.

TABLE 1 HERE

As can be seen in table 1, Fifty-four and seven percent (54.7%) of the sample were males and forty- five and three percent (45.3%) were females.


Golparyar & Rezaie

twenty-one percent (21%) of the sample were single and seventy nine percent (79%) were married. Majority of the sample had university studies (69.5%). Fifty-two and seven percent (52.7%) of the sample had up to 35 years old and forty- seven and three percent (47.3%) of them had 36 years old and above. Finally, Fifty-two percent (52%) of the sample had up to 10 years organizational tenure and forty- eight percent (48%) of them had 11 years organizational tenure and above. Mean, standard deviation and correlation matrix of the research variables are presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2 HERE

As the results of table 2 revealed, excluding the hindering job demands which is not significantly correlated with psychological and spiritual happiness (p>.05), the other components of the job crafting are positively and significantly correlated with the entire components of job happiness and feeling of energy at work (p<.05 or p<.01). Thus, it is concluded that the first hypothesis (H1, there is a positive relationship between job crafting and job happiness) is supported partially, and second hypothesis (H2, there is a positive relationship between job crafting and a feeling of energy in the workplace) is supported completely. The results of enter regression analysis for prediction of job happiness dimensions presented in Table 3.

TABLE 3 HERE

Based on the Table 3, of the job crafting dimensions, increasing structural job resources (β= .19), and increasing social job resources (β= .18) are predictors of psychological job happiness (R2 = 0.086, F(3, 292) = 6.87, p<.01); increasing challenging job demands (β= .16) is predictor of social job happiness (R2 = 0.089, F(3, 292) = 7.1, p<.01); and increasing structural job resources (β= .2) is predictor of spiritual job happiness (R2=0.085, F(3, 292)= 6.74, p<.01). Thus, it is concluded that the third hypothesis (H3, there is a multiple relationship between components of job crafting and job happiness; psychological, social and spiritual), is supported partially. The results of enter regression analysis for prediction of feeling of energy at work presented in Table 4.

TABLE 4 HERE

As it can be seen in table 4, of the job crafting dimensions, increasing structural job resources (β = .32), increasing social job resources (β = .23) and increasing challenging job demands (β = .18) are predictors of feeling of energy at work (R2 = 0.309, F(3, 292) = 32.58, p<.01). Thus, it is concluded that the fourth hypothesis (H4, there is a multiple relationship between components of job crafting and a feeling of energy at workplace), is supported partially.

DISCUSSION

This study has been carried out to determine the relationship between components of job crafting with a feeling of energy in the workplace and job happiness. The results showed that the structural resources crafting, social resources crafting, and challenging job demands have a positive and significant relationship with psychological and spiritual happiness and each four dimensions of structural resources crafting, decreasing hindering job demands, social job resources crafting, and challenging job demands crafting have also a positive and significant relationship with social happiness and a feeling of energy at work. Except the relationship between hindering job demands and psychological and spiritual happiness, these results which essentially confirm the first and second hypothesis of this study align with opinions expressed within the role of job characteristics (Lyons, 2008; Berg et al, 2010; Bakker et al, 2012; Spreitzer et al, 2012; Kirkendall, 2013), and especially with other researchers findings about the role of job crafting in individuals’ positive emotional states in the work place (Holstein, 2011; Sekiguchi, 2012; Petrou et al, 2012; van Mersbergen, 2012; Golparvar et al, 2012; Vreugdenhil, 2012; Demerouti, & Bakker, 2014).

The positive relationship between the components of job crafting and happiness and a feeling of energy in the workplace primarily indicates a serious role of job characteristics for experiencing positive effective states in a form of happiness and a feeling of energy (Tims et al, 2012; Nielsen, & Abildgaard, 2012; Slemp, & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). It means that the findings of this study show that when individuals are looking for evolution, job crafting and performing their own tasks and utilize them in the context of their duties, in the


46

effect of having a feeling of their talents and abilities being developed, they will gradually experience happiness and a feeling of energy (Demerouti, & Bakker, 2014). Such states and feelings are positive and valuable phenomena which appear in the effect of crafting-oriented activities in the field of job duties and business affairs. Nevertheless, in a feedback cycle, a feeling of happiness and energy can also facilitate the process of job crafting (Sloan, 2005; Stearns, 2012; David et al, 2012; Weijers et al, 2013)

