The Role of Experienced Employees’ Calling Orientation in Shaping Responses to Newcomers’ Approach- and Avoidance-Oriented Job Crafting: A Vignette-Based Study

Abstract

Drawing on conservation of resources theory, this study examines how existing employees’ calling orientation shapes their responses to newcomers’ job crafting. Using a scenario-based experimental vignette design with 149 full-time employees who work in teams, this study tested how two distinct forms of newcomers’ job crafting—approach- and avoidance-oriented—affect veterans’ helping intention toward newcomers. The results show that approach-oriented job crafting increases, whereas avoidance-oriented job crafting decreases, helping intentions. More importantly, both effects were mitigated by observers’ calling orientation: experienced employees with a strong calling orientation consistently displayed higher helping intentions and were less reactive to the degree of newcomers’ crafting behaviors. This study extends interpersonal job crafting research to newcomer–veteran relationships rather than the peer or leader–subordinate contexts that dominate prior work. The findings deepen the understanding of how proactive newcomers are received in organizations and suggest that integrating employees’ work orientation profiles into mentoring and onboarding systems can enhance welcoming practices in the workplace.

1. Introduction

Recent industrial reports estimate that nearly 40% of total employee turnover occurs within the first year of employment [1]. Unlike long-tenured employees, first-year leavers often depart before generating a return on investment, resulting in operational disruptions and substantial costs associated with recruitment, onboarding, and training. While many studies and industrial reports emphasize the importance of welcoming newcomers to mitigate such challenges, in reality, existing organizational members often struggle to provide newcomers with sufficient support. This difficulty can be understood through the lens of resource dynamics: when job demands are high and personal resources are depleted, helping others may feel like an additional burden. Consequently, employees tend to selectively assist newcomers who appear proactive or instrumental to team performance.

One newcomer behavior that can elicit such support is job crafting—the self-initiated changes employees make to their tasks, relationships, and perceptions of work [2]. A growing body of research has shown that newcomers’ proactive adjustments to their roles and environments help them adjust more successfully, leading to positive outcomes such as job satisfaction [3], work engagement [4], and organizational socialization [5]. However, research has predominantly focused on the crafter’s perspective, emphasizing the intrapersonal benefits newcomers gain from job crafting. By contrast, far less is known about how others—particularly existing employees—perceive and respond to newcomers’ job crafting behaviors.

To address this gap, the present study examines the individual characteristic of experienced employees, which offers valuable insight into when they choose to assist or withhold help during newcomer adjustment. Specifically, this study focuses on calling orientation—defined as perceiving one’s work as meaningful and prosocial [6,7]—as a key individual difference that conditions these responses. In sum, this study examines how experienced employees’ calling orientations shape their willingness to help newcomers who engage in approach- and avoidance-oriented job crafting (see Figure 1).

Drawing on conservation of resources theory [8], this study views newcomers’ job crafting as signals that can either create or deplete resources for existing employees. Approach-oriented job crafting (e.g., actively seeking feedback and building networks) [9] is likely to be interpreted as resource-creating, thereby eliciting greater helping intentions. In contrast, avoidance-oriented job crafting (e.g., minimizing tasks or reducing demanding responsibilities) [9] may be perceived as resource-depleting, reducing employees’ willingness to help. The study further proposes that these effects depend on experienced employees’ work orientations. Calling orientation influences how individuals appraise potential resource loss or gain. Employees with a strong calling orientation are less concerned with conserving their own resources and more motivated to contribute positively. As such, they maintain relatively high levels of helping intentions, even when newcomers engage less in approach-oriented crafting or more in avoidance-oriented crafting. In contrast, employees with a weaker calling orientation are more sensitive to resource demands and thus adjust their helping intentions more sharply in line with newcomers’ behaviors.

This research has several contributions. First, this study extends job crafting research beyond the newcomer’s intrapersonal benefits to the interpersonal consequences observed by others, showing that veterans’ reactions depend not only on the type of crafting but also on who the observer is. Second, the current study advances newcomer socialization research by shifting attention to veterans as not only providers of resources but also evaluators of how newcomers affect their own resources, underscoring the reciprocal nature of the socialization process. Third, this study extends the work orientation literature by highlighting its basis in valuation. Whereas prior research has focused on how orientations shape individuals’ own career choices and outcomes, this study shows that these valuations also influence how employees perceive and respond to others’ work behaviors. From a practical standpoint, this study suggests that understanding employees’ work orientations can help organizations design mentoring and onboarding systems that promote newcomer adjustment. Together, these reciprocal behaviors transform socialization from a one-sided burden into a sustainable exchange, ensuring that human resources are continually renewed as each generation of workers contributes to the growth of the next.

