Editorial Board

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

Job Crafting Incidents: Antecedents of Job Crafting and its Impact on Individual’s Task and Contextual Performance: Application of Job Demand Resource Theory

 

Aqsa Aslam

Institute of Management Sciences, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan

 

Seerat Fatima

Institute of Management Sciences, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan

 

Muhammad Mubbashar Hassan

Capital University of Science & Technology, Islamabad

 

Javeria Ashfaq Qureshi

Institute of Management Sciences, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan

 

Shumaila Dilawar

Institute of Management Sciences, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan

 

ABSTRACT:

This study examined the antecedents of job crafting (JC) and its impact on individual’s task performance (TP) and contextual performance (CP). We also tested the mediating effect of job crafting on the relationship between high performance work system (HPWS), psychological capital (PsyCap), work life conflict (WLC) and individual’s TP and CP . We examined this phenomenon through the lens of Job Demand Resource Theory. Data was collected from 200 employees of software houses and privately owned academic sectors. For data collection, we used time lag and multi rated survey technique. We analyzed the data through smart PLS-SEM 3.2.9. Findings of this study reveals positive link between HPWS, WLC and JC. Moreover, results indicated that job crafting mediates the relationship between HPWS and individual’s task and contextual performance and also mediates between WLC and Individual’s task and contextual performance. P resent study contributes in the existing literature by identifying the missing links in the form of HPWS and WLC as antecedents of JC. As results shows that TP and CP can be increased through job crafting behaviors so findings are valuable for the mangers to invest in HPWS and WLC to get the best TP and CP. The study suggested the dire need of these organizations to focus on HPWS and WLC in order to get JC behaviors to achieve optimal performance.

Key words

High Performance Work System, Psychological capital, Work Life Conflict, Job Crafting, Task Performance, Contextual Performance.

 

INTRODUCTION

Research on job crafting is being carried out since many years. Despite the idiosyncratic nature of these specific job crafting behaviors, however studies on the mediating role of job crafting are limited. Job crafting is particularly critical as a way of increasingindividual work performance (Tims, Derks, & Bakker, 2016). Organizations have increased demand and importance of employee proactivity in the workplace have focused scholarly attention on job crafting as a critical antecedent of job crafting which leads to optimal individual performance (Shin, Hur, & Choi, 2020). The term job crafting firstly came from (Wrzesniewski, Amy and Dutton, 2001)and definedas “ physical and cognitive changes that people make at the limits of their work or relationship”. In this regard, employees are considered to rethink their identity and enhance the meaning of their work through three types of job crafting: task crafting, relational crafting and cognitive crafting. Research on job crafting evolve around the antecedent and outcomes of job crafting(Shin et al., 2020; Zhang & Parker, 2019).High-performance work systems are systems of human resources practices aimed at enhancing  employee KSA’s, commitment, and ultimately performance (Datta, Guthrie, & Wright, 2005; Guest & Conway, 2011; Macky & Boxall, 2007).

Research on the HPWS revolves around the HRM practices and the outcome of these practices on the firm performance(Bendickson, Liguori, & Midgett, 2017; Fu, Flood, Bosak, Morris, & O’Regan, 2015; Sun, Aryee, Law, Sun, & Law, 2016).Researchers have not effusively explored HPWS in terms of showing certain adaptive behaviors i.e. (job crafting behaviors).(Cooke, Cooper, Bartram, Wang, & Mei, 2019). Nevertheless, some researchers have tried to identify the various HPWS practices (e.g. extensive employee recruitment and selection process , incentive compensation and performance management programs, etc.) as an antecedent of job crafting (Van De Voorde & Beijer, 2015).Despite the significance of these practices as a critical individual level antecedent of individual work performance, few researchers have evaluated the predictive powers and undercurrents of this antecedent in term of the firm performance but not in term of certain adaptive behaviors and individual work performance(Bendickson, Gur, & Taylor, 2018; Gkorezis, Panagiotis and Georgiou, Loizos and Theodorou, 2018).

