Você está na página 1de 18

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm

IJCHM
31,4 Does work engagement
mediate the influence of job
resourcefulness on job crafting?
1684 An examination of frontline hotel employees
Received 9 May 2018 Chien-Yu Chen
Revised 28 July 2018
6 October 2018
Department of Marketing and Logistics Management,
6 November 2018 Chihlee University of Technology, New Taipei City, Taiwan
Accepted 18 November 2018

Abstract
Purpose – Researchers and practitioners have remarked the critical nature of job crafting for employee and
organizational effectiveness in the hotel industry. However, few studies have investigated the determinants of
job crafting, especially the role of personality traits. Hence, this study aims to address this research gap by
exploring how job resourcefulness influences job crafting and by clarifying the mediating role of work
engagement.
Design/methodology/approach – The sample of the present study comprised 433 Taiwanese frontline
hotel employees. The hypothesized relationships were tested using structural equation modeling.
Findings – The results reveal that job-resourceful employees tend to engage themselves at work. Engaged
employees tend to craft their jobs individually and collaboratively. That is, work engagement is a mediator
between job resourcefulness and job crafting. Finally, the job resourcefulness–work engagement–individual
crafting relationship is closer than the job resourcefulness–work engagement–collaborative crafting
relationship.
Research limitations/implications – The findings suggest that job resourcefulness can be considered
as a criterion in selecting and retaining employees. Work engagement may serve as a mechanism for
interpreting the relationship between job resourcefulness and job crafting. This study provides crucial insights
to help hotel managers seek and aid employees who can actively reshape their work conditions. However, the
sample comprises only frontline hotel employees and the generalization can be considered in the future studies.
Originality/value – This research is the first to examine the psychological process that mediates the
connection between job resourcefulness and job crafting. The findings of this study contribute to the theory of
the relationship between personality traits and job crafting and may serve as a reference in related practices.
Keywords Personality, Work engagement, Job resourcefulness, Individual crafting,
Collaborative crafting
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Academics and practitioners have distinguished the crucial role of frontline hotel employees
in work and organizational effectiveness (Cheng and O-Yang, 2018; Kim et al., 2018a)
because these employees are the main actors to deal with customer complaints, deliver high-
quality services, and are expected to achieve high sales performance (Lu et al., 2016; Ranjan
International Journal of et al., 2015). However, frontline hotel employees need to satisfy a variety of customer needs
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
and confront long working hours, burnout, and extreme emotional demands in service
Vol. 31 No. 4, 2019
pp. 1684-1701
interactions (Karatepe et al., 2014; Min et al., 2015). Hotel managers also often fail to make
© Emerald Publishing Limited the most of employee resources (Øgaard et al., 2008). Therefore, frontline hotel employees
0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-05-2018-0365 work in a sparse resource environment (Karatepe and Douri, 2012), which features a dearth
of job resources or support (e.g. less training and assistance, insufficient rewards, deficient Job crafting
human resources, and job insecurity) related to work duties (Harris et al., 2006; Karatepe,
2011; Licata et al., 2003). Hotel supervisors need to endeavor to improve employees’ job
situations through job design (Chen et al., 2014).
Job crafting represents bottom-up and employee-centered job design, in contrast with
traditional top-down and manager-centered job design (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001).
The critical role of job crafting for employee and organizational effectiveness has been
recognized by scholars and practitioners (Kim et al., 2018a; Tims et al., 2016). Researchers
1685
have examined the links between job crafting and outcome variables (e.g. person-job fit, job
satisfaction and job burnout) (Chen et al., 2014; Cheng and O-Yang, 2018). However, few
studies have explored the antecedents of employees’ job crafting (Kim et al., 2018b;
Roczniewska and Bakker, 2016).
Past studies have revealed that personality traits play an essential role of influencing
employee job crafting behaviors (Roczniewska and Bakker, 2016). These personality traits
include proactive personality, promotion focus, narcissism, and psychopathy
(Brenninkmeijer and Hekkert-Koning, 2015; Roczniewska and Bakker, 2016; Tims et al.,
2012). Job resourcefulness, which is viewed as a situational-level personality trait, enables
workers to perform efficiently and effectively despite scarce resources (Yavas et al., 2011a).
Job resourcefulness is crucial for hotel employees in directly managing customers’ requests
and ensuring that their expectations are met (Yavas et al., 2011a). Meanwhile, job
resourcefulness has useful implications for the hospitality industry and has received
considerable attention from scholars and managers (Cheng and Chen, 2017). Some
researchers have stated that job resourcefulness is associated with job outcomes (e.g.
creativity and job satisfaction) (Harris et al., 2006; Semedo et al., 2016). However, according
to our review of the literature, the link between job resourcefulness and job crafting is under-
examined.
Previous studies have investigated the psychological mechanism underlying the
influence of job resourcefulness on work-related outcomes (Harris et al., 2013). On this basis,
we deeply examine how job resourcefulness influences job crafting; that is, the mediation
processes in the job resourcefulness-job crafting relationship. We include work engagement
in this framework because it mediates the link between employee personality traits and job
outcomes (Bakker et al., 2012b; Paek et al., 2015). Job-resourceful employees are intrinsically
motivated to complete their jobs efficiently (Harris et al., 2013) and are inclined to exhibit
high work engagement (Cheng and Chen, 2017; Karatepe and Aga, 2012). Thus, employees
with such a personality trait have high work engagement because of their inner drive to
work more effectively. Work engagement can also be a vital antecedent of employees’
inclination toward job crafting (Bakker et al., 2012a; Lu et al., 2014). Hence, we consider
whether work engagement is a bridge between job resourcefulness and job crafting.
Based on the aforementioned discussion, to the author’s knowledge, no study has
developed a framework to explore the linkages between job resourcefulness, job crafting and
work engagement. Accordingly, the present study contributes to the body of hospitality
knowledge in several ways. First, we investigate whether job resourcefulness is associated
with job crafting and address a call for research on how personality traits influence
employee outcomes under poor working conditions (Kusluvan et al., 2010). This study also
responds to Kim et al. (2018b), who examined the determinants of job crafting. Second,
research that has explored the predictors and outcomes of hotel employees’ work
engagement is sparse (Kim and Koo, 2017). Research on work engagement is still limited in
the hospitality field (Liu et al., 2017). Our study addresses this gap in hospitality research by
analyzing whether work engagement acts a mediator in the job resourcefulness-job crafting
IJCHM relationship. The current study fills up a research gap identified by Yavas et al. (2011b), who
31,4 indicated that hotel studies should examine the links connecting job resourcefulness and
mental and behavioral outcomes. Finally, the phenomenon of “do more with less” is common
in the service industry (Harris et al., 2013). The findings can enhance managers’
understanding of how to increase frontline employees’ job crafting in resource-depleted
work conditions.
1686
Literature review, hypotheses development and research framework
Job resourcefulness
Job resourcefulness means an “enduring disposition” to harness limited resources and
conquer obstacles when completing job-related objectives and can be viewed as an
individual-difference concept (Licata et al., 2003, p. 257) or an employee personality trait
(Karatepe and Douri, 2012). Mowen (2000) proposed a hierarchical personality model with
four trait levels positioned according to degrees of abstractness: elemental, compound,
situational, and surface traits. Elemental traits are the least concrete, followed by compound,
situational, and surface traits. Based on Licata et al. (2003), the three levels are situational
traits that refer to enduring dispositions in which individuals are inclined to display
consistent behaviors in certain situations. Job resourcefulness is associated with enduring
pressure to act in a particular manner in a given situation (Ashill et al., 2009). Specifically,
job-resourceful employees tend to fulfill their work goals despite resource-depleted working
conditions (Semedo et al., 2016). Therefore, job resourcefulness is positioned as a situational
trait and is affected by elemental and compound traits (Licata et al., 2003). Employees who
possess the personality traits of conscientiousness and openness (elemental traits) and
competitiveness (a compound trait) are also likely to possess job resourcefulness
(Harris et al., 2013).
Frontline hotel employees encounter face-to-face contacts with customers under resource-
depleted job conditions (Karatepe and Douri, 2012), resulting in stressful and demanding
situations. However, job-resourceful employees can provide quality service in a poor work
environment, coping with work-related problems despite limited resources (Harris et al.,
2007). For example, job-resourceful employees can respond to unhappy or dissatisfied
customers by displaying respect and care in the service process (Karatepe and Douri, 2012).
Workers with high job resourcefulness are more resilient in the face of work restraints and
achieve work-related goals in resource-limited environments (Yavas et al., 2011a).
Accordingly, previous studies have investigated the positive functions and benefits of
job resourcefulness in various service environments (Harris et al., 2006). Semedo et al. (2016)
investigated employees from public and private organizations and reported that compared
with employees with low job resourcefulness, job-resourceful employees are more creative at
work. Service recovery performance can be enhanced by job resourcefulness in a study of
call center employees conducted by Ashill et al. (2009). Job-resourceful frontline bank
employees are committed to their organizations (Karatepe and Aga, 2012). Therefore, job
resourcefulness is crucial for employee and organizational outcomes. Nevertheless, Karatepe
and Douri (2012) reported that few hotel studies give attention to job resourcefulness.

