Abstract
Job boredom is a common experience at work; however, it has been neglected in research and practice compared to other well-being states. Based on the person-job fit theory, this article aims to examine the association between employees’ perceived overqualification and job boredom, analyzing potential moderators. In Study 1, we analyzed job crafting as a moderator using a sample of 832 employees from different organizations in Puerto Rico. Results supported the relation between employees’ perceived overqualification and job boredom but did not support the moderating effect of job crafting since only two dimensions (i.e., increasing structural resources and increasing challenging demands) significantly moderate this association in an opposite direction. In Study 2, we analyzed the moderating role of meaningful work with a sample of 394 employees. Results supported the moderating effect of meaningful work on the relation between employees’ perceived overqualification and job boredom. While job crafting dimensions of increasing structural resources and increasing challenging demands strengthen or have little effect on reducing the association between employees’ perceived overqualification and job boredom, meaningful work buffers this effect. These findings suggest that organizations must provide opportunities for employees to find meaning in their jobs. Additional research is needed to understand the role of job crafting to reduce job boredom.
Job boredom is a common experience which until recently was a neglected area of inquiry. Boredom is defined as an unpleasant state characterized by low arousal and dissatisfaction, a distorted sense of time, attention difficulties, and is commonly associated with inadequate stimuli in the work context (Eastwood, Frischen, Fenske, & Smilek, 2012; Fisher, 1993; Harju & Hakanen, 2016; Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993; Reijsenger et al., 2013). Research has focused primarily on job characteristics as predictors of boredom. For example, monotony and routine are strong predictors of boredom at work (van der Hejiden, Schepers, & Nijssen, 2012). Likewise, employees may get bored because they are disconnected from satisfying or meaningful activities (Eastwood et al., 2012; Harju & Hakanen, 2016).
Besides the emphasis on lack of environmental stimuli as a precursor of boredom, further research identifies diverse antecedents, such as lack of use of individual capabilities, limited learning opportunities, lack of task variety, and work underload (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Daniels, 2000; Edwards, 1991; Harju & Hakanen, 2016; Harju, Hakanen, & Schaufeli, 2014; Loukidou, Loan-Clarke, & Daniels, 2009; Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993; van der Heijden, Schepers, & Nijssen, 2012). Furthermore, employees are more likely to experience boredom if they perform unchallenging, unsatisfying, and meaningless tasks (Eastwood et al., 2012; van Tilburg, & Igou, 2012); if they are not utilizing their capabilities to the fullest (Harju, Hakkanen, & Schaufeli, 2016); or if the work environment hinders their capabilities (Harju & Hakanen, 2016). Empirical research demonstrates that job boredom is associated with poor self-rated health, stress, and depression symptoms as well as with an increase in employees’ turnover intentions and counterproductive work behaviors (Harju et al., 2014; van Hoof & van Hooft, 2014). Therefore, when work is central to the individual, job boredom undermines motivation and well-being (Harju et al., 2016; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2014; Van Hooff & van Hooft, 2016, 2017).
Although person–job incongruity has been proposed as a significant predictor of job boredom, research in this area has been limited when compared to the investigation of the effect of lack of environmental stimuli (e.g., task variety, complexity) on boredom. Research consistently highlights that subjective overqualification is strongly related to employees’ perceptions and attitudes at work (Hu et al., 2015; Liu & Wang, 2012). For instance, Fisher (1993, p. 404) proposed that situations that do not match employees’ interests or needs would probably produce more boredom. Therefore, we propose that employees’ perceived overqualification or misfit between individual’s education, experience, competencies, and the demands required in the job (e.g., individuals may perceive their experiences, knowledge, and skills exceeds the demands of the job) may play a role in predicting job boredom experience (Liu & Wang, 2012; Maynard, Joseph, & Maynard, 2006). When this type of misfit arises, employees may actively shape their jobs to better fit it to their needs, skills, and motivations. More precisely, individuals might proactively self-initiate small changes in their work to improve fit and meaning at work, a process referred to as job crafting (Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesnieswski, 2013; Lin, Law, & Zhou, 2017). While the role of job crafting to improve work engagement, meaning, and performance has been supported, lack of research is available to understand how job crafting affects employees’ boredom experience. Additionally, the association of job crafting and meaningful work with job boredom has been studied primarily among highly educated European samples; thus, further exploration across different samples is still needed (Harju et al., 2016; Steger, 2017).
