Next Article in Journal
Sustainability and Brand Equity: The Moderating Role of Brand Color and Brand Gender
Next Article in Special Issue
Students’ Perspectives on Entrepreneurship and Its Intention in India
Previous Article in Journal
Industry Structure of Commercial Districts and the Impact of COVID-19
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Perceived Barriers to Career Advancement: A Study with a Sample of Italian University Students
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/su15118899
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Promote Well-Being and Innovation in Sustainable Organizations: The Role of Job Crafting as Mediator

by
Marina Mondo
1,*,
Gianfranco Cicotto
2,
Jessica Pileri
3,
Ester Cois
4 and
Silvia De Simone
1
1
Department of Pedagogy, Psychology and Philosophy, University of Cagliari, 09124 Cagliari, Italy
2
Department of Economy, Mercatorum University, 00186 Rome, Italy
3
Department of Dynamic Clinical Psychology and Health Studies, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
4
Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Cagliari, 09124 Cagliari, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(11), 8899; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118899
Submission received: 22 April 2023 / Revised: 18 May 2023 / Accepted: 29 May 2023 / Published: 31 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Individual and Collective Factors in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Job satisfaction and affective commitment are key factors for individual and organizational well-being. Recent studies have highlighted the importance of job crafting, a behavior capable of generating positive results and innovation in the workplace. Using the JD-R model as the theoretical framework, the present study investigated the relationship between resources and demands, derived from both the work and family domains, and job satisfaction and affective commitment, hypothesizing the mediating role of job crafting. The sample consisted of 413 employees. Results showed that job crafting fully mediated the relationship between work-family conflict and job Satisfaction and partially mediated the relationship between supervisor support and job satisfaction. These results confirm the importance of social support, a good balance between work and family and job crafting in generating job satisfaction and influencing positive outcomes at individual, work and organizational levels.

1. Introduction

Constant transformations globally affect the way we work. Organizations must be increasingly competitive in a market that rewards those who are able to redesign work, express flexibility and keep up with technological innovations [1]. Moreover, competi-tiveness and performance for SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises) can be determined by factors such as experimentation with innovative business models [2,3,4] follow green practices [5,6] or deploy an electronic performance appraisal [7].
In this direction, there has been increased interest at both the entrepreneurial and academic levels in sustainable organizations that have the capacity to address environ-mental, economic, ecologic, technological, and human resource challenges.
Working for sustainability is a challenging process for companies around the world facing performance issues across multiple fronts so-called triple bottom line, namely, business, society and the natural environment [8]. During this change of perspective human resources may play a key role [9,10] however this role is often underestimated [11] and the dialogue between CSR/Sustainability (Corporate Social Responsibility/S) with HRM (Human Resource Management) it’s not always easy [12].
In this scenario is essential that workers can maintain good and constant levels of health and well-being throughout their working life [13] and organizations are called to implement primary prevention processes [14]. The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work [15] defines workplace innovation as necessary and strategic to produce improvements in organizations both in organizational performance and in improving the quality of working life as well as the objectives proposed by the United Nations [16] highlight the importance of global growth and sustainable development. So, is essential the ability to adapt and invent new ways of working to beneficial of a sustainability goal [17].
This principle is directly related to the organizations and processes that foster such development as job crafting [14,18]. Employees can contribute to this innovation through proactive behaviors and modern organizations must encourage proactivity of employees who must be able to create and maintain a healthy and motivating work environment [19,20,21]. In other words, it is possible to say that “organizations and their employees can become more sustainable through job creation” [22] (p. 50).
To achieve these goals, organizations must change the way work is designed and embrace a bottom-up approach. Change must start with employees who must play an active role in changing aspects of their work and achieving greater levels of job satisfaction. Recent studies have highlighted the importance of job crafting in organizations [23,24]. Job crafting can be defined as “the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work” [25] (p. 179). In other words, thanks to job crafting, employees change their tasks or other characteristics of the work on their own initiative. It is considered a behavior capable of generating positive results in the workplace [26,27] and promote general and work well-being [28]. It is identified in several research as a mediator between job demands, job resources and positive outcomes [29,30,31,32].
Below we develop the theoretical basis of the aim of our research. We hypothesized that job creation is a mediating dimension between job demands and job resources (workload, negative work-family interface, positive work family interface, social support) embedded in the JD-R model [33,34,35] and positive results, job satisfaction and affective commitment.

2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

Our study intends to use the Job Demands-Resources model [35] as the theoretical framework within which to insert the influence process of family and work environment on the way the employees adapt and redesign the work itself, and thanks to which satisfaction and commitment derive.
In the nucleus of the JD-R model [36,37] there is the idea that all occupational risk factors associated with work stress can be classified into two broad categories: job demands and job resources. These two categories can be applied to different occupational contexts, and they have been found to impact the outcomes of many individual and organizational variables [33]. Aspects of a physical, psychological, and relational nature that involve pressure and commitment are included in the job demands (i.e., workload, physical demands, emotional demands etc.), while job resources contained all those aspects that are functional in achieving work goals and stimulate commitment, growth and development (social support, autonomy, feedback etc.) [35]. Job resources and job demands impact strain and motivation and in turn affect work outcomes in relation to the type of work and the context in which it takes place. In addition, the JD-R model postulates that due to the different peculiarities of work, two different processes can occur: high job demands (workload) can affect the psychological and physical resources of workers and generate health problems i.e., [35,38]; deficient job resources may prevent the achievement of the goal causing a perception of failure that reduces motivation and commitment. In such a situation, employees are inclined to reduce the effort to prevent frustration related to not achieving the goals i.e., [39].
However, in the model just described, work planning was initially a task attributed to the organization and assumed that workers could simply be benefited from or suffer from such work environments [34]. This condition was characterized by a passive role of the employee and did not consider the possibility of a proactive action by the worker and his direct intervention on the redesign of tasks. In this sense Bakker and Demerouti [33] underline the importance of job Crafting within the JD-R model and they highlight how individual strategies can stem the impact of job demands and make the most of job resources.

2.1. Job Demands and Job Crafting

According to Wrzesniewski and Dutton [25] job crafting is described as a proactive behavior implemented by employees to change some aspects of their work. Employees can change these aspects by following three approaches: in the cognitive crafting the employee changing the way in which tasks are perceived; in the task crafting makes work more meaningful and less repetitive and, at least, in the relationship crafting can change the quality of interactions with colleagues and clients [25]. Task crafting and relationship crafting can impact the characteristics of work and the work environment, while cognitive crafting is more related to mental changes in an individual’s perception of the meaning and purpose of their work [40]. According to Tims and colleagues [41] through job crafting employees can make changes to balance job demands and job resources with their personal abilities, preferences, motivations, and needs. The authors considered this concept within the JD-R theory [35] and identify three dimensions of job crafting: increasing job resources (split in increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources), increasing challenging job demands and decreasing hindering job demands. Based on the work of Tims and colleagues [41], Cenciotti and colleagues [42] have built the Italian version of the scale including only the three job crafting dimensions oriented in the positive direction of “increasing”: increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources and challenging job demands. The first referred to the resource’s variety, opportunity for development, and autonomy, the second referred to the resources social support, supervisory coaching, and feedback, the third stimulate employees to develop their knowledge and skills or to attain more difficult goals.
Generally, with the workload we mean the amount of work to be done by an employee, it would therefore represent the sheer volume of work required. More precisely, dealing with the perception of their work experience, employees report their workload in terms of pace and volume and includes the uncertainty of completing their work within the established time and manner [43]. We, therefore, include the workload among the job demands since it expresses what a job requires when one work fast and hard, failing often to do it completely and well.
The JD-R theory suggests that job crafting is only possible when job requests are manageable and thus allow workers to engage in proactive behaviors to change some aspects of their job [44]. The workload is therefore a job demand that can rage on the job crafting and according to the COR theory [45] when job requests are high it is likely that individuals fear losing the resources they already have and as a result do not engage in job crafting behaviors.
Knight and colleagues [46] and Ingusci and colleagues [47] underline how the workload is closely linked to job crafting, when the load is high but manageable workers increase proactive behaviors to decrease job demand, when the workload is low, proactive behaviors are directed to increasing structural resources (e.g., enhancing one’s own skills and influence in decision-making processes). The problem arises when the workload is so high that it does not allow workers to find the necessary energy to cope the demand [33].
As already stated in the previous paragraph the negative work-family interface and the negative family-work interface [43] have been considered job demands in our studio that negatively influence job crafting.
Based on the foregoing, we formulate our second hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1.
Job demands (negative work-family interface, negative family-work interface, workload) are negatively related to job crafting.

