Measuring Job Crafting Across Cultures: Lessons Learned From Comparing a German and an Australian Sample

Schachler, Vivian; Epple, Sandra D.; Clauß, Elisa; Hoppe, Annekatrin; Slemp, Gavin R.; Ziegler, Matthias

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00991

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since reliability is a sample-dependent measure, it does not necessarily reflect the quality of the tests used. However, a look at other applications of the measures reveals that a large part of JC subscales frequently reaches only Cronbach’s α values of below .80 (Schachler et al, 2019; Tims et al, 2012; Weseler & Niessen, 2016). Thus, our reliability problem appears to be a finding in itself: in the field of JC, it seems to be not only problematic what we measure but also how precisely we do it.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tomayto, Tomahto?

Ebert

Bipp

2022

European Journal of Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Although job crafting finds widespread application as a leading approach to bottom-up work design, the foundation of the construct is rather shaky: two different theoretical perspectives exist within the research field that have largely been treated separately. An empirical examination of their congruency is missing so far, threatening construct validity, the informative value of the emerging literature, and comparability of effects in practice. In two studies, we investigated the comparability and possible integrative approaches for the two perspectives, including different versions of existing measurement instruments. Our results, based on two large samples of employees stemming from diverse backgrounds and countries ( N1 = 295, N2 = 557), indicate distinct differences in terms of the internal structure of existing job crafting measures and with regard to theoretically anticipated relationships between subdimensions. A first empirical attempt to integrate both perspectives provided promising results for overarching approach/avoidance as well as targets of crafting factors. In general, our results provide cause for concern that the two perspectives should not be regarded as one uniform construct, nor should they be used interchangeably in theory or practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tomayto, Tomahto?

Ebert

Bipp

2022

European Journal of Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because of this unique sociocultural context, our findings might not be generalizable to other sociocultural contexts. Future studies could consider different sociocultural contexts and cross-cultural differences when investigating employees’ needs-based crafting efforts (for first insights on cross-cultural differences in crafting, see for instance [ 87 , 88 , 89 ]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motives for Crafting Work and Leisure: Focus on Opportunities at Work and Psychological Needs as Drivers of Crafting Efforts

Kosenkranius

Rink

Kujanpää

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Employees of all ages can proactively shape their behavior to manage modern work–life challenges more effectively and this is known as crafting. Our goal is to better understand employees’ motives for engaging in crafting efforts in different life domains to fulfil their psychological needs. In a survey study with two measurement waves, we examined whether “focus on opportunities at work” (FoO)—the extent to which employees believe in new goals and opportunities in their occupational future—and psychological needs (i.e., approach and avoidance needs)—predicted crafting efforts at work and outside work (i.e., job and off-job crafting). Our hypotheses were largely confirmed in a study on 346 Finnish workers. Greater FoO led to greater approach needs (i.e., mastery, meaning, affiliation), which in turn explained higher engagement in both job and off-job crafting. Avoidance needs (i.e., detachment, relaxation) resulted in increased crafting efforts in both life domains directly. Our findings underline the importance of FoO for crafting efforts across life domains, and explain why this is the case (i.e., it activates approach-oriented psychological needs). By supporting workers in shifting their focus onto their future opportunities (regardless of their age), organizations can create environments conducive to crafting and ultimately sustainable work lives.

show abstract

“…For example, in comparing a Chinese sample with a British or Spanish sample, Nielsen et al (2017) showed a lack of factor loading invariance in the job crafting questionnaire potentially caused by cultural differences. Nevertheless, crafting scales may provide meaningful results in various countries, but cultural comparisons should be conducted cautiously (Schachler et al, 2019). Cultural differences may also be related to work-life balance, as discussed below and may thus affect cross-cultural invariance testing.…”

Section: Applicability Across Several Different Working Culturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crafting work-nonwork balance involving life domain boundaries: Development and validation of a novel scale across five countries

Kerksieck

Brauchli²,

Bloom³

et al. 2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ongoing developments, such as digitalization, increased the interference of the work and nonwork life domains, urging many to continuously manage engagement in respective domains. The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent home-office regulations further boosted the need for employees to find a good work-nonwork balance, thereby optimizing their health and well-being. Consequently, proactive individual-level crafting strategies for balancing work with other relevant life domains were becoming increasingly important. However, these strategies received insufficient attention in previous research despite their potential relevance for satisfying psychological needs, such as psychological detachment. We addressed this research gap by introducing a new scale measuring crafting for a work-nonwork balance and examining its relevance in job-and life satisfaction, work engagement, subjective vitality, family role and job performance, boundary management and self-rated work-nonwork balance. The Work-Nonwork Balance Crafting Scale was validated in five countries (Austria, Finland, Germany, Japan, and Switzerland), encompassing data from a heterogeneous sample of more than 4,200 employees. In study 1, exploratory factor analysis revealed a twofactorial scale structure. Confirmatory factor analysis, test for measurement invariance, and convergent validity were provided in study 2. Replication of confirmatory factor analysis, incremental and criterion validity of the Work-Nonwork Balance Crafting Scale for job and life satisfaction were assessed in study 3. Study 4 displayed criterion validity, test-retest reliability, testing measurement invariance, and applicability of the scale across work cultures. Finally, study 5 delivered evidence for the Work-Nonwork Balance Crafting Scale in predicting work-nonwork balance. The novel Work-Nonwork Balance Crafting Scale captured crafting for the challenging balance between work and nonwork and performed well across several different working cultures in increasingly digitalized societies. Both researchers and practitioners may use this tool to assess crafting efforts to balance both life TYPE

show abstract

Measuring Job Crafting Across Cultures: Lessons Learned From Comparing a German and an Australian Sample

Cited by 18 publications

References 53 publications

Tomayto, Tomahto?

Tomayto, Tomahto?

Motives for Crafting Work and Leisure: Focus on Opportunities at Work and Psychological Needs as Drivers of Crafting Efforts

Crafting work-nonwork balance involving life domain boundaries: Development and validation of a novel scale across five countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About