Work engagement
Work engagement means a positive, affective-motivational and work-related state of mind
(Schaufeli et al., 2002). Vigor, dedication and absorption are the main components of work
engagement (Bakker and Bal, 2010). Vigor means that employees are energetic and mentally
resilient at work; dedication refers that employees embrace their jobs deeply and
enthusiastically; and absorption reflects that employees concentrate on the work happily Job crafting
and absorbedly (Bakker et al., 2012a).
Scholars and practitioners have recognized the central role of work engagement for
improving work efficiency and effectiveness in the hotel field (Liu and Cho, 2018; Lyu et al.,
2016). For example, work engagement can enhance job performance, extra-role customer
service, and work-life balance (Cain et al., 2018; Karatepe, 2013). Employees with high work
engagement are inclined to provide great service, satisfy customer needs, and exhibit
creativity in their work (Karatepe, 2013; Karatepe and Olugbade, 2016). Work engagement 1687
can also reduce employee turnover intention and enhance service recovery (Karatepe and
Olugbade, 2016; Kim and Gatling, 2018). High turnover intention and poor service quality
are detrimental to organizational performance. Therefore, managers are supposed to
cultivate abundant frontline employees with high work engagement, thereby facilitating
human capital management (Karatepe and Olugbade, 2016). Further research is required to
examine the work engagement construct in the hospitality industry (Liu et al., 2017).

Job crafting
The construct of job crafting introduced by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) refers to a set
of proactive behaviors that employees may utilize to alter the physical, relational, and
cognitive boundaries of their jobs. Because these behaviors pertain to physical, relational,
and cognitive changes in the jobs, scholars have suggested other forms of job crafting. For
instance, Tims et al. (2012) identified four types of job-crafting behaviors: increasing social
job resources, increasing structural job resources, increasing challenging job demands, and
decreasing hindering job demands. The job-crafting behaviors suggested by Leana et al.
(2009) are individual and collaborative crafting. In individual crafting, employees adopt
active roles to alter and frame their job boundaries, and in collaborative crafting, employees
work together to adjust task boundaries and thereby accomplish common job-related
objectives (Leana et al., 2009). In the current study, we utilize the classification by Leana
et al. (2009) because frontline hotel employees can adjust their service process on their own
(i.e. through individual crafting) or in cooperation with other employees (i.e. through
collaborative crafting) to improve service experiences (Chen et al., 2014). In the hospitality
field, individual crafting is such that workers decide to provide extra blankets for customers
by themselves. Collaborative crafting is such that an employee decides together with his/her
coworkers to change the way of providing great service to customers or to their family
members and friends.
The degree that employees craft their jobs plays a crucial role in employee and
organizational effectiveness. When employees display job crafting behaviors, they
experience a high level of organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Cheng et al.,
2016), a high person-job fit, and enhanced meaningfulness at work (Tims et al., 2016).
Therefore, studies have examined the antecedents of job crafting, including individual
characteristics (e.g. regulatory focus) (Tims and Bakker, 2010), work characteristics (e.g. job
autonomy) (Kim et al., 2018a), and organizational characteristics (e.g. perceived
organizational support) (Kanten, 2014). However, examinations of the determinants of job
crafting have been limited (Kim et al., 2018b).
Previous research has investigated the influence of personality traits on job crafting. The
Big Five model is based on the basic personality traits that influence employees’ work
behaviors. Bell and Njoli (2016) found that employees with a high level of conscientiousness,
agreeableness, openness to experience, or neuroticism are more likely to craft their jobs; by
contrast, extraverted employees are less inclined to engage in job crafting. The influences of
other personality variables on job crafting have also been explored. Bakker et al. (2012b)
IJCHM argued that proactive employees are inclined to craft their jobs. Brenninkmeijer and
31,4 Hekkert-Koning (2015) revealed that promotion-focused individuals tend to craft their social
and structural job resources and challenging demands. Furthermore, Bipp and Demerouti
(2015) observed that employees with high approach temperament seek out resources and
challenges, whereas employees with high avoidance temperament attempt to decrease their
job demands. Compared with the above personality variables, Roczniewska and Bakker
1688 (2016) examined the relationship between dark personality traits (e.g. narcissism and
psychopathy) and job crafting. They discovered that individuals with high narcissism
exhibit greater tendencies to seek social job resources and challenges and to avoid job
demands. Individuals who score high in psychopathy are less likely to increase their social
resources.
However, different jobs require different traits (Raymark et al., 1997). As described, job
resourcefulness is a situation-related personality trait that plays an important role for
frontline employees in the service industry where resource scarcity exists. Therefore, an
examination of the role of job resourcefulness in job crafting among hotel employees is
imperative. To our knowledge, few discussions in the literature have focused on the
potential influence of job resourcefulness on job crafting. In addition, the aforementioned
studies have explored the influence of personality traits on job crafting, but have not
consider individual crafting and collaborative crafting. However, individual and
collaborative crafting are crucial job crafting behaviors in the hotel industry (Cheng and
O-Yang, 2018). Therefore, a research gap exists pertaining to the effect of job
resourcefulness on individual and collaborative crafting.

