LEVERAGING DEMANDS AND RESOURCES TO CULTIVATE SUPPORT FOR CHANGE: AN INTEGRATIVE PERSPECTIVE

ABSTRACT Prior research suggests that individuals’ bottom-up initiatives are effective in developing support for change, yet it lacks empirical validation in the context of public organizations. Building on the job demands-resources theory (JD-R), this study examines the process that contributes to translating one’s positive behavioral enactment and support for change, particularly in public organizations. The findings are theoretically and practically significant, providing fresh insights into the behavioral mechanisms involved in the cultivation of support for change in public organizations.


INTRODUCTION
Faced with an increasingly volatile external environment, public organizations are constantly in need of bring-in reform and implementing it in its true spirit.Despite the calls for more research to improve our understanding of the micro-level perspectives on change (Grimmelikhuijsen & Porumbescu, 2017;Kuipers et al., 2014), the underlying mechanism of how change recipients translate public reforms into practices is scanty, with few noteworthy exceptions (i.e., Ahmad & Cheng, 2018;Ahmad, Straatmann, Mueller, & Liu, 2020;Hassan, Zhang, Ahmad, & Liu, 2020).
This lack of interest in public sector research is surprising, given that public reforms are often viewed as contradictory, complex, and inconsistent, which may lead to employees' resistance to change (Engen, Steijn, & Tummers, 2019).Therefore, understanding how change recipients react and show behavioral support for change in a bureaucratic work setting is a potential avenue for further research (Ahmad, Straatmann, Mueller, & Liu, 2020;Chen, Zhang, Ahmad, & Liu, 2020).This study attempts to fill this gap by investigating the process that may substantially explain the increase in the individuals' behavior to support change.It specifically aims to explore an integrative (top-down/bottom-up) mechanism leading individuals' to two-folded behavioral spectrum to change, such as 'compliance behavior' for passive efforts (i.e., going along with the change; only fulfilling explicit requirements), and 'championing behavior' for active engagement (i.e., going beyond what is required, making discretionary efforts, and actively contributing to change).
Prior research on change management in public organizations has identified several factors as antecedents to individuals' response to change, such as context, content, personal factors, leadership, and change process (Ahmad & Cheng, 2018;Kuiper et al., 2014).Among the suggested antecedents, individual disposition or personal characteristics have accounted for significant variance in determining individuals' reactions to change (Ahmad et al., 2020;Chen et al., 2021;Hassan, Zhang, Ahmad, & Liu, 2020;Mehboob, Othman, Fareed & Raza, 2022;Mehboob & Othman, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c).It has been noted that the effect of personal factors on employees' reaction to change has not been fully explored in the organizational change literature (Choi, 2011;Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011;Rafferty, Jimmieson, & Armenakis, 2013).Thus, this study examines change-efficacy as a personal factor that is likely to affect individuals' belief to unfold their support for change.Change-efficacy refers to the "extent to which one feels that he or she has or does not have the skills and is or is not able to execute the tasks and activities that are associated with the implementation of the prospective change" (Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007, p. 238).Since change recipients may view change initiatives differently, the expectation is that individuals with varying degrees of change-efficacy beliefs might react to the similar context differently (passively or actively).Hence, examining the association between change-efficacy and behavioral support for change is critical to understanding the underlying different response patterns among change recipients.
Furthermore, previous research shows that individuals do not always respond as passive change recipients; they also engage in a broad range of proactive behaviors that challenge the status quo and thereby enhance organizational functioning and adaptation to organizational change (Chen et al., 2021;Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2018;Walk & Handy, 2018).Thus, change recipients are expected to go beyond their regular work practices and behaviors, discarding old behaviors and better aligned themselves with the core objectives of the change initiative (Ahmad et al., 2020;Kuipers et al., 2014).Drawing on the JD-R theory, change recipients can expand their repertoire of actions and align their work environment with the emerging demands imposed by the change by increasing structural and social resources and challenging job demands via job crafting (Petrou et al., 2018).Job crafting refers to the self-initiated changes that employees make in their job's relational and task boundaries to improve the person-job fit (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012;Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).JD-R theory claims that personal resources enhance one's job characteristics, as highly efficacious individuals generate/perceive more job resources in the form of job crafting and trigger a motivational process leading to favorable organizational outcomes (Akkermans & Tims, 2017;Bakker & Demerouti, 2014).A detailed review of the literature suggests that the mechanisms through which behavioral support for change explicitly unfolds, particularly in public organizations, is still a potential avenue that needs to be untapped.Thus, we propose that job crafting offers a mediating mechanism between change efficacy and bi-dimensional form of behavioral support for change.
Besides, specific organizational, structural, and environmental characteristics are key constituents to influence public reforms (Ahmad & Cheng, 2018;Ewens & Voet, 2019;Isett, Glied, Public organizations usually emulate a top-down bureaucratic control where formal rulebased centralized channels are established to achieve organizational change in a systematic and orderly manner (Chia, 2014;Isett, Glied, Sparer, & Brown, 2013;Voet, 2014).Scholars (Isett et al., 2013;Voet, 2014) have argued that bureaucratic context might influence how public organizations manage reforms and subsequent initiatives.Despite their bureaucratic nature, little is known empirically about these organizations' context and role during public reforms (Vakola, Petrou, & Katsaros, 2021).The specification of bureaucratic context as a conditional factor has remained a significant gap in public sector research.This study addresses this void by examining the bureaucratic context as a likely boundary condition.The bureaucratic context is expected to moderate the relationship between change-efficacy and job crafting.
This study contributes to the literature by offering a fresh theoretical perspective in the face of organizational change.JD-R theory provides a sound theoretical foundation to concurrently examine the interaction between personal and contextual factors to unfold behavioral support for change.It also illustrates the mechanism and motivational process that adequately explains how and why change-related efficacy affects both active and passive modes of behavioral support for change through job crafting.Specifically, the research aims to accomplish the following objectives: i.To examine individuals' change efficacy as a predictor of behavioral support for change.

