User talk:MGMT90018 Job Crafting/sandbox

This is a subpage of MGMT90018 Job Crafting's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Hi all, I already did the Motivation for job crafting several days before and it used to be under the Antecedents section. I was thinking that motivations to job crafting in this part has similar content with my part that I did before. Another, the motivation for job crafting is not necessary belongs to the History section. Therefore, I add a subtitle of motivation for job crafting and for who also did the motivations you may add your different research there. 618066MGMT (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think there are 2 exactly the same reference (the 1st, the 3rd). Any ways to remove 1? :) Also, I organize the page a bit.526874mgmt (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The adding of several sub-heading under consequences? Oh and thank you for organising. But what is the point of making the coloured text inside the bracket ? I tried to click but it will lead us to empty page. I have been trying to remove 1 of the references but it comes to no avail may be I will do some research on that later and edit that as soon as I get it. What do you think about the part that I contributed? any feedbacks? The one that you currently classified as Emotional Consequences. I want to write more but I have reached the word limit. 616457MGMT (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the colored text, I agree that it's quite weird leaving like that but that author might want to leave it as the area of further research for others. I think your part is well-written. I edited your reference a bit as well. I, too, will add more stuff. Luckily, I have a lot of words left.LOL 526874mgmt (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for the colored text absenteeism and turnover i left it like that before, so we can use the hyperlink to other 2 sandboxes (so yea, it will lead us to empty page). And luckily, I found the connection between job crafting with absenteeism and turnover. So yea, I think it would be good to refer back to our sandboxes. Or what you guys reckon? should we just left it like that and not linked to other sandboxes? And thankyou btw for the referencing help. It helps a lot!! :) Cheersssss 502719MGMT (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,I like the idea of linking to the other sandboxes too. Also I had a go at editing the introduction bit - just changed the grammar but hopefully retained the meaning. If you are unhappy with the changes please just change it back again! Cheers 51894MGMT (talk) 04:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC) User:51894MGMT[reply]

Hello guys, I just corrected a few citing and format errors in the first paragraph "Definitions". Also I found out that we have cite several journal articles a couple of times, that's one of the reasons why our reference list is so long... I've combined three references into one regarding the article "What is Job Crafting and Why Does it matter?", hopefully I'll get the rest done this evening. Cheers.573256MGMT (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC) -An update: I've corrected all the repetitive reference. Please correct me again if I was wrong about any of these.573256MGMT (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any thoughts on what the headings should be?MGMT90018 Turnover (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC) (this is Dr Barsky)[reply]

For the History section, I find that there are limited resources to be included. I suggest this should be changed to Introduction or something else. 526874mgmt (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Hi, I think the structure for this page can be improved and made clearer. I think the current Wiki "Job Satisfaction" page is a good model to base our page on. What do you think? 384167MGMT (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--By this page I meant the Job Crafting Page :-) 384167MGMT (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Hi, in the history part, can I separate theories part to another heading? 526874mgmt (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would anyone object if I had a go at editing the grammar in the 'Emotional Outcomes' paragraph?51894MGMT (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm thinking that we are repeating ourselves to a certain extent and the page sorta lacks continuity. Has anyone else got an opinion on this? 51894MGMT (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[51894MGMT][reply]

