CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 890Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorManagement and Organizational StudiesInnovative Education and Learning Practices

Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity

Open access
Berg, Justin M., Wrzesniewski, Amy, Dutton, Jane E.·2010·Journal of Organizational Behavior
DOI 10.1002/job.645
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We utilize a qualitative study of 33 employees in for‐profit and non‐profit organizations to elaborate theory on job crafting. We specifically focus on how employees at different ranks describe perceiving and adapting to challenges in the execution of job crafting. Elaborating the challenges employees perceive in job crafting and their responses to them details the adaptive action that may be necessary for job crafting to occur. Specifically, our findings suggest that higher‐rank employees tend to see the challenges they face in job crafting as located in their own expectations of how they and others should spend their time, while lower‐rank employees tend to see their challenges as located in their prescribed jobs and others' expectations of them. The nature of each group's perceived challenges is related to the adaptive moves that they make to overcome them, such that higher‐rank employees adapt their own expectations and behaviors to make do with perceived opportunities to job craft at work, while lower‐rank employees adapt others' expectations and behaviors to create opportunities to job craft. Our elaborated theory presents a socially embedded account of job crafting as a proactive and adaptive process that is shaped by employees' structural location in the organization. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/job.645

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

1 of 37 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The higher-rank and lower-rank groups described different kinds of adaptive moves to overcome the challenges they perceived in job crafting.

    “revealed that the higher-and lower-rank groups described employing different kinds of responses, which we call ''adaptive moves,'' to help them overcome the challenges they perceived in job crafting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Dividing participants into two groups according to hierarchical rank would allow comparison of how employees with relatively higher or lower levels of formal autonomy and power describe their perceptions and experiences of job crafting.
  • Findingown data

    The higher-rank and lower-rank groups from both organizations described the same forms of job crafting, perceived challenges, and adaptive moves as the corresponding rank group in the other organization.

    “Because the higher-and lower-rank groups from both organizations described the same forms of job crafting, perceived challenges, and adaptive moves as the corresponding group in the other organization (either higher-or lower-rank), we combined the data across sites”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Dividing participants into two groups according to hierarchical rank would allow comparison of how employees with relatively higher or lower levels of formal autonomy and power describe their perceptions and experiences of job crafting.
  • Findingown data

    Each of the 33 participants described at least two instances of job crafting.

    “Each of the 33 participants described at least two instances of job crafting”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    At both organizations, the higher-rank and lower-rank groups described the same six forms of job crafting.

    “we found that the higher-and lower-rank groups at both organizations described the same set of six job crafting forms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Dividing participants into two groups according to hierarchical rank would allow comparison of how employees with relatively higher or lower levels of formal autonomy and power describe their perceptions and experiences of job crafting.
  • Findingown data

    More than 75% of participants described at least one adaptive move.

    “over 75% of the participants described at least one adaptive move.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 29
  • May combine two claims. 32

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Job crafting is a common and widespread phenomenon.

    “Despite this evidence that job crafting is a common and widespread phenomenon”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Leana, Appelbaum, & Shevchuk, in press

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Ghitulescu, 2007
    • cites Caza, 2007

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both rank groups described challenges in job crafting tied to obligations from formal job designs and to the need for others to accommodate their crafting, but the groups described these challenges differently.

    “which revealed that the higher-and lower-rank groups both discussed facing challenges in job crafting that are related to the kinds of obligations prescribed by their formal job designs and the need for others to accommodate their job crafting, but that the two groups described these challenges differently.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Dividing participants into two groups according to hierarchical rank would allow comparison of how employees with relatively higher or lower levels of formal autonomy and power describe their perceptions and experiences of job crafting.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingreasoning

    Combining data across sites produced a higher-rank group of 16 participants and a lower-rank group of 17 participants.