2.2. Job Resources and Job Crafting

The ability of employees to redesign their work and make it more meaningful for them (in tune with their skills, values, motivations, and passion) has an impact on many aspects of organizational life and it is influenced by resources that can facilitate the success and development of workers. One of the job resources is social support that “reflects the degree to which a job provides opportunities for advice and assistance from others” [48] (p. 1324) such as supervisors or/and coworkers [49,50,51]. Several authors have related social support and job crafting. Cheng and Yi [52] highlighted how social support moderates the relationships among job crafting, job burnout, and job satisfaction in a sample of hotel employees. Park and colleagues [53] underlined that perceived organizational support affects adaptive performance through job crafting and work engagement and it has a significant and positive relationship with job crafting in a sample of human resources’ employees, and the same results have been achieved by Kerksieck and colleagues [54] relatively to a representative sample of the working population of countries German speaking. The results of Qi and colleagues [55] showed that leader-member exchange was significantly linked to job crafting with internal capital as the moderator with data collected in an online survey and Audenaert and colleagues [56] have identified a positive relationship between social support and job crafting, specifically empowering leadership and social support have positively impact on job crafting and reinforce each other in a sample of publics sector employees. Finally, an interesting literature review by Wang and colleagues [57] analyzed 51 empirical studies that highlight how the support of the leader, and the support of colleagues are positively related to job crafting. Furthermore, this review study highlighted the positive mediating role of job crafting between social factors and work results.
One of the most accredited models to explain the relationship between work and family is the one proposed by Greenhaus and Powell [58] according to which there is a reciprocal interconnection between the domain of work and the domain of life and the positive experience in a role will bring improvements in the other role and vice versa [59,60]. Several works consider the influence of job crafting on work-family interface [61,62,63,64,65,66]. However, one of the innovative aspects of our work is that we consider the positive work-family/family-work interface and then also the negative work-family/family-work interface as job resources/job demands that can have a positive/negative impact on job crafting [43].
On the basis of the foregoing, we formulate our first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2.
Job resources (positive work-family interface, positive family-work interface, supervisor, and co-workers support) are positively related to job crafting.

2.3. Job Crafting and Positive Outcomes

As mentioned above research have shown that job crafting has positive effects on well-being [67,68] because it allows workers to be proactive and redesign their job. This condition may be associated with positive outcomes in organizations and one of the most important positive outcomes identified in the literature is job satisfaction. It is defined by Locke [69] “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p. 1304).
The relationship between job crafting and job satisfaction has been extensively covered in the literature [67,70,71] also in more recent research and in several organizational contexts. Cheng and O-Yang [52] found a positive correlation between job crafting and job satisfaction in a sample of frontline hotel employees, the same results in a similar sample have been obtained by Kim and colleagues [72] but only among relational and cognitive job crafting and job satisfaction. Sidin and colleagues [73] have obtained results that show how job crafting is directly related to job satisfaction especially when other factors are involved such as the support of supervisors in sample composed by employees staff of three hospitals; the same results have been found by Ingusci and colleagues [74] that showed a positive relation between job crafting and job satisfaction in a sample of teachers from public schools in the South of Italy and by Pan and colleagues [75] that obtained the same results in a sample of nurses. Villajos and colleagues [76] in interesting research on a sample of Labor Union Representatives in Spain related job crafting, job satisfaction and work engagement concluding that job crafting is predictor of both, similarly Ogbuanya and Chukwuedo [77] have detected a relationship between job crafting and job satisfaction mediated by work engagement and work commitment in a sample of university students in Nigeria. Finally, Zito and colleagues [65] identify a positive relation between job crafting and job satisfaction in situation of high work autonomy in a sample of public employees.
Another important positive outcome is affective commitment defined like an organizational dimension in which workers are aligned with the values and objectives of the organization and are motivated to maintain an affiliation with the organization itself, in other words refers to the employees’ emotional attachment to the organization [78,79]. The model proposed by Allen and Meyer [80] is one of the most accredited on job commitment and consists of three main cognitive components: affective commitment (emotional attachment to the organization), continuance commitment (calculation of the costs and benefits of staying in an organization) and normative commitment (sense of moral obligation of employees to remain in an organization). In the literature there are works that highlight the positive relationship between job crafting and affective commitment. Li [81] explores the relationships between leader-member exchange, job crafting and affective commitment concluding that job crafting can be considered as a mediator between leader-member exchange and affective commitment in a sample of subordinates and supervisors in China. Iqbal [82] revealed a significant impact of job crafting on affective commitment with the moderation of Person-Job Fit in a sample of employees working at branch level of bank. Wang and colleagues [83] have found a strong positive association between job crafting and affective commitment in the presence of low levels of performance that would push employees to a proactive behavior to create new meanings and to develop an emotional link with the organization. Huang and colleagues [84] in research that involved a sample of nurses found a significant moderate positive relationship between overall job crafting and organizational commitment. In an interesting research Ghitulescu [85] highlights in two studies that involved employees of a manufacturing company and employees of a school that job crafting can be considered as a predictor of affective commitment, the findings showed that job crafting increases employee involvement and positively influences their intention to stay in the organization. Finally, Gu-Ne and Lee [86] in research that has involved a sample of sales consultants from insurance firms emphasize the presence of a strong positive affect of job crafting on job satisfaction and affective commitment.
Based on the foregoing, we formulate our third hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3.
Job crafting has a positive relationship to job satisfaction and affective commitment.

2.4. Job Resources and Job Outcomes

In our paper we have considered the positive work-family interface and the positive family-work interface [43] and social support (supervisor support and co-worker support) [49] as job resources. We wanted to explore the relationships between these job resources with some positive outcomes such as job satisfaction and affective commitment.
Fan and Smith [87] in research on UK railway staff sample underline that high levels of job support/control were significant predictors of general well-being, including job satisfaction and Yuh and Choi [88] investigate the relation between social support and job satisfaction and the results revealed that supervisor and colleague support predicted job satisfaction in sample of childcare teachers. Harris and colleagues [89] affirm that career mentoring and task support predicted job satisfaction in a sample of employees in two training hospitals in the southwestern part of the United States. Orgambídez-Ramos and de Almeida [90], Ja and Kyung [91], Khatatbeh and colleagues [92] and Polat and Terzi [93] have obtained similar results on nursing staff highlighting that job satisfaction is predicted by social support from supervisor and from co-workers. Finally, Pinna and colleagues [94] underline that only organizational support impact on job satisfaction while supervisor support and coworkers support do not affect it.
Regarding the relationship between perceived social support and affective commitment in an interesting research that involved employees of a university Courcy and colleagues [95] highlight the role of moderator of perceived social support in the negative relationship between exposure to psychological violence and workplace affective commitment, employees exposed to high levels of supervisor and organizational support show higher levels of affective commitment despite exposure to psychological violence, in a similar way Kim and colleagues [96] in a sample of governmental organization’s employees in the southwestern region of the United States underline that social support impact on affective commitment with the moderating action of perceived organizational competence.
Setti and colleagues [97] in a paper that analyze well-being and affective commitment among ambulance volunteers underline the role of social support and its positive impact on affective commitment to decrease job burnout, similar results of Nazir and colleagues [98] in a sample of nursing employees in which perceived organizational support is positively related to the organizational affective commitment and to innovative behavior. Dilla and Zainal [99] highlight the existence of a strong and mutual positive relationship between social support and affective commitment mediated by relational attachment and Orgambídez and de Almeida [100] have found that supervisor support had both a direct effect and an indirect effect on affective organizational commitment through vigor and absorption. Finally, Ullah and colleagues [101] found an indirect effect of perceived organizational support and proactive personality on affective commitment through prosocial motivation.
Positive work-family interface and positive family-work interface are linked with job satisfaction and affective commitment in several research. In an interesting review work McNall and colleagues [102] analyzing numerous papers have found a positive correlation between work-family enrichment and family-work enrichment with job satisfaction and affective commitment. More recent research has confirmed this report. Kalliath and colleagues [103] found that who experienced family-work enrichment also experienced working well-being and job satisfaction in a sample of social workers, especially in presence of higher levels of family support and Koekemoer and colleagues [104] highlight how work-family enrichment is a strong predictor of job satisfaction, career success and work engagement in a sample of South African employees who have working for at least 5 years in a full-time capacity. Rahman and Ali [105] have identified the role of mediation of the work family balance between a condition of work-family conflict and job satisfaction highlighting the importance of the interface work-family and family-work in achieving satisfaction in a sample of academicians. Žnidaršič and Marič [106] in research that involved higher education lecturers from Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Serbia, and Slovenia found that a good work-life balance is predictor of good life levels and job satisfaction resulting in increased work engagement.
Regarding the relationship between positive work-family interface and positive family-work interface and affective commitment Marques and colleagues [107] in a sample of workers of a Portuguese bank have discovered that the perception of workers that their work enriches their family is positively linked to their emotional commitment to the organization, work-family enrichment positively impacted affective engagement through moderation of the gender role. The same results have been obtained from Wayne and colleagues [108] and they found that work–family enrichment has a positive correlation with affective organizational commitment, and family–work enrichment negatively predicted turnover intentions in a sample of employees from a major insurance company. Finally, Tran [109] found that work–family interfaces impact on organizational commitment with the mediation of occupational stress in a sample composed by individuals working at Vietnamese public organizations.
Based on the foregoing, we formulate our fourth hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4.
Job resources have a positive relationship to job satisfaction and affective commitment.