Hi, everyone. I found in the history part of MGMT90018 Job Crafting , under the ‘idiosyncratic jobs’ section, the two aspects of idiosyncratic jobs are not specific, so I edited it. Also, my survey result showed that the concept of idiosyncratic jobs was presented in 1985, which was earlier than 1987, so I modified this reference. I finished editing the history section, if there is something wrong or it still not comprehensive, please tell me or add it. I am happy to discuss with you!609465MGMT (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Hi, in fact I don't think we need to separate the history part and theories, as the development of the theories seems to be a part of the history.However, this separation make the structure more clearly, so that's fine. Thank you for did this. 609465MGMT (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi history section writers. Do you mind if I change the opening paragraph to this..."Traditionally job design theory and practice concentrated on the top-down process of managers designing and enforcing the structural features of their employee's jobs (Berg, Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2010). However in recent times, scholars and practitioners have recognised the role that employees play in proactively shaping their job tasks and boundaries. As early as 1987 Kulik, Oldham, and Hackman (1987) suggested that workers may, of their own initiative, redesign their jobs with or without involving the management. However, the term 'job crafting' was coined by Wrzesniewski and Dutton in 2001." I think it's important to mention what the accepted beliefs/practices were before job crafting became accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.82 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi author of Idiosyncratic jobs... I don't find this section totally clear. I would like to edit this section to make it clearer to the reader however I cannot find the research you reference by Miner anywhere. Could you please sent the reference? I would also suggest that we change "The earliest view about that individual could craft their own job..." to "Miner's discovery of "Idiosyncratic jobs" in 1985 was one of the earliest...". Unless you have a reference which states that this research was THE earliest we should avoid making a claim that is was the first. better to say it was one of the first.

The first mention of "Idiosyncratic jobs" is linked to a wikipedia page for the term, however this page doesn't exist, so I think we should remove the link.

hey for roles innovation, let's put the Tims and Barrker paragraph above the other, as it gives a nice introduction to the concept, and if readers want to read on they can read the lengthier paragraph. THought? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.82 (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the unsigned comments were by me 128.250.0.82 (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all. I think the 'other perspectives on job crafting' section is too vague. To be 'encyclopaedic' it should not contain phrases like "many researchers..." and "have been defined in various ways". Could the author please change the phrasing to make it more factual. For instance replace 'many researchers' with the authors names... 128.250.0.82 (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi,everybody. I am glad that you guys add something important, useful or explain more clearly about the things I didn't mention, but can you please make sure to keep the whole structure organized and logical?609465MGMT (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, guys! I added some contents of Courageous behaviour.631541MGMT (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for the part of “Voice”, it tells us that voice helps the companies to survive. But it seems that the last sentence try to tell us employees may not benefits from voice. It would be a little vague and confused. I think it would be better if some details are put here, which is about it is the company be benefited rather than the employees. It does not have to be a long story, just some examples may make the part more understandable.559993MGMT (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for the section of “Other perspectives on Job Crafting”, more citations should be added here instead of just simply saying such as “many researchers”. Besides, as it mentions the “organizational citizenship behavior”, which is discussed in the “Consequence” part, I think it is more appropriate to put it in the theory section since it contributes to the main theories, rather than the consequence section. 559993MGMT (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

