Job crafting

Drs. S.G. Rickli

January 2010

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D.

-1-

Abstract In this paper, an overview is given of a concept regarding the relation between organization members and their working environment. The concept is job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Wrzesniewski, Dutton & Debebe, 2003), and represents a paradigm shift in management theory from a passive attitude-bearing worker to an (en)active worker who, through reflection and interaction, crafts the images of his or her job, role and self in organizational contexts. Job crafting can bring numerous positive outcomes, including engagement, job satisfaction, resilience, and thriving. This paper introduces the core ideas of job crafting theory by defining it, describing why it is important, summarizing key research findings, and exploring what it means for employees, managers, and organizations. Finally, job crafting will be related to other concepts, including self-management, self-directed learning, employability and work stress.

A dominant perspective today is the idea of a worker who evaluates the situation she/he is in, having all kinds of opinions and feelings, which may be measured, for example, through operationalizations of organizational support, job satisfaction and dimensions of commitment. Surveys are used to audit the state, antecedents, correlates and consequences of these perceptions, and management is informed about the proper ways of dealing with these states of mind. One has to note that this is a rather passive view on employees, who are assumed to have their reactive thoughts about the situation they find themselves in. It is reasonable to assume that employees working in the same line of work within the same organization may differ in their work orientation, as the passive evaluation of the work has several attitudinal outcomes. Wrzesniewski (1997) provides evidence for this idea by showing that most people see their work as either a job (focus on financial rewards and necessity rather than pleasure or fulfillment), a career (focus on advancement), or a calling (focus on enjoyment of fulfilling,

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D.

-2-

socially useful work). As research on turnover has shown, if people are dissatisfied with their jobs and perceive a low fit with their organization (e.g. Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman & Johnson, 2005), they will leave for a more suitable place. Job dissatisfaction also appears to be related to other withdrawal behaviors, including lateness, unionization, grievances, drug abuse, and decision to retire. Hulin and his colleagues (1985) have argued that these individual withdrawal behaviors are all manifestations of job adaptation. Nicholson (1984) identified the process of role innovation, through which job-holders introduce new behaviors into pre-existing roles. Individuals adjust to their work roles through either personal development or role development. Wrzesniewski and her colleagues (2001, 2003) propose that there is another way of dealing with this situation apart from leaving the environment: one can enact it actively and change the tasks or the relationships in their work by crafting a job. This is thought provoking, because here the worker is perceived as an active individual who can and may change the task or relational boundaries of their work, instead of just taking the tasks they are assigned to and having certain feelings about it. The work tasks and interaction that compose the daily lives of employees are then only the raw materials that are the input for the crafting activities of employees. Wrzesniewski and his colleagues (2001, 2003) proposed three ways how individuals locally adapt their jobs in ways that create and sustain a viable definition of the work they do and who they are at work. The first way refers to changing the task boundaries of a job in number, scope or type of tasks. By changing the scope of tasks, taking more or less tasks, or changing the type of work, one can shape a job towards the ideal one has about a job. Different personal interests lead to different focuses towards work and someone can shape the work accordingly. The second way to craft a job is by changing the amount and/or the quality of social interaction with other people encountered in the job. One can choose a pattern of relationship and priority for certain meetings may shape the job and the outcome of the job.

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D.

-3-

Furthermore, Luthans (1988) showed that different patterns of relationships at work lead to different results in effectiveness and success. Third, job crafters can cognitively change their jobs by altering how they perceive tasks or thinking about the tasks involved in their job as a collective whole as opposed to a set of separate tasks. This is a sense making process and has to do with an awareness of the broader context in which they work. Knowing how the practical deeds of a specific job fit in the whole process helps to commit an employee to the job. This idea is explored further in the importance of interactions at work and how these interactions shape the meaning of work through sense making and job crafting (Wrzesniewski et al., 2003). The importance of job crafting is that job crafting essentially changes the direction of the relationship between jobs and motivation: instead of the design of the job eliciting attitudes and motivation, the opportunity and motivation to craft elicit job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). The premise of this idea is that every single employee has latitude to define and enact his or her job. The degrees of freedom that employees have in their jobs to actually craft it are determined by the level of task interdependence and the closeness of monitoring and supervision by management. The lower the level of interdependence and the more freedom management gives to an employee, the more open space is available for crafting and enacting of a job. This idea is in line with the trend, which is seen by these authors as a new development, that employees are increasingly being treated as free agents left to shape their own work experiences and career trajectories (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Job design that include a high degree of autonomy and discretion afford greater opportunity to craft (Black & Ashford, 1995), but it seems that even the most rigid or constrained job designs allow for some crafting. In other words, job crafting can happen whether formally sanctioned by managers or not.