2. Theory and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Conservation of Resources Theory

Conservation of Resources (COR) theory posits that individuals are motivated to protect and build valued resources, striving to prevent resource loss and to accumulate reserves that buffer against future demands in their work lives and daily transactions with others [8,10]. When individuals face resource-depleting situations, they typically cope in ways that minimize further losses of their physical, cognitive, or emotional resources. For instance, employees may reduce the use of current resources to deal with workplace stress or organizational changes. At the same time, individuals may also engage in resource investment, actively using their resources to guard against future losses, recover from current ones, and generate new gains. Importantly, individuals with fewer resources are more vulnerable to loss and less capable of gain, whereas those with greater resources are less vulnerable to loss and more capable of gain [11].

Encountering newcomers illustrates that this duality between loss prevention and gain creation becomes particularly salient. Newcomers may be perceived as resource-depleting, as experienced employees must devote time and effort to mentoring, correcting mistakes, and adjusting to disruptions. Yet newcomers may also be viewed as resource-creating by bringing fresh perspectives and expanding the group’s capacity. Thus, COR theory provides a useful lens for understanding how existing employees evaluate and respond to newcomers’ job crafting behaviors. Specifically, avoidance-oriented crafting by newcomers signals to veterans that their own resources may be depleted, as they must expend additional effort to compensate for reduced newcomer contributions. By contrast, approach-oriented crafting by newcomers signals to veterans that investing their own resources is likely to generate future resource accumulation, thereby enhancing their willingness to help.

2.2. Job Crafting

Job crafting refers to an employee behavior in which employees voluntarily modify their tasks and relational boundaries to better align their interests, skills, and values with the job [2,12]. Through such efforts, individuals often reshape their jobs—both in small and substantial ways—to experience greater satisfaction and positive meaning at work. According to the approach–avoidance job crafting framework [9], actions such as increasing structural resources (e.g., pursuing professional development opportunities), enhancing social resources (e.g., seeking feedback from colleagues or supervisors), and taking on challenging tasks (e.g., joining complex projects) are categorized as approach-oriented job crafting. In contrast, behaviors like avoiding difficult assignments or minimizing social interactions with annoying people are considered avoidance-oriented job crafting. While approach crafting generally leads to positive outcomes, avoidance crafting has been associated with non-significant or even negative effects on work engagement, job satisfaction, and performance [13,14,15].

When individuals become newcomers in an organization, they must clarify their roles and responsibilities to effectively fulfill their assigned duties [16,17]. In terms of the existing studies on the intrapersonal benefits of newcomers’ job crafting, Yang et al. [3] found that newcomer cognitive crafting was positively associated with job satisfaction, although task and relational crafting were not. Hu et al. [4] reported a positive relationship between job crafting and work engagement among newcomers. However, research has yet to fully explore how others respond to newcomers’ job crafting and how these others’ responses, in turn, shape newcomers’ ongoing work experiences.

Recently, research has begun to shift from a self-focused view of job crafting to a social perspective, emphasizing how job crafting is observed, evaluated, and responded to by others in the workplace [18]. This growing body of work highlights the reciprocal nature of job crafting—how it influences the social context [19,20,21,22]. For example, coworkers’ and self-ratings of job crafting have shown significant correlations [18], suggesting that job crafting is indeed noticeable to others. Moreover, Fong et al. [20] found that coworkers responded more positively to colleagues who engaged in approach-oriented crafting—expressing greater willingness to cooperate—while avoidance-oriented crafting led to relational conflict. Similarly, Fong et al. [19] demonstrated that supervisors recognized employees’ avoidance crafting, which in turn reduced their support for these employees. Dong et al. [21] further showed that coworkers’ job crafting could elicit feelings of relative deprivation among observers, leading to reduced prosocial behavior and increased social undermining.

Moreover, Tims and Parker [23] emphasized the importance of involving colleagues in the job crafting process, as their perceptions and responses can determine whether the job crafting efforts yield positive (e.g., increased job enjoyment) or negative (e.g., interpersonal tension) outcomes for the crafter. This is particularly relevant for newcomers, whose successful adjustment depends heavily on how their behaviors are received by existing employees. Understanding others’ reactions to newcomers’ job crafting is thus critical for assessing its full impact on social integration and long-term adaptation. Therefore, it is important to consider the personal characteristics of observers, and this study focuses on their calling orientation—particularly in relation to job crafting behaviors aimed at enhancing the meaning of work.

2.3. Newcomers’ Job Crafting and Existing Workers’ Helping Intention

Helping others typically comes at a cost to the actor [24]. Thus, employees attempt to figure out whether the recipient of help deserves the provision of help. Prior research shows several conditions under which employees are more likely to help. They are inclined to help when they have mutual trust and respect with group members and exchange resources for task completion [25]. Employees also show greater helping when they maintain high-quality relationships and demonstrate genuine concern for others [26]. In addition, they are more likely to provide help when they feel the need to reciprocate favorable treatment from supervisors or organizations [27]. In sum, recent evidence suggests that coworkers also rely on observable behaviors to judge whether a colleague is a deserving target of help. In response to job crafting, in the setting of employee-employee, Fong et al. [20] found that colleague-observed approach job crafting increased coworkers’ willingness to cooperate with the job crafter, whereas colleague-observed avoidance job crafting heightened relationship conflict. In relationships between newcomers and experienced employees, help from incumbents is often taken for granted. From a resource investment perspective, however, incumbents may still evaluate whether helping a newcomer will lead to valued gains or resource losses, making newcomers’ job crafting behaviors an important determinant of helping intentions.