Our research aims to replicate the connection between HPWS and job crafting as well as the mediating impact of job crafting in the relation between high performance work system  and individual’s task and contextual performance in response to these gaps.  Another inherent gap in job crafting research is that psychological capital may or may not lead towards job crafting behaviors.Psychological capitalis defined as “key psychological factor of positivity, and (positive organizational behavior) criteria that are particularly compliant with states that exceed human and social capital to gain a competitive advantage through investment / development of those you are “, as follows: (a) Hope is defined as "the motivation of an individual to succeed with a particular task within a particular context and the way or manner in which the task can be performed." (b) Optimism is defined as a person's expectation of positive results. (c) Resilience is characterized as “an individual’s ability to recover from adversity, danger, uncertainty or failure an adapt to changing and stressful life requirements”(d) Self-efficacy is defined as "a person's confidence in his ability to mobilize his motivations, cognitive resources and action plans to achieve optimal levels of performance" (Timo, Clemens, Jan, & Kathrin, 2016) Searches have not discussed the impact of psychological capital on specific types of behavior. To bridge these important gaps, our research aims to imitate the relationship between psychological capital and job crafting, as well as the mediating effect of job crafting in the relation between PsyCap   and the individual’s TP and CP (Timo, Clemens, Jan, & Kathrin, 2016).Prior researches have not comprehensively discussed the impact of psychological capital on the specific types of job crafting behaviors. To bridge these significant gaps our study aims to reproduce the link between psychological capital and JC and also the mediating impact of JC in the relation between psychological capital and individual’s TP and CP. Thirdly, we are trying to close the literature gap about the impact of WLC on JC.WLC occurs when there is misalignment between job demands and life demands and individuals become prevented from performing their duties effectively, leading to poor performance in life (Ilies, Pater, Lim, & Binnewies, 2012). Work-life conflict literature presume that potential interventions aimed at helping employees to manage work-life conflict at the individual, group, or organizational level of analysis (Barnes, Lefter, Bhave, & Wagner, 2016), we are introducing a new approach. By expanding this literature to include specific job-crafting behaviors due to work-life conflict to deal with this conflict, which will result in increased individual task performance and contextual performance.Prior researches showed that WLC has made significant advances in recent decades, and many are now aware about the consequences of WLC for individuals and organizations.(Daniela Geraldes, Ema Madeira, Vânia Sofia Carvalho, 2019). Thus, the core objective behind this research is to examine the antecedents of JC and mediating impact of JC in the relationship between these antecedents and individual’s TP and CP.

In sum, the contributions of this study are three fold. First, this study comprehensively exploring the predicting power of HPWS on the job crafting behaviors. Second, it extends the impact of PsyCap and WLC on job crafting behaviors.

Thirdly, the mediating impact of JC on the relation between HPWS, PsyCap, WLC and individual’s task and contextual performance.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Effect of HPWS on job crafting

Despite the significance of high performance work system as an antecedent of JC researchers did not take this relationship in account. HPWS is defined as “a bundle of discrete but complementary human resource practices that include flexible tasks, rigorous selection processes, comprehensive training and development, development and credit-based performance appraisal, competitive remuneration and comprehensive remuneration”(Macky & Boxall, 2007; Takeuchi, Lepak, Wang, & Takeuchi, 2007).While there is no consensus on an ideal pattern or set of practices for the high performance work system(Macky & Boxall, 2007).

Following the JD-R model and building on the proposed model (Tims & Bakker, 2010), we state that job resources and job demands each cause incorrect adjustment when there is an imbalance between job characteristics and expectations of individual and individual (i.e., needs ) or abilities. In other words, if a person experiences an imbalance with regard to a personal job perception and the actual job requirements and resources, individuals are expected to perform actions that reduce or improve the perceived situation through individual job crafting activities. In particular, these job crafting activities are categorized into three dimensions: (1) task crafting defined as "changing type, number and size of the job" (2) cognitive craftingdefined as "changinghow one frames or views the job” and (3) relational crafting defined as “changing the social conditions in workplace”(Zhang & Parker, 2019). Moreover there is an agreement between work resources and the person's needs, inclination, work demands and abilities of a person, individuals constantly strive to solve this problem by stabilizing a person's needs and resources in the work environment through various activities listed above(Lee, 2017).

High performance work system i.e., extensive training, internal mobility, clear job description ,employment security, incentive reward,, results oriented appraisal, selective staffing ,and participation lead towards specific JC behaviors. High performance work system such as employment security, extensive training, results oriented appraisals will lead toward relational crafting(Sun et al., 2016) whereas selective staffing leads towards task crafting behavior (Zacharatos, Barling, & Iverson, 2005). Organizations that score high on HPWS, their employees will tend to more towards showing job crafting behaviors (Macky & Boxall, 2007). In comparison with the organizations that score low on HPWS, there would be less chance of showing job crafting behaviors.

Thus, based on the above argumentation, we came across following hypothesized relationship.

 

H1: There is a positive relationship between HPWS and job crafting.

 

Effect of psychological capital on job crafting

Psychological capital is defined as the positive psychological state of development of a person characterized by (a) (efficacy) making the necessary efforts and making the necessary efforts to carry out difficult tasks; (b) constantly pursuing goals and, where possible, redirecting paths to goals (hope) to succeed; (c)make a positive attribution (optimism) of progress; (d) challenges and obstacle management, managing and jumping even more (resilience) to succeed (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007).PsyCap represents the shared divergence between these four dimensions and is more in line with individual and organizational outcomes than any of its four components separately (Luthans et al., 2007). The effect of self-efficacy on the actions of individual, individuals with a strong confidence in their skills set more multifacetedprinciples and goals for themselves, inquire about chances to demonstrate their potential, and appear to concentrate more on suitable growth opportunities than on problems (Borgogni, Laura and Dello Russo, Silvia and Petitta, Laura and Vecchione, 2010; Mohammed, Susan and Billings, 2002).So, they tend to revamp their work actively (Tims & Bakker, 2010), subsequent studies are showing a positive relationship between self-efficacy and cognitive crafting(Kanten, 2014; Tims, Maria and B. Bakker, Arnold and Derks, 2014).Hopeexpress the perceived capacity to build various paths and the desire to use those paths to achieve the optimal work performance (Luthans et al., 2007; Snyder, CR and Rand, Kevin L and Sigmon, 2002).Hope’s agnatic nature may allow a person to voluntarily take on the professional role (Chen, 2013), so we can expect individual’s with increased hope to have more motivation to proactively manage and develop their job. Since, hope includes the potential to build several ways of achieving the same goals, we also argue this optimistic condition will lead employees to change their productive actions and to carry out their job activities with different strategies that leverage alternative cognitive and social resources to reshape their task and job environment (i.e., job crafting).

