Change Appraisals and Job Crafting as Foundation to Inculcate Support for Change: A Dual Manifestation

Abstract

Purpose

Organizational change does not always have only negative repercussions but also has positive implications. Drawing on cognitive appraisal theory and the job demands-resources model, this study aims to examine the differential effects of change-related challenge-threat appraisals on employees’ change supportive behavior.

Theoretical framework

The study proposes that challenge-threat appraisals provide an impetus for change recipients to enact approach-avoidance job crafting behaviors during times of organizational change, a relationship that is moderated by hope.

Design/methodology/approach

Data were collected from the staff of one of the leading banks in Pakistan, which has been going through a major techno-structural change. Using a self-reported questionnaire and cross-sectional means the study tested the proposed research framework by employing multivariate analysis techniques to accomplish the research objectives.

Findings

The findings showed that challenge appraisals positively predicted and threat appraisals negatively predicted employees’ change-supportive behavior. Moreover, approach-avoidance job crafting provides a robust channel to intervene and influence the proposed direct relationships. Furthermore, hope moderated and strengthened the positive association between challenge appraisals and approach job crafting. However, it failed to establish its moderating role in the relationship between threat appraisals and avoidance job crafting.

Practical & social implications of research

This paper shows that organizations seeking successful implementation to change should focus primarily on fostering employees’ behavioral support for change. In particular, they should engage employees in approach job crafting behavior and promote their perception towards change as challenging that can aid in enactment of such behaviors.

Originality/value

The study offers fresh theoretical, empirical, and practical insights to the existing body of change literature. It contributes to the research on organizational change by addressing multiple perspectives in a single study, such as by simultaneously examining the personal and contextual factors, activation phenomenon, and dual perspectives to unfold people’s behavioral support for change.

Keywords:
Challenge-threat appraisals; job crafting; hope; change-supportive behavior; organizational change

Resumo

Objetivo

A mudança organizacional nem sempre tem apenas repercussões negativas, tendo também implicações positivas. Com base na teoria da avaliação cognitiva e no modelo das demandas-recursos do trabalho, este estudo tem o objetivo de examinar os efeitos diferenciais da mudança relacionados às avaliações como desafio-ameaça no comportamento de apoio à mudança por parte dos funcionários.

Referencial teórico

O estudo propõe que as avaliações como desafio-ameaça incentivam os recipientes da mudança a adotar comportamentos de ressignificação do trabalho por meio da aproximação-evitação durante os momentos da mudança organizacional, um relacionamento que é moderado pela esperança.

Metodologia

Os dados foram coletados do quadro de funcionários dos principais bancos do Paquistão que têm passado por uma importante mudança técnica-estrutural. Utilizando um questionário preenchido pelo próprio funcionário, o estudo testou, por meio da média transversal, a estrutura proposta da pesquisa empregando técnicas de análise multivariada para alcançar os objetivos propostos.

Resultados

Os resultados mostraram que as avaliações como desafio previram positivamente enquanto as avaliações como ameaça previram negativamente o comportamento de suporte à mudança dos funcionários. Além disso, a ressignificação do trabalho por meio da aproximação-evitação oferece um canal sólido para intervir e influenciar os relacionamentos diretos propostos. Ademais, a esperança moderou e fortaleceu a associação positiva entre avaliações da mudança e ressignificação do trabalho por meio da aproximação. Entretanto, ele falhou em estabelecer seu papel moderador no relacionamento entre avaliações como ameaça e a ressignificação do trabalho por meio da evitação.

Implicações práticas e sociais da pesquisa

Este artigo mostra que as organizações que buscam uma implementação bem-sucedida da mudança devem se concentrar principalmente em promover o apoio comportamental dos funcionários à mudança. Em particular, eles devem envolver os funcionários na abordagem do comportamento de elaboração do trabalho e promover sua percepção em relação à mudança como um desafio que pode ajudar na promulgação de tais comportamentos.

Contribuições

O estudo oferece perspectivas teóricas, empíricas e práticas novas no conjunto da literatura existente sobre mudança. Ele contribui para a pesquisa sobre mudança organizacional por meio da abordagem de várias perspectivas em um único estudo, por exemplo, por meio do exame simultâneo dos fatores da pessoa e do contexto, do fenômeno da ativação e das perspectivas bifacetadas para desvendar o apoio comportamental à mudança.

Palavras-chave:
Avaliações como desafio-ameaça; ressignificação do trabalho; esperança; comportamento de apoio à mudança; mudança organizacional

1 Introduction

Large-scale change has often been viewed as central to organizational performance and a critical factor that drives organizational growth and sustainability. Unfortunately, past studies reveal that only one out of three change initiatives are successful (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Grover, 1999). Even the recent figures have not shown any significant improvement regarding successful implementation of change (Brakman et al., 2013; Jacobs et al., 2013; Jansson, 2013; Jarrel, 2017; Vakola & Petrou, 2018). While change has been taken as a strategically imperative choice for organizations, it is also crucial to note that employees are the determinants of such initiatives’ ultimate success (Fugate et al., 2012). Employees’ lack of support for change is often considered as a reason for the failure of change initiatives (Haffar et al., 2019; Oreg et al., 2018; Rafferty & Minbashian, 2019; Stouten et al., 2018). Therefore, it is of no surprise that individuals’ support for change has been a dominant focus of organizational change research, particularly how employees react and behaviorally demonstrate the organizational change; this is acknowledged as a potential avenue for further inquiry since they are at the frontline to implement change initiatives (Campbell, 2018; Fugate & Soenen, 2018; Oreg et al., 2018; Rafferty & Minbashian, 2019). Behavioral support for change refers to the extent to which change recipients get actively involved in change-related activities and embrace them with their real sense (Coyle-Shapiro, 1999; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Kim et al., 2011).

It is evident in the past literature that individuals’ reactions to change initiatives largely depend on the way they appraise change as a challenge or a threat (Biggane et al., 2017; Fugate et al., 2011, 2012; Fugate & Soenen, 2018; Oreg et al., 2018; Rafferty & Restubog, 2017). Change appraisals are perceptions regarding the ways employees assess their commitment and goals concerning the opportunities and demands in the context of organizational change (Fugate et al., 2012; Fugate & Soenen, 2018; Rafferty & Restubog, 2017). Fugate (2012, p. 182) stated that “[...] appraisals give meaning to employees’ experience of change”. They refer to the process by which individuals evaluate a potentially stressful event and its likely influence on their wellbeing (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Challenge appraisal, for instance, reflects the possibility of future gains or benefits (associated with the change), while threat appraisal represents the concerns about possible future losses related to the prospective change (Rafferty & Restubog, 2017). Thus, cognitive appraisal emerges as a fundamental concept to understand human adaptation to stressful events (Gomes et al., 2016). As such, an examination of cognitive appraisals and reactions to change enable researchers and practitioners to understand why individuals respond differently, either positively or negatively, to similar aspects of a changing context (Rafferty & Restubog, 2017). However, little has been explored yet regarding how people’s change-related appraisals unfold into their behavioral manifestations, particularly during an organizational change.

To be specific, two essential features highlighted by past research have either been overlooked or have been found to be substantive in unveiling people’s support for change and are open to further inquiry. First, while examining individuals’ reactions to change, Oreg et al. (2018) pointed out that previous studies on employees’ behavioral reactions to change have been preoccupied with the valence aspect and the degree to which subsequent reactions are positive or negative while discounted their level of activation and the extent to which their reaction to change is active or passive. They stress that change recipients’ reactions should be examined and contemplated in terms of valence as well as their level of activation. Therefore, this study addresses this call to advance the research beyond valence reactions to change by incorporating the propensity for activation. It proposes job crafting as people’s bottom-up approach to job (re)design based on the active-passive spectrum to further our understanding of the activation phenomenon in response to change appraisals. By active and passive, we mean it articulates distinct ways (approach-avoidance) through which employees make adjustments into their job constituents (Bruning & Campion, 2018; Mäkikangas, 2018). Since the channels through which job crafting affects change-supportive behavior remained largely unexplored, the study suggests that job crafting works as a catalyst and provides an underlying mechanism that explains how people’s change-related appraisals translate into change-supportive behaviors.

Second, prior studies on organizational change have not yet fully tapped the simultaneous examination of the personal and contextual factors with regards to employees’ reactions to change (Fugate & Soenen, 2018; Mehboob & Othman, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c; Oreg et al., 2011; Rafferty et al., 2013; Walk & Handy, 2018). For instance, Fugate and Soenen (2018) highlighted that despite the prevailing belief that both personal and contextual factors substantively contribute to the successful implementation of change, there is a lack of investigations into their simultaneous and differential impact in the same empirical study. They further argued that cognitive appraisal theory (CAT) helps to conceptually integrate both personal and contextual factors in determining employees’ reactions to change. Given the significance, an improved understanding of the personal and contextual enablers to promote change is of great concern for individuals and organizations. Previous research has also revealed that personal factors such as personal resources can buffer the adverse outcomes imposed by high job demands (Kang & Jang, 2019; Kimura et al., 2019; Yavas et al., 2013).

