LEVERAGING DEMANDS AND RESOURCES TO CULTIVATE SUPPORT FOR CHANGE: AN INTEGRATIVE PERSPECTIVE

Aprovechar las demandas y los recursos para cultivar el apoyo al cambio: Una perspectiva integradora

ABSTRACT

Prior research suggests that individuals’ bottom-up initiatives are effective in developing support for change, yet it lacks empirical validation in the context of public organizations. Building on the job demands-resources theory (JD-R), this study examines the process that contributes to translating one’s positive behavioral enactment and support for change, particularly in public organizations. The findings are theoretically and practically significant, providing fresh insights into the behavioral mechanisms involved in the cultivation of support for change in public organizations.

Keywords:
organizational change; change-efficacy; job crafting; bureaucratic context; behavioral support for change.

RESUMEN

Las investigaciones anteriores sugieren que las iniciativas de cambio del tipo “bottom-up” (en sentido ascendente) lideradas por individuos son efectivas en la consecución de apoyo al cambio. No obstante, dicha constatación aún carece de validación empírica en el contexto de las organizaciones públicas. Sobre la base de la teoría de las demandas y recursos laborales (DRL), el propósito de este estudio es examinar el proceso que contribuye a traducir la promulgación del comportamiento positivo y el apoyo al cambio, particularmente en las organizaciones públicas. Los hallazgos del estudio son teórica y prácticamente significativos porque brindan nuevas percepciones sobre los mecanismos de comportamiento involucrados en el cultivo del apoyo al cambio en las organizaciones públicas.

Palabras clave:
cambio organizacional; eficacia del cambio; diseño de trabajo; contexto burocrático; apoyo conductual para el cambio.

RESUMO

Pesquisas anteriores sugerem que iniciativas de mudança do tipo bottom-up (ou de baixo para cima), conduzidas por indivíduos, são eficazes na obtenção de apoio a tal mudança. Essa constatação, entretanto, ainda carece de validação empírica no contexto das organizações públicas. Com base na teoria das demandas de recursos do trabalho (JD-R), o objetivo deste estudo é examinar o processo que contribui para traduzir a atuação comportamental positiva e o apoio à mudança, particularmente em organizações públicas. As descobertas do estudo são teórica e praticamente significativas porque fornecem novas percepções sobre os mecanismos comportamentais envolvidos no cultivo do apoio à mudança nas organizações públicas.

Palavras-chave:
mudança organizacional; eficácia da mudança; redesenho do trabalho; contexto burocrático; suporte comportamental para a mudança.

INTRODUCTION

Faced with an increasingly volatile external environment, public organizations are constantly in need of bring-in reform and implementing it in its true spirit. Despite the calls for more research to improve our understanding of the micro-level perspectives on change (Grimmelikhuijsen & Porumbescu, 2017; Kuipers et al., 2014), the underlying mechanism of how change recipients translate public reforms into practices is scanty, with few noteworthy exceptions (i.e., Ahmad & Cheng, 2018; Ahmad, Straatmann, Mueller, & Liu, 2020; Hassan, Zhang, Ahmad, & Liu, 2020). This lack of interest in public sector research is surprising, given that public reforms are often viewed as contradictory, complex, and inconsistent, which may lead to employees’ resistance to change (Engen, Steijn, & Tummers, 2019). Therefore, understanding how change recipients react and show behavioral support for change in a bureaucratic work setting is a potential avenue for further research (Ahmad, Straatmann, Mueller, & Liu, 2020; Chen, Zhang, Ahmad, & Liu, 2020). This study attempts to fill this gap by investigating the process that may substantially explain the increase in the individuals’ behavior to support change. It specifically aims to explore an integrative (top-down/bottom-up) mechanism leading individuals’ to two-folded behavioral spectrum to change, such as ‘compliance behavior’ for passive efforts (i.e., going along with the change; only fulfilling explicit requirements), and ‘championing behavior’ for active engagement (i.e., going beyond what is required, making discretionary efforts, and actively contributing to change).

Prior research on change management in public organizations has identified several factors as antecedents to individuals’ response to change, such as context, content, personal factors, leadership, and change process (Ahmad & Cheng, 2018; Kuiper et al., 2014). Among the suggested antecedents, individual disposition or personal characteristics have accounted for significant variance in determining individuals’ reactions to change (Ahmad et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2021; Hassan, Zhang, Ahmad, & Liu, 2020; Mehboob, Othman, Fareed & Raza, 2022; Mehboob & Othman, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c). It has been noted that the effect of personal factors on employees’ reaction to change has not been fully explored in the organizational change literature (Choi, 2011; Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011; Rafferty, Jimmieson, & Armenakis, 2013). Thus, this study examines change-efficacy as a personal factor that is likely to affect individuals’ belief to unfold their support for change. Change-efficacy refers to the “extent to which one feels that he or she has or does not have the skills and is or is not able to execute the tasks and activities that are associated with the implementation of the prospective change” (Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007, p. 238). Since change recipients may view change initiatives differently, the expectation is that individuals with varying degrees of change-efficacy beliefs might react to the similar context differently (passively or actively). Hence, examining the association between change-efficacy and behavioral support for change is critical to understanding the underlying different response patterns among change recipients.

Furthermore, previous research shows that individuals do not always respond as passive change recipients; they also engage in a broad range of proactive behaviors that challenge the status quo and thereby enhance organizational functioning and adaptation to organizational change (Chen et al., 2021; Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2018; Walk & Handy, 2018). Thus, change recipients are expected to go beyond their regular work practices and behaviors, discarding old behaviors and better aligned themselves with the core objectives of the change initiative (Ahmad et al., 2020; Kuipers et al., 2014). Drawing on the JD-R theory, change recipients can expand their repertoire of actions and align their work environment with the emerging demands imposed by the change by increasing structural and social resources and challenging job demands via job crafting (Petrou et al., 2018). Job crafting refers to the self-initiated changes that employees make in their job’s relational and task boundaries to improve the person-job fit (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). JD-R theory claims that personal resources enhance one’s job characteristics, as highly efficacious individuals generate/perceive more job resources in the form of job crafting and trigger a motivational process leading to favorable organizational outcomes (Akkermans & Tims, 2017; Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). A detailed review of the literature suggests that the mechanisms through which behavioral support for change explicitly unfolds, particularly in public organizations, is still a potential avenue that needs to be untapped. Thus, we propose that job crafting offers a mediating mechanism between change efficacy and bi-dimensional form of behavioral support for change.