Optimism indicates optimistic performance and an descriptive style that allows individuals to emphasize favorable events and avoid unfortunate life events (Luthans & Youssef, 2004)Contrary to hope, the sources of optimistic positive expectation are not only yourself, but also other individuals and exterior factors (Luthans et al., 2007). Consequently, optimistic employees are more willing to change because they regard disparity in their professional lives (for example, enhancing the number of relationships with the others or new exigent tasks) as more positive than pessimistic employees. The desire for change that characterizes the optimistic employee makes it likely that they will actively transform various aspects of their work and face relevant risks, thus facilitating job creation behavior(Lyons, 2008).

Resilience is defined as “the ability to recover orreboundfrom harsh conditions, conflict, loss, or even affirmative happenings, success, and increased duties.Experimental studies have shown that resilient individuals continue to profit from contextual resources, and are more likely to participate in behaviors that include different and possible characteristics of their job related activities(Luthans et al., 2007).From the above perception, resilient employees may be more likely than others to perform crafts because they are more capable of meeting the greater responsibilities and workload created by JC.

 

Thus , we argue that more employees at psychological capital, the more likely they are to take and perform active actions and successfully do what develops their jobs, make it more enjoyable and demanding, and strengthen its various aspects(Cenciotti, Alessandri, & Borgogni, 2017).

According to the (Cenciotti et al., 2017)Psychological capital is major predictor of job crafting. The initial level of a person’s personal resources (i.e., PsyCap) predicted that he would tend to invest in conducting  proactive behaviors that have been finalized to shape their work environment (i.e., job crafting).Following these lines of argument, we postulate the following hypothesis.

H2: There is a positive relationship between psychological capital and job crafting.

Effect of work life conflict on job crafting

Conflicts between work and life occurs when labor demands and living conditions are incompatible and individual’s are discouraged from performing their life roles effectively, leading to so called poor work performance (Ilies et al., 2012). Based on attribution theory (Kelley, 1973; Weiner, 1985) Work-life conflict causes independent emotions that lead to specific behaviors.

According to the JD-R theory, increasing job demands lead towards job crafting behaviors (Hakanen, J.J., Seppälä, P. & Peeters, 2017).Applying this theory to the instant study, we  argue, employees perceiving high conflicts in their work life tend to experience more job behaviors as compared to those who perceive low WLC.

When employees experience the emotion of frustration then employees could take certain actions to decrease WLC and frustration and these actions will lead towards showing job crafting behaviors. JC can be seen as an adaptive response to WLC. Individual’s can change the position of subject from others to themselves by crafting their jobs., thereby increasing control over procedures affecting individual’s performance which will mitigate the frustration (Ilies et al., 2012).

Based upon above argumentation, we hypothesized the following relationship

H3: There is a positive relationship between work life conflict and job crafting.

Mediating role of Job crafting in relation between High performance Work system and Individual’s task and contextual performance

Individual’s task and contextual performance are the core component of an organization to achieve desired outcomes. The capacity of an individual to perform important or technical basic tasks which are fundamental to their work is called individual’s task performance(Campbell, 1990, pp. 708-9).The behaviors which support the organizational, psychological and social environment in which the technical core must function are known as individual’s contextual performance (Borman, Walter C and Motowidlo, 1993).

Our theoretical arguments explain that employee perceptions of HPWS positively linked with individual’s performance through their effect on job crafting. HPWS increases intrinsic motivation of employees to exercise greater work-influence and to increase the performance. Researchers argue that HRM practice in a strong HPWS system motivates employee job crafting behaviors that lead to increasing job resources and reducing hindrance job demands to achieve higher individual work performance (task performance, contextual performance)(Snape & Redman, 2010). Further evidence suggests that job crafting is a linking pin between HPWS and individual’s task performance (Meijerink, Jeroen and Bos-Nehles, Anna and de Leede, 2018).JD-R theory also argues that individuals with the broad groups of resources are better able to generate further resources. In line with JD-R theory, employees who see their body providing efficient HPWS are more motivated to take risks for increased profits via job crafting. For example, there is a possibility that   employees will increase due to the improvement of systematic job resources if adequate training opportunities are provided, which suggests that they may be able to improve their task and contextual performance (Guan, Xiaoyu and Frenkel, 2018).

Theoretical arguments indicate that employees’ expectations of HPWS contribute positively to the individuals’ task and contextual performance through their impact on job crafting (Meijerink, Jeroen and Bos-Nehles, Anna and de Leede, 2018). This idea is in line with JD-R theory, as HPWS practices represent organizational resources that build confidence amongst employees in defensive increase of job resources viaJC that in turn change employee performance for leverage of these resources. Protect it by reinvesting the potential dedicated and absorbed at work.

