Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Financial Digital Transformation on Financial Performance: The Intermediary Effect of Information Symmetry and Operating Costs
Previous Article in Journal
To Share or Not to Share—Expected Transportation Mode Changes Given Different Types of Fully Automated Vehicles
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/su15065058
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Job Crafting, Job Boredom and Generational Diversity: Are Millennials Different from Gen Xs?

by
Harun Sesen
1 and
Ama Asantewaa Donkor
2,*
1
Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Cyprus International University, Nicosia 99258, Turkey
2
Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, European University of Lefke, Gemikonagi 99728, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(6), 5058; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065058
Submission received: 15 February 2023 / Revised: 28 February 2023 / Accepted: 7 March 2023 / Published: 13 March 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The current working environment requires employees to have some control over their jobs. Drawing on the job demands–resource (JD-R) theory, we investigated the relationship between job crafting and job boredom. Based on the generational cohort theory, we determined the strength of the relationship using generational diversity as a moderator. Data from 320 participants employed in white-collar jobs in the private sector were collected over two time periods. Structural equation modeling and hierarchical regression were used in the analysis. The results of this study show that job crafting has a significant negative impact on job boredom. This effect is further differentiated by generational differences, that is, belonging to Gen X or the Millennial cohorts. The use of self-administered questionnaires may result in the selection of ‘socially desired’ outcomes. This study has implications for today’s intergenerational environment, since different generational groups have different attributes, priorities, desires and motivations that impact their actions. This study adds to the limited research on the impact of job crafting on job boredom. However, this is the first study to examine the moderating effect of Gen X and Millennials on the relationship between job crafting and boredom. As a result, appropriate incentives can be implemented to encourage crafting among generational cohorts within organizations, especially with the entry of Generation Z into the workforce.

1. Introduction

Managers are constantly in search of ways to promote organizational success. Measures are put in place to enrich the roles of the employees to promote favorable results and prevent unfavorable outcomes. This is sometimes achieved by promoting employee engagement, satisfaction and commitment through job rotation and other employee enrichment strategies. However, opportunities exist for employees to take responsibility for making their jobs more meaningful by seeking challenging demands and reducing hindering demands, as well as increasing social and structural resources. Looking beyond the efforts of an organization’s leadership, these conscious changes employees make to alter their task boundaries, definition boundaries and relationship boundaries to shape their work to suit their needs exist and are defined as job crafting [1]. Job crafting practices have been found to be successful in balancing the demands and resources of the job with the skills, interests, needs and capabilities of employees [2,3,4,5], thereby producing favorable work-related and individual results [6].
A lack of control over one’s job and the inability to find meaning within one’s work may lead to job boredom. The authors of [7] found job boredom to be an organizational problem whose prevalence is become increasingly more widespread. The effects of job boredom have been constantly associated with withdrawal behaviors such as absenteeism, mental health issues such as stress and behavioral changes such as turnover intention. However, minimal research has been conducted on the correlation between job crafting and job boredom. There is also a shortage of evidence regarding the moderators between these variables. Moderating factors serve as a modifier between an independent and a dependent variable in determining the strength of their relationship [8]. According to previous studies, employees’ perceived adaptability [9], motivation [10], high autonomy [11] and other variables serve as moderators of job crafting.
In this paper, the notion that the generational cohort to which an employee belongs can interact with an employee’s job crafting behaviors and influence the degree of job boredom is introduced. According to [12], each cohort makes its own contribution to the working environment. These inputs sometimes come in the form of preferred leadership styles, communication preferences, reward systems and technological needs [13]. Although research on generational differences in organizational contexts has sometimes yielded mixed results, some studies have detected variations between the groups [14,15,16,17]. The task is, therefore, to determine the role that employees’ generational diversity plays in crafting their jobs, thereby impacting on their boredom at work.
This research makes three important contributions to the literature. First, it broadens our understanding of the impact that job crafting has on job boredom. Also, it is the first to study generational diversity as a moderator in the relationship between job crafting and job boredom. Finally, in using generational differences, it provides evidence of similarities or differences between Generation X and Generation Y as moderators. With the decline of the Baby Boomer generation and the arrival of Generation Z, it is important to understand the differences in generational diversity and the influence that generational identity has on the susceptibility of employee work behaviors such as job crafting.
The continuation of the paper adheres to the following structure. In the next section, the literature on job crafting, job boredom and generational diversity is reviewed to establish the underlying hypotheses. After this, the methods used for the study, including its design and procedure, are covered. Following that, the results of the study are presented. The last two sections of the paper discuss the implications of the study and its conclusions.

