How Can Researchers Cope With the Academic

Running head: COMPETITION AMONG RESEARCHERS

Research Master’s Psychology Thesis Department of Work- and Organizational Psychology

How Can Researchers Cope With the Academic Competition? - Testing a Job Crafting Intervention -

Author Rebecca Maria Fruwert Student number: 10408185 Robstraat 15 1531 CH Wormer

Supervisors Machteld Van den Heuvel Bianca Beersma

Second assessor Melvyn Hamstra

Amsterdam, August 20, 2014

1

COMPETITION AMONG RESEARCHERS

2

Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Research Question 1 .................................................................................................................. 8 Method ................................................................................................................................. 13 Results .................................................................................................................................. 16 Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 19 Research Question 2 ................................................................................................................ 23 Method ................................................................................................................................. 26 Results .................................................................................................................................. 29 Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 30 Research Question 3 ................................................................................................................ 35 Method ................................................................................................................................. 39 Results .................................................................................................................................. 40 Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 42 Research Question 4 ................................................................................................................ 43 Method ................................................................................................................................. 51 Results .................................................................................................................................. 54 Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 62 General Discussion .................................................................................................................. 69 Strengths, Limitations and Future Research ........................................................................ 69 Practical Implications ........................................................................................................... 73 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 77 References ................................................................................................................................ 78 Footnotes .................................................................................................................................. 89


3

List of Tables Table 1. Chronological Order of the Measures per Group ..................................................... 90 Table 2. Items for the Work Engagement, Distress and Social Support Scales ...................... 91 Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations Between Control Variables ................... 93 Table 4. Regression Analyses for the Perceived Competitive Pressure for Publications ....... 94 Table 5. Regression Analyses for the Perceived Competitive Pressure for Funding .............. 95 Table 6. Regression Analyses for the Perceived Competitive Pressure for Promotions ......... 96 Table 7a. Moderation Analysis with CP for Publications as IV .............................................. 97 Table 7b. Moderation Analysis with CP for Promotions as IV ............................................... 98 Table 7c. Moderation Analysis with Effort-Reward-Balance of Publications as IV .............. 99 Table 7d. Moderation Analysis with Effort-Reward-Balance of Funding as IV ................... 100 Table 7e. Moderation Analysis with Effort-Reward-Balance of Promotions as IV............... 101 Table 8. Causes and Consequences of Competitive Pressure ............................................... 102 Table 9. Correlations Between Personal Resources ............................................................. 117 Table 10. Coping Strategies Collected in the Pilot Study...................................................... 118 Table 11. Correlations Between Resources, Work Engagement and Distress ...................... 127 Table 12. Strategies of Researchers in the Cognitive Job Crafting Group ........................... 128 Table 13. Strategies of Researchers in the Relational Job Crafting Group .......................... 134 Table 14. Means and Standard Deviations Split by Group and Time ................................... 138


4

List of Figures Figure 1. The Job Demands-Resources model....................................................................... 139 Figure 2. Interaction of Resources and Demands on Work Engagement .............................. 140 Figure 3. Theoretical Model of the Expected Outcomes for Research Question 2 ................ 141 Figure 4. Theoretical Model of the Expected Outcomes for Research Question 4 ................ 142 Figure 5. Participant Flow..................................................................................................... 143


5

Abstract Academic competition fosters negative outcomes on the societal, collegial and individual level. Our aim was to test an intervention for researchers to increase work engagement and decrease distress. The Job Demands-Resources model proposes that with increased resources, the harmful effects of job demands can be attenuated. Based on this proposition, we hypothesized that relational job crafting (i.e. collaborating) would increase social resources (i.e. practical assistance), and that cognitive job crafting (i.e. focusing on positive job aspects) would increase personal resources (i.e. meaning of work), and thereby foster work engagement and decrease distress. We conducted a randomized controlled online intervention study over one week with 214 Dutch researchers. Unexpectedly, personal and social resources, but also distress decreased in all groups. Most remarkably, however, the mere thinking about the causes and consequences of the academic competition increased negative feelings towards work, demonstrating the harmful effect of working in a competitive environment experimentally. Effect sizes of all effects were small to moderate. We discuss potential drawbacks of our study design and derive recommendations for future job crafting interventions. Keywords: competition, academia, job crafting, Job Demands-Resources model


6

"(…) he sends funding proposals to compete for outside funding, manuscript submissions to compete for published articles, evidence portfolios to compete for his academic ranking, and applications to deans to compete for promotion. Each of these submissions has a high chance for rejection." (Carson, Bartneck, & Voges, 2013, p.188) Competition, the situation where the number of competitors exceeds the amount of resources and rewards (Pfeffer, 1992), is generally believed to bring out the best in us. Because academic competition provides incentives for extraordinary effort, it is traditionally seen as the drive for innovation, creativity, and research productivity (Hagstrom, 1974). In academia, the incentives for extraordinary effort are scarce rewards, such as grants, publications, and higher-rank positions (Bok, 2003; Carson et al., 2013). With respect to funding, the success rates for receiving a Dutch NWO grant range between 15 and 25% (Lauwen, Gascon, & Blank, 2013). With respect to publications, high impact journals, such as Science and Nature, accept less than 8% of the submitted papers (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2014; Macmillan Publishers Limited, 2014). For those rewards, the competition is bitter, because the number of competitors is much greater than the number of available rewards (Pfeffer, 1992). The perceived competitive pressure is defined as the perceived necessity to take competitive action (Zucchini & Kretschmer, 2011). This subjective perception determines which competitive strategies researchers initiate in order to increase their success chances for publishing and attracting grants, and thereby build a good reputation and promising career prospects (De Weert, 2001). Even though the perceived competitive pressure plays a critical role for academics, previous research on the consequences of working in a competitive environment is rare. We argue that the perceived competitive pressure has serious negative effects on researchers. By


7

means of four research questions we will shed light into the effects of working in a competitive environment, and we will test possible interventions for researchers to strengthen their well-being at work. As a first research question, we will investigate if the perceived competitive pressure is a chronic job demand for researchers. We will start by summarizing the Job Demands-Resources model in relation to previous research on competition in academia, and we will show that the perceived competitive pressure in academia is a chronic job demand for researchers and strongly related to researchers’ health and well-being. While previous studies argued that the competition in academia would be harmful to researchers, they did not clarify which aspects of "the competition" would be harmful, and did not present adequate empirical arguments. We are the first ones to introduce and test a measurable concept regarding researchers’ perceptions about the competition for publications, funding and promotions in academia. As a second research question, we will explore if the pure thinking about the competitive academic environment evokes negative affective reactions towards work. With the results of our controlled experiment, we will add empirical evidence to our claim that working in a competitive environment is harmful to researchers. Those insights highlight the necessity to derive and test an intervention for researchers in order to enhance motivation and health outcomes. Within the scope of our third research question, we will derive job crafting strategies for academics in order to create and maintain beneficial outcomes in the light of the competitive work environment. As fourth and final research question, we will test if researchers can increase their work engagement and decrease their distress level by means of our intervention. Even though some researchers before us have argued that the academic career and reward system should be adjusted, no study approached this problem on the individual level. In our view, interventions that strenghten the individuals are especially appropriate where problems emerge at the systemic level and cannot directly be influenced by those who suffer from it.


8

Research Question 1 Is the Perceived Competitive Pressure a Job Demand for Researchers? A widely used model that can explain both positive and negative motivational and health outcomes is the Job Demands-Resources model (JD-R; Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), which is displayed in Figure 1. Job demands cover a wide range of physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological effort, and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs (Demerouti et al., 2001). Job demands are not necessarily negative, but may become stressors and can impair employee health when they exhaust mental and physical resources (Demerouti et al., 2001). Distress is one category of psychological symptoms that is fostered by high job demands, which is characterized by feelings of tension and worry (Terluin, Van Rhenen, Schaufeli, & De Haan, 2004). There is some evidence that the perceived competitive pressure for publications, funding and promotions is a chronic job demand for researchers. Researchers who perceive high levels of competitive pressure are likely to engage in behaviors that require sustained effort to maintain a competitive advantage (Zucchini & Kretschmer, 2011). This competitive effort evoked by the perceived competitive pressure is likely to be associated with certain costs on the individual, collegial and societal level, and therefore a chronic job demand for researchers (Demerouti et al., 2001). Anderson, Ronning, De Vries and Martinson (2007) conducted interviews with researchers to analyze the effects of academic competition. As researchers’ main competitive actions, the authors identified self-promoting and strategic behaviors, as well as an engagement in questionable research conduct.


9

Regarding collegial relationships among researchers, Anderson and her colleagues (2007) found that the competitive pressure for publications, funding and the limited higherrank positions induces self-protective and self-promoting behaviors in researchers. Researchers collaborate less and mistrust each other, share less information, fight for first authorships and even interfere with the peer-review processes to maintain their competitive advantage (Anderson et al., 2007). This could be at the expense of developing authentic social relationships at work as well as fruitful networks. Regarding strategic behaviors, Anderson and her colleagues (2007) found that researchers often align their research focus with (or are assigned to) priority areas that have a high probability of funding and being published, which increases their visibility and chances for promotion. However, those areas do not necessarily coincide with their interests and motivations (Anderson et al., 2007). This is detrimental for a personally meaningful professionalism and instead fosters the motivation to outperform others and the fear to fail among researchers (Carson et al., 2013). Researchers are thus likely to lack positive feelings towards their work. This lack of motivation and commitment might not only result in low work engagement, but also in a lower standard of work (Wood, 1990) – which is where competitive actions do not only affect researchers on the individual and collegial level, but also spread to involve the public. Regarding scientific misconduct, there is a positive relationship between the level of perceived competition in an academic department and the probability that colleagues observe misconduct among each other (Louis, Anderson, & Rosenberg, 1995). The perceived competitive pressure for publications and funding increases the ambition to produce more and better proposals and manuscripts for the next assessment round, which restricts the time for serious reading and reflective research (Roberts, 2007). Martinson, Anderson and De Vries (2005) mention the academic competition as a main cause of scientific misbehaviors,


10

such as fabricating data, non-falsification of own research and plagiarism. Research integrity, however, is crucial for scientific and societal progress and should be aspired by researchers and prioritized by policy makers. Previous studies report the academic competition as a main source of distress and dissatisfaction in researchers (Anderson et al., 2007; Carson et al., 2013; Gillespie, Walsh, Winefield, Dua, & Stough, 2001; Kinman & Jones, 2003). However, those studies did not examine the statistical relationship between perceived levels of competition and job outcomes. Carson and her colleagues (2013) wrote an extensive and emotional essay about the "negative effects of highly competitive systems", but did not define clear competitionrelated constructs and their exact impacts. Gillespie and her colleagues (2001) and Anderson and her colleagues (2007) conducted group discussions and interviews with researchers and based their insights on qualitative data. Kinman and Jones (2003) reported that almost 60% of the researchers in their study agreed that the increasingly competitive atmosphere was a stressor for academics, but a measure of the statistical relationship remained to be established. To examine the scope of the problem and its precise effects, quantitative work is needed. In this study, we wanted to test the mostly anecdotal evidence presented above empirically. We argued that the perceived competitive pressure for publications, funding and promotions is a chronic job demand for researchers, because in order to remain competitive and increase their success chances, researchers engage in competitive actions, such as selfpromotion, strategic behaviors and dubious research conduct. Those behaviors are associated with certain psychological costs, such as negative feelings towards work, and social costs, such as mistrusting relationships amongst colleagues. According to the JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001) chronic demands foster exhaustion and distress, because they are associated with psychological costs. We therefore predict:


11

Hypothesis 1a: The perceived competitive pressure for publications is positively related to distress. Hypothesis 2a: The perceived competitive pressure for funding is positively related to distress. Hypothesis 3a: The perceived competitive pressure for promotions is positively related to distress. Besides job demands, job resources play a critical role in predicting motivation and health outcomes. Job resources cover a wide range of job aspects that help achieving work goals and support personal growth, learning, and development (Demerouti et al., 2001). Job resources foster work engagement, which is defined as a positive affective or motivational reaction towards the job that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Even though high demands are not directly associated with work engagement, we will test if the perceived competitive pressure for publications, funding and promotions is related to it. According to the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), a potential negative relationship between job demands and work engagement could either be explained by a mediation by distress (i.e. high demands increase distress, which decreases work engagement), or a mediation by job resources (high demands restrict job resources, such as social support, which decreases work engagement; see Figure 1). Hypothesis 1b: The perceived competitive pressure for publications is negatively related to work engagement. Hypothesis 2b: The perceived competitive pressure for funding is negatively related to work engagement. Hypothesis 3b: The perceived competitive pressure for promotions is negatively related to work engagement.


12

Effort-Reward-Balance as Job Resource A competition is characterized by a superior number of competitors as compared to the number of resources (Pfeffer, 1992). A lack of rewards, as reflected in unsuccessful grant proposals, rejected manuscripts and insufficient promotion possibilities, is therefore one consequence of the academic competition for many researchers, and has been identified as a cause of stress in academics (Day, 2011; Gillespie et al., 2001; Kinman & Jones, 2008). It should therefore be considered in this study. The Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) model (Siegrist, 1996) explains the negative effects of a perceived lack of rewards on researchers’ health and well-being. It states that when the perceived rewards are lower than the rewards one believes to have deserved, negative emotions, demotivation and strain can develop (Siegrist, 1996). When researchers perceive high levels of competitive pressure, they are likely to put extraordinary efforts in writing high-quality proposals and papers to increase their success chances. However, they receive many rejections due to the low acceptance rates (Carson et al., 2007). In terms of the JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001), a combination of high job demands (high perceived competitive pressure) with low psychological resources (a perceived imbalance of effort and rewards) is likely to foster strain (Figure 1). Therefore, we will test explorative if a perceived balance of effort and rewards buffers against the effects of high job demands, in a way that when researchers perceive high levels of competitive pressure, a perceived balance of effort and rewards, in contrast to a perceived imbalance, decreases distress. Finally, the JD-R model proposes that job resources particularly foster work engagement when job demands are high (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). This is in accordance with Hobfoll’s (1989) Conservation of Resources Theory, which proposes that people are motivated to gain valuable resources, especially in the context of resource loss. This implies that job resources particularly show their motivational potential when employees are


13

confronted with high job demands, which exhaust resources. In line with this proposition, we will test explorative if job demands moderate the relationship between job resources and work engagement, in a way that high levels of perceived competitive pressure foster work engagement, when researchers perceive a good balance of effort and rewards. Method Participants. The study was conducted in May 2014. Within the scope of research question 1, 2 and 4, we contacted 1298 researchers from ten Dutch universities by email. Email addresses were taken from the university homepage. The competitive pressure is likely to be especially present in early- and mid-career researchers, who are working on their reputation and strive for recognition (Carson et al., 2013). Therefore, we contacted early- and mid-career researchers, i.e. post-docs and assistant professors. In total, 214 researchers completed the survey, which is a response rate of 16.5%. This is more than in the study by Mark and Smith (2012), who received 11% responses from a British university staff sample, but lower than in the study by Winefield and his colleagues (2003), who received 25% responses from an Australian sample. There was a selective response of gender. When comparing those who did and those who did not participate in our study, females were more likely than males to participate in the study, F(1,1295) = 3.11, p < .10. Thus, the sample is not representative of the population because of the selection effect in gender. Assistant professors and post-docs, as well as researchers from the natural and social sciences were equally likely to participate, F(1,1295) = 0.14, ns, and F(1,1295) = 1.12, ns. There were 152 researchers who provided evaluable data for this study. The remaining researchers belonged to the experimental group described within the scope of research question 2. The researchers covered a wide range of social sciences (i.e. psychology, sociology, political science, law) and natural sciences (i.e. biology, chemistry, neurosciences), of which 47% (N = 72) were from the social sciences. In total, 46% (N = 70)


14

of the researchers were female, 70% (N = 107) were assistant professors, 81% (N = 123) worked full-time, 55% (N = 87) were temporarily employed, and of those who were temporarily employed, 39% (N = 34) were on a tenure track. Of the tenure trackers, 94% (N = 32) indicated that publishing a certain number of papers was a requirement for tenure, and 85% (N = 29) indicated that attracting grants was a requirement for tenure. Researchers were on average 36.78 years old (SD = 6.07) and held their position for 4.04 years (SD = 3.31). Procedure. Due to time restrictions, the data for all quantitative results within the scope of research question 1, 2 and 4 were gathered in one study with one experimental group, two intervention groups and one control group. The study design by group and over time, additionally explaining which variables and analyses were used for which research question, is displayed in Table 1. Here we report the results of the baseline measures of the two intervention groups and the control groups taken together. For all participants and all subsequent research questions the following aspects of the procedure were the same: Upon clicking on the survey link, the computer program "Qualtrics" assigned researchers randomly to one of the four conditions. Participants were not aware of the randomization. Before filling in the online questionnaire, participants were truthfully informed about the purpose and procedure of the study and that they could win a gift voucher worth 25€. All researchers gave their consent to participate by ticking a box before the data collection started. Demographics, distress and work engagement were measured first. Effort-reward-balance and the perception about the competitive pressure were measured thereafter. All researchers were thanked and given the opportunity to ask questions and leave comments about the study. Measures. Perceived competitive pressure. Perceived competitive pressure was measured with reference to publications, outside funding, and promotions with one item per construct. The


15

self-constructed items were: "I perceive the competitive pressure for publications / external funding / limited higher-rank positions as...", with answers ranging from 1 (Very low) to 5 (Very high). Reliability was relatively low, α = .60, indicating that the three items should be considered as discrete stressors for academics in their own right. Effort-reward-balance. The items were based on the effort-reward-imbalance scale by Siegrist and his colleagues (2004). The three items ("Considering all my efforts to attract funding, I receive the grants I deserve", "My current publication status (number and citations of publications) adequately reﬂects my efforts" and "Considering all my efforts and achievements, my career prospects are adequate") were answered on 5-point agreement scales. Lower scores on these scales reflect a higher perceived imbalance of effort and rewards, and higher sores reflect a subjectively higher balance of effort and rewards. The reliability for this scale was relatively low, α = .59, indicating that the three items should be considered as discrete stressors for researchers in their own right. Work engagement. Work engagement was measured with the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). The short form with nine items measures vigor, dedication and absorption with three items per subscale. Vigor refers to high levels of energy, mental resilience and persistence while working (e.g. "At my work, I feel bursting with energy"). Dedication refers to high levels of enthusiasm, inspiration, and pride in one’s work (e.g. "I am enthusiastic about my job"). Absorption refers to high levels of concentration and immersion in one’s work (e.g. "I am immersed in my job"). Items were answered on a 6-point scale, ranging from 1 (Never) to 6 (Always). The scale was reliable, α = .90. The items are listed in Table 2. Distress. Distress was measured with a subscale from the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) by Terluin and his colleagues (2004). The 16 items were answered on a 5-point scale, indicating how often participants experienced certain symptoms,