Based upon the above discussion, we posit following hypothesis.

H4a: Job crafting will mediate the relation between HPWS and individual’s task performance.

H4b: Job crafting will mediate the relation between HPWS and individual’s contextual performance.

 

Mediating Role of job crafting between PsyCap and Individual’s task and contextual performance

The term PsyCap is a key resource (Luthans et al., 2007a) that requires mediation technique for translating its benefits into victorious outcomes. We consider that “job crafting” is a construct in this regardthat can clarify the relationship between PsyCap and the work performance of an individual. Job demand resource model describes that people who are better outfitted in terms of personal resources (PsyCap); invest them in specific behavioral strategies to develop those resources in order to achieve better work performance(Bakker & Demerouti, 2014).

Taking into account the agnatic nature of psychological capital (Chen, 2013; Luthans et al., 2007) it is possible that PsyCap-high employees will be more contented than others because they energetically agreed and committed to JC their work environment according to the requirement that ultimately tend to better work performance. The best individual’s work performance should depend on the ability of employees to make stronger and improve their efficiency in terms of both task and contextual performance (Cenciotti et al.2017).As a result, we anticipate the more victorious employees use specific behaviors (i.e., job crafting), (Tims & Bakker, 2010)to create better work performance, expand their abilities, and the more they use psychological capital to invest optimistically in their work, the more they will do better. Prior researches show that people with more personal resources transform them into operational behavioral strategies to develop those resources and to achieve their objectives (Cenciotti et al., 2017; Hobfoll, 2011). Existing literature states that, we can mention that this issue concerns the individuals that can modify aspects of their work proactively in order to produce better individual’s TP and CP (Bakker, Tims, & Derks, 2012; Wrzesniewski, Amy and Dutton, 2001). Moreover, recent researches have highlighted the possibility that JC can boost individuals task and contextual performance (Converso, Daniela and Sottimano, Ilaria and Guidetti, Gloria and Loera, Barbara and Cortini, Michela and Viotti, 2018; Petrou, Paraskevas and Demerouti, Evangelia and Peeters, Maria CW and Schaufeli, 2012; Tims, Maria and B. Bakker, Arnold and Derks, 2014). In summary, we state that owning and developing high PsyCap at work can lead towards job crafting behaviorsto improve desired outcomes. Therefore, taking this discussion into account, we formulate the following hypothesis

H5a: Job crafting will mediate the relation between PsyCap and individual’s task performance.

H5b: Job crafting will mediate the relation between PsyCap and individual’s contextual performance.

Mediating Role of Job crafting between WLC and Individual’s task and contextual performance

In response to the WLC, employees can take on in positive and negative behaviors both (Ilies et al., 2012). Here, we will consider the positive behavior and outcomes of WLC. Although little research has been done on the behavioral outcomes of work–life conflict (Baltes & Heydens-Gahir, 2003; Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006) researchers have taken in account the negative behaviors of WLC that will lead towards negative outcomes.

When employees face WLC they will craft their job in order to get rid from negative emotions (frustration) that will lead towards better work performance(Ilies et al., 2012).By following the JD-R model, increasing job demands put strain on the employees to reengineer their jobs that will ultimately increase performance. The actual behavior in form of JC is required to transform WLC into the individual’s TP and CP, and therefore, when monitored for job crafting behaviors, WLC will not be directly linked to the performance of an individual. In particular, we expect individuals to concentrate more on growth and learning, these JC activities stimulates the employee understanding about the work and their capability to make quality decisions and provide excessive resources to get work objectives and JC tends to improve individual’s TP and CP. (Zito, Margherita and Colombo, Lara and Borgogni, Laura and Callea, Antonino and Cenciotti, Roberto and Ingusci, Emanuela and Cortese, 2019).

So, we argue when employees face high WLC their performance will be better with the mediating effect of JC.In consistent with above discussion we posit following hypothesis.

H6a: Job crafting will mediate the relation between WLC and individual’s task performance.

H6b: Job crafting will mediate the relation between WLC and individual’s contextual performance.

Methods

Participants and procedure

For data collection, we used two time lags (T1 T2)to reduce potential bias method(Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).The respondents uttered their view in this study belong to the employees of software houses and privately owned academic institutes in Pakistan. The difference between these two time lags (T1 T2) was approximately one month. We divided the questionnaire into three parts.

At the time lag one, we collected data about demographic information and HPWS. It was distributed among 270 participants of software houses and privately owned academic institutes of Pakistan. During the first time, we received back 248 questionnaires. For administering the second part at time lag two (T2), 248 questionnaires were distributed among the same participants (Keys and codes were utilized to match the T2 part with the T1 part). Remaining two parts of the questionnaire were distributed among the participants in this time lag. Part two is given to the teachers and employees while part three is given to their immediate supervisors in order to enhance their performance. Part two is self evaluation which contains questions about job crafting and WLC. While the third part is peer review containing questions about PsyCap, individual’s TP and CP. The participants returned 206 questionnaires in T2 time lag, so we ended up with a response rate of 76.29%. Furthermore, 6 questionnaires were not complete, so we discarded these 6 questionnaires and only 200 responses were used for data analysis. Data analysis was conducted through PLS software.