Given that the JD-R model is postulated based on the principles of the interaction between personal and contextual factors (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014), personal resources such as hope are recognized as essential resources that characterize individuals’ perceptions of and reactions to the working context and wellbeing (Alarcon et al., 2013). People with high hope hold beliefs regarding the extent to which they persevere towards goals and when needed are likely to redirect their path to those goals to succeed (Luthans et al., 2010). Highly hopeful individuals generally invest more effort into goal accomplishments, they are inclined to take risks, and act proactively while performing their work tasks (Yu et al., 2019), which have a positive impact on performance, engagement, commitment, job satisfaction, and creativity (Bouckenooghe et al., 2019; Karatepe & Karadas, 2015; Yu et al., 2019). To further enhance the academic understanding of the role of personal resources in promoting positive behaviors at work, the study suspects that hope is a key factor that makes it a potential antecedent with potential positive links to valued outcomes. We assume that examining the role of hope as a moderator in the relationship between challenge-threat appraisals and approach-avoidance job crafting provides distinct insights to enrich our understanding of the subsequent propositions.

The study contributes to the existing literature by offering a fresh theoretical perspective in relation to organizational change. Integrating cognitive appraisal theory (CAT) and the JD-R model provides a sound theoretical foundation to concurrently examine personal and contextual factors as antecedents to employees’ behavioral activation and reactions to change. Beyond this, it also illustrates the linking mechanism or processes that adequately explain how and why change-related predictors affect both active and passive modes of behavioral activation (i.e., approach-avoidance job crafting) and lead the ways to frame behavioral support for change.

Taken altogether, the study specifically aims to accomplish the following research objectives:

i) To examine individuals’ challenge-threat appraisals of change as predictors of change-supportive behavior.

ii) To investigate the intervening role of approach-avoidance job crafting in the relationship between individuals’ challenge-threat appraisals and change-supportive behavior.

iii) To assess the buffering effect of hope on the path between challenge-threat appraisals and approach-avoidance job crafting.

2 Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development

2.1 Challenge-threat appraisals and effect on change-supportive behavior

Change interventions, such as organizational restructuring, the adoption of new technologies, or fine-tuning of processes and procedures, are usually carried out to help organizations become more compatible with socio-economic or technological fluctuations. Individuals generally perceive them as a disruption to their already-established work practices and routines, thus making them stressful events (Fedor et al., 2006; Jimmieson et al., 2004). Many researchers have concluded that individuals are typically predisposed to react in specific ways when they experience change (Vakola et al., 2013). For example, some individuals welcome change, appraising it as an opportunity to benefit themselves and improve their status, while others view it as a threat because it inhibits them from continuing their work routines, consequently fostering a negative attitude towards it (Judge et al., 1999).

Appraisals of and responses to stressful situations may vary depending on the individual’s set of characteristics, which “[...] determines what is salient for well-being, shapes the person’s understanding of the event, and in consequence his or her emotions and coping efforts, and provides the basis for evaluating outcome” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 55). Gomes (2014) argued that during a stressful situation, individuals assess the significance of the subsequent event for their well-being and only those events considered relevant that can induce stress or strain or result in a personal growth experience. Appraised or evaluated person-situation transactions, and the meaning derived (i.e., challenging or threatening) from the particular interaction, consequently influence individuals’ cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions (Lazarus, 1991).

Change-related appraisals are the perceptions whereby employees ascribe meaning to an organizational change, and as such whether the change under consideration is positive for them and provides likely future gains (challenge appraisal), or it is negative and may produce possible future losses (threat appraisal) (Fugate & Soenen, 2018; Kaltiainen et al., 2020; Rafferty & Restubog, 2017). These appraisals constitute a broader array of work elements that are often affected by the organizational change, namely: pay and benefits, relationships with co-workers and supervisors, job stability, job opportunities at the current employer, the desirability of one’s job, and general working conditions (Fugate et al., 2008). They also proliferate into people’s positive attitudes towards change as such by increasing their perceived ability and control to overcome obstacles as well as realizing the potential for opportunities and growth in the face of organizational change (Fugate & Soenen, 2018). Therefore, subsequent contrasting forms of cognitive appraisals provide distinctive insights into individuals’ perceptions of and reactions to organizational change (Rafferty & Restubog, 2017), and allow researchers to simultaneously examine positive (challenge) and negative (threat) cognitive reactions in response to organizational change (Fugate & Soenen, 2018).

In support of the views, previous studies have also empirically validated this line of argument that employees appraise change either as challenging or threatening to their well-being (Fugate et al., 2008, 2011, 2012). They may appraise it as threatening in a sense that there is usually much at stake (i.e., losing their job, status, income) for the individuals involved in the change process. Consequently, the threat or fear posed by the prospective change seems relatively high compared to the potential gains or benefits (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In response, employees may engage in negatively inclined attitudes and behaviors such as turnover intentions, intentions to quit, and voluntary turnover (Biggane et al., 2017; Fugate et al., 2011, 2012; Rafferty & Restubog, 2017). However, on a positive note, organizational change has also been appraised as positive and challenging in prior research, leading to positive employee outcomes such as work engagement (Kaltiainen et al., 2020), cooperation, and championing behavior to change (Fugate & Soenen, 2018). Individuals who expect change to bring positive outcomes are more likely to appraise change as challenging, have support intentions, and be motivated to demonstrate positive behaviors.

Thus, the preceding review of the literature leads us to the following hypotheses:

H1a: Challenge appraisal is positively related to employees’ change-supportive behavior.

H1b: Threat appraisal is negatively related to employees’ change-supportive behavior.

2.2 Job Crafting and Job Demands-Resources Theory (JD-R) as explanatory mechanisms to inculcate change-supportive behavior

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001, p. 179) defined job crafting as “[...] physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work and the action employees take to shape, mold, and redefine their jobs”. They further stated that job crafting is a kind of self-initiated behavior that an individual utilizes to (re)appraise the task, change their identity at work, and make it more meaningful to improve their fit with the job, which leads to greater satisfaction and improved performance. Parallel to that, Tims et al. (2012, p. 174) conceptualized job crafting as the “[...] changes that employees may make to balance their job demands and job resources with their abilities and needs”. According to them, employees craft their jobs by regulating the job demands and resources according to their needs. They referred to job crafting as individuals’ self-initiated acts that are inclined to increase “structural resources” (i.e. developing capabilities, looking for task variety, and learning new things), “social resources” (i.e. asking for peer and supervisory feedback), “challenging job demands” (i.e. asking for additional tasks and responsibilities), and decrease hindering job demands (i.e. avoiding the difficult tasks).

Based on the job crafting taxonomy of Tims et al. (2012), Mäkikangas (2018) coined increasing structural job resources, social job resources, and challenging job demands as approach job crafting; whereas categorized decreasing hindering job demands as avoidance-focused job crafting. Both job crafting concepts constitute expansionary and contractionary employee behavior proliferated to change the bottom-up contents and structure of the job (Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2018). Bruning and Campion (2018, p. 501) specified approach job crafting as activities that “[...] are active, effortful, motivated and directed towards problem-focused and improvement-based goals”. They argued that employees who undertake approach crafting tactics usually attempt to increase their job resources and challenging demands to improve their work experiences. Avoidance-focused job crafting, on the other hand, “[...] serves the purpose of evading, reducing, or eliminating part of one’s work” (Bruning & Campion, 2018, p. 501). Individuals who adopt the avoidance-focused crafting strategy strive to concentrate more on the essential or pressing tasks or interactions rather than the tasks or interactions that stimulate stress or any threat (Mäkikangas, 2018).

Prior empirical studies have also indicated job crafting as a useful tool in the face of organizational change (e.g. Petrou et al., 2015, 2018; Walk & Handy, 2018; Wang et al., 2018). According to Petrou et al. (2015), organizational change can be understood as an ambiguous and uncertain situation that does not provide adequate cues about how to effectively respond to the novel situation. It may be viewed as an adverse situation that “[...] contribute(s) to pressure for employees to stay in less than ideal jobs for longer periods of time, making it more likely that employees will need to re-engineer their jobs from within as a way to find increased meaningfulness” (Berg et al., 2013, p. 85). In such circumstances, job crafting becomes vital because it enables and allows new work roles to emerge and in response employees can use it as a tactic to deal with a relatively new and unknown situation (Berg et al., 2010).