Do you guys think it is a good idea to order the theory/concepts by the time when they were first put forward? you know, to make it more organized and logic. Any thoughts? Cheers 571650MGMT (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acturally, at the beginning, the history part contains both the history and the theories, and i edited it by the time. But somebody said it will be more clearly to separate these two part. It will be better if you modify it by the time order. Thanks for your suggestion and improvement.609465MGMT (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,guys. I had modified my own parts to make sure the similarity rate decrease.Please do not repeat changes on the same content. Thank you!609465MGMT (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! I did the "Role improvement and procedures" part. I have listed four procedures based on some academic journals. If someone has different or better opinions please edit it and you can also point out my mistakes!609461MGMT (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you all please check whether there is an existing reference before putting in a new one? Otherwise, there will be multiple of references. You can reuse the reference without creating a new one by setting the current one a name and use it in other places.526874mgmt (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For now, it's all in place as I organize the list a bit. Cheers. 526874mgmt (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I am reading Justin M. Berg's article "What is Job Crafting and Why does It Matter" and then notice there are many overlaps in reference part. I focused on Berg's ones and found No. 33, 53, 64, 67 and 69 are exactly the same. Also, No.9, 76 and 85 are using the same article. I suggest we delete them and leave only one source. However, I cannot make sure if No.47, 59 and 63 come from the same origin. I suppose so because the article titles have no difference, but the years are 2007, 2008 and 2002 respectively. Can anyone resolve this mystery? 571266MGMT (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I just find out all the overlapping reference, No.6 and 24; No.14 and 19; No.50 and 66; No.81 and 83; No.82 and 84. I think that is all. Additionally, the reference system seems not consistent. Do you guys mind to use only APA system? Hope fellows can pay attention to this issue. Thanks.571266MGMT (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I found the same reference problem as 571266MGMT said that the article "What is Job Crafting and Why does It Matter" has been used multiple times with different referencing styles. For example, besides what has mentioned above No. 10 and 87 are also using the same article with different referencing styles. So would it be more organized if we decided on one set of referencing and delete the repetitive sources? 671757MGMT (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I tried to organise the list but found it really hard. As we all modify the page every day, new reference appears and the sequence changes. Now the majority numbers I list above are no longer consistent. I can hardly do it all by myself. Any suggestions how we can solve this?571266MGMT (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi，I also found some same reference and can hardly combine them entirely. Have you ever see the "turnover"page? They create a new topic replace the previous reference section? I think our reference part is kind of unorganized.--596746MGMT (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys, I have correct all the repetitive references by combining them into existing ones, can someone double check for me if I was wrong about any of these corrections? Also there are still some FORMAT ERRORS in the reference section which are shown in red. Cheers.573256MGMT (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I tried to fix some of the reference formats, I may have missed some, so please feel free to correct them if you come across anymore. Cheers, 384167MGMT (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   -Thanks a lot, 384167MGMT!573256MGMT (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have trouble accessing the link in reference 84, Ko, I (2011). I tried to fix it but for some reasons I can't get to it from the editing page. If you can, please use this instead the below format instead:

Ko, I. (2011). Crafting a job: Creating optimal experiences at work. (Doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate University, 2011). Dissertation Abstracts International, 72, 10.

Thanks, 384167MGMT (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   -It appears so, I cannot access the link as well. I think it is because the guy who cited this article used his university account searching and browsing it. So I corrected it since normal readers of this wiki page would not have the assess.573256MGMT (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I am reading "Job Crafting at the Team and Individual Level: Implications for Work Engagement and Performance" by Tims and I find there is a overlap in the reference. The No.26 and No.77 are exactly the same article. It tried to fix it but the system still recognises them in different reference number. Can anyone come across this problem? Thanks.559993MGMT (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   -It is now fixed. cheers. 573256MGMT (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

I have added some more recent research findings on to the page, adding a little bit in the "introduction" and "theory" sections. I have also added a new "Measurements" section as this is an emerging topic in the job crafting area.

I have not had the chance to learn how to cite and insert references yet so for now my paragraphs are citing by (author, year). I still need to add the references once I get the hang of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 384167MGMT (talk • contribs) 06:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Hi everyone again, I've fixed the above and added appropriate citations and references. I still need to tag the key words in the text that can be linked to other Wiki pages.

I am not aware of other generic Job Crafting Scale methods apart from what was proposed by Tims (2012) and Slemp (2013). If anyone come across other JCS in your research, please add them in.

Thank you Dr. B, the Beta edit version has certainly helped a great deal, much easier now. 384167MGMT (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys, I just add some contents about moderators. :)631541MGMT (talk

Hey measurers! I'm concerned that this section is WAY too long. It's got a lot of really interesting content, but as Adam said, this is not an essay, but an encyclopedic entry. So content needs to be pithy and straight to the point. I've tried to do some editing but feel uncomfortable trimming the great work you've done. Could the contributors to this section please edit your work to ensure you are only including the most important points and not excessive detail. Keep in touch 327069MGMT (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 327069MGMT, I'm not sure who made the additions on this section, I tried to condense it to some degrees but still think it could be better. Like you, I think the more appropriate person/s to do this would be the ones who made the changes. 384167MGMT (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are quite a number of sections that need citations: Antecedents, Procedures, Role improvement etc.... I've tentatively added "(Could we add references here please?)" in the text. Please add their references if you wrote these sections thank you. 384167MGMT (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will cite those which left incited. When I first did it, I meant that all of the points after the 'introduction' sentence is cited from the same source. But I will sort it out now. Thanks thoooo 502719MGMT (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)502719MGMT[reply]