2. Theory and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Job Crafting

Employees can change how they conceptualize and carry out work, the meaning and importance they attribute to their work mentally and who they associate with at work—altering their task boundaries, definition boundaries and their relationship boundaries. The conscious changes employees adopt to shape their work to fit their lives within the set of organizational boundaries are termed job crafting behaviors [1]. Job demand–resource (JD-R) theory identifies job resources and job demands as the fundamental reasons for job crafting. Job demands are “those physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort and are therefore associated with physiological and/or psychological costs” [18]. Job resources, on the other hand, are “those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that are either/or functional in achieving work goals, reduce job demands and associated physiological and psychological costs, and stimulate personal growth, learning, and development” [18].
Building on the JD-R model, four elements of job crafting have been identified: decreasing hindering job demands, increasing social job resources, increasing structural job resources and increasing challenging job demands. Reducing hindering job demands may require cutting back on the mentally, emotionally or physically draining features of a person’s job [19]. Increasing challenging job demands involves seeking extra tasks and responsibilities, and seeking structural resources involves the opportunity to learn new skills, while increasing social job resources includes the mobilization of resources such as advice from co-workers and social support feedback in the hope of dealing with the demands of the work [20]. By actively reducing hindering job demands while increasing challenging demands and seeking job resources, an employee is practicing the proactive behavior defined as job crafting.
The optimal blend for employee satisfaction, therefore, occurs in active jobs where there is high job demand and available job resources. Numerous studies have found favorable outcomes for job crafting. Positive relationships have been observed between job crafting and job performance [21], person–job and person–organization fit [22], workplace well-being [23], job satisfaction [24] and work engagement [25], while negative relations between job crafting and turnover intentions [26], burnout [27], job strain [4] and job boredom [28] have been found.

2.2. Job Crafting and Job Boredom

Job boredom has negative implications for organizations. Low organizational commitment, increased intention to quit [29], absenteeism and decreased work satisfaction are some outcomes of bored employees. Boredom is “a state of relatively low arousal and dissatisfaction, which is attributed to an inadequately stimulating situation” [30]. Boredom is also a negative emotional reaction due to a lack of value or usefulness of an action, and boredom is differentiated from depression through its expression [31]. Whereas depression is internally expressed and experienced, boredom has an outward expression. Job boredom is a state in which an employee lacks interest in his or her tasks and is unable to focus on them [32]. The notion of job boredom, in context, is the opposite of work engagement, which is the willingness of a person to go above and beyond to ensure the achievement of goals for the success of their organization [33].
The predictors of job boredom have been linked to both internal and external factors. Individual personality characteristics [34], boredom proneness [35] and perceived overqualification [36] are some internal elements that can affect workplace boredom. External influences include the type of individual tasks, job routine, work underload and monotony [37], perceived organizational support, restricted learning opportunities and work overload [38]. Due to the subjective nature of job boredom, employees experience it in various ways. The authors of [39] identified three types of job boredom and concluded that job boredom can be experienced in different ways based on the type of boredom. They classified the types of job boredom under inertia at work, acceleration at work and dysrhythmia at work. An employee experiences inertia at work when there is a lack of incentive to learn and grow professionally and, therefore, there is no experience of progress. Acceleration at work, on the other hand, involves a lack of time or opportunity to review and concentrate on the present and plan for the future, while dysrhythmia at work entails a constant discontinuity in work performance as a result of disruptions of planned work [39].
Employees who proactively craft their job give direction and meaning to their work life [25]. Rudolph et al. (2017) [4] found that favorable job attitudes are positively related to increasing job resources and job demands. Empirical studies, using the JD-R model, have shown that job boredom is directly related to job resources and job demands [28,40]. Studies have shown a positive relation between meaningful work and job crafting [22,41]. Although bored workers withdraw from their task to strive for meaning [42], job crafting ensures that such meaning is found in their work. Using a between-person design, a negative correlation was found between workplace boredom and job crafting resources and challenging demands [43]. Other research also showed that increasing job resources, in the form of social support from colleagues, reduces boredom at work [44], while increasing job demands decreases the manifestation of job boredom. Jobs can be enriched by proactively increasing job resources and challenging demands [45].
The strength of work-related boredom, therefore, lies in the power of an employees’ job crafting behavior. From the previous literature, it can be assumed that having highly challenging work demands and available resources leads to a relatively lower level of job boredom, whereas low or hindering work demands and insufficient job resources can result in job boredom.
Hypothesis 1 (H1). 
Job crafting is negatively related to job boredom.