HPWS

PsyCap

WLC

JC

Task performance Contextual performance

 

 

 

 

 

Instrumentation:

We have used 5-point Likert scale to collect the information regarding each construct.1 to 5 varies from strongly disagree to strongly agree respectively in this scale respectively.

High performance work system

The 27- item integrated HPWS (Sun et al., 2016) scale which is frequently used to measure the integrated HR practices was used to measure HPWS practices

Psychological Capital

We have used the 12-item compounding PsyCap (Timo et al., 2016) scale which is frequently used to measure the PsyCap.

Work-life conflict

The 5-items Work family conflict (Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996) scale which is frequently used to measure the WLC was used to measure work-life conflict.

Job Crafting

Job crafting is measured by 15 items scale by (Vella-brodrick, 2013), which is frequently used to measure the job crafting

Individual’s task and contextual performance

Individual’s TP and CP is measured by(Koopmans et al., 2014).

Findings and Results

Descriptive Analysis

From 200 respondents 118 were male,59% of the total amount of respondents and 82 werefemales,41% of the total amount of respondents. 115 out (57.5%) of 200 respondents were between 20-30 years,71 out (35.5%) of 200 respondents were between 30-40 years and only 14 out (7%) of 200 respondents were above 40 years. 50% of data collected from software houses and 50% from privately owned academic institutes.

We have used PLS 3.2.9 for data analysis as it is appropriate for academic research (Hair, Joseph F and Sarstedt, Marko and Pieper, Torsten M and Ringle, 2012). Structure paths, item’s reliability and frequent assumptions relating to multicollinearity and normality were inspected before testing validity (Hair et al., 2010).

Our study included two step process firstly, we are assessing measurement model and secondly, to evaluate PLS-SEM we are assessing structural model (Hair et.al, 2014).

Measurement Model Assessment

        Various researches are used to evaluate the individual item reliability (Hair et.al, 2014). To determine validity of content, internal consistency, convergent and d0scriminant validity.   4.3.                                                            Individual Item Reliability

This is determined by observing the outer loading of each item of variable (Hair et.al, 2014). We have been provided a basic rule by researchers to determine individual item reliability, but it is suggested that it should be above 0.50 (Hair et.al, 2014). Each item’s outer loading is above 0.5 in table 1, so that it meets the mentioned criteria.

Internal Consistency Reliability:

Composite reliability can be determined by a thumb rule by (Bagozzi, Richard P and Yi, 1988) that it should be 0.7 or more. The CR value for every latent construct of this study has been shown in Table 1. The CR value ranges from the coefficient of composite reliability ranges from 0.864 to 0.919 for each construct of this study ,this indicates a sufficient measure of consistency and reliability (Hair, Joe F and Ringle, Christian M and Sarstedt, 2011).

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity can be determined by(Fornell, Claes and Larcker, 1981),provided Ave’s assessment. The AVE should have minimum value 0.5(Chin, 1998). All AVEs are having minimum value 0.5.So, this study following the mentioned criteria.

Discriminant Validity

This also can be determined by (Fornell, Claes and Larcker, 1981). They recommended Ave should be 0.5 or more. In addition, the latent variable ratios should be less than the square root of AVE. Table 2 shows AVE has a value of 0.50 (AVE. Thus, all of our results find confirmation with respect to discriminant. So, all of our results meet the criteria with respect to discriminant validity.

Table 1.Cross loading, AVE and CR

Questions having loading below 0.60 are removed:

 

Construct	Item	Loading	AVE	CR
High performance work system	STA1	Removed	0.509	0.919
	STA2	0.705
	STA3	0.695
	STA4	Removed
	TRA1	0.716
	TRA2	0.684
	TRA3	removed
	TRA4	Removed
	MOB1	0.717
	MOB2	removed
	MOB3	removed
	MOB4	removed
	MOB5	removed
	SEC1	0.793
	SEC2	0.789
	SEC3	removed
	SEC4	0.677
	SEC5	0.682
	APP1	0.693
	APP2	removed
	APP3	Removed
	REW1	removed
	REW2	Removed
	PAR1	Removed
	PAR2	Removed
	PAR3	0.676
	PAR4	Removed
Psychological capital	PC1	0.776	0.555	0.881
	PC2	0.625
	PC3	removed
	PC4	0.826
	PC5	0.651
	PC6	Removed
	PC7	Removed
	PC8	0.821
	PC9	Removed
	PC10	0.743
	PC11	Removed
	PC12	Removed
Work life conflicts	WLC1	O.806	0.64	0.879
	WLC2	Removed
	WLC3	0.845
	WLC4	0.855
	WLC5	0.698
Job crafting	JC1	removed	0.567	0.913
	JC2	0.734
	JC3	removed
	JC4	removed
	JC5	0.679
	JC6	0.751
	JC7	removed
	JC8	removed
	JC9	removed
	JC10	removed
	JC11	0.778
	JC12	0.803
	JC13	0.780
	JC14	0.754
	JC15	0.736
Contextual performance	CP1	removed	0.515	0.864
	CP2	0.733
	CP3	0.663
	CP4	Removed
	CP5	removed
	CP6	0.750
	CP7	0.718
	CP8	0.733
	CP9	Removed
	CP10	removed
	CP11	Removed
	CP12	0.707
Task performance	TP1	0.749	0.544	0.893
	TP2	0.736
	TP3	0.705
	TP4	0.721
	TP5	0.772
	TP6	0.737
	TP7	0.743