Past qualitative research identified person–job misfit as a precondition to job boredom (Harju & Hakanen, 2016); however, no quantitative analysis has been conducted with employees from diverse organizations. Therefore, drawing from the person–job fit theory, we first explore the relationship between employees’ perceived overqualification and job boredom. As this misfit undermines employees’ well-being, it is expected that individuals will exert certain actions to reshape and craft their job to make it be more meaningful and satisfying. Therefore, we analyze job crafting and meaningful work as moderators. In Study 1, we explore job crafting as a proactive individual strategy to improve person–job fit which might potentially reduce the effect of employees’ perceived overqualification on job boredom. In Study 2, we test meaningful work as a moderator to reduce job boredom. Exploring these moderators provides a step forward to comprehend additional predictors of boredom and to unravel circumstances or situations under which boredom experience might be lessened. Understanding these circumstances is helpful to prevent job boredom and its negative consequences on employees’ well-being.
Person–Job Fit and Overqualification
Person–environment (P-E) fit theory proposes that positive outcomes and well-being result from the fit between the person and the environment (Edwards, Caplan, & van Harrison, 1998). Employees’ perception of their attributes is more critical to mental health and well-being outcomes than is objective P-E fit (Edwards et al., 1998; Judge & Cable, 1997). Person–job fit is the specific level of fit within this general P-E fit conceptualization that is defined as the congruence between the job requirements or demands and the skills, knowledge, and abilities of the employee (Edwards, 1991; French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982; Su, Murdock, & Rounds, 2015; Warr & Inceoglu, 2012).
Perceived person–job fit has implications for employees’ well-being and behaviors. For example, excessive abilities may lead to more strain (e.g., boredom, lack of motivation), but similarly, insufficient skills to meet job demands can also increase strain (e.g., exhaustion; Hansen, 2013). Incongruences in person–job fit produce psychological stress and harm job performance, work attitudes, turnover, and vocational choices (Andersen & Winefield, 2011; Edwards, 1991; Hu et al., 2015; Luksyte & Spitzmueller, 2011; Warr & Iceglou, 2012).
Following the P-J fit framework, perceived overqualification might be understood as a type of misfit between the person and the job (Liu, Luksyte, Zhou, Zhi, & Wang, 2015; Maynard et al., 2006). Employee perceived overqualification is associated with employees’ attitudes, affect, and behaviors (Liu et al., 2015; Maynard, Taylor, & Hakel, 2009) and has negative consequences for employees. Specifically, employees’ perceived overqualification is associated with boredom (Watt & Hargis, 2010), dissatisfaction (Fine & Nevo, 2008), lower organizational commitment (Lobane, Meade, & Pond, 2015), lower well-being and meaningful work (Lobene & Meade, 2013), lower level performance, and higher turnover in organizations (Harari, Manapragada, & Viswesvaran, 2017; Hu et al., 2015; Liu & Wang, 2012; Maynard et al., 2006).
Liu and Wang (2012) proposed that boredom might be positively associated with employees’ perceived overqualification “because jobs that do not utilize employees’ Knowledge, Skills, Abilities and Others characteristics provide insufficient stimuli to attract employees’ interest” (p. 22). Harju and Hakanen (2016), based on a qualitative analysis, identified person–job misfit as one of the prevailing conditions under which inertia at work, a type of job boredom, emerges. This type of job boredom appears when “work tasks did not enable employees to fully activate themselves to employ their capabilities and invest themselves in their work performance” (p. 378). Thus, job boredom may be characterized by low challenging demands and low resources (Reijseger et al., 2013), which can increase a misfit between the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the employees and the job. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Study 1: Job Crafting
When employees perceive a misfit between their capabilities and their job, they might proactively take action to change the work environment to make it more enjoyable and motivating. Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) suggest that employees will be motivated to modify elements of their jobs when it does not meet their skills or needs. According to Berg, Dutton, and Wrzesnieswski (2013), job crafting is a job design strategy that puts employees in control to cultivate meaningfulness in their work.