Change-efficacy as Predictor of Individuals' Behavioral Support for Change
Prior research on organizational change argues that individuals' perceptions and beliefs about change lead to persistent and effortful behaviors focused on supporting and facilitating the implementation of change initiatives (Haffar, Al-Karaghouli, Irani, Djebarni, & Gbadamosi, 2019;Oreg, Bartunek, Lee, & Do, 2018;Oreg et al., 2011;Rafferty et al., 2013).While examining how individuals respond to organizational change, the abundant literature on the issue has taken a narrow perspective to change, primarily the individuals' passive responses, often ignoring their active responses to change (Oreg, Bartunek, & Lee, 2014;Oreg et al., 2018).Consistent with this view, scholars such as Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) and Fugate and Soenen (2018) advocated that change recipients either respond passively or actively under similar change settings.According to them, the minimally acceptable level of support displayed during the change refers to the compliance with statutory instructions, rules, and directions.It is a passive response to change demonstrated through following instructions but not enthusiastically participating in the process or with others.On the other hand, active response to change refers to a championing behavior that involves "demonstrating extreme enthusiasm for a change by going above and beyond what is formally required to ensure the success of the change and promoting the change to others" (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002, p. 478).Championing behavior, "occurs when a target person agrees internally with an action or decision, is enthusiastic about it, and is likely to exercise initiative and demonstrate unusual effort and persistence in order to carry out the request successfully" (Falbe & Yukl, 1992, p. 640).Consequently, identifying relative antecedents and their underlying relationships leading to supportive behaviors provides a core impetus to conduct this study.
Change-efficacy, in that vein, stimulates employees to unfold their behavioral enactment and response to change initiatives.Change-efficacy is an individual's perceived ability to carry out the prospective change initiative (Bandura, 1986).It encompasses the belief that "how well one can execute courses of action is required to deal with prospective situations" (Bandura, 1982, p. 122).Highly efficacious individuals believe they are more capable of completing tasks successfully after the change is implemented (Holt et al., 2007).Previous research highlighted three reasons for examining change-efficacy as a key precursor during times of organizational change.First, Bandura's (1986) social cognitive theory suggests that individuals are more likely to undertake activities they believe they can accomplish successfully.It is the person's confidence in their ability to successfully build the reality as they wish (Ng & Lucianetti, 2016).Second, changeefficacy has its roots in expectancy theory which assumes that employees' expectations of the targeted object are shaped by their efficacy belief (Vroom, 1964).Individuals are more likely to employ their efforts during a change intervention when they strongly believe in accomplishing the desirable outcomes.When they lack confidence in their ability to succeed, they are unlikely to respond to change initiatives (Vakola, Armenakis, & Oreg, 2013).Third, according to the JD-R theory, change-efficacy is a valuable personal resource that shapes change recipients' adaptability by allowing them to manage transitions at work effectively (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014).Because change is a stressful and demanding process for people (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002), they require additional resources to meet this demand and create a favorable response to change efforts (Shin, Taylor, & Seo, 2012).In brief, change recipients strongly believe in their ability to carry out the desired behaviors required by change initiatives.Otherwise, the psychological motives to drive the change would be less than what they expected (Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts, & Walker, 2007).
Aligned with the significance of change-efficacy, recent research has reported the positive impact of efficacy in determining change-related outcomes (Haffar et al., 2019;Mehboob & Othman, 2020a, 2020b;Rafferty & Minbashian, 2019).Studies have noted that efficacy beliefs are genuinely instrumental in fostering one's motivation level to accomplish performance objectives in the face of adverse and demanding situations, such as those that emerge during an organizational change.Specifically, Mehboob and Othman (2020b) examined this link between change-efficacy and behavioral support for change to understand whether the availability of efficacy resources could enhance employees' compliance or championing behaviors for change.The finding shows that efficacy as a resource has a motivational potential that enables individuals to become more adaptive to change, which leads to more instances of supportive behavior in relation to the organizational change.
In view of this rationale, the study's first hypothesis is that: H1a: Change-efficacy is positively related to compliance behavior.
H1b: Change-efficacy is positively related to championing behavior.