 

Table 2.Forner-Larcker criterion

Constructs	1	2	3	4	5	6
CP	0.718
HPWS	0.259	0.713
JC	0.425	0.270	0.753
PC	0.177	0.082	0.098	0.745
TP	0.441	0.090	0.472	0.190	0.738
WLC	0.368	0.193	0.471	0.098	0.352	0.803

Structural Model Assessment:

The significance of path coefficients have been evaluated by bootstrapping process ,including 200 cases and 270 bootstraps used in this study (Hair et.al, 2014). Table 3, Figure 1, explains the entire estimates of structural model.The result stated that there exist significant (positive) relationship between HPWS and job crafting with (b= 0.183, t= 2.327, p <0.020) therefore H1 was supported. The results showed, H2 is not supported suggesting that psychological capital and job crafting are positively related (b= 0.040, t= 0.365, p < 0.715). According to the results, H3 is supported which postulate that WLC is positively associated with job crafting (b= 0.430, t= 4.682, p < 0.00)H4(a) also supported which postulates job crafting will mediate the relation between high performance work system and individual’s TP with (b= 0.085, t= 2.201, p< 0.028). Similarly, results reported H4 (b) isn’t supported which postulates job crafting will mediate the relation between HPWS and individual’s contextual performance with (b= 0.078, t= 1.868, p <0.062). Similarly, results declared H5 (a) and H5 (b) was also not supported which proposed that JC will mediate the relation between individuals task and contextual performance with
(b= 0.018, t= 0.371, p <0.711) (b= 0.017, t= 0.346, p < 0.729) respectively.However, H6 (a) and H (6) was supported as results showed that JC willmediate the relation between WLC and individual’s TP and CP with (b= 0.205, t= 3.255, p < 0.001) (b= 0.0183, t= 3.156, p <0.002) respectively.R2 is an important measure to evaluate the constructs suggested by PLS-SEM (Hair, Joe F and Ringle, Christian M and Sarstedt, 2011).Researchers claim that the R2 value indicates a ratio of variation in constructs  (dependent) that can be shown by as a minimum single or perhaps many predictor (independent)constructs (Elliott, A., 2007; Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, 2006). Level of acceptance of R2 has to do with research context in which it is carried out by is (Hair et al., 2010). The accepted value of R2 is 0.10 by (Falk, R Frank and Miller, 1992) . For this study R2 values are shown in Table 4.This study uses (cross-Validated-Reduntry Measures) Q2 by the suggestions of Hair et.al (2013),to determine predictive relevance of the model(Hair et.al, 2014). (Henseler, J and Ringle, 2009) declared that if Q2 has value more than zero than given model represent predictive relevance. Gof (goodness-off-it) is not suitable for validation of model because it can’t distinguish the invalid model from valid one, and this considered as secondary evaluation. Theresults for the Q2 are shown in Table 5.

Table 4.R2 value

	R Square	R Square Adjusted
CP	0.180	0.176
JC	0.257	0.246
TP	0.222	0.219

 

Table 5. Cross-Validated-Reduntry-Measure

Constructs	SSO	SSE	Q² (=1-SSE/SSO)
CP	1,200.000	1,101.852	0.082
HPWS	2,200.000	2,200.000
JC	1,600.000	1,390.277	0.131
PC	1,200.000	1,200.000
TP	1,400.000	1,258.577	0.101
WLC	800.000	800.000

 

Table 3. Results of Hypotheses Testing

Hypothesis	Relations	Beta	SD	t-value	P value	Decision
H1	HPWS -> JC	0.183	0.079	2.327	0.020	Supported
H2	PC -> JC	0.040	0.111	0.365	0.715	Not supported
H3	WLC -> JC	0.430	0.092	4.682	0.000	Supported
H4a	HPWS -> JC -> TP	0.085	0.039	2.201	0.028	Supported
H4b	HPWS -> JC -> CP	0.078	0.042	1.868	0.062	Not supported
H5a	PC-> JC -> TP	0.018	0.051	0.371	0.711	Not supported
H5b	PC -> JC -> CP	0.017	0.050	0.346	0.729	Not supported
H6a	WLC -> JC -> TP	0.205	0.063	3.255	0.001	Supported
H6b	WLC -> JC -> CP	0.183	0.058	3.156	0.002	Supported

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Testing model

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION

The principal aim of the study was to check the mediating effect of JC between HPWS, PsyCap, WLC and individual’s TP and CP. Furthermore, this study tested the direct impact of HPWS, PsyCap and WLC on job crafting.

Our results confirmed that HPWS and job crafting is positively related. The justification behind this result is that organizations that score high on HPWS, their employees will tend to more towards showing job crafting behaviors at their work place. They will be more motivated towards reengineering their jobs as per the need of global market (Macky & Boxall, 2007). So, first hypothesis was proven right.