    “we combined the data across sites to form two groups-a higher-rank group of 16 participants from both organizations and a lower-rank group of 17 participants from both organizations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The findings show six proactive job crafting efforts described by both higher-rank and lower-rank participants, and these map onto Wrzesniewski and Dutton's job crafting framework.

    “Our findings reveal a set of six different proactive job crafting efforts described by both higher-and lower-rank participants that map onto Wrzesniewski and Dutton's (2001) framework of job crafting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) source
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Dividing participants into two groups according to hierarchical rank would allow comparison of how employees with relatively higher or lower levels of formal autonomy and power describe their perceptions and experiences of job crafting.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The analysis identified 166 accounts of job crafting from the interview data.

    “which resulted in the identification of 166 accounts of job crafting.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The study found that employees at both higher and lower ranks reported two types of job-crafting challenges: obligations linked to their job designs and the need for others to support or accommodate their crafting intentions.

    “Our findings reveal that higher-and lower-rank participants both described challenges stemming from the obligations that they associate with their job designs as well as the need to get others to comply with or accommodate their job crafting intentions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting perceptions and experiences.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Higher-rank employees generally saw job-crafting challenges as arising from their own expectations about time use for themselves and others, while lower-rank employees generally felt constrained by others' expectations.

    “In general, the higher-rank group described challenges as stemming from their own expectations of how they and others should spend time at work, whereas the lower-rank group described feeling limited by expectations imposed on them by others.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting perceptions and experiences.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Higher-rank employees saw the challenge as arising from their own expectations about others' time use, which made them avoid encroaching and reduced their perceived chance of getting others to support their crafting.

    “These examples illustrate how higher-rank participants described this challenge as rooted in their own expectations of how others should be spending their time and energy at work-which made them concerned about not encroaching on others' roles and responsibilities-thus limiting their perceived opportunity to get others to comply with or accommodate their job crafting intentions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting perceptions and experiences.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Higher-rank employees reported concern about intruding on others' roles and responsibilities, whereas lower-rank employees reported lacking power to get others to support their job crafting.

    “Higher-rank participants tended to describe the challenge of not encroaching on others' roles and responsibilities-in a basic sense, they were concerned about the possibility of ''stepping on others' toes,'' while lower-rank participants tended to describe lacking the power to get others to enable their job crafting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting perceptions and experiences.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Higher-rank participants were more self-focused and inwardly-directed, while lower-rank participants were more other-focused and outwardly-directed in how they made sense of challenges and adapted.

    “In sum, while making sense of the ways they adapted to their perceived challenges, higher-rank participants were more self-focused and inwardly-directed, describing challenges rooted in their own expectations and adaptive moves aimed at changing their own expectations and behaviors to make do with the opportunities to job craft that they perceived within their work environments.”
    • Also stated in: § Building trust to gain opportunities to job craft · plain
      “In contrast, lower-rank participants were more other-focused and outwardly-directed, describing challenges rooted in the imposition caused by others' expectations and adaptive moves aimed at changing others' expectations and behaviors to shape their work environments in ways that create opportunity to job craft.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting experiences and the challenges they faced.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Lower-rank employees described directing their proactive crafting strategically to gain others' support, which increased their job-crafting opportunity.

    “these three adaptive moves represent the ways in which lower-rank participants described strategically directing their proactive job crafting efforts-in response to the challenges and opportunities they perceived in their environments-to help them garner others' support for their job crafting intentions, thus creating greater opportunity to job craft.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting perceptions and experiences.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants did not describe task and relational crafting as mutually exclusive; they often described them as occurring together or giving rise to one another.

    “We found that participants did not describe task and relational crafting as mutually exclusive occurrences; on the contrary, they often described task and relational crafting as occurring in conjunction with or giving rise to one another”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Higher-rank employees are more likely to settle with the job crafting opportunities they perceive as possible, while lower-rank employees are more likely to alter their environments through purposeful efforts to adjust others' expectations and behaviors to create and act upon opportunities.