Job Crating as an Explanatory Mechanism to Cultivate Behavioral
Support for Change Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) defined job crafting as "physical and cognitive changes individuals make to the task or relational boundaries of their work and the actions employees take to shape, mold, and redefine their jobs" (p.179).They further describe job crafting as the individuals' self-initiated behaviors to (re)appraise the task, change their identity at work, and make it more meaningful, improving job fit and leading to satisfaction and better performance.Based on the JD-R model, Tims et al. (2012) conceptualized job crafting as the "changes that employees may make to balance their job demands and job resources with their personal abilities and needs" (p.174).According to them, by regulating the extent of the job demands and resources, job crafters can better adjust to their needs.Job crafting thus enables individuals to increase 'structural resources' (i.e., seeking task variety, developing capabilities, and learning new things), 'social resources' (i.e., seeking supervisory and peer feedback), and 'challenging job demands' (i.e., requesting additional tasks and responsibilities).When employees optimize their job in such a way, they create a person-job fit, which has a positive influence on their well-being and performance (Bakker, 2017;Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2018;Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2014).
Past empirical studies have also revealed job crafting to be a useful approach in the face of organizational change (Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015;Petrou et al., 2018;Walk & Handy, 2018;Wang, Demerouti, Blanc, & Lu, 2018).Organizational change can be perceived as an ambiguous and uncertain situation that does not provide adequate cues about how to effectively respond to the novel situation (Petrou et al., 2015).In such circumstances, job crafting becomes vital because it enables and allows new work roles to emerge.In response, employees can use it as a tactic to deal with relatively new and unknown situations (Berg, Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2010).By widening their repertoire of strategies and actions, job crafters are better able to respond to the emerging demands of new situations (Petrou et al., 2015).
For instance, job crafters usually have personal control, and are more likely to adapt to change to maintain this control (Tims & Bakker, 2010).When associated with the need for control, efficacy has been identified as a promising antecedent to job crafting that may lead individuals to modify and alter the aspects of their job (Tims et al., 2014).It better enables them to gain control of the working context and the overall work activity (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), and refers to the conviction of having control over life and confidence in the ability to shape relationships, events, situations, and performing "the courses of action required to create specific successes or results" (Bandura, 1997, p. 3).Individuals who believe they will be able to handle the many aspects of their job and work environment effectively are more likely to restructure and redefine work activities, tasks, and social interactions by mobilizing job resources in accordance with new job demands (Miraglia, Cenciotti, Alessandri, & Borgogni, 2017).
Past research has empirically supported the link between efficacy and job crafting behavior, indicating that employees are more likely to stay engaged with their jobs when expanding their repertoire of job resources (Ingusci et al., 2019;Kim, Im, & Qu, 2018).Consistent with the JD-R theory, having such resources allows individuals to craft their job constituents more specifically and deliberately.Individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to alter their tasks, relationships, demands, and resources by expanding their capacities and learning new skills on the job (Miraglia et al., 2017).As a result, individuals are better equipped to mobilize additional resources in high-stress situations, exert extra effort, and participate in novel activities to achieve their objectives (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2009).
Job crafters are not only considered as passive recipients of change initiativesthey are also viewed asactive participants in the change process (Ghitulescu (2013) Previous research into job crafting as a predictor, found substantive in determining its impact on the change-related outcomes both at the passivity (adaptive and change-oriented task performance: (Demerouti, Xanthopoulou, Petrou, & Karagkounis, 2017;Petrou, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2015;Petrou et al., 2018) and activity (discretionary behavior: Gordon et al., 2018).From this perspective, job crafting offers strong relevance, adequacy, and stimulus to change recipients to engage in crafting strategies and show behavioral support for change, either complying (passively) with the change initiative or liaising and ambitiously championing (actively) it.In short, those who are actively involved in creating a resourceful working environment by demonstrating efficacy and devising activities are more inclined to advocate for change and its value throughout the organization.
Therefore, the second hypothesis in this study is that: H2a: Job crafting mediates the relationship between change-efficacy and compliance behavior H2b: Job crafting mediates the relationship between change-efficacy and championing behavior

Moderating Role of Bureaucratic Context
An organization is more or less bureaucratic according to the degree to which the formal rules, policies, procedures, power, and decision-making authority govern the employees' workrelated activities (Rainey, 2009).A high degree of bureaucratization implies growth in both the 'rules governing behavior' and 'structures of bureaucracy' charged with implementing and monitoring the enforcement of rules (Bozeman, 2015).In response, critics have pointed out that the compliance-oriented emphasis on general rules and details causes overregulation, risk avoidance, quality inefficiencies, and inflexible work attitudes (Drechsler, 2005).Because bureaucratization and strict formal processes restrain individuals' responsibilities only to that particular circumstance (Palos & Stancovici, 2016), there is limited opportunity for constructive dialogue across the board and the focus is diverted to putting things in order following specific prescriptions (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).
Previous research has indicated that the bureaucratic context, which typically emulates public organizations, has a significant influence on effective intervention during organizational change (Ahmad et al., 2020;Ewens & Voet, 2019;Schmidt et al., 2017;Steijn & Voet, 2019).It has been observed that public organizations are becoming increasingly overwhelmed by rules, regulations, and procedures, making it difficult for them to transform and implement change (Isett et al., 2013).Strong policy adherence and inertia (Isett et al., 2013) often stifle the flow of productive, innovative, and new ideas within the organization (Torfing, 2019), making it hard for employees to seek out new opportunities, knowledge, and learning (Jakobsen & Thrane, 2016).Employees feel powerless in a highly bureaucratically controlled workplace that limits their work freedom, autonomy, independence, and ability to comply with the explicit requirements of the upcoming change (DeHart-Davis, 2005;Lim & Moon, 2020).
Put differently, the increased emphasis on bureaucratization of organizational work processes restricts the employees' opportunities to communicate frequently with superiors and peers, thereby jeopardizing the necessary flow of information and ideas across the organization during an organizational change (Hassan, Zhang, & Ahmad, 2020).Therefore, it is expected that in a highly bureaucratic environment, individuals will feel less capable of exercising self-initiative through job crafting (i.e., increasing structural, social, and job demands).Moreover, Petrou et al. (2015) pointed out that crafting behavior is contingent on various contextual factors that can shape crafting instincts in ways that either enhance or diminish their behavioral response to change.Thus, the third hypothesis reinforces our case and reasoning: H3: The bureaucratic context moderates the relationship between change-efficacy and job crafting in a way that such a relationship will be weaker in a high bureaucratic context

METHODOLOGY Data Collection
The data used in this study were collected through a questionnaire distributed among academic staff of six public universities located in Pakistan.These universities are influenced by quality assurance initiatives undertaken by the Higher Education Commission, Pakistan (HEC).A total of 545 questionnaires were distributed using the stratified random sampling technique, 308 were responded, and 292 were considered valid for data analysis and inferences.As for the respondents' profile, 73% were male, 55% were lecturers, 31% were between 36-45 years old, 24% had 16 to 20 years experience, thereby comprising the highest brackets.

Measures
The bi-dimensional form of behavioral support (compliance and championing behavior) was assessed using a 9-item scale developed by Herscovitch and Meyer (2002).Compliance behavior was measured using three items, whereas championing behavior was assessed using six.The items were anchored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.Sample items include "I comply with my university's directives regarding change initiatives" and "I speak positively about change initiatives to my colleagues."Change-efficacy was measured using a 6-item scale developed by Holt et al. (2007).The items were anchored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.A sample item is "I have the skills that are needed to make this change work." Job crafting (JC) was assessed using the job crafting scale (JCS) developed by Tims et al. (2012).The measure consists of three subscales: increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources, and increasing challenging job demand, as shown in Table 1.The JCS contained 15 items, 5 items in each of the three subscales.Each item was measured on a 5-point frequency scale ranging from 1 = never to 5 = very often.The reliability statistics for all three subscales were reported above the minimum acceptance level of α = 0.70 (Tims et al., 2012).Sample items are "I try to learn new things at work," "I ask my manager to coach me," and "I try to make my work more challenging by examining the underlying relationships between aspects of my job." Bureaucratic context (BC) was measured using a 5-item scale developed by Ferrell and Skinner (1988).Each item was scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.Sample items are "my dealings with this university are subject to a lot of rules and procedures stating how various aspects of my job are to be done" and "I have to ask university representatives before I do almost anything in my teaching."