Besides, specific organizational, structural, and environmental characteristics are key constituents to influence public reforms (Ahmad & Cheng, 2018; Ewens & Voet, 2019; Isett, Glied, Sparer, & Brown, 2013; Kickert, 2014; Kuipers et al., 2014; Schmidt, Groeneveld, & Walle, 2017). Public organizations usually emulate a top-down bureaucratic control where formal rule-based centralized channels are established to achieve organizational change in a systematic and orderly manner (Chia, 2014; Isett, Glied, Sparer, & Brown, 2013; Voet, 2014). Scholars (Isett et al., 2013; Voet, 2014) have argued that bureaucratic context might influence how public organizations manage reforms and subsequent initiatives. Despite their bureaucratic nature, little is known empirically about these organizations’ context and role during public reforms (Vakola, Petrou, & Katsaros, 2021). The specification of bureaucratic context as a conditional factor has remained a significant gap in public sector research. This study addresses this void by examining the bureaucratic context as a likely boundary condition. The bureaucratic context is expected to moderate the relationship between change-efficacy and job crafting.

This study contributes to the literature by offering a fresh theoretical perspective in the face of organizational change. JD-R theory provides a sound theoretical foundation to concurrently examine the interaction between personal and contextual factors to unfold behavioral support for change. It also illustrates the mechanism and motivational process that adequately explains how and why change-related efficacy affects both active and passive modes of behavioral support for change through job crafting. Specifically, the research aims to accomplish the following objectives:

1. To examine individuals’ change efficacy as a predictor of behavioral support for change.

2. To investigate the intervening role of job crafting in the relationship between individuals’ change efficacy and behavioral support for change.

3. To assess the buffering effect of bureaucratic context on the path between change-efficacy and job crafting.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

Change-efficacy as Predictor of Individuals’ Behavioral Support for Change

Prior research on organizational change argues that individuals’ perceptions and beliefs about change lead to persistent and effortful behaviors focused on supporting and facilitating the implementation of change initiatives (Haffar, Al-Karaghouli, Irani, Djebarni, & Gbadamosi, 2019; Oreg, Bartunek, Lee, & Do, 2018; Oreg et al., 2011; Rafferty et al., 2013). While examining how individuals respond to organizational change, the abundant literature on the issue has taken a narrow perspective to change, primarily the individuals’ passive responses, often ignoring their active responses to change (Oreg, Bartunek, & Lee, 2014; Oreg et al., 2018). Consistent with this view, scholars such as Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) and Fugate and Soenen (2018) advocated that change recipients either respond passively or actively under similar change settings. According to them, the minimally acceptable level of support displayed during the change refers to the compliance with statutory instructions, rules, and directions. It is a passive response to change demonstrated through following instructions but not enthusiastically participating in the process or with others. On the other hand, active response to change refers to a championing behavior that involves “demonstrating extreme enthusiasm for a change by going above and beyond what is formally required to ensure the success of the change and promoting the change to others” (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002, p. 478). Championing behavior, “occurs when a target person agrees internally with an action or decision, is enthusiastic about it, and is likely to exercise initiative and demonstrate unusual effort and persistence in order to carry out the request successfully” (Falbe & Yukl, 1992, p. 640). Consequently, identifying relative antecedents and their underlying relationships leading to supportive behaviors provides a core impetus to conduct this study.

Change-efficacy, in that vein, stimulates employees to unfold their behavioral enactment and response to change initiatives. Change-efficacy is an individual’s perceived ability to carry out the prospective change initiative (Bandura, 1986). It encompasses the belief that “how well one can execute courses of action is required to deal with prospective situations” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122). Highly efficacious individuals believe they are more capable of completing tasks successfully after the change is implemented (Holt et al., 2007). Previous research highlighted three reasons for examining change-efficacy as a key precursor during times of organizational change. First, Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory suggests that individuals are more likely to undertake activities they believe they can accomplish successfully. It is the person’s confidence in their ability to successfully build the reality as they wish (Ng & Lucianetti, 2016). Second, change-efficacy has its roots in expectancy theory which assumes that employees’ expectations of the targeted object are shaped by their efficacy belief (Vroom, 1964). Individuals are more likely to employ their efforts during a change intervention when they strongly believe in accomplishing the desirable outcomes. When they lack confidence in their ability to succeed, they are unlikely to respond to change initiatives (Vakola, Armenakis, & Oreg, 2013).

Third, according to the JD-R theory, change-efficacy is a valuable personal resource that shapes change recipients’ adaptability by allowing them to manage transitions at work effectively (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Because change is a stressful and demanding process for people (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002), they require additional resources to meet this demand and create a favorable response to change efforts (Shin, Taylor, & Seo, 2012). In brief, change recipients strongly believe in their ability to carry out the desired behaviors required by change initiatives. Otherwise, the psychological motives to drive the change would be less than what they expected (Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts, & Walker, 2007).

Aligned with the significance of change-efficacy, recent research has reported the positive impact of efficacy in determining change-related outcomes (Haffar et al., 2019; Mehboob & Othman, 2020a, 2020b; Rafferty & Minbashian, 2019). Studies have noted that efficacy beliefs are genuinely instrumental in fostering one’s motivation level to accomplish performance objectives in the face of adverse and demanding situations, such as those that emerge during an organizational change. Specifically, Mehboob and Othman (2020b) examined this link between change-efficacy and behavioral support for change to understand whether the availability of efficacy resources could enhance employees’ compliance or championing behaviors for change. The finding shows that efficacy as a resource has a motivational potential that enables individuals to become more adaptive to change, which leads to more instances of supportive behavior in relation to the organizational change.

