Marketing Intelligence & Planning

Collective job crafting and team service recovery performance: a moderated mediation mechanism
Tuan Luu,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Tuan Luu, "Collective job crafting and team service recovery performance: a moderated mediation mechanism", Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-02-2017-0025
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-02-2017-0025
Downloaded on: 11 July 2017, At: 03:01 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3 times since 2017*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:333301 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Collective job crafting and team service recovery performance:
a moderated mediation mechanism
Abstract:

Purpose: The clinical team’s recovery performance for the failures in the patient care
processes plays a crucial role in leveraging the healthcare service quality. The primary
purpose of our research is to investigate the relationship between collective job crafting
and team service recovery performance via the mediation mechanism of team work
engagement.

Design/methodology/approach: Clinicians including physicians and nurses from

hospitals in Ho Chi Minh City of Vietnam were recruited as sources of data for the
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

current study. Structural equation modelling was utilized to conduct the data analysis.

Findings: The data analysis demonstrated the role of team work engagement as a
mediator for the positive link between collective job crafting and team service recovery
performance. Serving culture was also found to have an interaction effect with collective
job crafting in predicting team work engagement.

Originality/value: The current research extends service recovery research by examining

service recovery performance at the team level as well as collective job crafting as its
team-level antecedent.

Keywords: collective job crafting; team work engagement; team service recovery
performance; serving culture; Vietnam

Introduction

Customer complaints are crucial performance feedback for an organization’s growth. In

the healthcare context, patients’ complaints not merely serve as their voice about the
patient care quality, but also reflect their movement from the passive recipients of
healthcare services to the active role as value co-creators with the healthcare
organization. Thus, the failure to address and resolve their complaints may lead to their
return to their passive role in the healthcare processes and even their change of healthcare
service providers. Service recovery is the primary way an organization can retain its
customers and reduce the costs associated with customer defection and negative word of
mouth (Seawright et al., 2008). The recovery of healthcare service quality is also
important in sustaining the value co-creating role of patients in order to obtain more
constructive feedback from them for further healthcare service improvement. Service
recovery performance refers to frontline service employees’ perceptions of their own
abilities and actions to resolve a service failure to the satisfaction of the customer
(Babakus et al., 2003). Managerial literature has revolved around service recovery

1
 performance of individual frontline employees, who have direct interactions with
customers including the reception of complaints. Nonetheless, unlike other services, a
patient complaint about a healthcare service has propensity to entail an entire clinical
process including treatment and nursing. Consequently, our research focuses on the
service recovery performance of the entire clinical team or team service recovery
performance, which is required for remedying patient complaints about the whole patient
care processes.
Most service recovery research models have been underpinned on Bagozzi’s (1992)
attitude theory (appraisal → emotional response → behavior). In light of this attitude
theory, service recovery research reported “service recovery” behavior as the distal
outcome of frontline employees’ positive appraisals of the organization’s support towards
service quality improvement through their emotional responses such as affective
commitment (Babakus et al., 2003; Rod and Ashill, 2010a). Yet, besides such a support
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

from the organization (Babakus et al., 2003; Rod and Ashill, 2010a), the proactive
crafting of the healthcare service job, which creates further fit of the healthcare service
job to clinical employees and more job meanings to them, may also bring them such
positive appraisals and in turn catalyze their contributions to service quality as well as
service recovery. Job crafting alludes to the proactive expansion in the task or relational
boundaries of the job to augment the job meanings (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001, p.
179). Job crafting at the collective level may thus provide members of the entire clinical
team with resources (including knowledge and feedback about the healthcare service) and
autonomy to challenge the status quo of the healthcare service. With these resources and
autonomy from collective job crafting, clinical employees have propensity to engage in
healthcare service recovery behavior.
Job crafting research reported “work engagement” as a mediation mechanism to
elucidate the relationship between collective job crafting and team performance (Tims et
al., 2013). Work engagement at the team level or team work engagement denotes a
positive, fulfilling, work-related and shared psychological state of mind (Salanova et al.,
2003). Therefore, team work engagement is also an emotional response from members of
the clinical team (Den Hartog and Belschak, 2012), which can serve as a mediator for the
link between collective job crafting and team service recovery performance in light of
Bagozzi’s (1992) attitude theory. In addition to this mediation mechanism, a moderation
mechanism can be added to our postulated model. With resources and empowerment for
redesigning the healthcare service job of the clinical team, clinical members will have
higher propensity to engage themselves in their clinical service work if they observe the
norm of service around themselves. Serving culture that reflects the shared norm of
serving stakeholders including customers with best services as possible (Schneider et al.,
1998) will infuse into members of the clinical team more motivation to use resources and
challenging opportunities in collective job crafting process to effectively engage in
clinical activities and in turn provide patients with better healthcare services or recover
healthcare services. Serving culture can hence play a moderating role to intensify the
effect of collective job crafting on team work engagement.
Our research demonstrates numerous contributions to job crafting and service
recovery research streams. The primary aim of the current research is to examine how
collective job crafting contributes to healthcare service recovery performance of the

2
 clinical team. Through this research aim, the current research both responds to the job
crafting-performance research stream (Tims et al., 2013) and branches from this stream
by looking at team service recovery performance, rather than team performance in
general (e.g. Tims et al., 2013), as the distal outcome of collective job crafting. Our
research also extends service recovery literature through the investigation into service
recovery performance at the team level, which is crucial in addressing customer
complaints about the whole service processes such as in the healthcare service. Second,
as a further response to job crafting research stream (Tims et al., 2013), our research
seeks to assess the mediation role of team work engagement for the relationship between
collective job crafting and team service recovery performance. With this aim, the current
research distinguishes itself from prior team performance research that has revolved
around work engagement as a moderation mechanism (e.g. Chen and Kao, 2012). The
role of team work engagement as a psychological mediator is in line with Bagozzi’s
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