Although the approach-focused way of crafting jobs has been found to be instrumental to foster employees’ engagement towards change, avoidance job crafting, on the other hand, can have dysfunctional implications and is considered to be an ineffective means to cope with change (Amiot et al., 2006; Petrou et al., 2018). Minimizing the response to the demanding aspects of a job mentally, emotionally, and physically has been viewed as an unsuccessful strategy to adapt to novel situations (Petrou et al., 2015). For instance, while examining the role of avoidance job crafting (reduced job demands) in determining the adaptivity level among employees, Petrou et al. (2015) found a negative association between avoidance job crafting and adaptivity toward change. A similar result was also reported by Petrou et al. (2018) wherein reducing job demands negatively influences employees’ work engagement during organizational change.

However, in a meta-analytical review of job crafting, Rudolph et al. (2017) found either a weak negative or insignificant association when the studies were supplemented with strong and positive individual states as a stimulus to the outcome variables. According to them, a high level of growth-oriented focus and a proactive personality direct more attention to the approach-focused perspective to job crafting via increasing structural and social resources and challenging job demands than decreasing hindering job demands. They thereby made this path less relevant and persuasive to adopt and consequently failed to establish such relationships. Consistent with the premise, previous studies have also empirically supported and endorsed this line of argument whereby they found no association between reducing job demands (avoidance job crafting) and associated job outcomes (Meijerink et al., 2020; Tims et al., 2015). Taking account of the inconsistency, this study thereby seeks to understand such anomalies by examining the dual-focused line of actions (approach-avoidance job crafting), together with employees’ dual-focused appraisals (challenge-threat) of change as potential antecedents.

Taken together, the contending paths and processes (i.e., challenge/threat appraisals and approach/avoidance job crafting) of employees’ perceptions and response to organizational change thoroughly underpinned the postulates of JD-R theory, which categorized job characteristics into job demands and resources (e.g., Demerouti et al., 2001). These two categories (demands and resources) of job characteristics evoke two distinct processes: “job strain” and “motivational” processes as proposed by Bakker and Demerouti (2014). According to the theory, the “strain process” is a state of high job demand, which requires employees’ sustained efforts and may exhaust their energetic resources, leading to health problems, poor performance, and low work engagement. By contrast, the “motivational process” focuses on the availability of job resources that encompass a high level of motivational potential and lead to positive job outcomes such as superior performance and extra role behaviors.

The corresponding activation of strain and motivational pathways is central to the challenge-threat appraisals. Threat appraisal, for example, induces negative feelings, inhibits personal growth, and promotes passive coping strategies to overcome stressful situations (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). By impairing goal attainment, people’s evaluation that the job demands associated with the change are high contribute to adverse work outcomes by fueling the strain process (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Consequently, the individuals’ difficulties in accomplishing their task goals may lead them to withdraw from their work to avoid disappointments and failures (Schneider et al., 2017). Lichtenthaler and Fischbach (2016) viewed this mechanism as a contraction-oriented activation by individuals who anticipate the work situation as strenuous, anticipate nonfulfillment pain, and lose energy and safety and security. In this vein, individuals tend to disengage themselves from the following stressful situation rather than confronting it (Dehue et al., 2012). In support of the view, Petrou et al. (2018) also noted that individuals’ appraisal regarding poor quality (inadequate or inappropriate) change communication is likely to threaten employees well-being and could entice them to adopt a coping-based crafting behavior (i.e. avoidance-focused) to deal with the anticipated situation.

On the other hand, challenge appraisals carry perceptions regarding opportunities for learning and personal growth, thus prompting individuals to learn new things and motivating them to use new behaviors on the job (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Consequently, employees are likely to enrich or expand their work characteristics via a “motivational process” rather than contracting them to avoid any failure or resource loss (Wang et al., 2018). According to Crawford et al. (2010, p. 837),

individuals should be more willing to invest themselves in response to challenging demands because they are likely to feel more confident and secure that expanding their effort will allow them to successfully meet these demands, and they are likely to see the opportunity for growth or gain achieved by meeting them as meaningful and desirable.

Le Blanc et al. (2017) also endorsed this assumption and commented that employees are more likely to seek challenging tasks and actively engage in a job that is high in demands as such to promote and improve their mastery and learning. In other words, during demanding and challenging aspects of the job such as work pressure and task complexity that emerge during times of organizational change, approach job crafting can be used as an effective and positive coping strategy to deal with the novel situation and new developments at work.

This implies that individuals who perceive a high degree of ability and control over the situation (they appraise change as challenging) show greater levels of enthusiasm, planning, and organization regarding their work roles (Zee & Koomen, 2016), and are more willing to try out new approaches to better meet the challenging job demands (Coladarci, 1992). They generally tend to display high levels of self-initiative, overcoming barriers, identifying opportunities, and persevering in their efforts until they reach their projected goals (Zhang, 2020). However, extended exposure to a high degree of job demands with inadequate personal abilities and control may thwart their efforts and lead them to withdrawal in all aspects of the job demands, mentally, emotionally, and physically (Ingusci et al., 2019). In other words, individuals change their work role perceptions and boundaries as a way to avoid negative experiences, events, and possible losses in motivation and performance by decreasing their hindering job demands (Kooij et al., 2017; Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2018).

Following this rationale, the study therefore hypothesizes that:

H2a: Approach job crafting mediates the positive relationship between challenge appraisals and individuals’ change-supportive behavior.

H2b: Approach job crafting mediates the negative relationship between threat appraisals and individuals’ change-supportive behavior.

H3a: Avoidance job crafting mediates the positive relationship between challenge appraisals and individuals’ change-supportive behavior.

H3b: Avoidance job crafting mediates the negative relationship between threat appraisals and individuals’ change-supportive behavior.

2.3 Moderating role of hope

Hope refers to “[...] a positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful (1) agency (goal-directed energy) and (2) pathways (planning to meet goals)” (Synder et al., 1991, p. 287). Synder et al. (1991) argued that agency thinking (will-power) is reciprocally associated with pathway thinking (way-power), which reflects people’s ability to take viable routes to reach their desired end or goals. It is people’s ability to adopt specific pathways to accomplish a task or goal (Avey et al., 2008; Snyder, 2002). Agency thinking “[...] takes on special significance when people encounter impediments. During such blockages, agency helps people to channel the requisite motivation to the best alternative pathway” (Snyder, 2002, p. 251). Hope, therefore, underpins individuals’ attitudes and behaviors in their social life and workplace (Kenny et al., 2010), and plays a significant role in influencing their level of commitment, job performance, career growth, and work engagement (Bouckenooghe et al., 2019; Hirschi et al., 2015; Kang & Jang, 2019; Karatepe, 2014; Lin et al., 2016).

The study employed JD-R theory to explain the moderating role of hope in the relationship between employees’ change-related challenge-threat appraisals and approach-avoidance job crafting behaviors. According to the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), personal or job resources mitigate the negative impact of high job demands by enhancing the belief that employees have adequate abilities to deal with the increasing job demands successfully. In turn, this study proposes that the effect of employees’ challenge-threat appraisals regarding change on approach-avoidance job crafting is moderated by hope. Individuals with high levels of hope are more capable of seeking alternative ways to overcome obstacles and are motivated to exercise the most viable approach (Karatepe, 2014). Since hopeful people are goal-directed and proactively use alternative means to accomplish tasks and reach their goals (Paterson et al., 2014), they feel psychologically stronger and energetic to develop attitudes that promote learning (Nawaz et al., 2020). According to Carton (2018), hope enhances one’s job engagement because emotional energy enriches the psychological meaningfulness of the goal to pursue, which fosters job engagement. On the other hand, employees with a low degree of hope cultivate a negative emotional state, leading them to avert their efforts and energy from task-based motivation to negative feelings such as “I’m not doing very well” (Snyder, 2002). It reduces people’s work engagement and leads them to low task performance (Ozyilmaz, 2020).

In this regard, the study argues that higher levels of hope likely motivate individuals to increase their approach repertoire of job crafting by increasing structural and social job resources and challenging job demands as a suitable strategy to manage the adverse implications imposed in the shape of organizational change. In that sense, the relationship between challenge-appraisal and approach job crafting may increase further. The association may become more assertive if employees possess a high amount of hope resources. Similarly, the study also proposes that employees found to have high levels of hope may also dampen the positive association between threat appraisals and the avoidance-based strategy of job crafting. Hence, we propose that:

H4a: Hope moderates the relationship between challenge appraisals and approach job crafting in such a way that the positive relationship will be stronger for individuals with higher levels of hope than those with low levels of hope.

H4b: Hope moderates the relationship between threat appraisal and avoidance job crafting in such a way that the positive relationship will be weaker for individuals with higher levels of hope than those with low levels of hope.