Job resourcefulness and work engagement


Studies have adopted conservation of resources (COR) theory to examine how personal
resources influence the formation of employees’ work engagement (Karatepe and Olugbade,
2009). COR theory indicates that people struggle to collect, gain, and defend critical wealth
and resources for managing job stress (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). When people experience
deprivation of personal resources, their stress levels increase (Walsh et al., 2016). Increasing
resources creates resource caravans and enhances positive work outcomes (Hobfoll, 2002). In
other words, employees with adequate resources can overcome work-related problems and
subsequently engage at work (Karatepe and Karadas, 2015). Thus, previous studies have
demonstrated that personal resources (e.g. optimism and self-efficacy) positively relate to
work engagement (Bakker, 2017) because personal resources have intrinsic functions of
completing job-related goals and enhancing career development (Karatepe and Aga, 2012).
Because personality traits serve as crucial work resources (Harris and Fleming, 2017), job
resourcefulness, a situational personality trait, can be viewed as a personal resource (Rod
and Ashill, 2009). Hence, the effect of job resourcefulness on work engagement can be
explained using COR theory because an employee with higher job resourcefulness has the
intrinsic tendency to accomplish work objectives, and this tendency is a characteristic of
personal resource functions. For example, job-resourceful employees can perform their jobs
successfully even under resource-constrained work conditions (Karatepe and Aga, 2012) and
can overcome barriers in the workplace by adopting innovative and creative work behaviors
(Semedo et al., 2016). Additionally, employees with high job resourcefulness are intrinsically
motivated to collect resources in a resource-scarce work environment (Karatepe and Aga,
2012). That is, possessing a natural disposition toward accomplishing work goals motivates
job-resourceful employees to actively accumulate alternative resources to accomplish their
work goals and in turn enhance their work engagement. Accordingly, job resourcefulness
positively relates to work engagement (Karatepe and Aga, 2012).
Prior research has stated that work engagement can be boosted by job resourcefulness in a Job crafting
sample of Western banking employees (Karatepe and Aga, 2012). Applying Western-based
management manners in different cultures can increase supervisors’ effectiveness in managing
a diverse workforce (Tsui, 2004). Additionally, the work characteristic in the service industry is
human interaction. However, in the service process, frontline hotel employees may encounter
more service requests than frontline bank employees do because the latter often provides one-
on-one customer service based on a number-taking system. This contrast of work environment
indicates that job resourcefulness is crucial for hotel employees because they may need to 1689
respond to many customers immediately. Thus, the link connecting job resourcefulness and
work engagement needs explanation in the hotel industry. The current research complements
this research gap by exploring the linkage between job resourcefulness and work engagement
among Asian hospitality employees and proposes the hypothesis:

H1. Job resourcefulness is positively related to work engagement.

Work engagement and job crafting


Work engagement is an essential antecedent that influences employee work behaviors (Garg
and Dhar, 2017). COR theory suggests that workers endeavor to increase their resources to
accomplish work goals and thereby achieve positive outcomes (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009).
Therefore, engaged employees proactively change their job conditions (Lu et al., 2014), use
available resources (Bakker et al., 2012a) and address organizational concerns (Hakanen
et al., 2008). For example, engaged workers are more likely to ask help from their managers
and coworkers (Tims et al., 2012). Employees with high level of work engagement are likely
to mobilize their job resources (Weigl et al., 2010), and are inclined to exhibit personal
initiative (Sonnentag, 2003). The main feature of job crafting is the employee’s initiative to
adjust the work conditions (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). Therefore, work engagement
may associate with coworker-ratings of job crafting positively (Tims et al., 2012). In other
words, employees with high work engagement are proactively inclined to craft their job
situations for maintaining their engagement (Bakker et al., 2012a). There may be a positive
linkage between work engagement and job crafting.
Researchers have explored the influence of work engagement on certain types of job
crafting in various domains. For example, work engagement positively relates to changes in
job resources among telecom company employees (Schaufeli et al., 2009). Teachers with
work engagement are likely to activate job-related resources (Bakker and Bal, 2010). In a
study of technology company employees, work engagement is positively associated with
change in relational job crafting (Lu et al., 2014). As mentioned earlier, individual and
collaborative crafting require further attention in the hotel domain. However, whether work
engagement influences individual crafting and collaborative crafting receives less
discussion. Thus, the present study addresses this gap in the literature and provides the
following hypotheses.

H2a. Work engagement has a positive relationship with individual crafting.


H2b. Work engagement has a positive relationship with collaborative crafting.