(1992) attitude theory on the role of psychological or affective reactions in mediating the
link between employees’ high assessment of favors from the organization (i.e.
empowerment for collective job crafting) and their organizationally beneficial behaviors
(i.e. team service recovery performance). The third research aim entails examining the
role of serving culture as an enhancer for the effect of collective job crafting on team
service recovery performance. Moreover, Vietnam-based healthcare organizations, from
which the data for our research model will be derived, can provide contextual insights for
service recovery performance research. Vietnamese culture with collectivistic nature
(Penz and Kirchler, 2016) can provide an interesting context for testing our research
model of collective-level variables such as collective job crafting, team work
engagement, and team service recovery performance. Furthermore, team service recovery
performance is indispensable in Vietnamese healthcare industry, whose service quality
needs profound improvement and recovery (Luu, 2014).
This research paper is configured into five sections. The literature review, which
follows this introductory section, sets stage for hypothesis development. Methods in data
collection and data analysis are then displayed. The research results are next presented,
leading to the discussion on theoretical and managerial implications.

Literature review and hypothesis development

Collective job crafting and team service recovery performance

Service quality is at the heart of a service organization due to its role in promoting
customer satisfaction and organizational brand (Wong and Sohal, 2003). When service
defects occur, service recovery performance plays a crucial role in restoring customer
satisfaction (Seawright et al., 2008), regaining their trust, and alleviating risks linked with
their negative word of mouth (Seawright et al., 2008). Service recovery performance is
viewed as frontline service employees’ perceptions of their own abilities and actions to
resolve a service failure to the satisfaction of the customer (Babakus et al., 2003). In the
healthcare context, patients’ pains and unstable psychological states may make them
more likely to produce complaints about the healthcare processes. A patient may have a
complaint about individual service performance such as a physician’s neglect of his or

3
 her need for medical advice. Yet, patient complaints may also entail the entire healthcare
processes, in which both physicians and nurses have their roles through their individual
contributions as well as their coordination and synergy. Patients and their relatives may
attribute the deterioration of patients’ condition to the ineffective coordination between
physicians and nurses in the patient care processes. Healthcare service recovery
performance at the team level is the focus of the current research, which distinguishes it
from prior research on service recovery performance of individual frontline employees
(e.g. Rod and Ashill, 2010b).
Employees nowadays move away from top-down, static, “one-size-fits-all” job
designs towards jobs that enable them to proactively generate or add meanings to their
jobs (Rosso et al., 2010). Such job redesigns are known as job crafting (JC), which
indicates the cognitive and physical changes that employees engender in the task or
relational boundaries of their job (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001, p. 179) in ways that
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

enable them to reframe the aim of the job and experience the job differently
(Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001).
Yet, employees not purely craft their job individually but also collectively engage in
job crafting (Leana et al., 2009). In collective job crafting (CJC), team members mobilize
and synergize efforts and competencies to augment structural and relational job
resources, augment challenging job demands, as well as alleviate hindering job demands
(Tims et al., 2013). Collective job crafting does not imply that every team member needs
to craft the same job resources and demands, but collectively deciding what and how to
craft. Collective job crafting hence refers to the way the team interacts and behaves as a
mutual and goal-directed synergy of individuals (Morgeson and Hofmann, 1999), rather
than the sum of individual team members’ job crafting (Tims et al., 2013).
Notwithstanding diverting from the three components of management commitment to
service quality (i.e. training, empowerment, and reward) as organizational antecedents of
service recovery performance, our research model of collective job crafting-service
recovery linkage is still premised on Bagozzi’s (1992) “appraisal → emotional response
→ behavior” attitude model. Bagozzi’s (1992) attitude theory holds that self-regulating
processes, which are embodied in distinct sequences of monitoring and evaluation,
emotional reactions, and coping responses, govern behavior. In other words, cognitive
assessments of events, outcomes, and situations precede affective reactions, and affective
responses play a determining role to navigate individual behavior. Following Bagozzi’s
(1992) attitude theory, our research anticipates that collective job crafting will bring team
members positive experiences and assessments, which may engender team work
engagement (TWE) – a positive, fulfilling, work-related and shared affective state
(Salanova et al., 2003). This positive affective response will in turn lead to patient care
improvement such as in the form of service recovery performance of the clinical team.
From Akroush et al.’s (2013) standpoint, “internal customers” (employees) have
“working needs” that should be met and satisfied so as to meet and satisfy external
customers’ needs. Collective job crafting can provide team members with pleasant and
satisfactory experiences, which may activate positive affective responses in them and in
turn their positive behaviors. The members of the clinical team may develop a positive
shared affective state in the form of team work engagement through collective crafting of
healthcare job from different angles. First, behind collective job crafting resides the

4
 empowerment for clinical employees to engage in the creation of the fit between
themselves and the team job (Tims, Derks, and Bakker, 2016) as well as meanings of
patient care for themselves (Rosso et al., 2010). The link between person-job fit and work
engagement has been recorded in literature (e.g. de Beer, Rothmann, and Mostert, 2016).
Thus, the collective fit drives all team members to collaboratively engage themselves in
the patient care and dedicate themselves to patient care quality improvement. Moreover,
the collective fit also has higher propensity to manage conflicts among team members
than the individual fit built from individual job crafting. Due to the positive effect of
conflict management on work engagement (Einarse et al., 2016), effective management
of conflicts among team members as a result of collective job crafting may contribute to
team engagement in the healthcare processes.
Second, since job crafting is a proactive behavior (Rosso et al., 2010), when team
members collaboratively craft the team job, they have a chance to demonstrate their
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

proactiveness in patient care and in turn develop positive psychological state, as in the
form of team work engagement, than when they engage in reactive behaviors (Demerouti,
Bakker, and Gevers, 2015). Third, collective job crafting increases structural resources
(clinical knowledge and skills) and social resources (performance feedback), as well as
challenging job demands for team members and the entire clinical team (Tims et al.,
2013). With increased resources and challenging job demands (Tims et al., 2013), team
members develop strong confidence and motivation to engage themselves in the team’s
healthcare service activities. In addition, collective job crafting can also alleviate
hindering job demands for team members (Tims et al., 2013), which may further heighten
their psychological state to engross themselves in the patient care services. In other
words, collective job crafting provides team members with not purely abilities (through
increased resources) but also intrinsic motivation (through empowerment for proactive
crafting behavior and the creation of person-job fit), with which team members develop
high enthusiasm and dedication towards healthcare job. This line of discussion leads us to
expect the positive relationship between collective job crafting and team work
engagement:

H1. Collective job crafting is positively related to team work engagement.

Team work engagement (TWE) is characterized by team work vigor, dedication and
absorption which emerges from the interaction and shared experiences of the members of
a work team (Salanova et al., 2003). When the team demonstrates a high level of
engagement in patient care activities, its members collaboratively dedicate their efforts
and resources to treatment and nursing practices. Moreover, team work engagement was
reported to shape high service performance (García-Buades et al., 2016). Hence, when
team members engage in the crafted team job, they have strong vigor to serve patients
and improve patient care services. Dedicating themselves to the patient care, team
members treat complaints from patients as their constructive feedback and take corrective
actions to recover the diseases of the team performance which patients have diagnosed
for the clinical team. Furthermore, when team members collectively engage in the patient
care job duties of the team, they can coordinate and synergize their capabilities to resolve
patient complaints about the entire clinical processes. Put differently, team work

5
 engagement can promote team members’ synergetic dedication to the recovery of patient
care service failures. In a nutshell, in light of Bagozzi’s (1992) attitude theory, team work
engagement, as a positive affective expression (Den Hartog and Belschak, 2012), which
emanates from team members’ positive experiences of collective job crafting, can foster
service recovery performance of the clinical team. This mediation mechanism of team
work engagement behind team service recovery performance in our discussion is also in
line with Tims et al.’s (2013) findings on the role of team work engagement in mediating
team job crafting and team performance. The following hypotheses are thus postulated:

H2. Team work engagement is positively related to team service recovery

performance.

H3. Team work engagement mediates the positive relationship between collective job
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

crafting and team service recovery performance.

Serving culture as a moderator

Culture alludes to “a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved

its problems of external adaptation and internal integration” (Schein, 2010, p. 18).
Serving culture is viewed as the degree to which all members of the work group engage
in serving behaviors (Liden et al., 2014). Serving culture is characterized as a work
environment in which members share the understanding that the behavioral norms and
expectations are to prioritize the needs and interests of others above their own and to
proffer help and support to others (Liden et al., 2014). Serving culture is composed of the
norms of service orientation towards organizational stakeholders including customers
(Liden et al., 2014). In the serving culture, organizational members serve customers’
needs and interests and care about their success and growth.
As earlier discussed, when team members craft the team job, they create the fit
between themselves and the team job, as well as more job meanings for their daily work
activities, which drive them to engage themselves in the healthcare work and in turn
dedicate themselves to healthcare service improvement such as through service recovery
performance. Cultural values serve to solidify the behavioral norms and expectations
(Liden et al., 2014). The behavioral norms that constitute the serving culture provide a
roadmap that members utilize to assess how best to respond to different situations that
they face at work. When serving others is seen as a defining attribute of the team, team
members place a priority on helping others (Cooke and Rousseau, 1988, p. 255) and
engage in behaviors that benefit the team (Liden et al., 2014). Therefore, while collective
job crafting creates the fit between team members and the team job, serving culture adds
the person-group fit to such a fit, thereby further enhancing team members’ engagement
in their team work. Moreover, in the serving culture, when team members accumulate
structural and social resources from collective job crafting process (Tims et al., 2013),
they tend to use these resources for the benefits of the team. They tend to dedicate their
efforts and resources to and absorb themselves in the team work. In addition, in the
serving culture, team members have higher propensity to encourage and support one

6
 another (Liden et al., 2014) to further direct their resources that they gain from collective
job crafting towards the work of the team.
Furthermore, a culture based on serving others not merely builds norms for behaviors
among its members that promotes effectiveness internally, but extends to interactions
between members and customers (Schneider, White, and Paul, 1998). A serving culture
encourages members of the team to place customers’ needs and interests ahead of their
own, culminating in superior customer service (Schneider et al., 1998). The members of
the clinical team will be more likely to utilize resources harvested from collective job
crafting to engage in the healthcare work if they are working in the serving culture in
which service towards patients is normative to the team. In the serving culture, customer
service orientation drives clinical members to exploit such resources as well as explore
new resources from challenging opportunities in the interests of patients. On the contrary,
in a culture of low customer service orientation, clinical team members may use these
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

resources to serve the team’s interests and patients’ interests at a lesser degree than in the
serving culture, thereby less likely to dedicate to the patient care services of the team.
This line of discussion demonstrates the moderating role that serving culture can play for
the effect of collective job crafting on team work engagement:

H4. Serving culture positively moderates the relationship between collective job
crafting and team work engagement such that the relationship is stronger when
serving culture is high rather low.