In view of this rationale, the study’s first hypothesis is that:

• H1a: Change-efficacy is positively related to compliance behavior.

• H1b: Change-efficacy is positively related to championing behavior.

Job Crating as an Explanatory Mechanism to Cultivate Behavioral Support for Change

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) defined job crafting as “physical and cognitive changes individuals make to the task or relational boundaries of their work and the actions employees take to shape, mold, and redefine their jobs” (p. 179). They further describe job crafting as the individuals’ self-initiated behaviors to (re)appraise the task, change their identity at work, and make it more meaningful, improving job fit and leading to satisfaction and better performance. Based on the JD-R model, Tims et al. (2012) conceptualized job crafting as the “changes that employees may make to balance their job demands and job resources with their personal abilities and needs” (p. 174). According to them, by regulating the extent of the job demands and resources, job crafters can better adjust to their needs. Job crafting thus enables individuals to increase ‘structural resources’ (i.e., seeking task variety, developing capabilities, and learning new things), ‘social resources’ (i.e., seeking supervisory and peer feedback), and ‘challenging job demands’ (i.e., requesting additional tasks and responsibilities). When employees optimize their job in such a way, they create a person-job fit, which has a positive influence on their well-being and performance (Bakker, 2017; Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2018; Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2014).

Past empirical studies have also revealed job crafting to be a useful approach in the face of organizational change (Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015; Petrou et al., 2018; Walk & Handy, 2018; Wang, Demerouti, Blanc, & Lu, 2018). Organizational change can be perceived as an ambiguous and uncertain situation that does not provide adequate cues about how to effectively respond to the novel situation (Petrou et al., 2015). In such circumstances, job crafting becomes vital because it enables and allows new work roles to emerge. In response, employees can use it as a tactic to deal with relatively new and unknown situations (Berg, Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2010). By widening their repertoire of strategies and actions, job crafters are better able to respond to the emerging demands of new situations (Petrou et al., 2015).

For instance, job crafters usually have personal control, and are more likely to adapt to change to maintain this control (Tims & Bakker, 2010). When associated with the need for control, efficacy has been identified as a promising antecedent to job crafting that may lead individuals to modify and alter the aspects of their job (Tims et al., 2014). It better enables them to gain control of the working context and the overall work activity (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), and refers to the conviction of having control over life and confidence in the ability to shape relationships, events, situations, and performing “the courses of action required to create specific successes or results” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Individuals who believe they will be able to handle the many aspects of their job and work environment effectively are more likely to restructure and redefine work activities, tasks, and social interactions by mobilizing job resources in accordance with new job demands (Miraglia, Cenciotti, Alessandri, & Borgogni, 2017).

Past research has empirically supported the link between efficacy and job crafting behavior, indicating that employees are more likely to stay engaged with their jobs when expanding their repertoire of job resources (Ingusci et al., 2019; Kim, Im, & Qu, 2018). Consistent with the JD-R theory, having such resources allows individuals to craft their job constituents more specifically and deliberately. Individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to alter their tasks, relationships, demands, and resources by expanding their capacities and learning new skills on the job (Miraglia et al., 2017). As a result, individuals are better equipped to mobilize additional resources in high-stress situations, exert extra effort, and participate in novel activities to achieve their objectives (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009).

Job crafters are not only considered as passive recipients of change initiativesthey are also viewed asactive participants in the change process (Ghitulescu (2013) Previous research into job crafting as a predictor, found substantive in determining its impact on the change-related outcomes both at the passivity (adaptive and change-oriented task performance: (Demerouti, Xanthopoulou, Petrou, & Karagkounis, 2017; Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015; Petrou et al., 2018) and activity (discretionary behavior: Gordon et al., 2018). From this perspective, job crafting offers strong relevance, adequacy, and stimulus to change recipients to engage in crafting strategies and show behavioral support for change, either complying (passively) with the change initiative or liaising and ambitiously championing (actively) it. In short, those who are actively involved in creating a resourceful working environment by demonstrating efficacy and devising activities are more inclined to advocate for change and its value throughout the organization.

Therefore, the second hypothesis in this study is that:

• H2a: Job crafting mediates the relationship between change-efficacy and compliance behavior

• H2b: Job crafting mediates the relationship between change-efficacy and championing behavior

Moderating Role of Bureaucratic Context

An organization is more or less bureaucratic according to the degree to which the formal rules, policies, procedures, power, and decision-making authority govern the employees’ work-related activities (Rainey, 2009). A high degree of bureaucratization implies growth in both the ‘rules governing behavior’ and ‘structures of bureaucracy’ charged with implementing and monitoring the enforcement of rules (Bozeman, 2015). In response, critics have pointed out that the compliance-oriented emphasis on general rules and details causes overregulation, risk avoidance, quality inefficiencies, and inflexible work attitudes (Drechsler, 2005). Because bureaucratization and strict formal processes restrain individuals’ responsibilities only to that particular circumstance (Palos & Stancovici, 2016), there is limited opportunity for constructive dialogue across the board and the focus is diverted to putting things in order following specific prescriptions (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).

Previous research has indicated that the bureaucratic context, which typically emulates public organizations, has a significant influence on effective intervention during organizational change (Ahmad et al., 2020; Ewens & Voet, 2019; Schmidt et al., 2017; Steijn & Voet, 2019). It has been observed that public organizations are becoming increasingly overwhelmed by rules, regulations, and procedures, making it difficult for them to transform and implement change (Isett et al., 2013). Strong policy adherence and inertia (Isett et al., 2013) often stifle the flow of productive, innovative, and new ideas within the organization (Torfing, 2019), making it hard for employees to seek out new opportunities, knowledge, and learning (Jakobsen & Thrane, 2016). Employees feel powerless in a highly bureaucratically controlled workplace that limits their work freedom, autonomy, independence, and ability to comply with the explicit requirements of the upcoming change (DeHart-Davis, 2005; Lim & Moon, 2020).