2.3. Moderating Role of Generational Diversity

The model of proactivity [46] identifies employment and demographic factors such as education, age, hours of work and gender as influencers relating to proactive work behaviors. Variations in values and work ethics also exist [47]. However, studies have found generational differences in organizational variables such as organizational commitment, motivation and attitude at work [15], as well as the use of technology, attainment of goals, expectations and preferences [16]. Generational difference is a factor that could determine weak or strong connections between variables [48]. Generational diversity is much more visible in the workforce today. Each generational unit brings different attitudes, work ethics, beliefs, values and prospects to organizations [49]. ‘Generation gap’ has been used to describe the contrasts in opinions and attitudes between generations [50]. Generation theory highlights that the period in which a person is born may affect his or her world view and development [51]. There is, therefore, a distinction among generations according to the period in which they are born and the period in which they grow up [52].
The general categorization of generational cohorts [53] includes Baby Boomers (1943–1960), Generation X (1961–1981), Millennials/Generation Y (1982–2004) and Generation Z (2005–present). Workplaces today are witnessing the end of the working era of Baby Boomers, observing the collaboration of Gen Xers and Millennials and preparing for the arrival of Generation Z. Organizations have to adapt to multigenerational work values in order to recruit, retain and motivate the leaders we have today and those we will have tomorrow [54]. This paper concentrates on the currently active majority workgroups, namely, Gen Xers and Millennials.
A study conducted found generational differences to be a moderator between employee motivation and pro-environmental behaviors [55]. Generational difference was also identified as a moderator between job burnout and turnover [56]. In the workplace, both Gen Xers and Millennials are more motivated by higher challenges than any of the previous generations. They are more likely to remain with the organization if opportunities to learn are made available [57]. Nevertheless, studies showed that differences between these two groups still exist [12,17,58,59,60].
Gen Xers are described as valuing creativity and informality [61], freedom from supervisors [62], flexibility and work–life balance [63], while simultaneously searching for skills and advancement in their career [64]. Research has identified that their need for purposeful work outweighs their tolerance for less challenging work [58]. Skeptical, self-focused and self-centered are terms commonly used to describe them [65]. They crave the opportunity to craft their own work to enhance their perception of autonomy. Gen Xers are seemingly less loyal to their organization than they are to their personal goals since they observed that their Baby Boomer parents were frequently laid off. From their perspective, job security is a thing of the past and cannot be guaranteed [66]. As a result, they seek opportunities to develop their own career path [67]. Potentially, due to the self-satisfying nature of Generation Xers, any extra resources available are saved for themselves. Gen Xers attribute less importance to organizational security than Millennials [68] and also have a higher probability than Millennials of quitting their job in favor of a more challenging position, improved benefits and a better salary [69].
Despite being similar to Gen Xers in the quest for freedom, Millennials strive for freedom to ensure that their desire for a balance between work and life is met and not necessarily their desire to take charge. They crave challenging work conditions and guidelines from their supervisors [70]. This high level of self-esteem leads to them having highly unrealistic expectations with low commitment to the organization [71]. They are, however, more tolerant than the previous generation and are more team-oriented with a great sense of self-identification. Millennials thrive in challenging working environments. Fundamentally, they have a higher tendency to be proactive [72]. They also have the desire to be mobile with their work with flexible working hours. Because of their low tolerance to boredom [73], with the available social and structural resources, as well as challenging job demands, Millennials utilize their working time to add value to the organization, eliminating the antecedents of job boredom. By withdrawing themselves from the aspects of the job that do not conform to that, they are making room for themselves to become more involved in those areas that do.
According to generational cohort theory, differences in beliefs, attitudes and values within generations are a result of societal changes and major historic events that happen within formative years and persist among generations over time [74]. The impact of these shared experiences and collective memories shapes their perspectives and preferences [75,76]. A cross-sectional study on generational differences suggested that older generations are more accepting of their jobs and their challenges than the younger generation [77]. Building on the above literature, it can be said that the degree of moderation of Gen Xers and Millennials is not the same. It is, therefore, proposed that, for Gen Xers, the effect of job crafting on job boredom is stronger than for Millennials.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). 
Generational diversity moderates the relationship between job crafting and job boredom such that the level of the negative impact of job crafting on job boredom is stronger for Gen X than for Millennials.
Figure 1 gives a graphical representation on Hypotheses 1 and 2.

3. Methods

3.1. Study Design and Procedure

The study was conducted in a form of a survey. It focused on white-collar employees in private-sector companies in Turkey with the use of paper-based questionnaires. A total of 400 participants were acquired via convenience sampling. To prevent common-method bias, the survey was conducted in two different time periods. At Time-1, 400 questionnaires were distributed. Job crafting was measured, and participant demographics were collected. The response rate was 86 percent, with 346 responses accumulated. Two weeks later, at Time-2, despite being contacted, not all previous participants returned their surveys. In total, 320 responses were collected, and these were matched to the previous dataset and analyzed. Of the respondents, 60% were female and 40% male, and they came from the banking sector, health sector, educational sector and real-estate companies. The ages of the participants ranged from 20 to 58 years (M = 28.7, SD = 4.35); 53.7% were Gen X, and 46.3% were Gen Y. Majority of the participants had undergraduate degrees (77.2%). Respondents’ demographic profiles are given in Table 1.

3.2. Measures

With the use of a five-point Likert scale, job crafting was measured using the 21-item Job Crafting Scale [78]. This scale distinguishes the four dimensions of job crafting: increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources, increasing challenging demands and decreasing hindering demands. The first component includes items such as “I try to develop my capabilities”, the second element includes “I ask whether my supervisor is satisfied with my work”, the third aspect of the scale includes “When there is not much to do at work, I see it as a chance to start new projects” and, finally, a sample question of the fourth dimension is “I manage my work so that I try to minimise contact with people whose problems affect me emotionally” (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Although these four dimensions of job crafting are frequently accepted as independent sub-dimensions, many authors [4,22,79,80] have also aggregated sub-dimension scores to calculate an overall job crafting score. According to these previous findings, we aggregated the four sub-dimensions and calculated an overall “job crafting score” as a second-order construct. To test the construct validity of the first-order and second-order models, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis. The results of both models are given in Table 2. The results supported that the second-order model had an acceptable fit. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of overall job crafting was calculated as 0.90.
Job boredom was measured using the 6-item Dutch Boredom Scale [40]. Sample items include “I tend to do other things during my work” and “It seems as if my working day never ends” (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). On the job boredom scale, we only tested a first-order one-factor model. As hypothesized, this model fitted the data. Model indices are presented in Table 2. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of job boredom was calculated as 0.91.
In measuring generational diversity, age-group categorization (Generation X—1961–1981, Millennials/Generation Y—1982–2004) was used [53]. The two levels of generation were calculated as ‘high generation’ (GenY) and ‘low generation’ (GenX) to test the significance of the interaction effect.