3 Research Model

4 Methodology

The data were collected through questionnaires from the employees of one of the leading banks in Pakistan (MCB). To bring in integrity, innovation, excellence, customer centrality, and respect in its operations and services, MCB made structural changes in the technology infrastructure and shifted its core banking system to the latest banking operations and solutions (AMBIT). This enables bank branches to improve customer management, consumer lending, international payments, credit management, and general ledgers (PressReader, 2014). Consequently, the bank branches underwent frequent timeouts and operational issues, putting enormous pressure on their employees and customers to maintain quality service delivery. Because any complex alterations also bring about change to the perceptions and orientation of individuals, in this regard, the study aims to uncover the banking staff’s perceptions regarding the demands imposed by this change and how they incorporated these changes into their resources, jobs, relationships, and demands to manifest support toward the new initiatives.

The data used in this study covered banking staff from 25 pooled branches of MCB located across Pakistan. Direct means were used and the respondents were asked for their participation in the study. We distributed 350 questionnaires and collected 211 in return, constituting a response rate of 62%. After removing cases that were found to be either incomplete or invalid, the final sample size was 203. In the corresponding sample, 84% of the respondents were male; about 47% of them were between 26 and 35 years old; while 34% had from 5 to 10 years of work experience, comprising the highest bracket.

4.1 Measures

The questionnaire comprised two facets of cognitive appraisal called challenge and threat appraisals; two broader but contending perspectives of JC called APJC and AVJC, and a uni-dimensional view of hope and CSB.

Challenge and threat appraisals were measured using 13 item scales. Seven items were used to measure change-related employees’ threat appraisal, which entails a broader array of work constituents often affected by organizational change, comprising: pay and benefits, relationships with co-workers and supervisor, job stability, job opportunities at the current employer, the desirability of one’s job, and general working conditions (Fugate et al., 2008). The participants were asked questions such as “Due to the changes, to what extent do you feel each of the following is threatened?” The participants indicated their perceived threat on a continuum ranging from “1 = not at all threatened, to 5 = threatened to a great extent.” The coefficient alpha for the scale was 0.89.

Challenge appraisal was measured using the six-item scale developed by Fugate and Soenen (2018). It is based on various positively oriented employees’ perceptions regarding the change such as “perceived ability to perform in the context of change” and “perceived ability to overcome obstacles and realize opportunities due to the changes.” The participants were asked to indicate the degree of their agreement to each item on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.81. A sample item was “I see the changes as a challenge.”

Job crafting was assessed with the job crafting scale (JCS) developed by Tims et al. (2012). The measure consisted of four subscales i.e., increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources, increasing challenging job demands, and decreasing hindering job demands. These four subscales were categorized into two composite subscales, namely APJC (i.e., increasing structural resources, increasing social resources, and increasing challenging job demands) and avoidance-focused job crafting (i.e., decreasing hindering job demands), accordingly to the empirical work, reviews, and recommendations by scholars (Bruning & Campion, 2018; Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2018; Mäkikangas, 2018; Zhang & Parker, 2019). The JCS contained 21 items, whereby APJC comprised 15 items, five items each for the “increasing structural job resources,” “increasing social job resources,” and “increasing challenging job demands” subscales. In contrast, AVJC constituted six items representing the “decreasing hindering job demands” subscale. Each item was measured on a five-point frequency scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = very often. The reliability statistics for all four subscales were reported to be above the minimum acceptance level of α = 0.70 (Tims et al., 2012). Sample items include “I try to learn new things at work,” “I ask my manager to coach me,” “I try to make my work more challenging by examining the underlying relationships between aspects of my job,” and “I try to ensure that I do not have to make many difficult decisions at work.”

Hope was measured using a six-item scale developed by Snyder et al. (1996). Sample items include “At present, I am energetically pursuing my work goals.” The responses were rated using a five-point Likert scale, which ranged from 1 = definitely false to 5 = definitely true. The scale’s alpha coefficient was 0.86.

Change-supportive behavior was measured using a three-item scale developed by Kim et al. (2011). One sample item is “I have discussed the issues with co-workers regarding the change initiative.” The Cronbach’s $\alpha$ coefficient of the scale was α = 0.85. A five-point scale ranging from “1 = not at all to 5 = to a very great extent” was used for each item.

4.2 Results

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to determine the quality of the proposed measurement model. The result presented in Table 1 shows that the proposed measurement model yielded a good fit to the retrieved data (CMIN/df/p = 1.45(754), p < 0.000; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.05). It also demonstrates that the study’s measurement model outperforms the other alternative and plausible models. After assessing the model fit indices, the study’s constructs were examined for the reliability and validity assessment. Construct reliability was measured using composite reliability (CR) statistics as shown in Table 2. The value is considered reliable when it is above 0.70 (Hair et al., 2010). Accordingly, the reliability values found were in the range between 0.83 and 0.92, which is above the acceptable level recommended. Likewise, the construct validity of the measures was assessed in terms of convergent and discriminant validity. Convergent validity primarily concerns examining whether the items share the highest proportion of variance under the tagged construct, whereas discriminant validity would be established if each construct is distinct from the other variables with regards to explaining variance for the criterion variable (Hair et al., 2010). For convergent validity, the ideal values should be more than 0.70 and 0.50 for composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE), respectively. Accordingly, the convergent validity statistics found were within the acceptable range, as shown in Table 2. To confirm discriminant validity, the values also fall within the acceptable range, whereby the AVE should be greater than the maximum shared variance (MSV), as presented in Table 2.

Table 1
Comparison of the Measurement Model Fit Indices

Model Summary	CMIN/df/p	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
Model 1 (One factor solution) a	4.78/779/000	0.36	0.32	0.14
Model 2 (Two factor solution) b	4.55/778/000	0.4	0.36	0.13
Model 3 (Three factor solution) c	3.90/776/000	0.51	0.48	0.14
Model 4 (Four factor solution) d	3.48/774/000	0.58	0.55	0.11
Model 5 (Five factor solution) e	2.48/770/000	0.77	0.74	0.08
Model 6 (Six factor Solution) f	1.85/765/000	0.86	0.85	0.07
Modified Measurement Model g	1.45/754/000	0.93	0.92	0.05

• ^a
  One factor solution = all items loaded on CSB; ^bTwo factor solution= items loaded on CA & CSB; ^cThree factor solution = items loaded CA, TA and CSB; ^dFour factor solution = items loaded on CA, TA, HOPE and CSB; ^eFive factor solution = items loaded on CA, TA, HOPE, APJC and CSB; ^fSix factor solution = Items loaded on CA, TA, HOPE, APJC, AVJC and CSB; ^gModified Model = After sharing error co-variances.
• Note: CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root-Mean Square Error of Approximation.

Table 2
Reliability and Validity Statistics

	CR	AVE	MSV
Challenge Appraisal	0.83	0.50	0.19
Threat Appraisal	0.87	0.51	0.11
Approach Job Craftingπ	0.84	0.64	0.29
Avoidance Job Crafting	0.85	0.54	0.13
Hope	0.92	0.70	0.15
Change Supportive Behavior	0.85	0.65	0.29

• ^π
  Based on Second Order CFA.
• Threshold level to establish composite reliability, convergent and discriminant validity is: Composite Reliability: > 0.70; Convergent Validity: CR > 0.70 and AVE > 0.50; Discriminant Validity: MSV < AVE.
• Note: CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Explained; MSV = Maximum Shared Variance.

Table 3 provides the summary of means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlation of the proposed constructs. As expected and hypothesized, the majority of the test statistics were found to be in line with the proposed framework and the directions were as predicted. These results make us confident that the directionality of our proposed hypothesis is appropriate.

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Zero-order Correlations

		Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1	CA	3.41	0.85
2	TA	3.01	0.82	-0.13
3	APJC	3.50	0.78	0.34**	-0.30**
4	AVJC	3.11	0.96	-0.26**	0.24**	-0.30**
5	HOP	3.48	1.00	0.26**	-0.23**	0.28**	-0.28**
6	CSB	3.61	0.77	0.28**	-0.23**	0.42**	-0.31**	0.22**

• N = 203.
• ^**
  p < .05.
• Note: CA = Challenge appraisal; TA = Threat appraisal; APJC = Approach-focused job crafting; AVJC = Avoidance-focused job crafting; HOP = Hope; CSB = Change Supportive Behavior.

Hierarchical regression analysis (HRA) was conducted to test our hypotheses H1a and H1b. H1a is concerned with the positive effect of challenge appraisal on change-supportive behavior. The result indicated that challenge appraisal positively predicted change-supportive behavior (CSB <--- CA: β = 0.25; p < 0.05). This provides support for our proposed hypothesis H1a. Furthermore, hypothesis H1b concerns the negative effects of threat appraisal on change-supportive behavior. The result revealed threat appraisal negatively predicted change-supportive behavior (CSB <--- TA: β = -0.20; p < 0.05). Hence, the findings were consistent with our hypothesis H1b (see Table 4).