Contrary to our expectations, the mediation job crafting in relation between PsyCap and individuals task and contextual performance could not prove significant. Our study revealed in these (privately owned academic institutes and software houses) sectors job resources are more valuable than personal resources. Our results confirmed WLC and job crafting is positively related. The justification behind this result is that individuals who observe high WLC will be more motivated towards job crafting behaviors as compared to those who perceive low WLC. Employees who face work life conflict take on in job crafting behavior and this is considered a response to WLC. So, third hypothesis was proven right.

The PLS path modeling test determined that JC doesn’tmediate the relation of HPWS and individual’s CP, but it does mediate the relationship between HPWS and individual’s TP. The justification behind this can be found in the literature job crafting serves as a linking pin between HPWS and individual’s task performance(Meijerink, Jeroen and Bos-Nehles, Anna and de Leede, 2018). HRM practices in a strong HPWS system encourages employee job crafting behaviors (task crafting, cognitive crafting, relational crafting) which tend to increase job resources and reduce hindrance job demands in order to achieve higher individual task performance.The results suggest, in line with our expectation, we found job crafting also mediates the relationship between job crafting and individual’s task and contextual performance. Our findings suggests when employees face WLC they will craft their job in order to get rid from negative emotions (frustration) that will lead towards task and contextual performance.Individuals with increasing WLC can concentrate more on knowledge learning and development, these crafting practices would improve employees’ comprehension of the job and their willingness to make decisions of higher quality and provide excessive resources to perform better.

Practical Implication

This study has some practical implication which may be beneficial for the managers of the organization. It is observed job crafting is an important enterprise to enhance individual’s performance. As, managers provide organization’s process management, procedures and policies for crafting the jobs, so they shouldcreate an organizational culture that can encourage employee job crafting (Wrzesniewski, Amy and Dutton, 2001). According to our findings, organizational resources in the form of strong HPWS can lead employees to be more dedicated towards JC and to perform better. On the other hand, increasing job demands also lead individuals towards job crafting behaviors that ultimately increase the work performance. Consequently, managers need to payvigilant attention towards strong HPWS to help them to achieve job crafting outcomes.Management is advised to encourage workers to craft their jobs as a way to improve conflict management in the work life to perform better.

Future Recommendations

Future researchers may collect data from the other sectors like health care centre to generalize the results of the study. Secondly, future researchers also can increase sample size to find the relations between personal resource (PsyCap) and job crafting. Future research might take more variables like job burnout as we have considered just positive effect of work life conflict.

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFRENCES:

Bagozzi, Richard P and Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job Demands-Resources Theory. Wellbeing, III, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell019

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712453471

Baltes, B. B., & Heydens-Gahir, H. A. (2003). Reduction of Work-Family Conflict Through the Use of Selection, Optimization, and Compensation Behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 1005–1018. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1005

Barnes, C. M., Lefter, A. M., Bhave, D. P., & Wagner, D. T. (2016). The benefits of bad economies: Business cycles and time-based work-life conflict. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(2), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039896

Bendickson, J., Gur, F. A., & Taylor, E. C. (2018). Reducing environmental uncertainty: How high performance work systems moderate the resource dependence-firm performance relationship. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 35(2), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1412

Bendickson, J., Liguori, E., & Midgett, C. (2017). Rowan Digital Works High performance work systems : A necessity for startups Let us know how access to this document benefits you - share your thoughts on our feedback form .

Borgogni, Laura and Dello Russo, Silvia and Petitta, Laura and Vecchione, M. (2010). Predicting job satisfaction and job performance in a privatized organization. International Public Management Journal, 13.

Borman, Walter C and Motowidlo, S. (1993). {Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance.

Cenciotti, R., Alessandri, G., & Borgogni, L. (2017). Psychological Capital and Career Success Over Time: The Mediating Role of Job Crafting. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 24(3), 372–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051816680558

Chen, H. (2013). The relationship between psychological capital and proactive career behavior of Chinese white collar workers in their early career. (March). Retrieved from http://hrmstudy.com/%0Awp-content/uploads/2015/02/Chen2013.pdf

Chin, W. W. and others. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. 295, 295–336.

Converso, Daniela and Sottimano, Ilaria and Guidetti, Gloria and Loera, Barbara and Cortini, Michela and Viotti, S. (2018). Aging and work ability: the moderating role of job and personal resources. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2262.

Cooke, F. L., Cooper, B., Bartram, T., Wang, J., & Mei, H. (2019). Mapping the relationships between high-performance work systems, employee resilience and engagement: a study of the banking industry in China. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(8), 1239–1260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1137618

Daniela Geraldes, Ema Madeira, Vânia Sofia Carvalho, M. J. C. (2019). Work-personal life conflict and burnout in contact centers: The moderating role of affective commitment. Personnel Review, 48.

Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., & Wright, P. M. (2005). Human resource management and labor productivity: Does industry matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.15993158

Elliott, A., & W. (2007). Statistical analysis quick reference guidebook: With SPSS examples.

Falk, R Frank and Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling.

Fornell, Claes and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics.

