the impact of a proactive personality on daily work

THE IMPACT OF A PROACTIVE PERSONALITY ON DAILY WORK

ENGAGEMENT, AND THE ROLE OF JOB CRAFTING AND I-DEALS.

University of Amsterdam

Master of Business Administration

Track Leadership & Management

Master Thesis

Author: Kim van Beek

Student number: 11363851

Supervisor: E. Federici

2nd Supervisor: C.T. Boon

Due date: June 23th, 2017 / First final version

2

STATEMENT OF ORGINALITY

This document is written by Student Kim van Beek who declares to take full responsibility for

the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources

other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion

of the work, not for the contents.

3

TABLE OF CONTENT

ACKNOLEDGEMENT 5

ABSTRACT 6

INTRODUCTION 7

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 9

Proactive personality and work engagement 9

Job crafting vs. Idiosyncratic deals 12

The mediating role of daily job crafting 13

The mediating role of Idiosyncratic deals 17

METHOD 22

Research design 22

Sample 22

Measures 24

General questionnaire (between-level) 24

Dairy study (within-level) 24

RESULTS 27

Analytical strategy 27

Exploratory Factor Analysis 27

Descriptive statistics 31

Hypothesis testing 32

Additional analysis 35

DISCUSSION 39

Limitations 40

Practical implication and future research 42

CONCLUSION 43

REFERENCES 44

APPENDIX 51

Appendix I – Surveys 51

Appendix II – Cover letter 59

4

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Comparison of two concepts of work design and its dimensions 13

Table 2: Demographic characteristic profile of respondents 23

Table 3: Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for measurement scale 29

daily job crafting

Table 4: Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for measurement scale 31

I-deals

Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Variables 32

Table 6: Estimated Coefficients of the Parallel Mediation Model (day-level) 34

Table 7: The (In)direct Effects of the Parallel Mediation Model (day-level) 35

Table 8: Estimated Coefficients of the Parallel Mediation Model (general-level) 37

Table 9: The (In)direct Effects of the Parallel Mediation Model (general-level) 38

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Hypothesised research model 9

Figure 2: Results of the hypothesised research model (day-level) 35

Figure 3: Results of the hypothesised research model (general-level) 36

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This thesis could not be finished without the help and guidance of others. Therefore, I would

like to take the opportunity to express my gratitude and deepest appreciation to everyone who

have helped me during this research project.

First of all, I would like to express my appreciation to my supervisor at the University of

Amsterdam, Eloisa Federici, for guiding me through the entire process of this research project.

Apart from my own efforts, her useful remarks, comments, general support and caring guidance

largely contributed to the successful completion of this research. Furthermore, the same

accounts for my fellow students in the “job crafting team”, by helping each other out if needed

and by collecting data together we made our research projects valuable.

Second of all, I would like to thank all survey participants who took the time to fill out the

questionnaire and dairy survey for five consecutive work days. Their participation made it

possible to conduct this research.

To round off, I would like to thank my family, friends and fellow Master students for their help,

understanding and support throughout my entire studies and especially throughout this whole

Master’s year. All in all, without my loved ones nothing of this would have happened and I

would not be the proud and dedicated person I am today.

6

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to compare two parallel mechanisms of proactive behaviours at work,

daily job crafting and I-deals, in explaining the relationship between proactive personality and

daily work engagement. These two bottom-up concepts of work design can be found in recent

literature, which both reflect the proactive behaviours of today’s employees. This quantitative

study collected data by using a general questionnaire and a diary study of five consecutive work

days. The hypotheses were tested with a sample of 111 Dutch employees, working more than

three days a week, from wide range of sectors (e.g. services, health care, education, transport

& logistics). The results found evidence of the relationship between employees with a proactive

personality and daily work engagement. Thus, the present results enhance our understanding of

the antecedents of daily work engagement, making the use of repeated real-time measures the

main strength of this study. Unexpectedly, this study did not find evidence of the parallel

mediation of daily job crafting and I-deals assuming the relationship between proactive

personality and daily work engagement. However, one step is made in the exploration of the

investigated variables. Further research, for example on a longitudinal basis, needs to be done

to gain more knowledge on the links between proactive personality, daily work engagement

and proactive work behaviours as daily job crafting and I-deals.

Key words: proactive personality, proactive work behaviours, job crafting, Idiosyncratic deals,

work engagement, day-level job crafting, day-level work engagement, repeated measure design

7

INTRODUCTION

Over the years, researchers have used the design of jobs as a starting point to examine how

employees experience their work (Berg, Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2010). Traditionally, research

focused on the top-down processes of managers designing jobs for their employees and the job

design theory (Campion & McClelland, 1993; Grant, Fried, & Juillerat, 2011). Organisations

were supposed to offer their employees sufficient job resources, including social support,

feedback, and skill variety. Research indeed argued that managers can influence employees’

job demands and resources (Nielsen, Randall, Yarker & Brenner, 2008; Piccolo & Colquitt,

2006), and may indirectly influence employee’s work engagement and performance (Harter,

Schmidt & Hayes, 2002). However, scholars have recognised the important role of employees

in designing their own jobs (Black & Ashford, 1995; Miner, 1987), highlighting the proactivity

part in their efforts (Grant & Ashford, 2008). Bakker and colleagues (2012) for example, have

shown that employees with a proactive personality are most inclined to change their work

environment in a proactive way, by mobilising job demands and job resources, which in turn

facilitate work engagement. Therefore, it may be equally important that employees organise

their own job, to respond to the complexity of contemporary jobs and deal with the needs of

today’s work environment (Demerouti, 2014). While this environment changes quickly, it is

particularly important for employees to show proactive behaviour and create their own work

environment (Bakker, Tims & Derks, 2012).

Two bottom-up concepts of work design can be found in recent literature, which both

reflect the proactive behaviours of today’s employees: job crafting and idiosyncratic deals. Both

these behaviours increasingly occur due to the changing nature of work (e.g. flexible human

resource practices, virtualisation) (Hornung, Rousseau & Glaser, 2009). It is relevant for

organisations to know on which terms these behaviours are initiated and how they differ from

each other. The question is to which extent job crafting and I-deals are any different,

contributing to and enriching each other. More specifically, the simultaneous mechanisms of

job crafting and I-deals, in explaining the link between a proactive personality and work

engagement have not been investigated yet. This study aims to compare two parallel

mechanisms of proactive behaviours at work, in explaining the relationship between proactive

personality and work engagement.

On the one hand, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) have complemented traditional top-

down approaches of job design with the concept of job crafting, defined as “the physical and

8

cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work” (p. 179).

Employees can take action to adjust their work to better match their personal needs, strengths,

and interests (Berg, Dutton & Wrzesniewski, 2008; Wrzesniewski, Berg & Dutton, 2010), not

specifically authorised by the manager (Ross, Greene & House, 1977). On the other hand,

idiosyncratic deals (or I-deals) constitute a middle path between top-down work redesign and a

single employee’s private efforts to craft a job (Hornung, Rousseau, Glaser, Angerer & Weigl,

2010). I-deals, in general, are employment terms that employees negotiate for themselves,

taking multiple forms from flexible schedules to career development (Hornung, Rousseau &

Glaser, 2008), and, as opposed to job crafting, always intended to benefit both the employee

and the manager (Lai, Rousseau & Chang, 2009).

In addition, currently knowledge on the link between proactive personality and work

engagement is predominantly based on research at the between-person level, which infer

stability within a person. However, most behaviours vary over time and are dependent on

situational or personal circumstances (Ohly, Sonnentag, Niessen & Zapf, 2010), which

particularly holds true for job crafting. In other words, how employees perform on a particular

day is probably dependent on what occurs on that day and how employees experience that day

(Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2014). Daily job characteristics that affect mood, which translates into

well-being, work engagement (Teuchmann, Totterdell, & Parker, 1999) and proactive

behaviours (Ohly & Fritz, 2010) are examples of behaviours that are dependent on what occurs

on a particular day. These everyday variations in individuals’ behaviours are mostly ignored or

treated as a measurement-error in between-person studies. Therefore, this study will go beyond

the enduring work engagement and job crafting level and investigate these variables on a daily

level, making use of repeated real-time measures. As Fisher and To (2012) argue in their article

these repeated real-time measures are relevant and preferable for creating accurate person-level

summary measurements. The constructs of proactive personality and I-deals will still be studied

on the between-level as they infer stability within a person.

All in all, this study describes the relation between proactive personality trait and work

engagement on a daily level, and the role of two bottom-up concepts of work design as

mediators between this relationship. To clarify, job crafting as a daily mediator and I-deals as

a general mediator of the relationship between proactive personality and daily work engagement

will be investigated. The proposed research model is visualised in Figure 1. When the proposed

hypotheses fail to reject, this suggests that employees with a proactive personality and proactive

behaviours in the workplace are relevant mechanisms for human resource managers who are

9

seeking to enhance work engagement in their organisations.

This study will be structured as follows: At first, the concepts of proactive personality,

job crafting, I-deals and work engagement will be explained and the research model with its

related hypotheses will be introduced. Subsequently, the way this research is conducted will be

discussed in the methodology section. Next, the outcomes of the relations of the research model

will be analysed. Finally, a conclusion, implications and limitations of this research will be

given. Besides, suggestions for future research areas will be described.

FIGURE 1: Hypothesised research model

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The exploration of the relation between proactive personality and work engagement on a daily

level, and the role of two bottom-up concepts of work design as mediators between this

relationship, is guided by an extensive theoretical background of the relevant literature. The

formulated hypotheses were set up from these findings. At first, the direct link between

proactive personality and (daily) work engagement is discussed. Followed by a section in which

the two bottom-up concepts of work design, job crafting and I-deals, are compared and

distinguished. Subsequently, the role of job crafting and I-deals as mediators in the relationship

between proactive personality and work engagement will be discussed.

PROACTIVE PERSONALITY AND WORK ENGAGEMENT

Bateman & Crant (1993) were the first to introduce a measure of the ‘proactive personality’

trait and discussed the proactive element of organisational behaviour. They define proactive

personality as “the relatively stable tendency to effect environmental change”. According to

Buss and Finn (1987) people are not “passive recipients of environmental presses”, however,

they have a specific influence on their own environments. Identifying proactive personality as

a determinant of proactive behaviour supposes that proactive employees are proactive across

Proactive

Personality

I-Deals

Daily

Work Engagement

Daily

Job Crafting H2a H2b

+ +

+ +

H2

H3

H1

H3a H3b

+

10

different circumstances and over time, regardless of the contingencies of a work situation or in

one’s career (Parker & Bindl, 2017). People who have a proactive personality identify

opportunities and act on them, they show initiative, take action, and work hard until they bring

about significant change (Bakker et al., 2012). Furthermore, they transform the mission of their

organisation, find and solve problems, and accept responsibility themselves and take personal

initiative to have an impact on the world around them (Crant & Bateman, 2000). In contrast,

individuals who do not have a proactive personality show the opposite patterns: they fail to

identify, let alone seize, opportunities to change things (Crant, 1996). In other words, these

people are more reactive and passive and tend to adapt to circumstances rather than change

them (Seibert, Crant & Kraimer, 1999). The proactive personality is “a tendency to initiate and

maintain actions that directly alter the surrounding environment” (Bateman & Grant, 1993).

According to Buss and Finn (1987), proactivity is an instrumental trait because it belongs to a

class of behaviours that impact the environment.