Work engagement as a mediator between job resourcefulness and job crafting


Job-resourceful employees are intrinsically motivated to achieve their work goals (Semedo
et al., 2016). This disposition makes them be engaged at work, and have a sense of vigor,
absorption, and dedication toward their work (Karatepe and Aga, 2012). Therefore, these
job-resourceful employees have high work engagement and in turn display proactive
IJCHM behaviors toward their work. That is, work engagement may function as an explanatory
31,4 mechanism for the relationship between job resourcefulness and job crafting. From the
viewpoint of mediation, work engagement may be a crucial mediator in the link between job
resourcefulness and job crafting. This notion is consistent with past studies that have
treated work engagement as a mediator and examined its antecedents and outcomes (Arasli
et al., 2017; Cain et al., 2018). According to our review of the literature, work engagement’s
1690 potential mediation of the job resourcefulness-job crafting relationship has not been
examined. Hence, this study supplements this line of research and develops the following
hypotheses:

H3a. The influence of job resourcefulness on individual crafting is mediated by work


engagement.
H3b. The influence of job resourcefulness on collaborative crafting is mediated by work
engagement.

Research framework
The research framework based on the aforementioned hypotheses is displayed in Figure 1.
Age, gender, and education are also related to work engagement and job crafting (Karatepe
and Olugbade, 2009; Roczniewska and Bakker, 2016). Therefore, these variables are treated
as control variables (Figure 1).

Methodology
Participants and procedures
Data were obtained from frontline hotel employees because most frontline hotel
employees work in resource-constrained environments (Harris et al., 2006). Following
the suggestions of Cheng and O-Yang (2018), we targeted four- and five-star full-time
employees who had frequent contact with customers (e.g. food servers and front desk
staff). Based on information from the Taiwan Tourism Bureau (2015), Taiwan has 73
four- and five-star hotels. The authors contacted the personnel managers of each hotel
to recruit participants. In total, we obtained the participation of 18 hotels which contain
100-400 rooms and seven hotels which have 400-700 rooms. This distribution by hotel
size is proportional to the hotel population. According to Podsakoff et al. (2012), we
reassured the respondents that their responses would be anonymous and confidential.

Figure 1.
The conceptual
framework of the
relationships among
job resourcefulness,
work engagement
and job crafting
Each participants received a package with a cover letter, a return envelope, the Job crafting
questionnaire and a gift.
Many assessment methods have been used to verify sample size adequacy. Siddiqui
(2013) suggested that 15 cases are required per indicator (i.e. per questionnaire item that
reflects the latent variable). Our study used 25 questionnaire items to measure the four latent
variables, representing that the cutoff sample size was 375. In addition, a relatively large
sample size can enhance model estimation and a sample size between 300 and 500 is
1691
appropriate for research intended for problem-solving (Malhotra and Birks, 2007). Based on
these considerations, 20-25 questionnaires were administered to each hotel. In total, 580
questionnaires were distributed, and 448 were returned. After 15 invalid surveys were
excluded, 433 usable questionnaires remained (response rate, 75 per cent); thus, our sample
size was acceptable; 57.7 per cent of the participants were female; 50.1 per cent were 26-35
years old; 67 per cent were single; 69.1 per cent held a bachelor’s degree; and 52.9 per cent
had 1-5 years of organizational tenure. The sample’s characteristics were similar to those of
other samples in the hotel literature (Chen et al., 2014; Li et al., 2012).
To assess the sample for nonresponse bias, the responses of participants who submitted
their questionnaires later were compared with those of participants who submitted their
questionnaires earlier (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). The means of all the studied
variables did not differ between the early and late survey groups (the first 75 per cent and
the remaining 25 per cent). Therefore, the nonresponse bias could be ruled out in this study.

Measures
The researchers utilized previously used survey questionnaires and measured all of the
constructs by employing a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree). The back-translation procedure from Van de Vijver and Hambleton (1996) was
executed by the authors and two hotel workers whose Chinese and English are both fluent to
ensure the translated version accuracy. A pilot test was administered to 30 Taiwanese hotel
employees to confirm the validity and reliability of the questionnaire items.
Job resourcefulness was evaluated with four items from the study of Licata et al. (2003).
Work engagement was used with nine items that were derived from Schaufeli et al. (2006).
Finally, job crafting was operationalized with 12 items from Leana et al. (2009), with six
focused on individual crafting and six on collaborative crafting. These aforementioned valid
and reliable scales have been adopted in previous hotel studies (Cheng and Chen, 2017;
Cheng and O-Yang, 2018).

Analysis and results


Measurement model
The sample was assessed for the normality assumption by measuring skewness and
kurtosis. All of the skewness and kurtosis values were below the cutoff of 2 (Table I). Thus,
our data did not violate the normality assumption (Kim, 2013). All Cronbach’s a coefficients
were greater than 0.7, confirming the reliability of the measures (Hair et al., 2010). The
questionnaire validity was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
The measurement model exhibited a good fit to the data: x 2/df = 2.87 (410.88/143),
comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.95, incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.95, root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.07, and root mean square residual (RMR) = 0.02.
The factor loadings ranged from 0.67 to 0.93. All of the composite reliability (CR) values
were greater than 0.7. The value of the average variance extracted (AVE) of each variable
exceeded 0.5. Therefore, convergent validity was supported (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). In
IJCHM Scale items Mean SD Factor loadings Skewness Kurtosis
31,4
Job resourcefulness 0.32 0.02
When it comes to completing tasks at my job I
am very clever and enterprising 3.67 0.66 0.81
I am able to make things happen in the face of
scarcity at my job 3.66 0.71 0.81
1692 At my job, I think I am a fairly resourceful
person 3.56 0.83 0.78
On the job I am clever and inventive in
overcoming barriers 3.65 0.76 0.79
Work engagement 0.48 0.96
At my work, I feel bursting with energy 3.72 0.69 0.91
At my job, I feel strong and vigorous 3.65 0.69 0.93
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to
work 3.62 0.74 0.73
I am enthusiastic about my job 3.66 0.69 0.76
My job inspires me 3.68 0.70 0.76
I am proud of the work that I do 3.65 0.71 0.78
I feel happy when I am working intensely 3.70 0.74 0.80
I get carried away when I am working 3.73 0.75 0.74
Individual crafting 0.50 0.17
Introduce new approaches on your own to
improve your work in the job 3.67 0.69 0.75
On your own, change the way you do your job to
make it easier to yourself 3.64 0.74 0.79
Rearrange equipment in the areas of your job on
your own 3.62 0.73 0.86
Organize special events in your job on your own 3.62 0.74 0.77
Collaborative crafting 0.14 0.07
Work together with your coworkers to introduce
new approaches to improve your work in the job 3.55 0.72 0.67
Decide together with your coworkers to change
Table I. minor work procedures that you think are not
productive 3.59 0.75 0.76
Summary of basic
Decide together with your coworkers to change
characteristics of the way you do your job to make it easier to
scale items yourself 3.63 0.72 0.75

addition, the AVE of each construct was greater than that of any pair of constructs
(Table III). Thus, discriminant validity was supported (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Because the studied variables were measured using a self-evaluation method, it is
necessary to confirm that the findings were unaffected by common method variance (CMV).
According to the CFA results, the single-factor model had significantly poor fit values
compared with the measurement model (Table II). Therefore, CMV was not a major concern
in the current study.

