ÜBERMAD

GoalsReview

Programmes that helped workers change their jobs made them feel more engaged

HelpedThe short version

Across 13 studies, workers who took the programme changed their jobs more often than people who got nothing.

A stock worker lifts a storage crate up a steel shelving rack, then lowers it again, calmly standing on a wooden platform.
13
studies pooled
1,080
workers in schools, hospitals and other jobs
Self-rated
people rated themselves
2 tools
tested

The review

  1. Who took part

    The review combined 14 studies, mostly in the Netherlands. About 1,080 people across 13 studies had job crafting measured.

  2. What they did

    In the programmes, workers set goals and made plans to change their jobs, sometimes with the company's goals too. Most were compared with people who got nothing. Programmes ran for a month or less in some studies and longer in others.

  3. What happened

    Workers changed their jobs more than people who got nothing did, and felt more engaged. Their overall job performance did not change clearly. The summary says engagement fully explains any gain in performance, but that analysis used only six studies.

What the review found

  1. HelpedGoals

    Across 13 studies, workers who took the programme changed their jobs more often than people who got nothing.

    Pooled analysis of 13 studies with 1,080 people · vs people who got nothing · they rated themselves · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

  2. Across 9 studies, workers who took the programme felt more engaged in their work than people who got nothing.

    Pooled analysis of 9 studies with 713 people · vs people who got nothing · they rated themselves · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

  3. No differenceGoals

    Across 8 studies, the programme did not clearly change how well workers did their jobs.

    Pooled analysis of 8 studies with 581 people · vs people who got nothing · ⚠ whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study

How solid is this?

  • Large group
  • People rated themselves
  • Unclear how groups were picked
  • Summary claims more than the results show
  • Whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
  • Mixes trials with other kinds of study

Source

Effectiveness of job crafting interventions: a meta-analysis and utility analysis (2019)

DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2019.1646728 (opens in a new tab)

More on goals

See all