As organisations are increasingly growing complex and unpredictable, the topic of

proactivity at work has become of great importance for contemporary workplaces. Proactivity

drives performance and innovation of teams and organisations, and boosts individuals’ well-

being and careers. When employees are proactive, they use their initiative at work to create a

better future for themselves and their employers. They scan for opportunities, persist until

change is achieved, and take charge to prevent problems from reoccurring in the future (Parker

& Bindl, 2017). Findings of four meta-analyses on proactive personality (Fuller & Marler,

2009; Thomas, Whitman & Viswesvaran, 2010; Tornau & Frese, 2013; Spitzmuller, Sin, Howe

& Fatimah, 2015) indicate that employees with a proactive personality tend to perceive more

autonomy, psychological empowerment, job control, role clarity at work and feel more self-

assured to complete specific work tasks (self-efficacy) and pursue goals that are job or career

related (flexibility role orientation, role breadth self-efficacy, career self-efficacy, and job

search self-efficacy). It has also been demonstrated that individuals with a proactive personality

are probably more satisfied with their work and more committed to the organisation (i.e. low

turnover intention and high commitment) (Parker & Bindl, 2017). Furthermore, studies have

found relationships between proactive personality and individual job performance (Crant,

1995), career outcomes (Seibert et al., 1999), entrepreneurship (Becherer & Maurer, 1999;

Crant, 1996), charismatic leadership (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant & Bateman, 2000; Deluga,

1998), organisational citizenship behaviours (e.g. altruism, courtesy, and sportsmanship)

(Greguras & Diefendorff, 2010), and team performance (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999).

11

Moreover, previous research has meta-analysed the relationships between proactive

personality and two opposing states of work; work engagement and burnout. Christian, Garza

and Slaughter (2011) argue that proactive individuals are more involved in their work

environment and thus more engaged in their work. Furthermore, scholars found that proactive

personality was negatively related to the three sub-dimensions of burnout: emotional

exhaustion, depersonalisation, and reduced personal accomplishment (Alarcon, Eschleman &

Bowling, 2009). The concept of work engagement is defined as a positive state of fulfilment

that is indicated by vigor, dedication, and absorption at work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010) and

is the opposite of burnout (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001). In essence, work

engagement captures how employees experience their work. The vigor component reflects a

job experience which is stimulating and energetic, and to which an employee really wants to

devote time and effort. Dedication occurs when the employee experiences the job as a

significant and meaningful pursuit. Lastly, an employees’ work experience as engrossing and

something on which they are fully concentrated is the absorption component of work

engagement (Bakker & Demerouti 2008; Bakker et al., 2012). Engaged employees are highly

energetic, identify strongly with their jobs, and experience states of flow at work.

Most research on work engagement has focused on differences between individuals and

has treated day-to-day fluctuations in work engagement as a measurement-error (Sonnentag,

Dormann, & Demerouti, 2010). However, literature argued that it is also possible that there are

daily fluctuations in the experience of work engagement within an individual (Kahn, 1990).

Sonnentag (2003) was the first to question this prevailing belief that engagement refers to a

persistent and extensive affective-cognitive state (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá &

Bakker, 2002). She proposed that work engagement should not only be seen as an enduring

experience. Rather, Sonnentag demonstrated and showed that levels of work engagement may

vary within the same employee on a daily level, in response to specific personal and situational

conditions (Sonnentag et al., 2010). Thus, daily work engagement was introduced as

complementary to enduring work engagement (Bakker, 2014). Whereas enduring work

engagement refers to how engaged employees feel in relation to their work in general, over long

periods of time, daily work engagement reflects a temporary state of mind that exists on a

certain moment and fluctuates within the same employee over short periods of time (e.g., day-

to-day or momentary from hour to hour) (Bakker, 2014; Sonnentag et al., 2010).

Proactive individuals demonstrate initiative and dedication (Bateman & Crant, 1993;

Crant, 1995). Hence, proactive personality is probably related to enduring work engagement

12

because employees who are more involved in their work surroundings are also more likely to

immerse themselves in their work. This study will go beyond the enduring work engagement

level and investigate work engagement on a daily level, making use of repeated real-time

measures. As Fisher and To (2012) argue in their article these repeated real-time measures are

relevant to create accurate person-level summary variables or measurements. Computing the

desired indicators from multiple real-time measures is preferable because for some variables,

the amount of intra-individual variability shows trait-like stability. This means that some

employees are typically less stable in other variables than others, like work engagement. It is

possible that individuals do not describe this variability well when they reflect on it. Therefore,

this study contributes to the research field by creating accurate measurements of daily work

engagement. And so, the direct link between proactive personality and daily work engagement

is included in the proposed research model (see Figure 1), which lead to the first hypothesis:

H1: There is a positive, direct relationship between proactive personality and daily

work engagement

JOB CRAFTING VS. IDIOSYNCRATIC DEALS

As been mentioned before, Bakker and colleagues (2012), have shown that employees with a

proactive personality are most inclined to change their work environment in a proactive way,

by mobilising job demands and job resources, which in turn facilitate work engagement.

Therefore, it may be equally important that employees organise their own job, responding to

the complexity of contemporary jobs, and dealing with the needs of today’s work environment

(Demerouti, 2014). Organisations increasingly introduce flexible work arrangements and

customisation of jobs in order to be able to motivate employees. At the same time, new

economic realities demand organisations to be more flexible, to adapt rapidly to the changing

conditions in the market. Hence, employees are also expected to be more flexible, proactive,

and able to adapt to changing work circumstances (Bal & Rousseau, 2016; Grant & Parker,

2009).

Two bottom-up concepts of work design can be found in recent literature, which both

reflect the proactive behaviours of today’s employees: job crafting and Idiosyncratic deals. Both

these behaviours increasingly occur due to the changing nature of work (e.g. flexible human

resource practices, virtualisation) (Hornung et al., 2009). It is relevant for organisations to know

on which terms these behaviours are initiated and how they differ from each other. The question

13

is to which extent job crafting and I-deals are any different, contributing to and enriching each

other. More specifically, the simultaneous mechanisms of job crafting and I-deals, in explaining

the link between a proactive personality and work engagement has not been investigated yet.

This study aims to compare two parallel mechanisms of proactive behaviours at work as

mediators, to explain the relationship between proactive personality and work engagement.

Bal and Rousseau (2016) give the following central assumption of job crafting and I-

deals: “...the attention to the individual experience of the employee, who no longer follows a

standardised career trajectory but for whom everything at work is and individualised experience

that might or might not be shared with others. Hence, job adaptations currently follow an

individualised approach…” (p. 4). Although job crafting and I-deals are both proactive work

behaviours and concepts of work design, they work on a separate note. Table 1 shows the most

important comparisons and dimensions of the two concepts. The primary goal of job crafting is

to fulfil personal needs of employees through recognising and restructuring job demands and

resources, where employees are the actors of the job. I-deals, in contrast, aim to achieve mutual

benefit between employers and employees through negotiating employment features, which

makes employees both actors and recipients of the job (Hornung et al., 2010; Parker & Bindl,

2017).

TABLE 1

Comparison of two concepts of work design and its dimensions (Hornung et al., 2010)

Dimensions Job Crafting I-Deals

Initiation Bottom-up by employee Bottom-up typically by employee

Implementation Employee discretion Employee-employer negotiation

Authorisation Unauthorised or within zone

of acceptance

Authorised by agents or human

resource approval

Employee’s role Actor Both actor and recipient

Focus Individual job or position Individual job or position

Primary goal Personal needs Broad mutual benefit

Design content Tasks and interactions Any or all employment features

Process Ongoing Intermittent events

The next sections will provide a complete theoretical review on both proactive work behaviour

mechanisms; job crafting and I-deals. Furthermore, the paragraphs will describe and explain

14

the mediating roles of daily job crafting and I-deals in the relationship between proactive

personality and daily work engagement.

THE MEDIATING ROLE OF DAILY JOB CRAFTING

Traditionally, research focused on the top-down processes of managers designing jobs for their

employees and the job design theory (Campion & McClelland, 1993; Grant, Fried, & Juillerat,

2011). More recently, Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001) have complemented traditional top-down

beliefs of job design with the concept of “job crafting” as a bottom-up process, defined as “the

physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their

work” (p. 179). Employees can take action to adjust their work to better match their personal

needs, strengths, and interests, or in other words to “turn the job they have into the job they

want” (Berg et al., 2008; Wrzesniewski et al., 2010). In literature, two different forms of job

crafting conceptualisations can be found.

To begin with, Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001) distinguished three forms of job crafting.

The first form involves changing the job's task boundaries, where employees change the

number, scope, or type of job tasks at work. By deciding to do less, more, or different tasks than

prescribed in the formal job description, employees craft a different job. Secondly, job crafters

can change their relationships at work by altering the nature or extent of their interactions with

others (“e.g. a computer technician offering help to co-workers as a way to have more social

connection and teach new technicians”). Finally, job crafting could occur as employees change

the cognitive task boundaries of their work, which reflects the third form of job crafting. In

other words, employees change their jobs by altering how they perceive tasks, either by viewing

it as a set of separated tasks or as an integrated whole. Wrzesniewski and Dutton’s (2001) view

on job crafting is restricted to the changes that employees may make in their specific tasks,

work relationships, and cognitions about work. Some recent studies have suggested that job

crafting may take other forms as well (Lyons, 2008).

The present study follows the conceptualisation of job crafting proposed by Tims,

Bakker and Derks (2012). Based on the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (Bakker &

Demerouti, 2014), they define job crafting as “the changes that employees may make to balance

their job demands and job resources with their personal abilities and needs” (p. 174). Job

demands are the physical, social or organisational job characteristics that require sustained

physical and/or psychological effort. Job resources are the physical, psychological, social or

organisational elements of the job that make sure employees achieve their goals and facilitate

15

their personal development (Demerouti et al., 2001). The JD–R model incorporates demands

and resources of particular interest in organisations without focusing on predefined job features

(Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli, & Hetland, 2012). By examining job crafting in terms

of job resources and job demands, job characteristics and other aspects that employees may

develop in their jobs could be captured. Tims et al. (2012) have shown that job crafting can take

the form of three different types of behaviours: (a) increasing (structural or social) job resources

(e.g. autonomy, social support and feedback); (b) increasing job demands/challenges (e.g. new

projects); and (c) decreasing job demands (e.g. fewer cognitive demands). Job demands refer

to job characteristics that need continuous effort from employees and are, therefore, linked to

various costs. On the other hand, job characteristics that contribute towards accomplishing

specific goals at work, reducing the effect of job demands and its related costs, and supporting

personal development are referred to as job resources. The authors propose a key distinction

between social job resources and structural job resources. Structural job resources are factors

such as autonomy, responsibility, capabilities and knowledge of the job, whereas social job

resources are factors such as support from colleagues, feedback and supervisory coaching

(Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2013). This distinction is particularly important. On the one hand, it

allows to focus on significantly different job crafting behaviours. On the other hand, it assists

in our understanding of how employees proactively relate to different elements of their working

life, such as task structure and social structure (Berdicchia, Nicolli & Masino, 2016).

Although Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) define job crafting as “everyday” behaviour,

most conceptualisations and operationalisations in the literature do not tap this aspect

(Demerouti, 2014). There is some evidence that employees also employ in job crafting on a

weekly and daily basis. To capture the “everyday” changes in job characteristics that employees

may go after, various researchers (Petrou et al., 2012; Tims & Bakker, 2010) theoretically frame

daily job crafting by using the Job Demands-Resources (JD–R) model (Bakker & Demerouti,

2007; Demerouti et al., 2001). This conceptualisation of job crafting helps to examine the

construct of job crafting in a different light. By using the JD-R model job crafting can be seen

as a construct that can unfold on a daily level as well and as being directed towards the

surroundings of the work environment of the employee, namely the specific job resources and

job demands. Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and Petrou and colleagues (2012) suggest that

even in if the environment is stable with clear work procedures and detailed job descriptions,

employees adjust the tasks they are doing and mobilise the resources they need to achieve their

tasks successfully, on a daily basis (Demerouti, Bakker & Halbesleben, 2015). In this study, the

16

extent to which job crafting can be conceived on a daily level in addition to the general level

(as been proved in previous studies), will be investigated. This because merging momentary

states and individual habits is necessary to understand the dynamics of organisational behaviour

as they unfold daily (Ilies, Schwind, & Heller, 2007). Furthermore, as been previously

mentioned, also Fisher and To (2012) argue that repeated real-time measures are useful for

creating accurate person-level summary measurements.