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D.

-4-

Research findings Although researchers theories of this process differ slightly from one another, most models involve three general stages. First employees are motivated to craft their jobs by one or more factors. Second, employees identify the crafting oppurtunities available to them and enact one or more ways of crafting their jobs. Third, these crafting techniques are associated with outcomes for the job crafter. In this paragraph, five different lines of research from the emerging literature on job crafting will be summarized. The first theory by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) suggests that employees do not always enact the job descriptions that are formally assigned to them, but instead, actively shape and utilize their jobs to fit to their needs, values, and preferences. Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) call attention to the efforts employees make to craft their jobs and the importance of recognizing these actions when considering employees job designs. Wrzesniewski and Duttons theory states that employees craft their jobs when they are motivated to change their views of the meaning of their work, their work identities, or both. So according to this theory, the primary outcomes of job crafting are altered perceptions of the meaning of work and ones identity at work. Grant and his colleagues (2007b) revealed that employees in a variety of service occupations actively craft their interactions with clients in order to feel like their work is making a greater and more meaningful impact. Grant and his colleagues (2007a) described four main techniques that employees use to accomplish this: employees expand their roles beyond the basis functions of their jobs, employees tailor their services to fit clients specific preferences, employees reprimand or avoid unpleasant clients and employees select meaningful contexts in which to conduct their work. Other research by Grant (2007a) demonstrates that employees positively interacting with the people who benefit from their efforts. Furthermore, they can provide feedback about the impact and value of their jobs,

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D.

-5-

significantly enhancing their motivation and performance. Accordingly, job crafting may be a means of creating and sustaining useful and energizing relationships with the clients and other individuals who are connected to the work in some way. The third contribution is from a study by Berg, Grant, and Johnson (2008). They examined how people respond when they have a continued passion for an occupation other than the one they are actually working in. Findings reveal three ways in which individuals craft their actual jobs create opportunities for fulfilling their passion for a different occupation: giving more attention, time, and energy to tasks related to ones passion, taking on additional tasks that are related to ones passion and reframing the social purpose of ones work to align with ones passion. These techniques are often associated with enjoyable and meaningful experiences but occasionally have the unintended side effects of additional stress and intermittent regret. The fourth contribution by Lyons (2006) showed that self-image, perceived control, and readiness to change correlated positively and significantly with amount and characteristics of job crafting behavior. The fifth study (Berg, Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2009) suggests that job crafting is more complex than previously suggested by the job crafting literature. Their findings suggest that employees perceptions of the freedom they have, to adapt job crafting, do not necessarily reflect their level of formally endowed autonomy and power. Rather, their results suggest that employees at lower ranks occupy positions in which they find it relatively easier to adapt their work environments to create more opportunities to job craft, while higher-rank employees feel more constrained despite being in positions of greater formal autonomy and power.

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D.

