Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to test a proposed model that examines the mediating role of psychological meaningfulness and the moderating role of organizational identification in the relationship between visionary leadership and job crafting.
Design/methodology/approach
The study used a survey to collect data from 242 employees from various sectors in Jordan. The collected data was used to examine how visionary leadership impacts job crafting behaviors, relying on partial least squares structural equation modeling to test the study’s hypotheses.
Findings
By testing the proposed hypotheses, the results provided evidence that a positive relationship exists between visionary leadership and job crafting. Furthermore, the results indicated that psychological meaningfulness is a mediator. Lastly, the authors found that the relationship between visionary leadership and job-crafting behaviors is moderated by organizational identification.
Research limitations/implications
The study has limitations that should be considered. First, the cross-sectional design impedes establishing causal relationships between variables (Setia, 2016). Future research should use longitudinal or experimental designs for more robust evidence on the directionality and causality of identified relationships. Second, using self-report measures introduces potential common method bias. To enhance reliability, future studies could explore objective measures or alternative data collection methods. Lastly, the study’s findings are based on a specific sample and context, raising concerns about generalizability. Addressing this limitation requires replication across diverse industries, organizational sizes and cultural contexts to validate external validity.
Practical implications
This study emphasizes practical implications for organizations, advocating the development of visionary leadership skills to inspire an environment conducive to job crafting. Nurturing psychological meaningfulness is also crucial, with training programs designed to enhance both visionary leadership and the meaningfulness of work experiences. Additionally, the study underscores the amplifying role of organizational identification in strengthening the positive effects of visionary leadership on employees’ sense of purpose, suggesting initiatives to foster a sense of belonging for collective success.
Social implications
Socially, encouraging visionary leadership and meaningful work can enhance job-crafting behaviors, fostering a positive workplace culture. Emphasizing organizational identification may contribute to a sense of purpose among employees, promoting collective success. By prioritizing these aspects, organizations can positively impact the well-being and engagement of individuals within the broader social context, potentially influencing societal perceptions of work and leadership.
Originality/value
This study explores how visionary leadership affects job crafting through psychological meaningfulness and organizational identification. It shows that visionary leadership positively influences job crafting, emphasizing leaders’ role in fostering commitment. Using a moderated mediation model, it provides new insights into job crafting across various contexts.
Keywords
Citation
Ghadi, M.Y. (2024), "Visionary leadership and job crafting: a moderated mediation model", RAUSP Management Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-01-2024-0020
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024, Mohammed Yasin Ghadi.
License
Published in RAUSP Management Journal. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence maybe seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Introduction
The current literature establishes a significant link between employee emotions, attitudes and positive behaviors and how work is designed (Hackman, 1980). Numerous theories have actively evolved, putting forth methods to shape work for fostering positive attitudes and behaviors, thereby enhancing organizational effectiveness. Job crafting is an especially noteworthy recent concept in work design that has garnered considerable attention (Ghadi & Almanaga’h, 2020). Inaugurated by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), job crafting represents a proactive and deliberate method for reshaping one’s job, entailing modifications to both the physical and cognitive aspects of tasks and relational boundaries. This approach challenges conventional viewpoints that perceive work as a fixed set of responsibilities. Instead, job crafting recognizes that employees have the capacity to reshape different facets of their work roles by adjusting job characteristics, meaning supplies and demands, to align with their personal needs and abilities (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Rudolph et al., 2017).
Leadership enhances job crafting by encouraging employees to tailor their roles to their strengths and interests (Zhang & Parker, 2019). Different leadership styles vary in the freedom and resources they offer for job crafting (Wang, Demerouti, & Bakker, 2016). Studies highlight the impact of relational leadership on job crafting (Ghadi & Almanaga’h, 2020; Liu et al., 2023), emphasizing leadership’s significant role in this behavior. Liu, Peng, and Wen (2023) called for more research on how different leadership styles affect job crafting. One promising but under-researched style is visionary leadership (van Knippenberg & Stam, 2014), which involves articulating clear visions that give meaning and direction to organizational work (Dumdum et al., 2002). Visionary leaders create a shared vision by inspiring and aligning their team toward common goals, relying on their ability to articulate a compelling vision that resonates with followers’ values and aspirations (Waldman et al., 2001). Therefore, this study aims to test the relationship between visionary leadership and job-crafting behaviors empirically.
This study examines not only the direct relationship between visionary leadership and job crafting but also the conditions influencing this relationship. Visionary leaders can positively affect employee behavior, but changes in subordinates’ task and relational boundaries are not guaranteed (Kearney, Shemla, van Knippenberg, & Scholz, 2019). Individual and organizational variables may influence this relationship (Taylor et al., 2014), as much as psychological meaningfulness and organizational identification might play key roles. Psychological meaningfulness is the extent to which individuals perceive their work as valuable and fulfilling, giving them a sense of purpose (May et al., 2004). Organizational identification refers to the degree to which employees feel connected to and identify with their organization, internalizing its values and goals (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). These factors can motivate employees to reshape their job roles to align with their strengths and interests, enhancing their contribution to the organization.
Therefore, this study suggests that visionary leaders may indirectly influence followers’ job crafting by stimulating the interconnected dynamics of psychological meaningfulness and organizational identification. In this way, this study contributes to the existing literature in addressing the following issues: first, job crafting is essential, empowering employees to take control of their work and enhance personal satisfaction proactively. Individuals align their roles with skills and interests through minor adjustments, boosting engagement and career contentment. This improves employee performance, instills a sense of ownership and contributes to organizational adaptability. Ultimately, job crafting creates a mutually beneficial strategy, fostering happier, more invested employees and an enjoyable work environment, leading to increased outcomes (Rudolph et al., 2017). Investigating the role of visionary leaders in shaping workplace culture and influencing employee experiences, especially in the dynamic organizational realm, is crucial. This study offers a significant comprehension of how visionary leadership promotes job crafting, contributing to the recent literature on both themes.
Second, despite advancements in understanding visionary leadership and job crafting individually, the nature of this relationship remains insufficiently explored, creating a critical juncture for scholarly inquiry. This knowledge gap presents an opportunity to contribute nuanced insights with implications for practical applications within organizational contexts, offering actionable insights for leaders navigating the complexities of fostering innovation and adaptability. This study aims to unravel the specific behaviors exhibited by visionary leaders that catalyze job crafting, exploring both the direct influence and the underlying processes linking visionary leadership to job crafting (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). By examining these mechanisms, including psychological meaningfulness and organizational identification, the research contributes valuable insights for both scholars and practitioners. This promises practical strategies for leaders to cultivate a workplace conducive to enhanced job crafting.
Theory and hypotheses
Visionary leadership
Visionary leadership is a dynamic style characterized by specific behaviors impacting daily interactions and long-term strategies. Visionary leaders excel at articulating a compelling vision that energizes their team, using storytelling and vivid imagery to paint a future that employees can believe in (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). They engage in active listening to align individual goals with organizational objectives, building trust through regular feedback and adaptability (van Knippenberg & Stam, 2014).
High emotional intelligence is another hallmark, as visionary leaders manage emotions effectively, foster a supportive environment and encourage open communication (Kearney et al., 2019). They empower teams by delegating responsibilities, providing autonomy and supporting innovative problem-solving (Greer et al., 2012). Recognizing and celebrating successes is key to boosting morale and reinforcing a positive culture.
Organizationally, visionary leaders embed core values into strategic planning and daily practices, ensuring these values are reflected in all aspects of the organization (Sosik & Jung, 2010). They exhibit resilience and optimism, inspiring their teams to persevere through challenges (Bass & Riggio, 2006). This alignment of values fosters a cohesive, collaborative environment and drives continuous improvement, helping organizations remain competitive and adaptable.
Job crafting
A proactive and employee-driven approach, job crafting empowers individuals to redesign their tasks, relationships and responsibilities, aligning them with their strengths, interests and values (Demerouti et al., 2017). This self-initiated change enhances well-being and job satisfaction and provides employees with autonomy and personal fulfillment (Slemp et al., 2015). According to Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), job crafting involves reshaping key dimensions of work roles, including tasks, relationships and perceptions. In other words, task crafting adjusts duties for increased engagement, relational crafting enhances interactions with stakeholders and cognitive crafting focuses on how individuals perceive their tasks. These multifaceted approaches underscore job crafting’s dynamic nature, positively impacting individual job satisfaction and overall organizational effectiveness.
By recognizing the diverse attributes of workers, job crafting introduces flexibility, acknowledging that work designs can adapt to various backgrounds, motives and preferences (Chen, 2019). Resourceful job crafting, effectively using available resources, leads to increased enjoyment, meaning in work, reinforced work identities, improved resilience and enhanced overall performance (Tims et al., 2015; Berg et al., 2013; Lee & Song, 2020). Managers play a pivotal role in fostering positive job crafting by encouraging open communication and building trust (Wang et al., 2016).
Visionary leadership and job crafting
Visionary leadership comprises vision content and communication (Liu et al., 2023). Vision content outlines future organizational goals, motivating followers to exceed their job descriptions and contribute to the broader vision (Zhou et al., 2018). Effective communication clarifies goals and actions, enhancing follower efficiency and purpose (Luo et al., 2021). This approach fosters a shared vision and proactive engagement among followers (Cheema et al., 2015), with clear vision and improved communication driving proactive behavior (Wang et al., 2016).
Visionary leaders excel at creating an environment where employees feel empowered and engaged through various key behaviors. They provide clear, consistent communication about the organizational vision, which helps employees see how their roles align with broader goals, offering direction and purpose (Bass & Riggio, 2006). This clarity aligns with personal and organizational goals, satisfying employees’ competence needs (Stouten et al., 2018).
Additionally, visionary leaders foster a supportive atmosphere by encouraging employees to take initiative and decide their tasks. This empowerment gives employees a sense of control and ownership, making them more engaged and committed to the vision (Grant & Parker, 2009). Such empowerment is essential for job crafting, as employees are more likely to reshape their roles when they feel valued and impactful.
Investing in employee development is another crucial behavior of visionary leaders. Resources, training and support enhance employees’ skills and show commitment to their growth, further motivating job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).
Regarding relational crafting, visionary leaders build a collaborative work culture, encouraging employees to nurture positive relationships and support each other. This sense of community and belonging is vital for relational crafting and helps employees feel connected to both the vision and their colleagues (Bass & Riggio, 2006).
Finally, visionary leadership impacts cognitive crafting by promoting an optimistic, forward-thinking mindset. Highlighting the positive aspects of the future motivates employees to seek new information and align their cognitive frameworks with the vision, fostering cognitive crafting behaviors (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Tims et al., 2012).
Based on this discussion, the first hypothesis is as follows:
Visionary leadership positively relates to job crafting.
Visionary leadership and psychological meaningfulness
Visionary leaders significantly enhance employees’ psychological meaningfulness by articulating a clear and inspiring vision that aligns with their values. By providing a sense of purpose and direction, visionary leaders help employees see the importance and impact of their work (Bass & Riggio, 2006). This approach fosters an environment where employees feel capable and in control, contributing to the meaningfulness of their tasks (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). The relational aspect of visionary leadership creates a shared sense of meaning and values among employees, further enhancing their connection to their work and colleagues (Bass & Riggio, 2006).
The impact of visionary leadership on psychological meaningfulness is also evident in its ability to inspire a sense of pride and fulfillment among employees. When the visionary narrative aligns with employees’ values, it creates a shared sense of meaning, motivating individuals to contribute their best efforts toward common goals (Bass & Riggio, 2006). This alignment fosters a work environment where tasks are perceived as personally meaningful, contributing to the overall psychological meaningfulness of their work (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).
Based on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Visionary leadership positively relates to psychological meaningfulness.
The mediating role of psychological meaningfulness
An excellent way to understand the mediating role of psychological meaningfulness is the job demands-resources (JD-R) (Bakker & Demerouti, 2016). To begin with, visionary leadership plays a pivotal role in setting a clear and inspiring direction for the organization, thereby creating a positive impact on job resources. As per the JD-R model proposed by Bakker and Demerouti (2016), resources within the work environment can be classified into two categories: job resources, which contribute to accomplishing work goals, and personal resources, which aid in effectively addressing job demands. Visionary leaders contribute to fostering a positive work environment through their ability to provide a sense of purpose and direction. This positive influence can be considered a job resource, as employees are more likely to perceive their work as meaningful and fulfilling. This aligns with the foundational component of the JD-R model, emphasizing the role of resources in influencing employee well-being.
Moving forward, visionary leadership extends its impact on the JD-R model by influencing job crafting through psychological meaningfulness. Psychological meaningfulness, a crucial factor in the JD-R model, refers to the perception that one’s work is valuable, significant and contributes to personal goals. Visionary leaders excel in inspiring employees by linking individual tasks to a broader organizational vision. It is believed that such a relationship enhances the perceived meaningfulness of the work, encouraging employees to engage in job-crafting behaviors. Job crafting involves actively shaping one’s job to align with personal preferences and organizational goals (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Therefore, visionary leadership indirectly affects job crafting by enhancing psychological meaningfulness, a central element in the JD-R model.
Building on this idea, it is apparent that the relationship between visionary leadership and job crafting may allow for psychological meaningfulness to intervene. When they see their work as meaningful because of the visionary guidance, employees will be more resigned and prone to proactively adjust what they do to meet the organizational vision. The linkage with visionary leadership, psychological meaningfulness and job crafting is well emphasized by the JD-R model, given its accentuation of how complex interplays between job resources’ demands contribute to employee thriving.
In light of this comprehensive discussion, the following proposition is made:
The relationship between visionary leadership and job crafting is mediated by psychological meaningfulness.
The moderating role of organizational identification
Organizational identification refers to how individuals feel connected to their organization, integrating it into their self-concept (Edwards, 2006). This connection significantly affects their commitment, motivation and engagement (van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006). As a key element of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), organizational identification highlights the importance of group membership in shaping individual behavior.
Research has shown that organizational identification can moderate various relationships, including those involving leadership (Lythreatis et al., 2020). We propose that the impact of visionary leadership on psychological meaningfulness may be influenced by the strength of employees’ organizational identification. Employees with a strong sense of identification are likely to be more receptive to and inspired by a visionary leader, enhancing their work’s psychological meaningfulness.
The social identity theory supports this view by explaining that individuals categorize themselves into social groups, with the degree of identification affecting their perceptions and behaviors (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In an organizational setting, a leader represents an important in-group, and strong organizational identification can amplify the leader’s influence on employees’ self-concept. Consequently, employees with high organizational identification may experience greater psychological meaningfulness from visionary leadership as they see the leader’s vision aligning with their collective identity. Thus,
Organizational identification positively moderates the relationship between visionary leadership and psychological meaningfulness, such that the positive relationship will be stronger under high levels of organizational identification than under low levels of organizational identification.
Expanding upon prior hypotheses, we further explore the intricate interplay between visionary leadership, organizational identification, psychological meaningfulness and job crafting. The model posits that organizational identification acts as a critical moderator, enhancing the indirect impact of visionary leadership on job crafting through its facilitation of psychological meaningfulness.
Research within the realm of leadership has consistently underscored the significance of organizational identification in aligning followers’ values with the leader’s vision, fostering psychological meaningfulness. Studies such as Wang et al. ((2016), Demirtas et al. (2017) and Lythreatis, Mostafa, Pereira, Wang, and Del Giudice ((2020) have demonstrated the pivotal role of organizational identification in strengthening the influence of leadership on employees' perception of meaningful work.
At its core, organizational identification bridges employees with the broader organizational mission and values; it is believed that visionary leaders, through effective communication and strategic alignment, inspire a shared sense of purpose and commitment among followers, thereby nurturing psychological meaningfulness. Employees who identify strongly with the organization are more likely to perceive their work as meaningful and aligned with the overarching vision articulated by the leader (Qin et al., 2023).
Considering these insights, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Organizational identification moderates the indirect relationship between visionary leadership and job crafting through psychological meaningfulness, such that the indirect relationship is stronger under high levels of organizational identification than under low levels of organizational identification.
Figure 1 demonstrates the study model.
Methods
Population and sample
The study sampled 242 employees from various sectors in Jordan, including government, private, technology and education. Convenience sampling was used for its practicality. The sample is predominantly male (81.4%), with females making up 18.6%. Age distribution includes 24% under 30, 33.1% between 31 and 40, 19.8% between 41 and 50 and 23.1% over 50. Educational backgrounds vary: 47.9% have bachelor's degrees, 38.4% hold master’s degrees and 13.6% have diplomas. Employment status shows 84.2% are full-time and 15.7% part-time. Experience levels include 7% with less than 1 year, 30.6% with 1–5 years, 24.8% with 6–10 years and 37.6% with over 11 years. Leadership experience ranges from less than 1 year (7.4%) to over 10 years (46.7%). Job titles vary, with 13.6% in managerial/executive roles, 14% in technical/IT positions, 4.5% in educational roles, 5.4% in sales and 62.4% in other positions.
Data collection instrument
The research used a questionnaire survey as the primary data collection tool, comprising five sections: visionary leadership, job crafting, organizational identification, psychological meaningfulness and sociodemographic professional information (including gender, age, academic background, employment status, work experience, leadership experience and job title).
The study used established scales from existing literature, as detailed below. Visionary leadership was evaluated using a five-item scale developed by Kearney et al. ((2019), with sample items such as “My manager communicates a clear idea about what should be accomplished”.
Job crafting was assessed using a concise 12-item scale developed by Tims, Bakker, and Derks (2012), including items like “Proactively taking on new tasks”. Participants rated the frequency of these behaviors on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often).
Organizational identification was measured using a six-item scale developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992), with a sample item like “I am very interested in what others think about my organization”.
The assessment of meaningfulness used the psychological meaningfulness scale developed by May, Gilson, and Harter ((2004), consisting of six items. These items explored aspects such as the personal significance of job activities, with statements like “My job activities are personally meaningful to me” included in the scale.
Procedures
Data collection began in October 2023 using an online survey with a comprehensive questionnaire. A pilot study with 10 participants assessed the survey's clarity. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, emphasizing voluntary participation and confidentiality. Ethical approvals were secured from the HR departments of the involved organizations. Quality control measures were applied to ensure data accuracy and reliability. The survey, conducted over ten weeks, resulted in 271 responses. However, 18 responses were invalid, and 11 did not meet the research criteria.
Our data analysis procedure adopted a comprehensive approach by incorporating Smart-PLS 4. Our initial focus was rigorously evaluating the measurement model to ensure its reliability and validity. Convergent validity was assessed through strict criteria, confirming that factor loadings exceeded 0.50, composite reliability surpassed 0.70 and the average variance extracted (AVE) was greater than 0.50 (Hair et al., 2017). Following the suggestion by Hair and colleagues, factor loading estimates should ideally exceed 0.5, ensuring the robust contribution of each item to its respective construct. Any item loading below this threshold is recommended for elimination from the measurement model, reflecting its significant impact on the designated constructs.
Discriminant validity was evaluated through cross-loading and the Fornell–Larcker criterion, as outlined by Ronkko and Cho (2022). The Fornell–Larcker criterion, used in structural equation modeling, assesses discriminant validity by ensuring that the square root of the AVE for a construct exceeds its correlations with other constructs. This criterion involves computing the AVE for each construct, representing the proportion of variance captured by its indicators. Discriminant validity is confirmed when the AVE value surpasses the squared correlation for each pair of constructs, typically with a threshold set at 0.5.
A thorough examination was conducted on the structural model to validate the hypothesized relationships, following established guidelines outlined by Hair, Babin, Anderson, and Black ((2019). The evaluation comprised three primary tests for effectiveness. Initially, scrutiny was applied to the coefficient of determination (R2) to assess how well the model explained the variance in the dependent variable. Cohen’s (1988) recommended thresholds were used, categorizing 2% as a small effect, 13% as a medium effect and 26% as a large effect. Subsequently, the computation of effect size (f2) was undertaken to determine the practical significance of the relationships. Consistent with guidelines from Hair et al. ((2019), thresholds for this test were set at 0.2 for a small effect, 0.15 to 0.35 for a medium effect and above 0.35 for a large effect size. Finally, predictive relevance (Q2) was assessed to measure the model's capability to predict the dependent variable. Thresholds for this test considered values above zero as meaningful, 0.25–0.50 as medium and exceeding 0.50 as a large effect. To address potential collinearity issues among predictor constructs, we maintained close monitoring of variance inflation factor (VIF) values, strictly adhering to the recommendation of keeping them at approximately 3 or less, as advised by Hair et al. ((2019). This precaution aimed to ensure the reliability and robustness of the structural model throughout the assessment process.
Finally, hypothesis testing involved scrutinizing the path coefficients to determine the strength and significance of the relationships hypothesized in the conceptual model. By incorporating these analyses, we ensured a comprehensive and robust assessment of our model’s measurement and structural aspects, providing a solid foundation for drawing meaningful conclusions from the data.
Results and discussion
Common method variance and multicollinearity
During the primary data collection, the study took proactive steps to mitigate common method variance and multicollinearity challenges. Harman’s single-factor test was used to assess common method variance, incorporating a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) where all variables were loaded onto a single general factor. & Following Hu and Bentler (1999) criteria, the analysis revealed that the consolidated variables formed a single latent factor, explaining 22.4% of the total variance – well below the 50% threshold, indicating negligible common method variance impact. This ensured the robustness of the data analysis results, maintaining them within acceptable ranges.
The study used the VIF to address multicollinearity concerns, revealing the highest VIF value of 1.21. This value remained below the widely recommended threshold of 5 (James et al., 2021), indicating that multicollinearity was not a significant issue in the analyzed data. Additionally, all variables’ skewness and kurtosis values were within the acceptable range (0.62–0.86), confirming adherence to a normal distribution pattern in the data set. Collectively, these measures assured the reliability and validity of the study’s findings by effectively addressing potential methodological challenges.
Measurement model evaluation
A comprehensive assessment of three key criteria was conducted to ensure convergent validity: factor loadings, composite reliability and AVE. The findings presented in Table 1 reveal that the factor loadings for all items related to visionary leadership, organizational identification, job crafting and psychological meaningfulness surpass the recommended threshold of 0.50. This emphasizes a robust relationship between the observed variables and their respective latent factors. In terms of alpha and composite reliability, all values exceeded the threshold of 0.70. Furthermore, concerning the AVE value, all variables surpassed 0.5, indicating satisfactory convergent validity. These results highlight a commendable level of convergent validity demonstrated by each construct.
Table 2 provides robust evidence supporting the discriminant validity of the model through an examination of cross-loadings. The model's suitability is underscored by the bold-indicated loadings in the table, each consistently surpassing associated cross-loadings, affirming its capability to represent each indicator and distinguish between latent variables accurately. Concurrently, Table 3 reaffirms the discriminant validity of the model, showcasing square root AVE values that consistently outperform the correlations between constructs. This emphasizes the model's resilience in distinguishing latent variables and solidifies its reliability in precisely measuring distinct constructs. In summary, the discriminant validity of the model is consistently and convincingly demonstrated through both the cross-loadings in Table 2 and the superior square root AVE values in Table 3, collectively reinforcing the model's precision and reliability in capturing the unique characteristics of different constructs within the measurement model.
Structural model test
In this study, the observed variance (R2) revealed substantial values, with job crafting at 0.394 and psychological meaningfulness at 0.152, indicating a poor to moderate impact. In terms of effect size (f2), the findings exceeded the suggested threshold of 0.02 for a small effect, as established by Cohen (1988). Specifically, visionary leadership had a value of 0.18, psychological meaningfulness had a value of 0.459 and organizational identification showed a value of 0.15. Furthermore, adhering to the recommendation of Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2017), the results exhibited Q2 values of 0.09, 0.11, 0.08 and 0.10 for visionary leadership, job crafting, psychological meaningfulness and organizational identification, respectively. Thes values indicate a commendable predictive relevance of the model.
Through a two-step modeling approach, the analysis exposes a significant and positive correlation between visionary leadership and job crafting behaviors (β = 0.16, t = 1.043, p < 0.0149), robustly supporting H1. Furthermore, a positive relationship emerges between psychological meaningfulness and job-crafting behaviors (β = 0.538, t = 4.272, p < 0.000), underscoring the relevance of intrinsic motivation in shaping job-crafting behaviors. Delving into the link between visionary leadership and psychological meaningfulness, we uncover a positive and significant effect (β = 0.311, t = 2.164, p < 0.015), highlighting the leadership style’s role in cultivating a sense of purpose and significance among employees. Hence, H2 is accepted.
The results outlined in Table 4 shed light on the hypothesized mediation effect of psychological meaningfulness on the visionary leadership/job crafting relationship. With a beta coefficient of 0.181, the findings suggest a positive indirect effect, thereby supporting H3. The associated t-values of 1.796 achieve statistical significance, surpassing conventional thresholds. The confidence interval (CI) for the indirect effect (0.0036 to 0.118, lower level to upper level) further reinforces the significance of the mediation effect. Essentially, the results imply that the impact of visionary leadership on job-crafting behaviors is, at least partially, channeled through the augmentation of psychological meaningfulness.
Regarding H4, the results presented in Table 4 reveal that the interaction effect between organizational identification and visionary leadership serves as a significant predictor of psychological meaningfulness (β = 0.037, t = 2.585, p < 0.0245), such that the positive relationship will be stronger under high levels of organizational identification than under low levels of organizational identification.
As to the moderation analysis of the impact of organizational identification on the indirect relationship between visionary leadership and job-crafting behaviors, via psychological meaningfulness, we found that individuals with low organizational identification exhibit a conditional indirect effect of 0.017 (SE = 0.0059, 95% CI: −0.0038 to 0.016). In contrast, those with high organizational identification manifest a higher conditional indirect effect of 0.039 (SE = 0.019, 95% CI: 0.019 to 0.056). These outcomes support H5, illuminating the moderating role of organizational identification in the visionary leadership/job crafting nexus.
Discussion of results
This study reveals that visionary leadership positively influences job-crafting behaviors, with psychological meaningfulness as a mediating variable. Organizational identification moderates this relationship, enhancing the effect of visionary leadership on job crafting when identification is high. These findings are supported by structural equation modeling using data from organizations in Jordan focused on innovation and adaptability.
The theoretical implications of this study are substantial. It integrates visionary leadership, psychological meaningfulness, organizational identification and job crafting into a unified framework. While previous research has investigated psychological meaningfulness and organizational identification's effects on job crafting (de Devotto et al., 2022), the impact of visionary leadership has been less explored. This study confirms the positive influence of visionary leadership on job crafting, particularly in the Jordanian context. It also sheds light on how visionary leadership, an area less studied than other leadership styles (Liu et al., 2023), affects job crafting through communication, creativity and proactive engagement. This aligns with existing literature on leadership’s role in shaping job-crafting behaviors (Sekiguchi et al., 2017).
Furthermore, the study's moderated mediation model contributes to the literature by offering a comprehensive view of how visionary leadership, psychological meaningfulness and organizational identification interact to influence job crafting (Luu et al., 2019). This approach enriches the understanding of the mechanisms underlying visionary leadership's impact on job crafting.
Finally, by applying this model in Jordan, the study addresses previous calls for research in diverse contexts, enhancing the generalizability of the model and offering insights into job crafting processes across different cultural and organizational settings (Schachler et al., 2019).
Practical implications
This study has significant implications for organizations. First, fostering visionary leadership is essential as it positively correlates with job-crafting behaviors (Guskey, 2003). Developing and promoting visionary leadership skills can inspire employees to shape their roles proactively. Concurrently, enhancing psychological meaningfulness is crucial for intrinsic motivation (Ghadi et al., 2015). Organizations should focus on making tasks and relationships more meaningful to stimulate job crafting. The positive effect of visionary leadership on psychological meaningfulness suggests that leveraging this leadership style can cultivate a sense of purpose and significance among employees. Visionary leadership development programs can create a culture where employees feel valued and connected to the organizational mission, encouraging job crafting.
Second, psychological meaningfulness serves as a mediator between visionary leadership and job crafting. Improving visionary leadership can indirectly impact job crafting by enhancing psychological meaningfulness. Organizations should design training programs that enhance both visionary leadership skills and the meaningfulness of work experiences (Yordsala et al., 2014). This dual approach fosters a culture where visionary leaders inspire purpose and employees find meaning in their tasks.
Finally, strengthening organizational identification can amplify the impact of visionary leadership on the employees' sense of purpose. Effective communication that clarifies organizational goals and fosters a shared vision can enhance employees' identification with the organization (Adekunle, 2019). Employees who feel connected to the organization's vision are more likely to perceive their work as meaningful. Organizations should implement initiatives that foster a sense of belonging, reinforcing the impact of visionary leadership on job crafting and encouraging proactive role shaping.
Limitations and recommendations
This study has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional design prevents establishing causal relationships between variables. Future research should use longitudinal or experimental designs to provide stronger evidence of causality. Second, self-report measures may introduce common method bias; future studies could benefit from objective measures or alternative data collection methods. Finally, the study's specific sample and context raise concerns about generalizability, suggesting a need for replication across various industries, organizational sizes and cultural settings to enhance external validity.
Future research could expand on these findings in several ways. Exploring additional mediators, such as self-efficacy or job autonomy, between visionary leadership and job crafting could offer more profound insights. Longitudinal studies could reveal dynamic changes in relationships over time. Cross-cultural studies may assess the universality or contextual specificity of these relationships. Intervention studies could evaluate the effectiveness of programs aimed at improving visionary leadership, organizational identification and psychological meaningfulness. Finally, a multilevel analysis approach could provide nuanced insights into how visionary leadership impacts job-crafting behaviors at individual, team and organizational levels.
Figures
Figure 1.
The study model
Confirmatory factor analysis, reliabilities and AVE for study variables
| Visionary leadership | ||||
| Visionary leadership measurement items | CFA factors loadings | Composite reliability | Cronbach’s alpha (α) | Average variance extracted (AVE) |
|
0.835 | 0.933 | 0.894 | 0.682 |
|
0.591 | |||
|
0.595 | |||
|
0.622 | |||
|
0.891 | |||
| Organizational identification | ||||
| Organizational identification measurement items | CFA factors loadings | Composite reliability | Cronbach’s alpha | Average variance extracted |
|
0.884 | 0.912 | 0.880 | 0.607 |
|
0.777 | |||
|
0.545 | |||
|
0.908 | |||
|
0.876 | |||
|
0.686 | |||
| Job crafting | ||||
| Job crafting measurement items | CFA factors loadings | Composite reliability | Cronbach’s alpha | Average variance extracted |
|
0.543 | 0.971 | 0.948 | 0.651 |
|
0.876 | |||
|
0.572 | |||
|
0.507 | |||
|
0.741 | |||
|
0.891 | |||
|
0.904 | |||
|
0.898 | |||
|
0.873 | |||
|
0.879 | |||
|
0.919 | |||
|
0.903 | |||
| Psychological meaningfulness | ||||
| Psychological meaningfulness measurement items | CFA factors loadings | Composite reliability | Cronbach’s alpha | Average variance extracted |
|
0.599 | 0.813 | 0.800 | 0.500 |
|
0.720 | |||
|
0.714 | |||
|
0.714 | |||
|
0.691 | |||
|
0.789 | |||
Notes: VL= visionary leadership; JC = job crafting = PM = psychological meaningfulness; OI = organizational identification
Source: Developed by the author
Discriminant validity: Fornell–Larcker criterion test
| JC | PM | OI | VL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JC1 | 0.548 | 0.393 | 0.361 | 0.381 |
| JC10 | 0.882 | 0.566 | 0.278 | 0.156 |
| JC11 | 0.914 | 0.483 | 0.08 | 0.036 |
| JC12 | 0.906 | 0.658 | 0.361 | 0.214 |
| JC2 | 0.869 | 0.424 | 0.002 | 0.045 |
| JC3 | 0.572 | 0.235 | 0.11 | 0.018 |
| JC4 | 0.513 | 0.215 | 0.29 | 0.229 |
| JC5 | 0.741 | 0.396 | 0.286 | 0.288 |
| JC6 | 0.884 | 0.447 | 0.031 | 0.009 |
| JC7 | 0.898 | 0.487 | 0.063 | 0.032 |
| JC8 | 0.902 | 0.63 | 0.287 | 0.17 |
| JC9 | 0.876 | 0.582 | 0.268 | 0.102 |
| PM1 | 0.193 | 0.608 | 0.327 | 0.465 |
| PM2 | 0.577 | 0.719 | 0.352 | 0.291 |
| PM3 | 0.487 | 0.709 | 0.049 | 0.089 |
| PM4 | 0.487 | 0.709 | 0.049 | 0.089 |
| PM5 | 0.323 | 0.698 | 0.371 | 0.347 |
| PM6 | 0.418 | 0.787 | 0.271 | 0.372 |
| OI1 | 0.257 | 0.247 | 0.884 | 0.578 |
| OI2 | 0.225 | 0.275 | 0.778 | 0.34 |
| OI3 | 0.003 | 0.026 | 0.444 | 0.011 |
| OI4 | 0.181 | 0.254 | 0.908 | 0.409 |
| OI5 | 0.21 | 0.264 | 0.876 | 0.496 |
| OI6 | 0.022 | 0.182 | 0.685 | 0.565 |
| VL1 | 0.16 | 0.376 | 0.572 | 0.874 |
| VL2 | 0.127 | 0.347 | 0.521 | 0.866 |
| VL3 | 0.178 | 0.381 | 0.398 | 0.845 |
| VL4 | 0.007 | 0.087 | 0.276 | 0.737 |
| VL5 | 0.014 | 0.187 | 0.299 | 0.799 |
Notes: VL = visionary leadership; JC = job crafting; PM = psychological meaningfulness; OI = organizational identification; bold values are in italic because the criterion compares the square root of the AVE of each construct with the correlations between that construct and all dimensions of that construct
Source: Developed by the author
Discriminant validity: cross-loadings
| JC | PM | OI | VL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JC | 0.806 | |||
| PM | 0.602 | 0.707 | ||
| OI | 0.253 | 0.301 | 0.779 | |
| VL | 0.154 | 0.39 | 0.542 | 0.826 |
VL= visionary leadership; JC = job crafting; PM = psychological meaningfulness; OI = organizational identification; bold values are in italic because the criterion compares the square root of the AVE of each construct with the correlations between that construct and all dimensions of that construct
Source: Developed by the author
Results of the structural model analysis
| Path coefficient | t-value | p-value | f2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VL→ JC | 0.160 | 1.043 | 0.0149 | 0.18 |
| MW→ JC | 0.538 | 4.272 | 0.000 | 0.459 |
| VL→ PM | 0.311 | 2.164 | 0.015 | 0.107 |
| VL X OI → MW | 0.037 | 2.585 | 0.0245 | 0.161 |
| 95% CI bias corrected | ||||
| Beta | t-value | LL | UL | |
| Indirect effect | ||||
| VL → PM → JC | 0.181 | 1.796 | 0.0036 | 0.118 |
| 95% CI bias corrected | ||||
| Moderator (OI) | Conditional indirect effect | SE | LL | UL |
| Conditional indirect effects | ||||
| Low | 0.017 | 0.0059 | −0.0038 | 0.016 |
| High | 0.039 | 0.019 | 0.019 | 0.056 |
Notes: VL = visionary leadership; PM = psychological meaningfulness, JC = job crafting; OI = organizational identification; LL = lower level; UL = upper level
Source: Developed by the author
References
Adekunle, A. (2019). Organizational Identification: Exploring the use of Training as an Employee Identification Marker in SMEs, Doctoral dissertation, University of Gloucestershire.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2016). Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285, doi: 10.1037/ocp0000056.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership, 2nd ed., New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work. in B. J. Dik, Z. S. Byrne, M. F. Steger, Purpose and meaning in the workplace, 81–104. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cheema, S., Akram, A., & Javed, F. (2015). Employee engagement and visionary leadership: Impact on customer and employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 7(2), 139–147.
Chen, C.-Y. (2019). Does work engagement mediate the influence of job resourcefulness on job crafting? An examination of frontline hotel employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1684–1701, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-05-2018-0365.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
de Devotto, P., de Freitas, C. P. P., & Wechsler, S. M. (2022). Basic psychological need satisfaction, job crafting, and meaningful work: Network analysis. Trends in Psychology, 1–21.
Demerouti, E., Xanthopoulou, D., Petrou, P., & Karagkounis, C. (2017). Does job crafting assist dealing with organizational changes due to austerity measures? Two studies among Greek employees. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(4), 574–589.