Applying Crant’s (2000) theory of proactive personality, literature argues that

employees with a proactive personality create favourable conditions and opportunities for

themselves at their work. Tims and Bakker (2010) stated that proactive employees strive for

coherence with their work environment in terms of needs and abilities. In other words, these

employees shape their work environment such that the job demands and job resources better fit

their own needs and abilities. Based on these arguments, Tims, Bakker and Derks (2012) found

that employees with a proactive personality are most likely to ask for advice and feedback from

colleagues or managers (social job resources), and proactively improve their work environment,

for instance ask for autonomy, create skill variety, and follow training (structural job resources).

Furthermore, they found that proactive employees are most likely to search for challenges, for

instance, ask for more tasks or work when they feel under-stimulated. Therefore, the following

hypothesis is formulated:

H2a: There is a positive relationship between proactive personality and daily job

crafting (increasing job resources, increasing job challenges, decreasing demands).

Job crafters proactively change their work environment and align their job demands and

resources with their own abilities and needs (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Bakker and colleagues

(2012) have shown that individuals with a proactive personality are most inclined to change

their work environment in a proactive way, by mobilising job demands and job resources, which

in turn facilitate work engagement. Whether employees develop symptoms of burnout or work

engagement is, at least, partly the role of job design (Hornung et al., 2010). Literature revealed

that job resources have a positive effect on work engagement and that job demands (e.g.,

workload, time pressure, role conflicts), however, have a negative effect on work engagement.

Job resources (e.g. feedback, social support, and skill variety) are assumed to play either an

extrinsic motivational role by being instrumental in achieving work goals, or an intrinsic

motivational role of fostering employees’ growth, training, and development (Bakker et al.,

2012). In addition, the research of Wrzesniewski and colleagues (2010) indicates that

17

“employees, at all levels, in all kinds of occupations, who try job crafting often end up more

engaged and satisfied with their work lives, achieve higher levels of performance in their

organisations, and report greater personal resilience.” (p. 115)

Quantitative diary studies suggest that daily variations in job resources explain daily

variations in work, partly through their influence on daily personal resources like daily self-

efficacy and daily optimism (Bakker, 2014). Finally, examining job crafting and its correlates

daily is in line with the affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), which states that

job features influence employee affect through specific work events. For example, daily job

characteristics that affect mood, which translates into well-being (Teuchmann et al., 1999) or

proactive behaviours on a daily basis (Ohly & Fritz, 2010). Following this argumentation daily

variations in job crafting could explain daily variations in daily work engagement. Therefore,

the following hypothesis is formulated:

H2b: There is a positive relationship between daily job crafting and daily work

engagement.

To conclude, the theoretical arguments so far suggest that proactive personality

has a direct relationship with daily work engagement. However, this direct link will be more

positively stronger through the mediation of daily job crafting. As individuals with a proactive

personality are most inclined to change their work environment in a proactive way, by

mobilising job demands and job resources (being job crafters), this in turn facilitate work

engagement on a daily basis even more. All in all, this leads to the following hypotheses:

H2: Daily job crafting mediates the positive relationship between proactive personality

and daily work engagement.

THE MEDIATING ROLE OF IDIOSYNCRATIC DEALS

I-deals and its effects on several employee outcomes can be explained using the theories of

social exchange (Blau, 1964), and besides the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). According

to the social exchange theory, when an employee and an manager or supervisor trust each other

in an relationship of exchange, mutual agreements between the two drive the behaviours of both

parties. I-deals serve as a basis for reciprocity between the employee and the organisation or

employer, because the mutual agreements that they have jointly coordinated enhances the

relationship between the two (Bal, De Jong, Jansen, Bakker, 2012).

Idiosyncratic deals (or I-deals) constitute a middle path between top-down work

18

redesign and a single employee’s private efforts to craft a job (Hornung et al., 2010). Human

resource practices often evolve through exceptions made to standard arrangements. I-deals can

establish new criteria that eventually form the basis for broader changes in job design, as a

flexible response to the changing needs (Hornung et al., 2010). The physical foundation of I-

deals is established within the exchange relationship between an employee and the organisation.

I-deals, in general, are employment terms that employees negotiate for themselves, taking

multiple forms from flexible schedules to career development (Bal & Rousseau, 2016; Hornung

et al., 2008), and intended to benefit both the employee and the manager over time (Lai et al.,

2009). Idiosyncratic deals are employment arrangements that are different in nature from those

given to other employees and are crafted to meet the specific needs of individual employees.

These I-deals offer employees additional resources (e.g., special promotion tracks or flexible

scheduling) not readily available to their colleagues (Rousseau, Ho & Greenberg, 2006).

Moreover, the content of I-deals may vary quite extensively across employees. For instance,

some individuals may only have idiosyncratic arrangements regarding their work schedules,

while others may have idiosyncratic deals which address career promotion opportunities and

compensation packages (Ng & Feldman, 2010).

Previous research identified two commonly negotiated forms of idiosyncratic deals: (1)

flexibility I-deals and (2) developmental I-deals. So, in contrast to the belief that I-deals are just

one single concept, it can be divided into two kinds of I-deals, namely: ‘hard’ I-deals (i.e.

flexible working hours) and ‘soft’ I-deals (i.e. development; Hornung et al., 2008). Hard I-deals

are solid, factual arrangements which have a general shared meaning, and can be measured

objectively (e.g. working hours). To implement and record these hard I-deals, definitive metrics

(i.e. number of hours worked) can be used. This means that flexibility I-deals are arrangements

that personalise the scheduling of work and allow employees to customise their working hours

to better fit his or her personal needs and preferences (e.g. personal discretion over scheduling)

(Hornung et al., 2008; Rousseau, 2005). On the other hand, developmental I-deals are more soft

than flexibility I-deals as they are more different per individual and because the way employees

see development, their perception of it, is different in meaning for each individual (Rousseau,

Hornung & Kim, 2009). Thus, soft I-deals obtain their value from the relationship between the

employer and the employee (Rousseau et al., 2009). These I-deals are in nature more subjective

and therefore need supportive surroundings to be productive (Rousseau, 2005). This means that

developmental I-deals refer to customised opportunities to develop employees’ skills and

competencies and meet personal goals for professional or career advancement (e.g. challenging

19

work assignments, individual recognition of performance, special training, career

opportunities) (Hornung et al., 2008; Rousseau, 2005).

Previous studies have found relationships between I-deals and employee commitment,

job satisfaction and organisational citizenship behaviours (OCBs) and the motivation to

continue working after retirement (Anand, Vidyarthi, Liden & Rousseau, 2010; Bal, De Jong,

Jansen & Bakker, 2012; Hornung et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2013; Rosen 2013; Van der Meij &

Bal, 2013). More specifically, the organisation or manager negotiates a particular arrangement

with the employee, and in return, the employee get more connected to the organisation

(Hornung et al., 2008; Ng and Feldman, 2009), contributes to a higher degree (Hornung et al.,

2008), and has a better relationship with the organisation (Rousseau et al., 2009). Furthermore,

literature revealed that developmental I‐deals are positively related to social exchange and can

boost the relationship between the employee and the organisation by increasing connection and

competence (Hornung et al., 2008). Finally, flexibility I‐deals can lead to a better work-life

balance, since family responsibilities are the main reasons for employees to pursue flexibility

(Bailey & Kurkland, 2002). However, possible negative effects of developmental and flexibility

I‐deals are found in literature. For example, some employees choose not to negotiate

developmental I‐deals. If an organisation would merely depend on I‐deals for career

development, some employees will be excluded and therefore not develop themselves, taking a

chance that the positive effects of an I‐deal will backfire (Rousseau et al., 2009). In addition,

flexibility I‐deals may also have negative consequences. To clarify, because employees with

flexibility I-deals have different agendas, they may signal a lack of organisational commitment

or engagement because their job attendance harder to notice (Perlow, 1997). Besides, when

organisations fail to control the gained flexibility, their employees can start to perform less,

which can become a major problem if this is followed by decreasing connection (Hornung et

al., 2008).

In line with the hypothesis of the relationship between proactive personality and daily

job crafting, also the relation between proactive personality trait and I-deals is hypothesised in

this study. This to compare, in a parallel mediation, the two different forms of proactive

behaviours of employees at work. Applying Crant’s (2000) theory of proactive personality, this

study argues that employees with a proactive personality create favourable conditions and

opportunities for themselves in their work. People with proactive personalities identify

opportunities and act on them, they show initiative and take action (Bakker et al., 2012). Hence,

they will negotiate their employment terms with the managers for themselves, to create the

20

favourable conditions, by using (flexibility and developmental) I-deals. In other words, these

employees shape their work environment such that the job demands and job resources better fit

with their own needs and abilities. Therefore, this leads to the following hypothesis:

H3a: There is a positive relationship between proactive personality and I-deals.

As been mentioned before, research have found several positive outcomes of I-deals for

employees, one positive outcome that is not discussed yet in this theoretical background is work

engagement. Employees who negotiate I-deals with their managers, proactively change their

work environment and align their job demands and resources with their own abilities and needs

(Tims & Bakker, 2010). Bakker and colleagues (2012) have shown that individuals with a

proactive personality are most inclined to change their work environment in a proactive way,

by mobilising job demands and job resources, which in turn facilitate work engagement. Bal

and Vink (2011) showed that flexibility I-deals are related to an increase in motivation to

continue working, while the links of developmental I-deals only manifested under conditions

of a favourable work environment. On the other hand, a quantitative research revealed that

developmental I-deals are linked to higher work engagement, while flexibility I-deals are linked

to lower work–family conflict (Hornung, Rouseau, Glaser, Angerer & Weigl, 2011). This

means we could argue for both types of I-deals to relate with work engagement. Moreover,

Serrano and Reichard (2011) examine the relationship between I-deals and work engagement

from the manager or organisational point-of-view, instead of the employee. They argue that

managers can collaborate with employees to negotiate work responsibilities and demands, by

creating I-deals. This makes sure that the work of the employees is in line with their personal

needs, which, they say, makes work engagement more likely. Besides, Hornung and colleagues

(2010) found three mechanisms through which the creation of I-deals positively relates to work

engagement. At first, creating I-deals increased job complexity or “the degree tasks allow the

use of intellectual abilities, require collaboration, and support skill acquisition” (Hornung et al.,

2010, p. 195). Subsequently, I-deals increase job control and employees’ ability to work alone

and use judgement during a decision-making process. Finally, I-deals positively relate to work

engagement by reducing job demands or obstacles to get the things done. Overall, creating I-

deals supports employees to become vigorously and more involved in their jobs. This because

employees get more engaged in completing complicated tasks, exercise decision-making

judgement, and control for undesirable job demands (Hornung et al., 2010).

As been stated before, most research on work engagement has focused on differences

21

between individuals and has treated day-to-day fluctuations in work engagement as a

measurement-error (Sonnentag et al., 2010). However, literature argued that it is also possible

that there are daily fluctuations in the experience of work engagement within an individual

(Kahn, 1990). The relation between I-deals (on a general level) and work engagement (on a day

level) has not been investigated yet. And, as Ohly and colleagues (2010) argue, it is relevant to

combine general questionnaire information with a daily diary study of what employees do

during their workday. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:

H3b: There is a positive relationship between I-deals and daily work engagement.

To conclude, the theoretical arguments so far suggest that proactive personality

has a direct relationship with daily work engagement. However, this direct link will be more

positively stronger through the mediation of I-deals. As individuals with a proactive personality

are most inclined to change their work environment in a proactive way, using I-deals to

negotiate employment terms and arrangements with their managers, this in turn facilitate (daily)

work engagement even more. All in all, this leads to the following hypotheses:

H3: I-deals mediate the positive relationship between proactive personality

and daily work engagement.

22

METHOD

This chapter will explain how the hypotheses of this research will be tested. First of all, the

method of research will be discussed. Secondly, a description of the sample will follow given

a thorough understanding of the descriptive statistics of the final sample. Finally, the

measurements of the independent variable, dependent variable, mediators, and control variables

will be discussed.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This quantitative study collects data by using a general questionnaire and a diary study of five

days. The data collection was done by three students from the Amsterdam Business School, but

each student conducted its own research. Employees, working more than three days a week,

from various organisations in the Netherlands (e.g. services, health care, education, transport &

logistics) were asked to take part in this research. Participation was voluntary, however, an

incentive of six vouchers, each worth €50 on Bol.com, was used to motivate participation.

