Linking job crafting,innovation performance,and career satisfaction: The mediating role of work engagement

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The demand for innovation and satisfaction is increasing rapidly due to technological advancement and the fast-changing business environment.

OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this article is to investigate how job crafting augments work outputs (i.e., innovation performance and career satisfaction) through work engagement.

METHODS:

Data were collected from 477 workers working in the Pakistan manufacturing sector. A structural equation modeling technique was used to investigate the mediation model.

RESULTS:

Job crafting has a direct and indirect association with innovation performance and career satisfaction – via employees’ work engagement. Additionally, the mediating impact was stronger for innovation performance than for career satisfaction. The findings advocate that managers should pay attention to employees’ job crafting to improve employees’ work engagement in manufacturing organizations. To improve employees’ innovation performance and career satisfaction via work engagement, it is important to improve organization-wide job crafting in traditional manufacturing organizations. Strategic and managerial actions related to job crafting might boost employees’ engagement in the organization that environments provide incessantly better outcomes.

CONCLUSION:

By linking job crafting and work engagement to their attitude towards career satisfaction and innovation performance in Pakistani manufacturing firms, this study adds a new dimension to the study of Pakistani manufacturing employees and typically to the best practices in career debates. This knowledge is important and unique because it accentuates that in addition to work engagement, which focuses primarily on employee growth in the organization, job crafting should also be given equal importance to advance manufacturing employees’ outcomes.

Keywords

Career satisfaction innovation performance work engagement job crafting Pakistan

1 Introduction

Today, business rivalry is highly intense, and the business milieu is highly uncertain, since traditional top-down redesign tactics that may or may not be enough to address eminent demands and opportunities at the job; organizational decision-makers have to depend on employees to take a step and create change from the bottom-up [1, 2]. Employees are not only vital to performing the basic tasks stated in the job description but are also anticipated to be more proactive. Proactivity can allow employees to craft their jobs and help them cope with the uncertainty of persistent change (i.e., job crafting) [3].

A growing interest in organizational behavior scholarship has emerged regarding job crafting. Job crafting denotes proactive behaviors that workers employ to design their job or work characteristics (i.e., job demands and resources) to adjust their inspiration and vigor levels [4]. There is also evidence that job crafting has an optimistic effect on individual work outcomes [5, 6]. This research scrutinizes whether job crafting impacts innovative performance and career satisfaction and whether work engagement can mediate this relationship?

In doing so, the study contributes to literature and practice in several ways. First, to our knowledge, this is the first study to unpack the process by which job crafting influences Pakistani employees’ innovation performance and career satisfaction, previous studies ignored this relationship. Secondly, this study outlines a psychological mechanism through which job crafting may affect positive outcomes at the workplace. Finally, this research draws implications for policymakers and management of the manufacturing industry and organizational and career psychologists in Pakistan. Specifically, our outcomes stipulate that job crafting is an eloquent attempt to boost work engagement and related positive workplace outcomes (i.e., innovation performance and career satisfaction).

2 Theoretical background and hypothesis development

2.1 Job crafting

Tims, Bakker and Derks [7] defined job crafting as a job design approach that entails augmenting job resources and demands to increase one’s job positive outcomes. Explicitly, Tims, Bakker and Derks [7], empirically characterized job crafting in the following four ways, namely, (I) increasing structural job resources, (II) increasing social job resources, (III) increasing challenging job demands, and (IV) decreasing hindering job demands. Existing research contends that job crafting is primarily significant for encouraging workers’ intention to increase and alter their job resources. Additionally, Wrzesniewski et al. [8] revealed that job crafting helps workers cognitively and physically alter the emotional experience of their job. Job crafting may help workers to achieve a higher level of employee work engagement innovation over time and become the ultimate factor for their career satisfaction.

2.2 Job crafting, work engagement

Work engagement is a highly active and energized “positive, rewarding, and work-related state of mind” [33]. Work engagement is frequently interpreted as a multidimensional concept consisting of vigor, dedication, and absorption. Work engagement is associated with various important individual and organizational outcomes, such as employee health, job performance, and increased productivity [9 –11]. These findings support the importance of work engagement in organizations and emphasize the need to know the factors that influence it.