-Hi, for the Other Perspectives On Job Crafting part where you said we need to add reference, I think I have already contained the reference for that part. You can see reference 7. (Ghitulescu, B. E. (2007). Shaping tasks and relationships at work: Examining the antecedents and consequences of employee job crafting (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh).609465MGMT (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for that, looks better now. 384167MGMT (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

can we make this part more structured. I wanna add subtitles into it to explain the causes of job crafting in detail.621810MGMT (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should combine the section with the moderators 631541MGMT (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I delete some content in this section and post it on moderators. Because I think some parts of this section do not efficiently explain the antecedents but the moderators.631541MGMT (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Hi all, I agree with your opinion which have mentioned above. I think the parts of antecedents and moderators are similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 648464MGMT (talk • contribs) 00:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the parts of “Job discretion” and the “Autonomy” contains similar idea, so do the part of “Job Ralationships” and “Task Independence”. So, combined together? Besides, the content in the section of “Moderator”, especially the job autonomy, may overlaps the idea in the Antecedents section. And the subtitles under “Individual differences”, such as personal motivation, personality traits and self- efficacy, also repeat the content that have already mentioned in section of Antecedents. For the section of “Additional stress” under the section of “Emotional outcomes”, it also has the similar idea with Job difficulty. 559993MGMT (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for the opening paragraph of Antecedents, it would be better to put an example after the introduction of needs-supplies fit, otherwise it may be a little confused. For example, what do employee needs and desires exactly mean? Does employee needs equal to the work capacity? Does employee desires simply mean promotion?559993MGMT (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, totally agree with 621810MGMT, we should make it more structured. Maybe we can start with changing the title and subtitles as I don't think they sound quite logic or in line with the contents. Any thoughts? 571650MGMT (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Job Crafting Team! There is heaps of great content on this page, but it really needs an edit! Like Adam mentioned in his most recent email we need to make sure this page reads like an encyclopaedic entry and not an essay! I've already started some fixing some grammar, which i'm happy to continue, but it's important we don't write our own thoughts and opinions but verified information that is stated in the manner of an encyclopaedic entry! We also need to be conscious of keeping the entry comprehensive, accurate and clear, which may involve streamlining some of the content to avoid an overload of information!

What are you thoughts and ideas! 625083MGMT (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm also trying to do some editing to make the content more reader friendly. I think it would be great if we could make our Definition section really strong. This will often be the only section that a visitor to the page will read, so we want to make sure that the first dozen lines or so are informative and concise.128.250.0.82 (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To 591949MGMT: Thank you for you recent contribution to the "Job crafting" page, but after reviewing it I found the paragraph you added overlaps with some of the existing contents with regard to the three types of job crafting (at the end of definition section), SEE:

Wrzesniewski and Dutton suggest that job crafters can adopt at least three different forms of job crafting:[9]

Job crafters can modify the boundaries of their jobs by taking on more or fewer tasks, expanding or decreasing the scope of tasks, or altering how they perform tasks. (e.g. an accountant creating a new method of filing taxes to make her job less repetitive). Job crafters can alter their relationships at work by changing the nature or extent of their interactions with other people (e.g. a computer technician offering help to co-workers as a way to have more social connection and teach new technicians).

Job crafters can cognitively modify their jobs by changing how they perceive tasks (e.g. a hospital cleaner seeing his work as a means to help ill people rather than simply cleaning) or thinking about the tasks involved in their job as a collective whole as opposed to a set of separate tasks (e.g. an insurance agent seeing her job as 'working to get people back on track after a car accident' rather than 'processing car insurance claims').

Besides there are two simple FORMAT ERRORS you've made: there is no need to sign your post on the content page, you can do it on the talk page here during discussions. Also, please check the existing citation list as the article you cite is already in the reference list. So I think it is necessary to cut the part you've put in, if anyone's uncomfortable with it, please simply undo it, cheers. 573256MGMT (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns about the Organisational citizenship behaviour section. 1) It's important that this section specifically relates Job Crafting to OCB. Wikipedia has a separate page on OCB, so readers looking to learn about OCB broadly can look at that page. This page should only include information that directly relates OCB to job crafting. Reading this section I did not find that the content relates to Job Crafting. For instance the Pay section doesn't seem to be related to job crafting at all. Would anyone protest to me trimming this section to make it more concise and relevant? If you believe the content is relevant and necessary please speak up. 2) There are many claims in the text that are not referenced. For instance we cannot say "a result from survey showed that fairness and equity were significant in terms of difference in earnings" without a reference. The 'selection' and 'pay' sections each contain no references. 128.250.0.82 (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please proceed on trimming. I agree with you. 526874mgmt (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think this section can even be combined with the OCB part in Section 12. Since it's only a relating theory, I don't think we need to go into as much detail as we have at the moment because there is already a Wiki OCB page. Instead, I think we should only include what's relevant to "job crafting". 384167MGMT (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a step by step guide is the correct style for this wikipedia page. What do people think? Is it 'encyclopedic' in style? Could we introduce it as... Wrzesniewski proposed the following steps and suggestions for individuals seeking to engage in job crafting?? 327069MGMT (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to remove this section because it has been taken directly from a TIME magazine article. I don't think it was references adequately considering it was copied word for word. This kind of copying doesn't meet the encyclopaedic format of wiki. Please let me know if you believe we should put it back on the page. 327069MGMT (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should paraphase a lot. But should we quote TIME? I don't think it's academic enough. 526874mgmt (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to replace the text into the page, the content will need to be paraphrased and referenced more. The TIME article was based on an interview with an academic, but no, I don't feel that the step by step guide matches Wiki's style. 327069MGMT (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi techniques authors, Good work so far. However, to ensure that this page has an encyclopaedic style we need to fix up this sentence...."There are generally three stages been included in almost all models...". Instead could the author provide the name of the reserachers/models which follow this three stage structure. To make it encyclopaedic it should read....."The models of Smith Jones and Winters share a common three tiered structure...." or something like this. 327069MGMT (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi，just one suggestion on the structure of the Techniques section. I think the first paragraph should followed by the paragraph which is about the three main crafting techniques proposed by Wrzesniewski. So, it will become that the three methods follow the three stages. After that, then, we can discuss deeply about like each of stages and how is job crafted in service industry. Since the three stages and the three crafting techniques are the core content of this section, the reorganization would allow readers to get a clearer idea about the crafting techniques. 559993MGMT (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 559993MGMT, I think the changes you proposed would make it easier to read... are you happy to make the changes? 203.45.243.156 (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have already put the three main crafting techniques proposed by Wrzesniewski in the first paragraph and organized the rest a bit to make it more readable. Please make any further adjustments if necessary.574889MGMT (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I add two more theories about Job crafting and positive work identities and Job crafting and positive meaning of work. 618066MGMT (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theories authors, I'm wondering whether we should include this line..."Slemp suggested that there is no theory to date on how job crafting influences work outcomes[23]. " It contradicts what we have included later on the page, in the consequences section, which says that job crafting can influence work outcomes, by making employees more effective. What are your thoughts? 327069MGMT (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hey could we include an example of Courageous behaviour? I think it would help to clarify the type of behaviour this research is refering to. Thanks! 327069MGMT (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the some contents in this section are same as the definition, so I delete some sentences...631541MGMT (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff 631541MGMT, that's way clearer. 327069MGMT (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for the section of “Job crafting” under the main theories, the second paragraph introduce a little about the advantages and disadvantage of job crafting. I think this part should focus more on the content of the theory and the outcomes such as merits and demerits can be discussed deeply in the consequences section.559993MGMT (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all and 327069MGMT, personally I don't think the paragraph.."Slemp suggested..." is unnecessary and relevant in this part. so I don't agree to include this lines. Look forward to any feedback. Cheers. 571650MGMT (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, just found some more recent theories regarding the theories of job crafting at team level, so do you think it is a good idea to add some? 571650MGMT (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, according to the job crafting part in the theories section, this is a well organised and comprehensive part. However, the content of the second paragraph under this part has been discussed in the measurement section; the third paragraph has been summarised in definition part; and the forth paragraph has been included in the potential risks and challenges section. So really hope the editor of this part can make some updated of this part.590100MGMT (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, just restructure the theories section. Hope this help it more clear. 590100MGMT (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I've replaced the opening paragraph of the definition section with some text from the Theory section. I believe it's very important that the opening lines of the definition are concise and clear. A visitor should be able to have a strong understanding of what job crafting is within a few seconds of landing on the page. I think the new paragraph is slighting clearer. Let me know if anyone has any thought/concerns. 327069MGMT (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Job-crafting team, i have added one more definition of this topic, which definite job-crafting as a 3 stages process, and a detailed description is involved. 662220MGMT (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have rephrased some of the first paragraph: "It is a way people express and use some degrees of freedom in their work to tailor and fit what they sense the job should be and therefore, change the meaning of the work as well as their work identity [1]. Notwithstanding the fact that, as proposed by Wrzesniewski (2003), job crafting might be exposed to some degree of complexity. This might happened because the job crafters which is no other than the employees, themselves, may alter the framework of relationship between employees and able to modify the jobs in terms of nature and load of the tasks as mentioned before"