2.5. Job Demands and Job Outcomes

In this research we have considered workload, the negative work-family interface and the negative family-work interface as job demands that can impact well-being and positive outcomes in organizations. Bruck and colleagues [110], in a meta-analysis on a sample of hospital employees on the association between work family conflict (and vice versa) and job satisfaction highlight a strong negative association between the two constructs, especially with composite job satisfaction. The results of study of Rahman and colleagues [111] have shown that only family work conflict has significant negative effects on job satisfaction in a sample of private university academics, while there is no meaningful relation between family-work conflict and job satisfaction. The objective of the Asbari and colleagues’ study [112] was to assess the impact of work-family conflict on job satisfaction and employee performance in a sample of female employees in Indonesia. The result underline that work-family conflict is negatively and significantly related to job satisfaction and work-family conflict hasn’t a influence on the female employee performance. In a work on 320 nurses in China, Li and colleagues [113] found that work-family-school role conflicts were negatively correlated with job satisfaction with the social capital moderating action. Finally, in a research conduct on a sample of nurses Ding and colleagues [114] under-lined that work-family conflict negatively impacts on job satisfaction and job control played a partial mediating role.
As regards to affective commitment, Zhang and colleagues [115] underline that family-work conflict has a negative association with life satisfaction and affective commitment, as well as positively related to turnover intentions in a sample of Chinese managers. Dharmanegara and colleagues [116] found a negative relationship between work-family conflict and affective commitment, emotional exhausting has a mediating effect in this relationship in a sample of police officers. The same result was found by Panda and colleagues [117] in a sample of bank employees. In this paper nurturant task leadership moderates the negative relationship between work-family conflict and affective commitment so that this relationship is weaker in the presence of perceived supportive leadership. In the research of Galletta and colleagues [118] affective engagement acts as a moderator between work-family conflict and emotional exhaustion in such a way as to mythize the effects of demand as affective engagement increases.
In refer to workload and its link with job satisfaction and affective commitment is possible identify several research. As regards to job satisfaction a review on pharmacists’ community of Lea and colleagues [119] analyzed fifteen years of literature concluding that high levels of perceived workload negatively impact job satisfaction especially after a major reform of the national employment contract. Tentama and colleagues [120] consider the relationships between stress, workload and job satisfaction in a sample of permanent employees at the University. The results highlight a significant and simultaneous negative effect of stress and workload on job satisfaction as well as a single negative influence of both constructs on employee satisfaction levels. The objective of Hellín Gil and colleagues [121] was to relate nursing workload to job satisfaction in a sample of nurses in Adult Inpatient Units and the results confirm a negative direct correlation, the same results obtained by Jasiński and colleagues [122] in a sample of midwives in which workload has a negative impact on job satisfaction and on occupational stress mainly during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Masyhum [123] analyzed in a review the results of several research about stress factors of special education teachers. The conclusions of the study highlight that there is a strong negative relation between workload and job satisfaction especially in a condition of lack support by headmasters, the same results of De Simone and colleagues [124] in a sample of teachers and head teachers.
As regards to affective commitment Ekmekci and colleagues [125] have found that the workload involves negative affective commitment and that good organizational support attenuates the effects of the workload on affective commitment in a sample of nurses, the same results of ST-Hilaire and colleagues [126] in a sample of public sector employees. On the contrary Janib and colleagues [127] in research that analyzed the mediation of job satisfaction and affective commitment between workload and job performance have confirmed only the role of job satisfaction; Azeez and Omolade [128] have found an impact of subjective well-being on affective commitment in a sample of bank workers and confirmed the absence of workload’s influence. Other are the results of the work of Lu and colleagues [129] in which heavy workload, lack of autonomy and interpersonal conflicts have a negative impact on job satisfaction while affective commitment has a positive relationship with job satisfaction and of the research of Cicei [130] in which is underlined a strong association between workload and organizational commitment.
Based on the foregoing, we formulate our fifth hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5.
Job demands have a negative relationship to job satisfaction and affective commitment.

2.6. Job Satisfaction as a Mediator between Job Crafting and Affective Commitment

As we have already pointed out the people who can modify their work in a creative way are more satisfied and develop a greater commitment affective towards their organization [73,75,83,84]. In addition, previous research has found positive relationships between job satisfaction and affective commitment [131,132,133,134]. However, the impact of job crafting has often been studied in terms of benefits for the organization [135], although the real effectiveness of these strategies is delegated to the work situation in which they are employed but certain changes could also potentially harm the work if not monitored [136]. Therefore, potentially the job crafting could also impact negatively on the organization and can become a stress factor. Indeed, it is an individual phenomenon that makes changes to work to meet personal needs at work [137,138] and these needs may not always coincide with the demands and expectations of the organization. This would result in a negative feed-back in terms of performance that could impact affective commitment [139]. Because job satisfaction is also a feeling of success of workers in work [140], and in previous research [141] job satisfaction has been identified as a protective factor between stressors factors and affective commitment, the presence of good job satisfaction can act as a mediator and strengthen the link between job crafting and affective commitment.
Based on the foregoing, we formulate our sixth hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6.
Job satisfaction mediate the relationship between job crafting and affective commitment.

2.7. Job Crafting as Mediator

As we have already said is essential that organizations support the proactive behavior of individuals capable of changing and transforming roles and tasks in the organizational context. The studies establish that job crafting can balance the job demands and the job resources impacting on the positive outcomes to level individual, working and organizational [57,142] and we have already highlighted the importance of job crafting in the JD-R model [33]. In addition, when workers engage in job crafting this attitude has a positive impact in general on the organization well-being and in particular on positive outcomes like job satisfaction and affective commitment [85].
This mediating role of job crafting is also confirmed by Lee and colleagues [143] in research that connects job demands and job resources with work stress and work engagement as outcomes (positive and negative) in a sample of white-collar workers. In addition, Zhang and colleagues [32] highlight the mediating role of job crafting between work-family conflict and sustainable creative performance in a sample of supervisors and subordinates.
Based on these premises and the work presented earlier in this same article we postulate our seventh and final hypothesis.
Hypothesis 7.
Job crafting is a mediator in the relationship between job demands, job resources and job satisfaction and affective commitment.
In Figure 1 the hypotheses are graphically enclosed in a model that will be empirically verified through the analysis of the collected data.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Sample and Procedure

The population consisted of 413 employees operating in an Italian company. Out of the 480 questionnaires distributed to employees, 413 questionnaires were returned indicating a high response rate of 86%. In the total sample, 52.7% are men (N = 217) and 47.3% are women (N = 195). The age of employees varies from a minimum of 20 to a maximum age of 60; it follows therefore that in terms of participants of average age, the average was 34 years (SD = 9.4).
The high variability of employees that emerged (people who just entered and people who have been there for a long time), is attributable to the fact that the company in question is continuously growing and therefore invests in the staff.
The current study was conducted within a constantly growing private organization and involved employees working within it.
First of all, the Management sent a letter to all the managers to announce the imminent study that would have been conducted by two university students, and in the same communication to the staff, the Management requested maximum collaboration for the compilation of the questionnaire, according to a prepared calendar, attached to it in the email.
This scientific research has developed, in fact, through the administration of a paper questionnaire delivered personally on-site (during working hours) to all the people who work within this organization.
Each participant has individually explained the methods and objectives of the research and during the compilation of the questionnaire (requesting an average time of fifteen minutes), we made ourselves available for any clarification or doubt regarding the research and/or questionnaire.
In conducting the present research, ethical guidelines were followed. All procedures performed were following the ethical standards of the institutional research committee, the Italian Association of Psychology (AIP), the American Psychology Association (APA), and the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.
Our study received Research Ethics Committee approval. Participation in the study was voluntary and the information provided was anonymous and confidential. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before participation in the study.