Participants were informed that upon agreement, they would receive an online diary

questionnaire and that they were invited to fill out the survey for five consecutive working days

at the end of each day. Before starting with the diaries, respondents first have to fill out a general

online questionnaire in which they provide demographic data and information on the general

level of the measured variables. Both surveys were administered online, using Qualtrics

software. The complete version of both surveys can be found in Appendix I. With a self-

completion questionnaire, respondents answer questions by completing the questionnaire

themselves. The online version operates by inviting prospective respondents by e-mail to visit

a website at which the questionnaire can be found and completed online. The cover letter used

to explain the research to the respondents could be found in Appendix II. With these type of

questionnaires, there is an absence of interviewer effects, there is no interviewer variability and

there is more convenient for respondents because they can complete a questionnaire when they

want and at the speed that they want to go (Bryman & Bell, 2011).

SAMPLE

The population of interest for this study is ‘Dutch workers’; working more than three days a

week. As the population is large and the sampling frame is unknown, this study was conducted

using a non-probability convenience sample. This is a sample that has not been selected using

a random selection method and occurs when either the probability that every unit or respondent

23

included in the sample cannot be determined (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Respondents were

reached through personal e-mail and social media channels among the personal network of the

researchers. The between-level and within-level surveys were send to 132 participants. In total,

117 respondents filled out the questionnaire on the between-level, reaching a response rate of

88.64%. On the within-level, in total, 111 Dutch workers responded to minimal three days of

the dairy study, reaching a response rate of 84.09%. All in all, 127 measurement points were

collected on the within-level survey.

Table 2 shows the mean values and standard deviations adopted to illustrate the sample

characteristics; employees in the Netherlands working 3 days a week or more. With an average

age of 34 years (SD = 13.04), 60.4% of the respondents were female employees; 82% had an

educational level of HBO or higher; and on average respondents had 7 years of organisational

tenure (SD = 9.23). Furthermore, the respondents work in a wide range of sectors (e.g. services,

health care, education, transport & logistics) with an average of 37.45 working hours per week

(SD = 7.49). When comparing the final demographic results of the sample frame with the data

of the Dutch working population (n = 8.474.000), a small amount of bias is shown. This

especially accounts for the demographic variables gender and age (CBS, 2017). In the sample,

woman are overrepresented and the average age was lower.

TABLE 2

Demographic characteristic profile of respondents (N = 108)

Variables N % Mean SD

Gender .60 .49

Male

Female

Age

Educational level

Secondary School

MBO

HBO

University (bachelor)

University (master)

PhD

Other

Organisational Tenure

Working hours per week

42

64

3

14

42

5

38

2

2

39,6

60,4

2.8

13.2

39.6

4.7

35.8

1.9

1.9

33.85

3.71

7.16

37.45

13.04

1.31

9.23

7.49

Note. Men = 0, woman = 1. Age is coded in years. Educational level is based on Dutch system, secondary school = 1, MBO =

2, HBO = 3, University (bachelor) = 4, University (master) = 5, PhD = 6, other = 7. Organisational Tenure is coded in years.

24

MEASURES

As respondents’ native language was Dutch, each measuring scale was translated. To validate

the translation, the back translation method, a bilingual technique, and pretesting, as suggested

by Brislin, Lonner and Thorndike (1973) was utilised.

General questionnaire (between-level)

Proactive personality. Proactive personality was assessed using the Dutch translation (Claes et

al., 2005) of the six-item version of Bateman and Crant’s (1993) Proactive Personality Scale

(PPS). Sample items include: ‘This employee is always looking for better ways to do things’,

and ‘If this employee sees something s/he doesn’t like, s/he fixes it’. Respondents could respond

on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = disagree through 5 = agree. The reliability of the scale

was good; Cronbach’s α =.77.

I-Deals. Using a Dutch translation of Rousseau’s measures (e.g., Hornung et al. 2008),

employees indicated the extent to which in their current jobs they had “asked for and

successfully negotiated individual arrangements different from their peers” in terms of

flexibility I-deals (three items) and development I-deals (four items). Flexibility items include:

‘Flexibility in starting and ending the workday’ and ‘Individually customised work schedule’.

Developmental items include: ‘On-the-job activities’, ‘Training opportunities’ and ‘Career

development’. Respondents could respond on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all

through 5 = to a very great extent. The reliability of the scale was very good; Cronbach’s α

=.90.

Dairy study (within-level)

The diary study consisted of five identical questionnaires, one for each day. Similar to that of

previous diary studies (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2009), respondents indicated how representative

each statement was for the past day using a scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =

strongly agree. All respondents were instructed to answer the questionnaires right before

leaving the office that day. Besides, by means of an online questionnaire the author was more

capable of checking the actual day and time (i.e. more accuracy in the measurement).

Daily Job Crafting. Daily job crafting was assessed using the Dutch translation of Petrou and

colleagues’ (2012) subscales. The day-level job crafting questionnaire consisted of three

25

subscales: Day-level seeking recourses included four items as “Today, I have asked colleagues

for advice”. Day-level seeking challenges included three items as “Today, I have asked for more

responsibilities”. Day-level reducing demands was measured by using three items as “Today, I

have tried to ensure that my work is emotionally less intense”. Cronbach’s α for the total scale

=.83.

Daily Work Engagement. This study adapted three items from Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova’s

(2006) short-form Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) to assess daily work engagement

(Lanaj, Johnson & Barnes, 2014). Sample items translated to Dutch include: “Today, my job

inspired me” and “Today, I was very enthusiastic about my job.” Respondents could respond

on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree through 5 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s

α =.76.

Control variables. The variables tenure, age and gender are included as a control variable in

this study. At first, literature revealed that tenure may have an effect on job proactive behaviours

as job crafting and I-deals. Several authors argue that tenure in the organisation could be one

factor that is likely to influence how employees make sense of the possibilities for job crafting,

and should be investigated in future research (Berg et al., 2010; Ghitulescu, 2006). Berg,

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2010) argue that it is possible that employees that are shorter tenured

engage in more job crafting or job proactive behaviours. This because short tenured employees

proactively shape their jobs to themselves and quickly examine where changes could be made,

while longer-tenured employees are more used to the job and examine it more as a fixed entity.

Two possible competing hypotheses could be that longer-tenured employees receive more

authority and support from their managers and colleagues, in making changes to their job

(Wrzesniewski, Bartel, & Wiesenfeld, 2009). Furthermore, it could be that longer-tenured

employees could better take the opportunities for job proactive behaviours available to them

due to their time spent in the organisation (Berdicchia et al., 2016). Thus, the employees’ tenure

with the organisation (the length of the time the employee had worked for the organisation) is

controlled. An open question was used to measure the tenure (in years) of employees working

for the organisation: "How long do you work for this organisation (in years)?".

Next to that, Kooij, Tims and Kanfer (2015) discussed whether older employees may

craft their jobs differently than younger employees, since motivation and competencies change

with age and individuals use strategies to age successfully in life. Furthermore, they say that

26

older employees know their own competencies, abilities, roles, tasks and responsibilities due to

their long work experience and job tenure. As such, the bottom-up approach of job crafting is

the most appropriate approach for older employees to adapt the job to age-related changes they

are confronted with, and to age successfully at work. Therefore, age was included as a control

variable in this study.

Finally, the role of gender could have an influence on the proactive behaviours at work.

There is a mixed picture found in literature. In terms of proactive job search, networking

behaviours and voicing concerns about issues at work, men were found to be more proactive

than woman. However, the influence still remains inconclusive and it is suggested that further

research will be helpful to clarify the relevance of gender in job proactive behaviours

(Berdicchia et al., 2016; Bindl & Parker, 2010). Therefore, gender was included as a control

variable and measured as a dichotomous variable, i.e., 0 for male and 1 for female.

27

RESULTS

In this section the results of the different analyses will be presented. At first, they analystical

strategy on the collected data will be discussed. Subsequently, the descriptive statistics for the

most important variables are given. Moreover, this section provides a correlation matrix to

examine the relation between the different variables. Besides, the reliability analyses of all

scales are given. Finally, this section ends with testing the hypothesis formulated in this

research, followed by an additional analysis of the variables on a general level instead of the

daily level.

ANALYTICAL STRATEGY

At first, a check of the frequencies was computed to examine if there were any errors in the

data; no errors were found. Besides, by excluding cases listwise missing values were dealt with.

This means that only cases that had no missing data in any variable were analysed. Descriptive

statistics (means, standard deviations and correlations between the study variables), skewness,

kurtosis and normality tests were computed for all variables. All variables were normally

distributed with skewness and kurtosis ranging between -1 and 1; Proactive Personality

(skewness =.088, kurtosis =.195), Daily Job Crafting (skewness = -.087, kurtosis =.670),

Idiosyncratic Deals (skewness = -.019, kurtosis = -.643) and Daily Work Engagement

(skewness =.058, kurtosis -.272). Furthermore, to verify the underlying dimensions of the

independent variable, the mediators and the dependent variable, an Exploratory Factor Analysis

was conducted on the measurement scales of proactive personality, daily job crafting,

Idiosyncratic deals, and daily work engagement. Finally, the PROCESS Macro written by

Andrew F. Hayes for SPSS was used to test the hypotheses.

EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS

Proactive Personality (Independent variable). A principal axis factoring analysis (PAF) was

conducted on the six items with oblique rotation (direct oblimin) in order to investigate the

reliability of the item list used to measure proactive personality.

At first, the correlation matrix was analysed to investigate multicollinearity and whether

correlations were too small. As the determinant of the correlation matrix (.239) was not smaller

than the necessary value of 0.00001, no multicollinearity existed. Moreover, Bartlett’s test of

sphericity, which tests the null-hypothesis that the original correlation matrix is an identity

matrix, was significant for this particular set of data (χ2 (15) = 149.250, p = <.001). This means

28

that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix and that correlations between items were

sufficiently large for PAF. Furthermore, the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure verified the sampling

adequacy for the analysis, KMO =.77, as this is above the acceptable limit of.5 (Field, 2013).

This means that all assumptions for the PAF are met.

An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each factor in the data. One factor

had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and explained 46,56% of the variance. The scree

plot showed an inflexion that would justify retaining one factor. Therefore, one factor was

retained because of the use of fewer than 30 variables, the convergence of the scree plot and

Kaiser’s criterion on this value. All six items load strongly on the one underlying factor (all

above.505), representing “Proactive Personality”.

In order to compare the independent variable to the other variables, one variable is

computed that reflects the mean score of the six items that constitute proactive personality

(ProTOT).

Daily Job Crafting (Mediator 1). A PAF was conducted on the ten items with oblique rotation

(direct oblimin) in order to investigate the reliability of the item list used to measure job crafting

on a day-level.



than the necessary value of 0.00001, no multicollinearity existed. However, Bartlett’s test of







An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each factor in the data. Three factors

had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and explained 78.65% of the variance. The scree

plot shows an inflexion that would justify retaining three factors. Therefore, three factors are


Kaiser’s criterion on this value. Table 3 shows the factor loadings after rotation. The items that

cluster on the same factor suggest that factor 1 represents “Day-level seeking resources”, factor

2 represents “Day-level seeking challenges” and factor 3 represents “Day-level reducing

29

demands”.

In order to compare the mediator to the other variables, one variable is computed that

reflects the mean score of the ten items that constitute daily job crafting (DjcraTOT).