-6-

Practical implications In enacted properly, job crafting is a way for employees to improve their lives at work in several important ways, as well as make valuable contributions to the workplace. Fundamentally, job crafting is about resourcefulness. A job crafting perspective implies that the tasks and interpersonal relationships that make up a job are a flexible set of building blocks that can be reorganized, restructured, and reframed to construct a customized job. These buildings blocks expose employees to a variety of resources-people, technology, raw materials, etc., that can be utilized when job crafting. The success of a job crafter may depend largely on his or her ability to take advantage of the resources at hand (Berg et al., 2009). Since job crafting has the capacity to positively influence individual and organizational performance, managers may want to create a context that fosters resourceful job crafting. This starts with designing jobs that leave room for crafting, so employees can tailor their jobs to fit their motives, strengths, and passions, while at the same time meeting relevant organizational goals. A highly restrictive job design may limit employees from positively changing the way they perform tasks, taking on additional tasks, altering their interactions with others, or viewing their jobs in a different way. Cognitive crafting, because it transpires in the mind of the crafter, may be less limited by prescribed job design than behavioral crafting (Berg et al., 2009). However, the different crafting forms are not mutually exclusive and often operate in conjunction with, reinforce, and give rise to one another. Job crafting is not always positive. It has the potential to cause harm if the crafting goes against organizational goals or produces negative side effects. Even when the crafting is beneficial for the individual job crafter, it still may be harmful to the overall organization. So in addition to designing jobs that allow an employees crafting, managers should create and sustain a work context that fosters beneficial job crafting. This means building a shared understanding that job crafting is acceptable and even encouraged as long as it aligns with

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D.

-7-

organizational goals. To help establish such a norm, managers can model positive job crafting. However, job crafting can in some instances occur outside of managers awareness, which may be especially likely and costly if the crafting is harmful to the organization. Maintaining open lines of communication with employees about how they would like to craft their jobs and whether it would be beneficial for the organization may help managers avoid detrimental crafting and promote favorable crafting. Since the resourcefulness involved in job crafting is derived from the job crafters themselves rather than given to them by some outside source, trust can play a major role in fostering or restricting job crafting. Employees may be less resourceful job crafters if they do not feel trusted to change the status quo. Conversely, trusting relationships between employees and managers may help unlock and even stimulate positive job crafting, as trust may help employees feel more comfortable taking risks that could potentially lead to beneficial outcomes (Berg et al., 2009).

Related concepts The first concept that van be related to job crafting is the process of role innovation, through which job-holders introduce new behaviors into pre-existing roles. Nicholson (1984) proposed the theory of work role transitions, which argues that individuals adjust to their work roles through either personal development (in which individuals change themselves by altering their frame of reference, values, or identity to fit the role demands), or role development (in which individuals proactively try to change the role requirements so that they better match their needs, abilities, and skills). Nicholson (1984) went further and suggested that role development may include individual-initiated changes in task objectives, methods, materials, scheduling, and in the interpersonal relationships integral to role performance, and noted that the changes can be positive, but also destructive. Thus, individuals who role innovate

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D.

-8-

personalize or individualize the way a role is enacted to suit ones judgment and idiosyncrasies and this process is not necessarily limited to the initial phase when individuals take a new role. Nicholson (1984) noted that role development has the potential to increase individual satisfaction (derived from a sense of ones own capacity for innovation and reform) and learning on the job (through experimentation, feedback, and change). Job crafting theory resembles role innovation theory in that there is an assumption that employees can act upon the job to create a better fit. However, as a lens on employee behavior, role innovation theory restricts individuals actions on the job to reactive, problem-solving behaviors and fails to develop the individual focus. Rather than an emphasis on problem solving, in job crafting theory there is an emphasis on the proactive changes employees make in the boundaries of their work to alter their identity or meaning of the work. Nevertheless, job crafting should be fostered by a sense of discretion that employees have in what they do in their jobs and how they do their jobs (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), which offers more degrees of freedom in how individuals go about performing their jobs. In addition, discretion in work determines the scope of role innovation, because people having jobs characterized by high levels of freedom over work (Nicholson, 1984). The second concept that can be related to job crafting is career self-management provided by King (2004). She showed three types of career self-managing behaviour as adaptive responses to career or job development tasks: positioning, influence and boundary management. Positioning describes that an employee makes sure that he or she has the contacts, skills and experiences to achieve desired outcomes. The second way of job crafting, changing the amount and/or the quality of social interaction with other people encountered in the job, correspondents with the different types of positioning, namely: strategic choice of mobility opportunity, strategic investment in human capital and active network development. The first way of job crafting, changing the task boundaries of a job in number, scope

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D.