3.3. Control Variables

Despite being an important part of a researcher’s toolkit, control variables do not need to be theory driven [81]. However, they must be based on rationale and be relevant to the study. Although very limited research has considered gender as a coordinate for job crafting, gender-based restriction such as glass ceilings, inclusion and gender pay sometimes limits the motivation to craft [82]. We included gender, age and education level as control variables.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, reliability scores and correlations of all variables of the study. From the data, it can be observed that job crafting has a significant negative relationship with job boredom, while generation has a positive relationship with job boredom, and there is a negative relation between job crafting and job boredom.

4.2. Test of Hypothesis

The research hypotheses were tested with AMOS 21.0 software by running a structural equation model using the 2000 re-sampling option with the bootstrap technique. The results are given in Table 2. In the model, job boredom is treated as the dependent, and job crafting and generation (moderator) are treated as independent variables. The interaction variable (job crafting * generation) is created and added to the model as an independent variable. To control the impacts of the demographics, gender, age and education level are also included to the model. The tested model can be seen in Figure 2.
H1 predicts that job crafting is negatively related to job boredom. As shown in Table 4, job crafting has a significant negative effect on job boredom (B = −0.407, 95% CI = [−0.461, −0.346], t = −13.559, p < 0.05); hence, H1 is supported.
H2 envisages that the generational diversity moderates the relationship between job crafting and job boredom such that the level of the negative impact of job crafting on job boredom will be stronger for Gen X than for Millennials. As shown in Table 4, the interaction variable has a significant and positive impact on job boredom (B = 0.130, 95% CI = [0.028, 0.191], t = 2.554, p < 0.05). The results showed that generation has a moderating effect between job crafting and job boredom since the interaction term has a significant impact on job boredom. Thus, H2 is supported.
To further examine the outcome of the interaction between job crafting and job boredom for high and low generations, a simple slope regression was plotted. Figure 3 shows an inverse relationship—when job crafting is high, job boredom is low, and when job crafting is low, job boredom is high. However, this negative relationship is more significant for low-generation employees than it is for high-generation employees. These results, therefore, support both hypotheses since job crafting is negatively related to job boredom, and generational diversity moderates the relationship between job crafting and job boredom such that the level of the negative impact of job crafting on job boredom is stronger for Gen X than for Millennials.

5. Discussion

Although some organizational studies show a relationship between job crafting and job boredom, they are scarce in the literature [28,36,43,83,84]. However, previous researchers have found a negative relationship between job crafting and job boredom. Using data obtained from 320 white-collar employees, we also found that workplace boredom and job crafting are inversely correlated such that employees who actively increase structural job resources, increase social job resources, decrease hindering job demands and increase challenging job demands experience lower workplace boredom. The negative relationship between job crafting and job boredom that resulted from our study adds to the limited existing literature.
As pointed out, generational diversity cannot be forecasted as a moderator unless it is tested. Our understanding of possible generational differences at work stems from meta-analytic and time-lag studies, which have sometimes been inconclusive. Although some researchers [85] have argued that there is inadequate evidence of generational differences in workplace outcomes, others [48,86,87] have provided increased evidence of the existence of generational differences within the work environment. On the basis of generational cohort theory, it is apparent that generational differences could play an important role in how the relationship between job crafting and job boredom pans out. Some researchers [56] assume that, within the generational cohorts, Generation Xers and Millennials are more similar in their work values and characteristics. However, our results suggest that a clear difference exists between the two groups. Our second hypothesis, which suggested that generational diversity moderates the relationship between job crafting and job boredom such that the level of negative impact of job crafting on job boredom will be stronger for Gen X than for Millennials, was supported. This could be as a result of the low tolerance for boredom on the part of Generation Y [73], the satisfaction gained from the autonomy Millennials crave, their tendency to be more proactive [72] or the inclination of older generations to accept their jobs as they are [77].

5.1. Theoretical Implications

Three main contributions have been made with this study. By testing the impact of job crafting on job boredom based on JD-R theory, it confirms and adds to previous findings regarding the relationship between the two variables [28,43,84]. When job crafting is high, job boredom is low, and when job crafting is low, job boredom is high. Nevertheless, although there are studies on this subject in the literature, research on job crafting and job boredom is usually focused on highly educated Westerners [36], and, consequently, this investigation expands its scope.
Secondly, this study is the first to identify a strong theoretical relationship using generational diversity as a moderator between job crafting and job boredom. Prior to this survey, no academic research has been conducted on job crafting and job boredom using generational differences.
Finally, it also contributes to the literature by proving that differences do exist between generations. According to Figure 2, although the downward sloping of both the high generation (Millennials) and low generation (Gen Xers) indicates a negative relationship, in the high generation, the impact of job crafting on job boredom is stronger for Gen Xers than for Millennials. Despite different research showing varied results on generational diversity, the results of the study show that there is, indeed, a contrast between Gen Xers and Millennials.