TABLE 3

Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for measurement scale

Daily Job Crafting (N = 111)

Factor Loadings

Item Seeking

resources

Seeking

challenges

Reducing

demands

I have asked others for feedback on my

job performance

.20 .02 .70

I have asked colleagues for advice -.19 -.08 .85

I have asked my supervisor for advice .11 .07 .60

I have tried to learn new things at work .29 .10 .53

I have asked for more tasks if I finish my

work

.86 .01 -.02

I have asked for more responsibilities .96 -.04 .04

I have asked for more odd jobs .92 -.01 .05

I have tried to ensure that my work is

emotionally less intense

-.05 .95 .12

I have made sure that my work is

mentally less intense

.01 .94 -.12

I have tried to ensure that my work is

physically less intense

-.02 .72 .01

Eigenvalues 4.07 2.36 1.4

% of variance 40.74 23.57 14.34

Note. Factor loadings over.40 appear in bold

Idiosyncratic Deals (Mediator 2). A PAF was conducted on the seven items with oblique

rotation (direct oblimin) in order to investigate the reliability of the item list used to measure

Idiosyncratic deals.



30








An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each factor in the data. Two factors


plot shows an inflexion that would justify retaining two factors. Therefore, two factors are


Kaiser’s criterion on this value. Table 4 shows the factor loadings after rotation. The items that

cluster on the same factor suggest that factor 1 represents “Flexibility I-deals” and factor 2

represents “Developmental I-deals”. Although this analysis showed that “on-the-job-activities”

represents flexibility I-deals, literature suggests that this item represents developmental I-deals

(e.g., Hornung et al. 2008). It is possible that on-the-job activities load strongly on flexibility I-

deals because flexibility I-deals are arrangements that personalise the scheduling of work and

allow employees to customise their working hours to better fit the individual needs and

preferences, which also fits with on-the-job activities. Still, however, the ‘wrong’ loading is not

a problem because in the end this study averages across all items.

In order to compare the mediator to the other variables, one variable is computed that

reflects the mean score of the seven items that constitute I-deals (Ideal).

Daily Work Engagement (Dependent variable). A PAF was conducted on the three items with

oblique rotation (direct oblimin) in order to investigate the reliability of the item list used to

measure daily work engagement.








31



TABLE 4

Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for measurement scale I-deals (N = 105)

Factor Loadings

Item Flexibility

I-deals

Developmental

I-deals

Flexibility in starting and ending the working day .92 .10

Individually customised work schedule .74 .04

Flexibility in work-related tasks .76 -.20

On-the-job activities .58 -.27

Training opportunities .12 -.74

Special opportunities for skill development -.08 -1.04

Career development .04 -.85

Eigenvalues 4.45 1.11

% of variance 63.61 15.92

Note. Factor loadings over.40 appear in bold

An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each factor in the data. One factor


plot showed an inflexion that would justify retaining one factor. Therefore, one factor was


Kaiser’s criterion on this value. All three items load strongly on the one underlying factor (all

above.616), representing “Daily Work Engagement”.

In order to compare the dependent variable to the other variables, one variable is

computed that reflects the mean score of the three items that constitute daily work engagement

(DengTOT).

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Table 5 shows the means, the standard deviations, and the correlations between the study

variables. For all day-level variables, an aggregate score of the five days is used; therefore, for

all day-level variables, participants were assigned a mean score of their five measurements.

32

Furthermore, only those who have taken the within survey more than three times that week

were taken into account. The between-level and within-level surveys were send to 132

participants. In total, 117 respondents filled out the questionnaire on the between-level,

reaching a response rate of 88.64%. On the within-level, in total, 111 Dutch workers responded

to minimal three days of the dairy study, reaching a response rate of 84.09%. All in all, 127

measurement points were collected on the within-level survey. The reliabilities of multi-item

scales were determined by computing Cronbach’s alpha values. All scales have acceptable

alpha values and are greater than the suggested cut-off level of 0.7 (Hair, Black, Babin,

Anderson & Tatham, 1998), ranging from.76 to.90.

Inconsistent with the expectations, no significant correlations were found between

proactive personality, daily job crafting, and daily work engagement. A significant correlation

was found between I-deals and daily work engagement, r =.21, p <.05. Besides, a significant

correlation was found between I-deals and daily job crafting (r =.24, p <.05). Examining the

control variables, age was significantly correlated with gender, org. tenure, daily job crafting (r

= -.27, p >.05) and daily work engagement (r =.26, p <.01). Furthermore, org. tenure was

significantly correlated with gender, age and daily job crafting (r = -.21, p <.05).

TABLE 5

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Variables (N = 105)

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gender .61 .49 -

2. Organisational Tenure 7.10 9.26 -.21* -

3. Age 33.85 13.04 -.30** .74** -

4. Proactive Personality 3.72 .52 -.15 -.05 -.08 (.77)

5. Daily Job Crafting 2.59 .52 .00 -.21* -.27* .16 (.83)

6. I-deals 2.75 .98 -.09 -.01 .08 .05 .24* (.90)

7. Daily Work Engagement 3.38 .67 -.09 .13 .26** .19 .02 .20* (.76)

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

Cronbach’s alphas are in parentheses.

Men are coded as 0, woman are coded as 1. Organisational Tenure is measured in years.

HYPOTHESIS TESTING

To test the hypotheses, the PROCESS Macro written by Andrew F. Hayes for SPSS was used

33

(Hayes, 2013). All hypotheses were tested by model 4. This model tested a mediation model,

with proactive personality as an independent variable (X), daily work engagement as the

outcome variable (Y) and daily job crafting (M1) and I-deals (M2) as the mediations. The

variables tenure, age and gender were taken into account as control variables. The results of

these analyses are displayed in Table 6 and 7. Overall, the model explains 12% of the variance

in the value of daily work engagement (F(4,100) = 3.4614, p =.01, R2 =. 1216.

To test hypothesis 1; “There is a positive, direct relationship between proactive

personality and daily work engagement”, the analysis examines the direct effect of proactive

personality and daily work engagement, after controlling for the variables gender, tenure and

age. The effect of proactive personality on daily work engagement H1 =.2630, means that an

increase of one unit on the scale of proactive personality leads to an additional value of.2630

for daily work engagement. Since the sign of H1 is positive, those employees that have a

relatively high proactive personality are also estimated to have a higher score on daily work

engagement. This effect is statistically significant (p =.04), supporting hypothesis 1.

In this study, an analysis was conducted to test for parallel mediation of daily job

crafting and I-deals. At first, hypothesis 2; “Daily job crafting mediates the positive

relationship between proactive personality and daily work engagement”, was tested. The

analysis examines the daily job crafting indirect effect of proactive personality on daily work

engagement. However, this indirect effect was not significant, because the effect is not

statistically different from zero, as revealed by a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that

crosses zero (-.031 to.068). Hypothesis 2 is, therefore, rejected. To examine if the mediation of

daily job crafting has a partly effect, an analysis was conducted for hypothesis 2a and 2b.

Inconsistent with the expectations, the effect of proactive personality on daily job crafting (H2a

=.123) and the effect of daily job crafting on daily work engagement (H2b =.026) were both

non-significant. Therefore, hypothesises 2a and 2b are rejected.

Subsequently, the analysis to examine if the direct effect was mediated by I-deals was

conducted, therefore, hypothesis 3; “I-deals mediate the positive relationship between

proactive personality and daily work engagement”, was tested. The analysis examines the I-

deals indirect effect of proactive personality on daily work engagement. However, this indirect

effect was not significant, because the effect is not statistically different from zero, as revealed

by a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that crosses zero (-.030 to.091). Hypothesis 3 is,

therefore, rejected. To examine if the mediation of I-deals has a partly effect, an analysis was

conducted for hypothesis 3a and 3b. Inconsistent with the expectations, the effect of proactive

34

personality on I-deals (H3a =.093) and the effect of I-deals on daily work engagement (H3b

=.105) are both non-significant. Therefore, hypothesises 3a and 3b are rejected.

TABLE 6

Estimated Coefficients of the Parallel Mediation Model (day-level)

Consequent

Daily Job Craf. (M1)

Daily Work Engag. (Y)

Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE P

Proactive Personality (X) .131 .097 .181 .263 .124 .037

Daily Job Crafting (M1) --- --- --- .033 .131 .803

Gender -.066 .107 .540 .061 .136 .653

Organisational Tenure -.001 .008 .893 -.009 .010 .363

Age -.012 .006 -072 .020 .008 .012

constant 2.508 .437 <.001 1.403 .641 .031

R2 =.097 R2 =.1470

F(4,100) = 2.6886, p =.035 F(6,98) = 2.8158, p =.01

Consequent

I-deals (M2)

Daily Work Engag. (Y)


Proactive Personality (X) .093 .192 .630 .263 .124 .037

I-deals (M2) --- --- --- .105 .067 .116

Gender -.126 .211 .551 .061 .136 .653

Organisational Tenure -.016 .016 .301 -.009 .010 .363

Age .013 .011 .244 .020 .008 .012

constant 2.147 .862 .014 1.416 .646 .031

R2 =.0240 R2 =.1470

F(4,100) =.6158, p = ns F(4,100) = 2.8158, p =.01

35

TABLE 7

The (In)direct Effects of the Parallel Mediation Model (day-level)

Effect SE P LLCI ULCI

Direct effect .263 .124 .037 .016 .510

Total effect .277 .124 .028 .031 .522

Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI

Indirect effect total

Daily job crafting

I-deals

.014

.004

.010

.040

.024

.028

-.044

-.030

-.031

.110

.074

.090

Figure 2 shows the results of the hypothesised research model. In this final model only

the variables measured on a daily level are included. The next section will include an

additional analysis, including variables measured on a general level.

Note: *p <.05,

= hypothesis rejected

= hypothesis supported

FIGURE 2: Results of the hypothesised research model (day-level)

ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS

A post hoc analysis was conducted in order to further investigate the study variables. This

analyses could be run because respondents had to report on the variables of job crafting and

work engagement on a general level as well in the questionnaire. The results of these analyses

are displayed in Table 8 and 9. Overall, this model explains 12% of the variance in the value of

general work engagement (F(4,100) = 3.4614, p =.01, R2 =. 1216).

When conducting an analysis on the general level instead of the daily level of job

crafting and work engagement, the first effect of proactive personality on general-level job

Proactive

Personality

I-Deals

Daily

Work Engagement

Daily

Job Crafting

.264*

36

crafting is statistically significant (b =.173, p =.020). Thus, an increase of one unit on the scale

of proactive personality leads to an additional value of.173 on general-level job crafting. Since

the sign is positive, those employees that have a relatively high proactive personality are also

estimated to have a higher score on general-level job crafting. Meaning hypothesis 2a could be

supported on a general level; “There is a positive relationship between proactive personality

and general-level job crafting.”

Furthermore, when conducting an analysis on the general level instead of the day-level

of work engagement, the second effect of I-deals on general-level work engagement is

statistically significant (b =.252, p = <.001). Thus, an increase of one unit on the scale of I-deals

leads to an additional value of.252 on general-level work engagement. Since the sign is positive,

those employees that have a relatively high I-deals score are also estimated to have a higher

score on general-level work engagement. Meaning hypothesis 3b could be supported on a

general level; “There is a positive relationship between I-deals and general-level work

engagement.”

Figure 3 shows the results of the hypothesised research model. In this final model the

variables of job crafting and work engagement on a general-level are displayed.