Zero-order correlations
As shown in Table III, job resourcefulness significantly and positively associated with work
engagement (r = 0.71; all p < 0.01), individual crafting (0.73) and collaborative crafting
(0.63). Additionally, work engagement positively related to individual crafting and
collaborative crafting (0.69 and 0.62 respectively). Finally, individual crafting was positively Job crafting
associated with collaborative crafting (0.69).

Testing the hypotheses


Before the hypotheses testing, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was analyzed. The VIF
values for job resourcefulness and work engagement were 2.02 and 2.02, lower than the
cutoff of 5.3 (Hair et al., 2010). Therefore, multicollinearity was not evident. The 1693
hypothesized model using structural equation modeling was tested and fit the data well ( x 2/
df = 2.62 (520.96/199), CFI = 0.94, IFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06, RMR = 0.02).
As displayed in Figure 2, job resourcefulness had a positive influence on work
engagement ( b = 0.84, p < 0.01), supporting H1. Additionally, work engagement had a
positive effect on individual crafting (0.27) and collaborative crafting (0.33). Therefore, H2a
and H2b were supported. Finally, the paths from job resourcefulness to individual crafting
(0.63) and collaborative crafting (0.52) were significant.
According to Karatepe (2015), some criteria shown in Table IV were used to execute
model comparisons. Past studies have demonstrated that job crafting affects work
engagement (Tims and Bakker, 2010). Therefore, an alternative model in which both
individual and collaborative crafting were treated as mediators was considered. As

Models x 2 (df) CFI IFI RMSEA RMR

Criteria <3 =0.90 =0.90 50.08 50.08 Table II.


Hypothesized model 410.88 (143) 0.95 0.95 0.07 0.02 Fit values for the
One-factor model 1,210.97 (152) 0.80 0.80 0.13 0.04 measurement models

Variable Mean SD CR AVE 1 2 3 4

1. Job resourcefulness 3.63 0.63 0.87 0.63 0.87


2. Work engagement 3.68 0.56 0.94 0.64 0.71** 0.91
3. Individual crafting 3.64 0.61 0.87 0.63 0.73** 0.69** 0.87
Table III.
4. Collaborative crafting 3.59 0.60 0.77 0.53 0.63** 0.62** 0.69** 0.77 Summary of basic
characteristics of all
Notes: **p < 0.01; the values on the diagonal are Cronbach alphas variables

Figure 2.
Structural path
estimates model
IJCHM presented in Table IV, the comparison of x 2 difference and proportion of significant
31,4 hypothesized paths indicated that the alternative model had worse fit than the original
model. Accordingly, the hypothesized framework was supported.
The researchers adopted Preacher and Hayes’s (2004) SPSS macros to estimate the true
indirect influence and its 95 per cent confidence interval (CI). The Sobel test suggested by
previous studies (Mansour and Mohanna, 2018) reported that work engagement mediated
1694 the influence of job resourcefulness on individual crafting (Sobel = 0.23, p < 0.01; 95 per cent
CI = 0.16, 0.31) and collaborative crafting (Sobel = 0.24, p < 0.01; 95 per cent CI = 0.16, 0.32).
Therefore, H3a and H3b were supported.
Finally, the direct and indirect influences of job resourcefulness on individual crafting
through work engagement were 0.63 and 0.23 (cumulative influence = 0.86). The direct and
indirect influences of job resourcefulness on collaborative crafting through work
engagement were 0.52 and 0.28 (cumulative influence = 0.80). Therefore, the job
resourcefulness-work engagement-individual crafting relationship was closer than the job
resourcefulness-work engagement-collaborative crafting relationship.

Discussion and conclusions


Conclusions
Personality traits, despite being a pivotal driver of job crafting, have received relatively little
academic attention (Roczniewska and Bakker, 2016). Therefore, further research is required
to investigate the connection between personality traits and job crafting. Job
resourcefulness, an essential situational personality trait, is under-investigated (Semedo
et al., 2016), especially in the hotel industry. The present study incorporates COR theory and
research on work engagement and job crafting by considering the linkage between job
resourcefulness and job crafting and clarifying the influence of work engagement on this
relationship. Our results show that job resourcefulness has a positive influence on individual
and collaborative crafting and that work engagement partially mediates these two
relationships; in other words, work engagement operates as an interpretive mechanism for
the relationship between job resourcefulness and job crafting. Furthermore, compared with
its role in the indirect influence of job resourcefulness on collaborative crafting, work
engagement is relatively critical in the indirect influence of job resourcefulness on individual
crafting. The theoretical and managerial implications of these findings are presented in the
following sections.

Theoretical implications
First, previous researchers have suggested that job resourcefulness is a crucial determinant
of many work-related outcomes (Semedo et al., 2016). In addition, Yavas et al. (2011b)