5.2. Practical Implications

This study provides useful information for organizations. The findings demonstrate the negative impact of job crafting on job boredom. It sheds light on the fact that the degree of influence of this relationship is dependent on an employee’s generational cohort. Organizations can benefit from this knowledge in several ways. First, the traditional top-to-bottom approach to problem solving within organizations is not the only way. This shift of function from employer to employee helps to reduce management costs and saves time in problem solving. Employee issues within an organization are usually specific to an individual, and, since the bureaucracy involved might be cumbersome, it can be a lengthy process before it reaches management to be addressed.
The study also suggests a deliberate boost of job crafting interventions to enhance proactive job behaviors. The strategic alignment of human resource practices to favor the stimulation of proactivity in terms of feedback, rewards, career development strategies and an enabling environment motivates employees to identify the source of job boredom and proceed to find ways of minimizing boredom through crafting.
Different generational groups have different attributes, priorities, desires and motivations that motivate their actions. Human resource managers should consider that a one-size-fits-all enrichment approach does not work in today’s intergenerational environments. This environment warrants more initiative and proactivity from the employees [88], and, therefore, job enrichment practices must be altered from the traditional organizational-oriented approaches to self-initiated enrichment models. Soon, there will be yet another change in the workforce. The focus will no longer be on Gen Xers and Millennials but will include the more self-satisfying Generation Z.