3.2. Measures

Social Support. This measure falls within the job Resources. The social support in the workplace was measured using two subscales (Coworker Support and Supervisor Support) from Susskind and colleagues [144] study, where the customer orientation of the organization was investigated. The Coworker Support subscale comprised of three items, including items, for example, “My coworkers provide me with important work-related information and advice that make performing my job easier” whereas the Supervisor Support subscale is composed of four items including items such as “My supervisor provides me with important work-related information and advice that make performing my job easier”. All items were measured using a six-point Likert scale where 1 = “strongly disagree”, and 6 = “strongly agree”.
Job Crafting. The employees’ job crafting behaviors was measured through the Italian adaptation of the Job Crafting Scale Cenciotti and colleagues [42], which was inspired by the Dutch Job Crafting Scale (JCS) developed by Tims and colleagues [41], consisting of the three increasing dimensions: increasing structural job resources (e.g., requesting more autonomy), increasing social job resources (e.g., asking for feedback), increasing challenging job demands (i.e., start new projects), for 13 total items, each of which were rated on a seven-point scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (daily). Job crafting was considered as latent variable loaded by its dimensions. When analysing the data, the 7-points scale was converted to 6-points scale.
Workload. This measure falls within the job Demands. We used the Quantitative Workload Inventory (QWI) developed by Spector and Jex [43]. This scale consists of five-item through which the respondents indicate how often each occurs. We adapted the likert scale to a six-point scale: 1, Never; 2, Less than once per month; 3, Once or twice per month; 4, Once or twice per week; 5, Once or twice per day; 6, Several times per day. Sample item: “How often does your job require you to work very hard?”.
Work-Family Interface Scale. Was measured through the Italian adaptation of De Simone and colleagues [145] which was inspired by Kinnunen and colleagues [146]. This scale contains 14 items measured on a Likert scale from 0 (never) to 6 (very often) and covering four dimensions: 4 items assess negative work-to-family spillover (NEGWIF; e.g., “Does your job produce strain that makes it difficult to fulfil your family duties?”), 4 items evaluate negative family-to-work spillover (NEGFIW; e.g., “The demands of your family or spouse/partner interfere with your work-related activities?”), 3 items measure positive work-to-family spillover (POSWIF; e.g., “You fulfil your domestic obligations better because of the things you learned in your job?”), and 3 items consider positive family-to-work spillover (POSFIW; e.g., “You manage your time at work more efficiently because at home you have to do that as well?”). All this measure falls within the job demands/resources. When analysing the data, the 7-points scale was converted to 6-points scale.
Job Satisfaction. The job satisfaction was measured using Smith and colleagues scale [147]: the Job Descriptive Index (JDI), which consist of five sub-dimensions, is: “Job satisfaction”, “Supervision”, “Collaborators”, “Salary”, “Promotion”. The instrument consists of five items and is scored on a six-point scale where 6 = strongly disagree and 1 = strongly in agreement (e.g., “I feel satisfied with my work”, “I am satisfied with the relationship with my superiors”, “I feel good in my work environment”).
Affective Commitment. The sense of belonging to the organization and the emotional connection that an employee tries for the organization where he works has been measured by the scale developed by Allen and Meyer [80]. The instrument consists of eight items and is scored on a six-point scale where 6 = strongly disagree and 1 = strongly in agreement (e.g., “I really feel as if this organization’s problem are my own”., “This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me”.).
All measures of this study have been psychometrically validated in previous studies, and this study demonstrates adequate internal reliability how reported in Table 1.

3.3. Data Analysis

Descriptive analyses of participants’ socio-demographic data were calculated using means and standard deviations. The internal consistency of each scale was measured through Cronbach’s Alpha [148]. The associations among variables have been verified through Pearson’s correlation index.
To verify our assumptions, we conducted a Path Analysis using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with EQS 6.3 [149], using the Maximum Likelihood estimation method. For SEM, the following indices were used: Chi-square goodness (χ2) of fit statistic, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) [150,151], the Non- Normed Fit Index (NNFI) [152,153] and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) [154]. The CFI and NNFI are considered acceptable when they are greater than 0.90, and the RMSEA is equal to or smaller than 0.08 [151,155]. We also considered acceptable the ratio of χ2 with degrees of freedom when it is equal to or smaller than 3 and p-values greater than 0.01 [156]. The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was used for comparing different path models and considering the best model with the lowest value of AIC [157,158]. The mediation analyses were evaluated by the Sobel [159] test.
We used EQS v.6.3 software [149] to test our path model. Survey data were input into SPSS software v.20 for Windows to conduct descriptive statistical analysis.

4. Results

Table 1 presents the mean values, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha.
The values of the Work-Family Interface are low for negative spillovers and average for positive spillovers. Job crafting has an average value, and the other dimensions have a medium-high value. Standard Deviation values, all lower than 1, indicate a high degree of agreement. The internal consistency estimates ranged from good to excellent (0.72–0.92), indicating the overall acceptable reliability of the scales used in the current study. Bivariate zero-order correlation matrix among the variables of the research is displayed in Table 2.
Job crafting correlates with all dimensions. Its correlation is positive for job resources and negative for job demands. The job crafting also has a good correlation with job satisfaction (r = 0.51) and affective commitment (r = 0.55). The latter two strongly correlate with each other (r = 0.73). In general, job demands and job resources are inversely related to each other. The verify of the hypothesized model (Figure 1) through SEM has led to a modification the path and the final result of which is shown in Figure 2. The fit indices are shown in Table 3.
Overall, the job demands reduce the level of job crafting and affective commitment, the job resources increase the levels of job crafting and job satisfaction. Job crafting positively influences job satisfaction (β = 0.13) and both raise affective commitment levels (β = 0.23). The direct influence of job demands and job resources explains 34% of the variance of job crafting. Finally, job satisfaction has a strong and positive influence on affective commitment (β = 0.62). Let us see in more detail.
Among the job demands, workload negatively affects both the job crafting (β = −0.16) on affective commitment (β = −0.10), while only the negative work-family interface adversely affects job crafting (β = −0.16).
Among the job resources, coworker support positively affects job satisfaction (β = 0.33), supervisor support positively affects both the job crafting (β = 0.39) than on job satisfaction (β = 0.43), and positive work-family interface positively affects both the job crafting (β = 0.23) than on job satisfaction (β = 0.13).
The central position of job crafting lends itself to the analysis of its mediating role between the job demands and resources and the affective commitment. for accuracy, we used the Sobel test [159] to verify the mediator role among variables.
The mediation of job crafting on the relation between job demands and affective commitment was found to be non-significant (p > 0.05). Some mediation relationships were positive between the job resources and the affective commitment. The job crafting totally mediates the relationship between positive work-family interface (β = −0.18; z = 6.28; p < 0.01) on affective commitment and totally mediates the relationship between supervisor support (β = −0.19; z = 6.30; p < 0.01) on affective commitment.
The mediating role of job crafting between job demands and resources on job satisfaction is more varied. The mediation of job crafting on the relation between workload and positive work-family interface on job satisfaction was found to be non-significant (p > 0.05). In addition, we have found that job crafting totally mediates the relationship between negative work-family interface and job satisfaction (β = −0.13; z = 4.81; p < 0.01), and partially mediates the relationship between supervisor support (β = −0.10; z = 4.18; p < 0.01) on job satisfaction.
Finally, we have found that job satisfaction partially mediates the relationship between job crafting and affective commitment (β = −0.31; z = 8.99; p < 0.01).
Ultimately, the direct and indirect effects of the variables examined explain 65% of the variance of job satisfaction and 59% of the variance of affective commitment.
The hypothesis and results are presented in the following Table 4.

5. Discussion

In this study we have investigated the influence process of family and work environment on the way the employees adapt and redesign the work itself, and how satisfaction and commitment derive from these processes and influences. While on the one hand the job crafting influences positive outcomes, it is also true that the individual shapes his work when he is immersed in a network of relationships that include not only the relationship with the content of his work but also the family and, above all, the social working environment. To better understand these relationships, we have considered the JD-R model [33,34,35] as the theoretical framework within which to insert the influence process of family and work environment on the way the employees adapt and redesign the work itself, and from which satisfaction and commitment derive.
Starting from the objective of the study we discuss our hypotheses, clarifying, first of all, that the present study was conducted on a non-representative sample, and therefore the results cannot be generalized. Regarding the first hypothesis (H1) the results have been largely confirmed: the workload negatively affects the job crafting [33] as well as the negative work-family interface, however the negative influence of the negative family-work interface has not been confirmed. In the second hypothesis (H2) the results confirm that the supervisor support can influence job crafting and increase the proactive behaviors put in place by workers to shape their work adapting it to new needs or personal interests, how underlined other previous studies [53,54,55,56,57]. The results confirm a positive impact of the positive work-family interface on job crafting despite previous works have highlighted a directionality of the relationship opposite [62,63,64], this can be considered an innovation aspect of our work. No influence of coworker support and positive family-work interface on job crafting was found.
The third hypothesis (H3) was confirmed, and we found a strong impact of job crafting on job satisfaction and affective commitment demonstrating how this construct can influence positive outcomes in the workplace and confirming the results of other studies [52,66,75].
We had assumed that job resources (positive work-family interface, positive family-work interface, supervisor support and colleagues) are positively related to job crafting, and job demands (workload, negative work-family interface, and negative family-work interface) are negatively related with job crafting (H4 and H5). such hypotheses have been only partially confirmed. In fact, job resources influence the job satisfaction [91,92,93,94] but they don’t have some impact on the affective commitment; job demands don’t have any impact on the job satisfaction. Regarding the affective commitment, the negative impact of workload on affective commitment [125,127] has been confirmed, while the impact of negative work-family interface on affective commitment has not been detected; no relationship between the negative family-work interface and the affective commitment has been confirmed.
With reference to the H6 hypothesis we have confirmed that the job satisfaction partially mediates the relationship between job crafting and affective commitment as already highlighted by previous studies [131,133].
Finally, the central position of job crafting in our model has led us to formulate the hypothesis of its possible role of mediation between job demands, job resources and job satisfaction and affective commitment (H7). This hypothesis has only been partially confirmed. The mediation of job crafting on the relationship between workload and positive work-family interface on job satisfaction has not been confirmed. However, we can confirm that job crafting totally mediates the relationship between negative work-family interface and job satisfaction, but only partially the relationship between supervisor support on job satisfaction. lastly, we can confirm a partial mediation of the job satisfaction between job crafting and affective commitment.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, our study confirms the importance of job crafting as a protective factor able to mitigate the impact of an excessive work-family conflict on job satisfaction, workers who can implement proactive and creative behaviors during the performance of their work are less conditioned by the conflict work-family and experience greater job satisfaction. Supervisor support has a direct and positive impact on job satisfaction as we have already seen in our results, however job crafting is able to partially enhance this effect through its mediating role: workers who can creatively transform their work in the presence of good levels of supervisor support experience greater satisfaction, data also confirmed in previous research [73].
Moreover, job crafting is the rapid and voluntary adaptation of employees to changes at work and can be considered a strategy for the sustainable development of organizations [160]. Job crafting can empower top-down approaches to improving jobs and working environments in a sustainable way [22].