ANALYSIS/RESULTS
The data were analyzed using the partial least square approach to structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).Consistent with Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt's (2016) two-step approach, the study preliminarily validated the measures and then tested the hypothesized model.First, the study's measurement model included seven reflective constructs (change-efficacy, structural resources, social resources, challenging job demands, bureaucratic context, compliance behavior, and championing behavior).The measurement model determined the relation between the latent constructs and their observed indicators.With composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE), the study assessed the internal consistency, reliability, and convergent validity of the proposed model.Table 1 shows that the CR of all reflective constructs was higher than 0.70.(Hair, Risher, Sarstedt, & Ringle, 2019).This indicates that the measurement model exhibited good reliability.Besides, convergent (via AVE) and discriminant (via Fornell-Larcker) validity criteria were tested to assess the validity of reflective constructs (Hair et al., 2019;Henseler, 2017).
After removing the items SOR5 and BC1 for weak factor loadings, the AVE values and outer loadings of each item relative to its construct were greater than the benchmark value of 0.50 and 0.60, respectively (Table 1).Furthermore, the Fornell-Larcker criterion was used to determine discriminant validity, which states that the AVE's square root for each construct should be greater than the correlations between all other constructs in the measurement model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).As shown in Table 2, AVE's square root (emphasis in bold) was higher than the rest, confirming the discriminant validity of the measurement model.In addition, the formative measurement model was assessed to see if there were any validity issues within the formative constructs (i.e., dimensions of job crafting).Collinearity and the significance of the indicators' outer weights were analyzed for this purpose (Hair et al., 2019).The variance inflation factor (VIF) was used to determine whether the formative indicators were collinear.For formative indicators, the VIF values ranged from 1.252 to 1.371, which falls below the upper threshold value of 5 (Hair et al., 2016).Furthermore, sub-dimensions of job crafting (i.e., increasing structural job resources, social job resources, and challenging job demands) have accounted for significant weights in their associated construct (job crafting), as shown in Table 3.As a result, job crafting should be retained as a higher-order construct and investigated further for inferences and estimations.Likewise, Table 4 summarizes the mean and zero-order correlation of the proposed constructs.As expected and hypothesized, most of the statistics were in line with the main hypotheses.These results make us confident that the directionality of our hypotheses is appropriate.The second step of PLS-SEM was conducted to test the proposed relationships for their relevance and significance in the model.As shown in Table 5, the result revealed a significant relationship between change-efficacy and both dimensions of behavioral support for change (CEF -> COMP: β = 0.464, p < 0.001; CEF -> CHAMP: β = 0.423, p < 0.001).These findings support the two statements of the first hypothesis (H1a and H1b).Also, the mediation results confirmed that the effect of change-efficacy on dimensions of behavioral support for change was significantly mediated through job crafting (CEF -> JC -> COMP: β = 0.238, p < 0.001; CEF -> JC -> CHAMP: β = 0.196, p < 0.001), corroborating both statements of the second hypothesis (H2a and H2b).Furthermore, as suggested by Hair et al. (2016), a product indicator approach was used to test the moderation hypothesis H3.Contrary to expectations, the result failed to significantly demonstrate the moderating influence of bureaucratic context on the hypothesized link between change-efficacy and job crafting.Hence, hypothesis H3 was not statistically supported.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study aimed to examine the direct and indirect impact of change-efficacy and job crafting on academics' behavioral support for change.The findings reveal a significant positive effect of both in determining academics' behavioral support for change.First, our findings imply that academics' decision to actively contribute to the implementation of change is affected by their level of change-efficacy.This is in line with the JD-R theory, which posits efficacy as a personal resource influencing an individual's ability to regulate and cope with the changing work demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014) and produce outcomes favoring the change objectives.
Second, previous research has shown that the relationship between employees' beliefs and behavioral outcomes is not simple, and it is proven through specific processes that have yet to be explored (Fugate & Soenen, 2018;Oreg et al., 2018;Walk & Handy, 2018).The study's findings suggest that job crafting is critical to explaining one's behavioral support for change (both at the compliance and championing level).More specifically, individuals with high efficacy beliefs actively seek more opportunities to prove their capabilities and to challenge their mastery experiences to flourish in their personal and professional growth (Bandura, 1997).Supporting this view, JD-R theory provides a suitable theoretical lens to validate the corresponding path in which change-efficacy and job crafting provide a valuable channel of resource stimulus to trigger a motivational process that ultimately leads to compliance and championing behavior.The result is consistent with the previous empirical evidence claiming job crafting is instrumental in bringing about organizational change (Petrou et al., 2015;Vakola & Petrou, 2018;Walk & Handy, 2018;Wang et al., 2018).