More recently, job crafting has been framed within the job demands-resources (JD-R) model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, & Hetland, 2012; Tims & Bakker, 2010; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012). From this approach, job crafting is defined as “the self-initiated changes that employees make in their job demands and job resources to attain and/or optimize their personal (work) goals” (Tims et al., 2012, p. 173). Employees make changes to their job to balance their demands and resources according to their abilities and needs (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013). Based on this model, job crafting includes the following proactive behaviors: (1) seeking resources (structural and social), (2) seeking challenges, and (3) reducing demands (Petrou et al., 2012). Seeking resources may include behaviors such as feedback or information seeking, advice from colleagues, and maximizing job autonomy. These behaviors may help to make one’s job more motivating and to mobilize more resources to cope with job demands (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Seeking challenges may include behaviors such as looking for new tasks or taking on more responsibilities. Individuals may engage in these behaviors to maintain motivation and prevent boredom. Finally, reducing demands may include actions targeted toward minimizing the emotional, mental, or physically demanding aspects of one’s job (Petrou et al., 2012). Consequently, job crafting improves the person–job fit and has a profound impact on how employees perceive their job as meaningful (Wrzesniewski, Berg, & Dutton, 2010).
Even though job crafting is a relatively new construct, research demonstrates that it relates to desirable personal and work-related outcomes. Job crafting is associated with work engagement (Bakker, Rodríguez-Muñoz, & Sanz, 2016), affective well-being and meaningful work (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2015; Vogt, Hakanen, Brauchli, Jenny, & Bauer, 2015), psychological capital (Vogt et al., 2015), in-role and extra-role performance (Demerouti, Bakker, & Gevers, 2015; Demerouti, Bakker, & Halbesleben, 2015; Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015), and employability (Brenninkmeijer & Hekkert-Koning, 2015). Furthermore, job crafting has a negative association with exhaustion (Petrou et al., 2015).
Niessen, Wesele, and Kostova (2016) found that the need to create or maintain a positive self-image at work was the main reason to engage in job crafting. Moreover, they suggested that “individuals who try to maximize the positivity of their self-view might identify discrepancies between their self-view and their valued goals on work identity” (p. 7). Along this same line, Tims, Derks, and Bakker (2016) indicated that individuals who crafted their job reported higher levels of person–job fit and that demands–abilities fit related to more meaningfulness.
Van Hooff and van Hooft (2014) examined the moderating role of job crafting between job boredom and boredom behavior. They found that increasing structural resources help to reduce employee’s engagement in boredom behaviors. Despite this initial evidence, no previous study has examined how job crafting may be beneficial to minimize job boredom experience, especially considering perceptions of overqualification as a predictor of boredom.
Opportunities to craft the job are essential to achieve meaningfulness in modern work contexts (Wrzesniewski et al., 2010). Those individuals who craft their jobs, optimize their person–job fit and, over time, experience their work as more meaningful (Tims, Derks, & Bakker, 2016). The freedom to take the initiative to reshape their jobs opens up opportunities for employees to create meaningful and motivating experiences for themselves through job crafting (Berg et al., 2013), which may preclude boredom experience. To better comprehend the association between employees’ perceived overqualification and job boredom, it is essential to analyze possible moderators within the job context. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
Study 2: Meaningful Work
As previously mentioned, job crafting is deeply related to meaningful work; however, they are conceptually distinct. Meaning in life and at work is fundamental to well-being (Allan, Douglass, Duffy, & McCarty, 2016; Allan, Duffy, & Douglass, 2015; Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, & McKee, 2007). Meaningful work refers to the meaning and value that work provides to people (Steger, 2017), or more precisely, the perception that the job is meaningful and worthwhile (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).
Based on the job characteristics model, the literature points out that employees experience meaningful work when job design provides skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Ultimately, the psychological states derived from these five job dimensions (e.g., meaning, responsibility, and knowledge of the results) will lead to higher satisfaction and performance.
Research indicates that meaningful work is positively related to well-being and positive work and nonwork outcomes. People who perceive their work as meaningful showed more meaning in life, positive affect, lower levels of anxiety and depression, as well as less burnout at work (Creed, Rogers, Praskova, & Searle, 2014; Douglass, Duffy, & Austin, 2016; Steger, Dik, & Duffy, 2012; Steger, Littman-Ovadia, Miller, Menger, & Rothmann, 2013). Additionally, they are more intrinsically motivated, engaged, satisfied, and committed to the organization (Douglass et al., 2016; Fairlie, 2011; Lobene & Meade, 2013; Steger et al., 2013). Thus, they display higher in-role and extra-role performance and are less likely to quit (Allan, Duffy, & Collisson, 2018; Steger et al., 2012). This evidence suggests that workers who perceived their work as meaningful are more satisfied, committed, engaged, and motivated, which is beneficial to well-being in and outside the work domain.