7. Practical Implications and Limitations

In our research we have emphasized, taking as reference the JD-R Model, the importance of the job crafting as key factor of balance between job resources and job demands [161]. In addition, based on the results obtained, we can consider job crafting as a key construct on which to intervene to improve job satisfaction levels and to buffer the effects of work-family conflict.
In the literature, interventions on job crafting are workouts or methods intended to stimulate or develop work redefinition behaviors of employees and they are intended to achieve as a result an improvement in the ability of workers to optimize their working environment [162,163]. It is therefore important to use the data about job crafting research to impact on organizational design to encourage employees to adapt their job demands and job resources [164]. These interventions are very diverse, and their effectiveness is still the subject of debate. In an interesting review Devotto and Wechsler [165] analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the interventions and concluded that the three types of intervention that had a positive impact were oriented to the gain of resources and to increase meaning at work. The interventions that instead have been concentrated mainly on decreasing hindering job demands haven’t had meaningful outcomes. It is desirable not only to use these interventions to increase job crafting in terms of an improvement of the individual situation at work but also to consider job crafting as an alternative approach to the redesign of work [33] in a longitudinal perspective [166] for sustainable organizations [167].
This study has several limitations. First, we used a cross-sectional design and self-reporting measures. Second the sample collected cannot be considered representative of the employees’ population and this limits the generalizability of the results. Third for future research is recommended extend the study at other contexts beyond the Italian one. In addition, future searches could include other variables such as work engagement and job performance [162,168,169].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.D.S. and G.C.; methodology, S.D.S., G.C. and J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M., S.D.S. and J.P.; writing—review and editing, M.M., J.P., S.D.S., G.C. and E.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were not required for the study on human participants since the study did not imply any risk to participants and did not include biological measures.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Klindzic, M.; Marić, M. Flexible work arrangements and organizational performance—The difference between employee and employer-driven practices. J. Soc. Issues 2019, 28, 89–108. [Google Scholar]
  2. Asad, M.; Shabbir, M.; Salman, R.; Haider, S.; Ahmad, I. Do entrepreneurial orientation and size of enterprise influence the performance of micro and small enterprises? A study on mediating role of innovation. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2018, 8, 1015–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bhatti, S.H.; Santoro, G.; Khan, J.; Rizzato, F. Antecedents and consequences of business model innovation in the IT industry. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 123, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Khan, A.A.; Asad, M.; Khan, G.U.H.; Asif, M.U.; Aftab, U. Sequential mediation of innovativeness and competitive advantage between resources for business model innovation and SMEs performance. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA), Virtual, 7–8 December 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA. [Google Scholar]
  5. Majali, T.; Alkaraki, M.; Asad, M.; Aladwan, N.; Aledeinat, M. Green transformational leadership, green entrepreneurial orientation and performance of SMEs: The mediating role of green product innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tariq, A.; Badir, Y.F.; Safdar, U.; Tariq, W.; Badar, K. Linking firms’ life cycle, capabilities, and green innovation. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2020, 31, 284–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ullah, Z.; Otero, S.Á.; Sulaiman, M.A.; Sial, M.S.; Ahmad, N.; Scholz, M.; Omhand, K. Achieving organizational social sustainability through electronic performance appraisal systems: The moderating Influence of transformational leadership. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Elkington, J.; Rowlands, I.H. Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Altern. J. 1999, 25, 42. [Google Scholar]
  9. Boudreau, J.W.; Ramstad, P.M. Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2005, 44, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ren, S.; Tang, G.; Jackson, S.E. Green human resource management research in emergence: A review and future directions. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2018, 35, 769–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pfeffer, J. Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2010, 24, 34–45. [Google Scholar]
  12. Podgorodnichenko, N.; Edgar, F.; McAndrew, I. The role of HRM in developing sustainable organizations: Contemporary challenges and contradictions. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2020, 30, 100685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Van der Klink, J.J.; Bültmann, U.; Burdorf, A.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Zijlstra, F.R.; Abma, F.I.; Brouwer, S.; Van der Wilt, G.J. Sustainable employability—Definition, conceptualization, and implications: A perspective based on the capability approach. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2016, 42, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Di Fabio, A. The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development for well-being in organizations. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Annual Report. 2012; Office for Offcial Publications of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2012.
  16. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals. 2015. Available online: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 21 April 2023).
  17. Ren, S.; Jackson, S.E. HRM institutional entrepreneurship for sustainable business organizations. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2020, 30, 100691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hakanen, J.J.; Peeters, M.C.W.; Schaufeli, W.B. Different types of employee well-being across time and their relationships with job crafting. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2017, 23, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B. Job crafting. In An Introduction to Contemporary Work Psychology; Peeters, M., de Jonge, J., Taris, T., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2013; pp. 414–433. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sakuraya, A.; Shimazu, A.; Imamura, K.; Namba, K.; Kawakami, N. Effects of a job crafting intervention program on work engagement among Japanese employees: A pretest-posttest study. BMC Psychol. 2016, 4, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. van den Heuvel, M.; Demerouti, E.; Peeters, M.C.W. The job crafting intervention: Effects on job resources, self-efficacy, and affective well-being. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2015, 88, 511–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Le Blanc, P.M.; Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B. Better? How Can I Shape My Job to Suit Me Better? Job Crafting for Sustainable Employees and Organizations. In An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: An International Perspective; Chmiel, N., Fraccaroli, F., Sverke, M., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 48–63. [Google Scholar]
  23. Irfan, S.; Qadeer, F. Employers’ investments in job crafting for sustainable employability in pandemic situation due to COVID-19: A lens of job demands-resources theory. J. Bus. Econ. 2020, 12, 144–164. [Google Scholar]
  24. Irfan, S.M.; Qadeer, F.; Abdullah, M.I.; Sarfraz, M. Employer’s investments in job crafting to promote knowledge worker’s sustainable employability: A moderated mediation model. Pers. Rev. 2022; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar]
  25. Wrzesniewski, A.; Dutton, J.E. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad. Manage. Rev. 2001, 26, 179–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Geldenhuys, M.; Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. How task, relational and cognitive crafting relate to job performance: A weekly diary study on the role of meaningfulness. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2021, 30, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Slemp, G.R.; Kern, M.L.; Vella-Brodrick, D.A. Workplace well-being: The role of job crafting and autonomy support. Psychol. Well-Being 2015, 5, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. De Devotto, R.P.; Freitas, C.P.; Wechsler, S.M. The role of job crafting on the promotion of flow and wellbeing. Rev. Adm. Mackenzie 2020, 21, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hur, W.M.; Moon, T.W.; Choi, W.H. The role of job crafting and perceived organizational support in the link between employees’ CSR perceptions and job performance: A moderated mediation model. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 40, 3151–3165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Meijerink, J.; Bos-Nehles, A.; de Leede, J. How employees’ pro-activity translates high-commitment HRM systems into work engagement: The mediating role of job crafting. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Stud. 2020, 31, 2893–2918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Oubibi, M.; Fute, A.; Xiao, W.; Sun, B.; Zhou, Y. Perceived organizational support and career satisfaction among chinese teachers: The mediation effects of job crafting and work engagement during COVID-19. Sustainability 2022, 14, 623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, M.; Wang, F.; Das, A.K. Work–family conflict on sustainable creative performance: Job crafting as a mediator. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2017, 22, 273–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. The job demands–resources model: State of the art. J. Manag. Psychol. 2007, 22, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B.; Nachreiner, F.; Schaufeli, W.B. The job demands-resources model of burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 499–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; De Boer, E.; Schaufeli, W.B. Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. J. Vocat. Behav. 2003, 62, 341–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Taris, T.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Schreurs, P. A multi-group analysis of the Job Demands-Resources model in four home care organizations. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2003, 10, 16–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B.; Nachreiner, F.; Schaufeli, W.B. A model of burnout and life satisfaction amongst nurses. J. Adv. Nurs. 2000, 32, 454–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Hackman, J.R.; Oldham, G.R. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. OBHP 1976, 16, 250–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lichtenthaler, P.W.; Fischbach, A. The Conceptualization and Measurement of Job Crafting. Z. Arb. Organ. 2016, 60, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tims, M.; Bakker, A.B.; Derks, D. Development and validation of the job crafting scale. J. Vocat. Behav. 2012, 80, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cenciotti, R.; Borgogni, L.; Callea, A.; Colombo, L.; Cortese, C.G.; Ingusci, E.; Miraglia, M.; Zito, M. The Italian version of the job crafting scale (JCS). Appl. Psychol. Bull. 2016, 277, 28–36. [Google Scholar]
  43. Spector, P.E.; Jex, S.M. Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 1998, 3, 356–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bakker, A.B.; Oerlemans, W. Subjective well-being in organizations. POS 2011, 49, 178–189. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hobfoll, S.E. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Knight, C.; Tims, M.; Gawke, J.; Parker, S.K. When do job crafting interventions work? The moderating roles of workload, intervention intensity, and participation. J. Vocat. Behav. 2021, 124, 103522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ingusci, E.; Signore, F.; Giancaspro, M.L.; Manuti, A.; Molino, M.; Russo, V.; Zito, M.; Cortese, C.G. Workload, techno overload, and behavioral stress during COVID-19 emergency: The role of job crafting in remote workers. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 655148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Morgeson, F.P.; Humphrey, S.E. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Eisenberger, R.; Armeli, S.; Rexwinkel, B.; Lynch, P.D.; Rhoades, L. Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Karasek, R.A. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Adm. Sci. Q. 1979, 24, 285–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Karasek, R.; Brisson, C.; Kawakami, N.; Houtman, I.; Bongers, P.; Amick, B. The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 1998, 3, 322–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Cheng, J.C.; Yi, O. Hotel employee job crafting, burnout, and satisfaction: The moderating role of perceived organizational support. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 72, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Park, Y.; Lim, D.H.; Kim, W.; Kang, H. Organizational support and adaptive performance: The revolving structural relationships between job crafting, work engagement, and adaptive performance. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kerksieck, P.; Bauer, G.F.; Brauchli, R. Personal and social resources at work: Reciprocal relations between crafting for social job resources, social support at work and psychological capital. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Qi, J.; Zhang, K.; Fu, X.; Zhao, X.; Wang, L. The effects of leader–member exchange, internal social capital, and thriving on job crafting. Soc. Behav. Pers. 2019, 47, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Audenaert, M.; George, B.; Bauwens, R.; Decuypere, A.; Descamps, A.M.; Muylaert, J.; Rufei, M.; Decramer, A. Empowering leadership, social support, and job crafting in public organizations: A multilevel study. Public Pers. Manag. 2020, 49, 367–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wang, H.; Li, P.; Chen, S. The impact of social factors on job crafting: A meta-analysis and review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Greenhaus, J.H.; Powell, G.N. When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2006, 31, 72–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Carlson, D.S.; Hunter, E.M.; Ferguson, M.; Whitten, D. Work–family enrichment and satisfaction. Mediating processes and relative impact of originating and receiving domains. J. Manag. 2014, 40, 845–865. [Google Scholar]