Building on this work, this study argues that newcomers’ approach-oriented job crafting may play a critical role in eliciting helping intentions from existing employees. According to COR theory [8], individuals are motivated to invest their resources when such investments are likely to yield valued gains. Approach-oriented job crafting behaviors, such as seeking feedback, resources, and challenging tasks, signal that the newcomer is engaged and autonomously expand job resources, which can be helpful to the team functioning. Such newcomers may be viewed as attractive partners for sustained collaboration, signaling long-term relational value to experienced employees. When newcomers demonstrate these behaviors, experienced employees are more likely to regard them as worthy targets of resource investment, perceiving that offering help to such newcomers will generate future benefits for both the team and themselves. Therefore, observing newcomers’ approach-oriented job crafting will increase experienced employees’ intentions to help them.

Hypothesis 1:

Observing newcomers’ approach-oriented job crafting is positively associated with experienced employees’ helping intentions.

On the other hand, avoidance job crafting involves behaviors such as reducing demanding tasks or minimizing interactions that require substantial effort. While such strategies may help newcomers make their own jobs more manageable [28], they can simultaneously create additional burdens for others, as the tasks left undone must be absorbed by coworkers. For example, Fong et al. [20] found that subordinates who engaged in high levels of avoidance job crafting received more negative evaluations from supervisors. To experienced employees, newcomers who engage in avoidance-oriented job crafting may appear unmotivated and unlikely to contribute meaningfully to the team. From a COR perspective [8], helping such individuals can be perceived as an unnecessary depletion of one’s own limited resources. Employees may feel that offering assistance to a newcomer who avoids challenging tasks will consume their time and energy without improving team functioning. Accordingly, they are motivated to conserve their remaining resources by withholding help and minimizing additional effort. Therefore, observing newcomers’ avoidance-oriented job crafting is expected to decrease experienced employees’ willingness to help them.

Hypothesis 2:

Observing newcomers’ avoidance-oriented job crafting is negatively associated with experienced employees’ helping intentions.

2.4. Calling Orientation

Calling orientation is defined as a view toward work in which one expects work to be purposeful and inherently meaningful [29]. Individuals relate to their work through three orientations—job, career, and calling—with job and calling positioned on a single continuum and career largely orthogonal to this dimension [6,7]. The current study adopts this continuum view: a stronger sense of calling implies a weaker job orientation, and vice versa. Individuals high in calling experience their work as intrinsically rewarding and morally significant, often aspiring to contribute to a greater good [7,30]. Stronger calling has been linked to better coping with stressful work conditions and to the convergence of ideal and actual selves through work, providing valued resources such as meaning, satisfaction, and self-esteem [31,32]. In contrast, lower levels of calling align with a job-oriented view: work is primarily a means to extrinsic outcomes (e.g., pay), with interests and ambitions expressed largely outside of work; such employees tend to report lower meaningfulness at work [33].

These orientations have a critical influence on the individual’s value judgements, which in turn shape whether employees perceive work demands as worthy of resource investment or as threats to be avoided. For example, Shea-Van Fossen and Vredenburgh [34], using a sample of automobile industry workers, found that employees with a strong calling orientation preferred challenging work, whereas those with a weaker calling orientation were inclined to shy away from such demands, seeking to conserve their resources by avoiding potential depletion. Similarly, a study of zookeepers demonstrated that those with a strong sense of calling were more willing to channel valuable resources such as money, time, and physical comfort for their work [35]. In sum, individuals with higher calling orientation tend to invest more resources into their work, whereas those with lower calling orientation tend to avoid resource-depleting activities.

2.5. Interaction of Job Crafting and Calling Orientation

Building on this distinction, this study considers how existing employees’ calling orientation shapes their reactions to newcomers’ job crafting behaviors. Employees with high calling orientation generally perceive work as meaningful and view helping others as an inherent part of fulfilling their purpose [7,30]. Drawing on conservation of resources (COR) theory, this study proposes that the primary mechanism through which calling orientation operates is perceived resource slack—a sense of resource abundance that reduces sensitivity to potential losses. Employees with a strong calling orientation are less likely to perceive helping others as depleting their limited resources. For example, when pursuing personal goals, individuals with a strong sense of calling tend not to restrict their efforts to meeting formal job requirements or prescribed targets; instead, they often engage in extra-role activities and go the extra mile at work [32,36]. Accordingly, they view helping as a meaningful investment that aligns with their sense of purpose and ultimately replenishes their resources [37]. As a result, they are inclined to help others regardless of whether newcomers engage in approach-oriented job crafting, because helping itself is perceived as resource-sustaining and intrinsically valuable.