I think if we replace it with this it'll flow better and make more sense: "It is a way people can express degrees of freedom in their work, to tailor and shape how they sense the job should be, therefore changing the meaning of the work and their work identity. As proposed by Wrzensiewski (2003), job crafting can involve much complexity, the job crafter can alter the relationship frameworks between other employees while also altering the nature and load of their tasks."

thoughts? 625083MGMT (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

just found few minor bits. 1, personally I think the reference NO.10 should be included in the sentence before. 2, In the last sentence, I would like to replace "get" with gain which makes it sound formal.

Any thoughts? Cheers 571650MGMT (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, In the definition section, there are paragraphs talking about the three stages of job crafting by Wrzesniewski. I think these contents have been discussed in details in the technique section. So I think we don't need to summary this in the definition section separately.590100MGMT (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 590100MGMT, i agree re the Wrze (2003) three stages, have removed them as no action had been taken. Cheers, 625083MGMT (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I also think that maybe the definition section is too long. Maybe some of the contents can be put into other sections. I think we can make it more clear and straight forward. 590100MGMT (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   -Agreed. I think definitions need to be short and precise and shouldn't confuse readers by bringing in theories as now the content page already does.
    But as for the contribution minimum of those who edited the paragraph... maybe we need a better structure so it doesn't bore readers. I'll try to work on it. 573256MGMT (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree, the definition section is probably twice as long as it should be. I am very keen to decrease it's size and scope. As this is a collaborative process I am hesitant to delete other peoples work without consultation. I have spent a lot of time editing and making minor changes to the content and word flow of what is currently up in the definition section., however it is not nearly definite, distinct or clear enough!

As the section currently stands I believe we can remove most or all of paragraph 2 and combining parapraghs 3,4 and 5,6 into two shorter paragraphs, thoughts?