Put differently, the increased emphasis on bureaucratization of organizational work processes restricts the employees’ opportunities to communicate frequently with superiors and peers, thereby jeopardizing the necessary flow of information and ideas across the organization during an organizational change (Hassan, Zhang, & Ahmad, 2020). Therefore, it is expected that in a highly bureaucratic environment, individuals will feel less capable of exercising self-initiative through job crafting (i.e., increasing structural, social, and job demands). Moreover, Petrou et al. (2015) pointed out that crafting behavior is contingent on various contextual factors that can shape crafting instincts in ways that either enhance or diminish their behavioral response to change. Thus, the third hypothesis reinforces our case and reasoning:

• H3: The bureaucratic context moderates the relationship between change-efficacy and job crafting in a way that such a relationship will be weaker in a high bureaucratic context

Figure 1
Research framework

METHODOLOGY

Data Collection

The data used in this study were collected through a questionnaire distributed among academic staff of six public universities located in Pakistan. These universities are influenced by quality assurance initiatives undertaken by the Higher Education Commission, Pakistan (HEC). A total of 545 questionnaires were distributed using the stratified random sampling technique, 308 were responded, and 292 were considered valid for data analysis and inferences. As for the respondents’ profile, 73% were male, 55% were lecturers, 31% were between 36-45 years old, 24% had 16 to 20 years experience, thereby comprising the highest brackets.

Measures

The bi-dimensional form of behavioral support (compliance and championing behavior) was assessed using a 9-item scale developed by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002). Compliance behavior was measured using three items, whereas championing behavior was assessed using six. The items were anchored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Sample items include “I comply with my university’s directives regarding change initiatives” and “I speak positively about change initiatives to my colleagues.”

Change-efficacy was measured using a 6-item scale developed by Holt et al. (2007). The items were anchored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. A sample item is “I have the skills that are needed to make this change work.”

Job crafting (JC) was assessed using the job crafting scale (JCS) developed by Tims et al. (2012). The measure consists of three subscales: increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources, and increasing challenging job demand, as shown in Table 1. The JCS contained 15 items, 5 items in each of the three subscales. Each item was measured on a 5-point frequency scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = very often. The reliability statistics for all three subscales were reported above the minimum acceptance level of α = 0.70 (Tims et al., 2012). Sample items are “I try to learn new things at work,” “I ask my manager to coach me,” and “I try to make my work more challenging by examining the underlying relationships between aspects of my job.”

Table 1
Reliability, convergent validity and outer loadings of reflective constructs

Reflective Constructs	Items	Loadings	Composite Reliability	AVE
Change-efficacy	CEF_1	0.822	0.864	0.517
	CEF_2	0.647
	CEF_3	0.721
	CEF_4	0.772
	CEF_5	0.643
	CEF_6	0.689
Structural Resources	STR_1	0.774	0.847	0.527
	STR_2	0.759
	STR_3	0.614
	STR_4	0.749
	STR_5	0.723
Social Resources*	SOR_1	0.734	0.833	0.555
	SOR_2	0.745
	SOR_3	0.772
	SOR_4	0.727
Challenging Job Demands	CJD_1	0.724	0.873	0.579
	CJD_2	0.719
	CJD_3	0.756
	CJD_4	0.790
	CJD_5	0.809
Bureaucratic Context*	BC_2	0.692	0.854	0.599
	BC_3	0.942
	BC_4	0.667
	BC_5	0.764
Compliance Behavior	COMP_1	0.852	0.897	0.744
	COMP_2	0.871
	COMP_3	0.863
Championing Behavior	CHAMP_1	0.757	0.877	0.544
	CHAMP_2	0.751
	CHAMP_3	0.758
	CHAMP_4	0.752
	CHAMP_5	0.734
	CHAMP_6	0.670

• ^*
  items SOR5 and BC1 were removed due to weak factor loading to establish the construct validity

Bureaucratic context (BC) was measured using a 5-item scale developed by Ferrell and Skinner (1988). Each item was scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Sample items are “my dealings with this university are subject to a lot of rules and procedures stating how various aspects of my job are to be done” and “I have to ask university representatives before I do almost anything in my teaching.”

ANALYSIS/RESULTS

The data were analyzed using the partial least square approach to structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Consistent with Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt's (2016) two-step approach, the study preliminarily validated the measures and then tested the hypothesized model. First, the study’s measurement model included seven reflective constructs (change-efficacy, structural resources, social resources, challenging job demands, bureaucratic context, compliance behavior, and championing behavior). The measurement model determined the relation between the latent constructs and their observed indicators. With composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE), the study assessed the internal consistency, reliability, and convergent validity of the proposed model. Table 1 shows that the CR of all reflective constructs was higher than 0.70. (Hair, Risher, Sarstedt, & Ringle, 2019). This indicates that the measurement model exhibited good reliability. Besides, convergent (via AVE) and discriminant (via Fornell-Larcker) validity criteria were tested to assess the validity of reflective constructs (Hair et al., 2019; Henseler, 2017). After removing the items SOR5 and BC1 for weak factor loadings, the AVE values and outer loadings of each item relative to its construct were greater than the benchmark value of 0.50 and 0.60, respectively (Table 1). Furthermore, the Fornell-Larcker criterion was used to determine discriminant validity, which states that the AVE’s square root for each construct should be greater than the correlations between all other constructs in the measurement model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As shown in Table 2, AVE’s square root (emphasis in bold) was higher than the rest, confirming the discriminant validity of the measurement model.