In recent years job crafting and outcome have attracted substantial attention from researchers and practitioners. Broadly speaking, from the JD-R theoretical perspective, it was reported that job crafting boosted employees’ work engagement [12]. For example, Karatepe and Eslamlou [13] conducted a study on flight crew working in Iranian airline companies and found that when flight crew has an option to craft their careers via job resources (i.e., challenging job demands), they feel enthusiastic, motivated, and pay more attention towards their job. A study on the European pharmaceutical industry by Cullinane et al. [14] showed that job crafting resources were an antecedent to employee lean engagement behavior.

Hypothesis 1: Job crafting is positively related to work engagement.

2.3 Job crafting innovation performance and career satisfaction

As a result of job crafting, individuals can take into consideration their demands and restructure their work processes to achieve long-term organizational changes [15]. Employees are more motivated to bring change when they are actively involved in the design of their jobs. Through job crafting, organizations encourage their staff to experiment with novel methods of doing things. Allowing employees to seek out new resources to break the monotony of executing the same normal tasks with the support of present resources reduces levels of boredom, emotional tiredness, frustration, and burnout. Employees can also benefit from job crafting by adapting to the constantly shifting needs of the firm and other stakeholders. Employees don’t feel shackled by current systems and may seek tools to proactively find ways to turn change into an engaging and effective experience. Because of this, employees may use job crafting as a powerful tool to develop and implement innovative ideas [16]. Job crafting exposes employees to new people, jobs, and procedures, increasing their chances of contributing novel ideas [17]. So, job-creating efforts like starting a new project or joining a group could also lead to new ideas, like coming up with original or unique ways to solve work problems or trying out new things. Employees who shape and expand their roles may gain a sense of responsibility for change, a sense of how their work affects the rest of the company, and a desire for process efficiencies [18].

Furthermore, individuals broaden their resource pool by seeking job resources. A meta-analysis [19] reported that job crafting (i.e., job resources) is related to various positive workplace outcomes. Specifically, job crafting can make workers more adaptive and responsive to the perspective of change and consequently facilitate the successful execution of innovation [20], and satisfaction [21]. Therefore, similarly, we expect that individuals who are capable of lifting their job resources and challenging job demands are apparent to show up anticipated results such as innovative performance at work and career satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: Job crafting is positively related to (a) innovation performance and (b) career satisfaction.

2.4 Work engagement, career satisfaction, and innovation performance

The link between work engagement and positive workplace outcomes is of increasing attention to scholars. Vincent-Höper, Muser and Janneck [22] established that employees’ work engagement is positively linked with occupational success. Moreover, Lee [23] conducted a study on international student assessment and revealed that student engagement is positively associated with emotional engagement, such as reading performance and overall academic performance, that is, discretionary conduct and advances in the operational working of an organization. Employee work engagement is an important factor for organizations to consider when striving to improve productivity, implement business strategies, boost the organization’s performance and develop roles within the organization [24].

However, thus far, little is known about the link between employee engagement and innovation performance, while there is hardly any research indicating that work engagement is positively associated with career [25]. A study on emotional contagion proposed that engaged individuals “infect” their coworkers with their vigor [26], so it is expected that work engagement may clue to better progressive consequences at the workplace. So, we anticipate that work engagement will be related to innovation performance and career satisfaction. Accordingly, we postulate the following:

Hypothesis 3: Work engagement is positively related to (a) innovation performance and (b) career satisfaction.

2.5 The mediating role of work engagement

Based on the above discussion, work engagement possibly plays a mediator in the relations between innovation performance and career satisfaction. Bakker, Tims and Derks [27] contended that when individuals realize that they can easily modify or change their work atmosphere (i.e. display job crafting behaviors), they feel highly engaged at the workplace. Such engagement can enhance employees’ innovativeness and satisfy their changing career needs in addition to achieving their career aims.

A meta-analysis supported the link between job crafting and positive workplace outcomes [19]. Specifically, Rudolph et al. [19] established that employee job crafting has an important upshot on work engagement. On the other hand, Halbesleben [28] established that work engagement is positively linked to workplace outcomes. Given research indicating the influence of job crafting on work engagement [19], and the influence of work engagement on positive workplace outcomes [28], we theorize that job crafting will be positively connected to employee’s positive workplace outcomes (i.e., innovation performance and career satisfaction) via work engagement. Additionally, the job demand resource model also supports that job resources (i.e., challenging job demand) create a motivational process leading to work engagement and, subsequently, increased performance [29]. As a result:

Hypothesis 4: Work engagement mediates the association among job crafting and (a) innovation performance, and (b) career satisfaction.