Research methods

Sampling

Our research invited the participation of 24 hospitals in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Clinical employees and their managers from clinical departments were engaged in filling
surveys. We initially gained the permission and support of each hospital’s chief executive
for data collection. We had its HR manager provide the list of clinical departments and
the lists of department members.
Data collection was conducted in two waves. In the first-wave survey (T1), data on
collective job crafting and serving culture were garnered from clinicians including
physicians and nurses. In the second-wave survey (T2), conducted one month after T1,
team work engagement scale was delivered to clinicians who participated in T1 survey so
as to collect data on team work engagement. Also in the second-wave survey (T2), we
collated data on team service recovery performance from their direct managers, who had
supervised these clinicians for at least one year (Thatcher, 2001) including this two-wave
data collection period. Control variable data were also collected in this wave survey.
Following Dillman’s (2000) Tailored Design Method, the self-administered
questionnaire and its cover letter were emailed to each respondent. A reminder email was
sent to the non-respondents after ten days. Prior to the questionnaire distribution, the
questionnaires were code-numbered to match responses from clinicians with those from
their direct managers (T2). The questionnaire to be delivered to a clinician and that to
his/her direct manager (T2) were coded with the same code number. Notwithstanding this

7
 code numbering, the respondents remained unidentified since all questionnaires were
answered anonymously. 1,532 clinicians (66.81%) participated in the T1 survey. The T2
survey collated 1,421 complete responses (61.97%) from clinicians who participated in
T1 survey. Eliminating departments with fewer than five employees (Addison et al.,
2014) and non-response from managers resulted in the final sample of 1,308 clinicians
(57.04%) and 181 direct managers (76.37%).
Among the clinicians, 837 employees (63.99%) were female, their average age was
35.28 years (SD = 8.06), and they had an average job tenure of 9.14 years (SD = 3.72).
Out of the managers, 57 managers (31.49%) were female, their average age was 39.76
years (SD = 8.84), and they had an average job tenure of 11.82 years (SD = 4.59). The
representativeness of the responses from the sample was assessed by comparing early
respondents (i.e. clinicians participating in T1 survey) with late respondents (i.e.
clinicians participating in T2 survey) in terms of demographic attributes of the sample
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

(Armstrong and Overton, 1977). T-tests unveiled insignificant differences between the
two groups of respondents in terms of clinicians’ age (t = 1.12; p = .328), gender (t =
1.26; p = .473), and job tenure (t = .97; p = .261), indicating the representativeness of the
sample.

Measures

The scales were translated into Vietnamese, following the back translation procedure
(Schaffer and Riordan, 2003).

Collective job crafting (CJC). Respondents were asked to indicate how often their team
had engaged in each of the behaviors (1 = never, 5 = very often) in Tims et al.’s (2013)
eight-item collective job crafting scale adapted from Tims et al. (2012). The scale
consists of four dimensions: ‘increasing structural job resources’ (e.g., “My team tries to
develop its capabilities”), ‘increasing social job resources’ (e.g., “My team asks others for
feedback on its performance”), ‘increasing challenging job demands’ (e.g., “When there
is not much to do at work, my team sees it as a chance to start new projects”), and
‘decreasing hindering job demands’ (e.g., “My team tries to ensure that our work is
emotionally less intense”).

Team work engagement (TWE). This construct was assessed using the three items from
Tims et al. (2013) adapted from the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli, Bakker,
and Salanova, 2006). Sample items encompass “My team is bursting with energy at
work” (vigor), “My team is enthusiastic about the work” (dedication), and “My team is
immersed in its work” (absorption) (1 = “never”, 5 = “always”). The average score on the
three items was employed in the analyses.

Team service recovery performance (TSRP). This construct was gauged by team leaders
using a five-item scale anchoring on 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) that was
referent-shifted from Babakus et al.’s (2003) scale on service recovery performance. We
replaced “I” by “we” for all five items in Babakus et al.’s (2003) scale. Sample items

8
 include “Considering all the things we do, we handle dissatisfied patients quite well” and
“We don’t mind dealing with complaining patients.”

Serving culture. Serving culture was assessed through Liden et al.’s (2014) seven-item
scale (1 = ‘strongly disagree’, 5 = ‘strongly agree’) adapted from Liden et al. (2008).
Illustrative items include “Our team members would seek help from others if they had a
personal problem” and “Our team members put others’ best interests ahead of their own”.

Control variables. Team size was included as a control due to its ability to influence team
outcomes (Hirst, Van Knippenberg, and Zhou, 2009). Task interdependence was also
controlled since, the more interdependently tasks are performed, the harder it is to make
adjustments to the job (Tims and Bakker, 2010). Sprigg, Jackson, and Parker’s (2000)
six-item scale was utilized to estimate task interdependence (e.g., “I cannot get my tasks
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

done without information and materials from other members of my team”).

Results

Multilevel structural equation model framework was utilized for data analyses owing to
the multilevel nature of the data, with teams nested within organizations. Besides, recent
analysis by Preacher, Zyphur, and Zhang (2010) also suggested the application of
multilevel structural equation models to surmount the limitations of traditional multilevel
analysis in predicting mediation effects through multiple levels.

Measurement models

Multilevel factor analysis serves as a comprehensive test of a multilevel data structure.

Dyer, Hanges, and Hall’s (2005) procedure was used to assess the data structure. We
conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) through Lisrel 8.8 (Jöreskog and Sörbom,
2006) on the four constructs: collective job crafting, team work engagement, team service
recovery performance, and serving culture. The results demonstrated a good fit between
the hypothesized four-factor model and the data (Table 1). Fit indices such as Tucker–
Lewis coefficient (TLI), incremental fit index (IFI), comparative-fit index (CFI),
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) were employed to estimate the model. The fit indices: TLI =
.96; IFI = .96; CFI = .95 surpassed the .90 benchmark (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). The
degree of misfit was also tolerable, with SRMR = .051 and RMSEA = .047, under the
relevant benchmark of .08 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Moreover, the model fit was further
strengthened through χ2/df = 315.62/167 = 1.89, which is under 2 (Carmines and McIver,
1981). Convergent validity was also attained since all factor loadings surpassed the
recommended level of .60 (t-value > 1.96) (Gefen and Straub, 2005).
The discriminant validity of the four constructs was tested by contrasting the
hypothesized four-factor model against alternative models. Following Williams and
Anderson (1994), some of the factors were collapsed to form alternative models. The
findings in Table 1 indicated that the hypothesized four-factor model fitted the data
considerably better than any of the alternative models, lending support for the construct

9
 distinctiveness. Additionally, discriminant validity was achieved since the square root of
the average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct exceeded its correlations with the
other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (Table 2).
Moreover, multilevel CFA models team- and organization-level constructs
simultaneously at both levels. The factor structure of the model was anticipated to be
consistent at both levels; therefore, we constructed within- and between-group (i.e.
organization) CFA models comprising four factors. The hypothesized model has
adequate fits for the within-group (χ2 = 380.76; df = 167; χ2/df = 380.76/167 = 2.28; TLI
= .95; IFI = .96; CFI = .95; SRMR = .049; RMSEA = .052), and between-group (χ2 =
303.94; df = 167; χ2/df = 303.94/167 = 1.82; TLI = .94; IFI = .93; CFI = .93; SRMR =
.058; RMSEA = .063). These results indicate that the factor structure built in our model is
strong at both within-group and between-group levels of analysis.
The reliabilities of the scales were estimated through the composite construct
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

reliability coefficients and AVE (Table 2). Composite reliabilities ranged from .77 (for
serving culture) to .86 (for team work engagement), above the .70 cutoff value (Bagozzi
and Yi, 1988). AVE, which ranged from .55 (for serving culture) to .72 (for team service
recovery performance), also surpassed the recommended benchmark of .50 (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981).

Table 1. Comparison of measurement models for variables studied

Model χ2 df ∆χ2 TLI CFI RMSEA

Hypothesized four-factor model 316 167 .96 .95 .047
Three-factor model 1: 436 172 120** .92 .93 .099
CJC and serving culture combined
Three-factor model 2: 444 172 128** .89 .88 .108
CJC and TWE combined
Two-factor model: 475 178 159** .77 .76 .127
CJC, serving culture, and TWE
combined
One-factor model: 697 183 381** .65 .64 .161
All variables combined
** p < .01

Common method issue

Common method variance (CMV) bias was tested through the marker variable approach
(Lindell and Whitney, 2001), in which a marker variable which was theoretically
unrelated to other variables was included into the survey. In the current research, attitude
toward social media usage that refers to “the extent to which the social media user
believes that using a particular social media site helps to meet the related goal-driven
needs of the individual” (Rauniar et al., 2014, p. 10) was taken as the marker variable.
This marker variable was assessed through a five-item 5-point scale (1 = strongly
disagree; 5 = strongly agree) adapted from Rauniar et al. (2014) (Illustrative items
include “I find social media useful in my personal life” and “Using social media enables

10
 me to get re-connected with people that matter to me”). CMV has a likelihood to emerge
if the significant zero-order correlations for the variables in the research alleviate their
significance level when partialling out the marker variable from the correlation matrix.
Nonetheless, in our research, all significant zero-order correlations remained significant
after the marker variable was partialled out, indicating the low CMV risk in the dataset.
Moreover, as one of the research model’s predictions is interaction hypothesis, such an
interaction effect cannot be the artifact of CMV but rather can solely be deflated by CMV
(Siemsen, Roth, and Oliveira, 2010).

Aggregation

The appropriateness of aggregating individual scores of collective job crafting, team

work engagement, and team service recovery performance to the group level was
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

estimated through between-group differences and within-group agreement. Two

intraclass correlations (ICCs) for estimating agreement among group members were
employed. The ICC1 mirrors the level of agreement among ratings from members of the
same group. ICC2, on the other hand, denotes whether groups can be differentiated on the
variables under study. The ICC1 and ICC2 for collective job crafting were .17 and .69,
for team work engagement were .18 and .72, and for team service recovery performance
were .15 and .64. The F-value for ANOVA test was significant (p < .01). The rwg average
value was also computed (James, Demaree, and Wolf, 1984). The rwg average value was
.79 for collective job crafting ranging between .73 and .85, the rwg average value was .82
for team work engagement ranging between .77 and .89, and the rwg average value was
.76 for team service recovery performance ranging between .72 and .81, all surpassing
the recommended cutoff value of .70 (Klein et al., 2000). These results indicate the
appropriateness for the data analysis at the team level.

Descriptive statistics

Table 2 depicts the means, standard deviations, composite construct reliability, average
variance extracted, the square root of the average variance extracted, and zero-order
Pearson correlations of all variables. Collective job crafting demonstrated the positive
association with team work engagement (r = .46, p < .001), which was in turn correlated
with team service recovery performance (r = .39, p < .001).

Table 2. Correlation matrix and average variance extracted

Variables Mean SD 1 2 4 5 6 7 CCR AVE
1 Team size 7.23 2.34 …
2 Task interdependence 3.61 .57 -.03 …
4 Collective job crafting 3.52 .46 -.07 .09 (.82) .79 .67
5 Team work engagement 3.59 .51 -.05 .11* .46*** (.78) .86 .61
6 TSRP 3.54 .43 .12* .10 .29** .39*** (.85) .83 .72
7 Serving culture 3.36 .31 -.05 .11* .27** .22* .18* (.74) .77 .55
CCR = Composite construct reliability, AVE = Average variance extracted
Values in parentheses display the square root of the average variance extracted
Standardized correlations reported † p < .10; * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001

11
 Hypothesis testing

Collective job crafting demonstrated the significant, positive association with team
service recovery performance (β = .27, p < .01). Additionally, as Table 3 and Figure 1
display, collective job crafting significantly predicted team work engagement (β = .44, p
< .001) (hypothesis H1), which in turn significantly predicted team service recovery
performance (β = .37, p < .001) (hypothesis H2).

Table 3. Findings from the structural equation model

Path coefficient
Hypothesis Description of path Conclusion
(Standardized β)
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

Step 1 (Control)
Team size .11*
Task interdependence .08
R2 .03

Step 2
H1(+) CJC → TWE .44*** Supported
H2(+) TWE → TSRP .37*** Supported
H4(+) CJC × Serving culture → TWE .26** Supported
Model fit: χ2 = 315.62; df = 167; TLI = .96; IFI = .96; CFI = .95; SRMR = .051; RMSEA = .047; * p<
.05; ** p< .01; *** p< .001.

Figure 1. Model estimation results

The indirect effect of collective job crafting on team service recovery performance via
team work engagement was assessed through simple mediation analysis using SPSS
macros for bootstrapping indirect effects (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). The point estimate
of the indirect effect and the bias-corrected confidence interval (CI) are premised on 5000
samples (Preacher and Hayes, 2004). The 95 percent bias-corrected confidence interval
(CI) of the indirect effect (ab), which excludes zero, reveals a statistically significant
indirect effect (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). When serving culture was high, the indirect

12
 effect of collective job crafting on team service recovery performance via team work
engagement was significant (ab = .11, CI [.07, .15]) and higher than that when serving
culture was low (ab = .05, CI [.02, .09]). Moreover, in case of high serving culture, the
total effect of collective job crafting on team service recovery performance through team
work engagement was also significant (ab = .27, CI [.22, .31]) and higher than that in
case of low serving culture (ab = .21, CI [.17, .26]). Path findings and bootstrapping
results lend support for hypothesis H3 on the role of team work engagement in mediating
the impact of collective job crafting on team service recovery performance.
Furthermore, an alternative model in which team work engagement took the
moderating role instead of the mediating role demonstrated a worse model-data fit (χ2 =
408.54; df = 167; χ2/df = 408.54/167 = 2.45; TLI = .93; IFI = .94; CFI = .92; SRMR =
.064; RMSEA = .059) than the hypothesized model. This provides further proof for the
mediation mechanism of team work engagement for the relationship between collective
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

job crafting and team service recovery performance.

The interaction term of the predictor “collective job crafting” × the moderator
“serving culture” was significantly positive (β = .26, p < .01). The interaction pattern
between collective job crafting and serving culture in our research was also assessed
through the testing of the relationship between collective job crafting and team work
engagement at high (one SD above the mean) and low (one SD below the mean) values
of serving culture (Aiken and West, 1991). Simple slope tests were run following
Preacher et al.’s (2006) procedure. The plotted interaction in Figure 2 demonstrated that
collective job crafting augmented team work engagement when serving culture was high
(simple slope = .51, p < .01) versus low (simple slope = .09, p < .01).

Figure 2. Moderating effect of serving culture

Discussion

Theoretical implications

13
 Through the data analysis, collective job crafting demonstrated the positive link with
team service recovery performance via the mediation mechanism of team work
engagement. Serving culture was also verified to play a positive moderation role for the
relationship between collective job crafting and team work engagement.
Our research model imparts further insights into job crafting and service recovery
knowledge. First, the current research extends service recovery research in numerous
ways. Observing the magnitude of the team’s integrated efforts in recovering some
service processes, rather than individual service recovery performance, in some services
such as patient care services, our research investigated team service recovery
performance as the distal outcome of collective job crafting. In addition, distinguishing
itself from prior empirical inquiries on service recovery performance, our research turns
to collective job crafting as a predictor for team service recovery performance, rather than
management commitment to service quality through training, empowerment, and reward
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

(Babakus et al., 2003; Rod and Ashill, 2010a). Yet, when team members collaboratively
craft the service job of the team, they obtain empowerment to accumulate and increase
structural (knowledge and skills) and social (performance feedback) resources. They also
obtain challenging opportunities as a form of self-training in order to proactively craft the
team’s service job for more effective recovery of healthcare services. Moreover,
collective job crafting also produces more job meanings to team members through the
creation of the fit between themselves and the team job. As a result, collective job
crafting also engenders intrinsic motivation (intrinsic reward) to further engage in service
recovery behavior in their clinical interactions with patients. In other words, although our
research turns to a different antecedent (i.e. collective job crafting) for team service
recovery performance, it still pursues Bagozzi’s (1992) attitude theory since collective
job crafting also contains the three components of “appraisal” grounded in Bagozzi
model, namely training (here self-training for more structural and social resources),
empowerment, and reward (here intrinsic reward rather than extrinsic reward). However,
while the three components of “appraisal” in Bagozzi model refer to external forces,
collective job crafting in our research model denotes autonomy to build resources and
intrinsic motivation.
Second, the present study is a response to the call for further investigation of the
outcomes of job crafting. While prior job crafting research tends to investigate the effect
of team job crafting on team performance in general (e.g. Tims et al., 2013), the proactive
nature of collective job crafting and its creation of person-job fit and job meanings may
give rise to transcendent performances such as extra-role performance or service recovery
performance. Our research also lent further support for the mediation mechanism of team
work engagement in linking collective job crafting with forms of team performance such
as service recovery performance. Since team work engagement is viewed as a positive,
fulfilling shared state of mind towards the team work (Salanova et al., 2003), team work
engagement can serve as emotional response to link collective job crafting with service
recovery behavior. The mediator “team work engagement” in the role of emotional
response further matches our research model with Bagozzi’s (1992) attitude theory.
Third, besides the role of collective job crafting in producing job meanings for
clinical members and in turn catalyzing motivation to contribute to healthcare service
recovery, serving culture may further infuse customer service value into clinical