Model X2 (df) CFI PNFI % of significant paths supports R2

Hypothesized model 520.96 (199) 0.94 0.78 5/5 WEa = 0.71


ICb = 0.75
CCc = 0.67
Alternative model 525.93 (199) 0.94 0.78 3/5 WE = 0.74
IC = 0.75
Table IV. CC = 0.66
Structural equation
model comparison Notes: aWE = work engagement; bIC = individual crafting; cCC = collaborative crafting
recommended that hospitality studies examine the connection between job resourcefulness Job crafting
and psychological outcomes. Therefore, according to propositions in the COR theory, this
study supplements previous research (Karatepe and Aga, 2012) by confirming that job-
resourceful employees in the hospitality industry tend to engage in their work. Our findings
may empower job-resourceful frontline employees to seek solutions and thereby execute
their job-related tasks well in resource-limited working conditions (Semedo et al., 2016), and
in turn promote high work engagement. Additionally, the current research contributes to the
literature that explores the personality traits-work engagement relationship (Handa and 1695
Gulati, 2014; Kim et al., 2009) and responds to the call that investigates the predictors of
work engagement (Huertas-Valdivia et al., 2018).
Second, work engagement is an essential antecedent of workplace outcomes (Karatepe
and Olugbade, 2016). Among the outcome variables of work engagement, the connections
between work engagement and different types of job crafting behaviors (e.g. increasing
social job resources and decreasing hindering job demands) have been evident in education
and technology industries (Bakker and Bal, 2010; Lu et al., 2014). Notably, few previous
studies have investigated the influence of work engagement on individual and collaborative
crafting in the hotel industry. Therefore, this study supplements previous literature by
asserting that engaged hotel employees tend to reshape their jobs individually and
collaboratively. In addition, our study provides empirical support for the conceptual
statements of Bakker et al. (2012a) that work engagement relates to job crafting. That is,
employees with high work engagement are committed to their work (Arasli et al., 2017) and
in turn alter their work boundaries on their own (i.e. through individual crafting) or modify
job boundaries with their coworkers to accomplish common work goals (i.e. through
collaborative crafting).
Finally, a novel finding of the present study, which has not been discussed in previous
research, is that work engagement acts a mediator in the link between job resourcefulness
and job crafting. This finding supplements the research on work engagement as a mediating
bridge in the hotel industry (Arasli et al., 2017; Paek et al., 2015) and responds to the call of
Kim et al. (2018b), who noted that few studies have investigated the antecedents of job
crafting. Additionally, compared with other employees in service firms, frontline employees
often encounter higher volumes of direct or one-on-one communication with customers
when delivering services (Chen et al., 2014). This work characteristic often requires these
employees to fulfill customers’ expectations and independently provide services to
customers. Thus, work engagement exhibits a greater mediating influence on the job
resourcefulness-individual crafting relationship than on the job resourcefulness-
collaborative crafting relationship. Combining with those findings, it is incomplete only to
examine the influence of job resourcefulness on job crafting. We suggest that managers
should consider that work engagement can serve as a referent to observe how job
resourcefulness influences on job crafting. That is, without work engagement, job-
resourceful employees lack adequate vigor, absorption, and dedication to proactively craft
their work, especially in terms of individual crafting.

Practical implications
The present study offers several key managerial implications. First, the service industry is
characterized by high job and emotional demands (Yoo and Arnold, 2016). It is essential for
managers to identify employees who can deal with these work pressures by actively crafting
their work conditions. Our findings suggest that job resourcefulness can be considered as a
criterion for selecting and retaining such frontline employees. Job resourcefulness measures
or scenario-grounded exams may be adopted as assessments of whether job applicants or
IJCHM current employees exhibit job resourcefulness. Managers can also establish training
31,4 programs to enhance employees’ job resourcefulness.
Second, job-resourceful employees tend to solve work-related problems and are not
passive employees who view work problems as a hindrance to complete their work.
Therefore, job-resourceful employees may be positioned as pioneers who discover problems
at the point of contact with customers and improve their service interactions efficiently.
1696 Managers can apply participative management practices to obtain feedback from job-
resourceful employees and improve job design by collecting these employees’ comments
regarding how they craft their work to solve the work problems in the service process.
Third, work engagement involves a crucial psychological process in which job
resourcefulness influences individual and collaborative crafting. In addition, the
job resourcefulness-work engagement-individual crafting relationship is closer than the job
resourcefulness-work engagement-collaborative crafting relationship. Accordingly,
managers should provide job-resourceful employees with the resources required to enhance
their work engagement. For example, managers can plan performance appraisal programs
(e.g. results-oriented or pay increments for individual performance) to encourage work
engagement (Huertas-Valdivia et al., 2018) and in turn display individual crafting.
Additionally, empowerment, job responsibility, and role ambiguity have all been shown to
influence work engagement (Harris et al., 2006; Karatepe, 2013; Karatepe et al., 2014).
Therefore, managers should provide job-resourceful employees with empowerment,
autonomy, and clear and relevant work instructions (e.g. job responsibility and goals) that
help them work more effectively, and thereby enhance their work engagement, which
subsequently strengthens their inclinations to exhibit job crafting. In summary, these
practical strategies can aid managers in enhancing how job resourcefulness and work
engagement affect job crafting activities in the organizations.