Despite that beneficial attributes of meaningful work have been highlighted in employment research, no previous investigation has addressed how it may contribute to reducing job boredom. Recently, Allan, Douglass, Duffy, and McCarty (2016) provide evidence for the moderating role of meaningful work on the relationship between work stress and meaning in life. Meaningful work can be individually fostered (Tims et al., 2016) through proactive strategies such as job crafting or systematically promoted through organizational strategies to enhance employees’ well-being and talent retention (Steger, 2017). Thus, we hypothesized that:
Study 1
Method
Participants and Procedure
The sample consisted of 832 employees (61% female; 38.9% male) with a mean age of 37.19 (standard deviation [SD] = 11.45). Participants were highly educated: 41% hold a bachelor’s degree, 20% hold a graduate degree (master or doctoral degree), and 26.2% completed an associate or technical degree or university credits. Eighty-four percent of participants worked full-time, mostly at private organizations (81.4%), followed by public administration (12%), and nonprofit organizations (6.6%). Participants worked at the following sectors: service (60%), sales (25.2%), educational (10.9%), and manufacturing (2.5%). Almost all participants were full-time employees (85%).
Participants were individually invited to collaborate in this study. Individuals had to be employed and be at least 21 years old to participate in this study. We used a nonprobabilistic snowball sampling technique to recruit participants. A research assistant identified potential participants and invited them to complete the survey; these participants could refer others to contribute to this research. All individuals read and signed informed consent, which emphasized the voluntary nature of participation, and included information regarding risk and benefits for participating in this study, as well as the contact information of the research team. Afterward, participants completed a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Participants did not receive any incentive for their contribution to the study. The institutional review board of Carlos Albizu University approved this study.
Measures
Overqualification
Employees’ perceived overqualification was measured using 5 items developed for this project. We based this measure on the literature, which defines underemployment as holding a job that is inferior or of lower quality, relative to some standard (Feldman, 1996). Due to the increasing economic downturn in Puerto Rico, which has led individuals to hold jobs that require less knowledge, skills, and abilities compared to their level of competence or education, we intended to examine perceived overqualification, a form of underemployment, as a predictor of job boredom. Original items are in Spanish; however, we provide an English translation of all items: (1) My job requires me to do tasks that are beneath my abilities and skills, (2) I feel useless in my work because I cannot use my abilities to their fullest, (3) I have very few things to do in my work, (4) I feel stuck in a boring job, and (5) The tasks assigned to me are too simple for my preparation and experience. Participants answered items using a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 0 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree), with high scores indicating high levels of perceived overqualification. Confirmatory factor analysis with AMOS Version 22 showed a good fit to the one-factor model, χ2(5) = 26.032, p < .01, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = .08, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual = .024, Comparative Fit Index = .98. Factor loadings ranged from .49 to .85. Reliability estimates showed good internal consistency (α = .83).
Job crafting
We used a Spanish translation of the Job Crafting Scale developed by Tims, Bakker, and Derks (2012). This 21-item scale measures four job crafting dimensions: increasing structural job resources (5 items, “I try to develop my capabilities”), decreasing hindering job demands (6 items, “I make sure that my work is mentally less intense”), increasing social job resources (5 items, “I ask my supervisor to coach me”), and increasing challenging job demands (5 items, “When an interesting project comes along, I proactively offer myself as project coworker”). All items were answered using a 5-point frequency scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (often). Two bilingual researchers with expertise in psychometrics and psychology translated the scale into Spanish and reverse translated to English. Finally, the research team compared both versions. Initial validation with a sample of Puerto Rican workers supported the four-dimension structure with reliability estimates greater than .70 (Revilla-Rivera, 2016). Bakker, Ficapal-Cusí, Torrent-Sellens, Boada-Grau, and Hontangas-Beltrán (2018) translated, adapted, and validated a Spanish version of the Job Crafting Scale using employees from Spain. Their results also supported the four-factor structure with excellent reliability estimates: increasing structural job resources (α = .75), decreasing hindering job demands (α = .79), increasing social job resources (α = .77), and increasing challenging job demands (α = .75). Reliability estimates in the current study showed good internal consistency for all job crafting dimensions (α = .86–.90).
Job boredom
We used the Job Boredom Scale developed by Martínez-Lugo, Rodríguez-Montalbán, and Sánchez-Cardona, which was validated by Martínez-Lugo and Rodríguez-Montalbán (2016). This scale is in Spanish and includes 8 items (e.g., I feel bored at my work). Participants answered all items using a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always), with high scores indicating high levels of job boredom. Results from a confirmatory factor analysis supported the one-dimension structure with excellent internal consistency (α = .95). Correlation of the Job Boredom Scale and the Dutch Boredom Scale was .93, which suggest a strong convergent validity (Martínez-Lugo & Rodríguez-Montalbán, 2016). In this study, this measure showed excellent internal consistency (α = .96).