14
 members, which further enhances their intrinsic motivation to engage in and improve
clinical works. This moderation mechanism of serving culture underscores the role of
levers of intrinsic motivation for service recovery such as serving culture in addition to
extrinsic rewards, which prior service recovery models contain (Babakus et al., 2003;
Rod and Ashill, 2010a).
Finally, our service recovery research also imparts contextual insights into knowledge
by testing the research model in Vietnam-based healthcare organizations. Most
Vietnamese healthcare organizations need profound service recovery to surmount patient
complaints and increase their brand image (Luu, 2014). Furthermore, Vietnamese culture
is collectivistic in nature (Penz and Kirchler, 2016) and is lowering its uncertainty
avoidance (Tajaddini and Gholipour, 2016). Thus Vietnamese culture is an environment
for collective-level innovative variables such as collective job crafting to emerge and take
effects.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

Practical implications

In order to build sustainable brands, hospitals should not only proactively improve
healthcare service quality but also effectively recover the current healthcare services.
Healthcare managers should pay heed to patient complaints about the entire healthcare
processes in addition to complaints about individual clinical performance. Hence,
healthcare managers should activate the members of the clinical team to collaboratively
synergize their efforts and resources to recover clinical service processes. Our research
model indicates to healthcare managers that collective job crafting can serve as a lever for
team service recovery performance. The team manager should empower the members of
the clinical team to increase structural (knowledge and skills) and social (performance
feedback) resources for their collective job crafting process. In this collective job crafting
process, the team manager should increase clinical members’ awareness of patient
complaints as crucial performance feedback (social resource) that they should collect and
appreciate so as to effectively craft the team’s clinical processes to recover the healthcare
services. Training and coaching should be granted to provide clinical members with more
structural resources for the crafting of the team job. Training and coaching can also
increase clinical members’ abilities to explore challenging opportunities in collective job
crafting so as to recover the healthcare services even beyond patient expectations.
Clinical employees should be trained and coached to alleviate hindering job demands by
deciphering and empathizing with patient complaints rather than seeking ways to avoid
such patients.
Furthermore, to further enhance the effect of collective job crafting on team work
engagement and in turn team service recovery performance, the healthcare manager
should build norms and values of serving culture among members of the clinical team.
The healthcare manager should, through communication and training, reactivate or
rebuild in clinical members patient-centered value from Hippocratic Oath or Nightingale
Pledge. The manager should build in clinical members’ mindsets a new portrait of
patients as value co-creator with the healthcare organization rather than passive recipients
of treatments. Clinical members should build the awareness that healthcare organizations

15
 and clinicians exist not only to treat patients but also serve them, treat their complaints as
signs of service imperfections and their care for the organization’s health.
Our research thus underscores the magnitude of the shift not only in clinicians’
awareness but also societal awareness of the role of clinicians from patient care providers
to healthcare servants who should collaborate in a work team to serve the healthcare
needs and interests of patients. They should recover not merely patients’ diseases but also
their complaints about healthcare service imperfections. Governmental schemes on
healthcare provider training should address this shift in their roles. Their new roles as
healthcare servants and value co-creators should also be integrated into Clinical Practice
Guidelines.

Limitations and future research avenues

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

The application of our research results should be conducted with caution due to their
inherent limitations. The reliance of our research on self-report data should be
surmounted in the future research. Data on collective job crafting and team service
recovery performance, in some organizations, can be garnered through team performance
indicators under the internal process dimension of performance appraisal system. In
addition, the dependence on self-report data may give rise to CMV bias (Podsakoff et al.,
2012). CMV bias, nonetheless, is not a grave threat in our research through CFA analysis,
interaction effect test (Siemsen, Roth, and Oliveira, 2010), as well as the collection of
data from multiple sources (clinical employees and managers) (Podsakoff et al., 2012).
Derived from the data in Vietnam-based healthcare organizations, our research
findings should be prudently generalized to other service industries. Our research model
should be retested in other services, in which the recovery actions are required for
failures in the entire service processes resulting from the ineffective coordination and
collaboration of team members. Moreover, the replication of the current research model
in public sector may contribute to the recovery of failures in public service processes.
Furthermore, antecedents other than collective job crafting can also contribute to team
service recovery performance. Service-oriented human resource management (HRM)
practices may also engender positive appraisal and positive emotional responses from
frontline employees, leading to service recovery performance. Future research should
hence incorporate service-oriented HRM as an organizational precursor for team service
recovery performance. Besides, as a psychological response to an organization’s
commitment to service quality, psychological contract can serve as a mediator in future
research models of team service recovery performance.

16
 References

Addison, J.T., Teixeira, P., Pahnke, A., & Bellmann, L. (2014). The demise of a model?
The state of collective bargaining and worker representation in Germany. Economic
and Industrial Democracy, in press.
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting
Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Akroush, M.N., Abu-ElSamen, A.A., Samawi, G.A., & Odetallah, A.L. (2013). Internal
marketing and service quality in restaurants. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,
31(4), 304-336.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977). Estimating nonresponsive bias in mail surveys.
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Babakus, E., Yavas, U., Karatepe, O.M., & Avci, T. (2003). The effect of management
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