6. Limitations, Future Research and Conclusions

However, this study is not free from limitations. The data were collected from the employees themselves. Although conducting the survey in two different time periods helped to minimize common-method bias, this self-rating form of measurement still contains an element of bias. Future studies could involve supervisors and peers. Information obtained from these channels will more likely yield a more accurate representation of the employees’ characteristics.
In determining the crafting behaviors of employees, focus was placed on the individuals’ generational cohort. In future studies, individual external factors such as the tenure and rank of the individual can be tested. However, with the knowledge that crafting is not always motivated intrinsically [89], it will also be insightful to conduct research on how team-level goals and expectations impact on our research variables—job crafting, job boredom and generational diversity. Secondly, the sample was gathered from one group of individuals with the same nationality. The results could potentially have been influenced by internal cultural and economic factors. As such, generalization across countries should be made with caution since differences among countries exist. Future studies can concentrate on duplicating this study in other cultural or economic environments.
Organizations are not the only beneficiaries of job crafting and reduced workplace boredom. These actions develop an employees’ competence and skillfulness, thus, promoting overall career success by encouraging self-learning [79]. The study proves that encouraging these actions with a person’s generational personality in mind yields a more desirable outcome for both the employer and the employee.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.S. and A.A.D.; methodology, H.S. and A.A.D.; software, H.S.; validation, H.S.; formal analysis, H.S.; investigation, A.A.D.; resources, H.S. and A.A.D.; data curation, H.S. and A.A.D.; writing-original draft preparation, A.A.D.; writing review and editing, H.S. and A.A.D.; visualization, H.S. and A.A.D.; supervision, H.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study since the data was collected by participation of choice.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is not publicly available but may be made available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wrzesniewski, A.; Dutton, J.E. Crafting a Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of Their Work. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 179–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gordon, H.J.; Demerouti, E.; Le Blanc, P.M.; Bakker, A.B.; Bipp, T.; Verhagen, M.A.M.T. Individual Job Redesign: Job Crafting Interventions in Healthcare. J. Vocat. Behav. 2018, 104, 98–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Kooij, D.T.; van Woerkom, M.; Wilkenloh, J.; Dorenbosch, L.; Denissen, J.J. Job Crafting towards Strengths and Interests: The Effects of a Job Crafting Intervention on Person–Job Fit and the Role of Age. J. Appl. Psychol. 2017, 102, 971–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Rudolph, C.W.; Katz, I.M.; Lavigne, K.N.; Zacher, H. Job Crafting: A Meta-Analysis of Relationships with Individual Differences, Job Characteristics, and Work Outcomes. J. Vocat. Behav. 2017, 102, 112–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Demerouti, E.; Peeters, M.C. The Job Crafting Intervention: Effects on Job Resources, Self-Efficacy, and Affective Well-Being. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2015, 88, 511–532. [Google Scholar]
  6. Mattarelli, E.; Tagliaventi, M.R. How Offshore Professionals’ Job Dissatisfaction Can Promote Further Offshoring: Organizational Outcomes of Job Crafting. J. Manag. Stud. 2012, 52, 585–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mael, F.; Jex, S. Workplace Boredom: An Integrative Model of Traditional and Contemporary Approaches. Group Organ. Manag. 2015, 40, 131–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. MacKinnon, D.P. Integrating Mediators and Moderators in Research Design. Res. Soc. Work Pract. 2011, 21, 675–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Solberg, E.; Wong, S.I. Crafting One’s Job to Take Charge of Role Overload: When Proactivity Requires Adaptivity across Levels. Lead. Q. 2016, 27, 713–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Brenninkmeijer, V.; Hekkert-Koning, M. To Craft or Not to Craft. Career Dev. Int. 2015, 20, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Parker, S.K.; Axtell, C.M.; Turner, N. Designing a Safer Workplace: Importance of Job Autonomy, Communication Quality, and Supportive Supervisors. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2001, 6, 211–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kapoor, C.; Solomon, N. Understanding and Managing Generational Differences in the Workplace. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. 2011, 3, 308–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Haeberle, K.; Herzberg, J.; Hobbs, T. Leading the multigenerational work force. A Proactive approach will cultivate employee engagement and productivity. Healthc. Exec. 2009, 24, 62–64. [Google Scholar]
  14. Becton, J.B.; Walker, H.J.; Jones-Farmer, A. Generational Differences in Workplace Behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2014, 44, 175–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lub, X.; Nije Bijvank, M.; Matthijs Bal, P.; Blomme, R.; Schalk, R. Different or Alike? Exploring the Psychological Contract and Commitment of Different Generations of Hospitality Workers. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 24, 553–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Brody, C.J.; Rubin, B.A. Generational Differences in the Effects of Insecurity, Restructured Workplace Temporalities, and Technology on Organizational Loyalty. Sociol. Spectr. 2011, 31, 163–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lamm, E.; Meeks, M.D. Workplace Fun: The Moderating Effects of Generational Differences. Empl. Relat. 2009, 31, 613–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Demerouti, E. The Job Demands-Resources Model: State of the Art. J. Manag. Psychol. 2007, 22, 309–328. [Google Scholar]
  19. Petrou, P.; Demerouti, E.; Peeters, M.C.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Hetland, J. Crafting a Job on a Daily Basis: Contextual Correlates and the Link to Work Engagement. J. Organ. Behav. 2012, 33, 1120–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Tims, M.; Bakker, A.B. Job Crafting: Towards a New Model of Individual Job Redesign. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 2010, 36, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Tims, M.; Bakker, A.B.; Derks, D. Job Crafting and Job Performance: A Longitudinal Study. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2014, 24, 914–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tims, M.; Derks, D.; Bakker, A.B. Job Crafting and Its Relationships with Person–Job Fit and Meaningfulness: A Three-Wave Study. J. Voc. Behav. 2016, 92, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Slemp, G.R.; Kern, M.L.; Vella-Brodrick, D.A. Workplace Well-Being: The Role of Job Crafting and Autonomy Support. Psychol. Well-Being 2015, 5, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Kim, H.; Im, J.; Qu, H. Exploring Antecedents and Consequences of Job Crafting. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 75, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Van Wingerden, J.; Derks, D.; Bakker, A.B. The Impact of Personal Resources and Job Crafting Interventions on Work Engagement and Performance. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015, 56, 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Shin, Y.; Hur, W.M.; Choi, W.H. Coworker support as a double-edged sword: A moderated mediation model of job crafting, work engagement, and job performance. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 31, 1417–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cheng, J.C.; Yi, O. Hotel employee job crafting, burnout, and satisfaction: The moderating role of perceived organizational support. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 72, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Harju, L.K.; Hakanen, J.J.; Schaufeli, W.B. Can job crafting reduce job boredom and increase work engagement? A three-year cross-lagged panel study. J. Vocat. Behav. 2016, 95, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kass, S.J.; Vodanovich, S.J.; Callender, A. State-trait boredom: Relationship to absenteeism, tenure, and job satisfaction. J. Bus. Psychol. 2001, 16, 317–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mikulas, W.L.; Vodanovich, S.J. The essence of boredom. Psychol. Rec. 1993, 43, 3–12. [Google Scholar]