Third, the role of bureaucratic context as a moderator in the relationship between changeefficacy and job crafting was not statistically supported.The finding contradicts the previous results, whereby job demands may buffer positive effect relationships in organizational settings (Abbasi, 2017;Bakker & Demerouti, 2014).One plausible explanation is related to the underpinning of JD-R theory which advocates that job, contextual, and personal resources are not limited to helping individuals to achieve work goals or stimulating personal growth, learning, and development.For the theory, they also mitigate the negative effects of excessive job demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014).The finding suggests that having sufficient resources (i.e., change-efficacy and job crafting) reduces the impact of bureaucratic job demands on the subsequent relationship between changeefficacy and job crafting leading to statistically insignificant moderation result.
These findings are also consistent with the tenets of conservations of resources theory (COR), which states that employees usually strive to acquire and retain resources, even if it means giving up or using some resources to gain or retain others (Hobfoll, 1989).This resource investment phenomenon is known as a gain spiral in COR, and it occurs when positively oriented individual states form a positive chain of associations (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001).In that mode of resource investment, resources move together in "resource caravans" and can be used to acquire or build other resources (gain spirals).For this theory, change-efficacy may serve as a personal resource or positive individual state from which individuals can accrue additional resources through job crafting (i.e.increasing structural, social, and challenging demands resources).As a result, the predicted moderating effects of the bureaucratic context on subsequent positive gain spirals failed to establish their relevance to the stated relationship.
Finally, the top-down approach to change implementation appears less effective in improving employee engagement and performance (Ahmad et al., 2020;Chia, 2014).Change initiated at the top is insufficient to address emerging demands and opportunities at work (Wang, Demerouti, & Blanc, 2017).In response, organizations must consider bottom-up redesign strategies that will be promoted and combined with top-down approaches already in place (Bakker & Oerlemans, 2019;Demerouti, 2014;Demerouti, Peeters, & Heuvel, 2019).A combination of both is most likely to yield favorable outcomes for employees and organizations (Bakker & Oerlemans, 2019).
Following the spectrum above, the study empirically tested this notion, with findings favoring the importance of bottom-up initiatives in cultivating behavioral support for change.It implies that people can better incorporate top-down changes by reorganizing the structural, social, and challenging aspects of their jobs.Taking into account the suggestions made by scholars such as Bakker and Oerlemans (2019), Demerouti (2014), andDemerouti et al. (2019) to integrate and examine top-down/bottom-up perspectives in a single study, the research framework has empirically validated this call.In addition, the framework also presented an alternate perspective to the concepts like 'soft bureaucracy' (Courpasson, 2000), 'bureaucracy-lite' (Hales, 2002), 'representative bureaucracy' (Sowa & Selden, 2003), and 'green tape' (DeHart-Davis, 2009)  to explain decentralization, empowerment, and autonomy in a bureaucratic work setting.In conclusion, the research findings support this congruence and how it operates within the context of a public university.In other words, change agents should offer individuals sufficient leverage to determine which task is completed and how and should encourage them to engage in job crafting behaviors to successfully implement the prospective change.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Despite the theoretical contribution, the study's conclusions should be interpreted with some caution and limitation.First, our claim of causal inferences presented in the tested model is constrained by the cross-sectional research design and single-source data.The research model was developed with the help of existing empirical and theoretical literature, and our findings validated the predicted causality.However, more research should be conducted using experimental or longitudinal techniques to investigate the hypothesized causality and rigorously corroborate this relationship pattern.This might also help to reduce the impact of common method variance (CMV) in the dataset.
Second, the research context and study population also impose limitations.The objective was to address the issues concerning the role of change-efficacy in determining behavioral support for change through job crafting in the bureaucratic work setting.However, this limits the generalizability of the study findings to other study contexts.Keeping this in mind, more research is needed in various institutional or sectorial contexts along with cultural dynamics to provide robust theoretical and empirical support to our framework.This can be achieved through cross-cultural, cross-institutional comparative research designs.Furthermore, the moderating role of culture, such as the power distance and uncertainty avoidance, in particular, may also help explore this framework in future studies to observe some interesting patterns.Moreover, contrary to the theoretical propositions of JD-R theory, the result failed to confirm the moderating role of bureaucratic context in buffering the proposed hypothetical path.The result is surprising and needs to be examined and discussed further in future studies.
Finally, we did not take into account all of the possible factors that could influence individuals' support for change.Scholars should also explore a wide array of other contexts and personal factors and their underlying patterns in future research endeavors.This type of examination of multiple aspects provides a broader and more systematic perspective, which aids scholars and practitioners in understanding the antecedents and processes leading change recipients to support change.

Table 1 .
Reliability, convergent validity and outer loadings of reflective constructs

Table 1 .
Reliability, convergent validity and outer loadings of reflective constructs

Table 3 .
Measurement of formative constructs

Table 4 .
Mean and inter-correlation of latent constructs

Table 5 .
Structural path analysis: hypotheses results