Table 2
Fornell-Larcker criterion: discriminant validity of reflective constructs

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	Bureaucratic Context	0.774
2	Challenging Job Demands	0.034	0.761
3	Championing Behavior	0.056	0.432	0.738
4	Change-efficacy	0.009	0.398	0.419	0.719
5	Compliance Behavior	-0.001	0.472	0.379	0.463	0.862
6	Social Resources	-0.032	0.355	0.376	0.424	0.441	0.745
7	Structural Resources	-0.141	0.448	0.337	0.333	0.451	0.406	0.726

In addition, the formative measurement model was assessed to see if there were any validity issues within the formative constructs (i.e., dimensions of job crafting). Collinearity and the significance of the indicators’ outer weights were analyzed for this purpose (Hair et al., 2019). The variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to determine whether the formative indicators were collinear. For formative indicators, the VIF values ranged from 1.252 to 1.371, which falls below the upper threshold value of 5 (Hair et al., 2016). Furthermore, sub-dimensions of job crafting (i.e., increasing structural job resources, social job resources, and challenging job demands) have accounted for significant weights in their associated construct (job crafting), as shown in Table 3. As a result, job crafting should be retained as a higher-order construct and investigated further for inferences and estimations.

Table 3
Measurement of formative constructs

				Outer Weight			Outer Loading
		VIF	Paths	β	t	Sig.	β	t	Sig.
Job Crafting	Challenging Job Demands	1.310	DDT-> JC	0.500	6.649***	0.000	0.805	14.631***	0.000
	Social Resources	1.253	RSO -> JC	0.464	5.588***	0.000	0.769	14.053***	0.000
	Structural Resources	1.371	RES -> JC	0.307	3.735***	0.000	0.722	10.201***	0.000

• ^*
  p < .05,
• ^**
  p < .01

Likewise, Table 4 summarizes the mean and zero-order correlation of the proposed constructs. As expected and hypothesized, most of the statistics were in line with the main hypotheses. These results make us confident that the directionality of our hypotheses is appropriate.

Table 4
Mean and inter-correlation of latent constructs

	Mean	1	2	3	4	5
Change-efficacy	3.49	1
Job Crafting	3.59	0.490**	1
Bureaucratic Context	3.41	-0.022	-0.050	1
Compliance Behavior	3.61	0.453**	0.588**	-0.019	1
Championing Behavior	3.40	0.408**	0.495**	0.080	0.373**	1

• ^**
  P < .01

The second step of PLS-SEM was conducted to test the proposed relationships for their relevance and significance in the model. As shown in Table 5, the result revealed a significant relationship between change-efficacy and both dimensions of behavioral support for change (CEF -> COMP: β = 0.464, p < 0.001; CEF -> CHAMP: β = 0.423, p < 0.001). These findings support the two statements of the first hypothesis (H1a and H1b). Also, the mediation results confirmed that the effect of change-efficacy on dimensions of behavioral support for change was significantly mediated through job crafting (CEF -> JC -> COMP: β = 0.238, p < 0.001; CEF -> JC -> CHAMP: β = 0.196, p < 0.001), corroborating both statements of the second hypothesis (H2a and H2b). Furthermore, as suggested by Hair et al. (2016), a product indicator approach was used to test the moderation hypothesis H3. Contrary to expectations, the result failed to significantly demonstrate the moderating influence of bureaucratic context on the hypothesized link between change-efficacy and job crafting. Hence, hypothesis H3 was not statistically supported.

Table 5
Structural path analysis: hypotheses results

Relationships	Hypotheses	β	t	Sig.	R-sq	Result	Decision
Direct Paths (Model 1)
CEF -> COMP	H1a	0.464	8.857	0.000	0.215	Significant	Supported
CEF -> CHAMP	H1b	0.423	8.658	0.000	0.179	Significant	Supported
Mediating Paths (Model 2)				0.000
CEF -> JC -> COMP	H2a	0.238	6.087	0.000	0.379	Significant	Supported
CEF -> JC -> CHAMP	H2b	0.196	5.336	0.000	0.287	Significant	Supported
Direct Paths after Mediation
CEF -> COMP		0.233	3.602	0.000		Significant	Partial Mediation
CEF -> CHAMP		0.215	3.679	0.000		Significant	Partial Mediation
Moderating Path (Model 3)
CEF*BC -> JC	H3	-0.06	0.672	0.487		Insignificant	Not Supported

Conducted via Bias corrected 5000 bootstrap resampling procedureP < 0.001

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study aimed to examine the direct and indirect impact of change-efficacy and job crafting on academics’ behavioral support for change. The findings reveal a significant positive effect of both in determining academics’ behavioral support for change. First, our findings imply that academics’ decision to actively contribute to the implementation of change is affected by their level of change-efficacy. This is in line with the JD-R theory, which posits efficacy as a personal resource influencing an individual’s ability to regulate and cope with the changing work demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014) and produce outcomes favoring the change objectives.

Second, previous research has shown that the relationship between employees’ beliefs and behavioral outcomes is not simple, and it is proven through specific processes that have yet to be explored (Fugate & Soenen, 2018; Oreg et al., 2018; Walk & Handy, 2018). The study’s findings suggest that job crafting is critical to explaining one’s behavioral support for change (both at the compliance and championing level). More specifically, individuals with high efficacy beliefs actively seek more opportunities to prove their capabilities and to challenge their mastery experiences to flourish in their personal and professional growth (Bandura, 1997). Supporting this view, JD-R theory provides a suitable theoretical lens to validate the corresponding path in which change-efficacy and job crafting provide a valuable channel of resource stimulus to trigger a motivational process that ultimately leads to compliance and championing behavior. The result is consistent with the previous empirical evidence claiming job crafting is instrumental in bringing about organizational change (Petrou et al., 2015; Vakola & Petrou, 2018; Walk & Handy, 2018; Wang et al., 2018).