It could be as simple as:

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) defined job crafting as an ongoing process whereby employee actions are directed toward changing the boundaries and conditions of the employee's job tasks and job relationships. Therefore, employees can change how work is carried out, how often and with whom they interact at work and how they perceive the meaning and importance of their work. It is a way people can express degrees of freedom in their work, to tailor and shape how they sense the job should be, therefore changing the meaning of the work and their work identity.[1] As proposed by Wrzensiewski (2003), job crafting can involve much complexity, the job crafter can alter the relationship frameworks between other employees while also altering the nature and load of their tasks.[2]

The concept of job crafting focuses explicitly on an employee’s job redesign,[4] it involves creating or initiating change to the job, as opposed to reacting or responding to change in the job.[5] Van den Heuven and colleagues illustrated that job crafting can be a strategic advantage when implementing change management processes.[6] When an employee modifies and restructures tasks and work relationships to better suit their needs, the tasks come to hold more meaning and relevance to them. In response to more meaningful workplace attitudes, employees pursue tasks with greater motivation, resulting in increased work performance.

As stated earlier, job crafting is valued at the individual level. Wrzesniewski (2003) has shown that individual job crafting can increase the level of job satisfaction and job performance, meaning the positive affects of job crafting can therefore impact at an organisational level [2]. However Berg et.al suggests it is possible that job crafting can have a detrimental impacts on the individual, the task and relational borders if the job has no genuine scope for change.[10]

If you agree feel free to replace the section with this

625083MGMT (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   -It looks much better than the existing one, good work 625083!573256MGMT (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Moderators, Good stuff so far. I'm just doing some editing and I'm noticing a fair amount of overlap between the Moderators section and the Antecedents section. How do moderators and antecedents differ? Is there justification for having both a moderators section and an antecedents section? Are the repeated factors such as personality, job difficulty, relationships, autonomy, etc better placed as a moderator or as an antecendent? If we decide that moderators and antecedents are basically the same I think we should merge the sections as its better to avoid repeating content. Thoughts? 327069MGMT (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Truly I found the moderators and the antecedents are repeated.....oh...my whole work was in vain...631541MGMT (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have organized the job autonomy part in work situation, but it cannnot be shown to the fullest text when I finished editing. However, when you click edit, you can still find the full edited text. Can someone help me with this formatting issue. Thank you. 574889MGMT (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so 631541MGMT are you happy for the two sections to be condensed? Don't worry, your work was not in vain. By having two people research the same topic the content will be more accurate and of higher quality/detail. 327069MGMT (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 574889MGMT, that was really strange. It must have been something to do with the format of the text. I copied and pasted (paste special- unformatted text) the text into word, then copied it back and it seems to have solved the problem.327069MGMT (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! I will edit the two sections...cheers631541MGMT (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 327069MGMT,I saw the result, it works. Thank you so much!574889MGMT (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, dont forget to login when you are editing. 526874mgmt (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reviewed the whole page. The moderators section seems no plagerised material but it is not well-organized. Some similar sentences can be deleted to make it simple and clear. "Other factors" should be dividend and put into two parts- task characteristics and Personality traits. As for the "Individual differences", the last two paragraph about Bateman & Crant (1993) and negative effects should be deleted because of irrelevant and duplication. At this section, we should focus on the factors that have an influence on job crafting instead of effects.--14:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)596746MGMT (talk)

Hi, everyone. I am the original author of the part meaning-based work alteration. I did the work few weeks ago and I found that some part of them had been deleted by someone and I actually curious about the reason and we can discuss and make this work better. Thank you all.627455MGMT (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I've been doing editing of the page, to make it more concise, less repetitive and to improve grammar and the encyclopaedic style. I deleted these lines...

"By the way of job crafting, job design can puts employees “in the driver’s seat”in cultivating meaningfulness in their work, which enables employees to re-engineer their jobs by leveraging the unique knowledge they have of their job." > this sentence basically repeats the opening line of this section..."Job crafting allows employees to leverage their own knowledge and strength and in doing so create more meaningfulness in their work."

"From an organisation’s perspective, the meaning-based work alteration trend produces pressures to employees to force them keep productive in their jobs."(I think this statement needs a reference or more explanation- how does meaning-based work alteration put pressure on employees to be more productive?)