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

= hypothesis rejected

= hypothesis supported

FIGURE 3: Results of the hypothesised research model (general-level)

Proactive

Personality

I-Deals

.264*

General

Job Crafting

General

Work Engagement

.173*

.252**

37

TABLE 8

Estimated Coefficients of the Parallel Mediation Model (general-level)

Consequent

Job Crafting (M1)

Work Engagement (Y)


Proactive Personality (X) .173 .073 .020 .516 .133 <.001

Job Crafting (M1) --- --- --- .022 .185 .905

Gender -.037 .080 .648 .111 .143 .439

Organisational tenure -.004 .060 .551 .017 .011 .118

Age -.008 .004 .086 -.005 .008 .550

constant 2.921 .328 <.001 .872 .781 .267

R2 =.1540 R2 =.2552

F(4,100) = 4.5495, p =.002 F(6,98) = 5.5965, p = <.001

Consequent

I-deals (M2)

Work Engagement (Y)


Proactive Personality (X) .093 .192 .630 .516 .133 <.001

I-deals (M2) --- --- --- .252 .070 <.001

Gender -.126 .211 .551 .111 .143 .439

Organisational tenure -.016 .016 .301 .017 .011 .118

Age .013 .011 .244 -.005 .008 .550

constant 2.147 .862 .014 .872 .781 .267

R2 =.0240 R2 =.2552

F(4,100) =.6158, p = ns F(6,98) = 5.5965, p = <.001

38

TABLE 9

The (In)direct Effects of the Parallel Mediation Model (general-level)

Effect SE p LLCI ULCI

Direct effect .516 .133 <.001 .253 .780

Total effect .543 .137 <.001 .271 .815

Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI

Indirect effect total

Daily job crafting

I-deals

.027

.004

.023

.067

.040

.058

-.091

-.075

-.079

.179

.092

.158

39

DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to compare two parallel mechanisms of proactive behaviours at work,

daily job crafting and I-deals, in explaining the relationship between proactive personality and

work engagement. These two bottom-up concepts of work design can be found in recent

literature, which both reflect the proactive behaviours of today’s employees. Both these

behaviours increasingly occur due to the changing nature of work (e.g. flexible human resource

practices, virtualisation) (Hornung, Rousseau & Glaser, 2009). It is relevant for organisations

to know on which terms these behaviours are initiated and how they differ from each other. The

question is to which extent job crafting and I-deals are any different, contributing to and

enriching each other. In total, seven hypotheses were proposed.

The first hypothesis was supported by the data, indicating that there is a direct positive

link between employees with a proactive personality and daily work engagement, which is in

line with previous research. Individuals with a proactive personality demonstrate initiative and

dedication (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant, 1995). Thus, proactive personality is related to work

engagement because employees who are involved in their work environment also immerse

themselves in their work even more. The main strength of this study is its use of a diary design.

In this way, the current study allowed investigating fluctuations of the variables over the time

of a working week. This dairy design creates the opportunity to capture work events and

experiences as they unfold in the work environment (Ilies et al., 2007). Thus, the present results

enrich our understanding of the antecedents of daily work engagement. For instance, by

examining employee’s proactive personality as an antecedent of daily work engagement, more

insight is gained in the role proactive personality plays in the daily process that explains

employee’s work engagement.

Furthermore, in this study, it was argued that as managers are not always available for

their employees, it is important that employees mobilise their own job resources and demands

through proactive job behaviours as job crafting and I-deals. It was hypothesised that employees

with a proactive personality would be most likely to craft their own jobs or negotiate I-deals

with their managers, so that they become more engaged.

To begin with, the second hypothesis proposed that daily job crafting mediates the

positive relationship between proactive personality and daily work engagement. Unexpectedly,

no significant relationship was found. The indirect effect showed not to be significant, so daily

job crafting played no mediating role between a proactive personality and daily work

40

engagement. The fact that the results of this research are not in line with the expectations and

previous research, does not necessarily mean that the assumed relation does not exist. However,

this relation is not supported in this study. To examine if the mediation of daily job crafting has

a partly effect, an analysis was conducted for hypothesis 2a and 2b. Inconsistent with the

expectations, the effect of proactive personality on daily job crafting and the effect of daily job

crafting on daily work engagement were both non-significant.

The third hypothesis proposed that I-deals mediates the positive relationship between

proactive personality and daily work engagement. However, the results of the study were

inconsistent with the hypotheses. The indirect effect showed not to be significant, so I-deals

played no mediating role between a proactive personality and daily work engagement. Also in

this case, the fact that the results of this research are not in line with the expectations and

previous research, does not necessarily mean that the assumed relation does not exist. However,

this relation is not supported in this study. To examine if the mediation of I-deals has a partly

effect, an analysis was conducted for hypothesis 3a and 3b. Inconsistent with the expectations,

the effect of proactive personality on I-deals and the effect of I-deals on daily work engagement

were both non-significant.

A possible explanation for these unexpected results might be the repeated measure

design of this study. Respondents had to rate the variables (of job crafting and work

engagement) for five consecutive work days. This study computed a mean score for each of the

variables, making it repeated measures. This computed mean score may have affected

conditions with significant repetitions. Furthermore, events that could not be controlled for (i.e.

personal circumstances/feelings, changes at work or the weather) outside this study may have

changed the responses between the days. A post hoc analysis was conducted in order to further

investigate the study variables on a general level, to examine if this would make any difference.

When conducting an analysis on the general level instead of day-level job crafting and work

engagement, the effect of proactive personality on general-level job crafting was significant.

Furthermore, the effect of I-deals on general-level work engagement was significant. Meaning

hypotheses 2a and 3b could be supported on a general level. This indicates that to make the

repeated measures even more accurate, the time span between the within measures should be

increased in future research.

LIMITATIONS

Like most research, this study has several limitations that could explain the unexpected results

41

of this study. At first, this study does not allow to make cause-and-effect inferences because of

its use of cross-sectional data. Although the relationship from proactive personality to (daily)

work engagement was defended using previous findings and theory, reversed causality is

possible for this relationship and its mediators. It is reasonable that proactive personality and

proactive work behaviours as job crafting and I-deals, are not only a cause but also an outcome

of work engagement.

Subsequently, the data in this study depend on self-report and therefore can be subject

to common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003) and social

desirability. It should be noted that because of the dairy nature of this study the variables used

are likely best rated by the employees themselves. For instance, because job crafting fluctuates

on a daily basis, it may be hard to report this by peers or managers (Daniels, 2006; Spector,

2006). Still, self-reports may introduce common method bias and social desirable answers. The

concept of social desirability could play a role in not finding significant results. Social

desirability is the tendency of individuals to present themselves in a favourable light (Randall,

Paul Huo & Pawelk, 1993). Several solutions are used to lower this chance of common method

biases. At first, because a diary study needs employees to report their behaviour in close

proximity to the actual event, bias is reduced (Bolger, Davis & Rafaeli, 2003; Podsakoff et al.,

2003). In addition, to reduce dropout and habituation, diary studies are normally shorter than

single surveys; only the highest loading items or items with the highest face validity are

included, which may improve comprehension of the items (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

A third limitation is the use of a non-probability convenience sampling technique to

gather the respondents, which were Dutch employees working more than three days a week.

This is a limitation, since it hinders the generalisability of the results of the study, which is due

to lower external validity. Moreover, the sample that is used heterogeneous, since different

sectors and positions are included. The sample heterogeneity lowers the validity and makes it

harder to make generalisations, since it is not possible to control for all the changing variables.

A fourth limitation of this study is that daily mood and employee’s day-levels of job

resources are not controlled for in the analyses. The fact that these control variables were not

taken into account could affect potential “good-day” or “not-good-day” effects. Controlling for

day-levels of job resources is particularly important for this study, because job resources have

been found to provoke and prompt a positive mood at work (Schaufeli & van Rhenen, 2006),

and are crucial predictors of work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008).

Finally, not much is known about the effects that a diary study design could have on

42

employees’ answers (Bolger et al., 2003). The respondents in this study had to complete the

same survey for five consecutive work days. Although it was tried to keep the diary survey

short, it could be the case that respondents filled out the survey in a habitual manner after certain

days. In that way, answers do not fluctuate over time which makes the use of a dairy study less

valuable.

PRACTICIAL IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

There are a number of issues that future research may want to address. First, longitudinal

replications of this study can test whether proactive work behaviours as job crafting and I-deals

relate to specific outcomes as work engagement on a daily level. By increasing the time span

of the within measures, the real-time repeated measures will be more accurate.

Furthermore, in the specific case of I-deals, it should be further investigated who

benefits from an I-deal, including not only the employee, but also other parties, such as the

organisation, co-workers and family and friends outside the workplace. Future research should

collect multi-source data to better assess I-deals and the impact of I-deals. Besides, as Bal and

Rousseau (2016) argue, future research on I-deals should be more focused on the timing of I-

deals. Little is known on when I-deals are negotiated, how they are managed and/or for how

long I-deals are negotiated.

Besides, practical implications of this study can be found. At first, the results indicate

that proactive personality is an crucial antecedent of work engagement. This suggests that

selecting employees with proactive personalities may be an effective strategy for human

resource managers seeking to enlarge work engagement. However, as Fuller, Hester and Cox

(2010) also argue, it can be stated that engagement is not only a function of selecting employees

with proactive personalities, but also a matter of assigning these employees to certain jobs

where they feel they have a considerable degree of autonomy to decide how to manage their

jobs. Most importantly, the study implies that a proactive personality determines how engaged

employees are during their daily work. Therefore, organisations should stimulate strategies that

aim re-enforcements of resources at a daily level, and not only rely on redesigns on a general

level. In other words, “enhancing techniques should be applied in time proximity to the task

that needs to be performed in order to be successful” (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti &

Schaufeli, 2009, p. 198).

Subsequently, proactive work behaviours can either be constrained or stimulated by the

organisation. As far as it concerns organisational implications, job crafting and I-deals are

43

neither naturally good nor bad. Although the management of an organisation is usually

responsible for job redesign and changes in functions, roles and tasks, for example job crafting

is “undercover”. To some extent, employees in any type of job behave as job crafters. However,

some organisations will deny the idea of job crafting. But, job crafting and I-deals can be seen

as proactive and problem-focused behaviour through which employees engage in creative

problem solving. Furthermore, these behaviours could enhance employee’s sense of control,

job satisfaction, work engagement, and job performance. The form of job crafting that is

positive and helpful for the individual could easily prove to be counterproductive for an

organisation as a whole as well. Besides, I-deals already aim to achieve mutual benefit between

the organisation and employees through negotiating employment features. For all these reasons,

job crafting and I-deals should be supported by the organisation as long they are in the same

line with the organisational goals.

On a final note, it should not be forgotten that job crafting and I-deals increasingly occur

at the workplace and can indeed be very helpful for both the individual as the organisation.

Acknowledging these proactive work behaviours as existing and natural behaviour of

employees is not solely the only option for managers but also a one-of-a-kind opportunity to

maximise employee potential or engagement and achieve multiple organisational positive

outcomes.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, this study found evidence of the relationship between employees with a proactive

personality and daily work engagement. Thus, the present results enhance our understanding of

the antecedents of daily work engagement, making the use of repeated real-time measures the

main strength of this study. Unexpectedly, this study did not find evidence of the parallel

mediation of daily job crafting and I-deals assuming the relationship between proactive

personality and daily work engagement. However, one step is made in the exploration of the

investigated variables. Further research, for example on a longitudinal basis, needs to be done

to gain more knowledge on the links between proactive personality, daily work engagement

and proactive work behaviours as daily job crafting and I-deals.

44

REFERENCES

Alarcon, G., Eschleman, K. J., & Bowling, N. A. (2009). Relationships between personality

variables and burnout: A meta-analysis. Work & stress, 23(3), 244-263.

Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2010). Good citizens in poor

quality relationships: Idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship quality.

Academy of management journal, 53(5), 970-988.

Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new

directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of organizational

behavior, 23(4), 383-400.

Bakker, A. B. (2014). Daily fluctuations in work engagement. European Psychologist.

Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The

role of job crafting and work engagement. Human relations, 65(10), 1359-1378.

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

Journal of managerial psychology, 22(3), 309-328.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career

development international, 13(3), 209-223.

Bakker, A. B. & Demerouti, E. (2014), “Job demands – resources theory”, in Chen, P.Y. and

Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Work and Wellbeing: Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide,

Vol. III, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 37-64.

Bal, P. M., De Jong, S. B., Jansen, P. G., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Motivating employees to

work beyond retirement: A multi‐level study of the role of I‐deals and unit climate.

Journal of Management Studies, 49(2), 306-331.

Bal, P. M., & Rousseau, D. M. (2016). Idiosyncratic Deals between Employees and

Organisations: Conceptual issues, applications and the role of co-workers. New York,

USA: Routledge.

Bal, P. M., & Vink, R. (2011). Ideological currency in psychological contracts: The role of team

relationships in a reciprocity perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 22(13), 2794-2817.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organisational behaviour:

A measure and correlates. Journal of organisational behaviour, 14(2), 103-118.

Becherer, R. C., & Maurer, J. G. (1999). The proactive personality disposition and

entrepreneurial behaviour among small company presidents. Journal of Small Business

45

Management, 37(1), 28.

Berdicchia, D., Nicolli, F., & Masino, G. (2016). Job enlargement, job crafting and the

moderating role of self-competence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 318

330.

Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2008). What is job crafting and why does it

matter. Center for Positive Organisational Scholarship, University of Michigan.

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 Organisational Behaviour, 31(2‐3), 158-186.

Bindl, U., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behaviour: Forward-thinking and change

oriented action in organisations (Vol. 2, pp. 567-598). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Black, J. S., & Ashford, S. J. (1995). Fitting in or making jobs fit: Factors affecting mode of

adjustment for new hires. Human Relations, 48(4), 421-437.

Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual

review of psychology, 54(1), 579-616.

Brislin, R., Lonner, W., & Thorndike, R. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York:

Wiley.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA.

Buss, A. H., & Finn, S. E. (1987). Classification of personality traits. Journal of personality

and social psychology, 52(2), 432.

Campion, M. A., & McClelland, C. L. (1993). Follow-up and extension of the

interdisciplinary costs and benefits of enlarged jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology,

78(3), 339.’

CBS. (2017). Arbeidsdeelname; kerncijfers. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2gusSO7

Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative

review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel

Psychology, 64(1), 89-136.

Crant, J. M. (1995). The Proactive Personality Scale and objective job performance among

real estate agents. Journal of applied psychology, 80(4), 532.

Crant, J. M. (1996). The Proactive Personality Scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial

intentions. Journal of small business management, 34(3), 42.

http://bit.ly/2gusSO7

46

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behaviour in organisations. Journal of management, 26(3), 435

462.

Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The

impact of proactive personality. Journal of organisational Behaviour, 63-75.

Daniels, K. (2006). Rethinking job characteristics in work stress research. Human Relations,

59(3), 267-290.

Deluga, R. J. (1998). American presidential proactivity, charismatic leadership, and rated

performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(3), 265-291.

Demerouti, E. (2014). Design your own job through job crafting. European Psychologist, 19,

237-247.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., & Halbesleben, J. R. (2015). Productive and counterproductive

job crafting: A daily diary study. Journal of occupational health psychology, 20(4),

457-469.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands

resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.

Fisher, C. D., & To, M. L. (2012). Using experience sampling methodology in organisational

behaviour. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 33(7), 865-877.

Fuller Jr, J. B., Hester, K., & Cox, S. S. (2010). Proactive personality and job performance:

Exploring job autonomy as a moderator. Journal of Managerial Issues, 35-51.

Fuller, B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the

proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 75(3), 329-345.

Ghitulescu, B. (2006). Job crafting and social embeddedness at work. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in

organisational behaviour, 28, 3-34.

Grant, A. M., Fried, Y., & Juillerat, T. (2011). Work matters: Job design in classic and

contemporary perspectives.

Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). 7 redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational

and proactive perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317-375.

Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2010). Why does proactive personality predict

employee life satisfaction and work behaviours? A field investigation of the mediating

role of the self‐concordance model. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 539-560.

47

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate

data analysis. Uppersaddle River. Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed) Upper Saddle

River.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between

employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2008). Creating flexible work arrangements

through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 655.

Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2009). Why supervisors make idiosyncratic

deals: Antecedents and outcomes of i-deals from a managerial perspective. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 24(8), 738-764.

Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., Glaser, J., Angerer, P., & Weigl, M. (2010). Beyond top‐down

and bottom‐up work redesign: Customising job content through idiosyncratic deals.

Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 31(2‐3), 187-215.

Hornung, S., Rouseau, D. M., Glaser, J., Angerer, P., & Weigl, M. (2011). Employee-oriented

leadership and quality of working life: mediating roles of idiosyncratic deals.

Psychological reports, 108(1), 59-74.

Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., & Heller, D. (2007). Employee well-being: A multilevel model

linking work and nonwork domains. European journal of work and organisational

psychology, 16(3), 326-341.

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and

consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management journal, 42(1), 58-74.

Kooij, D. T., Tims, M., & Kanfer, R. (2015). Successful aging at work: The role of job

crafting. In Aging workers and the employee-employer relationship (pp. 145-161).

Springer International Publishing.

Lai, L., Rousseau, D. M., & Chang, K. T. T. (2009). Idiosyncratic deals: Co-workers as

interested third parties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 547.

Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). Beginning the workday yet already

depleted? Consequences of late-night smartphone use and sleep. Organisational

48

Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 124(1), 11-23.

Lyons, P. (2008). The crafting of jobs and individual differences. Journal of Business and

Psychology, 23(1-2), 25-36.

Miner, A. S. (1987). Idiosyncratic jobs in formalized organisations. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 327-351.

Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). Idiosyncratic deals and organisational commitment.

Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 76(3), 419-427.

Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., & Brenner, S. O. (2008). The effects of transformational

leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being:

A longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 22(1), 16-32.

Ohly, S., & Fritz, C. (2010). Work characteristics, challenge appraisal, creativity, and

proactive behaviour: A multi‐level study. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 31(4),

543-565.

Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organisational

research. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 79-93.

Parker, S. K., & Bindl, U. K. (2017). Proactivity at Work: Making things happen in

organisations. New York, USA: Routledge. ISBN 9781848725638.

Perlow, L. A. (1997). Finding time: How corporations, individuals, and families can benefit

from new work practices. Cornell University Press.

Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hetland, J. (2012). Crafting a

job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of

Organisational Behaviour, 33(8), 1120-1141.

Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviours: The

mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management journal, 49(2),

327-340.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.

Randall, D. M., Paul Huo, Y., & Pawelk, P. (1993). Social desirability bias in cross-cultural

ethics research. The International Journal of Organisational Analysis, 1(2), 185-202.

Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in

social perception and attribution processes. Journal of experimental social psychology,

13(3), 279-301.

49

Rousseau, D. M. (2005). I-deals, idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves. ME

Sharpe.

Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic terms in

employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 977-994.

Rousseau, D. M., Hornung, S., & Kim, T. G. (2009). Idiosyncratic deals: Testing propositions

on timing, content, and the employment relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

74: 338‐348.

Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). The conceptualisation and measurement of work

engagement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work

engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and

psychological measurement, 66(4), 701-716.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The

measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic

approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3(1), 71-92.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2006). About the role of positive and negative emotions

in managers’ well-being: A study using the Job-related Affective Well-being Scale

(JAWS). Gedrag & Organisatie, 19(4), 223-244.

Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career

success. Journal of applied psychology, 84(3), 416.

Serrano, S. A., & Reichard, R. J. (2011). Leadership strategies for an engaged workforce.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63(3), 176.

Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the

interface between nonwork and work. Journal of applied psychology, 88(3), 518.

Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Not all days are created equal: The

concept of state work engagement. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory

and research, 25-38.

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organisational research truth or urban legend?.

Organisational research methods, 9(2), 221-232.

Spitzmuller, M., Sin, H. P., Howe, M., & Fatimah, S. (2015). Investigating the uniqueness and

usefulness of proactive personality in organisational research: A meta-analytic review.

Human Performance, 28(4), 351-379.

50

Teuchmann, K., Totterdell, P., & Parker, S. K. (1999). Rushed, unhappy, and drained: an

experience sampling study of relations between time pressure, perceived control,

mood, and emotional exhaustion in a group of accountants. Journal of occupational

health psychology, 4(1), 37.

Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in

organisations: A comparative meta‐analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal

of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 83(2), 275-300.

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting

scale. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 80(1), 173-186.

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job

resources, and well-being. Journal of occupational health psychology, 18(2), 230.

Tims, M., B. Bakker, A., & Derks, D. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy

performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 490-507.

Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean‐up in proactivity research: A meta‐analysis

on the nomological net of work‐related proactivity concepts and their incremental

validities. Applied Psychology, 62(1), 44-96.

Van der Meij, K., & Bal, P. M. (2013). De ideale ‘Idiosyncratic-deal’. Gedrag en Organisatie,

26(2), 156-181.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of

the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work.

Wrzesniewski, A., Berg, J. M., & Dutton, J. E. (2010). Managing yourself: Turn the job you

have into the job you want. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 114-117.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active

crafters of their work. Academy of management review, 26(2), 179-201.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Work engagement

and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal

of occupational and organizational psychology, 82(1), 183-200.

51

APPENDIX I - SURVEYS

BETWEEN VARIABLES

Control Demographics: age, gender, manager tenure, organisational tenure

General-level Job crafting

(Petrou et al, 2012)

General-level of seeking resources

1. I ask others for feedback on my job performance

2. I ask colleagues for advice

3. I ask my supervisor for advice

4. I try to learn new things at work

5. I contacted other people from work (e.g., colleagues, supervisors) to get the necessary

information for completing my tasks

6. When I have difficulties or problems at my work, I discuss them with people from my

work environment

General-level of seeking challenges

1. I ask for more tasks if I finish my work

2. I ask for more responsibilities

3. I ask for more odd jobs

General-level of reducing demands

1. I try to ensure that my work is emotionally less intense

2. I make sure that my work is mentally less intense

3. I try to ensure that my work is physically less intense

4. I try to simplify the complexity of my tasks at work

General-level of compensatory effort at work – control variable

[Binnewies et al., 2009]

The scale measures how exhausting and straining it is in general to perform at work. It

therefore assesses how much compensatory effort a person has to expend in general to

achieve a certain level of performance. Our measure of compensatory effort differs from

measures of effort that assess the duration or intensity of behaviour. Cronbach’s alpha was.81.

1. It needs much energy to work on my tasks

2. I am doing my work with ease (reverse coded)

3. I have to expend much effort in order to accomplish my tasks

Proactive personality - moderator

6-item adaptation of Bateman and Crant’s (1993) Proactive Personality Scale (Claes et al.,

2005; Parker, 1998)

Geef a.u.b. aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen.

1. Als ik iets zie wat mij niet zint, maak ik het in orde.

2. Ongeacht wat de verwachtingen zijn, als ik in iets geloof dan laat ik het gebeuren.

3. Ik houd ervan om op te komen voor mijn ideeën, ook als anderen tegen zijn.

4. Ik blink uit in het herkennen van kansen en mogelijkheden.

5. Ik ben altijd op zoek naar betere manieren om dingen te doen.

52

6. Als ik in een idee geloof, zal niets me tegenhouden om dit idee werkelijkheid te laten

worden.

Resilience - moderator

10 items Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10). Campbell-Sills & Stein (2007)

Geef a.u.b. aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen.

1. Ik ben in staat om me aan te passen aan veranderingen

2. Ik kan alles wat op me afkomt aan

3. Ik probeer de positieve kant te zien van problemen

4. Omgaan met stress maakt me sterker

5. Ik kom tegenslagen snel te boven

6. Hindernissen beletten mij niet om mijn doelen te bereiken

7. Ik blijf doelgericht (gefocust) als ik onder druk sta

8. Ik raak niet snel ontmoedigd als er iets fout gaat

9. Ik zie mezelf als een sterk persoon

10. Ik kan omgaan met vervelende gevoelens

Career Adapt-Abilities - moderator

Maggiori et al (2015) short-form (CAAS-SF) of Savickas & Porfeli (2012) original version

(CAAS). Netherlands form by van Vianen et al., (2012).

Concern:

1. Thinking about what my future will be like

2. Preparing for the future

3. Becoming aware of the educational and vocational choices that I must make

Control:

1. Making decisions by myself

2. Taking responsibility for my actions

3. Counting on myself

Curiosity:

1. Looking for opportunities to grow as a person

2. Investigating options before making a choice

3. Observing different ways of doing things

Confidence:

1. Taking care to do things well

2. Learning new skills

3. Working up to my ability

HRM practices - moderator

(Jiang, Hu, Liu, & Lepak, 2015)

1. Selection emphasizes traits and abilities required for providing high quality of

performance.