16

such as worry, disturbed sleep, tension and irritation, within the last two weeks. Categories were 1 (Never; 0 points), 2 (Sometimes; 1 point), 3 (Regularly; 2 points), 4 (Often; 2 points) and 5 (Very often; 2 points). The points of each item were added, which results in a possible score range between 0 and 32. The clinical cut-off point is a score greater than 10. The scale was reliable, α = .92. The items are listed in Table 2. Control variables. Control variables were age, gender (0 = female, 1 = male), current position (0 = post-doc, 1 = assistant professor), years in current position, tenure track (0 = on tenure track, 1 = not on tenure track), discipline (0 = natural sciences, 1 = social sciences), contract type (0 = permanently employed, 1 = temporarily employed), and employment (0 = full-time, 1 = part-time). Results Descriptive statistics and control variables. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between the control variables, perceived competitive pressure, effort-reward balance, work engagement and distress are displayed in Table 3. The means of the perceived competitive pressure scales were high, with M = 4.22 (SD = 0.82) for the competitive pressure for funding, M = 4.14 (SD = 0.78) for the competitive pressure for publications, M = 3.85 (SD = 0.99) for the competitive pressure for promotions. Effort-reward balance was neither extremely high nor low, with M = 2.85 (SD = 1.07) for funding, M = 3.05 (SD = 1.08) for publications, and M = 2.95 (SD = 1.04) for promotion possibilities. The means for work engagement (M = 4.39, SD = 0.83) and distress (M = 10.58, SD = 5.91) were both remarkably high. The distress mean is interpreted as clinically significant. Not surprisingly, there were more females than males from the social sciences, and females were more part-time employed than their male colleagues. Females experienced more competitive pressure for publications, and a worse balance of effort and promotion


17

possibilities than males. Researchers from the natural sciences perceived more competitive pressure for promotions than their colleagues from the social sciences. Not surprisingly, assistant professors, as compared to post-docs, perceived less competitive pressure for promotions, and more effort-reward-balance of publications and promotion possibilities. Older researchers were less engaged than their younger colleagues, and part-time researchers were less engaged than full-timers. For work engagement as dependent variable we therefore control for age and employment (full- versus part-time) in the subsequent analyses. Temporarily employed researchers were more distressed than their permanently employed colleagues. For distress as dependent variable we therefore control for contract type (permanent versus temporary) in the subsequent analyses. Competitive pressure for publications. Hypothesis 1 stated that the perceived competitive pressure for publications would be a) positively related to distress, and b) negatively related to work engagement. We tested this claim with multiple regression analyses. Test statistics of the multiple regressions are shown in Table 4. Researchers who perceived more competitive pressure (CP) for publications also reported more distress, β = .26, t(148) = 3.27, p < .01. The model explained 7.4% of the variance in distress, and CP for publications added 6.6% variance explanation to the control variable. Hypothesis 1a was supported. Researchers who perceived more CP for publications also reported less work engagement, β = -.17, t(147) = -2.14, p < .05. The model explained 8% of the variance in work engagement, and CP for publications added 2.9% variance explanation to the control variables. Hypothesis 1b was supported. Competitive pressure for funding. Hypothesis 2 stated that the perceived competitive pressure for funding would be a) positively related to distress, and b) negatively related to work engagement. Test statistics of the multiple regressions are shown in Table 5. Researchers who perceived more CP for funding did not report more distress, β = .04, t(148)


18

= 0.45, ns. Hypothesis 2a was not supported. Researchers who perceived more CP for funding did not report less work engagement, β = .10, t(147) = 1.18, ns. Hypothesis 2b was not supported. Competitive pressure for promotions. Hypothesis 3 stated that the perceived competitive pressure for promotions would be a) positively related to distress, and b) negatively related to work engagement. Test statistics of the multiple regressions are shown in Table 6. Researchers who perceived more CP for promotions also reported more distress, β = .20, t(148) = 2.53, p < .01. The model explained 6.1% of the variance in distress, and CP for promotions added 4.1% variance explanation to the control variable. Hypothesis 3a was supported. Researchers who perceived more CP for promotions did not report less work engagement, β = .02, t(147) = 0.22, ns. Hypothesis 3b was not supported. Explorative analyses. We first tested if a perceived balance of effort and rewards buffers against the effects of high perceived competitive pressure on distress. Test statistics of the multiple regressions are displayed in Table 7a to 7e. Because CP for funding was not related to distress, we did not run analyses with CP for funding as independent variable. We ran two multiple regression analyses with the CP for promotions and the CP for publications (= demands) as predictors of distress, and effort-reward-balance of promotion possibilities and of publications (= resources) as moderators. However, those calculations were not significant. Moreover, we tested if job demands moderate the relationship between job resources and work engagement, in a way that high perceived competitive pressure fosters work engagement when researchers perceive a good balance of effort and rewards. We ran three multiple regression analyses with effort-reward balance of publications, funding and promotion possibilities (= resources) as predictors of work engagement and CP for publications, funding and promotions (= demands) as moderators. Of those three regression analyses, one was significant. The perceived competitive pressure for publications moderated


19

the relationship between effort-reward balance of publications and work engagement, β = .18, t(145) = 2.22, p < .05. The model explained almost 16% of the variance in work engagement. The unstandardized simple slope for researchers scoring 1 SD below the mean of perceived CP for publications was 0.03, t(145) = 0.09, ns. The unstandardized simple slope for researchers with a mean level of perceived CP for publications was 0.17, t(145) = 0.48, ns. The unstandardized simple slope for researchers scoring 1 SD above the mean of perceived CP for publications was 0.32, t(145) = 0.88, ns. Not significant simple slopes imply that the increase in work engagement with increasing levels of effort-reward-balance within the analyzed subgroups was not significant. However, the interaction was significant. This special case of an interaction implies that the differences in the means between researchers scoring 1 SD below and 1SD above the mean at low levels of effort-reward balance differ from the differences in the means at high levels of effort-reward balance (see Figure 2). For clarification: For those who perceive low effort-reward balance, perceiving high levels of competitive pressure is more harmful to work engagement than perceiving low levels of competitive pressure. For those who perceive high effort-reward balance this discrepancy between high versus low perceived competitive pressure is much smaller. Discussion Even though researchers work in a highly competitive environment, previous studies did not measure the statistical relationship between the perceived competitive pressure and distress and work engagement. We based our hypotheses on the JD-R model, which argues that chronic job demands foster distress and harm work engagement, because they require sustained effort and thereby deplete mental and physical resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). When researchers perceive high levels of competitive pressure, they engage in competitive actions to build or maintain a competitive advantage. We hypothesized that those


20

actions are associated with high effort and costs, and therefore positively related to distress, and negatively related to work engagement. We found that the perceived competitive pressure for publications was positively related to distress and negatively to work engagement, but the competitive pressure for funding was neither related to distress nor to work engagement. In a way, publishing and funding are mutually dependent: Without a solid publication list, the chances to get funding decrease, but without funding, research cannot be conducted and papers cannot be written. So where to start? Apparently, young researchers are mainly stressed by the perceived competitive pressure for publications, but not by the perceived competitive pressure for funding. One researcher in our study wrote: "In the choice between publishing and completing grant applications, publishing must be prioritized. It has better chance of success that is lasting". Even though there are grants for early-and mid-career researchers in the Netherlands (i.e. Veni and Vidi grants), in most cases, young researchers are part of a research program and are funded by the project’s budget attracted by senior university staff (De Weert, 2001). Each academic rank follows a hierarchical ladder with increasing qualifications and responsibilities, and attracting funding seems to be a concern of more tenured colleagues. In contrast to the competitive pressure for funding, there is a high emphasis on publishing for all researchers, as highlighted by the widely used phrase "publish or perish" (Clapham, 2005). In line with this expression, we could confirm that the perceived competitive pressure for publications explained almost 7% of the variance in distress. Besides the positive relationship of perceived competitive pressure for publications and distress, we also found a negative relationship with work engagement. Researchers who perceived more competitive pressure for publications were less engaged, i.e. less vigorous, absorbed, and dedicated to their work. Explorative analyses revealed that the CP for publications moderated the relationship between effort-reward balance of publications and


21

work engagement. The model explained almost 16% of the variance in work engagement. For those who perceived high competitive pressure for publications (i.e. work under higher subjective demands), low rewards (perceived imbalance of effort and publications) were associated with the lowest levels of work engagement. Put differently, insufficient resources were especially harmful under high perceived demands. This is in line with the predictions from the Conservation of Resources Theory, that job resources become especially visible and valuable when work demands are high (Hobfoll, 1989). When researchers perceive an imbalance between demands and resources, a sustained pressure to compete for publications therefore seems to hinder a vigorous, dedicated and absorbed professionalism - which can be detrimental for the quality of research (Wood, 1990). The proposition of the JD-R model, that high job demands boost work engagement when job resources are high (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), cannot entirely be supported. A good balance between effort and rewards was related to high levels of work engagement for both those who perceived low and high levels of competitive pressure for publications. Accordingly, high perceived competitive pressure is not necessarily bad. It can be associated with a vigorous, dedicated and absorbed professionalism – on the condition of high perceived effort-reward balance. Finally, the perceived competitive pressure for promotions was positively related to distress in our sample. CP for promotions explained almost 4% of the variance in distress. We interpret this as a small but not trivial variance explanation, given the complex nature of distress (Terluin et al., 2004). Because researchers perceive a lot of competition for only a limited number of permanent positions, job insecurity is one main stressor for academics (Gilliot, Overlaet, & Verdin, 2002). This is especially true for women, who were particularly attracted by our study, and who perceived a worse balance of effort and promotion possibilities than their male colleagues. This is, however, not only a perception, but also a fact. With increasing rank, the proportion of women decreases in Dutch universities. In 2011,


22

47% of the PhD students were female, versus 15% of the professors (De Goede, Belder, & De Jonge, 2013). Our sample of Dutch researchers showed a remarkably high mean in distress, which was beyond the clinical cut-off point. This could be due to a self-selection of highly distressed researchers, who might have been especially appealed by our study. However, this is in line with previous studies on researchers’ psychological distress. For example, Bentley, Coates, Dobson, Goedegebuure and Meek (2013) found similar values for personal strain in an international survey with 13403 researchers. Abouserie (1996) found that 74% of the British academic staff was moderately stressed and nearly 15% were seriously stressed. So even though our sample was not representative, we confirm previous studies in the finding that researchers seem to be a highly distressed occupational group. In the light of the high distress scores, we were pleased to see that the means of work engagement were remarkably high and low in variation. This seems somewhat contrary to the distress scores, but we could explain this phenomenon with a self-selection of distressed researchers, who wanted to contribute to this study because they are nevertheless highly dedicated to their work. For all those findings, a reversed effect cannot be ruled out because of the crosssectional and observational nature of our study. More distressed researchers might perceive more competitive pressure and see themselves as less successful (cf. Demerouti et al., 2001). In the light of this strong limitation, create stronger evidence for a causal effect of the perception of competitive pressure on personal outcomes is needed. For that reason, we created a small experiment to demonstrate what happens when researchers reflect on the causes and consequences of competition in academia.


23

Research Question 2 Does Ruminating About the Academic Competition Foster Negative Reactions Towards Work? Considering the previous findings, we wanted to simulate realistic thoughts and daily concerns of researchers to experimentally explain and clarify the consequences of being confronted with the competitive academic environment. We conducted a controlled quasiexperiment, where researchers in the competition-focus group thought about the causes and consequences of scientific competition. A repetitive focus on the causes and consequences of a problem has been identified as a main tendency in ruminating (Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, & Lyubomirsky, 2008; Robinson & Alloy 2003). Put simply, rumination is likely to have negative consequences because of its negative content. It is associated with hopelessness, pessimism, low levels of self-efﬁcacy and depression (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008). Researchers who think about the causes and negative consequences of the academic competition are therefore likely to be induced with negative effects. If such a small manipulation would have immediate effects on researchers’ affections towards work, this might demonstrate why working in a competitive environment and being confronted with it on a daily basis has negative effects on researchers’ health and well-being. Personal Resources For demonstrating the effects of thinking about the academic competition, personal resources will play a critical role in this study. Personal resources are defined as "aspects of the self that are generally linked to resilience" (Hobfoll, Johnson, Ennis, & Jackson, 2003, p. 632). We will focus on three specific personal resources of which we think play a decisive role in researchers’ functioning at work. Firstly, we aimed to show that thinking about the academic competition decreases researchers’ positive emotions towards their work. Job-


24

related affective well-being is a summary of the positive and negative emotional reactions to work (Van Katwyk et al., 2000). Secondly, we aimed to show that thinking about the academic competition decreases researchers’ meaning of work. Meaning of work is defined as an employee’s understanding of the purpose and value of his or her work or what he or she believes is achieved in the work (Brief & Nord, 1990). Finally, we aimed to show that thinking about the academic competition decreases researchers’ self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure. Self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure is a situationspecific concept of general self-efficacy. Adapted from Bandura (1977), we define it as the belief to be able to cope with the competitive pressure. A theoretical model of the expected effects is displayed in Figure 3. Meaning of work and job-related affective well-being. We argue that thinking about the consequences of competition in academia causes negative affective reactions towards the job and decreases the perceived meaning of work in researchers. When reflecting on the negative consequences of academic competition, such as deformation of relationships, strategic game-playing, unethical behavior, low quality of research, lack of rewards and high levels of distress, researchers might see less personal meaning and fulfillment in their work (Carson et al., 2013). Realizing those negative effects of competition is likely to decrease positive feelings (i.e. enthusiasm and inspiration), and increase negative feelings (i.e. frustration and sadness) towards one’s work (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008). Hypothesis 4a: As compared to the control group, researchers in the competitionfocus group will experience less job-related affective well-being. Hypothesis 4b: As compared to the control group, researchers in the competitionfocus group will experience less meaning of work.


25

Self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure. We argue that thinking about the causes of the academic competition is detrimental for researcher’s self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure. The academic competition is characterized by too few rewards for a too large number of competing researchers (Pfeffer, 1992). Those circumstances are environmental conditions which cannot be influenced by the individual. When thinking about those causes of competition, researchers are therefore likely to be induced with the feeling that work outcomes and successes are not self-determined and uncontrollable, which is likely to be accompanied by low self-efficacy (Judge & Bono, 2001). Hypothesis 4c: As compared to the control group, researchers in the competitionfocus group will experience lower self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure. Achievement Goals Besides those effects on personal resources, we argue that thinking about the causes of competition in academia will induce either a motivation to outperform others or the fear to perform worse than others in researchers. As argued above, when individuals perceive high levels of competitive action, they are likely to engage in competitive actions, such as selfpromoting behaviors (Anderson et al., 2007; Zucchini & Kretschmer, 2011). To measure selfpromoting motivations, we included achievement goals in this study. Mastery goals are focused on the development of intrapersonal competence through task mastery, whereas performance goals are focused on the demonstration of competence as compared to others (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Performance-approach goals (i.e. the motivation to show superior competence as compared to others) and performance-avoidance goals (i.e. the motivation to avoid appearing incompetent as compared to others) are triggered by environments where normative competence is valued (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). This applies to the academic "the-winner-takes-it-all" environment, where researchers have to perform better than others


26

in order to be successful. The academic reward structure with its focus on extrinsic performance-contingent rewards is therefore likely to induce either a motivation to outperform others or the fear to perform worse than others in researchers. When reflecting on the causes of competition, researchers might be induced with competitive performance goals. Because we do not see a direct connection, we will test explorative if our manipulation affects mastery-goals. Hypothesis 4d: As compared to the control group, researchers in the competitionfocus group will experience more performance goals. Method Participants and data cleansing. Here we report the results of the competition-focus group in comparison to the control group. There were 106 researchers who provided evaluable data for this study. The remaining researchers belonged to the two intervention groups analyzed for research question 4. Of the 106, 59% (N = 63) were from the social sciences. In total, 57% (N = 61) were female, 74% (N = 78) were assistant professors, 79% (N = 84) worked full-time, 53% (N = 56) were temporarily employed, and of the temporarily employed, 15% (N = 16) were on a tenure track. Researchers were on average 36.25 years old (SD = 5.85) and held their position for 3.95 years (SD = 3.47). There were 56 researchers in the control group and 50 researchers in the competition-focus group. To check if researchers accomplished their tasks, we evaluated the qualitative data. Of the 50 researchers from the competition-group, we excluded 5 researchers who did not fill in anything. There was 1 researcher who indicated that he or she backed out from the competition, which we also excluded. Moreover, we doubted researchers whose answers did not fit our expectations. Specifically, 8 researchers were either not concerned about the competition, or saw no consequences, or just thought about positive aspects. Therefore, we


27

ran two analyses, one with (N = 44), and one without those participants whose answers did not entirely fit our expectations (N = 36). Table 8 shows all answers and indicates which cases were included and which were doubted. Procedure. For the competition-focus group, the manipulation was to think about the causes and consequences of academic competition. It was formulated as follows: "We now invite you to take your time to think about the following aspects of competitive pressure. 1) How does the academic career and reward system cause competitive pressure on you and other researchers? Please, write down your thoughts. 2) What consequences and implications does the competitive pressure have on you, your daily work experience and your work environment? Please, write down your thoughts". The exact formulation and layout of the exercises are displayed in the supplemental material (p. 145). Meaning of work, job-related affective well-being, self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure, and achievement goals were measured next. Because of the negative effects we expected in this condition, researchers afterwards learned about possible coping strategies to handle the competitive pressure. With that, we hoped to attenuate potential negative feelings. Researchers in the control group first specified demographic information, before meaning of work, job-related affective well-being, self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure, and achievement goals were measured (see Table 1). Measures. Personal resources. Job-related affective well-being was measured with the jobrelated affective well-being scale (JAWS) by Van Katwyk, Fox, Spector and Kelloway (2000). It contains two subscales, and the twelve items were answered on a 5-point agreement scale. Positive affect was measured with six items ("My job makes me feel… enthusiastic / energetic / inspired / satisfied / at ease / relaxed "), which established a reliable scale, α = .75. Negative affect was measured with six items (furious, angry, frightened,


28

depressed, discouraged, bored), which established a reliable scale, α = .77. Meaning of work was measured with three items from the meaning subscale of psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995). The items ("The work I do is very important to me", "My job activities are personally meaningful to me" and "The work I do is meaningful to me") were answered on 5point agreement scales, and established a reliable scale, α = .83. Self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure was measured with three items for publications, funding, and promotions. The scale was constructed based on the guidelines for constructing self-efficacy scales by Bandura (2006). The items ("I can cope with the competitive pressure for funding / publications / promotions") were answered on a 10-point scale, ranging from 1 (cannot do at all) to 10 (highly certainly can do). The scale was reliable, α = .77. Achievement goals. Achievement goals were measured with eight items on 5-point agreement scales, adapted from Elliot and McGregor (2001). The items were rephrased for the occupation as a researcher. Performance-approach was measured with two items ("It is important for me to do better than other researchers" and "It is important for me to do well compared to other researchers"), with a Spearman-Brown corrected correlation of r = .71. Performance-avoidance was measured with two items ("I want to avoid doing poorly in my job" and "My fear of performing poorly in my job is often what motivates me"), with a relatively low Spearman-Brown corrected correlation of r = .42. Mastery-approach was measured with two items ("I want to learn as much as possible from my job" and " I strive to completely understand the content that my research field has to offer"), with relatively low Spearman-Brown corrected correlation of r = .22. Mastery-avoidance was measured with two items ("I worry that I might not learn all that I possibly can in my job" and " I am often concerned that I may not learn all that there is to learn in my research field"), with a Spearman-Brown corrected correlation of r = .62.


29

Data analysis. Hypothesis 4 stated that after thinking about the causes and consequences of the academic competition, researchers in the competition-focus group would show a) less job-related affective well-being, b) lower meaning of work, c) lower selfefficacy, and d) more performance goals, as compared to researchers in the control group. Those hypotheses were tested with MANOVAs comparing the control against the competition focus group after the manipulation, by means of a dummy variable for betweengroup effects (0 = control group, 1 = competition-focus group). To control for inflated type I errors we used a multivariate approach. We analyzed the positive and negative job-related affective well-being scales together with meaning and self-efficacy in one MANOVA, because of the substantial correlations. We did the same for the four achievement goals. Correlations between those variables are displayed in Table 9. For judging mean differences we calculated Cohen’s d as a standardized measure for mean differences, as well as the 95% confidence interval for Cohen’s d. We interpreted Cohen’s d according to common guidelines as small for d ranging from 0.20 to 0.50, as moderate for d > 0.50, and as large for d > 0.80 (Cohen, 1988). In the following, all significances are reported on a 1-tailed significance level because of the directional hypotheses. Results Descriptive statistics. In the control group, the "naturally-occurring" (i.e. not manipulated) means of all four achievement goals were relatively high, with M = 3.63 (SD = 0.89) for performance-approach, M = 3.61 (SD = 3.61) for performance-avoidance, M = 4.10 (SD = 0.66) for mastery-approach and M = 3.12 (SD = 1.09) for mastery-avoidance. Selfefficacy was also relatively high, M = 6.81 (SD = 1.92), as was meaning of work, M = 4.29 (SD = 0.57), and positive affect, M = 3.62 (SD = 0.54). Negative affect was relatively low, M = 2.04 (SD = 0.72).


30

Self-efficacy, meaning of work and job-related affective well-being. With those whose answers did not fulfill our expectations, the multivariate analysis was not significant, Λ = .95, F(4,94) = 1.29, ns. With just those who did entirely comply with our expectations, the multivariate analysis was significant, Λ = .93, F(4,85) = 1.66, p < .10, η² = .073. Between-subjects effects revealed that the multivariate effect was accounted for by positive job-related affective well-being, F(1,89) = 43.89, p < .05, η² = .042, negative job-related affective well-being, F(1,89) = 2.91, p < .05, η² = .032, and meaning of work, F(1,89) = 2.09, p < .10, η² = .023. After they thought about the causes and consequences of the academic competition, researchers had less positive feelings towards their work (Mcontrol = 3.62, SDcontrol = 0.54, Mcompetition = 3.36, SDcompetition = 0.59, Cohen’s d = 0.47, CI[0.33;0.67]), more negative feelings towards their work (Mcontrol = 2.04, SDcontrol = 0.72, Mcompetition = 2.33, SDcompetition = 0.68, Cohen’s d = -0.42, CI[-0.60;-0.19]), and even saw less meaning in their work than those in the control group (Mcontrol = 4.29, SDcontrol = 0.57, Mcompetition = 4.09, SDcompetition = 0.68, Cohen’s d = 0.31, CI[0.16;0.54]). Hypothesis 4a and 4b were supported. Self-efficacy was not significant, F(1,89) = 0.00, ns. Thus, ruminating about the academic competition did not decrease self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure. Hypothesis 4c was not supported. Achievement goals. With and without those whose answers did not fulfill our expectations, the multivariate analysis was not significant, Λ = .95, F(4,95) = 1.27, ns, and Λ = .96, F(4,87) = 0.96, ns, respectively. The competition-focus group did not differ in achievement goals from the control group after the manipulation. Hypothesis 4d was not supported. Discussion Backing up the results from the cross-sectional findings reported within the scope of research question 1, we experimentally demonstrated that the mere thinking about the


31

academic competition increased negative and decreased positive affections towards work, and even decreased the meaning of work. Effect sizes were small to moderate. Unexpectedly, the manipulation had no effects on researchers’ self-efficacy and achievement goals. It could either be that the manipulation was too minimal to affect self-efficacy and achievement goals, or that the manipulation generally does not affect those outcomes, or that those outcomes are too stable to be manipulated. Goal orientation-based training interventions (Kozlowski et al., 2001) have shown that achievement goals and self-efficacy can, in fact, be changed through training. Button, Mathieu and Zajac (1996) argued that goal orientation is a two-dimensional construct that has both dispositional and situational components. Thus, achievement goals and self-efficacy can be changed by through largerscale interventions, such as trainings or situational changes, but were probably too profound to be changed by our minimal manipulation. Moreover, researchers scored relatively high on performance goals, which leaves less room for an increase and might additionally hamper the impact of our manipulation. The high scores on performance goals could reflect that the academic environment has already induced researchers with the competitive orientation to outperform others and a fear of failure. Future research could shed light into this interesting question if performance goals in researchers increase throughout their career. We showed however, that thinking about the causes and consequences of academic competition induced researchers with negative emotions (i.e. frustration and discouragement), decreased positive affections towards work (i.e. enthusiasm and inspiration) and even decreased the meaning of work. Emotional reactions towards work are generally viewed as relatively unstable states (Van Katwyk et al., 2000), and were therefore the most likely of the tested variables to be affected by the manipulation. An explanation of the effects can be found in the analysis of the concrete causes and consequences that the researchers wrote down in our study (see Table 8).


32

The nature of scientific competition caused worry in many researchers. One participant wrote: "The point is that yes, you write very good grant proposals, but so do others, so even though you invested so much time in it, it still feels like a lottery". Further, many factors which influence the outcome of a competition are beyond control: "The peerreview process (for both grants and publications) is sometimes subjective, a feature which is not corrected by a rebuttal phase. Subjectivity has no place in most sciences; furthermore, subjectivity may make a competition unfair". Perceptions of procedural fairness are an important resource for researchers (Boyd et al., 2001), and perceptions of unfairness are likely to foster frustration. In line with previous research (e.g. Gillespie et al., 2001; Kinman & Jones, 2003), our researchers also revealed that job insecurity is one of the main stressors for researchers and a consequence of the intense competition for higher-rank positions. This is even true for successful grant appliers: "Even when you have obtained a big grant for, say, 5 years, you already need to think about where your salary will come from in the years after that". Others recognized that there is a loop of positive feedback: "When it goes well, it gets better and better, and the opposite is also true". This leads to a powerful stigmatization: "Grant winners have much more status and grant losers are considered faulty". As many worry about their future, it also affects their life planning in a way that many hesitate to settle and plan a family. Some researchers in our sample even admitted to consider leaving academia. Many of the researchers found the competitive pressure extremely demotivating. In line with the claims of Carson and her colleagues (2013), the urge to publish in research areas that are currently of high interest lead researchers to think about what can be published instead of working on what they find interesting. This has far-reaching consequences. Researchers revealed that producing short-term output leads to a lack of focus on theory and content because of the focus on quantity, "which is detrimental to scientific developments".


33

Also, "the importance of high impact publications often underestimates the value of the basic academic work (e.g. important check/ verification/ replication) which is not novel but crucial". Realizing how the academic environment limits essential and reflected research might explain why some researchers were discouraged about their work and experienced less meaning of their work. Many researchers indicated that they felt lonely and left on their own with their problems, so that the scientific work is strongly individualized. We found the same effects of competition on scientists’ relationships, as described by Anderson and her colleagues (2007). One researcher wrote: "It disconnects people from people, scientists from society. It is no science from the place of curiosity and enjoyment, but rather pushes you and motivates you to struggle for your survival... to push down others". This statement nicely reflects the high scores on performance goals. Another researcher put it as follows: "Researchers do not share too much of the ‘rewards’ (paper authorship, grants, talks in conferences...) of their research outcome. More competition often means less cooperation, more protection towards ongoing work". Role conflict also played a critical role in our sample: "As research is much more important for your career, teaching can be experienced as an unwanted distraction". The many tasks and responsibilities that researchers have are not always easy to combine. Many work on grant applications during their free time, in evenings, weekends, and even their holidays to increase their success chances. What is more, many "are tired from long days of work with little appreciation". As a consequence of all those factors, distress emerges. One researcher formulated it drastically: "If I look around, I see that people become crazy, almost everybody walks like a ghost. Emotional burnouts are highly popular" – a statement which is certainly reflected by the distress score of our sample.


34

If such a small manipulation as thinking about the causes and consequences of scientific competition has such serious effects on researchers’ emotional reactions towards their work, how serious must the effects be when such thinking occurs on a regular basis…? The results from our first research question showed that the competitive pressure for publications and promotions are associated with high stress levels and low work engagement. This experiment illustrated the negative effects of thinking about the academic competition on researchers’ affective reactions towards their work and the perceived meaning of their work. Both findings highlight the importance of taking action to increase positive outcomes in researchers. In the following, we describe how we derived an intervention for researchers, and we will report if this intervention was successful.


35

Research Question 3 How Do Researchers Cope With the Competition? While the negative consequences of competition in science have been elaborated on by previous essays, and added empirical evidence by our experimental results, no research examined realistic solutions to the problem. Some have called for alternatives to the academic performance-based reward system (Roberts, 2007), while others have stated that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to change the incentive structure and career systems that cause competition among researchers (e.g. Anderson et al., 2007; Carson et al., 2013). This dilemma highlights the need of alternative solutions to the problem. From a psychological standpoint, interventions could aim at the researchers themselves. Bakker and Demerouti (2014) suggest two possible interventions based on the Job Demands-Resources model, which aim at individual employees. First, there are job crafting interventions, which are usually initiated by the individual who aims to change job demands and resources. Secondly, there are strengths-based interventions which aim to facilitate personal resources. Job Crafting Interventions The earliest definition of job crafting by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) proposes that job crafting includes proactive changes employees make in the cognitive, relational and task boundaries of their work. According to Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001), cognitive job crafting describes changes in the perception of one’s job. Relational job crafting describes changes in the quality or quantity of work relationships. Task crafting describes alternations in the nature or amount of work activities. A more recent definition by Tims, Bakker and Derks (2012a) describes job crafting within the JD-R model as "the self-initiated changes employees make in their job demands and job resources to attain and/or optimize their personal (work) goals" (p. 173). Both definitions will play a crucial role in our study.


36

As noted earlier, increased job resources buffer against the exhausting effects of high work demands and directly increase work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Increasing job resources through job crafting is therefore a promising strategy for researchers in order to attenuate the negative effects of chronic job demands, such as the perceived competitive pressure. According to our finding within the previous research question, that the academic work environment is strongly individualized, and according to previous findings on the often mistrusting and egocentric relationships between researchers (i.e. Anderson et al., 2007), an increase in social resources seems especially essential in this occupational group. Relational job crafting is a strategy to increase social resources (Tims et al., 2012a; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). When designing their job crafting scale, Tims and her colleagues (2012a) identified, among others, asking for feedback and advice as job crafting strategies to increase social job resources. Likewise, through open conversations with colleagues, researchers could build more trust and mutual support, and through collaborating with colleagues researchers do the exact opposite of competing. To date, job crafting interventions are rare. To our knowledge, just Van den Heuvel, Demerouti and Peeters (2012), as well as Tims, Bakker and Derks (2012b) developed and tested job crafting interventions. The intervention by Van den Heuvel and her colleagues involved a real-life setting, while the study by Tims and her colleagues was an online job crafting intervention. In both cases, participants first got an overview over the JD-R model and the concept of job crafting, before they developed their personal job crafting plan with specific job crafting actions. In the next weeks, participants changed job resources and job demands through their job crafting actions. In both studies, participants were provided with personalized feedback and could work on ideas for future job crafting plans. Both interventions demonstrated that employees can activate social resources through job crafting.


37

Strengths-Based Interventions In further advancement of the JD-R model, personal resources (i.e. aspects of the self that are generally linked to resilience; Hobfoll et al., 2003, p. 632) were added to the original JD-R model (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007). Xanthopoulou and her colleagues (2007) examined the role of three personal resources (self-efficacy, organizational-based self-esteem, and optimism) in predicting work engagement and exhaustion. They found that personal resources mediated the relationship between job resources and motivational and health outcomes: The supply of job resources activated employees’ self-efficacy, self-esteem, and optimism and made them feel more engaged and less distressed. To our knowledge, personal resources have not been studied in researchers before. But as we have illustrated within the scope of research question 2, thinking about the academic competition is likely to harm personal resources, as it induced negative feelings and decreased the meaning of work among participants. Increasing personal resources is therefore a promising strategy for researchers in order to increase positive job and health outcomes. To derive a strengths-based intervention for researchers, we borrowed ideas from cognitive job crafting, which is defined as altering the perception of the job (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) argue that altering the perception of one’s jobs increases feelings of work purpose and changes the meaning of one’s work. A cognitive job crafting intervention can therefore be seen as a strengths-based intervention, because the intervention target is the individual with its personal resources, such as meaning of work and positive affect (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). Through focusing on the positive sides of being a scientist, such as contributing to scientific progress, researchers could increase the value and meaning of their work. Through reframing the competitive academic environment as a


38

space for personal growth, researchers could recognize positive aspects of competition and increase positive feelings toward their work. The job crafting intervention by Van den Heuvel and her colleagues (2012) increased opportunities for professional development, self-efficacy and positive emotions. The intervention by Tims and her colleagues (2012) increased employees’ autonomy and possibilities for personal growth, as well as work engagement. Both interventions demonstrated that employees can activate personal resources and enhance their work motivation through job crafting. Pilot Study To sum up, within the scope of the JD-R model, increasing social resources (i.e. social support) through relational job crafting interventions or increasing personal resources (i.e. meaning of work) through strengths-based (or cognitive job crafting) interventions might increase work engagement directly and decrease distress through buffering against high job demands (Figure 4). Note that for the sake of simplicity and in combining the two job crafting definitions by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) and Tims and her colleagues (2012a) we will refer to our strengths-based intervention as cognitive job crafting intervention. Bakker, Oerlemans and Ten Brummelhuis (2012) suggested that it might be useful to provide participants of a job crafting intervention with useful examples of employees in comparable jobs who successfully changed their job resources or demands. Therefore, we wanted to base the exercises of our intervention study on real-life insights rather than on general coping theories and strategies, which might be too broad for this specific problem. The aim of the pilot study was to investigate which job crafting behaviors and thoughts play a critical role for researchers in coping with the competitive pressure for publications, funding and promotions. Based on those insights, we would design an intervention study to test if


39

those strategies are useful for researchers in order to increase social and personal resources, as well as work engagement and to decrease distress. Method Participants. We invited 250 post-docs and assistant professors from ten Dutch universities to take part in this online survey to share their experiences with the academic competition with us. Email addresses were taken from the university homepage. Of those who were invited, 44 completed the survey. This is a participation rate of 17.6%. Researchers covered a wide range of social (i.e. psychology, sociology, political science, law) and natural sciences (i.e. biology, chemistry, neurosciences), of which 57% (N = 25) were from the social sciences. In total, 39% (N = 17) were female, 57% (N = 25) were assistant professors, 84% (N = 37) worked full-time, 55% (N = 24) were temporarily employed, and of those who were temporarily employed, 25% (N = 6) were on a tenure track. Researchers were on average 36.32 years old (SD = 5.68) and held their position for 3.95 years (SD = 3.31). Procedure. Upon clicking on the survey link, the questionnaire, programmed with "Qualtrics", opened. Researchers reported demographic data and answered the question of how they cope with the competition in academia. All researchers were thanked and given the opportunity to ask questions and leave comments about the study. Measures. Qualitative data were gathered by asking respondents to answer the question: "How do you cope with the competition for publications, funding and promotions?" Researchers were asked to list their strategies in bullet points. Data analysis. In total, researchers came up with 146 strategies (M = 3.03, SD = 2.29). Those were coded by the author of this paper and an independent coder into cognitive job crafting, relational job crafting, task crafting and other coping strategies. After categorizing 20 strategies together in order to develop consensus, both raters coded 50 strategies independently. Starting off with collaborative coding is important for a shared


40

understanding and interpretation of the phenomenon (Weston et al., 2001). Continuing with independent coding adds reliability to the coded content, because high agreement shows a consistent data interpretation (Saldaña, 2012). Cohen's κ was calculated to determine interrater agreement. There was a high initial agreement between the judgments, κ = .85, p < .01, with two disagreements (Landis & Koch, 1977). This means that one rater can reliably code the remaining strategies (Cohen, 1960). There were 39 cognitive job crafting strategies, 19 relational job crafting strategies, 54 task crafting strategies, 32 other and 2 unclassified strategies. For the unclassified strategies, we doubted if they should be interpreted as job crafting strategies at all. Job crafting interventions should include personalized actions, such as in the intervention by Van den Heuvel and her colleagues (2012), in order to create personally meaningful changes. Therefore, we collaboratively clustered the cognitive and relational job crafting strategies into subcategories, so that researchers could come up with their own strategies within the subcategories. Using this approach made sure that researchers thought about personalized strategies, while at the same time the exercises were comparable between researchers, because they fell into the same subcategory. All strategies, categories and subcategories are listed in Table 10. Results Answers to the question of how researchers cope with the academic competition were coded into cognitive, relational, and task job crafting strategies. Within the relational job crafting strategies, we identified three subcategories. Those were 1) creating positive interactions (i.e. "have pleasant conversations with your colleagues"), 2) enlisting support/advice (i.e. "share the burden", "ask my supervisors for advice") and 3) strategic interaction/collaboration (i.e. "collaboration with colleagues to improve the quality of results"). Within the cognitive job crafting strategies, we identified seven subcategories.


41

Those were 1) a positive mindset (i.e. "enjoy the work"), 2) focusing on positive job aspects (i.e. "focus on what I love about being a scientist"), 3) avoiding/distancing (i.e. "try to ignore it"), 4) focusing on future / past (i.e. "keep the long term perspective", "reflecting on past achievements"), 5) comparison (i.e. "considering your good position/achievements compared to colleagues"), 6) reappraisal / putting into perspective (i.e. "realize that you cannot always win") and 7) setting realistic goals (i.e. "lowering expectations"). In order to compare the cognitive with the relational job crafting intervention, they should be comparable regarding the number of exercises. Because we identified three subcategories for relational job crafting, we had to choose three subcategories of cognitive job crafting to include in the intervention. We discussed the results until we reached agreement of which subcategories to use as a basis for the cognitive job crafting intervention. As cognitive job crafting strategies in order to cope with the academic competition, we included 1) focusing on positive job aspects, 2) setting realistic goals and 3) changing the time perspective. We will explain why we chose those strategies within the scope of our last research question. Further, we identified various strategies as task crafting strategies, including planning (i.e. "plan meetings on one day to have the rest of the week time for research"), strategic planning (i.e. "know the hot research topics"), balanced working (i.e. "work at regular times", "take breaks"), and going the extra mile (i.e. "try to do better than others", "make over hours"). Task crafting was not considered as job crafting intervention in this study, because, as the answers highlight, it is likely that researchers increase their workload in order to remain competitive. This increase in job demands could exhaust resources, which might be harmful to individuals who do not possess the necessary resources to buffer against increased job demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).


42

Finally, researchers had various other, non-work related coping strategies, including cultivating hobbies, enjoying family life, meeting friends, doing sports, meditating and relaxing. Discussion For deriving realistic job crafting exercises, we asked researchers how they cope with the competition in academia. Our sample of 44 researchers delivered a large number of possible activities. We identified all three job crafting strategies as defined by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001). We found that researchers changed the task, relational and cognitive boundaries of their work in order to cope with the academic competition. We chose three cognitive and three relational job crafting strategies for our intervention to test which one is more efficient in increasing work engagement and decreasing distress. Within the scope of the last research question, we will explain why the chosen strategies are hypothesized to increase job and personal resources and we will finally test those claims.


43

Research Question 4 Is the Job Crafting Intervention Effective for Researchers? Within the scope of our previous research questions we found that researchers are a population with high stress levels, and that the perceived competitive pressure for publications and promotions is strongly related to it. The question of whether a minimal online job crafting intervention can buffer against such high demands for Dutch researchers was examined in a randomized controlled study. Cognitive Job Crafting and Personal Resources In line with the updated JD-R model, we argue that cognitive job crafting can activate personal resources and thereby increase work engagement and decrease distress (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014; see Figure 4). As cognitive job crafting strategies in order to cope with the academic competition, we asked researchers to 1) focus on positive job aspects, 2) set realistic goals and 3) change the time perspective. For the latter, we let researchers choose which time perspective to pick (i.e. past or future), because people prefer certain time perspectives as a relatively stable trait (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). Below we will explain why both time perspectives were useful in this study and the choice itself played an inferior role. As briefly addressed within the scope of our second research question, we will again focus on the three specific personal resources of which we think play a decisive role in researchers’ functioning at work. Firstly, we aimed to increase researchers’ positive emotions towards their work. Job-related affective well-being (i.e. the positive and negative emotional reactions to work; Van Katwyk et al., 2000) can be seen as a personal resource, because it is linked to resilience (Hobfoll et al., 2003). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions explains the role of positive emotions in resilience (Fredrickson, 2001). According to Fredrickson (2001), positive emotions enhance psychological, intellectual, physical and


44

social resources. With long-lasting positive emotions, those resources build up over time and contribute to the individual’s overall well-being and resilience. Secondly, we aimed to increase researchers’ meaning of work (i.e. an employee’s understanding of the purpose and value of his or her work or what he or she believes is achieved in the work; Brief & Nord, 1990). Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) argued that the meaning of work is reflected in the individual framing of one’s job. Thus, changes in the perception of work purposes, for example through cognitive job crafting, can change the meaning of work. Van den Heuvel, Demerouti, Schreurs, Bakker and Schaufeli (2010) found that meaning-making is a valuable personal resource in a changing work environment. Finally, we aimed to increase researchers’ self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure (i.e. the belief to be able to cope with the competitive pressure; Bandura, 1977). Perceived self-efficacy is a valuable resilience resource, because it facilitates effort investment and persistence in the face of barriers and recovery from setbacks (Schwarzer, 1992; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). Xanthopoulou and her colleagues (2007) highlighted the importance of general self-efficacy in predicting work engagement and exhaustion. Likewise, the trust in one’s own abilities to be able to handle the competitive pressure might be crucial to not be broken by it. Cognitive job crafting, job-related affective well-being and meaning of work. We argue that cognitive job crafting, and especially a positive focus on the past, present and future of their work, fosters researchers’ positive reactions towards work and increases the meaning of their work. In the pilot study, many researchers indicated that they try to focus on present positive job aspects, such as the flexibility of the job as a researcher and the contribution to society. Researchers indicated that besides focusing on positive job aspects, focusing on past achievements (i.e. "considering that I have been relatively successful so


45

far") and thinking about future possibilities (i.e. future positions, collaborations and projects) supports coping with the academic competition. A positive reappraisal of one’s job, for example through a focus on current favorable job aspects, or past achievements and future possibilities, is especially valuable in stressful situations (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000). Positive affect and meaning are highly interrelated constructs, because in stressful situations, meaning-making helps to determine the personal significance of work and thereby fosters positive affective reactions towards work (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000). Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) report examples of employees who gave their work more meaning through cognitive job crafting. Professional cooks altered the way they saw their jobs, from just being food preparers to being culinary artists. Likewise, by focusing on the positive aspects of being a researcher, scientists can increase the awareness of the contributions of their work to the field and the implications for society. Thereby, researchers give their work more meaning by understanding the purpose and achievements of their work (Brief & Nord, 1990), which is likely to subsequently induce them with positive affective reactions towards their work (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000). Folkman and Moskowitz (2000) hypothesize that when facing a stressful event, individuals may be more likely to remember, note or think of positive events to compensate the negative affective consequences of a negative event. Accordingly, not only being aware of current pleasures, but also recalling past achievements or thinking about future possibilities might give researchers the ability to enjoy their job despite current demands. Likewise, Hobfoll (1998) argued that people respond to adverse events by turning their attention to their resources and looking for meaning in their lives. Recalling the success of a publication which contributed to the research field and to society can give the present work of a researcher more meaning. Thinking about future achievements which will contribute to society highlights the purpose and value of the work as a researcher.


46

The effect of such positive psychological strategies was demonstrated in an online intervention study by Ouweneel, Le Blanc, and Schaufeli (2013). Their so-called "happiness assignments" included, for example, to think positively about present work characteristics or events, and to recapitulate happy memories from work. The authors found that, indeed, this positive focus on the past and the present at work increased positive emotions. Hypothesis 5: Researchers in the cognitive job crafting group show a stronger increase in job-related affective well-being as compared to researchers in the control group. Hypothesis 6: Researchers in the cognitive job crafting group show a stronger increase in meaning of work as compared to researchers in the control group. Cognitive job crafting and self-efficacy. We argue that cognitive job crafting, and especially setting realistic goals and recalling past achievements or imagining future possibilities, fosters researchers’ self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure. High self-efficacy is reflected in the confidence in one’s ability to meet high demands (Bandura, 1977). Many researchers indicated that setting realistic goals and aims (i.e. by means of "lowering expectations" and "trying not to be too much of a perfectionist") and thinking of future opportunities helps in coping with the competition. A realistic goal or achievement describes an end-state of what researchers want and can achieve. In accordance to socialcognitive theory (Bandura, 1991), it increases self-efficacy because researchers perceive influence over their behavior and know that they have the resources to pursue the goal. People feel vigorous when they think about achieving desirable future outcomes, because meaningful goals foster active engagement to reach that future state (Ouweneel, 2013). This effect was demonstrated by the positive psychological online intervention by Ouweneel and her colleagues (2013). The authors showed that goal setting and planning contributed to selfefficacy and engagement through goal attainment.


47

We finally argue that recalling past achievements might give researchers the belief to be able to cope with the competitive pressure as well, because they know that they once were able to be successful despite the competition. One of our researchers put it nicely: "If I could do it back then, I will be able to do it now and in the future". Hypothesis 7: Researchers in the cognitive job crafting group show a stronger increase in self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure as compared to researchers in the control group. Cognitive job crafting and work engagement. We hypothesized that cognitive job crafting increases personal resources. Personal resources were found to mediate the relationship between job resources and work engagement, suggesting that personal resources can increase work engagement (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Assuming the underlying mediation by personal resources between cognitive job crafting and work engagement, we expect the cognitive job crafting group to have an increased work engagement, as compared to the control group. Hypothesis 8: Researchers in the cognitive job crafting group show a stronger increase in work engagement as compared to researchers in the control group. Cognitive job crafting and distress. We hypothesized that cognitive job crafting increases personal resources. Personal resources were found to mediate the relationship between job resources and exhaustion, suggesting that personal resources can decrease exhaustion symptoms (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). There is only limited evidence for the interaction between personal resources and job demands on exhaustion symptoms (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). We therefore assume an underlying mediation by personal resources between cognitive job crafting and distress, and expect the cognitive job crafting group to have decreased distress, as compared to the control group.


48

Hypothesis 9: Researchers in the cognitive job crafting group show a stronger decrease in distress as compared to researchers in the control group. Relational Job Crafting and Social Resources Receiving social support is crucial in the competitive academic environment which puts emphasis on self-promotion through rewarding individual achievements (Anderson et al., 2007). Social support is defined as the perception or experience that one is loved and cared for by others, esteemed and valued, and part of a social network of mutual assistance and obligations (Wills, 1991). When deriving an intervention for researchers, we will focus on the four specific social job resources proposed by House (1981). They include emotional support (i.e. empathy and trust), instrumental support (i.e. practical assistance), informational support (i.e. advice and suggestions), and appraisal support (i.e. constructive feedback). In line with the updated JD-R model, we argue that relational job crafting can activate social job resources and thereby increase work engagement and decrease distress (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014, Tims et al., 2012a; see Figure 4). As relational job crafting strategies in order to cope with the academic competition, we asked researchers to 1) create positive interactions, 2) enlist advice / support and 3) seek collaborations. Relational job crafting and emotional support. In their positive psychological intervention, Ouweneel and her colleagues’ (2013) "happiness assignments" included committing acts of kindness at work. Accordingly, researchers in our pilot study indicated that they would increase positive interactions at work to increase their social resources. Through engaging in positive interactions, which might include kindness, humor and laughter, humans perceive a better group cohesion, social bonding and reassurance (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Dezecache & Dunbar, 2012). Positive interactions and acts of kindness among colleagues might increase the perceived emotional support between


49

coworkers, such as empathy and trust, because they perceive that help and support is potentially available (Taylor, 2011). Hypothesis 10: Researchers in the relational job crafting group show a stronger increase in emotional support as compared to researchers in the control group. Relational job crafting and instrumental, informational and appraisal support. In their "resource building" assignments, Ouweneel and her colleagues (2013) increased participants’ skills to ask for help and social support. Researchers in our study also indicated that enlisting advice and support helps in coping with the competitive pressure. Asking for practical assistance can provide researchers with valuable resources to solve problems, i.e. with analyzing complex data, and thereby attenuates threatening situations (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Asking for informational support, for example, talking with the supervisor or colleagues about career prospects and opportunities, fosters a deeper understanding of the system and further professional development. Through such an external advice, researchers can estimate potential costs of their situation, which helps managing demanding situations (Taylor, 2011). Finally, collaborating as a direct opposite of competing seems especially important for coping with the academic competition. Team work provides a social network, cohesion and companionship, psychological safety, mutual support, feedback and practical assistance, so that task complications are minimized (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001; Turner, Barling, & Zacharatos). Collaboration is therefore likely to be associated with all four kinds of social support we measured. Additionally, collaborating might focus researchers on group goals, instead of individual competitive goals (West, 2002), whereby information sharing might be improved (Locke & Latham, 2006). Mutual positive feedback and appraisal of the progress, skills and performance is especially important for researchers whose work is rejected regularly.


50

Hypothesis 11: Researchers in the relational job crafting group show a stronger increase in instrumental support as compared to researchers in the control group. Hypothesis 12: Researchers in the relational job crafting group show a stronger increase in informational support as compared to researchers in the control group. Hypothesis 13: Researchers in the relational job crafting group show a stronger increase in appraisal support as compared to researchers in the control group. Relational job crafting and work engagement. In accordance to the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014) we hypothesized that relational job crafting increases social job resources. Tims, Bakker and Derks (2013) found that employees who crafted their social resources increased their work engagement over time. Assuming this underlying mediation by social resources between relational job crafting and work engagement, we expect the relational job crafting group to have an increased work engagement, as compared to the control group. Hypothesis 14: Researchers in the relational job crafting group show a stronger increase in work engagement as compared to researchers in the control group. Relational job crafting and distress. The buffering hypothesis (Cohen & Wills, 1985) proposes that the benefits of social support are especially evident during periods of stress. This is in accordance to the original JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, Figure 1), which proposes that job resources buffer against high job demands, and thereby decrease distress. Tims and her colleagues (2013) found that employees who crafted their social resources had decreased burnout symptoms over time. Assuming a buffering effect of increased social resources on the relationship between job demands and distress, we expect the relational job crafting group to have decreased distress, as compared to the control group.


51

Hypothesis 15: Researchers in the relational job crafting group show a stronger decrease in distress as compared to researchers in the control group. Method Participants and data cleansing. Time 1. Participant characteristics at T1 correspond to those described within the scope of research question 1. There were 52 researchers in the cognitive job crafting group, 44 in the relational job crafting group and 56 in the control group. To check if researchers accomplished their tasks, we evaluated the qualitative data. In the cognitive job crafting group, we excluded 3 researchers who did not fill in anything. We excluded 2 researchers who did just one of the three exercises. So, of the 52 researchers in the cognitive job crafting group, 47 were retained for analyses. Of those, there were 4 researchers who did just two of the three exercises, hence there were 43 researchers in the cognitive job crafting group who followed the instructions completely, i.e. did all three exercises. We excluded those who did just one exercise, because we assume that this would be too little of an intervention to be effective, but retained those who did two of the three exercises, because they did more than the half of the exercises. In the relational job crafting group, we excluded 11 researchers who did not fill in anything. We also excluded 2 researchers who did just one exercise and 1 researcher who stated that he or she would already be doing all those strategies. So, of the 44 researchers in the relational job crafting group, 30 were retained for analyses. Of those, there were 7 researchers who did just two of the three exercises, hence there were 23 researchers in the relational job crafting group who followed the instructions completely, i.e. did all three exercises. Time 2. In the follow-up one week after the intervention, 106 researchers participated. Of those, 4 were excluded because they were no assistant professors or post-docs. Of the remaining 102 researchers, 5 of those who did not fill in anything at T1 participated. After


52

excluding them, 39 researchers were left in the cognitive job crafting, 22 in the relational job crafting and 36 in the control group. We ran two analyses, one with and one without those participants who did not follow the instructions completely. There were 33 researchers in the cognitive job crafting group and 15 in the relational job crafting group who accomplished all three exercises. An overview of all participants and drop-outs by group, time and task accomplishment is displayed in Figure 5. Selection effects. One-way ANOVAs revealed that there were some important selection effects. In the cognitive job crafting group, 13 participants dropped out. Females were more likely than males to participate in the follow-up, F(1,50) = 4.05, p < .05. In the relational job crafting group, 18 researchers dropped out. Tenure trackers were more likely than non-tenure trackers to participate in the follow-up, F(1,25) = 5.56, p < .05. Also, researchers who perceived an initially better effort-reward balance for funding and promotion possibilities self-selected themselves to participate in the follow-up, F(1,42) = 2.68, p = .11 and F(1,42) = 3.66, p < .10, respectively. Those with initially more job-related affective wellbeing were more likely than researchers with less job-related affective well-being to participate in the follow-up, F(1,41) = 9.61, p < .01 (for positive affect) and F(1,41) = 4.09, p < .05 (for negative affect). In the control group, 20 researchers dropped out. Females were more likely than males to participate in the follow-up, F(1,54) = 3.86, p < .05. Procedure. Here we report the results of the two job crafting intervention groups in comparison with the control group (see Table 1). In the crafting groups, a baseline of social resources, distress and work engagement were measured before the job crafting exercises, and personal resources were measured after the exercises1. The exact formulation and layout of the exercises are displayed in the supplemental material (pp. 146 – 147). In short, we presented researchers from the crafting groups with the three job crafting subcategories, with some examples for each category. We then asked them to think about own possible activities


53

for each category and to choose and write down their favorite action. Upon completion, they received an email with their strategies and the task to carry them out within the next week. They received an automatic reminder after three days. One week after their participation, they received another email with the link to the follow-up survey, where all variables were measured again. In the control group, demographics were measured first, then the distress and work engagement, social resources, and personal resources. They did not have any assignments, but participated in the follow-up one week later. Measures. Personal resources. The scale properties for self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure, meaning of work and job-related affective well-being are described within the scope of research question 2 (p. 27). The scale of self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure was reliable, αT1 = .82, αT2 = .91, as were the scales of meaning of work, αT1 = .85, αT2 = .90, positive job-related affective well-being, α T1 = .76, αT2 = .85, and negative job-related affective well-being, αT1 = .80, αT2 = .84. Social resources. The four items for the coworker support scales were based on Tang, Siu and Cheung (2014) and O’Driscoll, Brough and Kalliath (2004). They measured informational, emotional, feedback and instrumental coworker support with one item each. The scale was reliable, with αT1 = .89, αT2 = .90. The items are listed in Table 2. Work engagement and distress. The scale properties for work engagement and distress are described within the scope of research question 1 (pp. 13–14). The work engagement scale was reliable, αT1 = .90, αT2 = .92, as was the distress scale, αT1 = .92, αT2 = .94. Manipulation checks. At T2, we asked researchers how often they carried out their strategies (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = regularly), how motivated they were to


54

carry out their strategies (1 = not at all motivated, 5 = very motivated), and how useful they found their strategies (1 = not useful at all, 5 = very useful). Control variables. Control variables were age, gender (0 = female, 1 = male), current position (0 = post-doc, 1 = assistant professor), years in current position, tenure track (0 = on tenure track, 1 = not on tenure track), discipline (0 = natural sciences, 1 = social sciences), contract type (0 = permanently employed, 1 = temporarily employed), and employment (0 = full-time, 1 = part-time). Data analysis. To test our hypotheses, we calculated RM-MANOVAs, with time as within-group factor, and group membership as between-group factor. Like that, we could measure main effects of time, as well as interactions of time and group. The hypotheses would be supported if there was an interaction of time and group in the expected direction. To control for inflated type I errors we used a multivariate approach. We analyzed the positive and negative job-related affective well-being scales together with meaning and selfefficacy in one RM-MANOVA, because of the substantial correlations. We did the same for the four social resources, and for the two main outcomes, work engagement and distress. Correlations between those variables are displayed in Table 11. For judging mean differences we calculated Cohen’s d, as well as the 95% confidence interval for Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1988). Results All strategies of researchers in the cognitive and relational job crafting group are listed in Table 12 and Table 13. All means and standard deviations of all variables split by group and time are displayed in Table 14.


55

Cognitive job crafting. Preliminary analyses. To reveal possible confounding variables, we calculated MANOVAs to see if the cognitive job crafting and the control group differed in demographics, and their initial levels of personal resources, as well as work engagement and distress. They did not differ in demographics, Λ = .89, F(6,67) = 1.46, ns. They did neither differ in personal resources at T1, Λ = .99, F(4,68) = 0.25, ns, nor in work engagement and distress at T1, Λ = .99, F(2,70) = 0.39, ns. We therefore did not control for those variables. Because all results reported below do not differ between those who did two of the three exercises and those who did all three exercises, we will just report the results of all participants included. In the following, all significances are reported on a 1-tailed significance level because of the directional hypotheses. Personal resources. Hypothesis 5, 6 and 7 stated that researchers in the cognitive job crafting group would show a stronger increase in self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure, job-related affective well-being and meaning of work than researchers in the control group. The RM-MANOVA with the personal resources dependent variables revealed a main effect of time, Λ = .92, F(1,71) = 6.24, p < .05, η² = .081. This indicates that personal resources changed across groups over time. There was a time × DV interaction, indicating that the dependent variables changed differently over time, Λ = .88, F(3,69) = 3.30, p < .05, η² = .125. To judge the developments of the four personal resources, we calculated separate RM-ANOVAs. We Bonferroni-corrected the significance level by 4 (critical α = .013, and α = .025 for marginally significant results). Analyses revealed that self-efficacy did not change across groups, Λ = .99, F(1,73) = 1.06, ns. Meaning of work decreased across groups (M1 = 4.26, SD1 = 0.56, M2 = 3.96, SD2 = 0.62, Λ = .76, F(1,72) = 20.93, p < .01). The effect size was moderate, Cohen’s d = 0.51, with the 95% confidence interval including the possibility of a small effect, CI[0.38;0.65]. Positive affect decreased across groups (M1 = 3.57, SD1 =


56

0.57, M2 = 3.39, SD2 = 0.70, Λ = .88, F(1,72) = 10.30, p < .01). The effect size was small, Cohen’s d = 0.28, with the 95% confidence interval just including small effect sizes, CI[0.15;0.44]. Interestingly, negative affect also decreased across groups (M1 = 2.00, SD1 = 0.68, M2 = 1.86, SD2 = 0.72, Λ = .94, F(1,72) = 4.39, p < .026). The effect size was small, Cohen’s d = 0.20, with the 95% confidence interval including negligible to small effect sizes, CI[0.05;0.36]. Most importantly, the time × group interaction was not significant, indicating that the groups did not differ in the change of the DVs, Λ = .99, F(1,71) = 0.89, ns. The power to detect this interaction was low, 1 – β = .153. Hypothesis 5, 6 and 7 were not supported. Work engagement and distress. Hypothesis 8 stated that researchers in the cognitive job crafting group would show a stronger increase in work engagement as compared to researchers in the control group. Hypothesis 9 stated that researchers in the cognitive job crafting group would show a stronger decrease in distress as compared to researchers in the control group. The RM-MANOVA revealed no main effect of time, Λ = .99, F(1,70) = 0.78, ns. Most importantly, the time × group interaction was not significant, Λ = .99, F(1,70) = 0.42, ns. The power to detect a main effect of time and a time × group interaction was very low, 1 – β = .141 and 1 – β = .097, respectively. Hypothesis 8 and 9 were not supported. Relational job crafting. Preliminary analyses. To reveal possible confounding variables, we calculated MANOVAs to see if the relational job crafting and the control group differed in demographics, and their initial levels of social resources, as well as work engagement and distress. They did not differ in demographics, Λ = .86, F(6,48) = 1.26, ns. They did neither differ in social resources at T1, Λ = .98, F(4,50) = 0.25, ns, nor in work engagement and distress at T1, Λ = .99, F(2,52) = 0.34, ns. We therefore did not control for those variables. Because all results reported below do not differ between those who did two of the three


57

exercises and those who did all three exercises, we will just report the results of all participants included. In the following, all significances are reported on a 1-tailed significance level because of the directional hypotheses. Social resources. Hypothesis 10, 11, 12 and 13 stated that researchers in the relational job crafting group would show a stronger increase in emotional support, instrumental support, informational support and appraisal support as compared to researchers in the control group. The RM-MANOVA with the four social resources as dependent variables did reveal a main effect of time, Λ = .95, F(1,53) = 2.86, p < .05, η² = .051, indicating that social resources decreased across groups over time (M1 = 3.44, SD1 = 1.06, M2 = 3.21, SD2 = 1.21). The effect size was small, Cohen’s d = 0.20, with the 95% confidence interval including negligible to small effect sizes, CI[-0.07;0.52]. Most importantly, the time × group interaction was not significant, Λ = .99, F(1,53) = 0.08, ns. The power to detect this interaction was very low, 1 – β = .058. Hypotheses 10 to 13 were not supported. Work engagement and distress. Hypothesis 14 stated that researchers in the relational job crafting group would show a stronger increase in work engagement as compared to researchers in the control group. Hypothesis 15 stated that researchers in the relational job crafting group would show a stronger decrease in distress as compared to researchers in the control group. The RM-MANOVA revealed a marginally significant main effect of time, Λ = .97, F(1,53) = 1.67, p = .10, η² = .031, indicating that the variables changed across groups over time. The time × DV interaction was marginally significant, indicating that the variables changed differently over time, Λ = .97, F(1,53) = 1.55, p = .11, η² = .028. To judge the developments of the two main outcomes, we calculated separate RM-ANOVAs. We Bonferroni-corrected the significance level by 2 (critical α = .025, and α = .05 for marginally significant results). Analyses revealed that work engagement did not change across groups, Λ = .99, F(1,54) = 0.15, ns. On the corrected significance level, distress did not change across


58

groups, F(1,54) = 1.94, ns. The time × DV interaction was marginally significant, because distress had a non-significant decreasing trend (M1 = 10.31, SD1 = 6.96, M2 = 9.51, SD2 = 6.95, d = .12), while work engagement had neither a decreasing nor increasing trend (M1 = 4.35, SD1 = 0.89, M2 = 4.39, SD2 = 0.83, d = -.05). Most importantly, the time × group interaction was not significant, indicating that the groups did not differ in the change of the DVs, Λ = 1.00, F(1,53) = 0.00, ns. The power to detect this interaction was very low, 1 – β = .050. Hypotheses 14 and 15 were not supported. Explorative analyses. Because of the up to this point inconclusive pattern of results, we tested changes in the entire sample, comparing all three groups as between-subjects factor in one analysis, to draw clear conclusions. If we still would just find main effects of time, but no interactions of time and group, changes would have occurred in the entire sample, irrespective of group membership. We analyzed those calculations on the 2-tailed significance level. Preliminary analyses. To reveal possible confounding variables, we calculated MANOVAs to see if the three groups differed in demographics, and their initial levels of personal and social resources, as well as work engagement and distress. MANOVAs revealed that the three groups did not differ in demographics, Λ = .85, F(12,170) = 1.19, ns. They did neither differ in social resources at T1, Λ = .95, F(8,174) = 0.51, ns, nor in personal resources at T1, Λ = .97, F(8,174) = 0.33, ns, nor in work engagement and distress at T1, Λ = .99, F(4,176) = 0.32, ns. We therefore did not control for those variables. Personal resources. The RM-MANOVA with self-efficacy, positive and negative job-related affective well-being and meaning of work as DVs, and group membership as between-subjects factor, revealed a main effect of time, Λ = .89, F(1,89) = 10.93, p < .01, η² = .109, and a time × DV interaction, Λ = .86, F(3,87) = 3.77, p < .05, η² = .115. To judge the developments of the four personal resources in the entire sample, we calculated separate RM-


59

ANOVAs. We Bonferroni-corrected the significance level by 4 (critical α = .013, and α = .025 for marginally significant results). Analyses revealed that self-efficacy did not change in the entire sample, Λ = .99, F(1,92) = 0.17, ns. Meaning of work decreased in the entire sample (M1 = 4.30, SD1 = 0.58, M2 = 3.95, SD2 = 0.72, Λ = .79, F(1,91) = 23.94, p < .01). The effect size was moderate, Cohen’s d = 0.54, with the 95% confidence interval including small to moderate effect sizes, CI[0.42;0.68]. Positive affect decreased in the entire sample (M1 = 3.59, SD1 = 0.53, M2 = 3.41, SD2 = 0.67, Λ = .89, F(1,91) = 11.83, p < .01). The effect size was small, Cohen’s d = 0.30, with the 95% confidence interval including small effect sizes, CI[0.19;0.43]. Interestingly, negative affect decreased in the entire sample (M1 = 1.98, SD1 = 0.65, M2 = 1.82, SD2 = 0.71, Λ = .94, F(1,91) = 6.21, p < .025). The effect size was small, Cohen’s d = 0.24, with the 95% confidence interval including negligible to small effect sizes, CI[0.11;0.38]. Most importantly, the time × group interaction was not significant, Λ = .97, F(2,89) = 1.56, ns, indicating that the changes in personal resources were the same in every group. The power to detect this interaction was relatively low, 1 – β = .323. Social resources. The RM-MANOVA with the four social resources as DVs and group membership as between-subjects factor revealed a main effect of time, Λ = .94, F(1,98) = 6.19, p < .05, η² = .059, indicating that social resources decreased in the entire sample (M1 = 3.33, SD1 = 1.06, M2 = 3.09, SD2 = 1.09). The effect size was small, Cohen’s d = 0.22, with the 95% confidence interval including negligible to small effect sizes, CI[0.01;0.44]. The time × DV interaction was not significant, indicating that all four social resources decreased. Most importantly, the time × group interaction was not significant, Λ = .99, F(2,89) = 0.24, ns. The power to detect this interaction was relatively low, 1 – β = .087. Work engagement and distress. The RM-MANOVA with work engagement and distress as DVs and group membership as between-subjects factor revealed a main effect of time, Λ = .95, F(1,89) = 5.12, p < .05, η² = .054, and a time × DV interaction, Λ = .96,


60

F(1,89) = 3.74, p < .10, η² = .040. To judge the developments of the two main outcomes, we calculated separate RM-ANOVAs. We Bonferroni-corrected the significance level by 2 (critical α = .025, and α = .05 for marginally significant results). Analyses revealed that work engagement did not change in the entire sample, Λ = .99, F(1,91) = 0.46, ns. Distress decreased in the entire sample (M1 = 10.30, SD1 = 6.27, M2 = 9.24, SD2 = 6.33, Λ = .94, F(1,91) = 5.58, p < .05). The effect size was small, Cohen’s d = 0.17, with an inconclusive 95% confidence interval due to the huge variances, CI[-1.08;1.43]. Most importantly, the time × group interaction was not significant, indicating that the groups did not differ in the change of the DVs, Λ = .99, F(2,89) = 0.47, ns. The power to detect this interaction was relatively low, 1 – β = .125. Implementation, motivation and usefulness. At the follow-up, we asked researchers how often they carried out their strategies (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = regularly), how motivated they were to carry out their strategies (1 = not at all motivated, 5 = very motivated), and how useful they found their strategies (1 = not useful at all, 5 = very useful). Because the subgroups were very small if we would stick to the five-point scales, we recoded the motivation and usefulness measures into 3 categories (old values 1 and 2 were categorized as 1 = low; old value 3 was categorized as 2 = medium; and old values 4 and 5 were categorized as 3 = high scores on the scales). We recoded the implementation measure into 2 categories (old values 1 and 2 were categorized as 1 = infrequent implementation, and old values 3 and 4 were categorized 2 = more frequent implementation). We calculated RM-MANOVAs with a dummy variable for between-group effects (0 = cognitive job crafting, 1 = relational job crafting), as well as the implementation, motivation and usefulness categories as between-subjects factors. To test if implementation, motivation and usefulness affected changes in the outcome variables, we used a custom model with 2-way interactions of time × implementation / motivation / usefulness. To test if


61

the two groups differed in the effects of implementation, motivation and usefulness on the changes in the outcome variables, we used a custom model with 3-way interactions of time × group × implementation / motivation / usefulness. We analyzed those calculations on the 2tailed significance level. Personal resources. The RM-MANOVA with the four personal resources as DVs and the four between-subjects factors revealed a time × implementation interaction, Λ = .84, F(1,44) = 8.34, p < .01, η² = .159, and a time × usefulness interaction, Λ = .84, F(2,44) = 4.32, p < .05, η² = .164. A follow-up RM-MANOVA, with implementation as split file variable, revealed that for those who implemented their strategies less often, personal resources did not change, Λ = .99, F(1,24) = 0.04, ns. For those who implemented their strategies more often, personal resources even decreased in both job crafting groups (M1 = 4.38, SD1 = 0.78, M2 = 4.05, SD2 = 0.98, Λ = .76, F(1,30) = 9.33, p < .01, Cohen’s d = 0.38, CI[0.10;0.72]). A follow-up RM-MANOVA, with usefulness as split file variable, revealed that for those who found their strategies not useful, personal resources decreased in both job crafting groups (M1 = 4.21, SD1 = 1.00, M2 = 3.89, SD2 = 1.12, Λ = .82, F(1,16) = 3.47, p < .10, Cohen’s d = 0.31, CI[-0.16;0.84]). For those who found their strategies more useful, personal resources did not change in both job crafting groups, Λ = .99, F(1,19) = 0.20, ns. The 3-way interactions with group membership as additional between-subjects factor were not significant, indicating that the 2-way interactions did not differ between groups. Social resources. The RM-MANOVA with the four social resources as DVs and the four between-subjects factors was not significant for any of the tested 2-way and 3-way interactions. Work engagement and distress. Because work engagement and distress were supposed to change in contrary directions, we added a within-group variable for the two dependent variables to our custom model. The RM-MANOVA with the two outcomes as DVs, time and


62

DV as within-groups factors, and the four between-groups factors revealed an 3-way interaction between time, DV and motivation, Λ = .90, F(2,44) = 2.42, p < .10, η² = .099. Follow-up tests revealed that for both those who were less and more motivated to carry out their strategies, work engagement did not change in both job crafting groups, Λ = .90, F(1,17) = 1.99, ns, and Λ = .98, F(1,18) = 0.43, ns, respectively. For those who were averaged motivated to carry out their strategies, distress decreased in both job crafting groups (M1 = 10.63, SD1 = 7.37, M2 = 8.67, SD2 = 6.29, Λ = .78, F(1,18) = 5.04, p < .05, Cohen’s d = 0.29, CI[-3.02;3.12]). No change in distress was found for both those who were not at all, as well as very motivated. Relational versus cognitive job crafting. The MANOVA comparing the relational and cognitive job crafting groups on the three manipulation checks (as continuous 5-point dependent variables) was significant, Λ = .79, F(3,53) = 4.80, p < .01, η² = .214. Researchers in the relational job crafting group incorporated the strategies more often than those in the cognitive job crafting group (Mrc = 3.05, SD = 0.78, Mcc = 2.32, SD = 0.84, F(1,55) = 10.18, p < .01, Cohen’s d = 0.90, CI[0.63;1.15]). Researchers in the relational job crafting group were also more motivated to carry out their strategies than those in the cognitive job crafting group (Mrc = 3.58, SD = 0.84, Mcc = 2.68, SD = 0.99, F(1,55) = 11.42, p < .01, Cohen’s d = 0.98, CI[0.67;1.26]). With reference to the usefulness, the groups did not differ, F(1,55) = 1.72, ns. Discussion The objective of our final research question was to investigate whether a job crafting intervention based on the Job Demands-Resources model could be applied to the academic work setting in order to enhance personal and social resources, to increase work engagement and to decrease distress in researchers. The online intervention for the cognitive job crafting group contained mental self-enhancing activities, such as focusing on positive job aspects,


63

setting realistic goals at work and focusing on past achievements or imagining future opportunities. We expected that those activities would increase personal resources (selfefficacy, job-related affective well-being and meaning of work). The online intervention for the relational job crafting group contained social activities, such as engaging in positive interactions at work, enlisting help and advice and collaborating with colleagues. We expected that those activities would increase social resources (emotional, instrumental, informational and appraisal support). We also expected that researchers in both groups would have an increased work engagement and decreased distress after one week, as compared to the control group. Disappointingly, none of those hypotheses were supported. For changes in personal resources in the cognitive job crafting versus the control group, we found no interaction of time and group, which was not supportive of our hypotheses. Explorative analyses revealed, however, that positive, but also negative jobrelated affective well-being and meaning of work decreased in all three groups, or put differently, in the entire sample. Standardized effect sizes for the mean changes in personal resources were small to moderate. Self-efficacy in coping with the competitive pressure did not change over time. Disappointingly, personal resources even decreased for those who implemented their strategies more often in both job crafting groups. For changes in social resources in the relational job crafting versus control group, we found no interaction of time and group, which was not supportive of our hypotheses. Explorative analyses revealed that social resources decreased in the entire sample. The effect size for the mean changes in social resources was small. Implementation, motivation and usefulness did not play a role in explaining changes in social resources across time. For changes in work engagement and distress in the job crafting groups versus control group, we found no interaction of time and group, which was not supportive of our hypotheses. Explorative analyses revealed that distress decreased in the entire sample, while


64

work engagement did not change. The effect size of the change in distress was small. Implementation, motivation and usefulness did not play a role in explaining changes in work engagement and distress. As for the small decrease in distress in the entire sample, we probably measured some kind of "Hawthorne Effect", which is a well-known phenomenon in psychology (Wickström & Bendix, 2000). This effect is often mentioned as a possible explanation for positive results in intervention studies. It describes self-fulfilling phenomena, including behavioral changes due to an awareness of being studied or an active or unconscious compliance with the supposed wishes of the researchers because of the special received attention (Wickström & Bendix, 2000). This treatment response due to the knowledge of participating in a study might be especially applicable to (social sciences) researchers who are generally welleducated regarding experimental study designs and a study’s hidden purposes. Wickström and Bendix (2000) suggest that participants in an intervention study often feel a special recognition as individuals and external empathy for their situations and problems. This might relieve participants from the feeling that they have to deal with high job demands all on their own - which can be soothing for their distress and tension levels. In the strongly individualized academic environment, this appreciation and interest in the individual might have been a gained resource for researchers who participated in this study. When considering a possible selection effect of highly distressed researchers in our study, this effect is even more prominent and likely, because highly distressed researchers probably saw this study as a potential possibility to relieve themselves from their burdens by sharing their experiences. In his elaboration on the Hawthorne effect, Kompier (2006) criticized that psychologists prefer psychological explanations over more contextual and objective characteristics of the environment. Our study was conducted in the first week after the vacation, and the follow-up was measured in the second week after the vacation. However,


65

the vacation literature supports a contrary trend regarding distress, namely a linear increase in distress levels after the vacation, back to pre-vacation levels four weeks after the vacation (Westman & Eden, 1997; Westman & Etzion, 2001). Thus, a vacation effect could not explain the decrease in distress in our sample. Personal resources, however, are likely to decrease after the vacation. Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resources theory suggests that vacations are used as a time to replenish resources. Fritz and Sonnentag (2006) describe that being back at work after a vacation and being confronted with the job demands exhausts those replenished resources rapidly. The initial "honeymoon phase", characterized by inspiration and initiative, and reflected in initially more positive job-related affective wellbeing in our sample, might have been taken over by a more "unromantic" work routine. We propose that the same is true for social resources. Even though we did not find empirical evidence for this claim, we suggest that when researchers see each other at work after their vacations, probably the social interchange is initially high. Of course, colleagues exchange their vacation stories and their feelings about being back to work, they set up meetings to discuss the plans for their collaborative projects, and probably have spontaneous interactions when they meet a colleague at the water dispenser. So, undoubtedly social interactions are likely to be frequent when returning from vacation, and might, just as personal resources, quickly decrease to pre-vacation levels. As an alternative to the vacation hypothesis, the decrease in positive job-related affective well-being and meaning of work across groups could stem for the influence of a similar phenomenon as described within the scope of our second research question. There, we found that the pure thinking about the academic competition decreased positive affective reactions towards work and decreased the meaning of work. We welcomed every participant with the sentence: "Welcome to this survey on competition among scientists", written in large orange letters. Because the academic competition was highlighted as the heart of the survey


66

for all participants, this confrontation might subliminally have induced negative perceptions about one’s job (which additionally might have fostered an "unromantic" return from vacation). The competition problem was undoubtedly a prominent topic for all groups, and this problem-focus might have evoked negative associations of the causes and consequences of academic competition. When integrating the findings, the decrease in distress is rather surprising in the light of the decreased personal and social resources. The JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2014) would suggest that a decrease in resources would be associated with increased stress levels because of a decreased buffering effect, or because of decreased work engagement. Therefore, there must have been mediators, moderators or other uncontrollable influences which we could not measure in this complex field study. In terms of the JD-R model, it might either be possible that additional resources increased, or demands decreased in the entire sample through participating in this study. Regarding the demands, we could at least test if the perceived competitive pressure for publications, funding and promotions decreased across groups. However, additional analyses, not reported here, were not supportive of this idea. More probably, it could be that the comforting effects of the received external recognition and the possibility to share the burden were valuable resources and buffers for researchers provided by this study. Those gained resources might have outweighed the decrease in social and personal resources, whereby distress could - despite a resource loss - decrease in our sample. After explaining those overarching effects, we have to admit that an effective intervention should be able to overrun those phenomena. Contrarily, explorative analyses revealed that personal resources even decreased for those who implemented their strategies regularly. This is especially disappointing, because it conveys that there unexpected effects in our job crafting groups.


67

Qualitative data revealed that some researchers engaged in potentially ineffective coping strategies. Generally, we observed that researchers in the cognitive job crafting group set unspecific or untimely goals, such as "produce papers", "get progress with my publications" and "getting funding". From previous studies, we know that goal setting enhances positive outcomes through goal attainment (Ouweneel et al., 2013). It is thus unlikely that researchers attained those kinds of goals within a week. Blurry expectations and imprecise goals are comparable to an increase of hindering job demands, which can be associated with frustrated expectations and an exhaustion of resources (Tims et al., 2012a). But also objectively, the time might have been too short to implement all the strategies, even the realistic ones, effectively. Moreover, cognitive job crafting might have been too abstract for some researchers, because it does not involve a change of environmental conditions. In line with this claim, we could show that researchers in the relational job crafting group were more motivated to carry out their strategies and incorporated them more often than those in the cognitive job crafting group. This seems evident in the light of the individualized competitive academic work environment, which is likely to foster mistrust and individualization (Anderson et al., 2007). This high motivation to engage in social activities might have been followed by a harsh fall. For relational crafting, researchers have to rely on others in order to receive social support. The success and gratification of a social interaction are beyond of one’s control. Being motivated to collaborate, for example, does not guarantee a successful cooperation, because of possible rejections. Interestingly, many researchers in the relational job crafting group described work-specific, tactical content - even for the positive interactions category, such as "Discuss a research idea during lunch", "Have a brainstorm session with colleagues about funding" or "Go to a scientific meeting with colleagues from the field". With those strategic motives in mind, real empathy and emotional support might be restricted.


68

It is also possible that researchers from both job crafting groups were disappointed because the exercises were no real solution to the actual problem. Increasing social and personal resources does not decrease the academic competition. This might have been especially disadvantageous because researchers did not know the theoretical background of the expected effects. In previous job crafting interventions, participants were first informed about the concept of demands, resources, job crafting and their relation to work engagement and distress (Van den Heuvel et al., 2012). With this background knowledge, probably the effectiveness of our intervention could have been increased. Finally, we offered help for researchers who did not ask for advice. This might be associated with low levels of involvement, openness and acceptance of the exercises in some researchers, which might have supported unintended outcomes. According to Lyubomirsky, Sheldon and Schkade (2005), participants in an intervention should have selected themselves into intervention programs. Self-selection increases motivation and engagement, because participants are aware of the objectives of a program (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). A metaanalysis of the effectiveness of positive psychology interventions showed that self-selected participants showed a stronger increase in well-being than assigned participants to either the intervention- or control group (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009).


69

General Discussion Strengths, Limitations and Future Research In the light of the interpretation of the findings, two potential weak points of this study have already been explained: The blinded randomization and a superficial focus on the competition problem. Probably researchers would have profited more from the intervention if we used a self-selection design, and if the focus was a more general one instead of prescribed and problem-focused on the academic competition. In defense of the study design, we chose a randomized trial because of its methodological advantages. Randomization increases the legitimacy of a treatment effect, because influences of systematic group differences can be excluded as influence of effects (Edgington & Onghena, 2007). This would be supportive for postulating a general effectiveness of the job crafting intervention. The updated JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014) proposes that job crafting can be beneficial for everyone, that is, not only for highly distressed researchers who seem to be in most need for an intervention, but also for the highly engaged to increase job and personal resources and work engagement in a selfenhancing cycle. Having all highly distressed researchers in the job crafting group, for example through self-selection, could not have shown such a universal effect, but rather a treatment effect just for highly distressed researchers. Moreover, we see our controlled design as an important contribution to the insight that overarching factors must have influenced our outcomes. Without a control group we would have concluded that job crafting decreased personal and social resources. In the job crafting intervention study by Tims and her colleagues (2012b), there was no control group. However, to determine possible influences of overarching or self-fulfilling effects, controlled study designs are urgently needed when testing the effectiveness of a job crafting intervention.


70

Lyubomirsky and her colleagues (2005) argue that the activities in an intervention should be validated regarding their effectiveness. Our interventions were designed based upon job crafting theory and empirical evidence. Specifically, the cognitive job crafting exercises were based on insights from positive psychology and were already tested and validated by Ouweneel and her colleagues (2013). The relational job crafting strategies in order to increase social resources were based on the job crafting theory and scale by Tims and her colleagues (2012a). Moreover, we collected those strategies from our target population, so additionally to the theoretical and empirical evidence they were validated by the researchers themselves. Lyubomirsky and her colleagues (2005) further argue that it is essential that participants put sustained effort in intervention activities and assignments. This can be promoted if participants think about possible activities themselves, because then they are personally meaningful (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Even though researchers in our study were prescribed with a certain action category (i.e. enlisting help / advice), they thought about their own concrete actions (i.e. "Asking a colleague for statistical advice for an article I am working on"). Thereby, we guaranteed personally meaningful activities, and at the same time a possible comparison between researchers. However, our intervention was a minimal activation of action, and the involvement might have been too small. Participants thought a few minutes about possible job crafting strategies, and got a reminder after 3 days. In contrast, the job crafting and positive psychological interventions described earlier (i.e. Ouweneel et al., 2013; Tims et al., 2012b; Van den Heuvel et al., 2012), covered a larger time frame (i.e. 4 – 8 weeks), included several sessions, current and desired state analyses, as well as designing a personalized job crafting plan. Taken together, future job crafting intervention studies can profit from the previous insights and drawbacks. More sophisticated job crafting intervention programs for especially


71

distressed, but also for especially engaged researchers (to keep up work engagement) should be more involving and less problem-focused than our study. Moreover, whereas participants in previous job crafting interventions received personal feedback, researchers in our study did not. When researchers wrote down their job crafting strategies, they did not receive personal feedback about the quality of their ideas. Instead, they got an automatic email with their strategies. We tried to limit thoughts about ineffective strategies with the examples we provided, but due to timely restrictions, we did not evaluate the strategies until all data were collected. The possibility to intervene in such cases would increase the success of future online interventions. Because of the open question of how researchers cope with the competition, the pilot study revealed many different forms of cognitive job crafting. To ensure comparable interventions, we just chose three of the seven identified subcategories as cognitive job crafting exercises. In hindsight, it is possible that other strategies might be more successful in fostering personal resources. Social downward comparison (i.e. "Considering your good position/achievements compared to colleagues") is known to increase self-esteem (Taylor & Lobel, 1989). Putting the competition into perspective (i.e. "Realize that you cannot always win") lowers expectations and thus the disappointment after unsuccessful applications (Van Dijk, Zeelenberg, & Van der Pligt, 2003). We decided, though, to choose the other strategies because they left more room for own ideas. In our view, social downward comparison and putting things into perspective offered a limited number of possible answers. The possible answers for positive job aspects, past achievement or future possibilities, and realistic goals, on the contrary, are more variable and personalized. Future interventions could include all those strategies as exercises, because all have the potential to elicit soothing effects. Just as in the previous job crafting interventions by Tims and her colleagues (2012b) and Van den


72

Heuvel and her colleagues (2012), combining an increase of job and social resources, a decrease of hindering and an increase of challenging job demands might be most effective. Returning to the very beginning of our elaborations, within the framework of our first research question, we found empirical support for the up to that point mostly anecdotal evidence that "the academic competition" causes stress in researchers. We identified the perceived competitive pressure for publications and promotions as independent stressors for academics. Moreover, we could show that high perceived competitive pressure for publications is not necessarily harmful: As long as researchers consider themselves as successful in publishing, they were highly engaged, even when they perceived high levels of competitive pressure. In the light of the cross-sectional nature of the data, more work was needed to add empirical evidence to the presumed causal relationship between perceived competition and negative outcomes. Within the framework of our second research question, we set up an experiment to demonstrate the negative effects of being confronted with the academic competition. Our almost subliminal manipulation (to think about the causes and consequences of competition in academia) indeed induced researchers with negative affective reactions towards their work and decreased the meaning of work. We see this experiment as a contribution to our claims that working in a highly competitive environment is harmful to researchers’ well-being. Because we measured differences in personal resources between groups after the manipulation, a potential problem of this study was the missing baseline of personal resources. However, our randomization minimized the possibility that the groups had initial differences before the manipulation. We consider the initial participant pool with more than 1500 researchers as relatively representative of the target population, because we collected email addresses from all postdocs and assistant professors of all public Dutch universities and all departments listed on their homepage. However, sampling error and selection effects were serious concerns in our


73

study. There was a selective response of gender in a way that females were more likely than males to participate in the study. Thus, the researchers who participated were not representative of the population. Regarding drop-outs, those who did not take part in the follow-up differed from those who did take part. We had a self-selection of female researchers, of researchers who considered themselves as more successful, and of researchers who had initially more positive affective reactions towards work. This means that our results are not generalizable to the population of Dutch early- and mid-career researchers. Finally, the low power was a strong limitation in this study. An a priori power analysis with a small effect size and a desired power of .90 indicated that our participant pool would be sufficient for detecting interaction effects. However, we expected a higher response rate and less drop-out. Future studies with a more personal approach and self-selective characteristics could attract more researchers and prevent drastic drop-out, whereby the power to detect intervention effects and the validity of inferences could considerably be increased. Practical Implications Unfortunately, our intervention was not successful. In our sample, the distress levels of researchers, the high perceived competitive pressure and the perceived effort-rewardimbalance remained as unsolved problems. We are still at the beginning of designing and testing job crafting interventions, and we like to see the drawbacks of our study as trial and error, which will hopefully contribute to the improvement of future interventions - for any occupational group. Interventions that aim at the individual researchers are still advisable for this occupational group. Even though young researchers were successful in their previous career stages, career seminars explaining the academic career and reward system are desirable to prepare young researcher better for the upcoming challenges. Recently, the Centre for


74

Science and Technology Studies in collaboration with the Rathenau Institute initialized such an event for all young researchers. True to the motto "Beyond the rat race", young researchers discussed their experiences and got practical tips and insights by role models to advance their career. Such events provide researchers with a network of like-minded, inspire them to pursue new ways to excel in science and supports the development towards ambitious research and research integrity (Centre for Science and Technology Studies, 2013). One of our researchers wrote that the academic career and reward system "is not clear and transparent, especially for foreign women". This statement suggests that integrating foreign excellent researchers better into the Dutch academic world is required, and probably such career crafting seminars as described above can be especially helpful for our international talents. Moreover, regarding women in science, we found that females experienced a worse balance of effort and promotion possibilities than their male colleagues. De Goede and her colleagues (2013) summarized that women are underrepresented in academic positions in the Netherlands, and that the proportion of women decreases in higher positions. Even though the total proportion of women has strongly increased over the past years (De Goede et al., 2013), our data suggest that women in our sample still seem to perceive unequal career opportunities. Here again platforms to meet researchers from various fields and to talk to career coaches and experts might be especially beneficial for young female researchers to proactively enhance their career. On the systemic level, policies should support young researchers in their mobility across universities and countries to enhance their promotion chances and increase their job security. Within the scope of our first research question, we found that part-time researchers were less engaged than full-timers, and temporarily employed researchers were more distressed than their permanently employed colleagues. Thus, job insecurity and the type of employment play a critical role in researchers. Early- and mid-career researchers stand on the


75

bottom of the pyramid-shaped academic career system and face the thread of fewer higher positions (De Goede et al., 2013). For them, job insecurity as induced by few promotion possibilities and temporary contracts are main stressors. With respect to existing career policies in the Netherlands, only 17% of the applications received Veni grants (De Goede et al., 2013). With respect to tenure track positions, our data suggested that being on a tenure track was harmful to a vigorous professionalism, and temporary contracts fostered distress. Thus, while those career policies offer a career in academia, they also put job insecurity on potential candidates and high performance pressure on awarded researchers. And often, not even extraordinary performances do guarantee permanent employment. One researcher wrote: "…even when you have obtained a big grant for, say, 5 years, you already need to think about where your salary will come from in the years after that". Policies that increase job security among researchers could not only increase a passionate professionalism, but also prevent the turnover of excellent researchers. What is more, some researchers in our study indicated that the awarding feels more like a lottery: "A NWO grant does thus not necessarily stimulate excellent research; it is a lottery with a big jackpot". Martinson and his colleagues (2005) argue that scientists’ perceptions of the inequities and unfairness in the resource distribution processes may negatively affect scientists’ behaviors. Therefore, policies that increase the transparency of the career and reward system would not only decrease distress, but also increase normative behavior and the overall quality and integrity of research. A more transparent system and detailed explanation of acceptations and rejections would contribute to a better understanding of why submissions and applications were accepted or rejected. Those perceptions of procedural fairness, and especially the perceived fairness of promotion procedures, have been identified as a valuable resource for academics (Boyd et al., 2001). Procedural fairness is generally a strong predictor of organizational commitment, job satisfaction, organizational


76

citizenship behaviors, and job performance (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001), and we see a big potential in fostering it through reasonable decisions and comprehensible feedback. Furthermore, policy makers could think about ways to increase cooperation instead of competition among researchers. Our explorative analyses revealed that researchers in the relational job crafting group were decidedly more motivated to carry out their strategies. This might reflect an inner drive or motivation to create and maintain positive relationships at work. Cooperation-based instead of individual performance-based reward systems might support a more collaborative environment in academia. The American Institute of Medicine stated already in 2002 that "…now more than ever researchers must balance collaboration and collegiality with competition and secrecy". It is, ultimately, not only competition that motivates people to give their best to pursue a competitive advantage, but also cooperation that motivates researchers to combine knowledge for meaningful research. One of our researchers wrote: "Science for me is working together, sharing ideas and work on solutions together. Most interesting research occurs at the interdisciplinary level. However, the contemporary career and reward system is focused on individual accomplishment and on unidisciplinarity. The system creates competition between people who should and would like to work together, and the system punishes scientist who cross the disciplinary borders." Interdisciplinary research is what fires innovation and creativity through knowledge diversity, divergent thinking, shared mental models and appropriate evaluations (Paletz & Schunn, 2010). Those cognitive aspects explain why interdisciplinary teams, who are already widely occurring in the natural and engineering sciences, had the power to achieve historic discoveries and developments (i.e. the double helix and smart phones). Like that, not only the individuals would profit from cooperation-based reward systems, but research would also have a broader impact on society. However, there are obstacles to interdisciplinary


77

collaboration in the academic reward system. There is a lack of interdisciplinary journals and a lack of interest and understanding by gatekeepers (Paletz, Smith-Doerr, & Vardi, 2010). Finally, we want to pick up on recent changes in the standard evaluation protocol for all research carried out at Dutch universities. The new protocol cancelled productivity as separate assessment criterion, and instead emphasizes the importance of research quality and relevance to society. Policy makers have finally recognized that "more is not necessarily better" (Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, 2014). In terms of this study, this attention away from publication productivity might decrease the perceived necessity to engage in competitive action (Zucchini & Kretschmer, 2011). As such, this policy change is an important step towards the aim to foster honest practice of science. However, the "publish or perish" mindset is a firmly established mentality in many researchers (Clapham, 2005). When we asked researchers about the causes and consequences of competition in academia, about one in two researchers named the importance of publication frequency. One researcher wrote: "The only control any young researcher has over his own career is by publishing research. Publications play a huge role in assigning grant money and it plays a large role in getting promoted". Changing the mentality of an entire generation of researchers away from research productivity towards research quality may take time and additional efforts. Conclusion Some studies elaborated on scientific competition and its negative consequences. Despite this problem, no study attempted to clarify its precise consequences on researchers’ health and well-being, or even suggested realistic solutions to the problem. We identified the perceived competitive pressure for publications and promotions are predictors of distress in researchers. We tested job crafting exercises to buffer against the negative consequences of working in the competitive academic environment – unsuccessfully. This study highlights once more that universities and politics should think of ways to attract young professionals,


78

and to remain excellent researchers. A secure work environment where research quality is valued ensures inspiration and integrity of research, which are the keystones for new insights and developments for human kind. References Abouserie, R. (1996). Stress, coping strategies, and job satisfaction in university academic staff. Educational Psychology, 16, 49–56. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2014). The Science contributors FAQ. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/faq/#pct_faq American Institute of Medicine, National Research Council. (2002). Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington: National Academy of Sciences. Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 437–461. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2014). Job Demands-Resources theory. In P. Y. Chen, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Work and wellbeing. Wellbeing: A complete reference guide, Volume III (pp. 37–64). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the Job Demands-Resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43, 83– 104. Bakker, A. B., Oerlemans, W., & Ten Brummelhuis, L. L. (2012). Becoming fully engaged in the workplace: What individuals and organizations can do to foster work engagement. In R. Burke, & C. Cooper (Eds.), The fulfilling workplace: The organization’s role in


79

achieving individual and organizational health (pp. 55–70). Farnham: Gower. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Charlotte, North Caronlina: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497– 529. Bentley, P. J., Coates, H., Dobson, I. R., Goedegebuure, L., & Meek, V. L. (2013). Chapter 13: Academic job satisfaction from an international comparative perspective: Factors associated with satisfaction across 12 countries. In P. J. Bentley, H. Coates, I. R. Dobson, L. Goedegebuure, & V. L. Meek (Eds.), Job satisfaction around the academic world. The changing academic profession in international comparative perspective 7 (pp. 239–262). Dordrecht: Springer. Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Brief, A. P., & Nord, W. R. (1990). Meanings of occupational work: A collection of essays. Lexington, MA: Lexington. Boyd, C. M., Bakker, A. B., Pignata, S., Winefield, A. H., Gillespie, N., & Stough, C. (2011). A longitudinal test of the Job Demands-Resources model among Australian university academics. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 112–140. Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational


80

research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 26–48. Carson, L., Bartneck, C., & Voges, K. (2013). Over-competitiveness in academia: A literature review. Disruptive Science and Technology, 1, 183–190. Centre for Science and Technology Studies. (2013). Crafting your career. Retrieved from http://www.cwts.nl/craftingyourcareer/Home Clapham, P. (2005). Publish or perish. BioScience, 55, 390–391 Cohen, J. (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, S. & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A metaanalysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445. Day, N. E. (2011). The silent majority: Manuscript rejection and its impact on scholars. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10, 704–718. De Goede, M., Belder, R., & De Jonge, J. (2013). Academic careers in the Netherlands 2013. Facts & Figures 7. The Hague: Rathenau Instituut. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). Job DemandsResources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512. De Weert, E. (2001). Pressures and prospects facing the academic profession in the


81

Netherlands. Higher Education, 41, 77–101. Dezecache, G., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2012). Sharing the joke: The size of natural laughter groups. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 775–779. Edgington, E., & Onghena, P. (2007). Randomization tests. CRC Press. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519. Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping. American Psychologist, 55, 647–654. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. American Psychologist, 56, 218–226. Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery, well-being, and performance-related outcomes: The role of workload and vacation experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 936–945. Gillespie, N. A., Walsh, M., Winefield, A. H., Dua, J., & Stough, C. (2001). Occupational stress in universities: Staff perceptions of the causes, consequences and moderators of stress. Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations, 15, 53–72 Gilliot, D., Overlaet, B., Verdin, P. (2002). Managing academic personnel flow at universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 8, 277–295. Hagstrom, W. O. (1974). Competition in science. American Sociological Review, 39, 1–18. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 632–643.


82

Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12, 435–449. House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits – self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80–92. Kinman, G., & Jones, F. (2003). 'Running up the down escalator': Stressors and strains in UK academics. Quality in Higher Education, 9, 21–38. Kinman, G., & Jones, F. (2008). Effort-reward imbalance and overcommitment: Predicting strain in academic employees in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Stress Management, 15, 381–395. Kompier, M. A. J. (2006). The "Hawthorne effect" is a myth, but what keeps the story going? Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 32, 402–412. Kozlowski, S. W., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M., & Nason, E. R. (2001). Effects of training goals and goal orientation traits on multidimensional training outcomes and performance adaptability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 1–31. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. Lauwen, M., Gascon, J., & Blank, K. (2013). Grant applications: Increasing your success rate. Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/presentation-marjolein-lauwen.pdf Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Association for


83

Psychological Science, 15, 265–268. Louis, K. S., Anderson, M. S., & Rosenberg, L. (1995). Academic misconduct and values: The department’s influence. The Review of Higher Education, 18, 393–422. Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Patera, J. L. (2008). Experimental analysis of a web-based intervention to develop positive psychological capital. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7, 209–221. Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111–131. Macmillan Publishers Limited. (2014). Getting published in Nature: The editorial process. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/get_published/ Mark, G., & Smith, A. P. (2012). Effects of occupational stress, job characteristics, coping, and attributional style on the mental health and job satisfaction of university employees. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 25, 63–78. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435, 737–738 Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). (2014). Science organizations present new evaluation protocol for research. Retrieved from http://www.nwo.nl/en/news-and-events/news/2014/science-organisations-presentnew-evaluation-protocol-for-research.html Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 400–424. O’Driscoll, M. P., Brough, P., & Kalliath, T. J. (2004). Work/family conflict, psychological well-being, satisfaction and social support: A longitudinal study in New Zealand. Equal Opportunities International, 23, 36–56. Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). Do-it-yourself: An online positive


84

psychology intervention to promote positive emotions, self-efficacy, and engagement at work. Career Development International, 18, 173–195. Paletz, S. B., & Schunn, C. D. (2010). A social‐cognitive framework of multidisciplinary team innovation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 73–95. Paletz, S. B., Smith-Doerr, L., & Vardi, I. (2010). National science foundation workshop report: Interdisciplinary collaboration in innovative science and engineering fields. Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/sociology/files/2011/03/nsf-workshop-report.pdf Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Roberts, P. (2007). Neoliberalism, performativity and research. International Review of Education, 53, 349–365. Robinson, M. S., & Alloy, L. B. (2003). Negative cognitive styles and stress-reactive rumination interact to predict depression: A prospective study. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27, 275–292. Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (No. 14). London: Sage. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. 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, 701–716. Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy: Thought control of action. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corp. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio.


85

Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor: NFER Nelson. Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482–497. Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 27–43. Siegrist, J., Starke, D., Chandola, T., Godin, I., Marmot, M., Niedhammer, I., & Peter, R. (2004). The measurement of effort–reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 1483–1499. Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 65, 467–487. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. The Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465. Tang, S., Siu, O., & Cheung, F. (2014). A study of work-family enrichment among Chinese employees: The mediating role between work support and job satisfaction. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 63, 130–150. Taylor, S. E. (2011). Social support: A review. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Health Psychology (pp. 192–217). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Taylor, S. E., & Lobel, M. (1989). Social comparison activity under threat: Downward evaluation and upward contacts. Psychological Review, 96, 569–575. Terluin, B., Van Rhenen, W., Schaufeli, W. B., & De Haan, M. (2004). The FourDimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ): Measuring distress and other mental health problems in a working population. Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations, 18, 187–207.


86

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012a). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 173–186. Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012b). Werknemers in actie: Job crafting op basis van een online feedbackinstrument. In J. De Jonge, M. C. W. Peeters, S. Sjollema, & H. De Zeeuw (Eds.), Scherp in werk: 5 routes naar optimale inzetbaarheid (pp. 50– 75). Assen: Van Gorcum. Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18, 230–240. Turner, N., Barling, J., & Zacharatos, A. (2002). Positive psychology at work. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 715–728). New York: Oxford University Press. Van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2012). Succesvol job craften door middel van een groepstraining. In J. De Jonge, M. C. W. Peeters, S. Sjollema, & H. De Zeeuw (Eds.), Scherp in werk: 5 routes naar optimale inzetbaarheid (pp. 27– 49). Assen: Van Gorcum. Van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E., Schreurs, B. H., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Does meaning-making help during organizational change?: Development and validation of a new scale. Career Development International, 14, 508–533. Van Dijk, W. W., Zeelenberg, M., & Van der Pligt, J. (2003). Blessed are those who expect nothing: Lowering expectations as a way of avoiding disappointment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 505–516. Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Using the Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 219–230. West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of


87

creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, 51, 355–387. Westman, M., & Eden, D. (1997). Effects of a respite from work on burnout: Vacation relief and fade-out. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 516–527. Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (2001). The impact of vacation and job stress on burnout and absenteeism. Psychology & Health, 16, 595–606. Weston, C., Gandell, T., Beauchamp, J., McAlpine, L., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, C. (2001). Analyzing interview data: The development and evolution of a coding system. Qualitative Sociology, 24, 381–400. Wickström, G., & Bendix, T. (2000). The "Hawthorne effect" - What did the original Hawthorne studies actually show? Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 26, 363–367. Wills, T. A. (1991). Social support and interpersonal relationships. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial behavior (pp. 265–289). Newbury Park: Sage. Winefield, A. H., Gillespie, N., Stough, C., Dua, J., Hapuarachchi, J., & Boyd, C. (2003). Occupational stress in Australian university staff: Results from a national survey. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 51–63. Wood, F. (1990). Factors influencing research performance of university academic staff. Higher Education, 19, 81–100. Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. The Academy of Management Review, 26, 179–201. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the Job Demands-Resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 121–141. Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable

COMPETITION AMONG RESEARCHERS individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1271–1288. Zucchini, L., & Kretschmer, T. (2011). Competitive pressure: Competitive dynamics as reactions to multiple rivals. University of Munich, Munich School of Management: Discussion Papers in Business Administration.

88


89

Footnotes 1

Personal resources were measured after the job crafting exercises, because an early

hypothesis in developing this paper was that the mere thinking about job crafting exercises has immediate fostering effects on personal resources. However, this hypothesis could not be supported. We decided to leave this section out to avoid distractions from the more important long-term effects of the intervention. Detailed hypotheses concerning this hypothesis, data sets and calculations can be requested from the author of this manuscript.


90

Table 1 Chronological Order of the Measures per Group for the Intervention Study Group Cognitive job crafting Relational job crafting Control group

T1 – pre Baseline: Work engagement Distress Social resources Effort-reward balance Perceived competitive pressure

Manipulation / Intervention

T1 – post

Think about cognitive job crafting strategies

1 week between Incorporate cognitive job crafting strategies

Personal resources Think about relational job crafting strategies

Incorporate relational job crafting strategies

No manipulation

No assignment

T2 – follow-up

Work engagement Distress Social resources Personal resources Perceived competitive pressure

Think about the causes (no participation in follow(no participation in and consequences of Personal resources up) follow-up) competitive pressure Note. Demographics are measured before the baseline. Besides the measures reported in this table, we also measured job satisfaction, occupational selfefficacy, and supervisor support at T1 and T2. For research question 1, we report results from the baseline measures of the two job crafting groups and the control group. Variables: Work engagement, distress, effort-reward balance, perceived competitive pressure. Analysis: Correlations, multiple regressions. For research question 2, we report results from the competition group in comparison with the control group. Variables: Personal resources at T1 (post). Analysis: MANOVA For research question 3, we report results from the pilot study, which is not displayed here, because it was conducted before the intervention. For research question 4, we report results from the relational and cognitive job crafting groups in comparison with the control group. Variables: Work engagement, distress, social resources, and personal resources. Analysis: RM - MANOVAs. Competition group

(no baseline measure)


91

Table 2 Items for the Work Engagement, Distress and Social Support Scales Work engagement In the last week, … Vigor

… At work, I was bursting with energy. … At work, I felt strong and vigorous. … When I got up in the morning, I felt like going to work.

Absorption

… I felt happy when I was working intensely. … I was immersed in my work. … I got carried away when I was working.

Dedication

… I was enthusiastic about my job. … My job inspired me. … I was proud of the work that I do. Distress

During the past week,

... Tense?

how often did you feel...

... Easily irritated? ... Down or depressed? ... Worried? ... Sluggish? ... That you can’t do anything anymore? ... That you can't take interest in the people and things around you? ... That you can’t cope anymore?


92

... That you can’t face it anymore? During the past week,

... No longer feel like doing anything?

how often did you...

... Have difficulties in thinking clearly? ... Have difficulties in getting to sleep? ... Have disturbed sleep? ... Easily become emotional? ... Have fleeting images of any upsetting event that you have experienced? ... Have to do your best to put aside thoughts about any upsetting event? Social support In the last week, …

Informational support

… How often did you get helpful information or advice from your coworkers?

Emotional support

… How often do you get sympathetic understanding and concern from your coworkers?

Feedback support

… How often did you get clear helpful feedback from your coworkers?

Instrumental support

… How often did you get practical assistance from your coworkers?


93

Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Between Control Variables, Perceived Competitive Pressure, Effort-Reward Balance, Work Engagement and Distress at Baseline (N = 152)

1 Gender 2 Age

M

SD

1

.54

.50

-

36.78

6.07

.08

3 Discipline

.57

.58

-.26

4 Position

.70

.46

-.05

2

**

3

.02

.19

.39

-.22

6 Contract

.57

.50

.03

-.43** **

.60

.49

-.12

8 CP funding

4.22

.82

-.04

9 CP publications 10 CP Promotions 11 Balance funding

4.14 3.85 2.85

.78 .99 1.07

-.23

-.33 **

-.04 -.02

3.05

1.08

.15

13 Balance prom.

2.95

1.03

.22**

15 Distress

4.39 10.58

.83 5.91

.08 -.04

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

.19*

-

-.07

.02

-.14*

-.53** **

-.16*

-

.10

.

-

-.81

.06

-.07

.01

-.02

.07

-.17

-

-.05

-.02

-.05

.02

.11

.06

.31**

*

-.11 *

6

-.04

-.16

12 Balance pub.

14 Work eng.

.24

**

5 Employment

7 Tenure track

5

.31**

**

4

-.15

*

-.02

-.23

**

-.00

-.07

.19

-.18*

-.02

.21**

-.17 -.04

.04 -.04

.05 -.08

.16

-.03 **

-.00

*

-.03

.07

-.13

-.03

-.24** -.19

*

*

.09

-.06 -.24

.04 -.01 .14

.26

**

*

-.32** -.05

*

.05

.42

**

-.24

**

.27** -.14

*

.04

-.30

**

-.11

-.17*

.09

-.16

*

.27

**

.05

-.07 -.16

*

-.30** .04 .22

**

.16*

-

.39**

.42**

.20

**

.29

**

.31**

-.16

*

-.33

**

**

-

-.22

-.30**

Note. 1 Gender (0 = female, 1 = male). 3 Discipline (0 = natural sciences, 1 = social sciences). 4 Current position (0 = post-doc, 1 = assistant professor). 5 Employment (0 = full-time, 1 = part-time). 6 Contract type (0 = permanently employed, 1 = temporarily employed). 7 Tenure track (0 = on tenure track, 1 = not on tenure track). ** Correlation significant at α = .01 (1-tailed). * Correlation significant at α = .05 (1-tailed).


94

Table 4 Multiple Regression Analyses for the Perceived Competitive Pressure for Publications (N = 152)

Model

B

SE

β

t

p

13.09

.00

1.75

.08

0.70

.49

R²

CP for Publications  Distress 1

2

(Constant)

9.61

0.73

Contract type

1.69

0.97

(Constant)

1.75

2.51

Contract type

1.32

0.94

.11

1.40

.16

CP publications

1.95

0.60

.26

3.27

.00

12.45

.00

.14

.013*

.074**

CP for Publications  Work Engagement 1

2

(Constant)

5.13

0.41

Age

-0.02

0.01

-.14

-1.64

.10

Employment

-0.32

0.17

-.15

-1.83

.07

5.92

0.55

10.75

.00

Age

-0.02

0.01

-.15

-1.79

.08

Employment

-0.30

0.17

-.15

-1.78

.08

CP publications

-0.18

0.08

-.17

-2.14

.03

(Constant)

Note. Contract type (0 = permanently employed, 1 = temporarily employed). Employment (0 = full-time, 1 = part-time). ** Significance at α = .01 (1-tailed). * Significance at α = .05 (1-tailed).

.052*

.080*


95

Table 5 Multiple Regression Analyses for the Perceived Competitive Pressure for Funding (N = 152)

Model

B

β

SE

t

p

13.01

.00

1.77

.08

3.29

.00

R²

CP for Funding  Distress 1

2

(Constant)

9.61

0.74

Contract type

1.73

0.98

(Constant)

8.49

2.58

Contract type

1.70

0.98

.14

1.73

.09

CP funding

0.27

0.60

.04

0.45

.65

12.50

0

.15

.021*

.022

CP for Funding  Work Engagement 1

2

(Constant)

5.24

0.42

Age

-0.02

0.01

-.15

-1.86

.06

Employment

-0.35

0.17

-.16

-1.99

.05

4.86

0.53

9.22

0

Age

-0.02

0.01

-.16

-1.93

.06

Employment

-0.34

0.17

-.16

-1.96

.05

CP funding

0.10

0.08

.10

1.18

.24

(Constant)

Note. Contract type (0 = permanently employed, 1 = temporarily employed), Employment (0 = full-time, 1 = part-time). ** Significance at α = .01 (1-tailed). * Significance at α = .05 (1-tailed).

.061**

.070


96

Table 6 Multiple Regression Analyses for the Perceived Competitive Pressure for Promotions (N = 152)

Model

B

β

SE

t

p

13.09

.00

1.75

.08

2.71

.01

R²

CP for Promotions  Distress 1

2

(Constant)

9.61

0.73

Contract type

1.69

0.97

(Constant)

5.16

1.90

Contract type

1.29

0.96

.11

1.33

.18

CP promotions

1.22

0.48

.20

2.53

.01

12.45

.00

.14

.020*

.061**

CP for Promotions  Work Engagement 1

2

(Constant)

5.13

0.41

Age

-0.02

0.01

-.14

-1.64

.10

Employment

-0.32

0.17

-.15

-1.83

.07

5.06

0.53

9.61

.00

Age

-0.02

0.01

-.13

-1.58

.12

Employment

-0.32

0.17

-.15

-1.83

.07

0.02

0.07

.02

0.22

.83

(Constant)

CP promotions

Note. Contract type (0 = permanently employed, 1 = temporarily employed). Employment (0 = full-time, 1 = part-time). ** Significance at α = .01 (1-tailed). * Significance at α = .05 (1-tailed).

.052*

.052


97

Table 7a Test Statistics for Moderation Analysis with CP for Publications as IV, Distress as DV and Effort-Reward-Balance of Publications as Moderator (N = 151) B

SE

t(148)

p

0.77

1.16

0.66

.51

1.83

1.93

0.95

.35

-0.93

2.54

-0.37

.71

-0.13

0.59

-0.21

.83

Step 1 Control variable - Contract type Step 2 CP publications Step 3 Effort-reward-balance of publications Step 4 CP publications × Effort-reward-balance of publications Note. Contract type (0 = permanently employed, 1 = temporarily employed).


98

Table 7b Test Statistics for Moderation Analysis with CP for Promotions as IV, Distress as DV and Effort-Reward-Balance of Promotion Possibilities as Moderator (N = 151) B

SE

t(148)

p

- Contract

0.82

1.23

0.66

.51

CP promotions

-0.72

1.64

-0.44

.66

-3.35

2.22

-1.51

.13

0.60

0.53

1.13

.26

Step 1 Control variables

Step 2

Step 3 Effort-reward-balance of promotion possibilities Step 4 CP promotions × Effort-reward-balance of promotion possibilities Note. Contract type (0 = permanently employed, 1 = temporarily employed).


99

Table 7c Test Statistics for Moderation Analysis with Effort-Reward-Balance of Publications as IV, Work Engagement as DV and CP for Publications as Moderator (N = 151) B

SE

t(148)

p

- Age

-0.03

0.01

-2.47

.01

- Employment

-0.11

0.14

-0.79

.43

-0.58

0.36

-1.62

.11

-0.66

0.27

-2.45

.02

0.18

0.08

2.22

.03


Step 2 Effort-reward-balance of publications Step 3 CP publications Step 4 Effort-reward-balance of publications × CP publications Note. Employment (0 = part-time, 1 = full-time).


100

Table 7d Test Statistics for Moderation Analysis with Effort-Reward-Balance of Funding as IV, Work Engagement as DV and CP for Funding as Moderator (N = 151) B

SE

t(148)

p

- Age

-0.03

0.01

-2.73

.01

- Employment

-0.25

0.15

-1.66

.10

0.37

0.37

0.99

.32

0.30

0.27

1.14

.26

-0.05

0.09

-0.54

.59


Step 2 Effort-reward-balance of funding Step 3 CP funding Step 4 Effort-reward-balance of funding × CP funding Note. Employment (0 = part-time, 1 = full-time).