Table 4
Hierarchical Regression Results

Variable	Model 1: CSB	R2		Model 2: APJC		R2		Model 3: AVJC		R2		Model 4: CSB		R2		Model 5: CSB		R2
Direct Models
CA	0.25**			0.31**				-0.24**
TA	-0.20*			-0.25**				0.22**
		0.12				0.19				0.12
APJC												0.36**
AVJC												-0.20**
														0.21
Mediated Models
CA-APJC																0.32**		0.21
CA-AVJC																-0.18*
TA-APJC																0.33**		0.22
TA-AVJC																-0.19*
Moderated Models
CA*HOP				0.17*		0.18
TA*HOP								0.07		0.21

• ^**
  p < .01; *p <.05.
• Note: CA = Challenge appraisal; TA = Threat appraisal; APJC = Approach-focused job crafting; AVJC = Avoidance-focused job crafting; HOP = Hope; CSB = Change Supportive Behavior.

Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b concern the mediating effects of challenge-threat appraisal on change-supportive behavior through approach-avoidance job crafting. The preliminary results of the regression estimates indicated that challenge appraisal to approach job crafting (APJC <--- CA: β = 0.31; p < 0.01) as well as approach job crafting to change-supportive behavior (CSB <--- APJC: β = 0.36; p < 0.01) were found to be significant in their corresponding relationships. Moreover, the co-efficient estimates were also found significant between threat appraisal and avoidance job crafting (AVJC <--- TA: β = 0.22; p < 0.01), and avoidance job crafting and change-supportive behavior (CSB <--- AVJC: β = -0.20; p < 0.01), as shown in Table 4. Thus, the initial regression results confirm that our hypothetical indirect path from challenge and threat appraisal to change-supportive behavior might be facilitated via approach-avoidance dimensions of job crafting.

The mediation analysis was carried out using the PROCESS macro by Hayes (2013). The mediation results showed a significant indirect effect of challenge appraisal on change-supportive behavior through approach job crafting (CSB <-- APJC <--- CA: β = 0.11; SE = 0.04; LLCI = 0.05; ULCI = 0.20) and avoidance job crafting (CSB <---AVJC <--- CA: β = 0.05; SE = 0.02; LLCI = 0.01; ULCI = 0.11). This favors our hypotheses H2a and H2b. Moreover, the direct effect of challenge appraisal on change-supportive behavior was also found insignificant, indicating that both approach and avoidance job crafting fully mediate the hypothesized relationships. Similarly, the results found are also consistent with our hypothesis H3a (CSB <--- APJC <--- TA: β = -0.10; SE = 0.03; LLCI = -0.17; ULCI = -0.05), which states that approach job crafting significantly intervenes in the relationship between threat appraisal and CSB. Similarly, the mediation results were also found in line with our hypothesis H3b (CSB <-- AVJC <--- TA: β = -0.05; SE = 0.02; LLCI = -0.09; ULCI = -0.01). It was also revealed that both approach and avoidance job crafting fully mediate the indirect path between threat appraisal and change-supportive behavior. See Table 5 for the total, direct, and indirect effects.

Table 5
Analysis of Total, Direct and Indirect Effects

Relationships	CSB
			BC 95% CI
	Estimates	SE	Lower	Upper
Total effect of CA on CSB	0.28	0.07	0.15	0.43
Direct Effect of CA on CSB	0.12	0.07	-0.01	0.26
Indirect Effect of CA on CSB via APJC	0.11	0.04	0.05	0.20
Indirect Effect of CA on CSB via AVJC	0.05	0.02	0.01	0.11
Total effect of TA on CSB	-0.23	0.07	-0.37	-0.10
Direct Effect of TA on CSB	-0.08	0.07	-0.22	0.05
Indirect Effect of TA on CSB via APJC	-0.10	0.03	-0.17	-0.05
Indirect Effect of TA on CSB via AVJC	-0.05	0.02	-0.09	-0.01

• Note: CSB = Change Supportive Behavior; CA = Challenge appraisal; TA = Threat appraisal; APJC = Approach-focused job crafting; AVJC = Avoidance-focused job crafting; BC = Bias corrected (5,000 bootstrapping samples); CI = Confidence interval; SE = Standard error.

Furthermore, as hypothesized, the results revealed that employee hope significantly moderates and strengthens the positive relationship between challenge appraisal and approach job crafting (APJC <--- CA_x_HOP: β = 0.17; p < 0.05). Figure 1 confirms the hypothesized effect and direction of the proposed relationship, where the relationship gets stronger when the employees have high levels of hope. This supports our hypothesis H4a. However, against our expectations, employee hope did not significantly moderate the relationship between threat appraisal and avoidance-focused job crafting. Hence, it appears that people’s hope may be the significant boundary condition in the positive relationship between challenge appraisal and approach job crafting rather than between threat appraisal and avoidance job crafting (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Moderation Analysis

5 Discussion

This study’s primary aim was to examine the role of challenge-threat appraisals as the antecedents that bring about people’s change-supportive behavior and identify the mechanisms through which challenge-threat appraisals translate into change-supportive behavior. Our results extend the previous theory and research on change-supportive behavior and validate the “challenge appraisal, approach job crafting, and hope” paths as positive and leading to change-supportive behavior. Drawing on CAT and JD-R theory, the study captures the change-specific context and individual differences to increase our understanding of employees’ behavioral responses to change. By establishing two parallel but distinct mechanisms, the findings of the study highlight the reinforcement role that personal and contextual factors play in connection to people’s reactions to change (Fugate & Soenen, 2018; Oreg et al., 2011, 2018; Walk & Handy, 2018). Our findings imply that a challenging and demanding work environment can be more responsive and appealing for individuals to exhibit change-supportive behavior. In contrast, a strenuous work environment can have adverse effects on people’s drive to manifest their support for change.

The study finds challenge-threat appraisals to be predictors of change-supportive behavior. However, that direct link to change-supportive behavior became insignificant when the active-passive mechanism in the form of job crafting came under examination. Given that approach-avoidance job crafting captures more variance in explaining people’s behavioral support for change, engaging in these efforts could be more demanding for employees to support the implications of change. The findings also demonstrate that in a state of high-impact change whereby the situations are beyond employees’ control (e.g., job demands are too high or threatening) and elevate the high degree of strain (Petrou et al., 2018), individuals likely respond by protecting themselves by reducing job demands (i.e., avoidance job crafting).

Mäkikangas (2018) entitled such job crafters as “passive,” referring to those who are usually involved in decreasing their hindering job demands and do not strive to increase their repertoire of job resources and challenging job demands in stressful circumstances. As a result, such practices may reduce people’s effectiveness and opportunity to craft their work environment to improve their performance and well-being (Boehnlein & Baum, 2020). Therefore, avoiding subsequent demands imposed by the change uncovers individuals’ emotions-focused coping mechanisms, which are primarily considered as an unsuccessful strategy to adapt to organizational change (Petrou et al., 2018). The findings are consistent with the previous research showing a significant negative association between avoidance job crafting and change-oriented outcomes (Petrou et al., 2015, 2017, 2018). Avoidance job crafting has largely displayed a weak negative association in prior research, and its spurious nature might cause insignificance to emerge during statistical analysis, as identified by some scholars (Meijerink et al., 2020; Rudolph et al., 2017; Tims et al., 2015). However, it all depends on the interlinking patterns between the constructs and context of the study.

Employees’ appraisals of change as challenging, on the other hand, can lead to approach job crafting as it provides them with the opportunity for growth to be exploited. For them, openness to changing situations and embracing new experiences is self-enhancing (Petrou et al., 2018). Individuals respond by being more prone to adopting an approach-focused job redesign strategy to enhance themselves and improve their performance, as substantiated in this study.

Moreover, the diffusion of challenge-threat appraisals to organizational outcomes through the approach-avoidance taxonomy of job crafting is extensively portrayed by the JD-R’s motivational-strain dictum. It also reflects the two appraisal processes that occur during change: i) primary appraisal, whereby individuals assess whether the situation under consideration is challenging or threatening; and ii) secondary appraisal, which represents individuals’ evaluation of the availability of coping resources and their ability to manage the demands of that particular stressful event (Lazarus, 1991). When individuals perceive that they have adequate resources and abilities to manage the demanding situation and have sufficient control over the stressful event, they can better adapt to the stressful job demands (Gomes et al., 2016; Schellenberg et al., 2016). Approach-avoidance job crafting provides that coping mechanism whereby employees adjust to the changing context accordingly.