"Thus, both employees and organisations will benefit from job crafting as a way of sparking new meaning-based jobs."-- again, this is repeating lines you had earlier..."Meaningfulness is associated with work-related benefits, such as, increasing job satisfaction, motivation, and performance.[71]" and "... lead to meaning-based work and high productivity." 327069MGMT (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This link to history of edits will also show you some rewording work I did on your section just to improve grammar and readability.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MGMT90018_Job_Crafting/sandbox&diff=604113659&oldid=604112769

If you're unhappy with any edits, please feel free to 'undo' them. Your work is good, I'm just trying to make the page as a whole more concise and reader friendly. 327069MGMT (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I also noticed that some grammar should be improved and the sentences are wordy. Thank you for your improvement and explanation.627455MGMT (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Hi all! According to Adam's suggestion, I have already revised the meaning-based work alteration part to decrease the level the similarity. To avoid repeating the same work, you could focus on modifying other parts of this page.627455MGMT (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of suggestions on the structure of the page. In regards to the Consequences section. I suggest to group the five subsections into two main headings under "Positive Consequences" and "Negative Consequences". These two headings will be a lot more reader-friendly and allows readers to analyse the issue in a much easier manner, whereas subheadings such as "Meaning Based Work Alteration" and "Organisational Citizenship Behaviours" are quite vague and difficult to interpret in first sight. Additionally, the section of "Potential risks and challenges" could also be included in the overall "Consequences" section as risks and challenges can be interpreted as consequences of job crafting. Thanks! 531643MGMT (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas, they make sense to me. 327069MGMT (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Besides, since it is mentioned in the theory section that job crafting can be classified into individual job crafting and collaborative job crafting and relative consequence of team job crafting is also introduced, I suggest that we can create two subheadings named individual job crafting and collaborative job crafting (or team job crafting) under the two main categories of Positive Consequences" and "Negative Consequences".559993MGMT (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! everyone, i think we should set up a direct link between this topic and other articles in the wikipedia, just like what have done in the other two topics. Therefore, i put this subtitle in the main page and hope you can add some important linking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 598787MGMT (talk • contribs) 12:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Hi all, I have found out some link pages for meaningful or intricate words which aim to ensure this webpage is understandable and relevant to others. Job crafting: “social psychology”, “self-efficacy”, “job satisfaction”, “organizational commitment”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 648464MGMT (talk • contribs) 00:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 598787MGMT, I just did what you suggested by adding the template "aspects of workplace" which is also used in other two topics(Absenteeism/Turnover), hopefully it would increase uniformity across the topics, if anyone is uncomfortable with the change, please simply reverse it, cheers. 573256MGMT (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know who edited this part but could you please read through the whole works already existed. there were nearly three sections talking about the factors affecting job crafting, such as Antecedents, Moderators and Motivations for job crafting etc. Fortunately, this section is good about plagerism, so can we shift this sections to moderators and condense it?631541MGMT (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey the student who add the following paragraph to potential risks section. I think this paragraph is more about the application of job crafting rather than the potential risk of it. So I move it the application section and hope you don't mind.

To win others’ support for your job crafting, do these three things:[72]

Firstly, focusing on developing an individual or organizational strength that will create value for others. An employee can position his/her work to support other teams which lead to the whole promotion. It's also a good approach to help meet other groups' objectives.

Secondly,building trust with others (typically your manager). An wise employee should be careful to align efforts with the role as well as committee his tasks successful.

Thirdly,directing your job-crafting efforts to the people who can be benefit from it and are most likely to accommodate you. You can get support from anyone interested in your plans because he can take advantage of it as well. If your plan can not bring any benefit, other colleagues may held the opinion that their time would be wasted and instead focus on a more promising one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 565618MGMT (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the student who edited the potential risk section. I just reorganized the paragraph that you added to explain the external side effects of job crafting. If you have any other opinions, I am glad to discuss with you. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 565618MGMT (talk • contribs) 12:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]