-9-

or type of tasks, is in line with the last type of positioning: job convent innovation (development of substantive changes in methods or procedures). Furthermore, the first way of job crafting is in line with boundary management, where an employee balances the demands of work and non work domains. Determinants of behaviour for self-management employees, as well as job crafters, are selfefficacy, desire for control and career anchors. Furthermore, if workers make an effective response (perceptions of control over the job or career) to their job demands he or she will experience job satisfaction and job success. In conclusion, job crafters use self-management, by eliminating thwarting conditions or career/job barriers (vocational adjustment), to increase their career- or job performance, whereas they are likely to us use one of these workadjustment self-management mechanisms: control or manipulation (changing the environment) and compromise (changing self and the environment). The third concept that can be associated with job crafting is an approach provided by McCauley and Hezlett (2001) and is called self-directed learning. This involves self-initiated, deliberate, sustained pursuit of formal and informal learning activities with the goal of increasing job-relevant knowledge and skills. Focus on ascertaining the personal and situational variables that determine participation in development activity. This concept is in line with job crafting, because an employee is seen as an (en)active worker who, through reflection and interaction, crafts the images of his or her job, role and self in organizational contexts. Furthermore, Londen en Smither (1999) provided necessary components of individual development: changes in the environment which create a gap between the employees capabilities and current or future job requirements, the individuals ability to recognize this gap, the motivation and ability to close this gap and opportunities and support for application of new knowledge and skills. This is comparable to the job crafting process,

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D. -

- 10

because a job crafter actively changes the task boundaries of a job and changes the amount and/or the quality of social interaction to fit the job better (closing the gap). The fourth concept that can be related to job crafting is employability (Fugate, Kinicki & Ashfort, 2004; McQuaid & Lindsay, 2005). Employability is a psycho-social construct that embodies individual characteristics that foster adaptive cognition, behavior, and affect, and enhance the individual-work interface. Employability, comparable to job crafting, is conceptualized as a form of work specific active adaptability that enables workers to identify and realize career opportunities. McQuaid and Lindsay (2005) showed that employee should increase individual factors (employability skills and attributes, demographic characteristics, health and well-being, job seeking and adaptability and mobility), personal circumstances (household circumstances, work culture and access to resources) and external factors (demand factors and enabling support factors) to enhance employability. Fugate and his colleagues (2004) showed that employability is the sum of career identity (representation of often diverse and diffuse career experiences and aspirations), personal adaptability (willingness and opportunity to change personal factors) and social and human capital (the goodwill inherent in social networks and the factors that influence a persons career advancement variables). These concepts of employability relates to job crafting, because changing the task boundaries is in line with increasing individual factors, personal circumstances and adaptability, whereas changing the amount and/or quality of social interaction is in line with increasing external factors and social and human capital. Finally, career identity correspondents with the third way of job crafting, namely: altering how an employee perceives and thinks about his job. In conclusion, job crafters use these concepts of employability in their process to actively craft the images of their job, role and self in the organizational context, which makes them very employable.

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D. -

- 11

The fifth concept that can be related to job crafting is job adaption (Hulin, 1985). Hulin, Roznowski, and Hachiya (1985) showed that dissatisfaction employees are more likely to quit their jobs or be absent that satisfied employees, whereas job satisfaction shows correlations with turnover and absenteeism as well. Job dissatisfaction also appears to be related to other withdrawal behaviors, including lateness, unionization, grievances, drug abuse, and decision to retire. Hulin and his colleagues (1985) have argued that these individual withdrawal behaviors are all manifestations of job adaptation and have proposed that these individual behaviors be grouped together. Hanisch and Hulin (1990) empirically identified two types of organizational withdrawal behaviors: job and work withdrawal. Job withdrawal refers to a set of behaviors that dissatisfied individuals enact to avoid the work situations; they are behaviors designed to allow avoidance of participation in dissatisfying work situations (Hulin, 1991). Variables such as desire to retire or resign, ease of quitting and turnover intentions define job withdrawal behaviors. Work withdrawal refers to behaviors dissatisfied individuals use to avoid aspects of their specific work-role or minimizing the time spent on their specific work tasks while maintaining their current organizational and workrole memberships (Hanisch & Hulin, 1991). Variables such as unfavorable job behaviors, lateness and absenteeism define work withdrawal behaviours. Job crafting is a concept that can prevent job adaptation, because a job crafter does not avoid work situations or aspects of their work-roles, but actively changes the task or relational boundaries of their work. Because job crafting will enhance job fit and satisfaction is it likely that job crafters experience low job adaptation. Finally, job crafting can be associated with work stress. Sulsky and Smith (2005) provided information to cope with stress (remove/modify the stressor, perceive the situation differently or manage the consequences of stress), whereas job crafter use these techniques already. By changing the task boundaries of a job in number, scope or type of tasks, by