3 Materials and methods

3.1 Sample and procedure

This study was conducted among three manufacturing organizations in Lahore, Pakistan. Data were collected from February to April 2021. We had a contact person in the manufacturing industry. This contact person was working in an executive position in the Ministry of Industries & Production, and he helped us with data collection in this study. This contact person was officially arranged by our University Directorate of Research. Before commencing the survey, the contact person contacted the HR manager of each organization and introduced one of the authors to them via telephone. After this, the author personally contacted the HR manager of each organization to request a formal appointment for data collection. Then, in the meeting, the author handover the large pack containing the survey and an attached cover letter clarifying the general aim of the study, guidelines for distributing and completing the survey, and an emphasizing the participants’ privacy. The HR manager department asked to hand out the survey to employees who volunteered to receive them. The survey was completed on-site during working hours and returned directly to the HR manager. After one week, the author collected the responses of the survey from the HR manager of each organization.

A total of 550 questionnaires were received. We obtained a response rate of 87 percent (477 sample size). Of these 257 participants, 46 percent were female. The average age of the respondents’ was 38 years (Standard deviation = 8.36) and attached with the employer was 9.90 years.

3.2 Ethical consideration

The study was conducted through the proper channel by getting approval from the University Ethical Committee (reference # 2021-03-01/02). Before the commencement of the questionnaire, all participants were informed that their participation was strictly confidential and that their responses would not be shared. The names of the participants were coded (e.g., MO1, MO2, MO3, \dots ..) and kept confidential.

3.3 Measures

Job crafting was evaluated with a 15-item scale introduced by Tims, Bakker and Derks [7]. A similar measure was also employed in previous studies [30 –32]. Sample items are “I try to develop my capabilities” (increasing structural job resources), “I ask others for feedback on my work performance (increasing social job resources)”, and “If there are new developments, I am one of the first to learn about them and try them out (increasing challenging job demands)”. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the a single second-order factor model best fits the data (χ² = 215.570, df = 75, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.03). Coefficient alphas were 0.89 (increasing structural job resources), 0.86 (increasing social job resources), 0.90 (increasing challenging job demands), and 0.95 (overall job crafting) in the present study.

3.3.1 Work engagement

Work engagement was evaluated with a 9-items scale compiled by Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova [33]. This shortened version of work engagement enables us to measure all factors of work engagement: vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigour was measured with three items (e.g., “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”). Dedication was measured with the three items scale (e.g., “My job inspires me”). Absorption was measured with the three items scale (e.g., “I get carried away when I am working”). Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the a single second-order factor model best fits the data (χ² = 57.653, df = 24, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.03). Coefficient alphas were 0.74 (vigor), 0.77 (dedication), 0.79 (absorption), and 0.90 (overall work engagement) in the current study.

3.3.2 Career satisfaction

Participants rated their career satisfaction with their organization using a 5-item measure from Greenhaus, Parasuraman and Wormley [34]. Sample items include, “I am satisfied with the success I have achieved in my career” and “ I am satisfied with the progress I have made towards learning new skills”. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that single-factor model of career satisfaction best fits the data (χ² = 7.606, df = 5, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03, SRMR = 0.01). Internal consistency was 0.86 in the current study.

3.3.3 Innovation performance

Innovation performance was evaluated with the measure developed by Ibarra [35] and used by Huang and Li [36]. This scale is usually composed of two dimensions – technical and administrative innovation performance – with 7 items. Administrative innovation was assessed with the four items (e.g., “The firm responds to environmental changes flexibly”). Technological innovation was assessed with three items (e.g., “The firm incorporates technologies into new products”). These items reveal to which extent organizations are satisfied with the accomplishments in their implementation and development of innovative activities. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the a single second-order factor model best fits the data (χ² = 28.705, df = 13, CFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.02). Coefficient alphas were 0.88 (technical innovation performance), 0.87 (administration innovation performance), and 0.93 (overall innovation performance) in the present study.

3.3.4 Control variables

The demographic variables of gender (0 female; 1 = male), age (in years), position (0 = manager; 1 = non-manager), and experience (in years) were included as control variables in the study by following the prior research [37 –39].