The results of regression analysis of this study showed the special role of some components of job crafting for a feeling of energy in the workplace with psychological, social and spiritual happiness. Among components of job crafting, structural resources crafting (by focusing on the change an individual creates in the amount of duties or the change he/she creates in the content of duties in his/her own job), social resources crafting (the change and sublimity of the amount of relationships an individual has with his/her colleagues and others in his/her own job), and challenging job crafting (the change in the content or the process of performing duties and business affairs in order to remove the monotony of the job) were able to predict a feeling of energy at work. Such combination of components of job crafting in predicting a feeling of energy at work shows that in terms of job characteristics, a feeling of energy can be seen as a multidimensional phenomenon which is related to the structure, relationships, and the amount of challenging job. In other words, if individuals’ job structure contains dynamic, challenging and development-oriented nature and they also try to enhance and improve their working relationships with others in the workplace, a feeling of energy will be an achievement that benefits them. Theoretical reasons of this combining relationship between structural and social crafting and challenging job demands with a feeling of energy at work can be found in the conservation resources theory and the approach of resources - job demands (Bakker, & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker et al, 2007; Carmeli et al, 2009; Schaufeli et al, 2009; Xanthopoulou et al, 2009). According to the theory of conservation resources, the resources which enable individuals to cope with demands and circumstance are

valuable to them and in an effort with high motivation they try to maintain these resources (Golparvar et al, 2010; Golparvar et al, 2012). So, based on this, we can say that structural and social crafting and challenging job demands also work as an opportunity and a source for individuals to encounter with their job circumstances (Bakker et al, 2007; Carmeli et al, 2009; Schaufeli et al, 2009). The result of this effort for an individual to enhance and improve is a feeling of maintaining resources and psychological ability which contains a feeling of energy and happiness in its own context.

In predicting components of happiness through the components of job crafting, it is also recognized that structural and social resources crafting for psychological happiness (a feeling of satisfaction and psychological happiness during performing duties and business affairs), challenging job demands crafting for social happiness (a feeling of group satisfaction and happiness), and structural job crafting for spiritual happiness (a deep feeling of spiritual and internal satisfaction and happiness) have significant predictive power. This part of findings is necessary to be considered in several ways. At first, if the component predictors of psychological, social and spiritual happiness are being paid attention, it is clear that three kinds of happiness considered in this study have different profiles in the context of job characteristics. It means that psychological happiness, in terms of having relationship with the components of job crafting, is a structuralism and community-oriented happiness. While the social happiness is challenging and the spiritual happiness is structuralism. Therefore, it can be said that when job crafting which is focused on the change of the amount of duties is with the change of the content of duties (structural crafting) and developing social relationship with others, the result will be psychological happiness. But if the focus is on challenging duties or just on job structural crafting, the output for an individual will respectively be social and spiritual happiness. The next point to be emphasized is that in relation to a feeling of energy at work, happiness and its components have less role-taking from combining components of job crafting. Because, in predicting a feeling of energy there were three components of


Golparyar & Rezaie

the structural resources crafting, social crafting, and challenging job demands. But these mentioned components were not existed simultaneously for each components of happiness. This is theoretically likely because a feeling of energy is a public resource which in individuals’ cognitive and psychological structure feed their other affective and emotional states. While happiness is more limited and related to positive emotions during performing duties and business affairs, and in relation to a feeling of energy it has a more private aspect.

However, according to the cognitive perspective in happiness area, the predictive power of some components of job crafting for happiness components can be explained (Sloan, 2005; Gibson, 2006; McMahon, 2006; Fisher, 2010; David et al, 2012; Gupta, 2012; Weijers et al, 2013). According to this cognitive perspective, individuals’ happiness in every environment is a function of how they experience the feeling of progress, development, and crafting in that environment. In many respects, such feelings of development can improve a feeling of being efficient, valued, and a feeling of being purposeful in individuals and thereby, create a feeling of happiness (David et al, 2012; Weijers et al, 2013). According to this emphasis in the area of explaining happiness, in the findings of this study it can also be said that because structural and social crafting and challenging job demands are fundamentally evolution-oriented and achievement-oriented, they can predict psychological, social and spiritual happiness with different combination and power. It is also necessary to point out that decreasing hindering job demands was not existed in each component predictors for a feeling of energy and the components of job happiness. Perhaps the main reason of this lack of existence is that this component of job crafting fundamentally has contrasting nature with other components of job crafting. It means that while three components of structural and social crafting and challenging job demands have upward or increased nature, the component of decreasing hindering job demands has downward or decreased nature. More likely, this downward nature of decreasing hindering job demands isn’t in agreement with the hidden increasing content in a feeling of energy and