In contrast, employees with lower calling orientation are less likely to seek intrinsically rewarding work [7] and seldom engage in extra-role behaviors that go beyond formal job requirements [34]. Viewing work primarily as an instrumental activity to achieve external rewards or avoid losses [34], they are more vigilant about conserving their resources and therefore more selective in offering help, carefully evaluating whether such assistance will deplete or preserve their personal resources. When newcomers engage in high approach-oriented job crafting, these employees are likely to interpret such proactive behaviors as a signal that the newcomers will become valuable contributors to the team. As a result, helping them does not feel like a loss, but rather a worthwhile investment of resources, leading to stronger helping intentions among experienced employees. Conversely, when newcomers exhibit low approach-oriented job crafting, experienced employees with lower calling orientation may interpret such passive behaviors as a signal that the newcomers lack motivation or the potential to contribute meaningfully to the team. Consequently, helping them is perceived as a futile or wasteful effort—an act that would unnecessarily deplete their personal resources—resulting in weaker helping intentions. Accordingly, the positive association between newcomers’ approach-oriented job crafting and existing employees’ helping intentions should be weaker among those with stronger callings, because they already maintain high levels of helping regardless of newcomers’ behavior—leaving little room for further increases. In contrast, employees with weaker calling orientation are more responsive to newcomers’ behavior; their helping intentions rise sharply when newcomers display high approach-oriented job crafting.

Hypothesis 3:

Experienced employees’ stronger calling orientation (vs. weaker) attenuates the positive association between newcomers’ approach-oriented job crafting and their helping intentions.

In a similar vein, employees with a strong calling orientation are inclined to help others regardless of circumstances, as they tend to view helping as an integral part of meaningful work [7,30]. For these employees, newcomers’ avoidance-oriented job crafting may still be viewed negatively, but their underlying motivation to contribute and make a positive impact leads them to maintain a relatively high willingness to help. In contrast, employees with weaker callings are more pragmatic and vigilant about conserving their own resources. When they observe newcomers avoiding demanding tasks or shifting responsibilities, they are likely to interpret these behaviors as a direct threat of resource loss. Consequently, they are less willing to invest their own resources in helping. Therefore, the negative association between newcomers’ avoidance-oriented job crafting and helping intentions is expected to be attenuated among employees with stronger calling orientation but exacerbated among those with weaker calling orientation.

Hypothesis 4:

Experienced employees’ stronger calling orientation (vs. weaker) attenuates the negative association between newcomers’ avoidance-oriented job crafting and their helping intentions.

3. Method

3.1. Participants and Procedure

This vignette study recruited 160 full-time employees from CloudResearch, an online data collection platform that provides access to verified and prescreened participants for academic research [38] and yields data quality comparable to or higher than that of Prolific [39]. Participants were recruited using demographic targeting filters for English-speaking users and those who reported working in a team at their current job, as the vignette scenario involved a team-based context. Eligibility criteria required participants to (a) be between 20 and 64 years old and (b) pass an automated bot check (CAPTCHA). Those who met the criteria were shown an informed consent form. Initially, 168 employees consented to participate, and 8 discontinued during the survey. In total, 160 participants completed the vignette survey and received $1.50 in compensation for approximately 10 min of participation. The flow diagram outlining this procedure is presented in Appendix A. Following the common cutoff in the newcomer literature [40,41,42], to be considered as experienced workers, participants working for their organization for more than 12 months were included, resulting in a final sample of 149 participants (M_age = 37.60, SD = 9.96; age range: 21–64 years; 38.3% female). The participants were employed in various industries, such as healthcare (16.1%), information technology (13.4%), manufacturing (8.1%), retail (7.4%), education (6.0%), finance (6.0%), and others (43.0%). Of these participants, 65.1% were Caucasian, 18.8% were African, 6.7% were Hispanic, 6.0% were Asian, 1.3% were Native American, and 2.0% were listed as Other. Regarding nationality, most participants were from the United States (93.3%), with a small number from the United Kingdom (2.7%), Canada (2.0%), Brazil (0.7%), Cuba (0.7%), and Ireland (0.7%). The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at [Masked for Peer Review] University.

This study used and modified the vignette developed by Fong et al. [20] to study how observing employees react to an individual’s job crafting behavior. The original vignette illustrated Chris, a new member of the restaurant staff, and his job crafting (e.g., increasing work relationships, seeking extra opportunities to learn new things, minimizing contact with demanding guests), along with background information about the work setting. As this study aimed to examine how existing employees respond when witnessing newcomers’ job crafting, additional information was included to describe Chris as a new employee and to indicate that participants were experienced servers (“Please imagine that you are an experienced server who has worked in a restaurant for several years. Chris is a new employee who started working in the same position a few months ago”). The full text of the vignette is provided in the Supplementary Materials. As the initial step, participants’ calling orientation was measured. Then, they were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions of witnessing a newcomer’s job crafting: high approach crafting, low approach crafting, high avoidance crafting, or low avoidance crafting. By reading the vignette, participants assumed the role of an experienced server witnessing the newcomer Chris’s job crafting. Next, participants rated the extent to which the character in the vignette engaged in job crafting behavior. After that, participants responded to measures of helping intention (full scales are provided in Appendix B). Finally, participants completed the demographic questionnaire.