4 Results

4.1 Confirmatory factor analysis

In the data analysis, firstly we evaluated our hypothesized model discriminant validity using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in AMOS. Table 1 exposed that the anticipated 4-factor model best fits the data (χ² = 1568.671, df = 544, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.05) and offered a significant improvement in chi-square over a 3-factor model A combining job crafting and work engagement (χ² = 2703.214, df = 547, CFI = 0.75, RMSEA = 0.09, SRMR = 0.11); a 3-factor model B combining innovation performance and career satisfaction (χ² = 2218.672, df = 547, CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.07); a 2-factor model A combining innovation performance, work engagement, and job crafting (χ² = 3702.626, df = 549, CFI = 0.80, RMSEA = 0.11, SRMR = 0.11); a 2-factor model combining B career satisfaction, work engagement, and job crafting (χ² = 3242.600, df = 549, CFI = 0.83, RMSEA = 0.10, SRMR = 0.10); and a 1-factor model combining innovation performance, career satisfaction, work engagement, job crafting (χ² = 4144.980, df = 550, CFI = 0.77, RMSEA = 0.12, SRMR = 0.11). Taken together, these results validate discriminant validity for study constructs.

Table 1
Confirmatory factor analysis

Model χ² (df) SRMR RMSEA CFI Δχ² (Δdf)

4-Factor model 1568.671(544) 0.05 0.06 0.94 –

3-Factor model A 2703.214(547) 0.11 0.09 0.74 1134.543(3)

3-Factor model B 2218.672(547) 0.07 0.08 0.90 650.001(3)

2-Factor model A 3702.626(549) 0.11 0.11 0.80 2133.955(5)

2-Factor model B 3242.600(549) 0.10 0.10 0.83 1673.929(5)

1-Factor model 4144.980(550) 0.11 0.12 0.77 2576.309(6)

Model	χ² (df)	SRMR	RMSEA	CFI	Δχ² (Δdf)
4-Factor model	1568.671(544)	0.05	0.06	0.94	–
3-Factor model A	2703.214(547)	0.11	0.09	0.74	1134.543(3)
3-Factor model B	2218.672(547)	0.07	0.08	0.90	650.001(3)
2-Factor model A	3702.626(549)	0.11	0.11	0.80	2133.955(5)
2-Factor model B	3242.600(549)	0.10	0.10	0.83	1673.929(5)
1-Factor model	4144.980(550)	0.11	0.12	0.77	2576.309(6)

4.2 Descriptive statistics

Table 2 shows the correlations and descriptive statistics among the study constructs. The correlation results exposed that job crafting was significantly related to work engagement (r = 0.47, p < 0.001), innovation performance (r = 0.55, p < 0.001), and career satisfaction (r = 0.59, p < 0.001). Work engagement was significantly associated with innovation performance (r = 0.50, p < 0.001) and career satisfaction (r = 0.49, p < 0.001).

Table 2
Descriptive and correlational analysis

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Gender –

Age 0.06 –

Position –0.03 0.56^ –

Experience –0.05 0.75^ 0.70^** –

Job crafting –0.05 0.10^* 0.07 0.06 0.76

Work engagement 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.47^ 0.80

Innovation performance –0.05 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.55^ 0.50^ 0.83

Career satisfaction 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.59^ 0.49^ 0.56^ 0.76

Mean 0.70 36.58 0.23 10.40 5.06 5.20 5.02 5.01

SD 0.46 8.36 0.42 8.73 0.50 0.51 0.49 0.47

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Gender	–
Age	0.06	–
Position	–0.03	0.56^**	–
Experience	–0.05	0.75^**	0.70^**	–
Job crafting	–0.05	0.10^*	0.07	0.06	0.76
Work engagement	0.09	0.07	0.06	0.06	0.47^**	0.80
Innovation performance	–0.05	0.05	0.04	0.01	0.55^**	0.50^**	0.83
Career satisfaction	0.05	0.06	0.05	0.02	0.59^**	0.49^**	0.56^**	0.76
Mean	0.70	36.58	0.23	10.40	5.06	5.20	5.02	5.01
SD	0.46	8.36	0.42	8.73	0.50	0.51	0.49	0.47

Note: N = 477.