  60. Minnotte, K.L.; Minnotte, M.C.; Bonstrom, J. Work–family conflicts and marital satisfaction among US Workers: Does stress amplification matter? J. Fam. Econ. Issues 2015, 36, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Asseburg, J. Work-Family Conflict in the Public Sector: The Impact of Public Service Motivation and Job Crafting. Master’s Thesis, Department of Public Management, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  62. DeLongchamp, A.C. Evaluating the Effects of a Job Crafting Intervention on Employee Work-Life Balance. Master’s Thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  63. Loi, R.; Xu, A.J.; Chow, C.W.; Chan, W.W. Linking customer participation to service employees’ work-to-family enrichment: The role of job crafting and OBSE. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2020, 93, 381–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lyu, X.; Fan, Y. Research on the relationship of work family conflict, work engagement and job crafting: A gender perspective. Curr. Psychol. 2020, 41, 1767–1777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rastogi, M.; Chaudhary, R. Job crafting and work-family enrichment: The role of positive intrinsic work engagement. Pers. Rev. 2018, 47, 651–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zito, M.; Colombo, L.; Borgogni, L.; Callea, A.; Cenciotti, R.; Ingusci, E.; Cortese, C.G. The nature of job crafting: Positive and negative relations with job satisfaction and work-family conflict. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tims, M.; Bakker, A.B.; Derks, D. The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2013, 18, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Petrou, P.; Demerouti, E.; Peeters, M.; Schaufeli, W.; Hetland, J. Crafting a jobon a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement. J. Organ. Behav. 2012, 33, 1120–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Locke, E.A. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Dunnette, M.D., Ed.; Rand McNally: Chicago, IL, USA, 1976; pp. 1297–1343. [Google Scholar]
  70. Leana, C.; Appelbaum, E.; Shevchuk, I. Work process and quality of care in early childhood education: The role of job crafting. Acad. Manag. J. 2009, 52, 1169–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nielsen, K.; Abildgaard, J.S. The development and validation of a job crafting measure for use with blue-collar workers. Work Stress 2012, 26, 365–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Kim, H.; Im, J.; Qu, H. Exploring antecedents and consequences of job crafting. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 75, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sidin, A.I.; Saleh, L.M.; Fatmawati, E.; Insani, I.N. How is the correlation job crafting to job satisfaction of hospital staff at disruption era in hospital industries. Gac. Sanit. 2021, 35, S1–S3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Ingusci, E.; Callea, A.; Chirumbolo, A.; Urbini, F. Job crafting and job satisfaction in a sample of Italian teachers: The mediating role of Perceived Organizational Support. Electron. J. Appl. Stat. Anal. 2016, 9, 675–687. [Google Scholar]
  75. Pan, J.; Chiu, C.Y.; Wu, K.S. Leader-member exchange fosters nurses’ job and life satisfaction: The mediating effect of job crafting. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0250789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Villajos, A.; García-Ael, C.; Topa, G. Job Crafting among Labor Union Representatives: Its Impact on Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ogbuanya, T.C.; Chukwuedo, S.O. Job crafting-satisfaction relationship in electrical/electronic technology education programme: Do work engagement and commitment matter? Rev. Psicol. Trab. Organ. 2017, 33, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Meyer, J.P.; Allen, N.J. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1991, 1, 61–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Töre, E. Effects of Intrinsic Motivation on Teacher Emotional Labor: Mediating Role of Affective Commitment. Int. J. Progress. Res. Educ. 2020, 16, 390–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Allen, N.J.; Meyer, J.P. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. J. Occup. Psychol. 1990, 63, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Li, J. The mediating roles of job crafting and thriving in the LMX-employee outcomes relationship. Jpn. J. Add. Sci. 2015, 28, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Iqbal, Q. Job-crafting and organizational commitment: Person-job fit as moderator in banking sector of Pakistan. IJMAE 2016, 3, 837–851. [Google Scholar]
  83. Wang, H.J.; Demerouti, E.; Blanc, P.L.; Lu, C.Q. Crafting a job in ‘tough times’: When being proactive is positively related to work attachment. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2018, 91, 569–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Huang, Q.; Wichaikhum, O.A.; Nantsupawat, A. Job crafting and organizational commitment of nurses in Chengdu University Hospitals, the People’s Republic of China. J. Nurs. 2020, 47, 486–501. [Google Scholar]
  85. Ghitulescu, B.E. Shaping Tasks and Relationships at Work: Examining the Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Job Crafting. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  86. Kim, G.-N.; Lee, Y.-M. Towards high performance organization: The impacts of job characteristics and job crafting. Int. J. u-e-Serv. Sci. Technol. 2016, 9, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Fan, J.; Smith, A. Positive well-being and work-life balance among UK railway staff. Open J. Soc. Sci. 2017, 5, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yuh, J.; Choi, S. Sources of social support, job satisfaction, and quality of life among childcare teachers. J. Soc. Sci. 2017, 54, 450–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Harris, J.I.; Winskowski, A.M.; Engdahl, B.E. Types of workplace social support in the prediction of job satisfaction. Career Dev. Q. 2007, 56, 150–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Orgambídez-Ramos, A.; de Almeida, H. Work engagement, social support, and job satisfaction in Portuguese nursing staff: A winning combination. Appl. Nurs. Res. 2017, 36, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ja, I.; Kyung, M. Influence of Social Support on the Job Satisfaction of Nurses in General Hospitals: Mediating Effect of Emotional Intelligence. Korean J. Occup. Health Nurs. 2020, 29, 333–341. [Google Scholar]
  92. Khatatbeh, H.; Al-Dwaikat, T.; Oláh, A.; Onchonga, D.; Hammoud, S.; Amer, F.; Prémusz, V.; Pakai, A. The relationships between paediatric nurses’ social support, job satisfaction and patient adverse events. Nurs. Open 2021, 8, 3575–3582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Polat, Ş.; Terzi, B. Relationships between perceived support types and the job satisfaction levels of nurses. Perspect. Psychiatr. Care 2021, 57, 1202–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Pinna, R.; De Simone, S.; Cicotto, G.; Malik, A. Beyond organisational support: Exploring the supportive role of co-workers and supervisors in a multi-actor service ecosystem. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 121, 524–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Courcy, F.; Morin, A.J.; Madore, I. The effects of exposure to psychological violence in the workplace on commitment and turnover intentions: The moderating role of social support and role stressors. J. Interpers. Violence 2019, 34, 4162–4190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kim, K.Y.; Eisenberger, R.; Baik, K. Perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment: Moderating influence of perceived organizational competence. J. Organ. Behav. 2016, 37, 558–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Setti, I.; Zito, M.; Colombo, L.; Cortese, C.G.; Ghislieri, C.; Argentero, P. Well-being and affective commitment among ambulance volunteers: A mediational model of job burnout. J. Soc. Serv. Res. 2018, 44, 236–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Nazir, S.; Qun, W.; Hui, L.; Shafi, A. Influence of social exchange relationships on affective commitment and innovative behavior: Role of perceived organizational support. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Dilla, D.A.; Zainal, H. Social Support and Affective Commitment: Mediation Mechanisms of Relational Attachment. Sains Organ. 2022, 1, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Orgambídez, A.; de Almeida, H. Supervisor support and affective organizational commitment: The mediator role of work engagement. West. J. Nurs. Res. 2020, 42, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ullah, I.; Elahi, N.S.; Abid, G.; Butt, M.U. The impact of perceived organizational support and proactive personality on affective commitment: Mediating role of prosocial motivation. Bus. Manag. Econ. Eng. 2020, 18, 183–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. McNall, L.A.; Nicklin, J.M.; Masuda, A.D. A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work–family enrichment. JBP 2010, 25, 381–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kalliath, P.; Kalliath, T.; Chan, X.W.; Chan, C. Linking work-family enrichment to job satisfaction through job well-being and family support: A moderated mediation analysis of social workers across India. Br. J. Soc. Work 2019, 49, 234–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Koekemoer, E.; Olckers, C.; Nel, C. Work–family enrichment, job satisfaction, and work engagement: The mediating role of subjective career success. Aust. J. Psychol. 2020, 72, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Rahman, M.M.; Ali, N.A. Does work–family balance mediate the relationship between work–family conflicts and job satisfaction of academicians? J. Community Psychol. 2020, 49, 361–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Žnidaršič, J.; Marič, M. Relationships between Work-Family Balance, Job Satisfaction, Life Satisfaction and Work Engagement among Higher Education Lecturers. Organizacija 2021, 54, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Marques, A.M.; Chambel, M.J.; Pinto, I. The exchange relationship between work-family enrichment and affective commitment: The moderating role of gender. Span. J. Psychol. 2015, 18, E35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Wayne, J.H.; Casper, W.J.; Matthews, R.A.; Allen, T.D. Family-supportive organization perceptions and organizational commitment: The mediating role of work–family conflict and enrichment and partner attitudes. J. Appl. Psychol. 2013, 98, 606–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Tran, Q.H.N. Exploring relationships among work–family interfaces, organizational commitment, organizational justice and occupational stress in Vietnamese state organizations. Ind. Commer. Train. 2022, 55, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Bruck, C.S.; Allen, T.D.; Spector, P.E. The relation between work–family conflict and job satisfaction: A finer-grained analysis. J. Vocat. Behav. 2002, 60, 336–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Rahman, M.; Ali, N.A.; Jantan, A.H.; Mansor, Z.D.; Rahaman, M. Work to family, family to work conflicts and work family balance as predictors of job satisfaction of Malaysian academic community. J. Enterp. Communities 2020, 14, 621–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Asbari, I.B.; RudyPramono, A.P.; DylmoonHidayat, A.; VirzaUtamaAlamsyah, P.S.; MiyvFayzhall, M. The effect of work-family conflict on job satisfaction and performance: A study of Indonesian female employees. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 2020, 29, 6724–6748. [Google Scholar]