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D. -

- 12

changing the amount and/or the quality of social interaction with other people encountered in the job and by altering how they perceive tasks or thinking about the tasks involved in their job as a collective whole as opposed to a set of separate tasks, job stressors will be eliminated. What this means in relation to stress and coping is that the number, scope and type of job tasks and hence the potential stressors we are exposed to may be influenced to a little or a large extent by the way in which we craft our job. In this sense, stressful job characteristics are not just out there but are rather crafted to some extent by our own activities. Additionally, this suggests that stressful job characteristics that arise from dealing with people are to some extent shaped by the way we craft our jobs. From a traditional stress perspective the third approach may be viewed as somehow blaming individuals or holding them responsible for their own stressful experiences (Briner, Harris & Daniels, 2004). Thus, job crafting could increase or reduce the stressful characteristics of that work. However, the key point here is that those characteristics are to some extent shaped by the employee and that traditional views of work stress and coping fail to acknowledge peoples pro-activity and agency in crafting the characteristics of their jobs. In addition, Barker Caza (2007) did a study on how midwives cope with adversity at work. She found that job crafting was an effective coping technique for overcoming difficulties and even helped midwives emerge from their work challenges more resilient than before. Furthermore, Sulsky and Smith (2005) showed two models that can be linked to job crafting: Person-Environment Fit Model and Job demands-Job decision latitude model. The first model tries to explain the correspondence between the environmental demands and the persons ability to cope with it. A lack of fit or correspondence between characteristics of the person (individual needs and abilities) and characteristics of the environment (demands and supplies) can be seen as stress. This model shows two types of fit: supplies-needs and demands-abilities fit. The supplies-needs fit is the fit between needs and values of the person

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D. -

- 13

and the environmental supplies and opportunities to meet them (job crafting outcome), whereas the demands-abilities fit is the fit of the demands of the environment and the abilities of the person to meet those (job crafting outcome). In addition, job crafting leads to a personenvironment fit and therefore decrease the probability of stress. The second model hypothesizes that psychological strain develops from the joint effects of job demands and the decision latitude available to the worker. In this model there is an importance of personal control. When the personal control is positive, it can lead to health related outcomes and when it is negative, it can lead to health related decrements. In the Job demands-Job decision latitude model are job demands and job decision latitude implemented. Job demands are psychological stressors in the work environment (overload) and decision latitude is a measure of discretion in decision making or job control (workers authority to make job related decision and the variety of skills workers use on the job). An employee can reduce strain by increasing the amount of control, which is the case in job crafting. Furthermore, when there is a combination of high demands and high job decision latitude it would be an active job, where there is growth and development (job crafting). Keyes and his colleagues (2002) showed that satisfaction and happiness contribute to the subjective well-being, whereas the thriving and engagement with existential challenges (meaningful job) contribute to psychological well-being. Berg and his colleagues (2009) showed that outcomes of good job crafting are engagement, job satisfaction, resilience, passion, motivation, joy and thriving. In concluding, job crafters are likely to experience an optimal well-being.