3.2. Measures

Calling orientation. Using the 5 items to measure calling orientation from the Work Orientation Questionnaire [43], calling orientation was measured. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which each statement describes them on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all to 7 = very much). A sample item includes “My work will make the world a better place” (α = 0.91).

Avoidance and approach job crafting items (Manipulation Check). To assess the witnessed newcomer’s job crafting, participants were asked to rate the extent to which each statement describes the newcomer’s job crafting behavior using a 7-item scale for approach job crafting and a 6-item scale for avoidance job crafting [20,44,45] on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). A sample item includes “Chris has tried to learn new things at work” for approach job crafting (α = 0.99) and “Chris manages his/her work so that he/she tries to minimize contact with people whose problems affect him/her emotionally (α = 0.98).

Helping intention. The study measured the extent to which individuals are willing to help the newcomer using a 3-item scale on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) [46,47]. A sample item includes “I am willing to volunteer to do things to help out Chris” (α = 0.91). Among five items in the original scale, two items (“helped someone outside my workgroup,” “covered for coworkers who were absent or on break”) were dropped because the vignette described Chris as a present member of the same workgroup, rendering those items contextually inappropriate.

4. Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.

	N	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Approach manipulation condition a	75	-	-	-
2. Avoidance manipulation condition a	74	-	-	-	-
3. Calling orientation b	149	4.35	1.59	0.09	0.19	(0.91)
4. Helping intention c	149	3.69	1.02	−0.47 ***	0.59 ***	0.21 *	(0.91)

Note. Correlations were computed within each corresponding subsample because approach- and avoidance-oriented job crafting were manipulated between participants. Reliabilities are reported on the diagonal. ^a 0 = low, 1 = high. ^b 7-point scale. ^c 5-point scale. *** p < 0.001, * p < 0.05.

presents the means, standard deviations, and coefficient alpha values of the study variables.

Manipulation check. The t-test was conducted to check the effectiveness of the manipulation. First, participants in high approach job crafting condition reported significantly higher score to approach job crafting (N = 38, M = 4.55, SD = 0.54) manipulation check items that those primed with low approach job crafting (N = 37, M = 1.40, SD = 0.74, t(73) = 20.96, p < 0.001, d = 4.84). Next, the result showed that participants in the condition of observing high avoidance job crafting of Chris (the newcomer in the scenario) rated that they perceived higher avoidance job crafting (N = 37, M = 4.37, SD = 0.61) than those in the low avoidance job crafting condition (N = 37, M = 1.86, SD = 1.00, t(59.83) = 13.05, p < 0.001, d = 3.03). In sum, the manipulation was effective. Levene’s Test was significant for avoidance job crafting manipulation and insignificant for approach job crafting; therefore, homogeneity of variance between groups was assumed only for approach job crafting manipulation. Accordingly, Welch’s t-test (with adjusted degrees of freedom) was used for the avoidance manipulation.

Randomization check. Randomization checks were conducted separately for the two experimental manipulations (approach-oriented job crafting: high vs. low; avoidance-oriented job crafting: high vs. low). For each manipulation, independent-samples t-tests indicated no significant differences in participants’ age, organizational tenure, or calling orientation (all ps > 0.05), and chi-square tests showed no significant differences in race or industry (all ps > 0.05). However, for gender, a chi-square test revealed a significant difference in the approach manipulation (χ²(1, N = 75) = 3.87, p = 0.049), but not in the avoidance manipulation (p > 0.05). To ensure robustness, we re-ran the analyses involving the approach manipulation while controlling for gender. The results remained consistent for Hypotheses 1 and 3, as reported in Appendix C.

Hypothesis testing. Hypothesis 1 predicted that newcomers’ approach job crafting would be positively related to existing workers’ helping intention. The approach job crafting manipulation had a significant and positive effect on existing workers’ helping intention: t(55.24) = 6.26, p < 0.001, d = 1.46, high approach job crafting condition (M = 4.33, SD = 0.52) vs. low approach job crafting condition (M = 3.22, SD = 0.96). This finding supports Hypothesis 1 and indicates that observing newcomers’ approach job crafting makes experienced employees more willing to help the newcomers.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that newcomers’ avoidance job crafting would be negatively related to existing workers’ helping intention. Participants in the high avoidance job crafting condition reported a significantly lower willingness to help the newcomer, t(72) = −4.56, p < 0.001, d = −1.06, high avoidance job crafting condition (M = 3.08, SD = 1.05) vs. low avoidance job crafting condition (M = 4.11, SD = 0.88). This finding supports Hypothesis 2 and indicates that observing newcomers’ avoidance job crafting makes experienced employees less willing to help the newcomers.