  113. Li, C.; Song, R.; Fan, X.; Zhou, Z.; Xu, L. Moderating effect of work-related social support on the relationship between role conflicts and job satisfaction among female nurses pursuing a further degree in China. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 2022, 28, e13014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Ding, X.; Yang, Y.; Su, D.; Zhang, T.; Li, L.; Li, H. Can job control ameliorate work-family conflict and enhance job satisfaction among Chinese registered nurses? A mediation model. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 2018, 9, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Zhang, M.; Griffeth, R.W.; Fried, D.D. Emerald Article: Work-family conflict and individual consequences. J. Manag. Psychol. 2012, 27, 696–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Dharmanegara, I.B.A.; Yogiarta, I.M.; Suarka, I.B.K. Work-family conflict, family-work conflict and its effect on emotional exhaustion and affective commitment. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2018, 8, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Panda, A.; Jain, N.K.; Nambudiri, R. Work–family conflict, affective commitment, leadership and job satisfaction: A moderated mediation analysis. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2022, 71, 1469–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Galletta, M.; Portoghese, I.; Melis, P.; Gonzalez, C.I.A.; Finco, G.; D’Aloja, E.; Contu, P.; Campagna, M. The role of collective affective commitment in the relationship between work–family conflict and emotional exhaustion among nurses: A multilevel modeling approach. BMC Nurs. 2019, 18, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Lea, V.M.; Corlett, S.A.; Rodgers, R.M. Workload and its impact on community pharmacists’ job satisfaction and stress: A review of the literature. Int. J. Pharm. Pract. 2012, 20, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Tentama, F.; Rahmawati, P.A.; Muhopilah, P. The effect and implications of work stress and workload on job satisfaction. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 2019, 8, 2498–2502. [Google Scholar]
  121. Hellín Gil, M.F.; Ruiz Hernández, J.A.; Ibáñez-López, F.J.; Seva Llor, A.M.; Roldán Valcárcel, M.D.; Mikla, M.; López Montesinos, M.J. Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Workload of Nurses in Adult Inpatient Units. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Jasiński, A.M.; Derbis, R.; Walczak, R. Workload, job satisfaction and occupational stress in Polish midwives before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Med. Pr. 2021, 72, 623–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Masyhum, M.A. Headmasters Leadership on Task Load and Job Satisfaction of Special Education Teachers in Malaysia. TURCOMAT 2021, 12, 5294–5299. [Google Scholar]
  124. De Simone, S.; Cicotto, G.; Lampis, J. Occupational stress, job satisfaction and physical health in teachers. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2016, 66, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Ekmekci, O.T.; Xhako, D.; Camgoz, S.M. The buffering effect of perceived organizational support on the relationships among workload, work–family interference, and affective commitment: A study on nurses. Nurs. Res. 2021, 29, e140. [Google Scholar]
  126. ST-Hilaire, W.A.; de la Robertie, C. Correlates of affective commitment in organizational performance: Multi-level perspectives. Aust. J. Career Dev. 2018, 27, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Janib, J.; Rasdi, R.M.; Omar, Z.; Alias, S.N.; Zaremohzzabieh, Z.; Ahrari, S. The Relationship between Workload and Performance of Research University Academics in Malaysia: The Mediating Effects of Career Commitment and Job Satisfaction. AJUE 2021, 17, 85–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Azeez, R.O.; Omolade, M.A. Workload, subjective wellbeing and organisational commitment of Bank workers. Contemp. Humanit. 2013, 6, 119–132. [Google Scholar]
  129. Lu, L.; Siu, O.L.; Lu, C.Q. Does loyalty protect Chinese workers from stress? The role of affective organizational commitment in the Greater China region. Stress Health 2010, 26, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Cicei, C.C. Occupational stress and organizational commitment in Romanian public organizations. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 33, 1077–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Alkhateri, A.S.; Abuelhassan, A.E.; Khalifa, G.S.; Nusari, M.; Ameen, A. The Impact of perceived supervisor support on employees turnover intention: The Mediating role of job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. Int. Bus. Manag. 2018, 12, 477–492. [Google Scholar]
  132. Awang, Z.; Ahmad, J.H.; Zin, N.M. Modelling job satisfaction and work commitment among lecturers: A case of UiTM Kelantan. JOSMA 2010, 1, 45–59. [Google Scholar]
  133. Hakami, A.; Almutairi, H.; Al Otaibi, R.; Al Otaibi, T.; Al Battal, A. The Relationship between Nurses Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment. Health Sci. J. 2020, 14, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Saha, S.; Kumar, S.P. Organizational culture as a moderator between affective commitment and job satisfaction: Empirical evidence from Indian public sector enterprises. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 2018, 31, 184–2061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Karatepe, O.M.; Kim, T.T. Job crafting and critical work-related performance outcomes among cabin attendants: Sequential mediation impacts of calling orientation and work engagement. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2023, 45, 101065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Dierdorff, E.C.; Jensen, J.M. Crafting in context: Exploring when job crafting is dysfunctional for performance effectiveness. J. Appl. Psychol. 2018, 103, 463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Berg, J.M.; Wrzesniewski, A.; Dutton, J.E. Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. J. Organ. Behav. 2010, 31, 158–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Lyons, P. The crafting of jobs and individual differences. J. Bus. Psychol. 2008, 23, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Arshadi, N.; Hayavi, G. The effect of perceived organizational support on affective commitment and job performance: Mediating role of OBSE. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 84, 739–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Karollah, B.; Monita, Y.; Vilzati, V.; Muhammad, M.; Ibrahim, M. The practice of job crafting and its impact on job outcomes: An empirical study. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9, 192–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Kuo, S.Y. Occupational stress, job satisfaction, and affective commitment to policing among Taiwanese police officers. Police Q. 2015, 18, 27–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Singh, V.; Singh, M. A burnout model of job crafting: Multiple mediator effects on job performance. IIMB Manag. Rev. 2018, 30, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Lee, S.H.; Shin, Y.; Baek, S.I. The impact of job demands and resources on job crafting. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 2017, 33, 829–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Susskind, A.M.; Kacmar, K.M.; Borchgrevink, C.P. Customer service providers’ attitudes relating to customer service and customer satisfaction in the customer-server exchange. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. De Simone, S.; Agus, M.; Lasio, D.; Serri, F. Development and validation of a measure of work-family interface. Rev. Psicol. Trab. Organ. 2018, 34, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Kinnunen, U.; Feldt, T.; Geurts, S.; Pulkkinen, L. Types of workfamily interface: Well-being correlates of negative and positive spillover between work and family. Scand. J. Psychol. 2006, 47, 149–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Smith, P.C.; Kendall, L.M.; Hulin, C.L. The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement; Rand McNally: Chicago, IL, USA, 1969; pp. 1–186. [Google Scholar]
  148. Robinson, J.P.; Shaver, P.R.; Wrightsman, L.S. Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991; Volume 1, pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  149. Bentler, P.M. EQS Structural Equations Program Manual; Multivariate Software: Encino, CA, USA, 1995; Volume 6. [Google Scholar]
  150. Bentler, P.M. EQS Structural Equations Program Manual; BMDP Statistical Software: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  151. Bentler, P.M. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 107, 238–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Bentler, P.M.; Bonett, D.G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 1980, 88, 588–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Tucker, L.R.; Lewis, C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 1973, 38, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Steiger, J.H. A note on multiple sample extensions of the RMSEA fit index. Struct. Equ. Model. 1998, 5, 411–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Steiger, J.H. Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval approach. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1990, 25, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Schermelleh-Engel, K.; Moosbrugger, H.; Müller, H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol. Res. 2003, 8, 23–74. [Google Scholar]
  157. Akaike, H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Automat. 1974, 19, 716–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Akaike, H. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 1987, 52, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Sobel, M.E. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociol. Methodol. 1982, 13, 290–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Lee, J.Y.; Lee, Y. Job crafting and performance: Literature review and implications for human resource development. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2018, 17, 277–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Job demands-resources theory. In Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide; Cooper, C., Chen, P., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2014; pp. 37–64. [Google Scholar]
  162. van Wingerden, J.; Derks, D.; Bakker, A.B. The impact of personal resources and job crafting interventions on work engagement and performance. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2017, 56, 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. van Wingerden, J.; Derks, D.; Bakker, A.B.; Dorenbosch, L. Job crafting in schools for special education: A qualitative analysis. [Job crafting in het speciaal onderwijs: Een kwalitatieve analyse]. Gedrag Organ. 2013, 26, 85–103. [Google Scholar]
  164. van den Heuvel, M.; Demerouti, E.; Peeters, M.C.W. Successful job crafting through group training. In Scherp in Werk: 5 Routes Naar Optimale Inzetbaarheid; de Jonge, J., Peeters, M., Sjollema, S., de Zeeuw, H., Eds.; Van Gorcum: Assen, Germany, 2012; Volume 5, pp. 27–49. [Google Scholar]
  165. Devotto, R.P.D.; Wechsler, S.M. Job crafting interventions: Systematic review. Trends Psychol. 2019, 27, 371–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. van Wingerden, J.; Bakker, A.B.; Derks, D. The longitudinal impact of a job crafting intervention. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2017, 26, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Rai, A. Job crafting intervention: Fostering individual job redesign for sustainable organisation. Ind. Commer. Train. 2018, 50, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Bakker, A.B. Top-down and bottom-up interventions to increase work engagement. In APA Handbook of Career Intervention; Hartung, P.J., Savickas, M.L., Walsh, B.W., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; Volume 2, pp. 427–438. [Google Scholar]
  169. Vogt, K.; Hakanen, J.J.; Brauchli, R.; Jenny, G.J.; Bauer, G.F. The consequences of job crafting: A three-wave study. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2016, 25, 353–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 08899 g001 550
Figure 1. Path diagram of the hypothesized model. (+ = Hypothesized positive relationship; − = Hypothesized negative relationship.
Figure 1. Path diagram of the hypothesized model. (+ = Hypothesized positive relationship; − = Hypothesized negative relationship.
Sustainability 15 08899 g001
Sustainability 15 08899 g002 550
Figure 2. Path diagram of the empirical model.
Figure 2. Path diagram of the empirical model.
Sustainability 15 08899 g002
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
DimensionsMeanSt.Dev.Cronbach’s Alpha
Job Satisfaction4.80.810.83
Affective Commitment4.90.840.84
Job Crafting3.80.720.81
NEGWIF2.50.970.89
NEGFIW1.50.560.72
Workload4.40.870.79
POSFIW3.10.840.74
POSWIF3.20.830.78
Coworker Support4.70.920.91
Supervisor Support4.60.790.83
Table
Table 2. Pearson’s correlations.
Table 2. Pearson’s correlations.
Dimensions1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.
  • Job Satisfaction
1
2.
Affective Commitment
0.73 ***1
3.
Job Crafting
0.51 ***0.55 ***1
Job Dem.
4.
NEGWIF
−0.36 ***−0.27 ***−0.28 ***1
5.
NEGFIW
−0.22 **−0.18 **−0.17 **0.33 **1
6.
Workload
−0.07−0.06−0.18 *0.43 ***0.051
Job Res.
7.
POSFIW
0.20 ***0.16 **0.21 ***0.01−0.010.011
8.
POSWIF
0.45 ***0.40 ***0.39 ***−0.30 ***−0.10−0.17 **0.46 ***1
9.
Coworker Support
0.72 ***0.56 ***0.52 ***−0.31 ***−0.21 ***−0.040.21 ***0.37 ***1
10.
Supervisor Support
0.64 ***0.45 ***0.33 ***−0.25 ***−0.21 ***−0.070.12 *0.31 ***0.52 ***1
Note: * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001.
Table
Table 3. Fit indices.
Table 3. Fit indices.
χ2 (df)χ2/dfpCFIRMSEANFINNFIGFIAGFIAIC
Hypothesized model70.9 (6)11.820.000.96170.960.550.970.5358
Empirical Model10.5 (7)1.50.160.990.040.990.980.990.963
Table
Table 4. Hypothesis and results.
Table 4. Hypothesis and results.
ConfirmedIndexes Values (p Value)
Hypothesis 1Job demands are negatively related to job crafting
  • negative work-family interface
  • negative family-work interface
  • workload