happiness, and therefore it has not so much existence in predicting them.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study consider a number of practical implications for managing a feeling of energy and happiness of individuals in the workplaces. The first tip is that one of the practical ways to increase a feeling of energy in individuals is providing an opportunity for freedom and performing programs for structural and social resources crafting and challenging job demands in the workplaces. Such an opportunity and freedom not only improve a feeling of energy level, but also simultaneously increase psychological, social, and spiritual happiness level in staff. It means that performing the programs of structural and social resources crafting and challenging job demands can seriously have synchronization functions to reinforce a feeling of energy, psychological, social and spiritual happiness. In terms of research, researchers can also be recommended to examine the role of job crafting in the career success and job progress in individuals and, at a more macro-level, in international levels through which functions of individual wisdom and macro functions of this job phenomenon become more specific. At the end, it is necessary to pay enough attention to the limitations of this study. The first limitation is that the staff of an art and cultural organization, a service organization, is the sample group of this study. So it is likely that industrial and commercial organizations have different situation. Therefore, caution is required in generalizing our results to these organizations. The second limitation is that the results of this study were based on a correlation method. So, the cause and effect interpretation of these results isn’t logical.

REFERENCES

Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader-member exchange, feeling of energy, and involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 264-275.

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


48

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328.

Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 274-284.

Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65, 1359–1378.

Berg, J. M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2010). Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3), 158-186.

Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J.E. (2009). Learning behaviors in the workplace: The role of high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26, 81-98.

Cilla, M. J. (2011). Exploring the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and organizational climates for creativity. Unpublished Master Thesis, San Jose State University, Paper 4086: http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/4086.

David, S., Boniwell, I., & Ayers, A. C. (Eds.) (2012). Oxford handbook of happiness. First edition, Oxford University Press.

Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Job crafting. In M. C. W. Peeters, J. de Jonge, & T. W. Taris (Eds.), An introduction to contemporary work psychology (pp. 414-433). First edition, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fisher, C.D. (2010). Happiness at work. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 384–412.

Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A look at job stressors and positive affect during the workday. Journal of Management, 35, 94-111.

Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 402–435.

Gibson, D.E. (2006). Emotional episodes at work: An experiential exercise in feeling and expressing emotions. Journal of Management Education, 30, 477-500.

Golparvar, M. (2013a). Translate and validation of Tims et als’ Job Crafting Questionnaire at Iran. Unpublished Manuscript, Islamic Azad University, Esfahan Branch, Esfahan, Iran.

Golparvar, M. (2013b). Construct and validation of three dimensional scale of job happiness. Unpublished Manuscript, Islamic Azad University, Esfahan Branch, Esfahan, Iran.

Golparvar, M., Padash, F., & Atashpoor, H. (2010). Reinforcing model of feeling of energy, empowerment and employees creativity through ethical leadership. Iran Occupational Health, 7(3), 4-11.

Golparvar, M., Kamkar, M., & Javadian, Z. (2012). Moderating effects of job stress in emotional exhaustion and feeling of energy relationships with positive and negative behavioral outcomes: Introducing the job stress multiple functions approach. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 4(4), 99-112.

Golparvar,M., & Vaseghi,Z. (2011). Mediating role of energy at work in connection between stress with creativity, organizational citizenship behaviors and deviant behaviors. Journal of Psychological Models and Approaches, 1(3), 1 – 15.

Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise

http://network.bepress.com/api/follow/subscribe?user=ZTIyYjRlMDUyNTg1OWU0NQ%3D%3D&institution=ZWVhZjExYWRlMGE3NmY2Zg%3D%3D&format=html


Golparyar & Rezaie

of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 273–331.

Gupta, V. (2012). Importance of being happy at work. International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review (IJRDMR), 1(1), 9-14.

Holstein, M. (2011). Job crafting: How and why is it that job crafting practices differ between younger and older employees: a qualitative study? Unpublished Master Thesis, Tilburg University, the Netherlands.

Kark, R., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Alive and creating: The mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 785-804.

Kirkendall, C. D. (2013). Job crafting: The pursuit of happiness at work. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Wright State University, Graduate School.

Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J.M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 395-404.

Lyons, P. (2008). The crafting of jobs and individual differences. Journal of Business Psychology, 23(1-2), 25-36.

McMahon, D.M. (2006). Happiness: A history. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Nielsen, K., & Abildgaard, J. S. (2012). The development and validation of a job crafting measure for use with blue-collar workers. Work and Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health, and Organizations, 26(4), 365-384.

Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organizational research: An introduction and some practical recommendations. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 79-93.

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(2-3), 463–479.

Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a job on a daily basis: contextual antecedents and the effect of work engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1120–1141.

Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. (2008). A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediator between job resources and proactive behavior. The International Study of Human Resource Management, 19, 116-131.

Sekiguchi, T. (2012). Part time work experience of university students and their career development. Japan Labor Review, 9(3), 5-29.

Shoss, M., Witt, L., & Vera, D. (2011). When does adaptive performance lead to higher task performance? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 1-21.

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), 126-146.

Sloan, M. M. (2005). There is no happiness at work: Emotion management, inauthenticity, and psychological distress in the workplace. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation in Sociology, Graduate School of Vanderbilt University.

Spreitzer, G., Porath, C. L., & Gibson, C. B. (2012). Toward human sustainability: How to enable more thriving at work. Organizational Dynamics, 41, 155—162.

Stearns, P.N. (2012). The history of happiness. Harvard Business Review, January-February 2012, 104-109.

Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job


50

redesign. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36, 1–9.

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173–186.

Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Rhenen, W. V. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 893-917.

van Mersbergen, J. (2012). The test and evaluation of a job crafting intervention in healthcare. Unpublished Master Thesis in Innovation Management, TUE. School of Industrial Engineering.

Vreugdenhil, H. (2012). Do older employees use task crafting in order to reduce the perceived misfit with their job?. Unpublished Master Thesis in Human Resource Studies, University of Van Tilburg.

Weijers, D., Jarden, A., Angner, E., Burns, G., Chadwick, E., Jose, P. E., Joshanloo, M., Tarragona, M., & Thin, N. (2013). Review of the oxford handbook of happiness. International Journal of Wellbeing, 3(2), 213-228.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. (2009). Work engagement and financial turnover: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 82, 183-200.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., & Ilies, R. (2010). The life of a happy worker: Examining short-term fluctuations in employee happiness and well-being. Human Relations, 63, 301-304.


Golparyar & Rezaie

APPENDIX

Table 1. Demographic variables of the participants in current research

Row Demographic variables Levels Percent

1 Education Secondary studies or Diploma 30.5

University studies 69.5

2 Gender Male 54.7

Female 45.3

3 Marital Status Single 21

Married 79

4 Age Up to 35 years 52.7

36 years and above 47.3

5 Tenure Up to 10 years 52

11 years and above 48

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of research variables

Row Research variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1

Job

cra

ftin

g Structural job resources 4.12 .72 -

2 Hindering job demands 3.33 .8 .25** -

3 Social job resources 3.53 .82 .32** .31** -

4 Challenging job

demands

3.6 .75 .52** .29** .52** -

5

Job

ha

pp

ines

s

Psychological 3.49 .81 .24** .09 .23** .18** -

6 Social 3.63 .72 .23** .13* .2** .27** .75** -

7 Spiritual 3.51 .88 .27** .08 .14* .23** .8** .73** -

8 Feeling of Energy at work 3.88 .85 .45** .25** .42** .45** .54** .49** .53**

Note: *p<.05, **p<.01

Table 3. The results of enter regression analysis for prediction of job happiness dimensions

Job crafting

components

Job happiness

Psychological Social Spiritual

b SE β b SE β b SE β

Structural job resources .21** .07 .19** .12 .07 .12 .25** .08 .2**

Hindering job demands -.008 .06 -.008 .03 .05 .03 -.01 .07 -.009

Social job resources .18** .07 .18** .06 .06 .07 .02 .07 .02

Challenging job

demands

-.006 .08 -.006 .15* .07 .16* .14 .09 .12

R .294 .298 .291

R2 .086 .089 .085

F 6.87** 7.1** 6.74**

Note: *p<.05, **p<.01


52

Table 4. The results of enter regression analysis for prediction of feeling of energy at work

Job Crafting

Components

Feeling of energy at work

b SE β

Structural job resources .32** .07 .27**

Hindering job demands .07 .05 .07

Social job resources .23** .06 .23**

Challenging job

demands

.18** .07 .16*

R .556

R2 .309

F 32.58**

Note: *p<.05, **p≤.01

Explaining Feeling of Energy and Happiness in the Workplace based on Components of Job Crafting

Documents

Transcript of Explaining Feeling of Energy and Happiness in the Workplace based on Components of Job Crafting