Proactivity is becoming more and more important in dynamic, competitive and rapidly changing markets where organizations focus on uniqueness and innovation (Frese & Fay, 2001). Proactive behavior is assumed to be related to positive individual and organizational outcomes, such as sales performance, entrepreneurial behaviors and individual innovation (Parker, Williams & Turner, 2006). Parker et al. (2006) define proactive behavior as self-initiated, anticipatory action aimed at changing either the situation or oneself. Proactive behavior at work is about taking initiative in making things happen (Bindl & Parker 2011). A proactive perspective suggests that employees should take an active role in designing their job and its meaningfulness (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Proactively shaping a job by the employee him/herself is referred to as job crafting, which is defined by Wrzesniewski & Dutton (2001) as "the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their job" (p. 179). Job crafting shows elements of proactive behavior, as it is self-initiated and aimed at changing employees’ work environment. Employees who take initiative in crafting their jobs increase their job resources over time, which makes them able to respond more proactively to change work environments (Tims, Bakker & Derks, 2013). Therefore, job crafting allows the pre-constructed job design to be modified by resources available for the specific employee. Research traditionally examines the effect of job design on job crafting (e.g. Berg, Dutton & Wrzesniewski, 2013). However, an effect in the opposite direction can also be considered: proactive behavior (in the form of job crafting) can influence HR practices such as job design. Normally job design is seen as a top-down process in organizations, but it can also be considered a starting point from which employees introduce changes to their tasks and relationships at work (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Consequently, proactive behavior contributes in shaping HR practices (Parker et al., 2006). Based on what is presented above, this essay is centered on the following research question: "How does proactive behavior, in the form of job crafting, influence the HR practice job design?"
This essay is based on a process perspective, and to be able to answer the research question, the process model of SHRM by Wright & Nishii (2007) is used as a guideline. To illustrate the effects of job crafting on job design, a practical example of a childcare organization will be used (Leana, Appelbaum & Shevchuk, 2009). The classroom staff in this childcare center provides basic care and education for young children. The original job design of the employees is determined by the central director. However, Leana et al. (2009) state that "classroom personnel tend to have substantial latitude in how they allocate tasks among themselves and in the amount of initiative they exercise in helping the children learn" (p.1172). Consequently, the employees have needs to make changes in their task or relational boundaries.
In the next paragraphs the process model of SHRM by Wright & Nishii (2007) will be introduced. First, an explanation of the model will be provided. Second, the effects of job crafting on job design are explained using each phase of the model. To conclude, the downsides of proactivity will be discussed and the model will be critically evaluated.
The process model of SHRM
According to the SHRM model of Wright & Nishii (2007) intended HR practices lead to organizational performance through a chain of actual, perceived HR practices and employee reactions (Appendix, Figure 1). The model considers the process that takes place in order for HRM to affect performance and is open for new and different interpretations of the sub processes (Wright & Nishii, 2007). Therefore this model is used to link job crafting to job design. Although the traditional model suggests that the process starts at the implementation phase and ends at coordination, the framework in this essay suggests that this process does not necessarily have to start at the implementation of the HR practices. This paper implies that employees’ reactions and behaviour can affect HR practices. In order to illustrate the effects of proactive employee behaviour on HR practices, an adjusted version of the model will be used in this essay. The adjusted model starts at the moderation phase and works towards the communication phase (Appendix, Figure 2). The next sections explain the effects of job crafting on job design for each phase of the renewed model and this is illustrated with the practical example of class room staff in childcare centres.
Moderation. The first step focuses on the process from perceived HR practices to employee reactions and behaviors. All employees have different perceptions of the intended HR practice job design, because of their individual differences. According to Wright & Nishii (2007), this will lead to different employee reactions. An example of a behavioral reaction is job crafting. In this phase the assumption is made that the employee self-initiates the job crafting process, because the employee will personally benefit from it. Wresniewski & Dutton (2001) argue that employees craft their jobs for three main reasons: (1) employees seek control and meaningfulness in their job; (2) individuals look for a positive self-image, and (3) employees have a need for human connection with others. As mentioned before, the classroom personnel perceive enough room to manoeuver in their current job tasks and take initiative to allocate tasks among themselves. For instance, they can use their own creativity and input to create lesson plans and choose thematic activities.