Third, the role of bureaucratic context as a moderator in the relationship between change-efficacy and job crafting was not statistically supported. The finding contradicts the previous results, whereby job demands may buffer positive effect relationships in organizational settings (Abbasi, 2017; Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). One plausible explanation is related to the underpinning of JD-R theory which advocates that job, contextual, and personal resources are not limited to helping individuals to achieve work goals or stimulating personal growth, learning, and development. For the theory, they also mitigate the negative effects of excessive job demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). The finding suggests that having sufficient resources (i.e., change-efficacy and job crafting) reduces the impact of bureaucratic job demands on the subsequent relationship between change-efficacy and job crafting leading to statistically insignificant moderation result.

These findings are also consistent with the tenets of conservations of resources theory (COR), which states that employees usually strive to acquire and retain resources, even if it means giving up or using some resources to gain or retain others (Hobfoll, 1989). This resource investment phenomenon is known as a gain spiral in COR, and it occurs when positively oriented individual states form a positive chain of associations (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). In that mode of resource investment, resources move together in “resource caravans” and can be used to acquire or build other resources (gain spirals). For this theory, change-efficacy may serve as a personal resource or positive individual state from which individuals can accrue additional resources through job crafting (i.e. increasing structural, social, and challenging demands resources). As a result, the predicted moderating effects of the bureaucratic context on subsequent positive gain spirals failed to establish their relevance to the stated relationship.

Finally, the top-down approach to change implementation appears less effective in improving employee engagement and performance (Ahmad et al., 2020; Chia, 2014). Change initiated at the top is insufficient to address emerging demands and opportunities at work (Wang, Demerouti, & Blanc, 2017). In response, organizations must consider bottom-up redesign strategies that will be promoted and combined with top-down approaches already in place (Bakker & Oerlemans, 2019; Demerouti, 2014; Demerouti, Peeters, & Heuvel, 2019). A combination of both is most likely to yield favorable outcomes for employees and organizations (Bakker & Oerlemans, 2019).

Following the spectrum above, the study empirically tested this notion, with findings favoring the importance of bottom-up initiatives in cultivating behavioral support for change. It implies that people can better incorporate top-down changes by reorganizing the structural, social, and challenging aspects of their jobs. Taking into account the suggestions made by scholars such as Bakker and Oerlemans (2019), Demerouti (2014), and Demerouti et al. (2019) to integrate and examine top-down/bottom-up perspectives in a single study, the research framework has empirically validated this call. In addition, the framework also presented an alternate perspective to the concepts like ‘soft bureaucracy’ (Courpasson, 2000), ‘bureaucracy-lite’ (Hales, 2002), ‘representative bureaucracy’ (Sowa & Selden, 2003), and ‘green tape’ (DeHart-Davis, 2009) which were poised to explain decentralization, empowerment, and autonomy in a bureaucratic work setting. In conclusion, the research findings support this congruence and how it operates within the context of a public university. In other words, change agents should offer individuals sufficient leverage to determine which task is completed and how and should encourage them to engage in job crafting behaviors to successfully implement the prospective change.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Despite the theoretical contribution, the study’s conclusions should be interpreted with some caution and limitation. First, our claim of causal inferences presented in the tested model is constrained by the cross-sectional research design and single-source data. The research model was developed with the help of existing empirical and theoretical literature, and our findings validated the predicted causality. However, more research should be conducted using experimental or longitudinal techniques to investigate the hypothesized causality and rigorously corroborate this relationship pattern. This might also help to reduce the impact of common method variance (CMV) in the dataset.

Second, the research context and study population also impose limitations. The objective was to address the issues concerning the role of change-efficacy in determining behavioral support for change through job crafting in the bureaucratic work setting. However, this limits the generalizability of the study findings to other study contexts. Keeping this in mind, more research is needed in various institutional or sectorial contexts along with cultural dynamics to provide robust theoretical and empirical support to our framework. This can be achieved through cross-cultural, cross-institutional comparative research designs. Furthermore, the moderating role of culture, such as the power distance and uncertainty avoidance, in particular, may also help explore this framework in future studies to observe some interesting patterns. Moreover, contrary to the theoretical propositions of JD-R theory, the result failed to confirm the moderating role of bureaucratic context in buffering the proposed hypothetical path. The result is surprising and needs to be examined and discussed further in future studies.

Finally, we did not take into account all of the possible factors that could influence individuals’ support for change. Scholars should also explore a wide array of other contexts and personal factors and their underlying patterns in future research endeavors. This type of examination of multiple aspects provides a broader and more systematic perspective, which aids scholars and practitioners in understanding the antecedents and processes leading change recipients to support change.