    “our results suggest that higher-rank employees are more likely to simply ''settle'' with the opportunities to job craft that they perceive as possible at work (as reflected in their strategy to sometimes simply take work home), while the lowerrank employees are more likely to take a different approach, in which they alter their environments through purposeful efforts to adjust others' expectations”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting experiences and the challenges they faced.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Few participants connected a challenge directly to cognitive crafting, but some who did cognitive crafting described those challenges as part of aligning task and relationship crafting with a reframed perception.

    “although participants rarely associated a challenge directly with cognitive crafting, those who engaged in cognitive crafting occasionally described these challenges in crafting their tasks and relationships to align with their reframed perception”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting perceptions and experiences.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Higher-rank employees used adaptive moves that altered their own expectations and behavior to cope with limited perceived crafting opportunity, while lower-rank employees used moves that altered others' expectations and behavior to create more opportunity.

    “higher-rank participants described adaptive moves that changed their own expectations and behaviors to make do with the limited opportunity to job craft that they believed they had at work.”
    • Also stated in: § Adaptive moves in response to perceived challenges in job crafting · plain
      “lower-rank participants described adaptive moves that changed others' expectations and behaviors to create more opportunity to job craft.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting perceptions and experiences.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Higher-rank participants said their job designs let them craft to some extent but not as much as they wanted, because deciding how to spend time and energy on required goals constrained them.

    “Higher-rank participants tended to talk about how the nature of their job designs allowed them to job craft to a certain extent, but not to the degree they would like, because they felt constrained by the responsibility of deciding how to use their time and energy to work toward their prescribed end goals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting perceptions and experiences.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Higher-rank employees reported job designs requiring them to achieve broad outcomes without specifying the means, whereas lower-rank employees reported job designs requiring them to perform assigned tasks in a prescribed manner.

    “Higher-rank participants discussed having job designs that obligated them to ensure certain general outcomes were accomplished but did not prescribe how to go about pursuing those end goals, while lower-rank participants described having job designs that obligated them to perform an assigned set of tasks in a prescribed way.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting perceptions and experiences.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Employee rank was not related to the prevalence or type of proactive job crafting efforts described in the findings.

    “While employee rank was not related to the prevalence or type of proactive job crafting efforts described in our findings”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting experiences and the challenges they faced.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In response to challenges, employees must discern ways to overcome or not overcome the limits they perceive and the obstacles they encounter.

    “In response to such challenges, employees must discern ways to overcome (or not) the limits they perceive and the obstacles they encounter.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    After purposive sampling of groups at different ranks, four names were randomly drawn from each of the five groups and invited to participate.

    “Once our purposive sampling of groups at different ranks was set, we randomly drew four names from each of the five groups and invited them to participate through a request made via email or in person.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Job crafting is a proactive process that is associated with adaptive action.

    “Thus, our study suggests that job crafting is a proactive process that is associated with adaptive action”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting experiences and the challenges they faced.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Both power and autonomy are likely related to employees' experiences of challenges in proactively changing the task, relational, and cognitive boundaries of their jobs.

    “both of which are likely related to their experiences of the challenges they face in proactively changing the task, relational, and cognitive boundaries of their jobs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    Job crafting occurs in the context of employees' prescribed jobs, which are marked by prescribed tasks, expectations, and positions in the organizational hierarchy.

    “job crafting occurs in the context of employees' prescribed jobs, which are marked by prescribed tasks, expectations, and positions in the organizational hierarchy”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The analysis involved iterative coding and discussion until no new themes emerged and a stable set of codes was achieved.

    “We engaged in several iterations of coding and discussion until no new themes emerged and we had a stable set of codes for the different categories of job crafting that each group described (Glaser & Strauss, 1967;Miles & Huberman, 1994).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Glaser & Strauss, 1967

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Miles & Huberman, 1994

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Wrzesniewski and Dutton theorize that contextual factors such as task interdependence and closeness of monitoring and supervision may limit employees' perceived opportunities to craft their jobs.