Conclusion Taken together, findings from research provide several reasons why employees are compelled to job crafting, how they actually go about crafting their jobs, and what their crafting

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D. -

- 14

ultimately means for them. The process begins when employees are motivated to craft their jobs, which can happen for a variety of reasons, including a desire for a different meaning of work or work identity, human connection, enhanced interactions with the beneficiaries of ones work, fulfilling passion, or coping with adversity. These motivations then compel employees to actively change their job designs by altering the set of tasks formally assigned to them, their relationships with others, or their thoughts about work. Lastly, these changes are linked with outcomes that can be beneficial or costly to the job crafter, such as altered beliefs about the meaning of work, a different identity at work, meaningful or enjoyable experiences, negative experiences of stress or regret, or increased resilience. The job crafting process may continue to cycle in this fashion as the job crafter and his or her work context evolve over time. Finally, to enhance job crafting, organizations should design jobs that allow an employees crafting and managers should create and sustain a work context that fosters beneficial job crafting. Furthermore, managers should build trusting relationships and maintain open lines of communication with employees about how they would like to craft their jobs and whether it would be beneficial for the organization.

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D. -

- 15

References Barker Caza, B. (2007). Experiences of adversity at work: Toward an identity-based theory of resilience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan. Berg, J.M., Grant, A.M., & Johnson, V. (2008). Your callins are calling: Crafting work and leisure in pursuit of unanswered occupational callings. Manusript submitted for publication. University of Michigan and University of North Caronila at Chapel Hill. Berg, J.M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Perceiving and Responding to Challenges in Job Crafting at Different Ranks: When Proactivity Requires Adaptivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Black, S.J.,& Ashford, S.J. (1995). Fitting in or making jobs fit: Factors affecting mode of adjustment for new hires. Human Relations, 48, 421-437. Briner, R.B., Harris, C. & Daniels, K. (2004). How do work stress and coping work? Toward a fundamental theoretical reappraisal. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 32,223-234. Fugate, M., Kinicki, A.J., & Ashfort B.E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 14-38. Grant, A.M. (2007a). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393-417. Grant, A.M., Alexander, K,. Griesbeck, A., Jaffe, A., Kagan, K., Kamin, M., Kemerling, C., Long, S., Nagel, G, Paulding, T, & Swayne, J. (2007b). Crafting task significance in service work: Meaning-making through difference-making. University of Michigan. Grant, A.M., Campbell, E.M., Chen, G., Cottene, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007c). Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 53-67.

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D. -

- 16

Hanisch, K.A., Hulin, C.L. (1990). Job Attitudes and Organizational Withdrawal: An Examination of Retirement and Other Voluntary Withdrawal Behaviours. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 37, 60-78. Hanisch, K.A., Hulin, C.L. (1991). General Attitudes and Organizational Withdrawal: An Evaluation of a Causal Model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 110-128. Hulin, C.L., Roznowski, M., & Hachiya, D. (1985). Alternative opportunities and withdrawal decisions: Empirical and theoretical discrepancies and an integration. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 233-250. Hulin, C.L. (1991). Adaptation, persistence and commitment in organizations. In M.D. Dunette & L..M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 445-505). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Keyes. C.L., Smotkin, D., Ryff, D.A. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 6, 1007-1022. King, Z. (2004). Career self-management: Its nature, causes, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 112-133. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals fit at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342. London, M., & Smither, J. (1999). Career related continuous learning: Defining the construct and mapping the process. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 17, 81121. Luthans, F. (1988). Successful vs. effective real managers. Academy of Management Executive, 11, 127-132. Lyons, P. (2006). Individual competitiveness and spontaneous changes in jobs. Advances in Competitiveness Research, 14(1), 9098.

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D. -

- 17

McCauley, C.D., & Hezlett, S.A. (2001). Individual development in the workplace. In N. Anderson, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology: Vol. 1. Personnel psychology (pp. 313-335). London: Sage. McQuaid, R.W., & Lindsay, C. (2005). The concept of employability. Urban Studies, 42, 197-219. Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 197-191. Sulsky, L. & Smith, C. (2005). Workstress. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C. R., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: Peoples relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 21-33. Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179-201. Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. (2003). Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 93-135.

Copyright 2010 Q.O.L.D. -

- 18