Hypotheses 3 and 4 predicted the moderating role of existing employees’ calling orientation in the relationship between newcomers’ job crafting and incumbents’ helping intention. Hypothesis 3 predicted that experienced employees’ stronger calling orientation (vs. weaker) attenuates the positive association between newcomers’ approach-oriented job crafting and their helping intentions. The interaction effect of newcomers’ approach-oriented job crafting and experienced employees’ calling orientation was significant (B = −0.22, p < 0.05), accounting for an additional 3.4% of the variance in helping intention (ΔR² = 0.034) (

Table 2. The interaction effect of approach job crafting condition and calling orientation on helping intention using hierarchical linear regression.

	Helping Intention
Predictors	B	β	SE	t	B 95% CI [LB, UB]	p
Model 1
Intercept	3.22		0.13	25.51	[2.97, 3.47]	<0.001
Approach crafting condition	1.12	0.59	0.18	6.31	[0.76, 1.47]	<0.001
R2	0.35
∆R2	-
Model 2
Intercept	3.27		0.12	26.77	[3.03, 3.52]	<0.001
Approach crafting condition	1.02	0.55	0.17	5.93	[0.68, 1.37]	<0.001
Calling orientation	0.15	0.26	0.05	2.79	[0.04, 0.26]	0.007
R2	0.42
∆R2	0.06
Model 3
Intercept	3.31		0.12	27.38	[3.07, 3.55]	<0.001
Approach crafting condition	1.01	0.54	0.17	6.00	[0.68, 1.35]	<0.001
Calling orientation	0.26	0.44	0.08	3.50	[0.11, 0.41]	<0.001
Approach × Calling orientation	−0.22	−0.26	0.11	−2.10	[−0.44, −0.01]	0.040
R2	0.45
∆R2	0.03

Note. CI = confidence interval. LB = lower bound of CI. UB = upper bound of CI.

). A simple slope analysis [48] indicated that the relationship between newcomers’ approach-oriented job crafting and existing employee’s helping intention was significantly positive when existing employees’ calling orientation was low (−1 SD below the mean) (simple slope = 1.38, t = 5.77, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.90, 1.86]), but this positive relationship was attenuated when calling orientation was high (+1 SD above the mean) (simple slope = 0.67, t = 2.78, p < 0.01, 95% CI [0.19, 1.15]) (see Figure 2). To further identify the specific range of the moderator for which this effect was statistically significant, the Johnson-Neyman technique was employed [49]. As shown in Figure 3, the simple slopes became non-significant when mean-centered calling orientation was≥ 2.04, indicating that the positive association between newcomers’ approach-oriented job crafting and incumbents’ helping intention holds for most employees except those with extremely high calling orientation. Therefore, these findings lend support to Hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that experienced employees’ higher calling orientation (vs. lower) would dampen the negative association between newcomers’ avoidance-oriented job crafting and their helping intentions. The interaction effect of newcomers’ avoidance-oriented job crafting and experienced employees’ calling orientation was significant (B = 0.29, p < 0.05), accounting for an additional 4.3% of the variance in helping intention (ΔR² = 0.043) (

Table 3. The interaction effect of avoidance job crafting condition and calling orientation on helping intention using hierarchical linear regression.

	Helping Intention
Predictors	B	β	SE	t	B 95% CI [LB, UB]	p
Model 1
Intercept	4.11		0.16	25.82	[3.79, 4.43]	<0.001
Avoidance crafting condition	−1.03	−0.47	0.23	−4.56	[−1.48, −0.58]	<0.001
R2	0.22
∆R2	-
Model 2
Intercept	4.11		0.16	25.93	[3.79, 4.43]	<0.001
Avoidance crafting condition	−1.05	−0.49	0.23	−4.68	[−1.50, −0.60]	<0.001
Calling orientation	0.09	0.13	0.07	1.25	[−0.05, 0.23]	0.217
R2	0.24
∆R2	0.02
Model 3
Intercept	4.11		0.16	26.48	[3.80, 4.42]	<0.001
Avoidance crafting condition	−1.09	−0.50	0.22	−4.92	[−1.53, −0.65]	<0.001
Calling orientation	−0.05	−0.08	0.10	−0.53	[−0.25, 0.15]	0.601
Avoidance × Calling orientation	0.29	0.29	0.14	2.04	[0.01, 0.57]	0.045
R2	0.28
∆R2	0.04

Note. CI = confidence interval. LB = lower bound of CI. UB = upper bound of CI.

). Simple slope results in Figure 4 revealed that the relationship between newcomer avoidance-oriented job crafting and existing employee’s helping intention was significantly negative when calling orientation is low (−1 SD below the mean) (simple slope = −1.51, t = −4.81, p < 0.001, 95% CI [−2.13, −0.88]), but non-significant when calling orientation is high (+1 SD above the mean) (simple slope = −0.60, t = −1.92, p = 0.058, 95% CI [−1.22, 0.02]). The Johnson-Neyman technique was further employed [49]. As depicted in Figure 5, the simple slope became non-significant when mean-centered calling orientation ≥ 1.65, indicating that the negative association between newcomers’ avoidance-oriented job crafting and incumbents’ helping intention holds only for employees with low to moderately high calling orientation. Therefore, the results provided support for Hypothesis 4.

5. Discussion

The current study, grounded in conservation of resources theory, examined how existing employees respond to newcomers’ job crafting, with a particular focus on the moderating role of calling orientation. Rather than viewing job crafting as a purely self-directed process, the findings emphasize its social consequences for both newcomers and incumbents. When newcomers engaged in approach-oriented crafting—actively expanding their resources and seeking challenges—incumbents appeared to interpret these behaviors as signals of initiative and contribution, which in turn elicited greater helping intentions. In contrast, avoidance-oriented crafting, characterized by withdrawal from demands or reduced engagement, was likely perceived as a threat to shared resources or collective efficacy, thereby dampening helping intentions. Importantly, calling orientation moderated these effects in ways that employees with a strong sense of calling seem to operate from a value-based motive to sustain collective well-being, rather than from a self-protective stance. Consequently, they maintained their willingness to help even when newcomers’ behaviors were less constructive (low approach job crafting, high avoidance job crafting). In contrast, employees with weaker calling orientation appeared more sensitive to the resource implications of others’ actions, adjusting their helping accordingly. This pattern suggests that calling not only represents an internalized sense of purpose but also functions as a psychological buffer that sustains cooperative motivation under conditions of social strain—an aspect central to the sustainability of supportive workplace relationships.

Theoretical Implications. First, this study advances job crafting research by shifting the lens from the crafter’s intrapersonal benefits to its interpersonal consequences as observed by others. Specifically, the present study demonstrates that veterans’ reactions depend not only on whether newcomers engage in approach-or avoidance-oriented crafting but also on who the observer is. By incorporating observer characteristics—particularly calling orientation—into the study of job crafting, the current study highlights that responses to job crafting are not uniform but vary systematically depending on who witnesses the behavior. This perspective advances emerging work on third-party perspectives in job crafting and underscores the broader social implications of crafting behaviors in organizational settings.

Second, the current study advances newcomer socialization research by shifting attention to veterans as not only providers of resources but also evaluators who carefully consider how newcomers affect their own resources. Existing employees play a central yet underexamined role in newcomer adjustment: they are often expected to provide guidance and support, but they also weigh the costs and benefits of doing so by assessing how newcomers’ behaviors alter their workload and resource balance. The findings highlight that veterans are not passive providers of socialization support but active decision-makers who allocate their help selectively. In doing so, this study positions the perspectives of existing employees as central to understanding newcomer adjustment and demonstrates how their orientations inform the way they respond to newcomers’ proactive job crafting.

Third, this study contributes to the broader work orientation literature by examining how orientations toward work influence interpersonal dynamics, rather than only individuals’ own career paths. Past research has mainly emphasized how job, career, and calling orientations affect employees’ own work attitudes and outcomes. In contrast, this study shows that calling orientation shapes how experienced employees evaluate and respond to others’ behaviors—specifically, newcomers’ job crafting. This underscores the importance of understanding work orientation as a relational construct, one that influences not only how people perceive their own work but also how they interpret and respond to others in the workplace.

Limitations and Future Research. The present study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the use of an experimental vignette design, while allowing for greater control over variables and causal inference, may limit the ecological validity of the findings. The vignette described a restaurant setting, which may not represent other occupations where calling orientation also emerges [50]. Although a manipulation check confirmed that participants recognized the intended manipulation, perceived realism and involvement were not directly assessed. Future research should employ field or longitudinal designs across a variety of occupational contexts to better disentangle the differential effects of the two forms of job crafting and to enhance the external validity and generalizability of these findings.

Alternatively, experimental studies could enhance ecological validity by incorporating contextual moderators such as task interdependence, which would allow researchers to indirectly infer how the effects might vary across industries. For example, employees’ interdependence levels vary across industries—from high in healthcare to low in accounting—and these differences may shape how observers respond to newcomers’ job crafting. Notably, the restaurant setting itself represents a highly interdependent work environment where employees’ tasks are tightly connected, suggesting that this finding may be especially relevant to similarly interdependent industries. Furthermore, under high workload or resource strain, employees with strong callings may experience depletion that limits their willingness to help, whereas under supportive or low-pressure environments, their prosocial tendencies may be more fully expressed. Future research could examine such contextual contingencies (e.g., role clarity) to clarify when calling-based reactions are more or less pronounced across work settings.