Consistently with the JD-R theory, the study found partial support for our moderation hypothesis. The study hypothesized that the relationship between challenge-threat appraisals and approach-avoidance job crafting is contingent on individual differences concerning the level of hope. Specifically, the results suggest that a high level of hope can strengthen the positive relationship between challenge appraisal and approach job crafting. For individuals with high degree of hope, the positive impact stimulated by their appraisal of change as challenging is more salient. However, it failed to significantly buffer the effects of threat appraisal on avoidance job crafting. The possible interpretation of this is that, due to threat appraisal, perceived competence and self-belief to recognize opportunities become weakened or perceived job demands surpass the personal resources and thus entice individuals to engage in passive coping tactics. The finding thus in some ways contradicts the previous studies that argue that personal resources play a crucial role in mitigating the detrimental effects of stressful or high job demand events on job outcomes (Converso et al., 2018; Kang & Jang, 2019; Rhee et al., 2017).

Nevertheless, the findings on the moderating role of hope advance our understanding of the boundary conditions of the positive role of hope in further consolidating the positive impact of challenge appraisal on approach job crafting. It is somewhat comparable with the line of assumptions postulated in the conservation of resources theory (COR), which ascertains the preservation and attainment of resources as a prime human motivation to achieve the desired ends (Hobfoll, 2002). Resources are valuable to employees, who strive to acquire and keep them, even giving up or using some resources to gain or keep others (Hobfoll, 1989). This resource investment phenomenon has been termed as a “gain spiral” in COR theory, wherein a positive reciprocal association occurs between positively oriented individual states (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). In that particular means of resource investment, the resources move together in “resource caravans” and can be utilized to gain or build other resources (gain spirals). In light of COR (gain spirals), hope can function as a source of personal resource or positive individual state upon which the employees accrue further resources through job crafting (i.e., increasing structural, social, and challenge resources).

To put this differently, the hope resource accumulates further resources through the resource gain strategy to approach job crafting. Consequently, hope has moderating effects on a subsequent positive gain spiral as predicted in the hypotheses, thereby further strengthening the examined relationship between challenge appraisal and approach job crafting to substantiate its relevance. However, hope is a personal resource, and the findings delineated its limited effect in alleviating the positive interplay of threat appraisal and avoidance job crafting as loss spiral, thereby advocating the point that organizations should have a mix of resources to effectively manage high job demands (Hobfoll, 2011, 2014).

In brief, the findings provide support to our hypotheses H1a and H1b concerning the direct paths between challenge-threat appraisals and change supportive behavior. Likewise, regarding hypotheses H2a, H2b, H3a, and H3b, examining approach-avoidance job crafting as a mediator between the direct paths also substantiated its relevance to the proposed context of the study. In addition, hypotheses H4b involved testing the moderating influence of hope on the link between challenge appraisals and approach job crafting, which also validated its implications in favor of the study objectives.

In conjunction with the findings, the study contributes to the existing body of literature on organizational change by bringing together the diverse and differential mechanisms to better understand the complexity of change. It adequately incorporated the avenues of research on organizational change by simultaneously examining both personal and contextual factors, activation phenomenon, and dual perspectives to unfold behavioral support for change. It unveils that individuals not only react positively or negatively to organizational change but can respond actively or passively to deal with the change, whereby they engage in approach-avoidance job crafting behaviors to shape their changing work environment as they deem necessary.

Furthermore, the result also revealed an adequate change-supportive behavior (mean = 3.61) demonstrated by the banking staff. The support for change in response to the bank’s technology infrastructure upgrade (i.e., AMBIT) found obvious. Consequently, since its implementation, the bank has experienced enormous growth in financial and non-financial performance. For instance, according to the bank’s 2018 annual report, the bank added over three million customers with an average compound annual growth rate of 10.93%. Deposits and market share were twice as high as in 2013. This suggests that the subsequent change initiative (i.e., technology infrastructure upgrade via AMBIT) has had successful implications. Successful interventions primarily depend on individuals’ acceptance and support for change, hence we can assume that the employees’ positive orientation led the bank to make a successful turnaround in the context of the change initiative.

5.1 Study implications

Regarding the implications, the findings of the study argue that individuals’ desirable responses in terms of approach job crafting and change-supportive behavior could be promoted if their change-related challenge appraisals along with personal resources (i.e., hope) are increased. By enhancing challenge appraisals we mean the individuals should view change as a challenge, having control over the outcomes, being able to overcome the hindrances, and having adequate opportunities to learn, grow, and flourish. Change-related threat appraisal such as anticipation of loss of one’s job stability, pay, benefits, status, and relationships, on the other hand, might have direct or indirect negative repercussions on employees’ response to organizational change. Therefore, employees’ favorable responses to organizational change should be improved by top management efforts to enhance employees’ repertoire of hope and challenge appraisals and decrease hindrances that entail resource loss and ultimately lead to avoidance or withdrawal responses to change.

One of the possible ways managers can make this happen is if they offer individuals adequate leverage to determine which task is completed and what particular way leads to engagement at work (Bakker & Oerlemans, 2019). To put it differently, managers should encourage change recipients to seek and engage in approach job crafting and discourage them from being involved in avoidance job crafting (Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2018). Job crafting interventions can be a suitable strategy to nurture approach job crafting at work (as suggested by Van den Heuvel et al., 2015), whereby the employees learn how to optimize their job demands (i.e., make it challenging or exciting) and resources (increasing structural and social resources) to take corrective actions in their job accordingly (Bakker & Oerlemans, 2019).

It is essential for the individuals to hold a complementary view about the change (Oreg et al., 2011, 2018). This particular change-supportive stance cannot be nurtured once the individuals perceive a potential imbalance in the demand-resource mix. Moreover, the job crafting approach in particular has been identified as a meaningful coping strategy and has positive implications during a changing context. It is mainly found to be useful in translating change-related perceptions into desired behaviors. Therefore, employees should be encouraged to engage in approach job crafting behaviors, whereas avoidance job crafting should be avoided via strategies that better help in undermining high job demands.

5.2 Limitations and future research

Despite the theoretical contribution and managerial implications, the findings of the study should be understood with limitations and taken with caution. First, the cross-sectional research design and single-source data limit our claim of causal inferences reported in the tested model. Although, our model was developed with the support of extant empirical and theoretical literary work, and our findings to a greater extent confirmed the proposed causality directions. Nonetheless, further research should employ experimental or longitudinal designs to test the proposed causality, and rigorously confirm this relational pattern.

Second, self-reported data make sense for our study as the collected variables could be better reported by the employees (S. Kim et al., 2013). Thus, using a time lag survey strategy (longitudinal) may undermine the common method bias issues, whereby challenge-threat appraisals and job crafting should be collected at different times, such as one to three months before or later than the change supportive variable. Another possible and effective option would be to collect the change-supportive behavior data from bank branch heads or reporting managers. This would help minimize common method bias and objectively provide rigorous datasets for future analysis. Although the Harman single factor test negates the presence of any common method variance in the dataset, single-source data are still a matter of significant concern that needs to be addressed (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Third, the research context and study population also impose certain limitations on our study. While the objective of the study was to address the issues concerning challenge-threat appraisals, hope, job crafting, and change-supportive behavior in a leading Pakistani bank, this limits the generalizability of the study findings to other study contexts (i.e., whether or not the findings apply to another research context too). In view of this, more research is needed in various institutional or sectorial contexts along with cultural dynamics to provide robust theoretical and empirical support for our framework. This can be achieved through cross-cultural, cross-institutional comparative research designs. Furthermore, the moderating role of culture may also be used to better explore this framework in future studies to validate our study findings and observe some interesting patterns. Moreover, contrary to the theoretical propositions of JD-R theory, the result failed to support the moderating role of hope in buffering the negative implications of high job demands (i.e., TA to AVJC path). This result is surprising and needs to be examined and discussed further in future studies.

Finally, the study did not use organizational performance as a direct success factor but rather it made use of macro facts (i.e. increase in growth rate, customers, and market share) as a proxy to associate its relevance with the context. Although the findings are found to be consistent with prior studies that state individuals’ support is key to the success of organizational change, the direct link determining whether that support leads to the ultimate outcome was missing. Therefore, future studies could further examine organizational performance in relation to behavioral support for change as a direct and objective indicator to gauge the propensity of success at the organizational level.

6 Conclusion

The study has empirically validated the effects of challenge-threat appraisals on subsequent change-supportive behaviors by examining them through two distinct mechanisms based on the JD-R model. The study particularly explains the possible differential effects of challenge-threat appraisals on job outcomes via the approach-avoidance nomenclature. Challenge appraisals and hope are likely to help individuals improve their motivational states, thereby leading to desirable work behaviors. Threat appraisals, in contrast, are more likely to increase strain and thereby inhibit the desired work outcomes. Our theoretical assimilation provides the micro-foundations and dynamics during organizational change to ensure significant change management practices overall.

