CTWD Researchers win 2019 JOB Best Paper Award
The Organisational Behaviour Division of the Academy of Management has announced the winner of the Best Paper for 2019. Congratulations Fangfang and Sharon for publishing the Best Paper of 2019 in the field of Organisational Behaviour!
The Best Paper of 2019 was selected by a Committee (chaired by Jin Nam Choi) who read each of the papers published in 2019, and then identified the top papers through a rating and ranking process. A special thank you to Jin Nam and the Committee members for their service: Frederik Anseel, Frank Belschak, William Bommer, Jeewon Cho, Kevin Cruz, Travis Grosser, Thomas Ng, Christian Vandenberghe, Le (Betty) Zhou.
The second runner up paper was also authored by Sharon with colleagues from UWA, Francesco Cangiano (now at Bond University) and Gillian Yeo.
The achievements of Fangfang and Sharon reflect their dedication and also the contribution of everyone at CTWD in creating a culture that supports meaningful and impactful research.
Best Paper of 2019
Fangfang Zhang & Sharon K. Parker
Two dominant perspectives of job crafting—the original theory from Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and the job demands resources perspective from Tims, Bakker, and Derks (2014) —remain separate in research. To synthesize these perspectives, we propose a three‐level hierarchical structure of job crafting, and we identify the aggregate/superordinate nature of each major job crafting construct. The first level of the structure is job crafting orientation, or approach versus avoidance crafting, which we argue is an essential yet often neglected distinction in the literature. We address the debate surrounding cognitive crafting and identify crafting form (behavioral versus cognitive crafting) as the next hierarchical level of constructs. Finally, we concur that job resources and job demands, or crafting content, capture different ways that individuals craft their jobs. Using this integrated hierarchical structure, we were able to review antecedents and outcomes from both perspectives. We show, for example, that approach crafting in its behavioral form is very similar to other proactive behaviors in the way it functions, suggesting a need for closer synthesis with the broader proactive literature, whereas avoidance crafting appears to be less proactive and often dysfunctional. On the basis of our review, we develop a road map for future research.