    “Indeed, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) theorize that contextual factors may limit employees' perceived opportunities to craft their jobs, including, for example, task interdependence and closeness of monitoring and supervision.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Little theory has been developed around job crafting as a form of proactivity, especially how employees perceive and adapt to the challenges involved in job crafting.

    “little theory has been developed around this form of proactivity, particularly how employees perceive and adapt to the inevitable challenges involved in job crafting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Proactive efforts may both require and trigger adaptive efforts, and vice-versa.

    “our findings shed light on their interplay, suggesting that proactive efforts may both require and trigger adaptive efforts and vice-versa.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting experiences and the challenges they faced.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The division of the five manufacturing groups into two rank groups was determined through conversations with the Vice President of Human Resources, official job descriptions, and approximately 10 hours of workplace observation.

    “we had several conversations with the Vice President of Human Resources, used official documents of the participants' formal job descriptions, and engaged in approximately 10 hours of observation of employees at work in order to determine a division of the five groups into two groups according to rank.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    Proactive behaviors may require more or less adaptive effort depending on how counter-normative they are.

    “the ''against the grain'' nature of job crafting-which often runs counter to firmly established norms, expectations, and scripts in the job (Gioia & Poole, 1984)-seems to hint that proactive behaviors may require more or less adaptive efforts depending on how counter-normative they are.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gioia & Poole, 1984

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting experiences and the challenges they faced.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    To avoid differences in formal autonomy and power within the same group, employees within each of the five manufacturing groups shared the same job title, job description, and hierarchical rank.

    “To avoid differences in levels of formal autonomy and power within the same group, we made sure that employees within each of the five groups shared the same job title, job description, and hierarchical rank with all the other members in the group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Of the original 20 invitations, two declined, and replacements were drawn and both accepted.

    “Of these original 20 invitations, two declined, so we drew replacements and they both accepted.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The authors returned to the transcripts to check that no relevant codes had been missed.

    “Finally, we went back through the transcripts to make sure no relevant codes were missed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The three types of job crafting-task, relational, and cognitive-do not operate in isolation but are interrelated and can trigger or be triggered by one another.

    “In sum, our findings provide initial evidence that the three different types of job crafting-task, relational, and cognitive-despite occurring in different domains, do not operate in isolation, but rather, are interrelated and can trigger or be triggered by one another.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Compounders, maintenance technicians, and customer service employees were placed in the lower-rank group because they had considerably less formal autonomy and power than marketing brand managers and supervisors, who were placed in the higher-rank group.

    “We placed the compounders, maintenance technicians, and customer service employees in the lower-rank group (n ¼ 12), because they had considerably less formal autonomy and power in how and when they conduct their work as a result of being situated lower in the organizational hierarchy than marketing brand managers and supervisors, who we placed in the higher-rank group (n ¼ 8).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Dividing participants into two groups according to hierarchical rank would allow comparison of how employees with relatively higher or lower levels of formal autonomy and power describe their perceptions and experiences of job crafting.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Job crafting theory assumes that if opportunities are present, employees proactively seize them to craft their jobs.

    “In addition, job crafting theory makes the assumption that if the opportunities are present, employees proactively seize them to craft their jobs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The study used theoretical sampling within each site to include a variety of occupations and jobs and higher- or lower-rank positions, facilitating maximum variation on formal autonomy and power.

    “we used theoretical sampling procedures within each site to ensure that our sample at both sites included participants in a variety of occupations and jobs who held positions of relatively higher or lower rank in an effort to facilitate maximum variation (Miles & Huberman, 1994) on employees' levels of formal autonomy and power.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Miles & Huberman, 1994

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Lower-rank jobs being more bounded makes it easier to see how to use time for job crafting while fulfilling obligations, while higher-rank jobs being less bounded makes it less clear how to allocate time and energy to job crafting while achieving end goals.

    “This may be due to lower-rank employees' jobs being more bounded in nature, making it easier to see how and when they can use their time on job crafting and still fulfill their prescribed obligations, while higher-rank employees' jobs are less bounded, making it less clear how they can allocate time and energy to job crafting and still achieve their prescribed end goals (see Merton, 1940).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Merton, 1940 source
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting experiences and the challenges they faced.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Interdependence experienced by employees at different ranks may further explain why higher- and lower-rank employees perceive and adapt to job crafting challenges differently.

    “In addition to the nature of job responsibilities, the interdependence experienced by employees at different ranks may further explain why higher-and lower-rank employees perceive and adapt to challenges in job crafting differently.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting experiences and the challenges they faced.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The research did not aim to pinpoint the exact moments when employees face challenges; instead, it recorded challenges that reflected a broad sense of their capacity to craft their jobs or that arose while they attempted to do so.

    “Our research did not focus on locating precisely when employees encounter challenges, instead capturing challenges that marked a general sense of how much they could job craft or were present as they tried to craft their jobs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Interdependence and independence are critical variables that alter the autonomy and influence of those with power.

    “Classic research from Whyte (1943) and more recent work from Lee and Tiedens (2001) suggest that interdependence and independence are critical variables that alter the autonomy and influence of those with power.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Whyte, 1943

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Lee and Tiedens, 2001 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    If employees with more power perceive high interdependence with others as they pursue job crafting, they may respond as the higher-rank employees did, construing challenges as insurmountable and pursuing adaptive moves aimed at their own work more than that of others.

    “Thus, if employees with more power perceive that they are highly interdependent with others as they pursue job crafting, they may respond as the higher-rank employees we studied-construing the challenges they face as fairly insurmountable and thus pursuing adaptive moves aimed at their own work more than that of others.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting experiences and the challenges they faced.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Employees are increasingly expected to find proactive ways to meet organizational objectives, and managers rely on employee initiative to job craft.

    “At a time when employees are increasingly expected to find proactive ways to meet organizational objectives and contribute the best of their talents to their organizations, managers are more likely than ever to rely on the initiative employees take to job craft (e.g., Crant, 2000;Grant & Ashford, 2008;Frese & Fay, 2001;Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Crant, 2000 source
    • cites Grant & Ashford, 2008 source
    • cites Frese & Fay, 2001 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study did not directly address the motivations for and outcomes of job crafting theorized by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001).

    “On a related note, our study did not directly address the motivations for and outcomes of job crafting theorized by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), leaving the door open for future research on the antecedents and consequences of job crafting.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001 source
    • Rests on an assumption: The two organizations studied are sufficiently representative to draw conclusions about higher versus lower rank differences in job crafting.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Asking others to do more to help is more difficult than securing cooperation to do more oneself.

    “It may be that job crafting is another domain in which asking others to do more to help is more difficult than securing cooperation to do more oneself (Flynn & Bohns Lake, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Flynn & Bohns Lake, 2008 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study only studied two organizations and used rank as a proxy for comparing job crafting across two levels of formal autonomy and power.

    “First, we only studied two organizations and used rank as a proxy for comparing job crafting across two levels of formal autonomy and power.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two organizations studied are sufficiently representative to draw conclusions about higher versus lower rank differences in job crafting.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Higher-rank employees may feel more acutely the constraint of being in the public organizational eye and pay more attention to meanings and messages embedded in their words and behaviors.

    “As a result, one might expect that employees at higher ranks feel more acutely the constraint of being in the ''public organizational eye,'' and thus pay more attention to the meanings and messages embedded in their words and behaviors (Weick, 1995).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Weick, 1995

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting experiences and the challenges they faced.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Organizations may find there is more they can offer to facilitate job crafting at work.

    “organizations may find that there is more they can offer to facilitate this form of proactivity at work.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting experiences and the challenges they faced.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Informal sources of autonomy and power, as well as other contextual factors like interdependence, performance expectations, or job characteristics, may also play an important role in job crafting.