commitment to service quality on employees’ affective and performance outcomes.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 272-286.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1992). The Self-Regulation of Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178-204.
Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the Evaluation for Structural Equation Models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74–94.
Carmines, E. and J. McIver (1981). Analyzing Models with Unobserved Variables:
Analysis of Covariance Structures. Iin G. Bohrnstedt and E. Borgatta (eds.), Social
Measurement: Current Issues, pp. 65–115. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Chen, C.F., & Kao, Y.L. (2012). Moderating effects of work engagement and job tenure
on burnout–performance among flight attendants. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 25(8), 61-63.
Cooke, R.A., & Rousseau, D.M. (1988). Behavioral norms and expectations: A
quantitative approach to the assessment of organizational culture. Group &
Organization Studies, 13(3), 245-273.
de Beer, L.T., Rothmann, S., & Mostert, K. (2016). The Bidirectional Relationship
Between Person-Job Fit and Work Engagement. Journal of Personnel Psychology.
15(1), 4-14.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Gevers, J.M. (2015). Job crafting and extra-role
behavior: The role of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 91(6), 87-96.
Den Hartog, D.N., & Belschak, F.D. (2012). Work engagement and Machiavellianism in
the ethical leadership process. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(1), 35-47.
Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New
York, NY: Wiley.
Dyer, N.G., Hanges, P.J., & Hall, R.J. (2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor
analysis techniques to the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1),
149-167.
Einarsen, S., Skogstad, A., Rørvik, E., Lande, Å.B., & Nielsen, M.B. (2016). Climate for
conflict management, exposure to workplace bullying and work engagement: a
moderated mediation analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, in press.

17
 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable and Measurement Errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–
50.
García-Buades, E., Martínez-Tur, V., Ortiz-Bonnín, S., & Peiró, J.M. (2016). Engaged
teams deliver better service performance in innovation climates. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(4), 597-612.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D.W. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-
Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 16(1), 91–109.
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on
employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual
creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280–293.
Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation

Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater
reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1),
85–98.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL for Windows [Computer Software].
Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Klein, K.J., Bliese, P.D., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Dansereau, F., Gavin, M.B., Griffin, M., &
Bligh, M.C. (2000). Multilevel analytical techniques: Commonalities, differences,
and continuing questions. In K.J. Klein, & S.W.J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel
Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and
New Directions (pp. 512-553). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work process and quality of care in
early childhood education: The role of job crafting. Academy of Management
Journal, 52(6), 1169-1192.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J.D. (2014). Servant leadership and
serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 57(5), 1434-1452.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership:
Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The
Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161-177.
Lindell, M.K., & Whitney, D.J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in
cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.
Luu, T.T. (2014). Clinical governance, corporate social responsibility, health service
quality, and brand equity. Clinical Governance: An International Journal, 19(3),
215-234.
Morgeson, F.P., & Hofmann, D.A. (1999). The structure and function of collective
constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy
of Management Review, 24(2), 249-265.
Penz, E., & Kirchler, E. (2016). Households in international marketing research: Vienna
Diary Technique (VDT) as a method to investigate decision dynamics.
International Marketing Review, 33(3), 432-453.

18
 Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2012). Sources of method bias in
social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review
of Psychology, 63(1), 539-569.
Preacher, K.J., Curran, P.J., & Bauer, D.J. (2006). Computational tools for probing
interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve
analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437-448.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 36(4), 717-731.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
Methods, 40(3), 879-891.
Preacher, K.J., Zyphur, M.J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological methods, 15(3), 209.

Rauniar, R., Rawski, G., Yang, J., & Johnson, B. (2014). Technology acceptance model
(TAM) and social media usage: an empirical study on Facebook. Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, 27(1), 6-30.
Rod, M., & Ashill, N.J. (2010a). Management commitment to service quality and service
recovery performance: A study of frontline employees in public and private
hospitals. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 4(1),
84-103.
Rod, M., & Ashill, N.J. (2010b). The effect of customer orientation on frontline
employees job outcomes in a new public management context. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, 28(5), 600-624.
Rosso, B.D., Dekas, K.H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A
theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 91-
127.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martínez, I.M., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2003). Perceived
collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic
work groups an experimental study. Small Group Research, 34(1), 43-73.
Schaffer, B.S., & Riordan, C.M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for
organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational Research
Methods, 6(2), 169-215.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716.
Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., White, S.S., & Paul, M.C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer
perceptions of service quality: Tests of a causal model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(2), 150–163.
Seawright, K.K., DeTienne, K.B, Bernhisel, M.P., & Larson, C.L.H. (2008). An
empirical examination of service recovery design. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, 26(3), 253-274.

19
 Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models
with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods,
13(3), 456-476.
Sprigg, C.A., Jackson, P.R., & Parker, S.K. (2000). Production teamworking: The
importance of interdependance and autonomy for employee strain and satisfaction.
Human Relations, 53(11), 1519.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tajaddini, R., & Gholipour, H.F. (2016). National culture and default on mortgages.
International Review of Finance, in press.
Thatcher, S.M.B. (2001). The Mediating Role of Identity Fit: Understanding the
Relationship between Communication Media, Demographic Differences, and
Creativity. Paper presented at the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

Sciences, Maui, HI, USA.

Tims, M., & Bakker, A.B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job
redesign. SA 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.
Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., Derks, D., & van Rhenen, W. (2013). Job crafting at the team
and individual level: Implications for work engagement and performance. Group &
Organization Management, 38(4), 427-454.
Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A.B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with
person–job fit and meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 92(1), 44-53.
Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E. (1994). An alternative approach to method effects by
using latent-variable models: Applications in organizational behavior research.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(3), 323–331.
Wong, A., & Sohal, A. (2003). Assessing customer-salesperson interactions in a retail
chain: differences between city and country retail districts. Marketing Intelligence
& Planning, 21(5), 292-304.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J.E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as
active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.

Biography:

Luu Trong Tuan is currently a lecturer at Swinburne Business School, Swinburne

University of Technology, Australia. He received his medical doctor degree from
University of Medicine, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, master degree from Victoria
University, Australia and PhD degree in management from Asian Institute of Technology
(AIT), Thailand. His research interests include organizational behavior, human resouce
management, public management, and healthcare management. He has published in
numerous journals such as Journal of Business Ethics, Public Management Review,
Personnel Review, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, International Journal

20
 of Logistics Management, Management Decision, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Journal of Strategic
Marketing, and Marketing Intelligence & Planning.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 03:01 11 July 2017 (PT)

21