Control variables
The relation between age and job boredom in the current study was negative and significant (r = −.11, p < .01). As suggested in previous research, younger employees reported a higher level of job boredom compared to older workers (Harju et al., 2014). Thus, we decided to control for age in our analysis since previous evidence suggests a significant effect of age on well-being (Carstensen et al., 2011).
Data Analysis
We calculated descriptive analysis and correlations among the variables included in the study. To test the hypothesis, we performed a hierarchical multiple regression analysis with SPSS Version 24. In the first step, we included age and employees’ perceived overqualification. Secondly, we introduced the job crafting dimensions, and lastly, we introduced the interaction terms between employees’ perceived overqualification and job crafting dimensions. None of the variables’ tolerance (higher than .20) and variance inflation factor (lower than 10) statistics indicated signs of multicollinearity (Field, 2018). We calculated interaction terms between overqualification and each dimension of job crafting. All predictors were grand mean centered before creating the interaction terms. We computed 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using 1,000 bias-corrected bootstrap samples to examine significant results along with p values. To further analyze significant interaction effects, we performed simple slope analysis at ±1 SD of the moderators (Aiken & West, 1991).
Results
Table 1 shows the means, SDs, and correlations between the study variables.
Mean, Standard Deviations (SDs) and Correlation Among Variables Study 1.
Note. n = 832.
**p < .01. *p < .05.
Hierarchical regression results are presented in Table 2. After controlling for age, employees’ perceived overqualification shows a significant relation with job boredom (β = .50, p < .001). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported. As shown in Model 2, except for increasing social job resources, the additional three job crafting dimensions were statistically related to job boredom. Increasing structural job resources (β = −.17, p < .001) and increasing challenging job demands (β = −.17, p < .001) negatively relate to job boredom. On the contrary, decreasing hindering job demands positively relate to job boredom (β = .19, p < .001). Results in Model 3 show that the interaction effects of employees’ perceived overqualification and increasing structural resources (β = .20, p < .001), and increasing challenging demands (β = −.08, p < .001), were both statistically significant. However, Hypothesis 2 was not supported since these moderations occurred in the opposite directions as proposed.
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Results for Study 1.
Note. n = 832. CI = confidence interval.
*p ≤ .05. **p < .01.
Figures 1 and 2 graphically depict these significant interaction effects. Simple slope analysis indicates that, contrary to what we expected, increasing structural job resources strengthens the positive relation between overqualification and job boredom. At higher levels of increasing structural job resources (+1 SD above the mean), the relation between employees’ perceived overqualification and job boredom is stronger (β = .70, SE = .0413, p < .001, 95% CI [.62, .78]) than at lower levels (−1 SD below the mean) of increasing structural job resources (β = .42, SE = .04, p < .001, 95% CI [.34, .49]).
Moderating effect of job crafting—increasing structural job resources.
Moderating effect of job crafting—increasing challenging job demands.
The interaction effect of increasing challenging demands suggests that challenging demands may diminish the association of employees’ perceived overqualification and job boredom. Interestingly, simple slope analysis indicates that at higher levels of increasing challenging job demands (+1 SD above the mean), there is a positive and strong relation between employees’ perceived overqualification and job boredom (β = .55, SE = .05, p < .001, 95% CI [.54, .65]), as well as at lower levels (−1 SD below the mean) of increasing challenging demands (β = .51, SE = .05, p < .001, 95% CI [.42, .60]).
Study 2
Method
Sample and Procedure
The sample consisted of 394 employees (59% female; 41% male) with a mean age of 36.23 (SD = 11.40). Regarding education, 39.3% of participants hold a bachelor’s degree, 24.7% completed a graduate degree (master or doctorate), and 25.8% completed an associate or technical degree or have some university credits. They were employed at several organizations in Puerto Rico (71% private, 26.6% public, and 2.3% non-for-profit) and worked in the following sectors: service (28.4%), education (22.8%), sales (16.8%), technology (10.2%), health (9.9%), manufacture (5.3%), security (2.8%), transportation (2.5%), and arts and entertainment (1.3%). Participants were mainly full-time employees (72.3%).