Yes
No
Yes
β = 0.16 (p < 0.05)
n.s. (p > 0.05)
β = 0.16 (p < 0.05)
Hypothesis 2Job resources are positively related to job crafting
  • positive work-family interface
  • positive family-work interface
  • supervisor support
  • co-workers support

Yes
No
Yes
No
β = 0.23 (p < 0.05)
n.s. (p > 0.05)
β = 0.39 (p < 0.05)
n.s. (p > 0.05)
Hypothesis 3Job crafting has a positive relationship to
  • job satisfaction
  • affective commitment

Yes
Yes
β = 0.13 (p < 0.05)
β = 0.23 (p < 0.05)
Hypothesis 4Job resources have a positive relationship to
  • job satisfaction



  • affective commitment

Yes (POSWIF)
No (POSFIW)
Yes (Supervisor Support)
Yes (Coworker Support)
No
β = 0.13 (p < 0.05)
n.s. (p > 0.05)
β = 0.43 (p < 0.05)
β = 0.33 (p < 0.05)
(All) n.s. (p > 0.05)
Hypothesis 5Job demands have a negative relationship to
  • job satisfaction


  • affective commitment

No
No (NEGWIF)
No (NEGFIW)
Yes (Workload)
(All) β = n.s. (p > 0.05)
n.s. (p > 0.05)
n.s. (p > 0.05)
β = −0.10 (p < 0.05)
Hypothesis 6Job satisfaction mediate the relationship between job crafting and affective commitmentYesβ = −0.31; z = 8.99 (p < 0.01)
Hypothesis 7Job crafting is a mediator between Job Demands and Resources on Job Satisfaction job demands
  • POSWIF……………………………
  • POSFIW……………………………
  • Supervisor Support………………
  • Coworker Support……………….
  • NEGWIF…………………………..
  • NEGFIW…………………………..
  • Workload………………………….


No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No

n.s. (p > 0.05)
n.s. (p > 0.05)
β = −0.10; z = 4.18 (p < 0.01)
n.s. (p > 0.05)
β = −0.13; z = 4.81 (p < 0.01)
n.s. (p > 0.05)
n.s. (p > 0.05)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mondo, M.; Cicotto, G.; Pileri, J.; Cois, E.; De Simone, S. Promote Well-Being and Innovation in Sustainable Organizations: The Role of Job Crafting as Mediator. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8899. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118899

AMA Style

Mondo M, Cicotto G, Pileri J, Cois E, De Simone S. Promote Well-Being and Innovation in Sustainable Organizations: The Role of Job Crafting as Mediator. Sustainability. 2023; 15(11):8899. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118899

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mondo, Marina, Gianfranco Cicotto, Jessica Pileri, Ester Cois, and Silvia De Simone. 2023. "Promote Well-Being and Innovation in Sustainable Organizations: The Role of Job Crafting as Mediator" Sustainability 15, no. 11: 8899. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118899

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop