Abstract
Orientation: Job crafting has emerged as an important mechanism through which employees proactively shape their work experiences, yet its implications for career well-being remain underexplored in the South African context.
Research purpose: This study investigated whether autonomy moderates the relationship between job crafting (task, cognitive, and relational crafting) and career well-being among South African employees.
Motivation for the study: Although job crafting is associated with positive work-related outcomes, limited empirical attention has been given to its role in promoting career well-being and to the contextual conditions, such as autonomy, that may strengthen this relationship.
Research approach/design and method: A quantitative, cross-sectional research design was employed. Survey data were collected from 208 employees across various industries in South Africa and analysed using correlation analysis and hierarchical regression.
Main findings: Task, cognitive, and relational job crafting were all positively related to career well-being, and autonomy demonstrated a strong direct association with career well-being. However, autonomy did not moderate the relationship between job crafting and career well-being.
Practical/managerial implications: The findings suggest that encouraging job crafting behaviours may enhance employees’ career well-being regardless of autonomy levels, highlighting the value of organisational interventions that support proactive role redesign and career development.
Contribution/value-add: This study extends job crafting literature by clarifying its relationship with career well-being in a South African context and contributes to theory by demonstrating that autonomy functions as a direct resource rather than a boundary condition in this relationship.
Keywords: job crafting; autonomy; career well-being; proactive behaviour; South Africa; career development; work design.
Introduction
In contemporary work environments marked by rapid technological advancements, restructuring, and growing career mobility, individuals are increasingly required to take personal responsibility for shaping their own work and career paths. As traditional career structures become less stable and predictable, scholars have argued that career well-being has become a central indicator of sustainable career development and long-term work adjustment (Duffy et al., 2016; Hall & Mirvis, 2013). Career well-being encompasses more than momentary job satisfaction. It reflects a sense of purpose, positive functioning, and fulfilment across one’s broader career journey (Aguinis et al., 2022; Coetzee et al., 2021). High levels of career well-being are associated with greater employability, enhanced engagement, and improved psychological adjustment, underscoring its importance in dynamic labour markets (Porath et al., 2012; Van der Heijde & Van der Heijden, 2006).
One mechanism increasingly recognised for enhancing positive career experiences is job crafting. Job crafting refers to the proactive changes employees make to their tasks, relationships, and cognitive interpretations of work to create a better fit between their jobs and personal strengths, motives, and values (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Research has consistently shown that job crafting enhances meaningfulness, engagement, work satisfaction, and psychological well-being (Bakker et al., 2012; Demerouti et al., 2015; Tims et al., 2013).
However, much of this scholarship has focused on day-to-day work outcomes rather than on broader indicators of career functioning. Although theoretical work suggests that proactive behaviour should contribute to longer-term career development, empirical evidence linking job crafting to career well-being specifically remains limited (Bruning & Campion, 2018; Rudolph et al., 2017).
This gap is particularly notable given the alignment between the theoretical foundations of job crafting and the components of career well-being. Coetzee et al. (2021) conceptualise career well-being as comprising meaningfulness, connectedness, affective experiences, and proactive career behaviours. These dimensions map closely onto the motivational and resource-building processes inherent in job crafting. Despite this conceptual fit, very few studies have empirically tested how job crafting shapes individuals’ career well-being over time or across diverse contexts. Emerging economy contexts such as South Africa, where labour markets are characterised by inequalities, instability, and resource constraints, offer an important opportunity to examine these relationships (Bester et al., 2021; May et al., 2018).
Another important gap in the literature concerns the role of autonomy. Autonomy is described within self-determination theory as a basic psychological need that supports individuals’ sense of volition and personal agency (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Employees are more likely to engage in job crafting when they perceive that they have sufficient freedom and discretion to modify their work (Petrou et al., 2012; Zhang & Parker, 2019). Although autonomy has long been recognised as a key antecedent of job crafting, its potential moderating role has received limited empirical attention. Theoretically, autonomy may strengthen the effects of job crafting by enabling employees to enact desired changes more effectively and by reinforcing the motivational processes that underpin proactive work behaviours. It is therefore important to understand whether autonomy shapes the extent to which job crafting contributes to positive career outcomes, including career well-being.
This study addresses these gaps by examining the relationship between job crafting and career well-being among South African employees, and by testing whether autonomy moderates this relationship. In particular, it aims to: (1) examine the association between the three job crafting dimensions (task, relational, and cognitive crafting) and career well-being; and (2) investigate whether autonomy moderates the relationship between job crafting and career well-being.
By focusing on career well-being rather than short-term job outcomes, this study expands current theoretical and empirical understandings of proactive work behaviour and career development. It also contributes a South African perspective to a research area that is predominantly situated in Global North contexts. Furthermore, by examining autonomy as a boundary condition, the study provides insight into the psychological resources that enable job crafting to translate into meaningful career experiences. The findings have practical implications for organisations seeking to promote career resilience, personal agency, and sustainable career well-being.
Career well-being
Career well-being has emerged as a central psychological resource in contemporary careers characterised by uncertainty, mobility, and personal responsibility for career development. Coetzee et al. (2021) conceptualise career well-being as a multidimensional construct reflecting an individual’s sense of meaning, satisfaction, and flourishing within their career trajectory. Prior scholarship suggests that employees with higher career well-being tend to exhibit greater career adaptability, engagement, and more positive long-term career outcomes (Akkermans et al., 2020; Duffy et al., 2016). In an era where careers are increasingly self-directed and boundaryless, maintaining career well-being is essential for navigating transitions and sustaining employability. This has intensified interest in proactive behaviours and personal resources that may support individuals in shaping and fulfilling career paths.
Job crafting as a proactive work behaviour
Job crafting is a form of bottom-up workplace behaviour that involves employees making self-initiated changes to their work tasks, relationships, and perceptions to better align their jobs with their preferences, strengths, and needs. Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) identify three core job crafting dimensions: task crafting (modifying the type or number of tasks), relational crafting (changing interactions or relationships at work), and cognitive crafting (reframing how one perceives the meaning or purpose of one’s job). Rooted in proactive motivation theory (Parker et al., 2010), job crafting is understood as an adaptive behaviour that enables individuals to actively shape their work environments rather than passively respond to them. Research consistently shows that job crafting is associated with positive employee outcomes such as engagement (Peral & Geldenhuys, 2016), meaningful work (Bruning & Campion, 2018), job satisfaction (Sakuraya et al., 2017), and psychological well-being (Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2018).
Linking job crafting to well-being
A robust body of evidence positions job crafting as a key mechanism through which individuals enhance their well-being at work. For example, Rudolph et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis found consistent positive associations between job crafting and various indicators of well-being, including thriving, work engagement, and reduced burnout. Empirical studies further suggest that the three forms of crafting contribute uniquely to well-being, with cognitive crafting often linked to a greater sense of meaning and purpose (Zhang & Parker, 2019). Despite this growing evidence base, research has predominantly examined proximal forms of well-being, such as affective and psychological well-being, rather than broader, career-focused outcomes. Career well-being reflects a more enduring sense of flourishing across one’s career, yet its relationship with job crafting remains understudied. The limited research that exists points to promising links between proactive work behaviours and longer-term career outcomes (Akkermans & Tims, 2017), suggesting that job crafting may play a meaningful role in shaping career well-being. However, this relationship remains under-developed, both conceptually and empirically, representing a notable gap in the literature.
Task crafting and career well-being
Individuals engage in task crafting when they voluntarily take on new responsibilities, streamline inefficient processes, or reshape tasks to better fit their strengths and interests. From a theoretical perspective, task crafting enhances person–job fit, which is associated with greater meaning and satisfaction in one’s work and career (Bruning & Campion, 2018). Practically, an employee who feels stagnant might begin integrating more skills-based tasks, volunteer for projects aligned with their long-term career goals, or reduce administrative burdens by redesigning workflows. Such proactive shaping can enhance one’s sense of progress and mastery as two drivers of career well-being (Akkermans et al., 2020). Because career well-being reflects sustained flourishing over one’s career, task crafting may provide individuals with the flexibility to continually update their roles in response to evolving career aspirations, thereby fostering a sense of meaningful career growth. Based on these arguments, it is proposed that:
H1a: Task crafting will be positively associated with career well-being.
Relational crafting and career well-being
Relational crafting involves changing how frequently or deeply employees interact with others at work (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013). This form of crafting is grounded in relational job design theory, which posits that interpersonal interactions provide meaning, support, and opportunities for development (Grant, 2007).
Through relational crafting, employees may cultivate developmental relationships, seek mentorship, join cross-functional teams, or reduce interactions that drain emotional energy. Positive relational experiences contribute to career well-being by providing access to social support, career information, and identity-enhancing interactions (Duffy et al., 2016). For example, an early-career employee may proactively build networks that expose them to new opportunities. Mid-career employees may deepen collaborative ties that enrich their sense of purpose or career identity. These relational resources enhance career confidence, resilience, and long-term satisfaction, which are core components of career well-being. It is thus hypothesised that:
H1b: Relational crafting will be positively associated with career well-being.
Cognitive crafting and career well-being
Cognitive crafting involves reframing how employees interpret or assign meaning to their work. It is rooted in meaning-making and cognitive appraisal theories, which emphasise that individuals’ interpretations of work shape their well-being (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). By cognitively crafting, employees shift their perspective on their job. For example, seeing routine tasks as contributing to broader organisational goals or understanding their role as central to client satisfaction. This reappraisal strengthens a sense of calling, purpose, and career clarity, each of which contributes directly to career well-being (Jung & Yoon, 2016).
Cognitive crafting may be particularly influential for career well-being because it helps employees to construct a coherent and positive narrative of their career trajectory, which promotes long-term flourishing and adaptability, even when objective career circumstances shift:
H1c: Cognitive crafting will be positively associated with career well-being.
Autonomy as a foundational resource for crafting
Autonomy, defined as the experience of volition and self-endorsed action, is a fundamental psychological need within self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In organisational contexts, autonomy manifests as the degree of freedom and discretion employees have in deciding how to perform their work tasks. Extensive research demonstrates that autonomy enhances intrinsic motivation, encourages proactive behaviour, and supports individual thriving at work (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Van den Broeck et al., 2016).
Because job crafting is inherently self-initiated, autonomy serves as a critical contextual resource that enables employees to craft their jobs in ways that reflect their strengths and motives. Studies consistently show that individuals with greater autonomy engage more frequently in proactive work design behaviours, including job crafting (Leana et al., 2009; Petrou et al., 2012). Autonomy therefore functions not merely as a desirable job characteristic but as a psychological condition that empowers employees to actively modify their work.
The moderating role of autonomy
Theoretical frameworks, such as the job demands–resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al., 2001), suggest that resources such as autonomy strengthen the motivational processes associated with proactive behaviours (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Empirical evidence supports the notion that autonomy enhances the positive effects of proactive behaviours on well-being and performance (Frazier & Fainshmidt, 2012). For job crafting specifically, autonomy is proposed to facilitate the translation of crafting efforts into beneficial outcomes by providing employees the freedom to implement meaningful changes at work. Studies have found that autonomy can act as a boundary condition that shapes both the likelihood of crafting and its effectiveness (Tims et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2017). These findings imply that employees may derive greater career-related benefits from job crafting when they experience greater autonomy. Yet, to date, no research has specifically examined autonomy as a moderator in the relationship between job crafting and career well-being, leaving an important conceptual gap. The above arguments lead to the following hypotheses:
H2a: Autonomy will moderate the relationship between task crafting and career well-being, such that the positive association will be stronger when autonomy is high.
H2b: Autonomy will moderate the relationship between relational crafting and career well-being, such that the positive association will be stronger when autonomy is high.
H2c: Autonomy will moderate the relationship between cognitive crafting and career well-being, such that the positive association will be stronger when autonomy is high.
Research design
Sample and procedure
A non-probability convenience sampling strategy was used to collect online survey data between August and September, 2025. This approach was coupled with snowball sampling to reach readily accessible individuals. Participants were encouraged to recommend other individuals in their networks who met the inclusion criteria. To be eligible to participate in the research, participants needed to hold full-time employment within South Africa, be over the age of 18, and be able to read and write in English to complete the self-report surveys. We created a Google Forms (Alphabet, Inc., Mount View, California, United States) link and shared it across social media (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram) and professional networking platforms (LinkedIn). Online social media posts announcing research details and the minimum participation criteria were posted weekly to increase response rates. To ensure high-quality data and reduce the likelihood of response bias, a description explicating the purpose and confidential nature of the research was included in the cover letter along with attention check items. The cover letter detailed the study’s anonymous and voluntary nature, and participants provided consent by clicking a button, thereby confirming their understanding of the research requirements. A total of 231 surveys were received. Twenty-three cases with missing data on one or more variables were removed via listwise deletion, yielding a final sample of 208 participants, all South Africans. The mean age of the sample was 36.34 years (standard deviation [SD] = 11.69), with 53% identifying as female. Regarding ethnicity, the majority identified as white (66.82%), followed by black African (20.67%), and the remaining sample belonging to the Indian, mixed-race, and Asian populations. Most of the sample (71.15%) spoke English as their home language, followed by one of the other official African languages, including Afrikaans, isiZulu, isiXhosa, and Sesotho. The average organisational tenure was 7.12 years (SD = 8.69). Regarding education, 48% had a bachelor’s degree, 12% had a master’s degree, 7% had a doctoral degree, with the remaining possessing a high school degree equivalent. The sample consisted of participants across various job levels: 8.65% at the entry level, 8.65% at the junior level, 24.04% at the intermediate level, 21.20% at the senior level, 20.70% at the managerial level, and 16.35% at the executive level.
Measures
The 15-item Job Crafting Questionnaire (Slemp & Vella-Brodrick, 2013) was used to measure task crafting (5 items – ‘I introduce new approaches to improve my work’), relational crafting (5 items – ‘I make an effort to get to know people well at work’) and cognitive crafting (5 items – ‘I give preference to work tasks that suit my skills or interests’). Items were rated on a 6-point scale ranging from hardly ever (1) to very often (6). Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (2013) reported strong internal consistency for the overall scale (α = 0.91) and for the task (α = 0.87), cognitive (α = 0.89), and relational (α = 0.83) subscales.
The 14-item Career Well-being Scale (Coetzee et al., 2021) was used to measure career well-being, including its three dimensions: positive affective career state (6 items – ‘I feel supported in achieving my career goals’); state of career meaningfulness (4 items – ‘My career is interesting and makes me excited’); and career networking state (4 items – ‘I have a network of support from others when needed’). Respondents use a 7-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Cronbach’s alpha of 0.94 has been reported for the total scale, with subscale reliabilities of 0.91 (positive affective career state), 0.86 (state of career meaningfulness), and 0.89 (career networking), respectively (Coetzee et al., 2021).
The 9-item Work Autonomy Scale (WAS) (Breaugh, 1999) was used to assess employees’ levels of job autonomy, including its three dimensions: method autonomy (3 items – ‘I am allowed to decide how to go about getting my job done’), scheduling autonomy (3 items – ‘I have control over the scheduling of my work’), and criteria autonomy (3 items – ‘I have control over what I am supposed to accomplish’). Participants endorse items using a 7-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Previous research has shown strong scale reliability of 0.88 for the total WAS (Wisniewski, 2019), including its subscales (α = 0.91, method autonomy; α = 0.78, criteria autonomy; α = 0.85, scheduling autonomy: Denton & Kleiman, 2001).
Data analysis
All statistical analyses were conducted using R software (R Core Team, 2021) with the psych (Revelle, 2024) and lavaan (Rosseel, 2012) packages. Prior to substantive analyses, data were screened for missingness, normality, and outliers. Descriptive statistics, including means and s.d., were computed to summarise the distributional properties of the study variables. Internal consistency reliability for each scale was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. Assumptions for parametric analyses were carefully examined. For correlational analyses, linearity, homoscedasticity, and normality of residuals were assessed through visual inspection of scatterplots and Q–Q plots. For regression analyses, additional diagnostics were conducted to ensure adequate model fit. Multicollinearity was evaluated using variance inflation factor (VIF) values, with the commonly accepted cut-off criteria (VIF < 5) for detecting problematic shared variance among the predictors. Bivariate relationships among the study variables were assessed using Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficients at the 95% confidence level (p < 0.05). To test the conditional effect of job crafting on career well-being, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed. In Step 1, the main effects of job crafting (dimension-specific and global indices) and work autonomy were entered. In Step 2, the corresponding two-way interaction terms were added to evaluate the moderating role of autonomy. All predictors were mean-centred prior to creating interaction terms to reduce multicollinearity and enhance the interpretability of regression coefficients. Interaction effects were evaluated using changes in R2 and the significance of the interaction terms.
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee in the Department of Psychology at the University of the Witwatersrand, with protocol number: MAORG-25-07.
Results
Before conducting correlations and regression analyses, the assumptions for parametric testing were evaluated. Visual inspection of histograms, Q–Q plots, and residual–fitted plots indicated that the variables approximated normal distributions and that residuals met the assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity. Multicollinearity diagnostics revealed that all predictors had acceptable VIF values (< 5), indicating no problematic shared variance. No violations of parametric assumptions were detected, and all variables were deemed suitable for subsequent correlational and regression analyses.
Table 1 shows the means, SD, and correlations between the study variables. All the measures used in the study demonstrated good internal consistency (Table 1). The total job crafting scale (r = 0.54, p < 0.05) and its three subscales of task (r = 0.43, p < 0.05), cognitive (r = 0.49, p < 0.05), and relational crafting (r = 0.31, p < 0.05) were positively associated with career well-being, providing support for hypotheses 1a-1c.
| TABLE 1: Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s α’s, and correlations. |
Similarly, positive associations were reported between all three crafting dimensions and autonomy: task crafting (r = 0.41, p < 0.05), cognitive crafting (r = 0.40, p < 0.05), and relational crafting (r = 0.21, p < 0.05). Career well-being and autonomy were also positively associated (r = 0.57, p < 0.05).
Moderation analyses
A series of hierarchical linear regression models was conducted to examine whether perceived autonomy moderated the relationships between crafting dimensions (task, cognitive, and relational) and career well-being. To reduce multicollinearity and facilitate interpretation of the interaction terms, all predictors were mean-centred prior to analysis. VIFs ranged from 1.03 to 1.30 across all models, indicating no multicollinearity issues. In each model, centred main effects were entered first, followed by the interaction term.
Task crafting × autonomy
The model examining task crafting and autonomy accounted for 37.4% of the variance in career well-being, F(3, 196) = 39.14, p < 0.001. Both task crafting (β = 0.82, p < 0.001) and autonomy (β = 0.64, p < 0.001) were significant positive predictors of career well-being. However, the interaction between task crafting and autonomy was not significant, β = 0.01, t = 0.69, p = 0.492, indicating that autonomy did not moderate this association (Table 2).
| TABLE 2: Hierarchical regression examining autonomy as a moderator of the relationship between task crafting and career well-being. |
Cognitive crafting × autonomy
The cognitive crafting model explained 40.8% of the variance in career well-being, F(3, 196) = 45.09, p < 0.001. Cognitive crafting (β = 0.96, p < 0.001) and autonomy (β = 0.58, p < 0.001) were both significant predictors. However, the interaction term was again not significant, β = –0.01, t = –0.63, p = 0.53 (Table 3). This suggests that autonomy does not change the strength of the relationship between cognitive crafting and career well-being.
| TABLE 3: Hierarchical regression examining autonomy as a moderator of the relationship between cognitive crafting and career well-being. |
Relational crafting × autonomy
The model including relational crafting accounted for 36.9% of the variance in career well-being, F(3, 196) = 38.27, p < 0.001. Relational crafting (β = 0.66, p < 0.001) and autonomy (β = 0.68, p < 0.001) were both significant predictors. As with the previous models, the interaction effect was non-significant, β = –0.01, t = –0.78, p = 0.44 (Table 4).
| TABLE 4: Hierarchical regression examining autonomy as a moderator of the relationship between relational crafting and career well-being. |
Due to the lack of moderation, a post hoc analysis was performed to detect variability in autonomy scores among participants. Low variance (SD < 0.06) may indicate insufficient variance for autonomy to interact with the job crafting dimensions as predictors of career well-being. Inspection of the autonomy scores yielded an SD = 12.74, suggesting that variance is present and that range restriction is not the issue behind the absence of moderation.
Access to the moderation plots for the above models is available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/efqn5/overview?view_only=6aea950b846d477cb521b51477c4a50f.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine whether task, cognitive, and relational job crafting contribute to career well-being and to explore whether autonomy strengthens these relationships in a South African organisational context. The findings offer several important contributions to the job crafting and career development literature. Consistent with hypotheses H1a to H1c, all three dimensions of job crafting were positively associated with career well-being. These results align with foundational theorising on job crafting, which positions proactive changes to tasks, cognitions, and interpersonal relationships as mechanisms through which employees enhance alignment between their work and their personal needs, strengths, and interests (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). They also extend previous work linking job crafting to desirable work outcomes such as engagement, performance, and meaningfulness (Berg et al., 2013; Tims et al., 2012) by showing that job crafting is also a relevant predictor of broader career-oriented experiences.
The positive relationships observed in this study suggest that employees who actively redefine or reconstruct aspects of their jobs appear better positioned to experience purpose, satisfaction, and psychological health in their careers. Task crafting was associated with improved career well-being, reinforcing the notion that altering one’s job tasks gives employees greater perceived mastery, greater progress towards goals, and greater alignment with personal strengths. Cognitive crafting also demonstrated a robust positive relationship with career well-being. This supports conceptualisations of cognitive crafting as a mechanism through which employees reinterpret their work in ways that emphasise meaning and purpose (Bruning & Campion, 2018). By reframing the significance of their work, individuals may strengthen their sense of vocation fit and long-term fulfilment, both key components of career well-being (Akkermans et al., 2020). Relational crafting similarly showed a positive association, suggesting that employees who proactively build or modify work relationships may benefit from resources that enhance career development, such as psychosocial support, access to information, or a stronger sense of belonging. These findings resonate with research indicating that relational job crafting fosters social resources that are instrumental for career success and identity development (Petrou et al., 2015).
Together, these results offer much-needed evidence on the emerging link between job crafting and career well-being. Although job crafting has been studied extensively in relation to short-term work attitudes, its role in longer-term career flourishing remains underexplored. This study, therefore, advances current knowledge by showing that job crafting is not merely a work adjustment strategy but may also contribute to sustained career satisfaction and positive psychological functioning. The findings also carry particular relevance for the South African context, where career well-being is influenced by organisational volatility, limited mobility opportunities, and diverse socio-economic pressures (Coetzee, 2019). The positive effects of job crafting observed here suggest that encouraging proactive person–job fit may be especially valuable for employees navigating complex labour market conditions.
Despite the strong main effects, hypotheses regarding the moderating influence of autonomy (H2a–H2c) were not supported. Autonomy did not strengthen the relationship between any job crafting dimension and career well-being. Instead, autonomy itself demonstrated a significant direct association with career well-being, suggesting that, while autonomy is an important resource, it may independently shape career experiences rather than operating as a contextual amplifier of job crafting’s effects. Several theoretical explanations could account for the absence of moderation. Firstly, job crafting is inherently self-initiated, and thus may operate relatively independently of structural job characteristics (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Employees often engage in crafting even when formal autonomy is limited, as crafting represents a behavioural and cognitive means of reclaiming control (Rudolph et al., 2017). In such cases, autonomy may simply not be necessary for crafting to have a positive impact on well-being.
Secondly, the presence of strong main effects from both job crafting and autonomy may indicate that these constructs contribute to career well-being through parallel rather than interactive pathways. This interpretation aligns with the Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) model, which emphasises that personal resources (such as crafting) and job resources (such as autonomy) can each exert independent motivational effects on well-being (Demerouti & Bakker, 2023). If both pathways effectively enhance meaning, competence, and growth, the incremental benefit of their interaction may be minimal.
Thirdly, the cross-sectional design may have limited the ability to detect moderator effects, which typically require substantial variability and temporal separation to emerge reliably. Moderation often reflects conditions under which certain behaviours become more or less effective, yet single-time-point data do not capture fluctuations in autonomy or crafting behaviours that may interact dynamically over time. Longitudinal or diary methodologies may therefore be better suited to testing the contingent effects proposed in the hypotheses (Demerouti et al., 2020).
Finally, contextual factors within South African organisations may influence how autonomy is experienced. Organisational structures, cultural norms, and leadership practices can shape employees’ perceptions of freedom and discretion, potentially weakening the psychological salience of formal autonomy for crafting behaviours. Employees may rely more heavily on proactive personal strategies, regardless of the autonomy available to them, to navigate career challenges in dynamic environments.
Conclusion
Practical implications
The findings of this study offer several practical implications for organisations seeking to enhance employees’ career well-being. The consistent positive associations between job crafting dimensions and career well-being suggest that organisations may benefit from cultivating environments that encourage proactive shaping of work roles. Interventions such as job crafting workshops, redesign initiatives, or leadership practices that legitimise employee-driven role modification may support individuals in tailoring their work to align with their strengths and career aspirations. Given that crafting behaviours were strongly associated with career well-being independent of autonomy levels, these initiatives may hold particular value in South African settings where structural constraints, rigid hierarchies, or resource limitations can restrict formal decision-making latitude.
Managers can strengthen employees’ capacity to craft by providing regular developmental feedback, creating opportunities for skill development, and fostering positive interpersonal climates. Relational crafting, in particular, highlights the relevance of social integration for career flourishing, suggesting that mentoring, collaborative work structures, and peer support systems may create conditions that benefit long-term career satisfaction. Cognitive crafting underscores the importance of helping employees to derive meaning from their work, which may be facilitated through purpose-driven communication, values alignment, and recognition practices that emphasise the broader significance of employees’ contributions.
The strong direct effect of autonomy on career well-being further indicates that organisations should continue to prioritise job resources that permit employees discretion, flexibility, and self-directed decision-making.
While autonomy did not moderate the influence of job crafting, it nonetheless emerged as a meaningful career resource in its own right. Managers and human resource (HR) practitioners should thus consider autonomy as a key developmental resource that supports adaptive career trajectories. Integrating autonomy-enhancing strategies with job crafting interventions may create dual pathways through which employees experience a more satisfying and meaningful career.
Limitations and future research
Some study limitations should be acknowledged when interpreting the findings. Firstly, the cross-sectional design of the study limits the ability to draw causal conclusions about the relationships observed. Job crafting and career well-being may influence one another reciprocally over time, and fluctuations in autonomy or crafting behaviours could interact in ways that are not captured at a single time point. Future research would benefit from longitudinal or diary-based designs that track the temporal dynamics between crafting, autonomy, and career well-being.
Secondly, the lack of support for the proposed moderation effects may be partly attributable to the use of stable, self-report measures. Autonomy experiences can vary considerably across days or projects, and the effects of autonomy on crafting may be more contextually bound than the broad measures applied here. Experience-sampling research could provide greater nuance by examining whether autonomy moderates crafting behaviours at specific moments when individuals feel constrained or empowered in their roles. Thirdly, limitation concerning the self-reported data, which may introduce concerns about common method variance, although the pattern of results and the presence of non-significant interactions mitigate the likelihood that method effects fully explain the findings. Nonetheless, incorporating multisource data, such as supervisor ratings of crafting or objective career indicators, would strengthen the robustness of future studies.
The South African organisational context represents both a strength and a boundary condition. Although the findings provide valuable insight into crafting and career well-being within a diverse and dynamic labour market, they may not generalise across national or cultural contexts with different labour structures, resource constraints, or autonomy norms. Comparative studies across cultural settings would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how job crafting operates under varied socio-economic conditions.
Future research may also investigate additional moderators or mediators that could explain when and why job crafting contributes to career well-being. Variables such as psychological capital, occupational identity, leadership style, or perceived organisational support may shape the impact of crafting in ways not accounted for in the present study. Furthermore, the strong independent effects of autonomy raise the possibility that additive or sequential, rather than interactive, mechanisms link crafting and autonomy to well-being. Testing more complex models may therefore reveal the pathways through which employees cultivate meaningful and sustainable careers.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on research originally conducted as part of Dona Pecelj’s master’s thesis titled ‘Investigating the Influence of Job Autonomy on the Relationship between Job Crafting and Career Well-being’, submitted to the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand in 2026. The thesis is currently unpublished and not publicly available. The thesis was supervised by Sergio L. Peral. The thesis was reworked, revised, and adapted into a journal article for publication. The authors confirm that the content has not been previously published or disseminated and complies with ethical standards for original publication.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Sergio L. Peral: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Dona Pecelj: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Writing – original draft. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The dataset used to perform the analyses and write up this article is available on the Open Science Framework and can be accessed here: https://osf.io/efqn5/overview?view_only=6aea950b846d477cb521b51477c4a50f.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or the publisher. The authors are responsible for the article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Aguinis, H., Villamor, I., & Gabriel, K.P. (2022). Understanding employee responses to COVID-19: A behavioral corporate social responsibility perspective. Management Research, 20(3), 234–252. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRJIAM-06-2020-1053
Akkermans, J., & Tims, M. (2017). Crafting your career: How career competencies relate to career success via job crafting. Applied Psychology, 66(1), 168–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12082
Akkermans, J., Tims, M., Beijer, S., & De Cuyper, N. (2020). Should employers invest in employability? Examining employability as a mediator in the HRM – Well-being relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 120, 103404. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00717
Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
Bakker, A.B., Tims, M., & Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Human Relations, 65(10), 1359–1378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712453471
Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work. In B.J. Dik, Z.S. Byrne & M.F. Steger (Eds.), Purpose and meaning in the workplace (pp. 81–104). American Psychological Association.
Bester, J., Els, C., & Coetzee, M. (2021). Career well-being and psychological resources among South African employees. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 47(1), 1–11.
Breaugh, J.A. (1999). Further investigation of the work autonomy scales: Two studies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13(3), 357–373.
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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0604
Coetzee, M. (2019). Workplace identity and career wellbeing. Springer.
Coetzee, M., Ferreira, N., & Potgieter, I.L. (2021). Exploring the construct validity of the Career Well-being Scale for its potential application as a career development tool in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic career space. African Journal of Career Development, 3(1), a39. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajcd.v3i1.39
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A.B. (2023). Job demands-resources theory in times of crises: New propositions. Organizational Psychology Review, 13(3), 209–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221135022
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Gevers, J.M. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role behavior: The role of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.001
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Geurts, S.A.E., & Taris, T. (2020). Daily detachment from work and homecrafting: A strategy to promote well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(9), 1074–1087. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000483
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Denton, D.W., & Kleiman, L.S. (2001). Job tenure as a moderator of the relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction. Applied H.R.M Research, 6, 105–114.
Duffy, R.D., Blustein, D.L., Diemer, M.A., & Autin, K.L. (2016). The psychology of working theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000140
Frazier, M.L., & Fainshmidt, S. (2012). Voice, creativity, and performance: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 970–986.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
Grant, A.M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351328
Hall, D.T., & Mirvis, P. (2013). The new protean career: Psychological success and the path with a heart. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(1), 1–13.
Jung, H.S., & Yoon, H.H. (2016). What does work meaning to hospitality employees? The effects of meaningful work on employees’ organizational commitment: The moderating role of job autonomy. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 53, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.12.004
Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work process and quality of care in early childhood education: The role of job crafting. Academy of Management Journal, 52(6), 1169–1192. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.47084651
Lichtenthaler, P.W., & Fischbach, A. (2018). A meta-analysis on promotion- and prevention-focused job crafting. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(5), 595–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1527767
May, J., Rogerson, C., & Vaughan, A. (2018). The labour market in South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 35(1), 1–24.
Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732
Peral, S., & Geldenhuys, M. (2016). The effects of job crafting on subjective well-being amongst South African high school teachers. SA Journal of industrial psychology, 42(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v42i1.1378
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2012). Crafting the change: The role of employee job crafting behaviours for successful organizational change. Journal of Management, 41(5), 140–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315624961
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Crafting the change: The role of employee job crafting behaviours for successful organizational change. Journal of Management, 44(5), 1766–1792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315624961
Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F.G. (2012). Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 250–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.756
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
Revelle, W. (2024). The psych package for personality and psychological research. https://personality-project.org/r/psych
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.008
Sakuraya, A., Shimazu, A., Imamura, K., Nishi, D., & Kawakami, N. (2017). Effects of job crafting on work engagement and psychological distress: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational Health, 59(2), 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13030-017-0091-y
Slemp, G.R., & Vella-Brodrick, D.A. (2013). The job crafting questionnaire: A new scale to measure the extent to which employees engage in job crafting. International Journal of Wellbeing, 3(2), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v3i2.1
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., & Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18(2), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032141
Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D.L., Chang, C.H., & Rosen, C.C. (2016). A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058
Van der Heijde, C.M., & Van der Heijden, B.I. (2006). A competence-based approach to employability: The construction and validation of a scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(3), 389–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20119
Wang, H.J., Demerouti, E., & Le Blanc, P. (2017). Transformational leadership, adaptability, and job crafting: The moderating role of autonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.03.009
Wisniewski, J. (2019). The moderating role of autonomy on the relationship between job crafting and work engagement. Master’s thesis. University of Wisconsin–Stout.
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. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378011
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2332
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