As in Study 1, participants were individually invited to collaborate in the study. Individuals had to be employed and be at least 21 years old to participate in this study. We used a nonprobabilistic snowball sampling technique to recruit participants. A research assistant identified potential participants and invited them to complete the survey; these participants could refer others to contribute to this research. All individuals read and signed the informed consent, which emphasized the voluntary nature of participation and included information regarding risk and benefits for participating in this study, as well as the contact information of the research team. Afterward, participants completed a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. Participants did not receive any incentive for their contribution to the study. The institutional review board of Carlos Albizu University approved this study.
Measures
Perceived overqualification
We used the Scale of Perceived Overqualification developed by Maynard, Joseph, and Maynard (2006). This scale has 9 items (e.g., My job requires less education than I have), which are answered using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree). High scores in this scale indicate high levels of perceived overqualification. Confirmatory factor analysis of the original scale supported the one-dimensional structure with excellent internal consistency (α = .92; Maynard et al., 2006). The principal author of the original Perceived Overqualification Scale provided the Spanish version used in the current study. The Spanish version showed a good internal reliability estimate (α = .88).
Meaningful work
We used the Meaningful Work Scale (Arnold et al., 2007). This scale has 4 items (e.g., The work I do is very gratifying), which were answered using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree). The original English version of this scale showed good internal consistency (α = .84; Arnold et al., 2007). We used a Spanish translation of the Meaningful Work Scale. Two bilingual members of the research team translated all items into Spanish and reverse translated to English. This measure showed good internal consistency in the current study (α = .79).
Job boredom
We used the same Job Boredom Scale as in Study 1 (Martínez-Lugo & Rodríguez-Montalbán, 2016).
Control variables
Following the same procedure and rationale presented in Study 1, we controlled by age in this study. Correlation between participants’ age and job boredom was negative and significant (r = −.22, p < .001).
Data Analysis
First, we calculated descriptive analysis and correlations among the variables. Second, we performed a hierarchical multiple regression analysis with SPSS Version 24. In the initial step, we included age as a control variable as well as employees’ perceived overqualification and meaningful work as predictors. In the second step, we introduced the interaction term of employees’ perceived overqualification and meaningful work. All predictors were grand mean centered before creating the interaction term. We calculated 95% CIs using 1,000 bias-corrected bootstrap samples to examine significant results along with p values. To further analyze significant interaction effects, we performed simple slope analysis at ±1 SD of the moderator (Aiken & West, 1991).
Result
Table 3 shows the means, SDs, and correlations between the variables in the study.
Mean, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Among Variables Study 2.
Note. n = 394.
**p < .001.
Regression analysis results show that employees’ perceived overqualification positively relates to job boredom (β = .32, p < .001) and that meaningful work negatively relates to job boredom (β = −.52, p < .001). Meaningful work significantly moderates the relation between employees’ perceived overqualification and job boredom (β = −.07, p = .03). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is supported. The model explains 55% of the job boredom variance (see Table 4).
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Results for Study 2.
Note. n = 394. CI = confidence interval.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Figure 3 graphically depicts the interaction effect of meaningful work. Simple slope analyses indicate that the relation between employees’ perceived overqualification and job boredom is weaker at higher levels of meaningful work (+1 SD above the mean; b = .31, SE = .06, p < .001, 95% CI [.19, .44]). At lower levels of meaningful work (−1 SD below the mean), the relation between employees’ perceived overqualification and boredom is stronger (b = .46, SE = .06, p < .001, 95% CI [.34, .50]).
Moderating effect of meaningful work.
Discussion
This study aimed to examine the association of employees’ perceived overqualification and job boredom, and foremost, to test the moderating role of job crafting and meaningful work on this association. We tested our hypothesis with two independent samples. Results showed that employees’ perceived overqualification is a strong predictor of job boredom. Furthermore, findings from this study showed that only two job crafting dimensions and meaningful work moderate the association of employees’ perceived overqualification and job boredom. In terms of job crafting, results indicate that increases in structural job resources and challenging job demands are associated with less job boredom (Harju et al., 2016; Reijseger et al., 2013). On the contrary, decreases in hindering job demands relate positively to job boredom. The interaction effect of two dimensions of job crafting (i.e., increasing structural resources and increasing challenging job demands) were significant; however, the results indicate that these job crafting behaviors strengthen or have little effect on reducing the association between overqualification and job boredom.
Although these findings did not provide support to our hypothesis, they provoke intriguing questions regarding the role of job crafting in reducing boredom experience. First, proactive and self-initiated job design interventions may not reduce job boredom if employees perceive they are overqualified. This type of intervention must be accompanied by career development initiatives to promote employees’ growth as well as strategies to maximize the use of their capabilities in their jobs.
Furthermore, although literature overwhelmingly supports the benefits of job crafting to employees’ well-being and organizational outcomes (Rudolph, Katz, Lavinge, & Zacher, 2017), there may be circumstances in which job crafting has an opposite effect. Employees who craft their jobs are more engaged and have greater psychological well-being (Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2018; Harju et al., 2016; Tims et al., 2012), but this effect seems to diminish over time (Harju et al., 2016). As suggested by Harju, Hakkanen, and Schaufeli (2016), “Highly educated employees may have the capabilities and motivation to increase their job resources, but without long-term opportunities (e.g., challenges) to employ these resources, the potential benefits for individual well-being may remain un-harvested” (p. 17).
Decreasing hindering job demands is associated differently to well-being (Tims et al., 2012). Demerouti (2014) suggests that this type of job crafting is a coping mechanism to protect health when demands are high. However, the results of this study indicate that decreasing hindering demands relate to increased job boredom. Employees may experience job boredom if they work in understimulating work contexts characterized by low job demands and resources (Reijseger et al., 2013). Therefore, reducing any additional demand that might require employees’ effort and energy will increase job boredom, especially among overqualified employees.
When testing the effect of meaningful work, results showed a negative association between meaningful work and job boredom. Likewise, meaningful work moderated the relation between overqualification on job boredom. That is, when employees perceive themselves as overqualified and experience low meaning in their work, they are more likely to experience job boredom. Therefore, meaning at work is an indispensable component to understand and reduce job boredom. Even though prior evidence shows that meaning predicts boredom (van Tilburg & Igou, 2012) or that job boredom may drive individuals to engage in proactive behaviors to find meaning in their activities (Barbalet, 1999), no previous evidence has empirically tested the moderating role of meaningful work on job boredom. Therefore, these findings contribute to understanding how meaningful work relates to and mitigates job boredom.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, the study investigates the predicting role of employees’ perceived overqualification on job boredom. Most research in job boredom analyzes job characteristics (e.g., routine, monotonous tasks, lack of variety) as predictors; nonetheless, boredom at work may be a complex well-being state with diverse precursors (Harju et al., 2016) and positive and negative consequences (Loukidou et al., 2009; Mann & Cadman, 2014). Results from this study also support previous qualitative findings (e.g., Harju & Hakanen, 2016) which contribute to supporting new models of job boredom that consider both contextual and individual characteristics.
This argument is in line with the person–job fit framework, which suggests that when employees’ perceive incongruities between their skills, knowledge and abilities and their actual job demands, they report poorer well-being (Hansen, 2013; Su et al., 2015). Although the P-E fit was central in early propositions of predictors of job boredom (Fisher, 1993), it has received little attention compared to external causes (i.e., lack of stimulation) or individual differences (e.g., personality). We found a strong correlation between perceived overqualification and job boredom, even when using different samples and measures. These findings provide empirical support to the proposition that employees’ perceived overqualification is a strong predictor of job boredom.
Secondly, results from this study contribute to elucidate the role of job crafting and meaningful work to mitigating job boredom. Job crafting has gained considerable popularity over the recent years (e.g., Vogt et al., 2015). Previous studies have addressed the association between job crafting and job boredom (Harju et al., 2016; Harju, Schaufeli, & Hakanen, 2018; Van Hooff & van Hooft, 2014), but less evidence exists about its moderating role. Although we were not able to support our hypothesis, results from this study suggest that job crafting (at least two of its dimensions) strengthens or have little effect on reducing the association between perceived overqualification and job boredom. Recently, Baratta and Spence (2017) found that bored individuals were less likely to craft their jobs. Similarly, in a longitudinal analysis, Harju et al. (2016) found that job boredom seems to impede job crafting. Together, all these results denote the need for further research to unveil the association between job crafting and job boredom.
Thirdly, this study contributes to examining the role of meaningful work in mitigating job boredom among overqualified employees. While job boredom may arise when individuals perform meaningless tasks (van Tilburg & Igou, 2012), no previous evidence was available to understand the moderating role of meaning in predicting job boredom. This study contributes to this end, suggesting that high meaningful work reduces job boredom among overqualified employees. Therefore, developing meaning at work may be valuable in preventing boredom and promoting employees’ well-being. Additionally, although job crafting is a well-suited strategy to improving person–job fit and meaningfulness (Kooij, van Woerkom, Wilkenloh, Dorenbosch, & Denissen, 2017; Tims, Derks, & Bakker, 2016), our findings differentiate the role of meaningful work and job crafting in predicting job boredom.