Edwards, M. R. (2006). Organizational identification: a conceptual and operational review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 207–230.
Ghadi, M. Y., & Almanaga’h, K. S. (2020). The role of job crafting in the relationship between empowering leadership and happiness at work: an empirical analysis. Business: Theory and Practice, 21(1), 244–251, doi: 10.3846/btp.2020.11109.
Ghadi, M. Y., Fernando, M., & Caputi, P. (2015). Describing work as meaningful: Towards a conceptual clarification. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 2(3), 202–223.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317–375, doi: 10.5465/19416520903047327.
Greer, L. L., De Hoogh, A. H. B., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2012). Effect of leader unpredictability on team power struggles and performance [paper presentation], Boston, United States: Academy of Management Annual Meeting.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). Analyzing lists of the characteristics of effective professional development to promote visionary leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 87(637), 4–20.
Hackman, J. R. (1980). Work redesign and motivation. Professional Psychology, 11(3), 445–455.
Hair, J. F., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. C. (2019). Multivariate data analysis, 8th ed., Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Hu, L-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2021). Moving beyond linearity, in an introduction to statistical learning: With applications in R. in G. James, D. Witten, T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, Springer texts in statistics, pp. 289–326. New York, NY: Springer US.
Kearney, E., Shemla, M., van Knippenberg, D., & Scholz, F. A. (2019). A paradox perspective on the interactive effects of visionary and empowering leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 20–30.
Lee, J. W., & Song, Y. (2020). Promoting employee job crafting at work: The roles of motivation and team context. Personnel Review, 49(3), 689–708, doi: 10.1108/PR-07-2018-0261.
Liu, G., Peng, H., & Wen, H. (2023). How self-leadership promotes job crafting: Based on the perspective of self-determination theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1–11, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1079196.
Luo, Y. J., Li, Y. P., Choi, J. N., & Du, J. (2021). Visionary leadership effectiveness: Moderating roles of power distance and middle-way thinking. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 48(12), 1–12, doi: 10.2224/sbp.9593.
Luu, T. T., Rowley, C., Dinh, C. K., Qian, D., & Le, H. Q. (2019). Team creativity in public healthcare organizations: The roles of charismatic leadership, team job crafting, and collective public service motivation. Public Performance & Management Review, 42(6), 1448–1480, doi: 10.1080/15309576.2019.1595067.
Lythreatis, S., Mostafa, A. M. S., Pereira, V., Wang, X., & Del Giudice, M. (2020). Servant leadership, CSR perceptions, moral meaningfulness, and organizational identification: Evidence from the Middle East. International Business Review, 30(5), 101772, doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101772.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123, doi: 10.1002/job.4030130202.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability, and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11–37, doi: 10.1348/096317904322915892.
Qin, Y. S., DiStaso, M. W., Fitzsimmons, A. B., & Heffron, E. (2023). Communicating the big picture with employees: the impacts of CEO vision communication on employee engagement. International Journal of Business Communication, doi: doi: 10.1177/23294884231190387.
Ronkko, M., & Cho, E. (2022). An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organizational Research Methods, 25(1), 6–14, doi: 10.1177/1094428120968614.
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, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.008.
Schachler, V., Epple, S. D., Clauss, E., Hoppe, A., Slemp, G. R., & Ziegler, M. (2019). Measuring job crafting across cultures: Lessons learned from comparing a German and an Australian sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–13.
Sekiguchi, T., Li, J., & Hosomi, M. (2017). Predicting jobcrafting from the socially embedded perspective: The interactive effect of job autonomy, social skill, and employee status. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(4), 470–497, doi: 10.1177/0021886317727459.
Slemp, G. R., Kern, M. L., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2015). Workplace well-being: The role of job crafting and autonomy support. Psychology of Well-Being, 5(1), 1–17.
Sosik, J. J., & Jung, D. I. (2010). Full range leadership development: Pathways for people, profit, and planet, New York, NY: Routledge.
Stouten, J., Rousseau, D. M., & De Cremer, D. (2018). Successful organizational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literature. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 752–788, doi: 10.5465/annals.2016.0095.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel, W. G. Austin, The social psychology of intergroup relations, pp. 33–47. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Taylor, C. M., Cornelius, C. J., & Colvin, K. (2014). Visionary leadership and its relationship to organizational effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(6), 566–583.
Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1–9.
Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 173–186, doi: 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, doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2014.969245.
van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: Self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 571–584, doi: 10.1002/job.359.
van Knippenberg, D., & Stam, D. (2014). Visionary leadership. in D. V. Day, The oxford handbook of leadership and organizations, 241–259. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 134143, doi: 10.2307/3069341.
Wang, H. J., Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2016). A review of job crafting research: the role of leader behaviors in cultivating successful job crafters. in S. K. Parker, U. K. Bindl, Proactivity at work (series in organization and management), New York, NY: Routledge.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201, doi: 10.2307/259118.
Yordsala, S., Tesaputa, K., & Sri-Ampai, A. (2014). The development of visionary leadership administrators in Thai primary schools. International Education Studies, 7(1), 92–101, doi: 10.5539/ies.v7n1p92.
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, doi: 10.1002/job.2332.
Zhou, L., Zhao, S., Tian, F., Zhang, X., & Chen, S. (2018). Visionary leadership and follower creativity in China. International Journal of Manpower, 39(1), 93–105, doi: 10.1108/IJM-04-2016-0092.