Limitations and future research


Although the current research provides theoretical and managerial insights, there are some
limitations to note. First, although procedural and statistical techniques were used to reduce
the influence of CMV, all of the variable data were cross-sectional and from the same source.
Similar to Podsakoff et al. (2012), we suggest that future researchers implement variables at
different time points or adopt a multiple-source empirical research design to avoid this
problem. Second, we adopted a cross-sectional research design that may not infer the cause-
effect relationship. Future research may adopt a longitudinal design that examines the links
among job resourcefulness, work engagement, and job crafting.
Third, the sample comprised only frontline hotel employees and may not generalize our
findings to other industries. Other frontline tourism and hospitality employees (e.g. tour
leaders, travel agents, and airline attendants) and those in other work groups (e.g. doctors,
advocacy workers, and academics) may be considered in future research. Finally, we
clarified how work engagement mediated the relationship between job resourcefulness and
job crafting. Future studies could include moderators or examine other possible mechanisms
that may elicit a deep understanding of these relationships. For example, the hotel industry
is highly centralized and formalized (Raub, 2008), a management style that can render the
rules and practices in hotels inflexible (Tracey and Nathan, 2002); this phenomenon may
impede employees from displaying individual and collaborative crafting behaviors. Surface
personality traits (e.g. customer orientation) or work environment variables (e.g. level of job
complexity) may influence the job resourcefulness-job crafting relationship. Thus, the
influences of individual and work characteristics could be considered in future studies.
References Job crafting
Arasli, H., Teimouri, R.B., Kiliç, H. and Aghaei, I. (2017), “Effects of service orientation on job
embeddedness in hotel industry”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 37 Nos 9/10, pp. 607-627.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Ashill, N.J., Rod, M., Thirkell, P. and Carruthers, J. (2009), “Job resourcefulness, symptoms of burnout
and service recovery performance: an examination of call Centre frontline employees”, Journal of 1697
Services Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 338-350.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16, pp. 76-94.
Bakker, A.B. (2017), “Strategic and proactive approaches to work engagement”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 67-75.
Bakker, A.B. and Bal, P.M. (2010), “Weekly work engagement and performance: a study among starting
teachers”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 189-206.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2012a), “How do engaged employees stay engaged”,
Ciencia and Trabajo, Vol. 14, pp. 15-21.
Bakker, A.B., Tims, M. and Derks, D. (2012b), “Proactive personality and job performance: the role of
job crafting and work engagement”, Human Relations, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 1359-1378.
Bell, C. and Njoli, N. (2016), “The role of big five factors on predicting job crafting propensities amongst
administrative employees in a South African tertiary institution”, SA Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Bipp, T. and Demerouti, E. (2015), “Which employees craft their jobs and how? Basic dimensions of
personality and employees’ job crafting behavior”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 631-655.
Brenninkmeijer, V. and Hekkert-Koning, M. (2015), “To craft or not to craft: the relationships between
regulatory focus, job crafting and work outcomes”, Career Development International, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 147-162.
Cain, L., Busser, J. and Kang, H.J. (2018), “Executive chefs’ calling: effect on engagement, work-life
balance and life satisfaction”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 2287-2307.
Chen, C.Y., Yen, C.H. and Tsai, F.C. (2014), “Job crafting and job engagement: the mediating role of
person-job fit”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 37, pp. 21-28.
Cheng, J.C. and Chen, C.Y. (2017), “Job resourcefulness, work engagement and prosocial service
behaviors in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 2668-2687.
Cheng, J.C., Chen, C.Y., Teng, H.Y. and Yen, C.H. (2016), “Tour leaders’ job crafting and job outcomes:
the moderating role of perceived organizational support”, Tourism Management Perspectives,
Vol. 20, pp. 19-29.
Cheng, J.C. and O-Yang, Y. (2018), “Hotel employee job crafting, burnout, and satisfaction: the
moderating role of perceived organizational support”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 72, pp. 78-85.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Garg, S. and Dhar, R. (2017), “Employee service innovative behavior: the roles of leader-member
exchange (LMX), work engagement, and job autonomy”, International Journal of Manpower,
Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 242-258.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
IJCHM Hakanen, J.J., Perhoniemi, R. and Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008), “Positive gain spirals at work: from job
resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness”, Journal of
31,4 Vocational Behavior, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 78-91.
Handa, M. and Gulati, A. (2014), “Employee engagement: does individual personality matter”, Journal
of Management Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 57-67.
Harris, E.G., Artis, A.B., Fogliasso, C. and Fleming, D.E. (2007), “Hospital employee job resourcefulness:
an empirical study and implications for health care marketing”, Health Marketing Quarterly,
1698 Vol. 24 Nos 1/2, pp. 63-75.
Harris, E.G., Artis, A.B., Walters, J.H. and Licata, J.W. (2006), “Role stressors, service worker job
resourcefulness, and job outcomes: an empirical analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59
No. 4, pp. 407-415.
Harris, E.G. and Fleming, D.E. (2017), “The productive service employee: personality, stress,
satisfaction and performance”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 499-511.
Harris, E.G., Ladik, D.M., Artis, A.B. and Fleming, D.E. (2013), “Examining the influence of job
resourcefulness on sales performance”, The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 21
No. 4, pp. 405-414.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2002), “Social and psychological resources and adaptation”, Review of General Psychology,
Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 307-324.
Huertas-Valdivia, I., Llorens-Montes, F.J. and Ruiz-Moreno, A. (2018), “Achieving engagement among
hospitality employees: a serial mediation mode”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 217-241.
Kanten, P. (2014), “The antecedent of job crafting: perceived organizational support, job characteristics,
and self-efficacy”, European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 3, pp. 113-128.
Karatepe, O.M. (2011), “Job resourcefulness as a moderator of the work-family conflict - job satisfaction
relationship: a study of hotel employees in Nigeria”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 10-17.
Karatepe, O.M. (2013), “High-performance work practices and hotel employee performance: the
mediation of work engagement”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 32,
pp. 132-140.
Karatepe, O.M. (2015), “Do personal resources mediate the effect of perceived organizational support on
emotional exhaustion and job outcomes”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 4-26.
Karatepe, O.M. and Aga, M. (2012), “Work engagement as a mediator of the effects of personality traits
on job outcomes: a study of frontline employees”, Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 343-362.
Karatepe, O.M., Beirami, E., Bouzari, M. and Safavi, H.P. (2014), “Does work engagement mediate the
effects of challenge stressors on job outcomes? Evidence from the hotel industry”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 36, pp. 14-22.
Karatepe, O.M. and Douri, B.G. (2012), “Does customer orientation mediate the effect of job
resourcefulness on hotel employee outcomes? Evidence from Iran”, Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 109-118.
Karatepe, O.M. and Karadas, G. (2015), “Do psychological Capital and work engagement foster frontline
employees’ satisfaction? A study in the hotel industry”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1254-1278.
Karatepe, O.M. and Olugbade, O.A. (2009), “The effects of job and personal resources on hotel employees’
work engagement”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 504-512.
Karatepe, O.M. and Olugbade, O.A. (2016), “The mediating role of work engagement in the relationship
between high-performance work practices and job outcomes of employees in Nigeria”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 10, pp. 2350-2371.
Kim, H., Im, J. and Qu, H. (2018a), “Exploring antecedents and consequences of job crafting”, Job crafting
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 75, pp. 18-26.
Kim, H., Im, J., Qu, H. and NamKoong, J. (2018b), “Antecedent and consequences of job crafting: an
organizational level approach”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 1863-1881.
Kim, H.J., Shin, K.H. and Swanger, N. (2009), “Burnout and engagement: a comparative analysis using