The analysis of both job crafting and meaningful work as moderators provides relevant avenues for career and work development initiatives. Organizations must provide opportunities for employees to proactively shape their jobs, which will lead to improved employee well-being and performance. With highly educated and skilled employees, opportunities for seeking new challenges within their jobs seem to prevent job boredom and enhance motivation and well-being. Job crafting interventions may help to improve the person–job fit and promote meaning. Several job crafting interventions have proven to be effective in fitting jobs to employees’ interest, skills, and competencies (Gordon et al., 2018; Kooij et al., 2017; van den Heuvel, Demerouti, & Peeters, 2015). Recently, Kooij, van Woerkom, Wilkenloh, Dorenbosch, and Denissen (2017) introduced job crafting toward strengths and interest as an innovative conceptualization of job crafting. It is a mechanism to improve the fit between employees’ resources and the job. Initial evidence of a job crafting intervention based on this conceptualization showed that it increases person–job fit, especially among older workers. These strategies may supplement top-down initiatives (e.g., recruitment, selection, training, and development) to maximize employees’ potential and derive meaningfulness from their jobs. Human capital selection and development strategies are essential to attract, select, retain, and develop the best candidate for the job, but organizations should invest in providing opportunities for employees to encourage mastery, competence, and meaning from their work.
Accordingly, meaningful work has promising avenues for practice in organizations to promote employee well-being. Steger (2017) offers an organizational framework to foster meaningful work, which includes leadership and organizational-level predictors. According to this model, to promote meaningful work among employees, organizations must provide a clear and shared vision and mission, developed authentic and ethical leadership, cultivate respect and positive relationship and interactions, provide employees autonomy and freedom to use their strengths, and adjust their jobs to their interest and capabilities. Implementing these organizational strategies in place may increment additional job and personal resources, as well as meaning at work.
Limitations and Future Studies
This study presents several limitations. Data in both studies were cross sectional; thus, no causal association between the variables could be established. Even though the association of perceived overqualification and job boredom was consistent across the two studies, future research should consider other possibilities, such as how perceived overqualification relates to job boredom over time. Perhaps, the association between overqualification and job boredom is part of a negative spiral within employees’ work. Additionally, longitudinal studies should explore if job crafting and meaningful work mitigate job boredom or if job boredom promotes or impedes job crafting and meaningful work instead. Although there are some explanations in this regard, conclusive findings have not been found.
These studies were conducted using convenience samples; therefore, additional variables (personal or contextual) may affect the generalizability of these results. However, the pattern of associations between employees’ perceived overqualification and job boredom, for example, seems to be quite stable across the two samples and measurements. This provides evidence of cross-validation.
Measurement of meaningful work may also represent a limitation of this study. Although we used a previously published Meaningful Work Scale, some limitations have been raised regarding how meaningfulness was conceptualized and operationalized through this instrument (Steger et al., 2012). Additional studies should be conducted using other Meaningful Work Scales to validate and generalize our findings.
Additionally, we tested the moderating role of job crafting and meaningful work in two independent models. Future studies should be conducted to test the concurrent effect of job crafting and meaningful work in the same empirical model. Although job crafting and meaning at work are conceptually distinct, they are linked theoretically. Job crafting represent proactive behaviors initiated by the employees to “shape, mold, and redefine their jobs” (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p. 180), which promotes outcomes such as work engagement (Harju et al., 2018) and meaningfulness (Wrzesniewski, LoBuglio, Dutton, & Berg, 2013). Individuals experience their job as meaningful if their competencies, values, and needs are aligned with their job requirements. It is possible that the meaning derived from crafting one’s job provides a motivational mechanism for higher involvement and action (Van Wingerden & Van der Stoep, 2018). Other studies should address this motivational aspect of meaningful work, which may stimulate individuals to display positive behaviors at work.
Despite these limitations, our findings contribute to understanding employees’ perceived overqualification as a predictor of job boredom and to underscore the effects of two potential moderators. On the one hand, increasing meaningful work leads to a weaker relation between employees’ perceived overqualification and job boredom. On the other hand, two of the job crafting dimensions (e.g., increasing structural resources and increasing challenging demands) strengthen this association. These findings reinforce the relevance of meaningful work to promote well-being and provide opportunities to reflect and rethink the role of job crafting to reduce job boredom.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