REFERENCES

• Abbasi, B. (2017). Transformational leadership and change readiness and a moderating role of perceived bureaucratic structure: An empirical investigation. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 15, 35-44. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(1).2017.03
  » https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.15(1).2017.03
• Ahmad, A. B., & Cheng, Z. (2018). The role of change content, context, process, and leadership in understanding employees’ commitment to change: The case of public organizations in Kurdistan region of Iraq. Public Personnel Management, 47(2), 195-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017753645
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017753645
• Ahmad, A. B., Straatmann, T., Mueller, K., & Liu, B. (2020). Employees’ change support in the public sector: A multi-time field study examining the formation of intentions and behaviors. Public Administration Review. 81(2), 231-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13275
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13275
• Akkermans, J., & Tims, M. (2017). Crafting your career: How career competencies relate to career success via job crafting. Applied Psychology, 66(1), 168-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12082
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12082
• Armenakis, A. A., Bernerth, J. B., Pitts, J. P., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Organizational change recipients’ beliefs scale: Development of an assessment instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(4), 481-505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886307303654
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886307303654
• Bakker, A. B. (2017). Strategic and proactive approaches to work engagement. Organizational Dynamics, 46(2), 67-75. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.002
  » https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.002
• Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands-resources theory. Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell019
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell019
• Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. G. (2019). Daily job crafting and momentary work engagement: A self-determination and self-regulation perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 417-430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.12.005
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.12.005
• Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359
  » https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Illustrated, reprint ed. livro?
• Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
• Berg, J. M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2010). Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3), 158-186. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.645
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/job.645
• Bozeman, B. (2015). Bureaucratization in academic research policy: Perspectives from red tape theory In: Paper Prepared for 20^th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators. Lugano, Switzerland.
• Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework San Francisco, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
• Chen, D., Zhang, Y., Ahmad, A. B., & Liu, B. (2021). How to fuel public employees’ change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: A two-wave moderated mediation study. Review of Public Personnel Administration https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X2110526
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X2110526
• Chia, R. (2014). Reflections: In praise of silent transformation-allowing change through ‘letting happen'. Journal of Change Management, 14(1), 8-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2013.841006
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2013.841006
• Choi, M. (2011). Employees’ attitudes toward organizational change: A literature review. Human Resource Management, 50(4), 479-500. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20434
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20434
• Courpasson, D. (2000). Managerial strategies of domination: Power in soft bureaucracies. Organization Studies, 21(1), 141-161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840600211001
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840600211001
• DeHart-Davis, L. (2005). Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule dysfunction alienate managers? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui007
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui007
• DeHart-Davis, L. (2009). Green tape and public employee rule abidance: Why organizational rule attributes matter. Public Administration Review, 69(5), 901-910. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02039.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02039.x
• Demerouti, E. (2014). Design your own job through job crafting. European Psychologist, 19(4), 237-247. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000188
  » https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000188
• Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C. W., & Heuvel, M. V. D. (2019). Job crafting interventions: Do they work and why? In L. E. Van Zyl & S. Rothmann (Eds.), Positive psychological intervention design protocols for multi-cultural contexts (pp. 103-125). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
• Demerouti, E., Xanthopoulou, D., Petrou, P., & Karagkounis, C. (2017). Does job crafting assist dealing with organizational changes due to austerity measures? Two studies among Greek employees. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(4), 574-589. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1325875
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1325875
• Drechsler, W. (2005). The re-emergence of “Weberian” public administration after the fall of new public management: The central and eastern European perspective. Administrative Culture, 6(1), 94-108.
• Engen, N. Van, Steijn, B., & Tummers, L. (2019). Do consistent government policies lead to greater meaningfulness and legitimacy on the front line? Public Administration, 97(1), 97-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12570
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12570
• Ewens, H., & Voet, J. van der. (2019). Organizational complexity and participatory innovation: Participatory budgeting in local government. Public Management Review, 21(12), 1848-1866. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1577908
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1577908
• Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single influence tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 638-652. https://doi.org/10.5465/256490
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/256490
• Ferrel, O. C., & Skinner, S. J. (1988). Ethical behavior and bureaucratic structure in marketing research organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(1), 103-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378802500111
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378802500111
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Fugate, M., & Soenen, G. (2018). Predictors and processes related to employees’ change-related compliance and championing. Personnel Psychology, 71(1), 109-132. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12235
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12235
• Ghitulescu, B. E. (2013). Making change happen: The impact of work context on adaptive and proactive behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(2), 206-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886312469254
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886312469254
• Gordon, H. J., Demerouti, E., Blanc, P. M. Le, Bakker, A. B., Bipp, T., & Verhagen, M. A. (2018). Individual job redesign: Job crafting interventions in healthcare. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 104, 98-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.002
• Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Porumbescu, G. A. (2017). Reconsidering the expectancy disconfirmation model: Three experimental replications. Public Management Review, 19(9), 1272-1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1282000
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1282000
• Haffar, M., Al-Karaghouli, W., Irani, Z., Djebarni, R., & Gbadamosi, G. (2019). The influence of individual readiness for change dimensions on quality management implementation in Algerian manufacturing organisations. International Journal of Production Economics, 207, 247-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.024
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.024
• Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review. 31(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
• Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications.
• Hakanen, J. J., Peeters, M. C., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2018). Different types of employee well-being across time and their relationships with job crafting. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(2), 289. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000081
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000081
• Hales, C. (2002). ‘Bureaucracy-lite’ and continuities in managerial work. British Journal of Management, 13(1), 51-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00222
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00222
• Hassan, H. A., Zhang, X., & Ahmad, A. B. (2020). Red tape and change-supportive intention: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(1), 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2020-0286
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2020-0286
• Hassan, H. A., Zhang, X., Ahmad, A. B., & Liu, B. (2020). Public service motivation and employee change-supportive intention: Utilizing the theory of planned behavior. Public Personnel Management, 50(2), 283-304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026020934515
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026020934515
• Henseler, J. (2017). Partial least squares path modeling. In Advanced methods for modeling markets (pp. 361-381). Springer, Cham.
• Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.474
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.474
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513
  » https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513
• Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (2nd ed., pp. 57-80). New York, USA: Marcel Dekker.
• Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007). Readiness for organizational change: The systematic development of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 232-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306295295
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306295295