Fu, N., Flood, P. C., Bosak, J., Morris, T., & O’Regan, P. (2015). How do high performance work systems influence organizational innovation in professional service firms? Employee Relations, 37(2), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-10-2013-0155

Gkorezis, Panagiotis and Georgiou, Loizos and Theodorou, M. (2018). High-performance work practices and nurses’ intention to leave: the mediating role of organizational cynicism and the moderating role of human resource management-related educational background. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29.

Guan, Xiaoyu and Frenkel, S. (2018). How HR practice, work engagement and job crafting influence employee performance. Chinese Management Studies.

Guest, D., & Conway, N. (2011). The impact of HR practices, HR effectiveness and a “strong HR system” on organisational outcomes: A stakeholder perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(8), 1686–1702. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.565657

Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & T. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.).

Hair, Joe F and Ringle, Christian M and Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(139–152).

Hair, Joseph F and Sarstedt, Marko and Pieper, Torsten M and Ringle, C. M. (2012). The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: a review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long Range Planning, 45, 320–340.

Hair et.al, 2014). (2014). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM.

Hair et al. (2010). Multivariate data analysis 7th ed.

Hakanen, J.J., Seppälä, P. & Peeters, M. C. W. (2017). High job demands, still engaged and not burned out? The role of job crafting. 619--627.

Henseler, J and Ringle, C. (2009). he Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in lnternational Marketing. ln: New Challenges to lnternational Marketing, Sinkovics, RR. and PN Ghauri.

Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 116–122.

Ilies, R., Pater, I. E. De, Lim, S., & Binnewies, C. (2012). Attributed causes for work–family conflict: Emotional and behavioral outcomes. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(4), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386612452288

Kanten, P. (2014). The antecedents of job crafting: perceived organizational support, job characteristics and self-efficacy. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 3(5), 113–128. https://doi.org/ISSN: 2235-767X

Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., van Buuren, S., van der Beek, A. J., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2014). Improving the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire using Rasch analysis. Journal of Applied Measurement, 15(2), 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2013-101717.51

Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work-family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.07.002

Lee, S. (2017). The Impact Of Job Demands. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 33(4), 829–842.

Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management: Investing in people for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.01.003

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge. In Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195187526.001.0001

Lyons, P. (2008). The crafting of jobs and individual differences. Journal of Business and Psychology.

Macky, K., & Boxall, P. (2007). The relationship between “high-performance work practices” and employee attitudes: An investigation of additive and interaction effects. In International Journal of Human Resource Management (Vol. 18). https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190601178745

Meijerink, Jeroen and Bos-Nehles, Anna and de Leede, J. (2018). How employees’ pro-activity translates high-commitment HRM systems into work engagement: the mediating role of job crafting. The International Journal of Human Resource Management.

Mohammed, Susan and Billings, R. S. (2002). The Effect of Self-Efficacy and Issue Characteristics on Threat and Opportunity Categorization. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32.

Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400

Petrou, Paraskevas and Demerouti, Evangelia and Peeters, Maria CW and Schaufeli, W. B. and H. (2012). Crafting a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1120–1141.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research : A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Shin, Y., Hur, W. M., & Choi, W. H. (2020). Coworker support as a double-edged sword: a moderated mediation model of job crafting, work engagement, and job performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(11), 1417–1438. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1407352

Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2010). HRM practices, organizational citizenship behaviour, and performance: A multi-level analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 47(7), 1219–1247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00911.x

Snyder, CR and Rand, Kevin L and Sigmon, D. R. (2002). Hope theory. Handbook of Positive Psychology.

Sun, A. L., Aryee, S., Law, K. S., Sun, L., & Law, K. S. (2016). Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article : HIGH-PERFORMANCE HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICES , CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR , AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE : A RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE Macau University of Science and Technology. 50(3), 558–577. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.25525821

Takeuchi, R., Lepak, D. P., Wang, H., & Takeuchi, K. (2007). An Empirical Examination of the Mechanisms Mediating Between High-Performance Work Systems and the Performance of Japanese Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1069–1083. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1069

Timo, L., Clemens, B., Jan, P., & Kathrin, H. (2016). Measuring psychological capital: Construction and validation of the compound PsyCap scale (CPC-12). PLoS ONE, 11(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152892

Tims, Maria and B. Bakker, Arnold and Derks, D. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy--performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29.

Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841

Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person-job fit and meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007

Van De Voorde, K., & Beijer, S. (2015). The role of employee HR attributions in the relationship between high-performance work systems and employee outcomes. Human Resource Management Journal, 25(1), 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12062

Vella-brodrick, G. R. S. D. A. (2013). <Slemp-Vella Brodrick_JCQuestionnaire.pdf>. International Journal of Wellbeing, 3, 126–146. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v3i2.1

Wrzesniewski, Amy and Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179--201.

Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Iverson, R. D. (2005). High-performance work systems and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.77

Zhang, F., & Parker, S. K. (2019). Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure of job crafting concepts and integrative review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2332

Zito, Margherita and Colombo, Lara and Borgogni, Laura and Callea, Antonino and Cenciotti, Roberto and Ingusci, Emanuela and Cortese, C. G. (2019). The nature of Job Crafting: Positive and negative Relations with Job satisfaction and work-family conflict. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 1176.