4.3 Testing of hypotheses

A structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis was performed to test the hypotheses. To examine the mediation association, three sets of SEM models were computed. Model 1 (baseline model) consists of full mediation model (employees job crafting ⟶ employees work engagement ⟶ employees innovation performance and employees career satisfaction) compared with Model 2 (partial mediational model: with the direct associations from job crafting to innovation performance and career satisfaction to Model 1) and with Model 3 (non-mediational model: with dropping the mediating associations from job crafting to the work engagement and from the work engagement to innovation performance and career satisfaction to a Model 1). Table 3 exposed that Model 2 (partial mediational model: χ² /df = 2.89, RFI = 0.89, NFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.93, CFI = 0.94, and RMSEA = 0.06) fits the data better than Model 3 (the non-mediation model: χ² /df = 4.50, NFI = 0.85, RFI = 0.83, TLI = 0.86, CFI = 0.88, and RMSEA = 0.09) and Model 1 (full mediation model: χ² /df = 3.53, RFI = 0.87, NFI = 0.88, TLI = 0.90, CFI = 0.91, and RMSEA = 0.07). Hence, a partial mediation model provided the best fit for the data compared to full mediational and non-mediational models. So, we chose the partial mediation model as a final model to examine our hypotheses. Table 4 displays the standardized path estimates of Model 2.

Table 3
Structural equation modeling results

Model χ²/df NFI RFI TLI CFI RMSEA

Full mediation (Model A) 3.53 0.88 0.87 0.90 0.91 0.07

Partial mediation (Model B) 2.89 0.91 0.89 0.93 0.94 0.06

Non-mediation (Model C) 4.50 0.85 0.83 0.86 0.88 0.09

Model	χ²/df	NFI	RFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA
Full mediation (Model A)	3.53	0.88	0.87	0.90	0.91	0.07
Partial mediation (Model B)	2.89	0.91	0.89	0.93	0.94	0.06
Non-mediation (Model C)	4.50	0.85	0.83	0.86	0.88	0.09

Note: N = 477.

As shown in Table 4, after we controlled for control variables, we found that job crafting was significantly and positively connected with employee’s work engagement (β= 0.53, p < 0.001), and then, job crafting was positively as well as significantly connected with innovation performance (β= 0.44, p < 0.001) and career satisfaction (β= 0.49, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 1 and 2 respectively. Furthermore, work engagement was positively and significantly connected with innovation performance (β= 0.34, p < 0.001) and career satisfaction (β= 0.30, p < 0.001). Accordingly, hypothesis 3 was supported.

Table 4

Results of partial mediation model 2

	Structural equation modeling paths	Standardized estimates
1	Job crafting ⟶ Work engagement	0.53**
2	Job crafting ⟶ Innovative performance	0.44**
3	Job crafting ⟶ Career satisfaction	0.49**
4	Work engagement ⟶ Innovative performance	0.34**
5	Work engagement ⟶ Career satisfaction	0.30**

Next hypothesis 4 anticipated that work engagement mediated the association of job crafting on innovation performance and career satisfaction. Combining the results of hypotheses 1 to 3 provided initial support for hypothesis 4. Moreover, a bootstrapping analysis [Model 2; 40] confirmed that indirect impression of job crafting on innovation performance (boot indirect effect = .160; 95% CI = 0.099–0.180) and career satisfaction (boot indirect effect = .181; 95% CI = 0.113–0.190). Accordingly, hypothesis 4 was confirmed.

5 Discussion

This current study examined the association between job crafting – innovation performance, and career satisfaction using a sample of the manufacturing industry in Pakistan. In addition to finding significant relationships among employees’ job crafting and work engagement, innovation performance, and career satisfaction, we established that employees’ work engagement partially intervened in the association between job crafting – innovation performance, and career satisfaction. These findings are in line with a meta-analysis [19] which showed that job crafting relationships enhance employees’ positive workplace outcomes. They are also consistent with previous research that manifests job crafting relationships with creativity, and contextual performance-related workplace positive outcomes are enhanced by work engagement [41].

5.1 Theoretical implications

These findings make empirical and theoretical aids to the job crafting literature. First, to our knowledge, this is the first study to unpack the process by which job crafting influences Pakistani employees’ innovation performance and career satisfaction. Previous research has normally looked at whether job crafting influences job satisfaction [42] and job performance [5], but no study considers the influence on innovation performance and career satisfaction. Specifically, this study explores whether effective job crafting leads employees to enhance innovation performance and career satisfaction through enhancing employee work engagement; our investigation permits us to respond to scholars’ calls for examination into the routes by which job crafting affects work engagement [5]. Our findings advocate that the job demands-resources model aids our understanding of how employees’ job crafting relationships influences employees’ workplace outcomes. More explicitly, in line with the job demands-resources model, our findings suggest that individuals who actively followed job crafting exhibited more engaged in their job and performed better workplace outcomes than individuals who made little changes in their work.

Furthermore, this study extends the research on job crafting/workplace outcomes links to the Pakistani context. While the past literature has shown job crafting to play a key role in promoting positive workplace outcomes in the Western setting [43, 44], limited studies have scrutinized the significance of job crafting to workplace outcomes in the Asian context [45]. Our findings also show that job crafting plays an imperative role in fostering views of work engagement and enhancing employees’ innovation performance and career satisfaction suggesting that job crafting is most fruitful in producing a positive attitudinal retort among workers outside the Western cultural setting, notwithstanding differences in how workers approach association building.

This study also exposed that work engagement partially intervenes in the connection between job crafting – innovation performance and career satisfaction, which advocates that other factors may also explain why job crafting enhances Pakistan employees’ innovation performance and career satisfaction. Future research may look for other mediators of the association between job crafting – innovation performance and career satisfaction. Such as, future studies may inspect whether job crafting may lead to innovation performance and career satisfaction by influencing the main facets of psychological capital, which consist of personal resources (i.e., optimism, resilience, efficacy, and hope).

5.2 Practical implications

The findings of this research have significant implications for policymakers and management of the manufacturing industry and organizational and career psychologists in Pakistan as well as the rest of the world. Specifically, our outcomes stipulate that job crafting is an eloquent attempt to boost work engagement and its related positive workplace outcomes (i.e., innovation performance and career satisfaction). Given that in organizations, managers have direct authority or control over policies, methods, procedures, and processes for job crafting, they require to mature the organizational milieu and a formal or informal organizational structure that can encourage job crafting [8]. More importantly, aligning different incentives and rewards with job crafting attitudes can support job crafting. Additionally, linking job crafting actions with employers’ deliberate aims can make job crafting meaningful and motivating at work [8]. It is no secret that an individual will be more creative and dynamic in the role that they like. By giving them the chance to engage in job crafting, businesses will reward them with advanced levels of output. These individuals will also be more likely to experience professional and personal progress, which can confidently foster workplace positive outcomes (i.e., innovation performance and career satisfaction).

5.3 Limitations of this study

Our study is subject to some limitations. First, like other studies, this study survey is also self-reported, which may cause response biases [46]. Although this study conducted Harman’s single-factor examination [47] to reduce this response bias, it still may not be completely ignored. Additionally, we took advanced protective procedures to mitigate the problem of common method bias (CMB) by applying the separation proximal method (where studied independent, outcome, and mediator constructs items are intermixing with other constructs that are not related to the study) [47, 48]. Furthermore, the questionnaire was kept confidential to minimize the possibility of social desirability response biases. Next, we drew our sample for this study from the Pakistan manufacturing industry, which may have limited the generalizability of the findings to other national cultures and work settings.

On the other hand, given that most of the earlier job crafting scholarships were researched in the service sector, for example, teachers, nurses, airline operations, hotel service workers, and postal service professionals, the upshots of the contemporary study contribute to the overall generalizability of job crafting research. Finally, the research design was cross-sectional, limiting claims of cause-effect relationships. We, consequently, recommend that the longitudinal as well as experimental studies should be conducted in future to form causality.

6 Conclusion

The current study provides encouraging outcomes showing that work crafting strategies to change JD-R is related to employee work engagement. Additionally, whereas work engagement predominantly is positively related to innovation performance and career satisfaction in their job, this study also exposed that work engagement intervenes in the link between job crafting – innovation performance, and career satisfaction. Thus, organizations can enthusiastically adopt job crafting for slight to no cost – making it an economical way to increase employee work engagement and its related positive outcomes at the workplace.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The first author extends his appreciation to the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan for funding this work through the Startup Research Grant Project (SRGP) under grant number 212/IPFP-II(Batch-I)/SRGP/NAHE/HEC/2020/72.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Wang

H-J

, Demerouti

, Le Blanc

. Transformational leadership, adaptability, and job crafting: The moderating role of organizational identification. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2017;100(Supplement C):185–95.

Lazauskaite-Zabielske

, Ziedelis

, Urbanaviciute

. Who benefits from time-spatial job crafting? The role of boundary characteristics in the relationship between time-spatial job crafting, engagement and performance. Baltic Journal of Management. 2021;16(1):1–19.

Wrzesniewski

, Dutton

. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review. 2001;26:179–201.

Demerouti

, Xanthopoulou

, Petrou

, Karagkounis

. Does job crafting assist dealing with organizational changes due to austerity measures? Two studies among Greek employees. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2017;26(4):574–89.

Tims

, Bakker

, Derks

, van

Rhenen W

. Job crafting at the team and individual level: Implications for work engagement and performance. Group & Organization Management. 2013;38(4):427–54.

Petrou

, Demerouti

, Peeters

, Schaufeli

, Hetland

. Crafting a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2012;33(8):1120–41.

Tims

, Bakker

, Derks

. Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2012;80(1):173–86.

Wrzesniewski

, LoBuglio

, Dutton

, Berg

. Job crafting and cultivating positive meaning and identity in work. Advances in positive organizational psychology. London: Emerald Group Publishing 2013. p. 281–302.

Rafiq

, Wu

, Chin

, Nasir

. The psychological mechanism linking employee work engagement and turnover intention: A moderated mediation study. Work. 2019;62(4):615–28.

10.

Rafiq

, Shehzad

, Farrukh

, Khan

. The psychological mechanism linking life satisfaction and turnover intention among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Work. 2022;71(3):505–14.

11.

Pennbrant

, Dåderman

. Job demands, work engagement and job turnover intentions among registered nurses: Explained by work-family private life inference. Work. 2021;68:1157–69.

12.

Bakker

. Engagement and “job crafting”: engaged employees create their own great place to work. In: Albrecht SL, editor. Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice. Glosgo, UK: Edward Elgar; 2010.

13.

Karatepe

, Eslamlou

. Outcomes of job crafting among flight attendants. Journal of Air Transport Management. 2017;62:34–43.

14.

Cullinane

S-J

, Bosak

, Flood

, Demerouti

. Job crafting for lean engagement: The interplay of day and job-level characteristics. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2017;26(4):541–54.

15.

Tims

, Twemlow

, Fong

CYM

. A state-of-the-art overview of job-crafting research: current trends and future research directions. Career Development International. 2022;27(1):54–78.

16.

, Yang

, Weng

, Zhu

. How different forms of job crafting relate to job satisfaction: The role of person-job fit and age. Current Psychology. 2021. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02390-3

17.

Wrzesniewski

, Dutton

. Crafting a Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of Their Work. 2001;26(2):179–201.

18.

Parker

, Ward

, Fisher

GGJAoMA

. Can High-Quality Jobs Help Workers Learn New Tricks? A Multidisciplinary Review of Work Design for Cognition (2021;15(2):406–54.

19.

Rudolph

, Katz

, Lavigne

, Zacher

. Job crafting: A meta-analysis of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2017;102(Supplement C):112–38.

20.

Fraccaroli

, Sverke , M , Le Blanc

, Demerouti

, Bakker

. How Can I Shape My Job to Suit Me Better? Job Crafting for Sustainable Employees and Organizations. In An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology (eds N Chmiel, F Fraccaroli and M Sverke). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119168058.ch3

21.

Terry

DDJ

, Callan

, Sartori

. Employee adjustment to an organizational merger: Stress, coping and intergroup differences. Stress and Health. 1996;12(2):105–22.

22.

Vincent-Höper

, Muser

, Janneck

. Transformational leadership, work engagement, and occupational success. Career Development International. 2012;17(7):663–82.

23.

Lee

J-S

. The Relationship Between Student Engagement and Academic Performance: Is It a Myth or Reality? The Journal of Educational Research. 2014;107(3):177–85.

24.

García-Buades

, Martínez-Tur

, Ortiz-Bonnín

, Peiró

. Engaged teams deliver better service performance in innovation climates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2016;25(4):597–612.

25.

Lee

, Kwon

, Kim

, Cho

. Work Engagement and Career. Human Resource Development Review. 2016;15(1):29–54.

26.

Sulea

, Virga

, Maricutoiu

, Schaufeli

, Zaborila Dumitru

, Sava

. Work engagement as mediator between job characteristics and positive and negative extra-role behaviors. Career Development International. 2012;17(3):188–207.

27.

Bakker

, Tims

, Derks

. Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations. 2012;65(10):1359–78.

28.

Halbesleben

JRB

. A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research. New York, NY, US: Psychology Press; 2010. p. 102–117.

29.

Shin

, Hur

W-M

, Choi

W-H

. Coworker support as a double-edged sword: a moderated mediation model of job crafting, work engagement, and job performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2018:1–22.

30.

Harju

, Schaufeli

, Hakanen

. A multilevel study on servant leadership, job boredom and job crafting. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2018;33(1):2–14.

31.

Zeijen

, Peeters

, Hakanen

. Workaholism versus work engagement and job crafting: What is the role of self-management strategies? Human Resource Management Journal. 2018;28(2):357–73.