2. Recruitment process uses many different recruiting sources (agencies, universities,

etc.)

3. Selection process is comprehensive (uses interviews, tests, etc.)

4. The subsidiary provides an orientation program for newcomers to learn about the

53

subsidiary.

5. The subsidiary continuously provides training programs.

6. The subsidiary invests considerable time and money in training.

7. Performance appraisals provide employees feedback for personal development.

8. Performance appraisals are based on objective, quantifiable results.

9. Supervisors get together with employees to set their personal goals.

10. Employee salaries and rewards are determined by their performance.

11. The subsidiary attaches importance to the fairness of compensation/rewards.

12. Employees receive monetary or nonmonetary rewards for great effort and good

performance.

13. The subsidiary considers employee off-work situations (family, school, etc.) when

making schedules.

14. The subsidiary has its ways or methods to help employees alleviate work stress.

15. The subsidiary has formal grievance procedures to take care of employee

complaints or appeals.

16. If a decision made might affect employees, the company asks them for opinions in

advance.

17. Employees are often asked to participate in work-related decisions.

18. The subsidiary shares job-related information with employees (e.g., company

operation, sales, etc.).

I-deals – moderator

(Hornung et al. 2008)

Indicate the extent to which in your current job you had asked for and successfully negotiated

individual arrangements different form your peers in terms of:

Flexibility I-deals:

1. Flexibility in starting and ending the working day

2. Individually customised work schedule

3. Flexibility in work-related tasks

Developmental I-deals:

1. On-the-job activities

2. Training opportunities

3. Special opportunities for skill development

4. Career development

Job satisfaction - dependent

(Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979)

Geef a.u.b. aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende uitspraken.

1. Al met al ben ik tevreden met mijn werk

2. In het algemeen houd ik niet van mijn werk

3. In het algemeen ben ik blij om hier te werken

Stress - dependent

(Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986)

Geef a.u.b. aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende uitspraken.

1. Mijn werk is erg stressvol

2. Er gebeuren zeer weinig stressvolle dingen op mijn werk

3. Ik ben erg gestresst door mijn werk

4. Ik voel me bijna nooit gestresst als gevolg van mijn werk

54

Empowering Leadership - independent

(Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005)

A 12-item measure corresponding to four dimensions: enhancing the meaningfulness of work

(3 item), fostering participation in decision-making (3 item), expressing confidence in high

performance (3 item), providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints (3 item).

Enhancing the meaningfulness of work:

1. My manager helps me understand how my objectives and goals relate to that of the

company.

2. My manager helps me understand the importance of my work to the overall effectiveness of

the company.

3. My manager helps me understand how my job fits into the bigger picture.

Fostering participation in decision-making:

4. My manager makes many decision together with me.

5. My manager often consults me on strategic decisions.

6. My manager solicits my opinion on decisions that may affect me.

Expressing confidence in high performance:

7. My manager believes that I can handle demanding tasks.

8. My manager believes in my ability to improve even when I make mistakes.

9. My manager expresses confidence in my ability to perform at a high level.

Providing autonomy from bureaucratic constraints:

10. My manager allows me to do my job my way.

11. My manager makes it more efficient for me to do my job by keeping the rules and

regulations simple.

12. My manager allows me to make important decisions quickly to satisfy customer needs.

Work-life Balance

Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualising the work–family interface: An

ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and

family. Journal of occupational health psychology, 5(1), 111.

Negative spillover from work to family:

How often have you experienced each of the following in the past year?

1. Your job reduces the effort you can give to activities at home

2. Stress at work makes your irritable at home

3. Your job makes you feel too tired to do the things that need attention at home

4. Job worries or problems distract you when you are at home

Positive spillover from work to family


1. The things you do at work help you deal with personal and practical issues at home

2. The things you do at work make you a more interesting person at home

3. The skills you use on your job are useful for things you have to do at home

55

Negative spillover from family to work


1. Responsibilities at home reduce the effort you can devote to your job

2. Personal or family worries and problems distract you when you are at work

3. Activities and chores at home prevent you from getting the amount of sleep you need to do

your job well

4. Stress at home makes you irritable at work

Positive spillover from family to work


1. Talking with someone at home helps you deal with problems at work

2. The love and respect you get at home makes you feel confident about yourself at work

3. Your home life helps you relax and feel ready for the next day’s work

Work engagement

9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006), based on

(Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002)

Vigor (VI)

1. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.

2. At my work, I feel bursting with energy.

3. At my job I feel strong and vigorous.

Dedication (DE)

1. My job inspires me.

2. I am enthusiastic about my job.

3. I am proud on the work that I do.

Absorption (AB)

1. I get carried away when I am working.

2. I am immersed in my work.

3. I feel happy when I am working intensely.

Exhaustion

Winwood, P. C., Winefield, A. H., Dawson, D., & Lushington, K. (2005). Development and

validation of a scale to measure work-related fatigue and recovery: the Occupational Fatigue

Exhaustion/Recovery Scale (OFER). Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,

47(6), 594-606.

Q1: I often feel at the end of my rope with my work

Q2: I often dread waking up to another day of my work

Q3: I often wonder how long I can keep going at my work

Q4: I feel most of the time I’m living to work

Q5: My head feels dull/heavy a lot of the time

Q6: I often feel exhausted at work

Q7: Too much is expected of me at my work

56

Q8: My working life takes all my energy from me

Q9: I feel exhausted all the time

WITHIN VARIABLES

Role overload (kwantitatieve job demands)

(Bolino & Turnley, 2005 JAP)

1. The amount of work I am expected to do is too great.

2. I never seem to have enough time to get everything done at work.

3. It often seems like I have too much work for one person to do.

Problem solving demands – independent

Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006) also used daily by

Schimitt et al (2012)

1. The job involves solving problems that have no obvious correct answer.

2. The job requires me to be creative.

3. The job often involves dealing with problems that I have not met before.

4. The job requires unique ideas or solutions to problems.

Decision-making autonomy – independent

Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ); Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006)

1. The job gives me a chance to use my personal initiative or judgement in carrying out

the work.

2. The job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own.

3. The job provides me with significant autonomy in making decisions.

Task Variety – independent

Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ); Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006)

1. The job involves a great deal of task variety.

2. The job involves doing a number of different things.

3. The job requires the performance of a wide range of tasks.

4. Today, my job involved performing a variety of tasks.

Day-level compensatory effort at work - moderator

[Binnewies et al., 2009]

The scale measures how exhausting and straining it was on the specific day to perform at

work. Thus, it assessed how much compensatory effort a person had to expend during the day

to achieve a certain level of performance. Cronbach’s alpha ranged between.78 and.88 (mean

=.85).

1. Today, it needed much energy to work on my tasks

2. Today, I did my work with ease (reverse coded)

3. Today, I had to expend much effort in order to accomplish my tasks

57

Job crafting - mediator

(Petrou et al, 2012)

Day-level seeking resources

1. I have asked others for feedback on my job performance

2. I have asked colleagues for advice

3. I have asked my supervisor for advice

4. I have tried to learn new things at work

Day-level seeking challenges

1. I have asked for more tasks if I finish my work

2. I have asked for more responsibilities

3. I have asked for more odd jobs

Day-level reducing demands

1. I have tried to ensure that my work is emotionally less intense

2. I have made sure that my work is mentally less intense

3. I have tried to ensure that my work is physically less intense

Day-level Work Engagement - dependent

Day-level version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti, &

Hetland, 2012)

1. Today, I felt bursting with energy. (Vi)

2. Today, I felt strong and vigorous at my job. (Vi)

3. When I got up this morning, I felt like going to work. (Vi)

4. Today, I was enthusiastic about my job (De)

5. Today, my job inspired me (De)

6. Today, I was proud of the work that I do (De)

7. Today, I felt happy when I was working intensely (Ab)

8. Today, I was immersed in my work (Ab)

9. Today, I got carried away when I was working (Ab)

Day-level fatigue – dependent

The Profile of Mood States (POMS; McNair, Lorr, & Droppleman, 1971; Zohar et al., 2003)

Please indicate how you feel at the moment:

1. Exhausted

2. Fatigued

3. Weary

4. Spent

Day-level Job satisfaction – dependent

Faces Scale (Kunin, 1955, 1998)

[The Faces Scale is widely used in organisational psychology (e.g., Barsky, Thoresen,

Warren, & Kaplan, 2004; Claessens, Van Eerde, Rutte, & Roe, 2004). Research suggests that

single-item measures of job satisfaction can be as reliable and valid as measures consisting of

multiple items (Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997).]

58

1. Please indicate how satisfied you are with your job today.

Day-level task performance

Tims et al (2014) used four items adapted from Williams and Anderson’s (1991) scale (the

negatively worded items were not included). An example item reads: “Today, I adequately

completed assigned duties.” The answering categories ranged from (1) not at all characteristic

of me to (5) very characteristic of me. Cronbach’s alpha of this scale ranged from 0.85 to 0.90

(Mean = 0.88). Williams and Anderson’s (1991) scale is the following:

1. Adequately completes assigned duties

2. Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description

3. Performs tasks that are expected of him/her

4. Meets formal performance requirements of the job

5. Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance evaluation

6. Neglects aspects of the job he/she is obligated to perform (R)

Fails to perform essential duties (R)

59

APPENDIX II – COVER LETTER

Geachte deelnemer,

Welkom en hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek. U ontvangt deze e-mail omdat

u heeft aangegeven om deel te nemen aan dit onderzoeksproject dat wordt uitgevoerd door drie

studenten, in samenwerking met het onderzoeksteam van de Leadership & Management

afdeling van de Amsterdam Business School, aan de UvA. Dit project beoogt ons meer inzicht

te geven in verschillende kanten van uw werk en de impact dat dit heeft per dag in de week.

Wat moet u weten over dit onderzoek?

• Vandaag bent u uitgenodigd om deze vragenlijst in te vullen, welke ongeveer 20

minuten van uw tijd zal kosten. De link naar deze vragenlijst vindt u onderaan deze

mail.

• Volgende week zal er elke werkdag (van maandag tot vrijdag om 16:00) een

vragenlijst naar u worden gestuurd, welke maar 6 minuten van uw tijd zal kosten. Zorg

er alstublieft voor dat u deze vragenlijst elke dag, vóór het verlaten van uw werkplek,

invult. De vragenlijst kan uiterlijk vóór het slapengaan worden ingevuld.

Uw hulp en bereidheid om de vragen te beantwoorden wordt ontzettend gewaardeerd.

Deelnemers die alle vragenlijsten volledig invullen zullen deelnemen aan een loting en maken

kans op één van de 6 vouchers van Bol.com t.w.v. €50,-!

Volg deze link om naar de vragenlijst te gaan:

Take the survey

Of kopieer en plak de onderstaande URL in de adresbalk van uw internet browser:

https://uvafeb.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8I0DirFA3i5fkbP?Q_DL=7ar5asOuy2DXlT7_8I

0DirFA3i5fkbP_MLRP_elICCMIOt0XDFhb&Q_CHL=e-mail

Follow the link to opt out of future emails:

Click here to unsubscribe

Als u vragen heeft over dit onderzoek kunt u contact opnemen met Alies, Kim of Sanne via

[email protected] of het telefoonnummer: +31628427183.

Alvast hartelijk bedankt voor uw waardevolle deelname!

Het onderzoeksteam:

Kim van Beek

Alies Louwen

Sanne Rietveld

Eloisa Federici

https://uvafeb.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8I0DirFA3i5fkbP?Q_DL=7ar5asOuy2DXlT7_8I0DirFA3i5fkbP_MLRP_elICCMIOt0XDFhb&Q_CHL=email



https://uvafeb.eu.qualtrics.com/CP/Register.php?OptOut=true&RID=MLRP_elICCMIOt0XDFhb&LID=UR_5C0TLulZg4Ci9KJ&BT=dXZhZmVi%250D%250A&_=1

the impact of a proactive personality on daily work

Documents