• Ingusci, E., Callea, A., Cortese, C. G., Zito, M., Borgogni, L., Cenciotti, R., … Demerouti, E. (2019). Self-efficacy and work performance: The role of job crafting in middle-age workers. International Journal of Business and Society, 20(2), 533-551.
• Isett, K. R., Glied, S. A., Sparer, M. S., & Brown, L. D. (2013). When change becomes transformation: A case study of change management in Medicaid offices in New York City. Public Management Review, 15(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.686230
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.686230
• Jakobsen, M. L. F., & Thrane, C. (2016). Public innovation and organizational structure: Searching (in vain) for the optimal design. In J. Torfing & P. Triantafillou (Eds.), Enhancing public innovation by transforming public governance (pp. 217-236). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316105337.011
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316105337.011
• Kickert, W. J. (2014). Specificity of change management in public organizations: Conditions for successful organizational change in Dutch ministerial departments. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(6), 693-717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013483871
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013483871
• Kim, H., Im, J., & Qu, H. (2018). Exploring antecedents and consequences of job crafting. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 75, 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.02.014
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.02.014
• Kuipers, B. S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J., & Voet, J. Van der. (2014). The management of change in public organizations: A literature review. Public Administration, 92(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12040
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12040
• Lim, J. Y., & Moon, K.-K. (2020). Transformational leadership and employees’ helping behavior in public organizations: Does organizational structure matter? Public Personnel Management, 50(4), 485-508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026020977565
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026020977565
• Mehboob, F., Othman, N., Fareed, M., & Raza, A. (2022). Change Appraisals and Job Crafting as Foundation to Inculcate Support for Change: A Dual Manifestation. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 24, 207-229. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v24i2.4165
  » https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v24i2.4165
• Mehboob, F., & Othman, N. (2020a). Examining the links leading to behavioral support for change: An expectancy theory perspective. International Journal of Social Sciences and Economic Review, 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.36923/ijsser.v2i4.78
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.36923/ijsser.v2i4.78
• Mehboob, F., & Othman, N. (2020b). Promoting behavioral support for change: A conservation of resources theory perspective. SEISENSE Journal of Management, 3(6), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v3i6.448
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v3i6.448
• Mehboob, F., & Othman, N. (2020c). Role of perceived management support and personal valence in promoting behavioral support for change: A social exchange theory perspective. Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen, Ekonomi dan Bisnis, 5(1), 65-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.51263/jameb.v5i1.114
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.51263/jameb.v5i1.114
• Miraglia, M., Cenciotti, R., Alessandri, G., & Borgogni, L. (2017). Translating self-efficacy in job performance over time: The role of job crafting. Human Performance, 30(5), 254-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2017.1373115
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2017.1373115
• Ng, T. W., & Lucianetti, L. (2016). Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social-cognitive theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000029
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000029
• Oreg, S., Bartunek, J. M., & Lee, G. (2014). A model of recipients' change proactivity. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2014, n. 1, p. 10554). Briarcliff Manor, USA: Academy of Management.
• Oreg, S., Bartunek, J. M., Lee, G., & Do, B. (2018). An affect-based model of recipients’ responses to organizational change events. Academy of Management Review, 43(1), 65-86. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0335
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0335
• Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550
• Palos, R., & Stancovici, V. V. (2016). Learning in organization. The Learning Organization, 23(1), 2-22. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-01-2015-0001
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-01-2015-0001
• Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2015). Job crafting in changing organizations: Antecedents and implications for exhaustion and performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(4), 470. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039003
  » https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039003
• Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2018). Crafting the change: The role of employee job crafting behaviors for successful organizational change. Journal of Management, 44(5), 1766-1792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315624961
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315624961
• Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change readiness: A multilevel review. Journal of Management, 39(1), 110-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312457417
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312457417
• Rafferty, A. E., Minbashian, A. (2019). Cognitive beliefs and positive emotions about change: Relationships with employee change readiness and change-supportive behaviors. Human Relations, 72(10), 1623-1650. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718809154
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718809154
• Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations San Francisco, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
• Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands-resources model: Implications for improving work and health. In Bridging occupational, organizational and public health (pp. 43-68). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
• Schmidt, E., Groeneveld, S., & Walle, S. Van de. (2017). A change management perspective on public sector cutback management: Towards a framework for analysis. Public Management Review, 19(10), 1538-1555. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1296488
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1296488
• Shin, J., Taylor, M. S., & Seo, M.-G. (2012). Resources for change: The relationships of organizational inducements and psychological resilience to employees’ attitudes and behaviors toward organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 727-748. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0325
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0325
• Sowa, J. E., & Selden, S. C. (2003). Administrative discretion and active representation: An expansion of the theory of representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 700-710. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00333
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00333
• Steijn, B., & Voet, J. van der. (2019). Relational job characteristics and job satisfaction of public sector employees: When prosocial motivation and red tape collide. Public Administration, 97(1), 64-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12352
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12352
• Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841
• Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 173-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
• Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2014). Daily job crafting and the self-efficacy-performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 490-507. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-05-2012-0148
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-05-2012-0148
• Torfing, J. (2019). Collaborative innovation in the public sector: The argument. Public Management Review, 21(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1430248
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1430248
• Vakola, M., Armenakis, A., & Oreg, S. (2013). Reactions to organizational change from an individual differences perspective: A review of empirical research. The Psychology of Organizational Change: Viewing Change from the Employee’s Perspective, 95-122. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139096690.008
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139096690.008
• Vakola, M., & Petrou, P. (2018). Organizational change: Psychological effects and strategies for coping New York, USA: Routledge.
• Vakola, M., Petrou, P., & Katsaros, K. (2021). Work engagement and job crafting as conditions of ambivalent employees’ adaptation to organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(1), 57-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320967173
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320967173
• Voet, J. Van der. (2014). The effectiveness and specificity of change management in a public organization: Transformational leadership and a bureaucratic organizational structure. European Management Journal, 32(3), 373-382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.10.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.10.001
• Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley
• Walk, M., & Handy, F. (2018). Job crafting as reaction to organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(3), 349-370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886318777227
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886318777227
• Wang, H., Demerouti, E., Blanc, P. L., & Lu, C. (2018). Crafting a job in ‘tough times’: When being proactive is positively related to work attachment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(3), 569-590. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12218
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12218
• Wang, H.-J., Demerouti, E., & Blanc, P. Le. (2017). Transformational leadership, adaptability, and job crafting: The moderating role of organizational identification. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 185-195.
• Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378011
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378011
• Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 235-244.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  17 Feb 2023
• Date of issue
  2023

History

• Received
  17 Mar 2022
• Accepted
  24 June 2022