• Evaluation process:

  Double Blind Review
• How to cite: Mehboob, F., Othman, N., Fareed, M., & Raza, A. (2022). Change appraisals and job crafting as a foundation to inculcate support for change: a dual manifestation. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 24(2), p. 207-229. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v24i2.4165

• Financial support:

  There are no funding agencies to report.

• Plagiarism analysis:

  RBGN performs plagiarism analysis on all its articles at the time of submission and after approval of the manuscript using the iThenticate tool.

References

• Alarcon, G. M., Bowling, N. A., & Khazon, S. (2013). Great expectations: A meta-analytic examination of optimism and hope. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(7), 821-827. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.004
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.004
• Amiot, C. E., Terry, D. J., Jimmieson, N. L., & Callan, V. J. (2006). A longitudinal investigation of coping processes during a merger: Implications for job satisfaction and organizational identification. Journal of Management, 32(4), 552-574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206306287542
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206306287542
• Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 48-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886307311470
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886307311470
• Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands‐resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
• Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job demands–resources theory. In P. Y. Chen & C. Cooper (Eds.), Wellbeing: A complete reference guide (p. 1-28). Wiley-Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell019
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell019
• Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273-285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056 PMid:27732008.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
• Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. G. (2019). Daily job crafting and momentary work engagement: A self-determination and self-regulation perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 417-430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.12.005
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.12.005
• Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 133-141, 216. PMid:11183975.
• Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work. In B. J. Dik (Eds.), Purpose and meaning in the workplace (pp. 81-104). American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14183-005
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14183-005
• Berg, J. M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2010). Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2‐3), 158-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.645
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.645
• Biggane, J. E., Allen, D. G., Amis, J., Fugate, M., & Steinbauer, R. (2017). Cognitive appraisal as a mechanism linking negative organizational shocks and intentions to leave. Journal of Change Management, 17(3), 203-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2016.1219379
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2016.1219379
• Boehnlein, P., & Baum, M. (2020). Does job crafting always lead to employee well-being and performance? Meta-analytical evidence on the moderating role of societal culture. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(4), 1-39.
• Bouckenooghe, D., De Clercq, D., & Raja, U. (2019). A person-centered, latent profile analysis of psychological capital. Australian Journal of Management, 44(1), 91-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0312896218775153
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0312896218775153
• Brakman, S., Garretsen, H., Van Marrewijk, C., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2013). Cross‐border merger & acquisition activity and revealed comparative advantage in manufacturing industries. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 22(1), 28-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jems.12007
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jems.12007
• Bruning, P. F., & Campion, M. A. (2018). A role–resource approach-avoidance model of job crafting: A multimethod integration and extension of job crafting theory. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 499-522. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0604
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0604
• Campbell, J. W. (2018). Felt responsibility for change in public organizations: General and sector-specific paths. Public Management Review, 20(2), 232-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1302245
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1302245
• Carton, A. M. (2018). “I’m not mopping the floors, I’m putting a man on the moon”: How NASA leaders enhanced the meaningfulness of work by changing the meaning of work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(2), 323-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0001839217713748
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0001839217713748
• Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 323-337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1992.9943869
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1992.9943869
• Converso, D., Sottimano, I., Guidetti, G., Loera, B., Cortini, M., & Viotti, S. (2018). Aging and work ability: The moderating role of job and personal resources. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2262. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02262 PMid:29367848.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02262
• Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M. (1999). Employee participation and assessment of an organizational change intervention: A three-wave study of total quality management. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(4), 439-456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886399354006
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886399354006
• Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834-848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019364 PMid:20836586.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019364
• Dehue, F., Bolman, C., Vollink, T., & Pouwelse, M. (2012). Cyberbullying and traditional bullying in relation to adolescents’ perception of parenting. Journal of Cyber Therapy and Rehabilitation, 5(1), 25-34. https://research.ou.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/43088996/Dehue_F_Bolman_C_Vollink_T_and_Pouwelse.pdf
  » https://research.ou.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/43088996/Dehue_F_Bolman_C_Vollink_T_and_Pouwelse.pdf
• Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499 PMid:11419809.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
• Fedor, D. B., Caldwell, S., & Herold, D. M. (2006). The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment: A multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 1-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00852.x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00852.x
• Fugate, M. (2012). The impact of leadership, management, and HRM on employee reactions to organizational change. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 31(1), 177-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0742-7301(2012)0000031007
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0742-7301(2012)0000031007
• Fugate, M., & Soenen, G. (2018). Predictors and processes related to employees’ change‐related compliance and championing. Personnel Psychology, 71(1), 109-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/peps.12235
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/peps.12235
• Fugate, M., Harrison, S., & Kinicki, A. J. (2011). Thoughts and feelings about organizational change: A field test of appraisal theory. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4), 421-437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051811416510
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051811416510
• Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Prussia, G. E. (2008). Employee coping with organizational change: An examination of alternative theoretical perspectives and models. Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 1-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00104.x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00104.x
• Fugate, M., Prussia, G. E., & Kinicki, A. J. (2012). Managing employee withdrawal during organizational change: The role of threat appraisal. Journal of Management, 38(3), 890-914. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352881
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352881
• Gomes, A. R. (2014). Positive human functioning in stress situations: An interactive proposal. In A. R. Gomes, R. Resende & A. Albuquerque (Eds.), Positive human functioning from a multidimensional perspective: Promoting stress adaptation (Vol. 1, pp. 165-194). Nova Science.
• Gomes, A. R., Faria, S., & Lopes, H. (2016). Stress and psychological health: Testing the mediating role of cognitive appraisal. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 38(11), 1448-1468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193945916654666 PMid:27330045.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193945916654666
• Grover, V. (1999). From business reengineering to business process change management: A longitudinal study of trends and practices. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 46(1), 36-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/17.740036
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/17.740036
• Haffar, M., Al-Karaghouli, W., Irani, Z., Djebarni, R., & Gbadamosi, G. (2019). The influence of individual readiness for change dimensions on quality management implementation in Algerian manufacturing organisations. International Journal of Production Economics, 207, 247-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.024
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.024
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: International version. Pearson.
• Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
• Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474-487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.474 PMid:12090605.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.474
• Hirschi, A., Abessolo, M., & Froidevaux, A. (2015). Hope as a resource for career exploration: Examining incremental and cross-lagged effects. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 86, 38-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.10.006
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.10.006
• Hobfoll, S. (2014). Resource caravans and resource caravan passageways: A new paradigm for trauma responding. Intervention, 12(S1), 21-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/WTF.0000000000000067
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/WTF.0000000000000067
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. The American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513 PMid:2648906.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
• Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6(4), 307-324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307
• Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 116-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02016.x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02016.x
• Hobfoll, S., & Shirom, A. (2001). Handbook of organizational behavior. (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Ingusci, E., Callea, A., Cortese, C. G., Zito, M., Borgogni, L., Cenciotti, R., Colombo, L., Signore, F., Ciavolino, E., & Demerouti, E. (2019). Self-efficacy and work performance: The role of job crafting in middle-age workers. International Journal of Business and Society, 20(2), 533-551. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuela-Ingusci/publication/334445996
  » https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuela-Ingusci/publication/334445996
• Jacobs, G., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Christe‐Zeyse, J. (2013). A theoretical framework of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(5), 772-792. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-09-2012-0137
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-09-2012-0137
• Jansson, N. (2013). Organizational change as practice: A critical analysis. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(6), 1003-1019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-09-2012-0152
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-09-2012-0152
• Jarrel, T. (2017). Success factors for implementing change at scale. McKinsey & Co Presentation, Behavioral Science & Policy Association.
• Jimmieson, N. L., Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (2004). A longitudinal study of employee adaptation to organizational change: The role of change-related information and change-related self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(1), 11-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.9.1.11 PMid:14700455.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.9.1.11
• Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 107-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.107 PMid:17227155.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.107
• Kaltiainen, J., Lipponen, J., Fugate, M., & Vakola, M. (2020). Spiraling work engagement and change appraisals: A three-wave longitudinal study during organizational change. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 25(4), 244-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000163 PMid:31380661.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000163
• Kang, J., & Jang, J. (2019). What do employees perceive as hindrance or challenge stressors in the hotel industry? The role that hope plays. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 18(3), 299-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2019.1599783
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2019.1599783
• Karatepe, O. M. (2014). Hope, work engagement, and organizationally valued performance outcomes: An empirical study in the hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 23(6), 678-698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2014.855994
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2014.855994
• Karatepe, O. M., & Karadas, G. (2015). Do psychological capital and work engagement foster frontline employees’ satisfaction? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(6), 1254-1278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2014-0028
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2014-0028
