Does perceived organizational support for strength use enhance employee well-being and task performance? The role of investment in job crafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to understand how organizational support for strength use enhances employee well-being through the mediating role of investment in job crafting behaviors, and how, in turn, well-being improves task performance. Design/methodology/approach A survey was conducted involving 424 professional accountants in Canada. We analyzed the data collected and tested our hypotheses through the application of structural equation modeling using AMOS v26. The mediating effects were tested using bootstrapping techniques. Findings The results reveal that perceived organizational support for strength use is positively associated with the investment in increasing structural and social resources, as well as seeking new challenges, while it is negatively related to the reduction of hindering demands. Furthermore, the findings indicate that the investment in increasing structural resources and challenges mediates the relationship between perceived organizational support for strength use and well-being at work. However, increasing social resources and reducing hindering demands do not significantly influence this relationship. Additionally, the results demonstrate that well-being at work has a positive and significant effect on task performance. Practical implications This study highlights the importance of supporting the utilization of employees’ strengths to encourage job crafting behaviors that enhance work-related resources and challenges. By doing so, organizations can foster employee well-being, which in turn positively impacts task performance. Originality/value This study is the first to examine the relationship between perceived organizational support for strength use, job crafting behaviors, well-being at work and task performance among professional accountants. It provides new insights into how fostering strength utilization can enhance both employee well-being and performance in the accounting profession.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".