    “However, informal sources of autonomy and power, as well as other contextual factors like interdependence, performance expectations, or job characteristics, may also play an important role in job crafting.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting experiences and the challenges they faced.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Employees with relatively higher self-evaluations, self-efficacy, and internal loci of control tend to self-select, and be selected for, higher-rank positions.

    “as employees with relatively higher self-evaluations, self-efficacy, and internal loci of control tend to self-select, and be selected for, higherrank positions (Judge & Hurst, 2008;Sidanius et al., 2004).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Judge & Hurst, 2008 source
    • cites Sidanius et al., 2004 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study conducted single interviews with participants and was not able to study how they described carrying out job crafting over time.

    “Second, we conducted single interviews with our participants and were not able to study how they described carrying out job crafting over time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two organizations studied are sufficiently representative to draw conclusions about higher versus lower rank differences in job crafting.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Job crafting may also be done collectively, with work groups jointly reshaping the task and relational boundaries of their jobs.

    “Leana et al. (in press) have established that job crafting can also be a collective undertaking, in which work groups collaboratively redraw the task and relational boundaries of the job.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Leana et al. (in press)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Due to the study's focus on how context shapes the way employees make sense of job crafting, the study may have overlooked dispositional factors that influence this process.

    “Third, due to our study's focus on how context shapes the way employees make sense of job crafting, we may have overlooked dispositional factors that influence this process.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The two organizations studied are sufficiently representative to draw conclusions about higher versus lower rank differences in job crafting.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Because participants' retrospective accounts were collected at one point in time, some descriptions classified as job crafting may have actually been the result of top-down decisions not mentioned in the interview and therefore should not have qualified as proactive job crafting.

    “Also, since we could only collect participants' retrospective accounts at one point in time, it is possible that some of the descriptions that we classified as job crafting may have actually been the result of top-down decisions not mentioned in the interview and therefore should not have qualified as proactive job crafting.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting experiences and the challenges they faced.
53 of 53

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Dividing participants into two groups according to hierarchical rank would allow comparison of how employees with relatively higher or lower levels of formal autonomy and power describe their perceptions and experiences of job crafting.

    “we assumed that dividing participants into two groups according to hierarchical rank would allow comparison of how employees with relatively higher or lower levels of formal autonomy and power in their organizations describe perceptions and experiences of job crafting.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting perceptions and experiences.

    “By examining participants' accounts of their perceptions and experiences that they associate with carrying out job crafting, our findings uncovered six different adaptive moves as integral parts of the job crafting process.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants' retrospective accounts accurately reflect their job crafting experiences and the challenges they faced.

    “since we could only collect participants' retrospective accounts at one point in time, it is possible that some of the descriptions that we classified as job crafting may have actually been the result of top-down decisions not mentioned in the interview”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The two organizations studied are sufficiently representative to draw conclusions about higher versus lower rank differences in job crafting.

    “First, we only studied two organizations and used rank as a proxy for comparing job crafting across two levels of formal autonomy and power.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The adaptive moves described by participants actually helped them create job crafting opportunities.

    “According to her account, this adaptive move has helped her create opportunities to job craft”
5 of 5

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Director's organization is identified differently

    Minor

    The narrative places this director at the manufacturing company, but the attribution to the example identifies her as a director at the non-profit organization.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hackman J. R., 1980, Work redesign

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Berg, J. M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Wrzesniewski, Amy
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Organizational Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-01-22
Volume
31
Issue
2-3
Pages
158-186
ISSN
  • 0894-3796 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1379
DOI
10.1002/job.645
OpenAlex
W2145333205
Cited by
890
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 110 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 27
FWCI
59.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Organizational Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Innovative Education and Learning Practices
Keywords
job crafting, perceived challenge, adaptive action, proactive behavior, organizational structure, social embeddedness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-30.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-30.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review