  31. Barbalet, J.M. Boredom and Social Meaning. Br. J. Sociol. 1999, 50, 631–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Fisher, C.D. Boredom at Work: A Neglected Concept. Hum. Relat. 1993, 46, 395–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Mani, V. Analysis of Employee Engagement and Its Predictors. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Stud. 2011, 1, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Eid, M. Predictors of Job Boredom. Honors Undergraduate Thesis, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  35. Bruursema, K.; Kessler, S.R.; Spector, P.E. Bored Employees Misbehaving: The Relationship between Boredom and Counterproductive Work Behaviour. Work Stress 2011, 25, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sánchez-Cardona, I.; Vera, M.; Martínez-Lugo, M.; Rodríguez-Montalbán, R.; Marrero-Centeno, J. When the Job Does Not Fit: The Moderating Role of Job Crafting and Meaningful Work in the Relation between Employees’ Perceived Overqualification and Job Boredom. J. Career Assess. 2019, 28, 257–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cummings, M.L.; Gao, F.; Thornburg, K.M. Boredom in the Workplace. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 2015, 58, 279–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Acee, T.W.; Kim, H.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, J.-I.; Chu, H.-N.R.; Kim, M.; Cho, Y.J.; Wicker, F.W. Academic Boredom in under- and over-Challenging Situations. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2010, 35, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Harju, L.K.; Hakanen, J.J. An Employee Who Was Not There: A Study of Job Boredom in White-Collar Work. Pers. Rev. 2016, 45, 374–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Reijseger, G.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Peeters, M.C.W.; Taris, T.W.; van Beek, I.; Ouweneel, E. Watching the Paint Dry at Work: Psychometric Examination of the Dutch Boredom Scale. Anxiety Stress Coping 2013, 26, 508–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Petrou, P.; Bakker, A.B.; van den Heuvel, M. Weekly Job Crafting and Leisure Crafting: Implications for Meaning-Making and Work Engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2016, 90, 129–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Baratta, P.; Spence, J.R. Do Bored Employees Job Craft When Demands and Resources Are Low? Acad. Manag. Proc. 2017, 2017, 14363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Van Hooff, M.L.; van Hooft, E.A. Boredom at Work: Proximal and Distal Consequences of Affective Work-Related Boredom. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2014, 19, 348–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Parker, S.K.; Ohly, S. Designing Motivating Jobs: An Expanded Framework for Linking Work Characteristics and Motivation. In Work Motivation: Past, Present, and Future; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 233–284. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hakanen, J.J.; Brauchli, R.; Jenny, G.J.; Bauer, G.F. The Consequences of Job Crafting: A Three-Wave Study. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2015, 25, 353–362. [Google Scholar]
  46. Bindl, U.K.; Parker, S. Proactive Work Behavior: Forward-Thinking and Change-Oriented Action in Organizations. In APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; pp. 1–70. [Google Scholar]
  47. Angeline, T. Managing Generational Diversity at the Workplace: Expectations and Perceptions of Different Generations of Employees. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2011, 5, 249–255. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lyons, S.; Kuron, L. Generational Differences in the Workplace: A Review of the Evidence and Directions for Future Research. J. Organ. Behav. 2013, 35, S139–S157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Niemiec, S. Finding Common Ground for All Ages. Secur. Distrib. Mark. 2000, 30, 81. [Google Scholar]
  50. Mead, M. Culture and Commitment: A Study of the Generation Gap; Panther: St. Albans, UK, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  51. Codrington, G. Detailed Introduction to Generational Theory. J. Human Resour. Sustain. Stud. 2021, 9, 2. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hemlin, S.; Allwood, C.M.; Martin, B.R.; Mumford, M.D. Creativity and Leadership in Science, Technology, and Innovation; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  53. Strauss, W.; Howe, N. Generations the History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069; Quill: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  54. Scandura, T.A.; Williams, E.A. Research Methodology in Management: Current Practices, Trends, and Implications for Future Research. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 1248–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kim, S.-H.; Kim, M.; Han, H.-S.; Holland, S. The Determinants of Hospitality Employees’ pro-Environmental Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Generational Differences. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 52, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lu, A.C.; Gursoy, D. Impact of Job Burnout on Satisfaction and Turnover Intention. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2013, 40, 210–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. D’Amato, A.; Herzfeldt, R. Learning Orientation, Organizational Commitment and Talent Retention across Generations. J. Manag. Psychol. 2008, 23, 929–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Park, J.; Gursoy, D. Generation Effects on Work Engagement among U.S. Hotel Employees. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 1195–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kowske, B.J.; Rasch, R.; Wiley, J. Millennials’ (Lack of) Attitude Problem: An Empirical Examination of Generational Effects on Work Attitudes. J. Bus. Psychol. 2010, 25, 265–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Twenge, J.M. A Review of the Empirical Evidence on Generational Differences in Work Attitudes. J. Bus. Psychol. 2010, 25, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zemke, R.; Raines, C.; Filipczak, B. Generations at Work: Managing The Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace; AMACOM: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  62. Jurkiewicz, C.L. Generation X and the Public Employee. Public Pers. Manag. 2000, 29, 55–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tulgan, B. Managing Generation X How to Bring out the Best in Young Talent; W.W. Norton: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  64. Orme, D. A Corporate Cultivator’s Guide to Growing Leaders. New Zealand Management: The Leaders’ Magazine, 24 August 2004; 41–43. [Google Scholar]
