DOI: 10.1002/hrm.

22236

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Toward a better understanding of self-regulation promoting

interventions: When performance management and job
crafting meet

Evangelia Demerouti 1,2 | Colin Roth 3 | Katharina Ebner 4 | Roman Soucek 4 |

Klaus Moser 4

1
Eindhoven University of Technology,
Eindhoven, The Netherlands Abstract
2
University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, Organizations utilize self-regulation promoting interventions to empower employees
South Africa
3
in managing challenges and resources autonomously. However, there is limited
BlackBox/Open, Nürnberg, Germany
4
Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen,
understanding of how these interventions impact employee task performance and
Nürnberg, Germany innovative behavior, as well as which processes are critical for their effectiveness.

Correspondence
Therefore, a field experiment was conducted to examine the effects of two self-
Evangelia Demerouti, Eindhoven University of regulation promoting interventions—the Productivity Measurement and Enhance-
Technology, Department of Industrial
Engineering and Innovation Sciences, PO Box
ment Systems intervention (ProMES), a job crafting intervention, and their
513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, Netherlands. combination—on individual employee performance and innovation through selected
Email: [email protected]
process variables. We collected data before, during, and after the interventions over
Funding information 16 weeks among 123 employees across three experimental and one control group.
Theo and Friedl Schoeller Research Center for
Consistent with predictions, participants of the ProMES intervention reported a
Business and Society
higher level of perceived team climate, which consequently contributed to greater
individual innovative behavior. Participants in the job crafting intervention exhibited
an increase in job crafting behaviors, which consequently increased innovative
behavior and task performance. Unexpectedly, the combined intervention yielded
negative effects on both innovative behavior and task performance. The findings sug-
gest that while self-regulation promoting interventions increase favorable outcomes
through different mechanisms their combination may impair relevant processes and,
more generally, overwhelm employees.

KEYWORDS
innovative behavior, job crafting, ProMES, self-regulation promoting interventions, task
performance

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N management represents the way to achieve this as it has shifted from

blunt performance appraisal to a more ongoing activity of defining,
At the core of Human Resource (HR) management and development assessing, and developing performance in a manner that aligns strate-
is the appraisal of employees and the improvement of individual and gic goals with the involvement of employees (Aguinis, 2013). There-
organizational performance (Brown et al., 2019). Performance fore, interventions to improve the performance of employees and

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2024 The Author(s). Human Resource Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Hum Resour Manage. 2024;1–19. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrm 1

 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 DEMEROUTI ET AL.

organizations should have been at the core of HR. This is, however, improve the overall performance of teams (DeNisi & Murphy, 2017;
not the case and Brown et al. (2019) talk about a practice-research Pritchard et al., 2008) whereas its effects on individual performance are
gap with a high need for evidence-based practice and rigorous inter- unclear (Schleicher et al., 2018). Second, since employees should align
vention research that is useful to organizations. Review studies indi- individual goals and behaviors with other employees' goals and behav-
cate that performance management interventions do not often train iors, we examine whether a careful combination of the interventions
the aspects that are suggested to improve performance (Brown can achieve this aim. Organizations often provide simultaneously vari-
et al., 2019) and when they do so, the effects on performance are not ous interventions to their employees without knowing whether these
spectacular (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Thus, there is a high need for rig- interventions have really synergetic effects. Research on multimodal
orous intervention research uncovering how organizations in interventions shows inconsistency as combining different types of
knowledge-based economies can increase employees task perfor- interventions at the individual level was not shown to be more effective
mance (i.e., how effectively one performs activities that contribute to than the separate intervention components (Richardson &
the organization's technical core; Borman & Motowidlo, 1997) but Rothstein, 2008), as evidenced in studies combining individual- and
also innovative behavior (i.e., whether one provides innovative solu- organizational-level interventions (LaMontagne et al., 2007). In sum,
tions to problems or generates new processes for various tasks; combining ProMES with a job crafting intervention may trigger a joint
Janssen, 2000). To encourage individuals to self-regulate their work effect, that is, encourage the mutually enforcing self-regulation of
efforts, that is, “processes involved in attaining and maintaining regu- resources and challenges of workgroup members (ProMES interven-
lar goals” such as goal-setting, self-observation, and self-evaluation tion) and individuals (job crafting intervention) to support further
(Day & Unsworth, 2013, p. 158), interventions to promote self- changes at the individual level. Third, we examine why the interven-
regulation are implemented in many organizations today. tions are effective. Earlier research has largely ignored mechanisms (for
Encouraging employees to self-regulate their work behavior may the ProMES intervention) or showed inconsistent effects in this regard
pose three important challenges. First, it could be unclear to (for the job crafting intervention). For example, processes underlying
employees how to implement autonomy in their daily work routines the effectiveness of ProMES are unclear (Schleicher et al., 2018). We
to create free space for increasing task performance and innovation. will theorize that individuals' job crafting (i.e., the adjustment of work
Therefore, it is important to know considerably more about the effec- tasks and conditions so that job demands and resources align better;
tiveness of interventions that support employees in improving their Petrou et al., 2012), and individuals' perception of their team's climate
self-regulation. Second, employees could have difficulty aligning (i.e., whether team members perceive that the team has clear shared
their individual goals and behaviors with other employees' goals and objectives and supports participation, innovation, and performance;
behaviors. Therefore, it is important to know how to successfully Anderson & West, 1996) are relevant processes.
combine self-regulation interventions in a way that supports both an The current study thereby makes important contributions to the
individual's autonomy and the alignment with others' or groups' goals. intervention literature (Oprea et al., 2019; Pritchard et al., 2008). First, we
Third, we need more knowledge about why these interventions work contribute by uncovering whether self-regulation promoting interventions
to exclude alternative hypotheses, that is, that improvements are not that support individuals to integrate improvements in individual job design
due to the suggested mechanisms but due to the participation in into their daily work (via a job crafting intervention), or that promote
change efforts per se, and to understand why the interventions are improvements and alignment of individual and group goals (via the
and stay effective even if their implementation may change over time. ProMES intervention), or that combine both objectives (via a combined
The current study aims at presenting answers to these three ques- intervention) are effective to enhance both individual performance out-
tions. First, it uncovers whether two well-known self-regulation pro- comes (cf. Sonnentag & Frese, 2002) and employees' innovative behavior,
moting interventions are effective in enhancing individuals' task as both are valuable outcomes for innovation-driven knowledge econo-
performance and innovative behaviors. We focus on a job crafting mies. Second, we contribute by investigating whether there are even syn-
intervention that aims to change the way individuals motivate them- ergetic effects of a combination of two self-regulation interventions that
selves, deal with job challenges, and ultimately act individually, and the aims at individuals self-regulated managing the alignment of pursuing
Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES) that both, individual and group goals. Third, we contribute to the literature on
represents an intervention aiming to improve performance processes self-regulation promoting interventions by uncovering whether such
and outcomes for multiple individuals who are interdependent. Both interventions have different mechanisms through which they contribute
interventions have a clear structure and encourage to employee performance outcomes and innovative behavior.
self-regulation processes but with different foci: the job crafting inter-
vention focuses on the direct encouragement of individuals' self-
regulation of job challenges and resources, whereas ProMES focuses 2 | S E L F - R E G U LA T I O N P R O M O T I N G
on workgroup objectives, which in turn requires teams and their indi- IMPROVEMENTS OF TASK PERFORMANCE
vidual members to work on resources and challenges by their own. The A N D I N N O V A T I V E BE H A V I O R
job crafting intervention is found to be effective in improving the adap-
tive performance of individuals, although it is inconsistently related to Recent meta-analyses show that interventions to increase positive
task performance (Oprea et al., 2019). ProMES has been found to outcomes and performance often focus on workplace resources that
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DEMEROUTI ET AL. 3

help individuals attain their work-related goals and that emerge from crafting (Demerouti et al., 2019) and ProMES (Pritchard et al., 2008).
the interaction between the working individual and the workplace. In the job crafting intervention, employees are trained to reduce the
These interventions, which emphasize self-regulation, depend on misfit between actual and preferred levels of job demands
encouraging employees' proactive behavior to increase resources such (i.e., aspects of the job that require effort and are associated with psy-
as self-management, job crafting, strengths use, and mobilization of chophysiological costs) and job resources (i.e., aspects of the job that
ego resources (Björk et al., 2021). Björk et al.'s (2021) meta-analysis facilitate dealing with job demands, goal accomplishment, and growth;
showed a moderate to large and significant improvement in employee Demerouti et al., 2001). In the ProMES intervention, employees are
task performance but the effect was inconsistent across the studies. trained to reduce the misalignment (low contingency) between team
On the other side, performance management interventions that gen- effort and outcomes (Algera et al., 1997). Whereas employees set job
erally focus on providing feedback to employees were found to have crafting goals to improve their job demands and job resources in the
a small, positive effect on overall performance (including task perfor- job crafting intervention, they define team performance objectives
mance and innovation) but their effectiveness differed per study and indicators to specify the behaviors that will maximize the
(Tagliabue et al., 2020). intended (team) performance in the ProMES intervention. In both
Given these findings, our attention shifts toward self-regulation interventions, the goals need to be in line with the organizational
promoting interventions that are grounded in enhancing employee goals which are set after the formal approval by the management
autonomy known to enhance various outcomes such as the (cf. ProMES intervention), or after consultation with the supervisor
effectiveness of training activities (Burke et al., 2006), goal-setting, (cf. job crafting intervention).
and performance (Locke & Latham, 2019). Self-regulation encom- Both interventions show several similarities: (a) the self-regulation
passes goal-setting and a range of interrelated processes, including promoting character in the definition of goals, (b) the thorough analy-
planning, monitoring, and metacognition. These processes influence sis of either the individual or team tasks and the conditions under
how learners allocate their efforts and attention, assess their progress which they are executed, and the skills and preferences of the individ-
toward desired objectives, and respond to goal progress by either uals or teams as starting point, and (c) the integration of feedback on
reallocating effort and attention or withdrawing (Zimmerman, 2000). the self-regulated formulation of goals and in the progress of goal
Moreover, because employees value autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000), achievement. More importantly, both interventions are suggested to
they can be expected to aim at improving their task performance and increase the individuals' task performance because they encourage
innovative behavior, which represent important components of self- agentic, self-regulatory processes leading to performance, namely
management (Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997). Although employees may be forethought, performance control, and self-reflection processes
motivated to utilize autonomy to increase task performance and inno- (Bandura, 2018; Zimmerman, 2000). In both interventions, individuals
vative behaviors, they may struggle with exactly how to do this. This is analyze their situation and set personal or team-relevant goals on how
one reason why organizations implement self-regulation promoting to approach a task preceding any effort (forethought). They focus
interventions that encourage individuals within a participative process their attention and effort on goal accomplishment and use strategies
to self-regulate their behaviors. Indeed, there is considerable evidence that help them execute their plans (performance control). Finally, they
to suggest that employees make ineffective use of autonomy when reflect on and evaluate how well they achieved the expected out-
they have to self-regulate their development (e.g., Bell & comes and how they could improve themselves in the future (self-
Kozlowski, 2002). reflection).
When provided with autonomy to improve their task perfor- During cycles of planning, self-monitoring, and reflection, indi-
mance and innovative behavior, employees could find it difficult to viduals put their knowledge into action and increase the number of
(1) implement autonomy in their daily work routines, and (2) align their strategies they can use, which gives them more possibilities to per-
individual goals and behaviors with other employees' goals and behav- form future tasks (Ertmer & Newby, 1996). The self-regulatory ele-
iors. In line with Sonnentag and Frese (2002), the solution to the first ments of both interventions are also suggested to contribute to an
problem is that individuals should be encouraged by appropriate increase in innovative behavior. Self-regulation plays a major role in
instructions to improve individual job design through job crafting, that developing creative and innovative behavior, and guides and sup-
is, to optimize their working conditions (challenges and resources) in a ports creative problem-solving processes (Beeftink et al., 2012).
personalized way. The solution to the second problem is that team Creative problem-solving results from creative cognitive processes
members' task performance and innovative behavior should be (e.g., generating ideas), and creative process management consists
aligned with and be part of what the team aims at and rewards. This of activities such as “continuous planning, monitoring, managing,
means that autonomy is somehow divided between the group as a and modifying behavior during creative problem-solving”
whole and the individual team members. (Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004, p. 92). The attempts to make improve-
Two noteworthy examples of such interventions—interventions ments in job characteristics (during the job crafting intervention) or
encouraging the individual to improve individual job design, and in task strategy (during the ProMES feedback meetings) can be
group-level interventions directing individual behavior through seen as a type of innovation (Demerouti et al., 2019; Pritchard
insights into the interaction of group and individual goals—are job et al., 2008).
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4 DEMEROUTI ET AL.

2.1 | ProMES intervention because team members develop team performance objectives and
assess whether objectives are met but also to support members' feel-
ProMES interventions increase team-level outcomes, such as teams' ings of belonging since it has a strong collaborative nature and all
productivity, openness to change, and the ability to handle conflict in employees of the team are involved in the performance measurement
different types of settings (Pritchard et al., 2008). More importantly, system design and the feedback meetings. Indeed, ProMES interven-
while the nature of the approach seems to be team-based, ProMES tions prompt individual team members to report significant increases
has also effects on the individual level by clarifying individual work in desirable facets of their team's climate (i.e., increased vision, partici-
roles and tasks. In fact, a large proportion of team performance objec- pative safety, and task orientation; Pritchard et al., 2009), particularly
tives and indicators derive from individual tasks, which are aggregated during the ProMES development phase (Roth & Moser, 2005, 2009).
at the team level (Pritchard et al., 2008; Roth & Moser, 2009). More- By contributing to individuals experiencing a positive team climate,
over, although work group members regularly meet to define and dis- we suggest that a ProMES intervention will also increase individuals'
cuss objectives and feedback, set priorities, or develop general task performance and innovative behavior for several reasons. First,
strategies; it is still the individual employees who contribute to the team members who perceive a positive team climate collaborate more
objectives, set individual priorities and goals, and implement methods. effectively by intentionally sharing and receiving personal knowledge
However, we lack convincing empirical evidence regarding whether and resources to achieve common goals (Zhu et al., 2018), eventually
ProMES also contributes to improving individuals' performance. An improving individual task performance. In addition, important compo-
exception is Kleingeld et al.'s (2004) study which provides initial evi- nents of a positive perceived team climate are the experience of psy-
dence for this effect of the ProMES intervention. The authors chological safety as well as a supportive organizational environment
reported improved context-specific individual behaviors such as copy that nurtures employee innovation (Edmondson & Bransby, 2023; You
counters, and spare parts used by photocopier technicians indicating et al., 2022). Thus, and in accordance with findings that social context
that ProMES may improve individuals' task performance in the sense fuels individual behavior, individuals perceiving a positive team climate
of a job's technical core. Moreover, the ProMES intervention might should improve in innovative behavior because of increases in the indi-
also increase adaptive performance, in particular individuals' innova- viduals' motivational states of “can do” (feeling able to effectively show
tive behaviors. First, it challenges individuals to come up with a specific behavior) and “reason to” (choosing to persist in this behav-
innovative ways to contribute to team objectives (Leiva et al., 2011). ior) (Cai et al., 2019). In a nutshell, ProMES creates a context in which
Second, it strengthens workgroup characteristics that are known to not only clear objectives and a high concern for task performance, but
foster individuals' innovation behavior (e.g., supervisor and coworker a participative atmosphere exists which makes it even more plausible
support; West, 2002), and third, the ProMES intervention may also that individuals will perform better. We therefore suggest (cf. Figure 1):
create space for innovative ideas of employees in general.
Although the effectiveness of ProMES to improve performance Hypothesis 1. The ProMES intervention has a positive
outcomes has been well researched on the team level (Pritchard (a) direct effect and (b) indirect effect through perceived
et al., 2008), none of the studies on ProMES could completely eluci- team climate on individual task performance.
date the explaining mechanism of these effects (cf. Kleingeld
et al., 2004; Pritchard et al., 2008, 2009). If ProMES is considered a Hypothesis 2. The ProMES intervention has a positive
process to improve team functioning, respective models that are con- (a) direct effect and (b) indirect effect through perceived
cerned with mediating mechanisms (see Mathieu et al., 2019) might team climate on individual innovative behavior.
be used to understand how teams perform and how to enhance their
effectiveness. However, we suggest that one process variable, team
climate, is not only an important mediator on the group level (for a
summary, see Mathieu et al., 2019), but in its perceptual variant also 2.2 | Job crafting intervention
at the individual level. That is, the main mechanism explaining the
favorable effects of a ProMES intervention (input, cf. Mathieu Job crafting interventions are a promising tool to help organizations
et al., 2019) on individual outcomes (output, in particular individuals' support and maintain employee well-being (Dubbelt et al., 2019),
performance) is the improvement of how individuals perceive the cli- health (Gordon et al., 2018), positive affect (Demerouti et al., 2017),
mate of the team they are working with and are part of (mediator). and to a somewhat lesser extent job performance (Van Wingerden
“Team climate has many specific types” (Mathieu et al., 2019, p. 29) et al., 2017). If the aim is to support employees in improving their job
and refers to four core aspects: vision (how clearly defined and shared design, a job crafting intervention should focus on training the behav-
team objectives are), participatory safety (whether team members feel iors of seeking resources, seeking challenges (Petrou et al., 2012), and
comfortable sharing information and involving each other in decision- optimizing demands (Demerouti & Peeters, 2018). Meta-analytic evi-
making), support for innovation (approval for and support of attempts dence suggests that job crafting interventions are effective in improv-
at innovation by senior management), and task orientation (the com- ing contextual performance, but less so in improving task and
mitment of the team to achieve high performance) (Anderson & adaptive performance (Oprea et al., 2019). There is still no evidence
West, 1996). ProMES is not only suggested to clarify a team's vision on whether it improves innovative behavior.
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DEMEROUTI ET AL. 5

F I G U R E 1 Overview of research
hypotheses. The combined intervention is
depicted such that the addition of the
second intervention is expected to
increase the respective other effect of the
primary intervention.

Demerouti et al. (2019) suggest that a job crafting intervention is and innovative behavior of individuals even further compared to each
effective in predicting distal outcomes because it teaches people how intervention type alone. For example, individuals' pursuit of team
they can adjust their work in small and effective ways such that it fits objectives and associated measurable criteria defined within a
their needs and preferences—eventually leading to increased job ProMES process could be supported by a job crafting intervention
resources and optimized demands. The increased fit and the optimal through which individuals identify job crafting strategies that help to
(individual) design of job demands and resources represent the contribute to these goals and organize the necessary resources. In
explanatory component of why the intervention is effective (Van turn, a ProMES process could help to give constructive orientation on
Wingerden et al., 2017). Accordingly, earlier intervention studies have which kind of job crafting strategy might be particularly of help for
shown that these job crafting behaviors explain why the job crafting the individuals' job performance and which to ultimately choose. This
interventions positively predict work engagement, task performance, means that an intervention combining ProMES and a job crafting
and career satisfaction (Dubbelt et al., 2019; Gordon et al., 2018). intervention might ideally contribute to employees learning how to
Although the effectiveness of job crafting interventions to improve use the autonomy encouraged by and given to them in both, ProMES
innovative behavior has not been tested, Demerouti et al. (2017) and job crafting interventions, to improve their outcomes.
found that it can improve adaptive behavior to organizational This idea suggests that both interventions will not only contribute
changes. Individuals with high levels of psychological empowerment independently to important work outcomes but possibly even support
or a sense of responsibility for their tasks and professional develop- each other by teaching individuals how to align their behaviors to the
ment have the desire and ability to influence workplace decisions and objectives of their team while also improving the job design that influ-
outcomes, including innovation goals (Rehman et al., 2019). Taken ences their daily behaviors resulting in incremental effects, namely, by
together, stimulating self-regulatory actions of employees to improve learning how to align their behaviors to the objectives of their team
their level of job demands and resources will make people more prone while also improving the job design that influences their daily behav-
to perform effectively and innovate. ior. Indeed, some of the rather limited empirical evidence on combin-
ing interventions at the group level with interventions on the
Hypothesis 3. The job crafting intervention has a posi- individual level indicates desirable effects for individuals. For example,
tive (a) direct effect and (b) indirect effect through job Spurk et al. (2015) showed that the combination of group-based net-
crafting behaviors on individual task performance. working training with an individual career coaching intervention sig-
nificantly exceeded the effects of the respective individual measures
Hypothesis 4. The job crafting intervention has a posi- alone on relevant outcome measures (career planning behavior and
tive (a) direct effect and (b) indirect effect through job career optimism). Meta-analytic evidence of intervention research
crafting behaviors on individual innovative behavior. indicates that integrating individual-level and organization-level inter-
ventions was more effective as combining both levels took a more
systems approach to solve organizational problems (i.e., stress and
2.3 | Combined intervention health impairment) and provided added value without necessarily
draining individuals' resources (LaMontagne et al., 2007; Tetrick &
Given that ProMES and job crafting interventions help individuals to Winslow, 2015). Thus, we suggest:
achieve (innovative) performance by distinct mechanisms, a simulta-
neous activation of the two propagated mechanisms explaining the Hypothesis 5. The combined intervention has a posi-
interventions' effects might promote the effects on task performance tive (a) direct effect on individual task performance
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 DEMEROUTI ET AL.

beyond the specific ProMES and job crafting interven- Then, 147 employees participated in the study. After dropping
tions, and (b) indirect effect through perceived team cli- 24 participants (because they had not participated in at least one of
mate and job crafting, respectively. the three measurement points or their data could not be matched
using the anonymous participant codes), the final sample consisted of
Hypothesis 6. The combined intervention has a posi- 123 employees in 15 teams, respectively, with 3–16 members. The
tive (a) direct effect on individual innovative behavior sample distribution across organizations and the experimental condi-
beyond the specific ProMES and job crafting interven- tions was the following: ProMES, n = 41 participants, n = 4 teams;
tions, and (b) indirect effect through perceived team cli- job crafting, n = 23 participants, n = 3 teams; ProMES and job craft-
mate and job crafting, respectively. ing, n = 38 participants, n = 5 teams; and control condition, n = 21
participants, n = 3 teams. The majority (82%) were male, and the
mean age of the participants was 39.34 years (SD = 9.67). Most of
3 | METHODS the participants indicated German as their native language (90%) and
39% of the participants held a university qualification. The partici-
3.1 | Participants and study design pants were employed for 12.50 years on average at the respective
company (SD = 9.30) and tenure with the current team averaged
Organizations were informed about the benefits of evidence-based 4.50 years (SD = 4.32). Then, 11% of the participants held a leader-
performance management practices and the research project through ship position. The participating organizations differed in terms of gen-
a presentation at the chamber of commerce and an article in a der distribution (with the financial services company having
regional newspaper. Three companies in Germany—an international proportionally more women and the mechanical engineering company
construction company (5 teams; 22 participants), a national financial having more men) and in terms of job tenure (where participants of
services provider (4 teams; 49 participants), and a mechanical engi- the mechanical engineering company had significantly more tenure).
neering company (6 teams; 76 participants)– agreed to participate in a No further differences in the study variables were detected between
field study over 16 weeks. Whereas initially, the managers of the the organizations at the baseline. Dropout analysis revealed no signifi-
companies agreed to participate, before the study was executed, we cant differences in any of the study variables or sociodemographic
asked and received the permission and support of the respective work characteristics between study participants with complete data and the
councils. We conducted a field experimental study with four condi- dropouts.
tions and a randomized allocation of working groups to study
conditions: (1) ProMES intervention, (2) job crafting intervention,
(3) an intervention combining the ProMES and the job crafting inter- 3.2 | Intervention phases
ventions, and (4) a control condition that did not receive any treat-
ment but was offered to participate in a job crafting intervention after The study was structured in three major phases (Table 1). In the prep-
the end of the study. Next to the feasibility argument (as particularly aration phase, stakeholders of the respective organizations were
the ProMES intervention could not take place among non-natural informed about the project and a kick-off event took place to inform
groups), the group/cluster randomization reduces contamination participants, to assign the teams to the different conditions, and to
problems (when individuals from different intervention conditions conduct the pre-measure (Time 1). In the developmental phase, team
work in the same group) which would occur with individual randomi- goals and respective indicators were developed in six weekly 90-min
zation and account for similarities among employees working in the meetings in the ProMES condition, and the job crafting intervention
same team (Donner & Klar, 1994). The intervention conditions and was conducted as a 4-h training in the job crafting condition. The
the control condition were carried out in every participating organiza- combined group developed their ProMES-system in six weekly
tion in separate teams to avoid contamination of the conditions. Dur- 90-min meetings, followed by a 4-h training on job crafting. To align
ing the final feedback sessions, it was confirmed by the participants the interventions, weekly emails with job crafting assignments were
that they were not aware of what happened to the other teams. With sent to the participants of the job crafting condition and the combined
the approval of the organizations' respective work councils and the intervention. Additionally, three feedback sessions were held in all
management, the teams were randomly assigned to one of the condi- three conditions. The intermediate measure (Time 2) was conducted
tions. All participants filled in a survey before the interventions (Time at the end of week 6. During the implementation and feedback phase,
1), 6 weeks (Time 2), and 16 weeks later (Time 3). Time 2 was 6 weeks participants implemented their goals; in the ProMES condition, teams
after Time 1 so that all learning could be completed requiring six monitored the realization of their respective ProMES goals over
weekly meetings in the ProMES intervention. Time 3 was 10 weeks 4 weeks. Examples of ProMES were goals for the financial service
later due to the following reasons: employees needed to complete provider, the increase in the number and duration of outgoing calls
three job crafting assignments (one per week), three feedback ses- with (potential) customers (quantity) as well as the number of consul-
sions were held (one per week), and 4 weeks until participants com- tation documentation (quality). All participants completed the third
pleted the follow-up measure. questionnaire (Time 3). A review event was held at each participating
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DEMEROUTI ET AL. 7

TABLE 1 Study timeline and major steps of the ProMES, job crafting, and combined interventions.

Condition

Phase Week ProMES Job crafting Combined Control

Preparation (I) Interviews with stakeholders (managers, HR personnel, workers council)

(II) Kick-off events (one in each of the three organizations): Information about the project to all participants;
randomization of the 15 workgroups to the four different conditions
00 Pre measure (Time 1)
Development 01–06 (III) Developing ProMES systems in six (III) Job crafting (III) Developing ProMES systems in six (III) —
weekly meetings (1.5–2 h each) training (4 h) weekly meetings (1.5–2 h each) and job
crafting training (4 h)
06 Intermediate measure (Time 2)
Implementation 07–09 (IV) Baseline data collection (IV) Job crafting (IV) Baseline data collection and Job (IV) —
and feedback assignments crafting assignments
10–12 (V) Three feedback sessions (1.5 h each) (V) —
16 Post measure (Time 3)

organization to inform participants about the study's preliminary (2021) included optimizing demands in their training which was
results and to share experiences. shown to have a positive effect on safety behavior. Optimizing
demands is suggested to be a constructive form of reduction-
oriented crafting that individuals can use to get work done, get goals
3.2.1 | ProMES intervention accomplished, overcome the hindrance of high workload and other
demands, and improve work processes (Demerouti & Peeters, 2018).
The ProMES intervention was conducted according to Pritchard et al. Optimizing demands represents an attempt to work smarter—not
(2012). A design team consisting of all team members, their direct harder—and has even been found to be positively related to pilots'
supervisors, and two external ProMES facilitators met in weekly ses- performance (Demerouti et al., 2019). Optimizing demands
sions and developed a team vision, defined two team objectives and (e.g., checking emails only twice a day or making realistic planning) is
related performance indicators, and specified the priorities of the indi- an approach-oriented proactive behavior involving efforts to
cators. The baseline measurement of ProMES performance indicators improve the work environment, while reducing demands
was collected for 3 weeks. Afterward, the groups came together for (e.g., avoiding demanding customers) represents avoidance-oriented
three feedback meetings using a formal feedback report instrument withdrawal behaviors involving a reaction to or attempt to diminish
including an overall performance index, performance indices on each stress or health problems (Demerouti & Peeters, 2018). In sum, con-
objective, and performance levels for each indicator. At the end of trary to previous job crafting interventions, the job crafting dimen-
each feedback session, the teams decided on what indicator to sion “reducing demands” was not mentioned as a potential way to
improve to which level in the next week. craft. Instead, the participants practiced the job crafting dimension
of “optimizing demands.”
In the next step, participants went through a series of exercises
3.2.2 | Job crafting intervention ultimately leading to a personal job crafting plan containing crafting
goals for the 3 weeks after the training in the following order: seeking
The job crafting intervention consisted of a four-hours training resources (week 1), optimizing demands (week 2), and seeking chal-
based on the job crafting training of Gordon et al. (2018) and Dub- lenges (week 3). At the end of each week, participants received an
belt et al. (2019). After a short introduction, the participants made email with the theme of the coming week and the request to focus on
an overview of their job demands and job resources and were intro- the weekly job crafting goal. Four weeks after the training, partici-
duced to the Job Demands-Resources theory, work engagement, pants met again for three feedback sessions to share job crafting
and job crafting (Demerouti et al., 2001). Of note, Oprea and col- experiences, receive feedback and tips from the trainers on how to
leagues concluded that previous interventions led to significant make improvements, and set new job crafting goals for the upcoming
increases in overall job crafting and in particular in seeking chal- week. This is different from previous job crafting interventions that
lenges and reducing demands. However, reducing demands turned generally include only one feedback session (cf. Demerouti
out to be a less effective strategy, as it was either unrelated or nega- et al., 2019) but which allowed participants in the job crafting condi-
tively related to outcomes, such as adaptive performance like in the tion to receive a similar treatment concerning intensity and time as in
intervention of Demerouti et al. (2017). Recently, Demerouti et al. the ProMES condition.
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8 DEMEROUTI ET AL.

3.2.3 | Combined intervention of the interventions were more homogeneous for the overall job
crafting scores instead of the specific dimensions indicating that the
Individuals in the combined intervention condition developed ProMES overall scores are more robust. Cronbach's α was 0.81.
systems and received the job crafting training in the same way as par-
ticipants in the ProMES and job crafting conditions. Since team cli-
mate is found to be a precursor of job crafting behavior (Mäkikangas 3.3.3 | Task performance
et al., 2017), ProMES preceded the job crafting intervention. There-
fore, in the feedback sessions, participants were asked to align their We used the seven items from Williams and Anderson (1991) to
personal job crafting goals with the ProMES indicator goals. They had assess task performance. A sample item is: “I adequately complete
to follow this instruction: “Connect job crafting goals with ProMES. assigned duties.” Participants indicated their responses on a 7-point
When you think about the indicator goal you have set with your team scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach's
today, what can you personally contribute to achieving this goal?” Or: α was 0.80.
“How can you use your job crafting activities to affect the goal attain-
ment positively?” Then, they had to use their personal job crafting log-
book to come up with a new strategy. In this way, the ProMES 3.3.4 | Innovative work behavior
process was connected with job crafting.
We used nine items for assessing self-reported innovative work
behavior derived from Janssen's (2000) innovative work behavior
3.3 | Measures scale. This measure captures an individual's idea generation, idea pro-
motion, and idea realization. Item examples are: “I create new ideas
3.3.1 | Team climate perception for difficult issues” (idea generation, 3 items), “I mobilize support for
innovative ideas” (idea promotion, 3 items), and “I transform innova-
Perceived team climate was measured on the individual level. We tive ideas into useful applications” (idea realization, 3 items). Partici-
assessed individuals' perceptions of team climate with a short version pants indicated the extent to which these behaviors applied to them
of the team climate inventory (Anderson & West, 1996), which con- over the past 4 weeks on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly dis-
sists of 19 items (J. Dawson, personal communication, July 8, 2019). agree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach's α was 0.95.
Sample items are: “How clear are you about what your team's objec-
tives are?” (vision, 4 items), “We have a ‘we are in it together’ atti-
tude” (participation safety, 6 items), “This team is open and 3.4 | Analyses
responsive to change” (support for innovation, 5 items), and “Are
team members prepared to question the basis of what the team is We tested the hypotheses by computing multilevel models with the
doing?” (task orientation, 4 items). Participants indicated their Software R 3.6.1 (R Core Team, 2019) and the package “lme4” (Bates
responses on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to et al., 2015) with the measurement points on Level 1 and the participants
5 (strongly agree). No aggregated team climate value or another indica- on Level 2 (Singer & Willett, 2003). The analyses included random inter-
tor of team climate strength such as the within-unit agreement of cli- cepts on Level 2. The inclusion of teams at Level 3 did not improve the
mate perceptions was calculated (e.g., Koopmann et al., 2016). Thus, model fit and did not affect the estimation of fixed effects. With the aim
team climate represented the individual team member's perceptions of parsimonious models and given a rather small sample size, we decided
about the climate in their respective team but not the teams' shared not to estimate random effects at Level 3. Time was coded in weeks
perceptions of team climate. Cronbach's α was 0.94 at Time 1. namely week 0 (Time 1), week 6 (Time 2), and week 16 (Time 3). To con-
trol for changes over time, we considered the linear effect of time; the
inclusion of additional higher-order terms did not improve model fit.
3.3.2 | Job crafting The implementation of the interventions on job crafting and
ProMES were coded as follows: Before the implementation of the
We assessed job crafting with the subscales seeking resources and respective intervention, we coded “0.” After the interventions were
seeking challenges from general job crafting scales by Petrou et al. implemented, we coded “1.” Thus, this variable reflects the effect of
(2012) and with the subscale optimizing demands by Demerouti and having received the respective intervention and is comparable to
Peeters (2018). Sample items are: “I ask my colleagues for feedback” piecewise linear growth modeling (e.g., Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).
(seeking resources, 4 items); “I ask for more responsibilities” (seeking Since both interventions were combined for the third treatment con-
challenges, 3 items) and “I look for ways to do my work more effi- dition, we included the interaction effect of the two intervention vari-
ciently” (optimizing demands, 5 items). Respondents indicated how ables which reflects an additional effect stemming from the
often they engaged in job crafting behaviors on a 5-point frequency combination of both intervention approaches while controlling for
scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). We calculated a total score the main effects of the two intervention approaches, namely job craft-
because Oprea et al.'s (2019) meta-analysis showed that the effects ing and ProMES.
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DEMEROUTI ET AL. 9

As the questionnaires were answered three times, the respective correlations among them. To justify that the measures of team cli-
variables were repeatedly assessed and thus can vary between the mate perception (as a second order latent factor with four first
measurement points (Level 1) and between persons (Level 2). There- order latent factors), job crafting (as a second order latent factor
fore, we centered job crafting and team climate perception before we with three first order latent factors), task performance, and innova-
entered them as predictors in the multilevel models (within-person tive behavior (as a second order latent factor with two first order
centering; cf. Curran & Bauer, 2011). This results in two different pre- latent factors) are empirically distinct, we conducted confirmatory
dictors separating between-subjects effects, that is, the influence of a factor analyses (CFA) for Time 1 data. The four factors model had
person's existing level of job crafting and team climate at the pre-test, an acceptable fit (Chi2 = 1644.30, df = 1018, CFI = 0.801,
and within-subject effects, representing the influence of a change in TLI = 0.789, RMSEA = 0.072, SRMR = 0.091) and fitted better to
job crafting and team climate perception respectively. To test indirect the data than the one factor model (Chi2 = 3328.43, df = 1034,
effects within the framework of multilevel analysis, we controlled for CFI = 0.271, TLI = 0.238, RMSEA = 0.137, SRMR = 0.181), differ-
the group-mean centered predictors at Level 2 (cf. 2-1-1 model) and ence in Chi2 = 1684.13, difference in df = 16, p < 0.001. As the
used the syntax provided by Page-Gould (2016). Effect sizes were cal- models included 47 manifest variables and were tested among
culated following Raudenbush and Xiao-Feng (2001). In particular, we N = 123, the findings of CFAs should be interpreted with high
related the unstandardized regression coefficients to the residual caution.
standard deviation (Feingold, 2009). We tested the following models.
Model 1 includes the control variables, gender, age, and leadership
position because they were related to one or more dependent mea- 4.1 | Influence of the interventions on team
sures and changes over time, indicating the linear effect of the study's climate perception and job crafting behavior
week. As these variables have been shown to influence employee
innovative behavior and task performance (e.g., Newman et al., 2018), 4.1.1 | Team climate perception
we had to make sure our findings hold irrespective of these individual
attribute variables. Moreover, males, older employees, and leaders are Table 4 presents the models that predict team climate perception and
suggested to have more possibilities to succeed in implementing craft- job crafting behavior. Model 1 demonstrated an increase in perceived
ing behaviors due to holding more authority positions (e.g., Abbas team climate over time, b = 0.02, p < 0.001 (linear effect). Model
et al., 2022). Note that results remain similar even without the control 2 tested the effect of the interventions; among those the ProMES
variables. Model 2 includes the effects of the two interventions. intervention fostered team climate perception, b = 0.19, p = 0.001.
Model 3 was relevant for the distal outcomes and included job craft- The effect size was d = 0.72. The job crafting intervention did not
ing and team climate perception as predictors. affect team climate perception, b = 0.09, p = 0.221. The lack of an
Team climate perception and job crafting behavior represent the effect of the combination of both interventions on team climate per-
manipulation check of the ProMES intervention and the job crafting ception, b = 0.05, p = 0.622, shows that there is no incremental
intervention, respectively. Manipulation checks have been used to effect of adding a job crafting intervention to ProMES on team cli-
assess the effectiveness of a treatment, as well as the mediators mate perception.
between the intervention and outcomes (Hauser et al., 2018) which
measure whether the manipulation produced the intended state.
Researchers distinguish between two types of mediators in interven- 4.1.2 | Job crafting behavior
tion research: active ingredients of treatment, which are the compo-
nents of a program that bring about the desired behavior change (as is In Model 1, the linear effect points to an improvement in job crafting
the case with job crafting), and the actual processes through which the over time, b = 0.01, p = 0.001 (linear effect). As Model 2 shows, the
active program components cause the desired behavior change (as is job crafting intervention fostered job crafting behavior, b = 0.17,
the case with perceived team climate) (O'Rourke & MacKinnon, 2018). p = 0.023. The effect size was d = 0.60. The ProMES intervention
Whereas in the experimental group the mediator is experimentally did not influence job crafting behavior, b = 0.08, p = 0.188. Finally,
manipulated (manipulation check), this is not the case in the control the combination of the job crafting intervention with the ProMES
group (Ge, 2023). Testing whether the manipulation of the mediator intervention resulted in a lower level of job crafting behavior,
(manipulation check) causes variation in outcomes, allows researchers b= 0.30, p = 0.004. Thus, there results a decremental effect of
to be more confident in the causal inferences. adding ProMES to a job crafting intervention on job crafting
behavior.
Overall, the ProMES and job crafting interventions had distinct
4 | RESULTS effects on the respective variables, that is, perceived team climate
and job crafting behavior. However, their combination had no addi-
Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations of all study tional positive and even a partially negative effect (job crafting
variables for the measurement points, whereas Table 3 outlines the behavior).
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 DEMEROUTI ET AL.

T A B L E 2 Means and standard

Week 0 Week 6 Week 16
deviations by intervention group and
Variable Intervention M SD M SD M SD measurement point.
Team climate Job crafting 3.60 0.67 3.69 0.60 3.77 0.74
ProMES 3.35 0.55 3.64 0.54 3.66 0.54
ProMES and job crafting 3.42 0.55 3.76 0.47 3.72 0.43
Control group 3.43 0.56 3.54 0.68 3.66 0.70
Job crafting behavior Job crafting 3.53 0.47 3.72 0.52 3.82 0.71
ProMES 3.55 0.51 3.74 0.51 3.63 0.57
ProMES and job crafting 3.59 0.43 3.56 0.47 3.65 0.44
Control group 3.70 0.47 3.76 0.48 3.85 0.64
Task performance Job crafting 6.23 0.57 6.26 0.54 6.08 0.83
ProMES 6.25 0.52 6.30 0.62 6.33 0.53
ProMES and job crafting 5.89 0.62 5.87 0.70 5.86 0.71
Control group 5.90 0.90 6.00 0.86 6.10 0.63
Innovative behavior Job crafting 4.37 1.34 4.54 1.49 5.06 1.34
ProMES 4.45 1.22 5.18 1.25 4.90 1.59
ProMES and job crafting 4.48 1.15 5.01 0.91 4.78 1.08
Control group 4.41 1.19 4.64 1.04 4.80 0.95

TABLE 3 Means, standard deviations, and correlations of study variables.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a
1 Gender 0.18 0.38 0.07 0.11* 0.04 0.17** 0.20*** 0.05
2 Age 39.34 9.67 0.06 0.15** 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.17**
3 Leadershipa 0.11 0.32 0.10 0.14 0.16** 0.03 0.02 0.21***
4 Team climate 3.59 0.52 0.05 0.06 0.18* 0.30*** 0.26*** 0.27***
5 Job crafting behavior 3.66 0.46 0.18* 0.13 0.03 0.32*** 0.40*** 0.58***
6 Task performance 6.09 0.57 0.23* 0.09 0.02 0.30*** 0.49*** 0.21***
7 Innovative behavior 4.73 1.09 0.06 0.18* 0.23** 0.23* 0.61*** 0.24**

Note: Within individual correlations are shown above the diagonal and are based on within-individual scores (N = 353). Between-individual correlations
are shown below the diagonal and are based on between-individual scores (N = 123). Means and standard deviations were aggregated across the
measurement points for every individual, and thus, are based on between-individual scores.
a
Gender is dummy-coded: 0 = male, 1 = female; age in years; leadership is dummy coded: 0 = employee, 1 = leader; team climate and Job crafting scores
range between 1 and 5; task performance and innovative behavior scores range between 1 and 7.
*p < 0.05.**p < 0.01.***p < 0.001.

4.2 | Influence of team climate perception and job performance, b = 0.31, p = 0.050, indicating that Hypothesis 5a
crafting behavior on outcomes should also be rejected.
Model 3 additionally considers job crafting behavior and team cli-
4.2.1 | Task performance mate perception on Level 2 (between-subjects) and Level 1 (within-
subject). The initial levels of both team climate perception and job
Table 5 presents the models that test the influence of the interven- crafting behavior are positively related to task performance, respec-
tions on task performance. Model 1 indicates no change in task per- tively, b = 0.23, p = 0.003 and b = 0.46, p < 0.001. Also, the positive
formance over time, b < 0.00, p = 0.994 (linear effect). Model influence of these two variables turned out on Level 1 (within-sub-
2 shows that neither the ProMES intervention, b = 0.15, p = 0.117, ject), that is, b = 0.20, p = 0.040 (change in team climate perception),
nor the job crafting intervention, b = 0.04, p = 0.705, revealed as sig- b = 0.30, p = 0.002 (change in job crafting behavior). Overall, job
nificant rejecting Hypotheses 1a and 3a that assumed direct effects of crafting behavior and team climate perception were associated with
the interventions on task performance. The combined intervention higher levels of task performance, which is true for the initial levels of
of ProMES and job crafting had a negative effect on task these variables as well as for their change in time.
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DEMEROUTI ET AL. 11

T A B L E 4 Effects of the training

Team climate Job crafting behavior
intervention on job crafting behavior and
team climate. Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Fixed effects
(Intercept) 3.36*** 3.35*** 3.78*** 3.74***
Level 1 (within subjects)
Week 0.02*** 0.01* 0.01** 0.01
Intervention: ProMES 0.19** 0.08
Intervention: Job crafting 0.09 0.17*
Intervention: ProMES  Job crafting 0.05 0.30**
Level 2 (between subjects)
Gendera 0.09 0.09 0.21* 0.22*
Age 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
Leadership 0.29 0.28 0.10 0.08
Random effects
Level 1 (within subject)
Residual variance 0.08*** 0.07*** 0.08*** 0.08***
Level 2 (between subjects)
Intercept/intercept 0.23*** 0.23*** 0.17*** 0.17***
Model fit
Deviance ( 2LL) 384.05 365.87 359.41 350.77
Change in deviance (Δ 2LL) 18.18*** 8.64*
AIC 398.05 385.87 373.41 370.77
BIC 425.11 424.53 400.48 409.43

Note: N = 353; coefficients are unstandardized.

a
Gender is dummy-coded, 0 = male, 1 = female.
*p < 0.05.**p < 0.01.***p < 0.001.

Regarding the indirect effects of the interventions on task perfor- rejected. The combination of both interventions had a negative effect
mance (cf. Hypotheses 1b and 3b), we found that the indirect effect on innovative behavior, b = 0.48, p = 0.049 indicating that Hypoth-
of the ProMES intervention through improved team climate percep- esis 6a was also rejected.
tion was not significant, b = 0.03, CI95[ 0.005; 0.082].1 This result Model 3 additionally included job crafting behavior and team cli-
fails to support Hypothesis 1b. The indirect effect of the job crafting mate. The persons' initial level of perceived team climate was not
intervention through increased job crafting behavior was significant, associated with innovative behavior, b = 0.13, p = 0.338, whereas
b = 0.04, CI95[0.002; 0.096] supporting Hypothesis 3b. Finally, the the initial level of job crafting behavior was related to innovative
combined intervention had no indirect effect on task performance behavior, b = 1.33, p < 0.001 (between-subjects effects). Moreover,
through an increase in team climate perception, b < 0.01, CI95 Model 3 demonstrates the effects of the change in job crafting behav-
[ 0.039; 0.048] but had a negative (instead of positive) indirect effect ior and team climate perception regarding innovative behavior
through job crafting behavior, b = 0.07, CI95[ 0.163; 0.016]. (within-subject effects). An increase in perceived team climate was
Thus, Hypothesis 5b had to be rejected. associated with an increase in innovative behavior, b = 0.49,
p < 0.001, which was also true for job crafting behavior, b = 0.99,
p < 0.001.
4.2.2 | Innovative behavior Regarding the indirect effect of the interventions on innovative
behavior (cf. Hypotheses 2b and 4b), the results provided evidence
Table 6 presents the models that predict innovative behavior. Model for an indirect effect of the ProMES intervention through perceived
1 shows that there is an overall increase in innovative behavior, team climate, b = 0.09, CI95[0.036; 0.169]. Thus, Hypothesis 2b was
b = 0.03, p < 0.001. Of the interventions included in Model 2, the supported. Since the main effect of the ProMES intervention is signifi-
ProMES intervention increased innovative behavior, b = 0.51, cant while controlling for team climate, the effect of the ProMES
p < 0.001; which supports Hypothesis 2a. The effect size was intervention is partially mediated by perceived team climate
d = 0.76. The job crafting intervention had no influence on innovative (cf. Table 5, Model 3). Concerning the job crafting intervention, an
behavior, b = 0.32, p = 0.068. Thus, Hypothesis 4a had to be indirect effect through job crafting behavior was observed, b = 0.13,
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
12 DEMEROUTI ET AL.

T A B L E 5 Influence of the training

Task performance
intervention and psychological
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 determinants on task performance.
Fixed effects
(Intercept) 6.21*** 6.19*** 3.70***
Level 1 (within subjects)
Week 0.00 0.00 0.00
Intervention: ProMES 0.15 0.13
Intervention: Job crafting 0.04 0.01
Intervention: ProMES  job crafting 0.31 0.28
Team climate (within-subject) 0.20*
Job crafting behavior (within-subject) 0.30**
Level 2 (between subjects)
Gendera 0.34* 0.33** 0.22
Age 0.00 0.00 0.00
Leadership 0.02 0.01 0.11
Team climate (between subjects) 0.23**
Job crafting behavior (between subjects) 0.46***
Random effects
Level 1 (within subject)
Residual variance σ2 0.21*** 0.21*** 0.21***
Level 2 (between subjects)
Intercept/intercept σ002 0.23*** 0.21*** 0.14***
Model fit
Deviance ( 2LL) 627.15 621.19 576.45
Change in deviance (Δ 2LL) 5.96 44.73***
AIC 641.15 641.19 604.45
BIC 668.21 679.85 658.58

Note: N = 353; coefficients are unstandardized.

a
Gender is dummy-coded, 0 = male, 1 = female.
*p < 0.05.**p < 0.01.***p < 0.001.

CI95[0.010; 0.271]. Hypothesis 4b was supported. The combined to involve both processes and outcomes. We contrasted two self-
intervention had no indirect within-subject effect on innovative regulation promoting interventions, namely ProMES and job crafting,
behavior through an increase in perceived team climate, b < 0.01, and their combination. In line with our predictions and earlier evi-
CI95[ 0.089; 0.105] and had even a negative indirect effect through dence, the ProMES intervention was effective in improving how indi-
a decrease in job crafting behavior, b = 0.25, CI95[ 0.443; 0.104], viduals perceive their team's climate and the job crafting intervention
These results reject Hypothesis 6b. was effective in improving individuals' job crafting behavior. Combin-
ing the two interventions, however, was not effective in further
improving any of the focal outcomes, as, quite the opposite, it
5 | DISCUSSION impaired job crafting behaviors. Furthermore, we uncovered why the
group-based intervention was effective in triggering a distal
The goal of this study was to advance knowledge on whether self- outcome—employee innovative behavior—as this was found to occur
regulation promoting interventions that support individuals to imple- due to improvements in team climate as perceived by the team mem-
ment autonomy in their daily work routines by instructing them how bers. We were able to replicate and expand our knowledge on the
to self-regulate their behaviors, that is, plan, monitor, allocate effectiveness of the individual-level job crafting intervention by show-
resources, and evaluate goal progress, are effective to enhance indi- ing that increases in job crafting behaviors had positive effects on
viduals' task performance and innovative behavior and, more impor- individuals' innovative behavior and task performance. Whereas sup-
tantly, to uncover the mechanism through which they are effective. porting individuals in implementing self-regulation in their daily job
We responded to the call of DeNisi and Murphy (2017) to contextual- design was only indirectly related to improvements in innovative
ize research on the effectiveness of interventions in organizations and behavior through job crafting, self-regulation promoting interventions
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DEMEROUTI ET AL. 13

T A B L E 6 Influence of the training

Innovative behavior
intervention and psychological
determinants on innovative behavior. Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Fixed effects
(Intercept) 3.74*** 3.69*** 1.74*
Level 1 (within subjects)
Week 0.03*** 0.01 0.00
Intervention: ProMES 0.51*** 0.34**
Intervention: Job crafting 0.32 0.15
Intervention: ProMES  job crafting 0.48* 0.19
Team climate (within-subject) 0.49***
Job crafting behavior (within-subject) 0.99***
Level 2 (between-subjects)
Gendera 0.24 0.23 0.05
Age 0.02 0.02 0.02**
Leadership 0.74* 0.71* 0.58*
Team climate (between-subjects) 0.13
Job crafting behavior (between-subjects) 1.33***
Random effects
Level 1 (within-subject)
Residual variance 0.47*** 0.44*** 0.36***
Level 2 (between-subjects)
Intercept/intercept 0.93*** 0.93*** 0.51***
Model fit
Deviance ( 2LL) 967.50 953.63 839.06
Change in deviance (Δ 2LL) 13.87** 114.57***
AIC 981.50 973.63 867.06
BIC 1008.57 1012.30 921.20

Note: N = 353; coefficients are unstandardized.

a
Gender is dummy-coded, 0 = male, 1 = female.
*p < 0.05.**p < 0.01.***p < 0.001.

that support individuals in self-regulating their tasks as team members and optimizing demands with the latter representing a promising
seem more effective in doing so, both directly and indirectly via strategy to get work done and accomplish goals while overcoming the
improvements in team climate. Finally, the combined self-regulation hindrance of high demands (Demerouti & Peeters, 2018). In a broader
promoting intervention was ineffective. sense, our study contributes to Job Demands–Resources theory
(Demerouti et al., 2001) by showing how specific behavioral efforts to
optimize job demands and resources have important effects on orga-
5.1 | Theoretical implications nizational outcomes through enriched job design.
Although both interventions were effective in improving proximal
Both the group-based and the individual-level self-regulation promot- outcomes, they were less effective in increasing individual task perfor-
ing intervention were effective in improving the immediate qualities mance. For the job crafting intervention, this result is in line with a
that they target, as the ProMES intervention improved how individ- recent meta-analysis that reported mixed findings on the effective-
uals perceived their team's climate, whereas the job crafting interven- ness of job crafting interventions on improvements in individuals' task
tion led to increases in individuals' job crafting behaviors. This is not performance (Oprea et al., 2019). However, and consistent with this
only in line with earlier research (e.g., Demerouti et al., 2019; Oprea meta-analysis, our findings suggest that the specific process through
et al., 2019; Pritchard et al., 2008) but also helps us to draw more which a job crafting intervention is related to task performance is
accurate conclusions on the relationship between the interventions important. According to our results, the intervention is indirectly
and outcomes (Hoewe, 2017). Contrary to earlier research (Demerouti related to performance via the trained job crafting behaviors. In the
et al., 2021), our job crafting intervention was effective in stimulating case of the ProMES intervention, the marginal effect on individual
job crafting behaviors including seeking resources, seeking challenges, task performance was surprising, given that the focus of the
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
14 DEMEROUTI ET AL.

intervention, by its very nature, is on individuals' self-regulation in increase their innovative behavior. However, it is less clear whether
reaching performance objectives. Thus, self-regulation promoting this process is effective in (directly or indirectly) improving individual
interventions stimulating individuals to improve their work design or task performance. Probably due to the inclusion of already high-
team performance does not make them directly more successful in performing individuals and the associated ceiling effect regarding the
reaching individual performance goals. One explanation for this result measurement of task performance, there was not much opportunity
is that there may have been a ceiling effect, as task performance to discover further improvements in task performance. However, we
scores at the beginning of each intervention were on average around found a marginal indirect effect on task performance. An alternative
6 on a 7-point scale, leaving little room for improvement. Note that explanation for the failure to find an effect of ProMES on individual
the negative effect of combining the two interventions on task perfor- performance via perceived team climate could also be the depen-
mance shows that the measurement scale used is still sensitive dence on additional individual characteristics, such as intrinsic motiva-
enough to capture variations due to the interventions. tion and self-efficacy (cf. Mäkikangas et al., 2017), which future
Concerning innovative behavior, the ProMES intervention was research would have to address. Our field experiment and the use of
effective. This is particularly noteworthy given that Anderson et al. a control condition rule out the possibility of a Hawthorne effect, as
(2014) reported in their review a complete absence of interventions individuals in both experimental conditions showed improvements in
aiming to increase innovative behavior with an adequate research the distal outcomes due to the trained aspects instead of the atten-
design (pre- and post-measure and control condition) on both the indi- tion that they received from the researchers or due to participation in
vidual and the team level. Basically, by training workgroups on how to change per se (Holman et al., 2010). Thus, the effectiveness of self-
improve their team performance, their members come up with new regulation promoting interventions lies in both workgroup-based and
solutions and ideas. Specifically, during a ProMES process, team mem- individual-level mechanisms that have in common involvement in the
bers are triggered to collaborate and self-manage, objectives are clari- self-regulated optimization of job demands and resources of groups
fied and set, and new, innovative ways to achieve objectives are or individuals.
specified. Similarly, Azevedo and Shane (2019) found that an interven- We found no incremental effect of adding a job crafting interven-
tion that stimulated individuals' self-reflection and working on team tion to ProMES on team climate, whereas the combination of both
projects increased individuals' self-reported innovative behavior. Our interventions even resulted in decrements in individuals' job crafting
findings indicate that these effects occur because team members per- behaviors, innovative behavior, and task performance. Viewing a
ceive a more positive climate in their work groups. The job crafting ProMES intervention as addressing collective crafting (Leana
intervention also promoted innovative behavior [the mean scores of et al., 2009) with an approach focus, and the job crafting intervention
the job crafting intervention grew from 4.37 (week 0) to 5.06 (week as individualistic with a mixed approach/avoidance focus, the com-
16), whereas for the ProMES intervention, they grew from 4.45 bined intervention seems like it might actually be promoting a combi-
(week 0) to 4.90 (week 16), Table 2], though not significantly, calling nation of individualized and collective crafting, which could have
for more research. The combination of the two interventions turned created a problematic role conflict for the participants.2 Whereas the
out to be counterproductive for innovative behaviors, and, again, it former emphasizes that team members should contribute to improv-
was the reduced job crafting behaviors when people followed both ing the effectiveness of the whole team, the latter emphasizes the
interventions that seemed to explain this unexpected result. personalized and probably even idiosyncratic improvement of individ-
A central assumption was that the ProMES intervention would be ual work characteristics ultimately leading to better performance.
effective because it improves individuals' perception of their team's Since employees in this condition started with the ProMES interven-
climate, whereas the job crafting intervention would be effective tion and, thus, a focus on the pursuit of team goals, it may have made
because it improves job crafting behaviors. For the job crafting inter- them hesitant to work additionally on their own job demands and
vention, this assumption was supported by indirect effects found on resources. Note that the negative effects of the combined interven-
both task performance and innovative behavior. This result comple- tion result from the negative indirect effect via job crafting such that
ments earlier research, showing that job crafting influences both more the combined intervention both decreased the extent of job crafting
proximal job crafting behaviors and important distal outcomes and made the remaining job crafting behaviors impair innovative
(Demerouti et al., 2019; Oprea et al., 2019), but also extends it, as a behavior. Participants in this condition may thus have chosen to focus
simultaneous consideration of both types of outcomes and their rela- on their contributions to team goals first, as the expected feedback
tionships has not been done before. Our study is the first to show that from the team may be viewed as more motivating and rewarding than
the effects of the ProMES intervention on individuals' innovative the more individual and less public feedback received during the job
behavior are explained by improvements in individuals' perceptions of crafting process (cf. George & Christiani, 1990). Perhaps training on
their teams' climates. The ProMES method helps team members cre- how to make role adjustments together with your team
ate a common vision, clarify team objectives, and gather information (or collaborative job crafting; McClelland et al., 2014) could have
about which initiative works to gain results and which initiative does made the combined intervention more effective but such interven-
not. Each member is invited to engage in team discussions and the tions are still lacking. Finally, it could be that the employees were tired
facilitator makes sure that every idea is heard, and responsibility is from the (ProMES) discussions and (job crafting) assignments and
shared. Thus, team members feel safe to function in the team and were less involved in the interventions and thus less willing to comply
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DEMEROUTI ET AL. 15

(to implement their job crafting goals). The fact that multimodal inter- ProMES process instigates. Fourth, although there is a distinction
ventions are not always more effective is suggested to reflect a drain between promotion/prevention or approach/avoidance patterns of
on participants' resources to incorporate various interventions self-regulation that has also been shown in the job crafting literature
(Richardson & Rothstein, 2008; Tetrick & Winslow, 2015). In addition, (Zhang & Parker, 2019), we used a unidimensional approach to job
being involved in individual job crafting activities might interfere with crafting. As recent research shows that the potentially negative
contributing to common group objectives. Indeed, Bakker and Oerle- impact of avoidance job crafting on work engagement may be buff-
mans (2019) found that daily job crafting had positive effects on daily ered by simultaneous approach job crafting (Seppälä et al., 2020),
work engagement through satisfying psychological needs. However, future studies could zoom in on the effectiveness of specific combina-
daily job crafting also had indirect negative effects on work engage- tions of job crafting. Fifth, the effectiveness of the intervention was
ment through energy depletion. Similar effects have been observed in measured up to approximately 10 weeks after it was completed. Thus,
previous research on self-regulation, which argues that individuals we do not know whether the effects that we found are truly long-
may experience fatigue effects when they have to deal with multiple lasting and whether the participating team members continued to
goals and invest prolonged effort (Neal et al., 2017). Therefore, the have a positive perception of their team climate and still crafted their
order and the timeline in which the interventions were presented may jobs after the study ended. Sixth, participants in the control condition
have influenced the potential payoff of the combined intervention. also showed a growth trend in the study variables. Although partici-
Thus, we showed that when designing intervention programs, we pants in the control condition belonged to different workgroups than
need to know that the behaviors we aim to train our participants in do participants in the experimental conditions and we controlled for sev-
not interfere with each other and that we refrain from asking too eral variables, we cannot exclude the possibility of treatment diffusion
much from them. or contamination (Campbell, 1988). This might also mean that the
effects we found represent conservative estimates.

5.2 | Limitations and future research

5.3 | Practical implications and conclusion
Several limitations of this study need to be mentioned. First, we used
self-report measures, which can result in common method bias. How- We showed that by training employees to come up with new strate-
ever, we were successful in corroborating that the two distal out- gies to contribute to the autonomous self-regulation of team objec-
comes (task performance and innovative behavior) are sufficiently tives (ProMES intervention) or to come up with strategies to improve
distinct. In addition, both interventions showed specific and distinct their job design (job crafting intervention), they became more innova-
effects on the relevant, but not on the irrelevant process variables. tive as individuals. For instance, during a ProMES development meet-
We were particularly interested in intraindividual changes in cognitive ing engineers came up with the “rotating reader” idea instead of
processes (e.g., the individual perception of the climate in the team in everyone “reading quality news” 1 h per team member per week. This
which one works and the optimization of inefficient work processes) new strategy resulted in a 50% reduction in the average reading time
and outcomes (e.g., idea generation). Changes in these variables are per week and per person and eventually was approved by the man-
less accessible to observations because raters (e.g., supervisors) would agement as a new practice. Implementing this idea freed up time,
have needed considerably more opportunities to observe the partici- thereby creating space for new ideas and the optimization of work
pants' behaviors, particularly in complex jobs such as those held by strategies for each team member. Moreover, although the job crafting
the study participants (cf. Rothstein, 1990). Nevertheless, future stud- intervention itself focused less on increasing performance and more
ies should include objective indicators of job crafting (like Tims on aligning the job to one's personal needs, it contributed to employee
et al., 2012), as well as task performance and innovative behavior. task performance probably because it helped employees find a better
Second, the sample sizes of the job crafting and the control condition way to align their job demands with their job resources and thus
were rather small. Since larger sample sizes produce more reliable experiencing a more positive, healthy, and engaged way of doing their
effects, studies with larger samples are needed to validate the find- job (Oprea et al., 2019).
ings. As previous research on the effectiveness of job crafting inter- Considering these benefits, organizations are encouraged to
ventions found only modest effects (cf. Oprea et al., 2019), this more implement self-regulation promoting interventions. Implementing and
generally suggests replications with larger sample sizes—although this staging self-regulation promoting interventions within organizations
may prove challenging. requires a structured and multifaceted approach comprising both spe-
Third, the ProMES intervention was not complete insofar as the cific support measures and tailored communication strategies. One
participating teams had to focus on only two performance indicators. key support measure involves identifying “ambassadors” of the inter-
This means that our ProMES participants received a less intense inter- vention on the managerial level who are positioned and acknowl-
vention than usual in completed ProMES processes, which may have edged as organizational insiders who can effectively convey the
reduced the effect sizes we found (Pritchard et al., 2009). Thus, the benefits and relevance of the interventions to the workforce. Their
size of the effects can be considered a conservative estimate, and yet involvement as change agents in promoting the interventions is
we found quite encouraging insights into the mechanisms that a instrumental in gaining buy-in from employees. Communication is key,
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
16 DEMEROUTI ET AL.

too, and to be addressed to different stakeholders and relying on spe- OR CID

cific content. Since organizational leaders play a pivotal role in effec- Evangelia Demerouti https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4615-6532
tively communicating the benefits of self-regulation promoting Klaus Moser https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6523-9096
interventions within the organization, communication toward the
leadership team should emphasize the significance of the interven- ENDNOTES
tions for improving individual and team performance standards and 1
Considering that there is a ceiling effect with respect to the measure-
effective performance. These and the broader organizational commu- ment of task performance (see discussion), the dispersion of the values
is also limited, which also affects the strength of possible effects on task
nication strategies extend to the interventions' benefits of equipping
performance. Based on this, one could argue that a larger confidence
the workforce with self-regulation skills contextualized within the rap-
interval should be used here. In fact, the effect lies within a CI of
idly changing VUCA landscape. 90 [0.002; 0.071], which is why we speak of a marginal and quite practi-
If organizations aim to implement these self-regulation promoting cally significant indirect effect of the ProMES intervention on task per-
interventions, it is important to exercise caution about combining formance in the following.
2
ProMES with a job crafting intervention. It seems that results that We like to thank the anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

would have been achieved with each of the respective interventions

alone are leveling each other out when used in combination. Moreover, RE FE RE NCE S
the results suggest that encouraging self-regulation of individuals to Abbas, T., Mansour, N., & ElShawarbi, N. (2022). Age, gender, and job dif-
achieve individual and team goals at the same time might create more ferences in job crafting behaviour among food and beverage
harm than good, which should be considered during practical imple- employees of five-star hotels. International Journal of Heritage, Tourism
and Hospitality, 16(2), 101–112. Retrieved from https://ijhth.journals.
mentation. Finally, the introduction of more than one intervention for
ekb.eg
employees at the same time is not uncommon in organizations though Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance management (3rd ed.). Pearson.
there is a clear lack of knowledge about whether neutral, synergetic, or Algera, J. A., Monhemius, L., & Wijnen, C. J. D. (1997). Quality improve-
even interfering effects result. Our results also point to the limits of ment: Combining ProMES and SPC to work smarter. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 6(3), 261–278. https://doi.org/
mixing well-intentioned interventions in organizations. In fact, the com-
10.1080/135943297399060
bination of effective interventions might be a source of unintended side Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in
effects comparable to harmful interactions among treatments as they organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary,
are regularly found in medical interventions (cf. Watts et al., 2022). and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.
Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1996). The team climate inventory: Devel-
Our study is the first to thoroughly examine alternative self-
opment of the TCI and its applications in teambuilding for innovative-
regulation promoting interventions promoting autonomous employee ness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 53–
self-regulation at work and to show whether and why they are effec- 66. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414840
tive. We hope that future research will enhance our theoretical and Azevedo, A., & Shane, M. J. (2019). A new training program in developing
cultural intelligence can also improve innovative work behavior and
practical knowledge of improving and combining interventions. The
resilience: A longitudinal pilot study of graduate students and profes-
change of focus to self-regulation of challenges/resources and innova-
sional employees. The International Journal of Management Education,
tive taskwork processes suggest that the interventions have a skill 17(3), 100303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.05.004
development function. Therefore, future research should connect Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. G. M. (2019). Daily job crafting and
self-regulation enhancing interventions with research on people's momentary work engagement: A self-determination and self-
regulation perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 417–430.
capabilities to self-regulate their behavior, job crafting, and work pro-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.12.005
cess improvement. Employees not only need to have the competence Bandura, A. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: Pathways and
to perform the tasks required to the expected standard (Eraut & reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130–136.
Hirsh, 2007) but also to develop soft-skills including the ability to Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear
mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67,
learn, practice proactivity, and self-regulate in a variety of contexts
1–48.
(Evans & Kersh, 2014). We should keep in mind that employees not Beeftink, F., Van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Bertrand, J. W. M. (2012).
only strive for autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000) but that autonomy Being successful in a creative profession: The role of innovative cogni-
needs support and guidance (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002) and that inter- tive style, self-regulation, and self-efficacy. Journal of Business and Psy-
chology, 27(1), 71–81.
ventions intending to support employees can fire back and become
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2002). Adaptive guidance: Enhancing self-
overwhelming. regulation, knowledge, and performance in technology-based training.
Personnel Psychology, 55(2), 267–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
CONF LICT OF IN TE RE ST ST AT E MENT 1744-6570.2002.tb00111.x
Björk, J. M., Bolander, P., & Forsman, A. K. (2021). Bottom-up interven-
The authors declare no potential conflict of interest.
tions effective in promoting work engagement: A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–19. https://doi.org/
DATA AVAI LAB ILITY S TATEMENT 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.730421
The data that support the findings of this study are available on Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contex-
tual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research.
request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly
Human Performance, 10, 99–109.
available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DEMEROUTI ET AL. 17

Brown, T. C., O'Kane, P., Mazumdar, B., & McCracken, M. (2019). Perfor- handbook of the psychology of training, development and performance
mance management: A scoping review of the literature and an agenda improvement (pp. 50–67). Wiley.
for future research. Human Resource Development Review, 18(1), Feingold, A. (2009). Effect sizes for growth-modeling analysis for con-
47–82. trolled clinical trials in the same metric as for classical analysis. Psycho-
Burke, M. J., Sarpy, S. A., Smith-Crowe, K., Chan-Serafin, S., logical Methods, 14(1), 43–53.
Salvador, R. O., & Islam, G. (2006). Relative effectiveness of worker Ge, X. (2023). Experimentally manipulating mediating processes: Why and
safety and health training methods. American Journal of Public Health, how to examine mediation using statistical moderation analyses. Jour-
96(2), 315–324. nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 109, 104507.
Cai, Z., Parker, S. K., Chen, Z., & Lam, W. (2019). How does the social con- George, R. L., & Christiani, T. S. (1990). Counseling: Theory and practice (3rd
text fuel the proactive fire? A multilevel review and theoretical synthe- ed.). Simon and Shuster.
sis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 209–230. https://doi.org/ Gordon, H. J., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P. M., Bakker, A. B., Bipp, T., &
10.1002/job.2347 Verhagen, M. A. (2018). Individual job redesign: Job crafting interven-
Campbell, D. T. (1988). Methodology and epistemology for social science. tions in healthcare. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 104, 98–114.
Selected papers. The University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.002
Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2011). The disaggregation of within-person Hauser, D. J., Ellsworth, P. C., & Gonzalez, R. (2018). Are manipulation
and between-person effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual checks necessary? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 998.
Review of Psychology, 62, 583–619. Hoewe, J. (2017). Manipulation check. In J. Matthes, C. S. Davis, & R. F.
Day, D. V., & Unsworth, K. L. (2013). Goals and self-regulation: Emerging Potter (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication research
perspectives across levels and time. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham methods (pp. 1-5). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/
(Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance (pp. 158– 9781118901731.iecrm0135
176). Routledge. Holman, D. J., Axtell, C. M., Sprigg, C. A., Totterdell, P., & Wall, T. D.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The (2010). The mediating role of job characteristics in job redesign inter-
job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychol- ventions: A serendipitous quasi-experiment. Journal of Organizational
ogy, 86(3), 499–512. Behavior, 31(1), 84–105.
Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C., & van den Heuvel, M. (2019). Job crafting Isaksen, S. G., & Treffinger, D. J. (2004). Celebrating 50 years of reflective
interventions: Do they work and why? In L. van Zyl & I. Rothman practice: Versions of creative problem solving. The Journal of Creative
(Eds.), Positive psychological intervention design and protocols for multi- Behavior, 38(2), 75–101.
cultural contexts (pp. 103–125). Springer. Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness,
Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2018). Transmission of reduction- and innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
oriented crafting among colleagues: A diary study on the moderating tional Psychology, 73, 287–302.
role of working conditions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (1997). The impact of cultural values on
Psychology, 91(2), 209–234. employee resistance to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-
Demerouti, E., Soyer, L. M., Vakola, M., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2021). The managing work team effectiveness. Academy of Management Review,
effects of a job crafting intervention on the success of an organiza- 22(3), 730–757.
tional change effort in a blue-collar work environment. Journal of Kleingeld, A. D., Van Tuijl, H., & Algera, J. A. (2004). Participation in the
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 94(2), 374–399. design of performance management systems: A quasi-experimental
Demerouti, E., Xanthopoulou, D., Petrou, P., & Karagkounis, C. (2017). field study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(7), 831–851. https://
Does job crafting assist dealing with organizational changes due to doi.org/10.1002/job.266
austerity measures? Two studies among Greek employees. European Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(4), 574–589. on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1325875 feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and perfor- Koopmann, J., Lanaj, K., Wang, M., Zhou, L., & Shi, J. (2016). Nonlinear
mance management: 100 years of progress? Journal of Applied Psychol- effects of team tenure on team psychological safety climate and cli-
ogy, 102(3), 421–433. mate strength: Implications for average team member performance.
Donner, A., & Klar, N. (1994). Cluster randomization trials in epidemiology: Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(7), 940–957.
Theory and application. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, LaMontagne, A. D., Keegel, T., & Vallance, D. (2007). Protecting and pro-
42(1–2), 37–56. moting mental health in the workplace: Developing a systems
Dubbelt, L., Demerouti, E., & Rispens, S. (2019). The value of job crafting approach to job stress. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 18(3),
for work engagement, task performance, and career satisfaction: Lon- 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1071/HE07221
gitudinal and quasi-experimental evidence. European Journal of Work Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work process and quality
and Organizational Psychology, 28(3), 300–314. of care in early childhood education: The role of job crafting. Academy
Edmondson, A. C., & Bransby, D. P. (2023). Psychological safety comes of Management Journal, 52(6), 1169–1192.
of age: Observed themes in an established literature. Annual Leiva, P. I., Culbertson, S. S., & Pritchard, R. D. (2011). An empirical test of
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, an innovation implementation model. The Psychologist-Manager Jour-
10, 55–78. nal, 14(4), 265–281.
Eraut, M., & Hirsh, W. (2007). The significance of workplace learning for indi- Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2019). The development of goal setting the-
viduals, groups and organisations. ESRC Centre on SkilIs, Knowledge ory: A half century retrospective. Motivation Science, 5(2), 93–105.
and Organisational Performance (SCOPE). Retrieved from http://www. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000127
skope.ox.ac.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Monogrpah- Mäkikangas, A., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2017). Antecedents of
09.pdf daily team job crafting. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1996). The expert learner: Strategic, self- Psychology, 26(3), 421–433.
regulated, and reflective. Instructional Science, 24, 1–24. https://doi. Mathieu, J. E., Gallagher, P. T., Domingo, M. A., & Klock, E. A. (2019).
org/10.1007/BF00156001 Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effective-
Evans, K., & Kersh, N. (2014). Training and workplace learning. In K. Krai- ness research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organi-
ger, J. Passmore, N.-R. Santos, & S. Malvezzi (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell zational Behavior, 6, 17–46.
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
18 DEMEROUTI ET AL.

McClelland, G. P., Leach, D. J., Clegg, C. W., & McGowan, I. (2014). Collab- Rothstein, H. R. (1990). Interrater reliability of job performance ratings:
orative crafting in call centre teams. Journal of Occupational and Orga- Growth to asymptote level with increasing opportunity to observe.
nizational Psychology, 87(3), 464–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 322–327. https://doi.org/10.
12058 1037/0021-9010.75.3.322
Neal, A., Ballard, T., & Vancouver, J. B. (2017). Dynamic self-regulation and Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilita-
multiple-goal pursuit. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology tion of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Ameri-
and Organizational Behavior, 4, 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/ can Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.
annurev-orgpsych-032516-113156 55.1.68
Newman, A., Herman, H. M., Schwarz, G., & Nielsen, I. (2018). The effects Schleicher, D. J., Baumann, H. M., Sullivan, D. W., Levy, P. E.,
of employees' creative self-efficacy on innovative behavior: The role Hargrove, D. C., & Barros-Rivera, B. A. (2018). Putting the system into
of entrepreneurial leadership. Journal of Business Research, 89, 1–9. performance management systems: A review and agenda for perfor-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.001 mance management research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2209–
Oprea, B. T., Barzin, L., Vîrga, D., Iliescu, D., & Rusu, A. (2019). Effective- 2245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318755303
ness of job crafting interventions: A meta-analysis and utility analysis. Seppälä, P., Harju, L., & Hakanen, J. J. (2020). Interactions of approach and
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(6), 723– avoidance job crafting and work engagement: A comparison between
741. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1646728 employees affected and not affected by organizational changes. Interna-
O'Rourke, H. P., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2018). Reasons for testing mediation tional Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(23), 9084.
in the absence of an intervention effect: A research imperative in pre- Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis:
vention and intervention research. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press.
Drugs, 79(2), 171–181. Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2002). Performance concepts and performance
Page-Gould, E. (2016). Files for bootstrapping accurate indirect effects in theory. In S. Sonnentag (Ed.), Psychological management of individual
multilevel models. Retrieved from http://www.page-gould.com/r/ performance (pp. 3–25). Wiley.
indirectmlm/ Spurk, D., Kauffeld, S., Barthauer, L., & Heinemann, N. S. (2015). Fostering
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hetland, J. networking behavior, career planning and optimism, and subjective
(2012). Crafting a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the career success: An intervention study. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
link to work engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1120– 87, 134–144.
1141. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1783 Tagliabue, M., Sigurjonsdottir, S. S., & Sandaker, I. (2020). The effects of
Pritchard, R. D., Culbertson, S. S., Malm, K., & Agrell, A. (2009). Improving performance feedback on organizational citizenship behaviour: A sys-
performance in a Swedish police traffic unit: Results of an interven- tematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Work and Orga-
tion. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/ nizational Psychology, 29(6), 841–861.
j.jcrimjus.2008.12.008 Tetrick, L. E., & Winslow, C. J. (2015). Workplace stress management inter-
Pritchard, R. D., Harrell, M. W., DiazGranados, D., & Guzman, M. J. (2008). ventions and health promotion. Annual Review of Organizational Psy-
The productivity measurement and enhancement system: A meta- chology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 583–603. https://doi.org/10.
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 540–567. https://doi. 1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111341
org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.540 Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of
Pritchard, R. D., Weaver, S. J., & Ashwood, E. L. (2012). Evidence-based pro- the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 173–186.
ductivity improvement—A practical guide to the productivity measure- Van Wingerden, J., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2017). The longitudinal
ment and enhancement system (ProMES). Routledge. impact of a job crafting intervention. European Journal of Work & Orga-
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical comput- nizational Psychology, 26, 107–119.
ing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https:// Watts, L., Gray, B., & Medeiros, K. (2022). Side effects associated with
www.R-project.org/ organizational interventions: A perspective. Industrial and Organiza-
Raudenbush, S. W., & Xiao-Feng, L. (2001). Effects of study duration, fre- tional Psychology, 15(1), 76–94.
quency of observation, and sample size on power in studies of group West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative
differences in polynomial change. Psychological Methods, 6, 387–401. model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.6.4.387 Applied Psychology, 51(3), 355–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Appli- 0597.00951
cations and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational
Rehman, W. U., Ahmad, M., Allen, M. M., Raziq, M. M., & Riaz, A. (2019). commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role
High involvement HR systems and innovative work behaviour: The behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617. https://doi.org/10.
mediating role of psychological empowerment, and the moderating 1177/014920639101700305
roles of manager and co-worker support. European Journal of Work and You, Y., Hu, Z., Li, J., Wang, Y., & Xu, M. (2022). The effect of organiza-
Organizational Psychology, 28(4), 525–535. tional innovation climate on employee innovative behavior: The role
Richardson, K. M., & Rothstein, H. R. (2008). Effects of occupational stress of psychological ownership and task interdependence. Frontiers in Psy-
management intervention programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occu- chology, 13, 856407.
pational Health Psychology, 13(1), 69–93. Zhang, F., & Parker, S. K. (2019). Reorienting job crafting research: A hier-
Roth, C., & Moser, K. (2005). Partizipatives Produktivitätsmanagement bei archical structure of job crafting concepts and integrative review. Jour-
komplexen Dienstleistungen [the productivity measurement and nal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.
enhancement system (ProMES; management system PPM) with com- 1002/job.2332
plex service tasks]. Zeitschrift für Personalpsychologie, 4(2), 66–74. Zhu, Y. Q., Gardner, D. G., & Chen, H. G. (2018). Relationships between
https://doi.org/10.1026/1617-6391.4.2.66 work team climate, individual motivation, and creativity. Journal of
Roth, C., & Moser, K. (2009). Leistungsmanagement von Gruppen bei wis- Management, 44(5), 2094–2115.
sensintensiven Dienstleistungen [Performance management in teams Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive per-
among knowledge intensive services]. Zeitschrift für Personalpsycholo- spective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook
gie, 8(1), 24–34. of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press.
 1099050x, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.22236 by Bagus M. Fatah Kertarajasa - Nat Prov Indonesia , Wiley Online Library on [05/07/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DEMEROUTI ET AL. 19

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHI ES
personnel selection, stress management and career coaching on
years of practical experience in personnel development and fur-
Evangelia Demerouti is a full professor in Work and Organiza-
ther training.
tional Psychology at the Eindhoven University of Technology and
a Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Johannes- Roman Soucek is a professor of Work and Organizational Psy-
burg, South Africa. She has published over 250 national and inter- chology at the Department of Psychology, MSH Medical School
national papers and book chapters on topics including the effects Hamburg, Germany. His research interests include resilience in
of work characteristics, individual job strategies (including job the work context, psychological well-being, work intensity, human
crafting and decision-making), occupational well-being (including resource development, the evaluation of training interventions,
burnout and work engagement), work-life balance, and the imple- and unethical behavior in the workplace. His work has appeared
mentation and use of technology. Currently, she is an associate in journals such as Computers in Human Behavior, Education +
editor of the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and the Training, International Journal of Stress Management, Journal of
president of the European Association of Work and Organizational Business Ethics, and The International Journal of Human Resource
Psychology (EAWOP). Management.

Colin Roth is the founder and managing director of BlackBox/ Klaus Moser is a professor of Business and Social Psychology at
Open, a consultancy for evidence-based organizational develop- the Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (FAU),
ment, and Feedbit Software, a company providing feedback soft- Germany. His current research interests are personnel selection
ware for organizations. He is also a research assistant at the and performance appraisal, training and career development, digi-
Chair of Economic and Social Psychology at FAU Erlangen- talization of work, unemployment, and meaning of work. He has
Nuremberg. Before starting his own business, he worked for sev- published in numerous peer-reviewed journals, among them are
eral years as an organizational developer at GfK. Additionally, he Journal of Applied Psychology, Human Relations, Journal of Applied
is a founding member of ProMES-ICC.com, a nonprofit platform Social Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Per-
providing knowledge and experience in the application of the sonnel Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, and International
ProMES intervention in organizations worldwide. Colin is also a Journal of Selection and Assessment.
co-editor of EWOP InPractice, the EAWOP Practitioners
E-Journal.

Katharina Ebner holds the position of Assistant Professor of Busi-

How to cite this article: Demerouti, E., Roth, C., Ebner, K.,
ness and Social Psychology at Friedrich-Alexander-University of
Soucek, R., & Moser, K. (2024). Toward a better understanding
Erlangen-Nuremberg (FAU). Her work and research focuses are
of self-regulation promoting interventions: When performance
career coaching and (digital) stress management. Dr. Ebner bases
management and job crafting meet. Human Resource
her activities in teaching, publishing and reviewing on topics such
Management, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22236
as career guidance and development, education and training,