32.

Esteves

, Lopes

. Crafting a calling: The Mediating role of calling between challenging job demands and turnover intention. Journal of Career Development. 2017;44(1):34–48.

33.

Schaufeli

, Bakker

, Salanova

. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2006;66(4):701–16.

34.

Greenhaus

, Parasuraman

, Wormley

. Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal. 1990;33(1):64–86.

35.

Ibarra

. Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal. 1993;36(3):471–501.

36.

Huang

J-W

, Li

Y-H

. The mediating effect of knowledge management on social interaction and innovation performance. International Journal of Manpower. 2009;30(3):285–301.

37.

Rafiq

, Chin

. Three-Way Interaction Effect of Job Insecurity, Job Embeddedness and Career Stage on Life Satisfaction in A Digital Era. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019;16(9):1580.

38.

P-Y

, Huang

K-F

. The antecedents of innovation performance: the moderating role of top management team diversity. Baltic Journal of Management. 2019;14(2):291–311.

39.

M-C

, Zheng

X-T

, Wang

, Dai

, Yan

. When does motivation to learn reduce innovative behavior? An examination of mediated-moderation model. Baltic Journal of Management. 2018;13(4):564–81.

40.

Hayes

, Preacher

. Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple mediation models when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2010;45(4):627–60.

41.

Demerouti

, Bakker

, Gevers

JMP

. Job crafting and extra-role behavior: The role of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2015;91:87–96.

42.

Ogbuanya

, Chukwuedo

. Job crafting-satisfaction relationship in electrical/electronic technology education programme: Do work engagement and commitment matter? Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones. 2017;33(3):165–73.

43.

Brenninkmeijer

, Hekkert-Koning

. To craft or not to craft. Career Development International. 2015;20(2):147–62.

44.

van den Heuvel

, Demerouti

, Peeters

MCW

. The job crafting intervention: Effects on job resources, self-efficacy, and affective well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2015;88(3):511–32.

45.

Cheng

J-C

, Chen

C-Y

, Teng

H-Y

, Yen

C-H

. Tour leaders’ job crafting and job outcomes: The moderating role of perceived organizational support. Tourism Management Perspectives. 2016;20:19–29.

46.

Podsakoff

, Organ

. Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Management. 1986;12(4):531–44.

47.

Farrukh

, Raza

, Sajid

, Rafiq

, Hameed

, Ali

. Entrepreneurial intentions: the relevance of nature and nurture. Education + Training. 2021;63(7-8):1195–212.

48.

Rafiq

. The moderating effect of career stage on the relationship between job embeddedness and innovation-related behaviour (IRB). World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development. 2019;15(2):109–22.

49.

, Rafiq

, Chin

. Employee well-being and turnover intention: evidence from a developing country with Muslim culture. Career Development International. 2017;22(7):797–815.

Linking job crafting,innovation performance,and career satisfaction: The mediating role of work engagement

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

OBJECTIVE:

METHODS:

RESULTS:

CONCLUSION:

Keywords

1 Introduction

2 Theoretical background and hypothesis development

2.1 Job crafting

2.2 Job crafting, work engagement

2.3 Job crafting innovation performance and career satisfaction

2.4 Work engagement, career satisfaction, and innovation performance

2.5 The mediating role of work engagement

3 Materials and methods

3.1 Sample and procedure

3.2 Ethical consideration

3.3 Measures

3.3.1 Work engagement

3.3.2 Career satisfaction

3.3.3 Innovation performance

3.3.4 Control variables

4 Results

4.1 Confirmatory factor analysis

Table 3 Structural equation modeling results Model χ2/df NFI RFI TLI CFI RMSEA Full mediation (Model A) 3.53 0.88 0.87 0.90 0.91 0.07 Partial mediation (Model B) 2.89 0.91 0.89 0.93 0.94 0.06 Non-mediation (Model C) 4.50 0.85 0.83 0.86 0.88 0.09

5.1 Theoretical implications

5.2 Practical implications

5.3 Limitations of this study

6 Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References

Table 3
Structural equation modeling results

Model χ²/df NFI RFI TLI CFI RMSEA

Full mediation (Model A) 3.53 0.88 0.87 0.90 0.91 0.07

Partial mediation (Model B) 2.89 0.91 0.89 0.93 0.94 0.06

Non-mediation (Model C) 4.50 0.85 0.83 0.86 0.88 0.09