the big five personality dimensions”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 96-104. 1699
Kim, H.Y. (2013), “Statistics notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution using
skewness and kurtosis”, Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 52-54.
Kim, J. and Gatling, A. (2018), “The impact of using a virtual employee engagement platform (VEEP) on
employee engagement and intention to stay”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 242-259.
Kim, M.S. and Koo, D.W. (2017), “Linking LMX, engagement, innovative behavior, and job performance
in hotel employees”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29
No. 12, pp. 3044-3062.
Kusluvan, S., Kusluvan, Z., Ilhan, I. and Buyruk, L. (2010), “The human dimension: a review of human
resources management issues in the tourism and hospitality industry”, Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 171-214.
Leana, C., Appelbaum, E. and Shevchuk, I. (2009), “Work process and quality of care in early childhood
education: the role of job crafting”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 1169-1192.
Li, X., Sanders, K. and Frenkel, S. (2012), “How leader-member exchange, work engagement and HRM
consistency explain chinese luxury hotel employees’ job performance”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 1059-1066.
Licata, J.W., Mowen, J.C., Harris, E.G. and Brown, T.J. (2003), “On the trait antecedents and outcomes of
service worker job resourcefulness: a hierarchical model approach”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 256-271.
Liu, J. and Cho, S. (2018), “Interaction effect of display rules and emotional intelligence on hotel
managers’ and non-managers’ work engagement”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 1903-1919.
Liu, J., Cho, S. and Putra, E.D. (2017), “The moderating effect of self-efficacy and gender on work
engagement for restaurant employees in the United States”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 624-642.
Lu, C.Q., Wang, H.J., Lu, J.J., Du, D.Y. and Bakker, A.B. (2014), “Does work engagement increase
person–job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 142-152.
Lu, L., Lu, A.C.C., Gursoy, D. and Neale, N.R. (2016), “Work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover
intentions: a comparison between supervisors and line-level employees”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 737-761.
Lyu, Y., Zhu, H., Zhong, H.J. and Hu, L. (2016), “Abusive supervision and customer-oriented
organizational citizenship behavior: the roles of hostile attribution bias and work engagement”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 53, pp. 69-80.
Malhotra, N. and Birks, D. (2007), Marketing Research: an Applied Approach, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Mansour, S. and Mohanna, D. (2018), “Mediating role of job stress between work-family conflict, work-
leisure conflict, and employees’ perception of service quality in the hotel industry in France”,
Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 154-174.
Min, H., Kim, H.J. and Lee, S.B. (2015), “Extending the challenge-hindrance stressor framework: the role
of psychological Capital”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 50, pp. 105-114.
IJCHM Mowen, J.C. (2000), The 3M Model of Motivation and Personality: Theory and Empirical Applications to
Consumer Behavior, Kluwer, Boston, MA.
31,4
Paek, S., Schuckert, M., Kim, T.T. and Lee, G. (2015), “Why is hospitality employees’ psychological
Capital important? The effects of psychological Capital on work engagement and employee
morale”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 50, pp. 9-26.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
1700 research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63,
pp. 539-569.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 717-731.
Øgaard, T., Marnburg, E. and Larsen, S. (2008), “Perceptions of organizational structure in the
hospitality industry: consequences for commitment, job satisfaction and perceived
performance”, Tourism Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 661-671.
Ranjan, K.R., Sugathan, P. and Rossmann, A. (2015), “A narrative review and meta-analysis of service
interaction quality: new research directions and implications”, Journal of Services Marketing,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Raub, S. (2008), “Does bureaucracy kills individual initiative? The impact of structure on organizational
citizenship behavior in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 179-186.
Raymark, P.H., Schmit, M.J. and Guion, R.M. (1997), “Identifying potentially useful personality
constructs for employee selection”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 723-736.
Roczniewska, M. and Bakker, A.B. (2016), “Who seeks job resources, and who avoids job demands? The
link between dark personality traits and job crafting”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 150 No. 8,
pp. 1026-1045.
Rod, M. and Ashill, N.J. (2009), “Symptoms of burnout and service recovery performance: the influence
of job resourcefulness”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 60-84.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), “The measurement of work engagement with a
short questionnaire: a cross-national study”, Educational and Psychological Measurement,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701-716.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Van Rhenen, W. (2009), “How changes in job demands and resources
predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 893-917.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Semedo, A.S.D., Coelho, A.F.M. and Ribeiro, N.M.P. (2016), “Effects of authentic leadership, affective
commitment and job resourcefulness on employees’ creativity and individual performance”,
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 1038-1055.
Siddiqui, K. (2013), “Heuristics for sample size determination in multivariate statistical techniques”,
World Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 285-287.
Sonnentag, S. (2003), “Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the interface
between nonwork and work”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 518-528.
Taiwan Tourism Bureau (2015), Travel Agents Statistics in Taiwan, Tourism Bureau, Ministry of
Transportation and Communication, Taipei.
Tims, M. and Bakker, A.B. (2010), “Job crafting: towards a new model of individual job redesign”, SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 1-9.
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Derks, D. (2012), “Development and validation of the job crafting scale”, Job crafting
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 173-186.
Tims, M., Derks, D. and Bakker, A.B. (2016), “Job crafting and its relationships with person-job fit and
meaningfulness: a three-wave study”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 92, pp. 44-53.
Tracey, B.J. and Nathan, A.E. (2002), “The strategic and operational roles of human resources: an
emerging model”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 43, pp. 17-26.
Tsui, A.S. (2004), “Contributing to global management knowledge: a case for high quality indigenous
research”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 491-513.
1701
Van de Vijver, F. and Hambleton, R. (1996), “Translating tests: some practical guidelines”, European
Psychologist, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 89-99.
Walsh, G., Dahling, J.J., Schaarschmidt, M. and Brach, S. (2016), “Surface-acting outcomes among
service employees with two jobs: investigating moderation and mediation effects”, Journal of
Service Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 534-562.
Weigl, M., Hornung, S., Parker, S.K., Petru, R., Glaser, J. and Angerer, P. (2010), “Work engagement
accumulation of task, social, personal resources: a three-wave structural equation model”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 140-153.
Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2001), “Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of
their work”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 179-201.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2007), “The role of personal
resources in the job demands-resources model”, International Journal of Stress Management,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 121-141.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009), “Reciprocal relationships
between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 235-244.
Yavas, U., Karatepe, O.M. and Babakus, E. (2011a), “Do customer orientation and job resourcefulness
moderate the impact of interrole conflicts on frontline employees’ performance”, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 148-159.
Yavas, U., Karatepe, O.M. and Babakus, E. (2011b), “Efficacy of job and personal resources across
psychological and behavioral outcomes”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and
Tourism, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 304-314.
Yoo, J.J. and Arnold, T.J. (2016), “Frontline employee customer-oriented attitude in the presence of job
demands and resources: the influence upon deep and surface acting”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 102-117.

Corresponding author
Chien-Yu Chen can be contacted at: dustinchen@mail.chihlee.edu.tw

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Você também pode gostar