Coordination. The second step focuses on the link between the aforementioned employee reactions and the actual performance of organizations. Individuals may behave differently as a result of their personal job crafting, but whether the behavioral differences positively impact organizational performance may depend on the level of coordination across them. Job crafting at an individual level will change the meaning of work and changes one’s work identity (Wresniewski & Dutton, 2001). Whereas job crafting is usually based on an individual level, Brown & Duguid (1991) argue that job crafting can also be a collaborative activity carried out by informal groups of employees. According to Leana, et al. (2009) collective job crafting is positively related to organizational performance and leads to improved quality, satisfaction and commitment in childcare centers, whereas individual job crafting is not directly linked to organizational performance. Therefore, it is substantial to create awareness and support for job crafting among groups of employees, which will be initiated in the implementation phase.
Implementation. In this third phase HR intends to introduce redesign of work, but the next challenge is to actually implement these changes in the job designs. The ultimate goal in implementing HR practices, hopefully as intended, is to actually institutionalize the new employee behaviors into a regular routine. The implementation of the redesign of work is initiated by the job crafting behavior of employees in the moderation phase. As stated by Hackman & Oldham (1976), job redesign, also referred to as work enrichment or work enlargement (including task variety, task identity, skill variety, autonomy, feedback) will eventually lead to more internally motivated employees that will perform more effectively within their jobs. HR needs to focus on redesigning the work environment to allow more job crafting. An important note in this phase is that HR focuses on creating more autonomy, task variety, task identity, skill variety and feedback within the job designs of employees. Unfortunately, many authors have noted that HR practices, once institutionalized, are not equivalent to the intended versions (e.g. Snell & Dean, 1994). Regarding the childcare example, the employees will feel empowered by this new design of work. Nevertheless, the possibility exists that not everybody is in line with the redesign of the jobs. For instance, a supervisor could feel threatened by the fact that he/she has to implement more autonomous work designs. In order to make the employees aware of the changes in the job design, the next phase provides an explanation of the communication towards the employees.
Communication. The linkage between the actual HR practices and the perceived HR practices represents the communication challenge. Bowen & Ostroff (2004) argue that HR practices are organizational communication devices that aim to communicate certain messages to employees. The biggest concern in this phase is that individuals may vary significantly in how they perceive job redesign. Salancik & Pfeffer (1977) argue that individuals have different perceptions about the job characteristics that are initially intended by HR. They argued that individuals’ perceptions of job characteristics were determined, in part, by how co-workers described the characteristics. Therefore, in this phase it is of great importance for all different employees to perceive enough opportunities to show their proactive behavior by job crafting.
Employees could feel comfortable with the changes in their job designs, which includes more autonomy and varied tasks, but they could also feel less secure due to an experienced increase of demands (Tims et al., 2013). It is therefore important that employees have a period of "sense making" during which employees seek to understand the goal of the implemented changes (Wright & Nishii, 2007). Considering the childcare organization, the supervisor needs to make sure that all employees are aware and understand the process of job crafting and that they realize that the organization appreciates this type of proactive behavior. The main purpose is to encourage employees to collectively engage in job crafting, which would eventually lead to increased organizational performance.
Conclusion
In this essay the Process model of SHRM of Wright & Nishii (2007) was used to explain how job crafting affects the HR practice job design. Each phase of the model indicates how HR is influenced by proactive behavior of employees. HR has to appreciate this proactive behavior and should adjust their HR practices to the needs of the employees. For instance, collective job crafting will increase organizational performance and should therefore be supported by HR by adjusting the job designs.
A critical note should be made about proactive behavior and the traditional model of Wright & Nishii (2007). In this essay job crafting is assumed to be beneficial for organizational performance. However, according to Wresniewski & Dutton (2001) the contribution of job crafting to organizational performance depends on the individual’s motivation, performance and the kind of changes the employee makes in their tasks. In other words, HR tries to act in line with the organizational goals, but job crafting is not necessarily oriented towards them. Therefore, proactivity does not always lead to increased organizational performance. Another downside of proactive behavior is that tensions could emerge between more and less proactive employees within teams (Bolino, Valcea & Harvey, 2010). Furthermore, the traditional model of Wright & Nishii does not consider a link and level of analysis between organizational performance back to the intended HR practice. This link was later introduced by Boxall & Purcell (2011) in their ‘model of the black box’ which is inspired by the model of Wright & Nishii (2007).
To conclude, proactive behavior is of great importance nowadays for organizations that operate in dynamic markets. Therefore, HR should stimulate and support this kind of behavior through HR practices.