• Kenny, M. E., Walsh-Blair, L. Y., Blustein, D. L., Bempechat, J., & Seltzer, J. (2010). Achievement motivation among urban adolescents: Work hope, autonomy support, and achievement-related beliefs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(2), 205-212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.02.005
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.02.005
• Kim, S., Egan, T. M., Kim, W., & Kim, J. (2013). The impact of managerial coaching behavior on employee work-related reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(3), 315-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9286-9
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9286-9
• Kim, T. G., Hornung, S., & Rousseau, D. M. (2011). Change-supportive employee behavior: Antecedents and the moderating role of time. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1664-1693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310364243
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310364243
• Kimura, T., Bande, B., & Fernández-Ferrín, P. (2019). The roles of political skill and intrinsic motivation in performance prediction of adaptive selling. Industrial Marketing Management, 77, 198-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.09.005
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.09.005
• Kooij, D. T., Tims, M., & Akkermans, J. (2017). The influence of future time perspective on work engagement and job performance: The role of job crafting. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(1), 4-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1209489
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1209489
• Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press on Demand.
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Coping and adaptation. In W. D. Gentry (ed.), The handbook of behavioral medicine (pp. 282-325). Guilford Press.
• Le Blanc, P. M., Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2017). How can I shape my job to suit me Better? Job crafting for sustainable employees and organizations. In N. Chmiel, F. Fraccaroli & M. Sverke (Eds.), An introduction to work and organizational psychology: An international perspective (Chap. 3, pp. 48-63). John Wiley & Sons. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119168058.ch3
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119168058.ch3
• Lichtenthaler, P. W., & Fischbach, A. (2016). Job crafting and motivation to continue working beyond retirement age. Career Development International, 21(5), 477-497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CDI-01-2016-0009
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CDI-01-2016-0009
• Lichtenthaler, P. W., & Fischbach, A. (2018). Leadership, job crafting, and employee health and performance. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 39(5), 620-632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2017-0191
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2017-0191
• Lin, C. C., Kao, Y. T., Chen, Y. L., & Lu, S. C. (2016). Fostering change-oriented behaviors: A broaden-and-build model. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(3), 399-414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9417-6
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9417-6
• Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., & Peterson, S. J. (2010). The development and resulting performance impact of positive psychological capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1), 41-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20034
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20034
• Mäkikangas, A. (2018). Job crafting profiles and work engagement: A person-centered approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 106, 101-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.01.001
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.01.001
• Mehboob, F., & Othman, N. (2020a). Examining the links leading to behavioral support for change: An expectancy theory perspective. International Journal of Social Sciences and Economic Review, 2(4), 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.36923/ijsser.v2i4.78
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.36923/ijsser.v2i4.78
• Mehboob, F., & Othman, N. (2020b). Promoting behavioral support for change: A conservation of resources theory perspective. SEISENSE Journal of Management, 3(6), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v3i6.448
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v3i6.448
• Mehboob, F., & Othman, N. (2020c). Role of perceived management support and personal valence in promoting behavioral support for change: A social exchange theory perspective. Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen Ekonomi Dan Bisnis, 5(1), 65-74.
• Meijerink, J., Bos-Nehles, A., & Leede, J. (2020). How employees’ pro-activity translates high-commitment HRM systems into work engagement: The mediating role of job crafting. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(22), 2893-2918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1475402
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1475402
• Nawaz, M., Abid, G., Arya, B., Bhatti, G. A., & Farooqi, S. (2020). Understanding employee thriving: The role of workplace context, personality and individual resources. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 31(11-12), 1345-1362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1482209
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1482209
• Oreg, S., Bartunek, J. M., Lee, G., & Do, B. (2018). An affect-based model of recipients’ responses to organizational change events. Academy of Management Review, 43(1), 65-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0335
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0335
• Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550
• Ozyilmaz, A. (2020). Hope and human capital enhance job engagement to improve workplace outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(1), 187-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12289
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12289
• Paterson, T. A., Luthans, F., & Jeung, W. (2014). Thriving at work: Impact of psychological capital and supervisor support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 434-446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1907
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1907
• Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2015). Job crafting in changing organizations: Antecedents and implications for exhaustion and performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(4), 470-480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039003 PMid:25798717.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039003
• Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2018). Crafting the change: The role of employee job crafting behaviors for successful organizational change. Journal of Management, 44(5), 1766-1792. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206315624961
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206315624961
• Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2017). Regular versus cutback-related change: The role of employee job crafting in organizational change contexts of different nature. International Journal of Stress Management, 24(1), 62-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/str0000033
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/str0000033
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 PMid:14516251.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
• PressReader. (2014). MCB upgrading core banking network.https://www.pressreader.com/pakistan/the-pak-banker/20140319/281513634099933
  » https://www.pressreader.com/pakistan/the-pak-banker/20140319/281513634099933
• Rafferty, A. E., & Minbashian, A. (2019). Cognitive beliefs and positive emotions about change: Relationships with employee change readiness and change-supportive behaviors. Human Relations, 72(10), 1623-1650. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726718809154
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726718809154
• Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, S. L. (2017). Why do employees’ perceptions of their organization’s change history matter? The role of change appraisals. Human Resource Management, 56(3), 533-550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21782
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21782
• Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change readiness: A multilevel review. Journal of Management, 39(1), 110-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206312457417
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206312457417
• Rhee, S.-Y., Hur, W.-M., & Kim, M. (2017). The relationship of coworker incivility to job performance and the moderating role of self-efficacy and compassion at work: The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Approach. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(6), 711-726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9469-2
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9469-2
• Rudolph, C. W., Katz, I. M., Lavigne, K. N., & Zacher, H. (2017). Job crafting: A meta-analysis of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 112-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.008
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.008
• Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands-resources model: Implications for improving work and health. In G. F. Bauer & O. Hämmig (Eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health (pp. 43–68). Dordrecht: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5640-3_4
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5640-3_4
• Schellenberg, B. J., Bailis, D. S., & Mosewich, A. D. (2016). You have passion, but do you have self-compassion? Harmonious passion, obsessive passion, and responses to passion-related failure. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 278-285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.003
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.003
• Schneider, A., Hornung, S., Weigl, M., Glaser, J., & Angerer, P. (2017). Does it matter in the long run? Longitudinal effects and interactions in the differentiated job demands-resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(5), 741-754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1347561
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1347561
• Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4), 249-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1304_01
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1304_01
• Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Development and validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 321-335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.321 PMid:8636885.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.321
• Stouten, J., Rousseau, D. M., & De Cremer, D. (2018). Successful organizational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. The Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 752-788. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0095
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0095
• Synder, C., Irwing, L., & Anderson, J. (1991). Hope and health: Measuring the will and ways. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective. Pergamon Press.
• Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 173-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
• Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2015). Job crafting and job performance: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 914-928. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.969245
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.969245
• Vakola, M., & Petrou, P. (2018). Organizational change: Psychological effects and strategies for coping. Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315386102
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315386102
• Vakola, M., Armenakis, A., & Oreg, S. (2013). Reactions to organizational change from an individual differences perspective: A review of empirical research. In S. Oreg, A. Michel & R. Todnem (Eds.), The psychology of organizational change: Viewing change from the employee’s perspective (Chap. 5, pp. 95-122). Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139096690.008
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139096690.008
• Van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M. C. (2015). The job crafting intervention: Effects on job resources, self‐efficacy, and affective well‐being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(3), 511-532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12128
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12128
• Walk, M., & Handy, F. (2018). Job crafting as reaction to organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(3), 349-370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886318777227
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886318777227
• Wang, H., Demerouti, E., Blanc, P. L., & Lu, C. (2018). Crafting a job in ‘tough times’: When being proactive is positively related to work attachment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(3), 569-590. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12218
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12218
• Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/259118
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/259118
• Yavas, U., Babakus, E., & Karatepe, O. M. (2013). Does hope moderate the impact of job burnout on frontline bank employees’ in‐role and extra‐role performances? International Journal of Bank Marketing, 31(1), 56-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02652321311292056
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02652321311292056
• Yu, X., Li, D., Tsai, C.-H., & Wang, C. (2019). The role of psychological capital in employee creativity. Career Development International, 24(5), 420-437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CDI-04-2018-0103
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CDI-04-2018-0103
• Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981-1015. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801
• Zhang, F., & Parker, S. K. (2019). Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure of job crafting concepts and integrative review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 126-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2332
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2332
• Zhang, H. (2020). A review and prospects of literature on proactivity. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 211-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jss.2020.82017
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jss.2020.82017

Responsible Editor:

Gisela Demo

Reviewers:

Heila Veiga; Elaine Neiva

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  22 July 2022
• Date of issue
  Apr-Jun 2022

History

• Received
  12 Apr 2020
• Accepted
  27 Oct 2021