The idea behind “job crafting”, that we are all free to create our own happiness at work, is not consensual. Many social scientists argue that workers cannot escape the restraints of power. However, evidence shows that job crafting can be a useful framework. Kathryn Owler writes that the practice is worth exploring and suggests questions to guide the would-be job-crafter in their search for a meaningful work life.

“Job crafting” involves taking creative action to shape one’s job to experience greater joy, purpose, and satisfaction. Scholars spend time examining how and when job crafting happens; and, how individual workers might best be empowered to job-craft more (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). This is an appealing idea. Which of us does not want the tools to create a meaningful, enjoyable work life? Given its emphasis on individual agency, and wellbeing, the theory and practice of job crafting has also become closely aligned with positive psychology (Wrzesniewski et al., 2013).

Yet, the idea that individuals, or workers, are simply ‘free’ to craft their own happiness, has been challenged by several social scientists. These scholars argue that workers cannot straightforwardly escape the cultural, social, and economic restraints of power. So, given the larger operations of power at work in our jobs, is it indeed possible for individuals to craft their own job happiness? To answer this question, let’s look at the two main models of job crafting and three social science critiques, and draw some informed conclusions.

What is it?

There are two key models of job crafting that have gained purchase over the last 20 years. Both attribute to individuals the power to craft work happiness.

The first one is the original “2001 model” developed by Wrzesniewski & Dutton, who conceived the term ‘job crafting’ and defined it as “the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work” (p.179). Workers might modify their daily activities in some way, altering the number of tasks or the way they perform them or, change how they view their work. For instance, a chef might view themselves as not merely a cook, but an artisan, using tricks of the trade, to make a ‘work of art’. These scholars contend that job crafting is open to anyone, whatever their circumstances, so that even people in restricted or routine work can influence their experience of work.

The second and more recently explored model of job crafting uses the job demands-resource theory (JDR) to understand how crafting behaviours occur (Tims & Bakker, 2010). Job demands are aspects of work that require physical and/or psychological/cognitive effort from an employee and can be associated with negative outcomes such as burnout. Job resources, on the other hand, are a means that can help employees deal with job demands; for instance, exploring new projects or seeking social support. Workers might make changes to seek more satisfying and enjoyable work by reducing demands and/or seeking resources.

Both models acknowledge that job crafting is an activity that happens in an organisational context. For example, job crafting can be easier for workers who have a good deal of autonomy in their roles, or who have managers who adopt an empowering leadership approach (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Tims et al., 2013). Nevertheless, job crafting is primarily viewed by scholars as a way of freeing individual workers from any social or organisation constraints that might inhibit their happiness. Workers are primarily viewed as agents of action, with the power to shape their experience of work.

Social critiques

Job crafting proponents attribute the power to flourish to individual workers themselves. But is it that simple? Do workers truly have the power and freedom to craft their own happiness at work? Social scientists debate the intricate interplay of individual agency and social structure in shaping human experience (Fairclough, 2005). They draw attention to the structural operations of power that may limit an individual’s ability to freely exercise control within their work environment (Binkley, 2011). Let’s explore three social science critiques that highlight the limitations of job crafting.

First, some social scientists claim that the promotion of happiness at work has become linked to a neo-conservative political agenda promoting corporate interests. They argue that positive thinking and personal wellbeing tools privatise workplace dissatisfaction, squelching the potential of workers to take collective action (Binkley 2011; Ehrenreich, 2009). This argument might lack some subtlety in failing to account for the pleasure individuals might gain from their own efforts to create more joy and happiness at work. However, it is worth noting that theorists and proponents often justify their endeavours through claiming the many benefits of job crafting for the business bottom-line – including promoting worker engagement and reducing attrition (e.g., Hulshof e al., 2020; Oprea et al, 2020).

Second, some sociologists argue that empowerment efforts need to address the way that individual capacity is linked to economic and political power, such as with class, race, or gender exploitation. If we do not understand this link, we risk blaming the victims for not achieving happiness (Leonardsen, 2007). For instance, Sheryl Sandberg’s (chief operating officer of Facebook) hugely successful book, Lean In (2013), which spawned a vast popular movement, encouraged women to remove their own internal barriers to achieving leadership roles and find the career fulfilment and happiness they sought. However, a decade later, the narrative has shifted considerably from her call to ‘lean in’ to address the structural barriers to women’s success, including institutional bias (Patel, 2023).

Third, governmentality theorists following Foucault argue that our efforts to exercise individual ‘freedom’ and craft our own work happiness are required by and serve the economic interests of contemporary neo-liberal government. We might believe we are taking responsibility for our own happiness, for our own sake. However, exercising this ‘freedom’ does not actually liberate us from market interests, but rather is required by the market (Binkley, 2011).

Can workers craft their own happiness?

Given sociological critiques that highlight the limits of job crafting for individuals, is job crafting indeed possible and, if so, possible for everyone?

Evidence shows that job crafting can provide a useful framework for individuals (Wrzesniewski et al., 2013; Tims et al., 2013). Professionals in the human resources and counselling fields will often promote job crafting in one form or other, to help individuals out of a work-related rut, for instance. Positive psychology tools are often promoted in this context, with goals such as identifying strengths, cultivating positive emotions and gratitude, flow, the notion of ‘personal calling’ (Dik et al., 2017).

Given the benefits of job-crafting, it is a practice worth exploring. To do so mindfully, job crafters might pose the following questions:

1. Who am I crafting for? Am I overlooking conditions that mitigate decent work – both for myself and others? Could advocacy also play a role in promoting wellbeing at work?
2. Whose version of happiness am I pursuing? Is it aligned to my own personal and cultural values and beliefs?
3. Am I accepting that ‘wisdom’ about life, self and work can take a wide variety of forms? While contemporary Western culture might value self-actualisation and individual approaches to happiness, aspects such as contentment, reflection, introspection, reciprocity can also be very important (Binkley, 2011).

In this process, the would-be job-crafter might take constructive action that aims less for hedonistic happiness and more for a nuanced, full, and meaningful work-life (Ryff, et. al 2014).

• This blog post is based on Crafting Work Happiness: Balancing Client Agency & Empowerment with Critical Social Awareness, in Journal of Career Development.
• The post represents the views of its authors, not the position of LSE Business Review or the London School of Economics.
• Featured image provided by Shutterstock
• When you leave a comment, you’re agreeing to our Comment Policy.

Print Friendly