A number of limitations can be found in regard to our data collection and the design of our study. We believe that these limitations can be helpful to have in mind for future research.
First, there are some limitations associated with the sample and data collection in our research. Our data was collected from eight different companies and from some of them we only got a small number of participants. In addition, the participants worked within different industries and functions. Having such a heterogeneous sample could be regarded as a limitation, as it affects the generalizability of our findings. Further, we believe the sensitive nature of job crafting and performance data affected our response rate. We find it reasonable to believe that some employees felt that participating in the study would portray them negatively or even expose them. As a way to prevent this, previous research could
focus on self-rated measures of performance, to cancel out some of these effects.
As for performance ratings, our findings show that managers did not differentiate much between employees (See appendix 7). We believe a potential reason might be that 89% of the employees had worked for less than two years for their immediate manager, indicating that managers might not have known the employees well enough to notice all of their job crafting behaviors. Another potential explanation for the low differentiation in manager rating, is simply that managers might have held back and avoided giving their employees low ratings, to avoid seeming too harsh in their judgments.
For further research, we would therefore suggest studying a more homogeneous group, preferably within the same task domain. This would make it easier to generalize findings and also make it possible to be task specific, which could be beneficial, as it ensures that employees and managers have the same frame of reference when providing responses. We believe that task specificity could have helped for employees and supervisors to rate on equal terms. For instance, in Leana et al’s (2009) study, performance was rated by observing aspects of the environment, activities and teacher-child interactions within the classroom. As mentioned, performance was in their study rated using a 43-item scale for assessment, and it was therefore rated based on more specific criteria compared to our 9-item scale. Also, all our items were generally phrased, as opposed to task specific. We believe that this lack of specificity might have led to employees and managers having different frames of reference when completing the questionnaires.
For instance, employees might have rated themselves with more specific situations in mind, while supervisors, may have unintentionally rated their overall perception of the employee at work (e.g. likeability, collaborative skills). Task specificity has also been related to IM and OSE. We therefore believe that collecting data from employees within the same task domain would be helpful.
In regard to individual performance, our measures were limited to a perceived judgment from the manager. We believe that perception ratings do not necessarily provide a complete picture of employee performance and that the task specificity could have enhanced the objectivity of the ratings. A suggestion for future research looking into a similar relationship, could also include the companies own performance ratings in the assessment of performance. We believe it would be
valuable to contrast perception data with quantitative data of for example employee’s performance indicators. A combination of multiple sources could provide a more objective and realistic evaluation of an employee’s performance in contrast to relying only on perception. Further, self-ratings of performance could potentially have given us a better understanding of employee’s perception of person-job fit, as a consequence of undertaking job crafting behaviors. In addition, having this data could have allowed us to look closer into whether this self-reported measure was aligned with the manager's perception. We therefore believe that using the company’s own performance measures, could have yielded different results.
Previous diary studies have indicated that levels of self-efficacy can fluctuate on a daily basis, with as much as 48-63 percent of the variance attributable to within-person variations (Tims et al., 2011; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). In addition, performance has also been found to be highly fluctuating, with 44-57 percent of the variability explained at the within-person level (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). We believe that these fluctuations could have had an effect on our outcomes.
OSE and performance were measured at different points in time, and for some of the companies we measured OSE and performance with a two-month time difference. We would suggest that further research measure these variables closer in time, in order to compare ratings in more precise ways and avoid potential effects of fluctuations.
In the discussion part of this thesis, we argued that OSE could be an antecedent to job crafting. This is also in line with other research, such as Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner, and Putka (2002) that found that high levels of self-efficacy may actually undermine job performance because participants become overconfident and consequently allocate fewer resources to reach their goals. We therefore suggest that future research would focus on OSE as an antecedent of job crafting, as opposed to an outcome.
A final limitation of our study is that our results did not allow us to test if role overload would mediate the negative relationship between reducing demands and leader-rated performance. Previous studies looking into similar relationships have hypothesized and confirmed negative relationships between job crafting and hindrance stressors like role overload (Solberg & Wong, 2016) and stress and
burnout (Singh & Singh, 2018). These have mostly looked into job crafting focusing on its approach features, where allocating resources is a response to cope with demands. However, few studies have focused on investigating how job crafting works in the presence of demanding work situations that hinder job effectiveness (Solberg & Wong, 2016), as well as how job crafting in its form of avoidance relates to this. Thus, more research in this direction is needed.