Relatedly, other individual differences may serve as alternative explanations for the observed moderation effect. Prior research suggests that calling orientation is conceptually related to prosocial motivation and personality traits such as agreeableness [51,52,53]. Because the present study did not include measures of these characteristics, it cannot rule out the possibility that the moderating effect of calling orientation partly reflects broader dispositional tendencies toward prosociality or agreeableness. Future research should therefore incorporate these variables to examine their distinct and joint effects, as well as their overlap with calling orientation, in shaping employees’ reactions to newcomers’ proactive behaviors.

Next, the online vignette experiment has several limitations. First, the study did not include a neutral condition, which limits the ability to establish a clear baseline for comparison. In addition, because the modified vignette was not pre-tested, the validity of the manipulation should be interpreted prudently. Although the interaction effect was statistically significant, the relatively small sample size (N = 149) also calls for caution when generalizing the findings. Future research could employ larger samples and include a neutral condition to strengthen internal validity and enhance the robustness of the results. Furthermore, the findings should be interpreted with cultural sensitivity, as the sample was predominantly Caucasian (65.1%) and based in the United States (93.3%). In Western contexts, newcomers’ passivity may be interpreted as a lack of motivation, whereas in East Asian cultures—where modesty and restraint are valued—it may instead be perceived as shyness or humility. Future research should therefore examine these cross-cultural dynamics to clarify how calling orientation translates into interpersonal support across different cultural settings. In addition, the present study relied solely on CloudResearch data, whereas many organizational studies complement such online samples with field data or alternative sampling sources. This reliance may limit the generalizability of the findings to real workplace settings. Future research should therefore incorporate multiple data sources, including field and organizational samples, to enhance external validity.

Third, this study focused solely on one type of work orientation—calling orientation—thereby limiting the understanding of how employees with different orientations may respond to newcomers’ job crafting behaviors. Although calling orientation is often conceptualized as the opposite of job orientation [6,7], and the theorizing indirectly speaks to differences between high and low calling (or job orientation), the role of career orientation was not investigated in this study. Career-oriented employees, who are motivated by advancement, recognition, and long-term professional growth [54], may interpret newcomers’ job crafting in distinctive ways. One possible interpretation is that employees with a strong career orientation might view newcomers’ job crafting as instrumental or strategic rather than purpose-driven. As a result, they may perceive proactive newcomers as potential competitors for recognition and advancement, thereby dampening their willingness to help, while regarding avoidance-oriented newcomers as less valuable collaborators who may hinder career-relevant goals. These propositions remain tentative and warrant empirical examination in future research. Future research should explore other forms of work orientation to further clarify individual differences in reactions to newcomers’ job crafting.

Practical Implications. The current findings also carry practical implications for organizations seeking to facilitate newcomer adjustment and collaboration. Managers can balance team composition by strategically considering employees’ work orientations—leveraging high-calling employees to ensure reliable support, while engaging job-oriented employees in contexts where newcomer initiative is more likely to be appreciated. Specifically, information about employees’ work orientations can be utilized to enhance the effectiveness of mentoring and onboarding programs. In practice, organizations could assess employees’ work orientation (e.g., calling, career, job orientation) and store these profiles in the human resource information system or internal pairing algorithms for mentor assignment.

At the initial stage, when newcomers’ proactivity levels are not yet observable, it may be beneficial to assign mentors with stronger calling orientation, as they are predisposed to provide consistent support and foster effective newcomer integration. However, managers should remain mindful that high-calling veterans’ willingness to help can expose them to the risk of being overburdened or even taken advantage of by newcomers who rely excessively on their support. To mitigate such risks, organizations can formally recognize mentoring contributions in performance evaluations or workload assessments, ensuring that helping responsibilities are distributed fairly and that mentors are protected from excessive demands.

Additionally, after several months, once certain newcomers are identified as proactive and self-initiating, organizations can implement rotational mentoring systems that periodically reassign mentoring duties—pairing these newcomers (previously paired with a high-calling mentor) with low-calling employees to promote reciprocal resource exchange and prevent overreliance on high-calling mentors. In this sense, pairing such employees with proactive newcomers can create opportunities for resource-based reciprocity, which may enhance team functioning and reduce resistance, allowing both sides to benefit: newcomers gain guidance, while incumbents experience renewed engagement through newcomers’ initiative. Conversely, when newcomers display avoidance tendencies, retaining high-calling mentors may be advantageous to ensure steady guidance and continued socialization.

6. Conclusions

This study highlights a sustainable approach to human resource management grounded in intergenerational resource exchange. Newcomers represent the next generation of employees seeking fulfillment and career growth through their work. A sustainable organization enables current employees to move beyond conserving their own resources and invest them in supporting newcomers’ development, creating a mutually reinforcing cycle of growth. The effectiveness of this exchange depends on the alignment between incumbents’ work orientations and newcomers’ behaviors, ensuring that resource transfer remains regenerative rather than depleting. Through this continuous cycle, human resources become renewable rather than exhaustible, allowing organizations to sustain long-term vitality as each generation of employees invests in and enables the growth of the next.