  65. Gursoy, D.; Maier, T.A.; Chi, C.G. Generational Differences: An Examination of Work Values and Generational Gaps in the Hospitality Workforce. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2008, 27, 448–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kostanek, E.; Khoreva, V. Multi-Generational Workforce and Its Implication for Talent Retention Strategies. Psychol. Retent. 2018, 203–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kupperschmidt, B.R. Multigeneration Employees: Strategies for Effective Management. Health Care Manag. 2000, 19, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Dries, N.; Pepermans, R.; De Kerpel, E. Exploring Four Generations’ Beliefs about Career. J. Manag. Psychol. 2008, 23, 907–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jorgensen, B. Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y? Foresight 2003, 5, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chi, C.G.; Maier, T.A.; Gursoy, D. Employees’ Perceptions of Younger and Older Managers by Generation and Job Category. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 34, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Twenge, J.M.; Campbell, S.M. Generational Differences in Psychological Traits and Their Impact on the Workplace. J. Manag. Psychol. 2008, 23, 862–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. De Hauw, S.; De Vos, A. Millennials’ Career Perspective and Psychological Contract Expectations: Does the Recession Lead to Lowered Expectations? J. Bus. Psychol. 2010, 25, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Goman, C.K. Communicating for a new age. Strateg. Commun. Manag. 2006, 10, 8. [Google Scholar]
  74. Jurkiewicz, C.L.; Brown, R.G. Generational Comparisons of Public Employee Motivation. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 1998, 18, 18–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Brickson, S. The Impact of Identity Orientation on Individual and Organizational Outcomes in Demographically Diverse Settings. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25, 82–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hogg, M.A.; Terry, D.I. Social Identity and Self-Categorization Processes in Organizational Contexts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25, 121–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Beutell, N.J.; Wittig-Berman, U. Work-Family Conflict and Work-Family Synergy for Generation X, Baby Boomers, and Matures. J. Manag. Psychol. 2008, 23, 507–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Tims, M.; Bakker, A.B.; Derks, D. Development and Validation of the Job Crafting Scale. J. Vocat. Behav. 2012, 80, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Akkermans, J.; Tims, M. Crafting Your Career: How Career Competencies Relate to Career Success via Job Crafting. Appl. Psychol. 2016, 66, 168–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hur, W.-M.; Moon, T.-W.; Choi, W.-H. The Role of Job Crafting and Perceived Organizational Support in the Link between Employees’ CSR Perceptions and Job Performance: A Moderated Mediation Model. Curr. Psychol. 2019, 40, 3151–3165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bernerth, J.B.; Aguinis, H. A Critical Review and Best-Practice Recommendations for Control Variable Usage. Pers. Psychol. 2015, 69, 229–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Daly, J. BAM2019 Conference Proceedings. In Gender and Job Crafting: Understanding the Role of Gendered Behaviours in the Abilities and Motivations to Proactively Craft Work; British Academy of Management: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  83. Oprea, B.; Iliescu, D.; Burtăverde, V.; Dumitrache, M. Personality and Boredom at Work: The Mediating Role of Job Crafting. Career Dev. Int. 2019, 24, 315–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Harju, L.K.; Schaufeli, W.B.; Hakanen, J.J. A Multilevel Study on Servant Leadership, Job Boredom and Job Crafting. J. Manag. Psychol. 2018, 33, 2–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Costanza, D.P.; Finkelstein, L.M. Generationally Based Differences in the Workplace: Is There a There There? Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2015, 8, 308–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Meriac, J.P.; Woehr, D.J.; Banister, C. Generational Differences in Work Ethic: An Examination of Measurement Equivalence across Three Cohorts. J. Bus. Psychol. 2010, 25, 315–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Parry, E.; Urwin, P. Generational Differences in Work Values: A Review of Theory and Evidence. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2011, 13, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Karabey, C.N.; Kerse, G. The Relationship between Job Crafting and Psychological Capital: A Survey in a Manufacturing Business. Pressacad. Proc. 2017, 3, 909–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bizzi, L. Network Characteristics: When an Individual’s Job Crafting Depends on the Jobs of Others. Hum. Relat. 2016, 70, 436–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 05058 g001 550
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 15 05058 g001
Sustainability 15 05058 g002 550
Figure 2. Research model on AMOS.
Figure 2. Research model on AMOS.
Sustainability 15 05058 g002
Sustainability 15 05058 g003 550
Figure 3. Interactive effects of job crafting and generation on job boredom.
Figure 3. Interactive effects of job crafting and generation on job boredom.
Sustainability 15 05058 g003
Table
Table 1. Respondents’ demographic profiles (N = 320).
Table 1. Respondents’ demographic profiles (N = 320).
FrequencyRespondents (%)
Gender
Female19260.0
Male12840.0
Age (birth year)
Gen X (1961–1981)17253.7
Gen Y (1982–2004)14846.3
Education
Associate degree/high school299.0
Undergraduate24777.2
Graduate4413.8
Table
Table 2. Construct validity results.
Table 2. Construct validity results.
Tested Modelχ2pdfGFICFIRMSEAIFI
Job crafting (first order)738.8370.011830.900.890.060.89
Job crafting (second order)706.3230.011890.910.900.060.89
Job boredom (first order)26.1260.0190.900.890.050.90
(χ2 = chi-square, df = degrees of freedom, GFI = goodness of fit, CFI = comparative fit index, RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation, IFI = incremental fit index).
Table
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, reliability scores and correlations.
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, reliability scores and correlations.
VariableMeanSD123
1.1. Job crafting3.690.63(0.90)
2.2. Job boredom2.430.68−0.63 **(0.91)
3.3. Generational diversity0.520.49−0.23 **0.14 *-
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). Note: Cronbach’s alphas are given in diagonal parentheses.
Table
Table 4. Bootstrap results for job boredom.
Table 4. Bootstrap results for job boredom.
VariablesCoeff.SEC.R.pLLCIULCI
Age−0.2140.060−3.5740.000−0.334−0.082
Gender−0.0260.091−0.2890.773−0.1890.127
Education level0.0780.1120.6980.485−0.1290.285
Job crafting−0.4070.030−13.5590.000−0.461−0.346
Generation0.1870.0375.1040.0000.1160.265
Interaction0.1300.0352.5540.0110.0280.191
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sesen, H.; Donkor, A.A. Job Crafting, Job Boredom and Generational Diversity: Are Millennials Different from Gen Xs? Sustainability 2023, 15, 5058. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065058

AMA Style

Sesen H, Donkor AA. Job Crafting, Job Boredom and Generational Diversity: Are Millennials Different from Gen Xs? Sustainability. 2023; 15(6):5058. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065058

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sesen, Harun, and Ama Asantewaa Donkor. 2023. "Job Crafting, Job Boredom and Generational Diversity: Are Millennials Different from Gen Xs?" Sustainability 15, no. 6: 5058. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065058

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop