Exploring job crafting as a response to abusive supervision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this qualitative exploratory study was to investigate the capacity of job crafting to serve as a viable response to abusive supervision. Although considerable literature has emerged on employee reactions to abusive supervision, the role of job crafting as a coping mechanism has received relatively little attention. Design/methodology/approach Using qualitative exploration, we conducted semi-structured interviews to examine how individuals engage in job crafting as a means to respond to or cope with abusive supervision. Critical Incident Interview Technique (CIIT) was used to obtain in-depth details of this topic. We analyzed the interview-based data using the thematic analysis (TA) technique. We also integrated topic modeling to cluster the identified categories of job crafting behaviors within our TA. The cultural context of our findings was further analyzed using interpretive phenological analysis (IPA). Findings The results of our thematic analysis led to four recurring themes in the interview-data: (1) Job crafting as a viable coping response to abusive supervision; (2) The type of coping relates to the type of crafting: Approach and Avoidance; (3) The role of perceived control; (4) Emotions play a role in the type of crafting employed. Findings from our IPA generated the following super-ordinate themes. (1) Job crafting fluidity, (2) effectiveness of job crafting, (3) resilience and (4) cultural dynamics. Research limitations/implications This research reveals the ways in which individuals may turn to job crafting behaviors as a means to cope following instances of abusive supervision. Given the qualitative exploration of our research approach, we identify generalizability to be an issue. Practical implications Job crafting is a proactive phenomenon that equips employees with coping abilities in the workplace. While Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) suggested that job crafting behaviors tend to be hidden from management, there may be merit in organizations explicitly acknowledging the benefits of allowing employees to be active agents in their work, capable of using multiple domains of job crafting to improve their personal and professional lives (Petrou et al. , 2017). Originality/value The current research reveals the ways in which individuals may turn to job crafting behaviors as a means to cope, following instances of abusive supervision. We further fine-grained our analysis to explicate employee job crafting behaviors in response to abusive supervision within a cross-cultural domain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".