101

Table 7e Test Statistics for Moderation Analysis with Effort-Reward-Balance of Promotion Possibilities as IV, Work Engagement as DV and CP For Promotions as Moderator (N = 151) B

SE

t(148)

p

- Age

-0.02

0.01

-1.66

.10

- Employment

-0.18

0.14

-1.26

.21

0.00

0.30

0.01

.98

-0.07

0.23

-0.33

.74

0.06

0.07

0.88

.38


Step 2 Effort-reward-balance of promotion possibilities Step 3 CP promotions Step 4 Effort-reward-balance of promotion possibilities × CP promotions Note. Employment (0 = part-time, 1 = full-time).


102

Table 8 Causes and Consequences of Competitive Pressure Stated by Researchers in the Competition-Focus Group Causes

Consequences

Code

The problem with the system is that there is no one that tells you that you've

Implications: During teaching intensive periods I experience a lot

Included

done enough for today, this week, this month, this year. There is ALWAYS

of stress because I can't work on my research as intended. When

something to work on (usually lots of things). Work can also always be done

teaching is not intensive, I sometimes work on research rather

better. A paper or proposal is never fully perfect (but I don't think only

than taking some days off to recover. To make time for research, I

academics suffer from these problems. In other job domains, however, most

also try to cram teaching duties in 'empty' timeslots (e.g., while

knowledge workers don't have the uncertainty of a temporary contract. Also,

my partner is driving the car, I read student papers,...). In the

per definition, all colleagues who 'compete' are highly competent and

work environment there is not really a competitive atmosphere

ambitious.

because the colleagues work in such different fields of science that there is less ground for comparison. Also the department has a very friendly atmosphere.

The requirements for success in this field generally outstrip the available

Competitive pressure drags one down a bit. One tries to push it to

resources. The reward system is more complicated; I find science itself

the back of one's mind, of course, but it's still there. It shapes

rewarding, which gives a good deal of flexibility (country, colleagues,

decisions and how projects are run. This can be a good thing as it

particulars of the projects undertaken). In other terms, the rewards are not

means projects are more streamlined and arranged to give a

necessarily huge--salaries are not high in most of the world at post-doctoral

greater chance of success. The difficult thing is trying to run

level, and so although I'd be happy at PD level for my career scientifically,

projects to be a success with colleagues who are inflexible on this

it's unlikely to be practical for supporting a family. One is therefore required

point. Despite the prevailing conditions, many fail to see this and

more by circumstance than by science to compete.

bumble along, never thinking further than 'just doing some stuff in the lab and seeing what happens' such work is generally

Included


103 relatively wasteful and lack structure. I have observed this both in the UK and in NL. I also see it as a reviewer for scientific papers; on a number of occasions, it has been clear that the work has been pushed together from results that were lying around, rather than from a hypothesis or other structure. It makes my day longer. The more science one can get done, the quicker, the more work can be finished and the more productive one can be. Productivity always looks good, because it is (or appears) effective. Doing more hours of science is fun :)

It causes internal competition amongst coworkers and lowers the readiness

I have to spend too much time on writing grants. And it's darn

to work together. In collaborations it will always cause people to fight for

difficult to get some money for research that is not a 'speerpunt'.

first and last authorships. I don't like this culture. Science would go much

When you are not very successful in obtaining a lot of grants

further when people want to work together. People should be rewarded

your academic career will stall.

Included

when they collaborate and share. Regarding publications I do not feel the pressure. My department does not

The strange thing is that my entire department performs better

have a list with preferred journals – as long as the team as a whole publishes

than what is expected, but there is no space for promotion.

well. Regarding grants, though, we do feel the pressure at little. There is

Applicants from outside though can even demand things and

pressure to attract the money. The choice of the NWO commission is to

force a career, while the available staff can’t. This feels unfair.

either finance research or not is dependent on personal preferences in the last rounds, and as such random. Those submissions which have the best chances are those who nobody has to say anything against. Though, those who are honored will be treated as especially brilliant, including promotion possibilities. A NWO grant does thus not necessarily stimulate excellent

Included


104

research, it is a lottery with a big jackpot. -No time for (risky) research

- Lack of cooperation

Included

- Withholding information - Jealousy - Faculty managers who believe that research is all about bringing in money. The only control any young researcher has over his own career is by

It is important to publish your work. Even if the work itself

publishing research. Publications play a huge role in assigning grant money

doesn't merit publication (e.g. the results you obtained are simply

and it plays a large role in getting promoted.

not that clear), you're urged to try and get it published anyway.

Included

The consequence is that you're bound to publish a lot of crap studies that really do not contribute to your science. You're also urged to apply for grants and you're not promoted if you don't obtain grants. Most grants are within specific subject areas and/or require you to apply some technique or methodology. 'm reluctant to apply for most of these funding opportunities as it means that if I get the money (even if the chances are slim) I'll have to devote effort on a research project I believe is complete bullshit and thus a waste of time. I don't want to be the research and development department for Philips (e.g., STW funding) or Unilever (e.g. the food and cognition program at NWO). The rate of publication and level of funds/grants expected exert a lot of

It is not always easy or possible to focus on the actual research

Included

Work tends to become quite fragmented because deadlines follow

Included

pressure on me and on many of my colleagues on similar positions0 Frequent evaluations of our bachelor and master programmes and of our


105

research programme; frequently applying for funding; and we are expected

each other quickly. The many tasks and responsibilities that each

to publish frequently, preferably in the 'right' journals, too. The quote on the

of us has are not always easy to combine.

page before is recognizable! Fortunately, there are enough success stories for us too, but especially in applying for research grants, it is indeed more often no than yes. It takes a lot of time to prepare these proposals. The chance of rejection is

It means that I have to worry much more than I would like to do

large; but at the same time a relatively high success rate is required to

about publications and grants. I would rather spend this time on

succeed in science and obtain a good (permanent) position. This is the main

the actual research itself, without having to worry so much about

reason for competitive pressure that I feel. But also after having obtained the

the short term output. That is the main negative effect: it creates

permanent position, the pressure to keep publishing at a high rate and get

an unreasonably large pressure to produce short-term output.

Included

grants remains high. Never sure of employment, never enough time for core activities, such as

This is a (too) broad question to really answer effectively. See

teaching because of time spent on competitive stuff. Also: push towards

above. Also: lack of focus in work because of focus on quantity.

Included

better publications. Although mostly: push towards more. Individual battle to keep important goals such as scientific quality as top priority instead of quantity of publications, which is really perverse. It now often seems that the quality and amount of work is measured through

I think the consequences are that researchers now feel the

the impact factor of the journals one publishes in. This means that thorough

pressure to proof themselves worthy throughout their career. Even

work that took years to complete (e.g., complex series of experimental

when they have obtained a permanent position (or "earned" one;

studies) can go unappreciated if this work does not end up in a high impact

at our department, you can earn one if you meet certain criteria,

journal, compared to work by other colleagues that happens to make it

like publications in journals with an impact factor > 15 and

through the peer review process of a high impact journal. I often find this

obtaining big grants) the feeling that they have to proof

embarrassing and inappropriate, especially when it comes to work o PhD

themselves remains. The current system in our department

Included


106

students. This focus on high impact publications, and the way it features in

requires one to obtain your own salary through grants or through

the evaluation of ones work, often underestimates the value of the basic

teaching, even if one has a permanent position; the "vaste voet"

academic work (e.g., the work can concern a very important

has been discarded. This means that even when you have obtained

check/verification/replication: not novel but crucial) and the amount of time

a big grant for, say, 5 years, you already need to think about

it takes to lay out the fundaments of science.

where your salary will come from in the years after that. As a consequence, obtaining grant and top rank publications is always on one's mind. Besides finding this inappropriate (how often does one have to proof oneself worthy of an academic position?), I also feel it creates an uncertain atmosphere about future prospects. It also takes away motivation to undertake small but important studies (checks, replication, small things that need to be sorted out, i.e., basic academic work) in favor of grant studies that might end up in high impact journals. While the world-shaking work is of course awesome, the academic footmen who work on the basics and fundamentals, and publish about this in medium journals and will not obtain grants with this work, are not appreciated as much as they should; academics depend on their academic footmen.

There is pressure to publish, preferably in higher impact journals, since

The competitive environment causes mild envy when colleagues

those publications offer better chances at receiving grants. Receiving a grant

have (higher impact) publications than you, or receive grants.

in turn gives you better chances for promotion. So yes, it does affect you,

You just know that when this happens, your chances of getting a

from early on in your career. The message all PhD students receive is that

promotion are somewhat diminished. Further, the pressure to

the publications resulting from their research project are relatively more

publish could lead you to focus less on theory and content of the

Included

COMPETITION AMONG RESEARCHERS important than the Thesis itself.

107 papers but rather on quantity of publications, which is detrimental to scientific developments.

The strong sense exists that, unless you bring in money, you don't have a

It is extremely demotivating. There is a sense that you are forced

future in academia. Moreover, even though winning grants are generally

to participate in a race that is not fair, that rewards according to

acknowledged not to be evidence of your merit as a scholar, there is a

very specific traits. I should say though, that this is particularly

powerful stigmatization: grant winners have much more status and grant

the case if you are working on temporary contracts, like I am.

losers are considered faulty. Of course, grants are not everything. There are

Instead of finding a flow of work and production that is guided by

other ways to do well in academia. However, they cast a shadow. Your

ideas and insights, I am constantly thinking of how I should aim

output is measured by all types of indicators that do not necessarily measure

for this or that publication, how I should produce the type of

what one may think is valuable. There is a tilt toward quantity over

research that seems to be doing well in grant applications.

originality or rigor. There is the fetishisation of certain journals or

So, there is much more insecurity, much more anxiety, a focus on

publishing houses. If you ask scholars in detail, they will admit that, of

pleasing others, rather than an environment that encourages one to

course the journal, publishing house or the number of publications does not

tap into owns own strengths and talents.

Included

say anything, or at least not everything, about your worth. However, there is a sense that if there is not that, there should be something that is very special and that compensates for that. We have to compete all the time about limited amounts of research money

As I said above; it is hard to enjoy the work you are doing, as it is

or publication space in journals. You have to be prepared to face rejection.

only a means to an end, rather than an end per se. Moreover,

Especially when tenure depends on it, it is hard to enjoy the work you are

research is officially just a small part of your job, most of it is

doing, as it is only a means torn end, rather than an end per se.

teaching. however, as research is much more important for your

Included

career, teaching can be experienced as an unwanted distraction For me it means that besides the regular work that has to be done (teaching,

It gives my work an extra layer of stress, which is not immediate,

coordination tasks and supervising students), which takes up most of my

but always present in the back of my mind.

Included


108

work hours, there is always the pressure that I should be doing more, or extra in my free time. As I have limited time outside work due to family care, it means I always feel like I’m not doing enough. Giving a limited contract and pushing to find financing on your own, and the

I see that competitive pressure freezes me, it does not motivate, it

scientific work is strongly individualized. You feel lonely and on your own

rather demotivates strongly. It does not welcome creativity to

with all your problems.

come into academy. It makes stupid. If I look around, I see that

Included

people become crazy, almost everybody walks like a ghost. Emotional burnouts are highly popular. It disconnects people from people, scientists from society. Does not give you to do science from the place of curiosity and enjoyment, but rather pushes you and motivates you to struggle for your survival... to push down others... Scientists don't have time to do their work qualitatively, that's why there are so many bullshit articles there in the journals... In my experience, it is particularly the young people who are troubled and

I am no longer concerned with this competition, i.e., its

affected by it. Although quite some older and more experienced colleagues

consequences. I do my best, and if my efforts fail - that's just the

are bitter because they did not obtain the success they wanted to have. But is

way it is, no hard feelings. It did some years ago, however.

Doubt

this not common to any field, also outside science? It depends on the success rate, I guess, which is always low. The point is

Quite stressful; especially with deadlines around family holidays.

that yes, you write very good grant proposals, but so do others, so even

It is worthwhile if you stand a fair chance, but often this is not the

though you invested so much time in it, it still feels like a lottery. It is a very

case.

competitive system, which is widely recognized, but that does not prevent

Included


109

me of contacting my competitors, and discuss science. But it is quite frustrating to see your proposals being rejected, for no good reason. If I had known its outcome, I would invest my time otherwise. Mainly through the uncertainty it causes. Specifically the 'policy' of never

The work environment is very social, I don't notice

giving out permanent contracts, thus sentencing academics to a lifetime of

competitiveness. In fact the pressure to compete seems to unite

competition and never knowing if you will still have a job, or where this job

the employees. Everyone is rather upset about the practice. I try to

will be.

ignore the pressure. Knowing that my last temporary contract will

Doubt

end soon, and no-one really gets a permanent contract makes me quite relaxed. Since I am soon leaving anyway, there is no 'need' to start working extra hard or investing too much. For myself, I have chosen to back out from this competition - meaning that

None

Excluded

You are always aware that there are better and more productive researchers

A lot of stress and worries, I am unable to settle down in one

Included

than yourself. And that you have to work very hard in order to get a job or to

place (I do not dare to buy a house), unable to oversee my

be able to keep working as a researcher.

financial future, I would like to have children but if I am pregnant

any research that I do is unpaid for, or, in other words, in my own time.

I probably won’t find a new job. I consider doing something else. There is not enough time for the research itself as 50% of the working time

As there is no guarantee for funding in the near future due

goes grant writing process

competition, the motivation goes down

It is very competitive because It is not clear and transparent, especially for

I cannot make long-term planning. It is very short-term focused. I

foreign women.

feel more and more the precariousness of my job

It is indeed very competitive, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. The

I really love my work, I do interesting research and I have

problem is that the indicators to measure excellence are arbitrary. You need

wonderful colleagues. It is very busy, yes, but I am currently on a

to be good for sure; but there is also lots of politics and luck involved.

Veni grant which makes everything much more relaxed.

Included

Included

Doubt


110

You have to be motivated in academia. There are a lot of smart people

I have suffered from chronic stress, and have sought counseling

around, and a lot of offers for doing interesting and rewarding work.

and medical advice about it. Chronic stress for me involves

Academia is challenging, but the challenge can be exhilarating and

anxiety and constant worry. But I manage the stress with exercise,

worthwhile. Sometimes the challenge of academic knowledge production

diet, and relationships. If you want to play the game in academia,

can spill over into stress. Knowing that you are continually doing better and

sometimes you have to suck it up and deal with the pressure. The

better work is a good motivation for producing high-quality research. Just

pressure can get to you, but you can also let it slide.

Included

knowing that you are part of a high-quality research team helps. Also knowing that the pressure is an illusion - the social structure of the system places pressures on you, but you don't have to be a slave to the system, you don't have to let the pressure get to you. Sometimes it just doesn't matter. Obtaining external funding is a requirement for tenure and promotion.

You have spent time on writing research proposals. That is a lot

Included

of work, but it also teaches you to structure your thoughts, focus and increase the quality of your work. Otherwise, you just do something... Without any grants, publications or good teaching evaluations it is difficult

Writing grants takes up more of my time than it used to do.

Included

There is significant pressure to publish as many high-impact publications as

It creates a stressful work experience in which one always has to

Included

possible in the first few years as a postdoc to be "good enough" to be

consider the impact of current activities on one's career output,

considered for a job higher in the academic hierarchy. This pressure and the

and creates significant worry and stress in and outside of work.

to grow into a higher position. This is ok, if you are in a permanent position, but provides a lot of pressure in a tenure track position, particularly now receiving grants is getting more and more difficult.

associated reward system biases researchers and their work and lowers the reliability and validity of reported experimental results; it also creates a


111

stressful working environment for (especially younger) researchers to maintain their job and get their scientific career started. The fact that you are competing for funding (grants) and jobs puts pressure

It every now and then makes me very nervous. On the other hand,

on me. In addition, the fact that a lot depends on the amount of publications

I do think that some level of competition is needed to make sure

you generate do too.

that the brightest and smartest people stay in academia. After all,

Included

science is like top sports. Personally I have accepted that I am no longer "in competition" for any

None, in a sense that I do not count on an academic career in the

research grant / externally financed research position. When my PhD

near future. I plan on obtaining as much experience as possible in

position came to an end, I went into practice (first as a lawyer and then as a

my one year experience as an assistant professor, returning back

law clerk at a district court). Whereas for me this has been a very valuable

to practice (preferably the judiciary) and hopefully entering the

learning period, the organizations that decide on research grants will take

academia at a later stage again (in a different way, based on

note of my lack of academic publications during this period and consider

extensive knowledge gained 'in the field' in combination with

this a reason not to grant me any research funds. In my view the academic

publications)

Doubt

career and reward systems puts a lot of pressure on especially young researchers who not only have to write their PhD but also various articles to "get into the picture" for future funding. Young assistant professors (especially those with a typically 'Dutch' research subject) are pretty cynical about their changes on obtaining research grants via, for example, the Veniprocedure of NWO. Science for me is working together, sharing ideas and work on solutions

The constant pressure to try to get new funding, which usually is

together. Next, most interesting research occurs at the interdisciplinary level.

not enough to cover also the time to prepare academic papers (at

However the contemporary career and reward system is focused on

least not in EU funded projects), leaves not much time for

individual accomplishment and on uni-isciplinarity. The system creates

reflection. This is also the case with the emphasis on articles,

Included

COMPETITION AMONG RESEARCHERS competition between people who should/would like to work together, and

112 while - usually more reflective - books are not really appreciated.

the system punishes scientist who cross the disciplinary borders. The urge to publish more and to work on areas of research that are currently

I spend too much thinking on what can be published instead of

of high interest.

working on what I find interesting.

The professor is too busy to give any attention or feedback, but in the end he

I like to be judged at my own merits, not in competition with

is complaining that he don't see my activities.

people that do incomparable investigation.

You have to publish several articles per year if at all possible in the highest

You are tired from long days of work with little appreciation. You

ranking journals. You have to obtain grant money, if possible from

feel lonely, and unsupported when trying to convey to leadership

prestigious sources. You have to get good teaching evaluations. Your

how things should be different. Only when you would behave

research not only has to be fundamental and ground breaking, it also has to

ruthless, selfish, lie, and cheat you could get what is considered

demonstrate a direct impact on society. You have to be in the news

imported nowadays. Precisely the kind of behavior that should not

frequently with your research and promote the University. Instead of trying

have a place in science. The only thing that keeps you going is

to find out how things work in the world, try to come up with testable

your internal motivation and drive to discover new things and

theories about them, and then actually do the research to test these

hope that better times are ahead. It can't be too long before people

hypothesis (which in turn could lead to interesting discoveries that you then

start realizing that real scientific progress is killed by how the

could write and teach about) you are forced to first do a whole host of other

scientific enterprise is organized and lead these days.

Included

Included

Included

things that distract from doing the real science and assume that science is an enterprise that can be governed top-down by managers, processes, and procedures. Not so much. I ignore it in my collaborations with others and I always share

It does affect my work, especially when deciding between more

data.

adventurous long-term projects and more certain short-term projects, as the latter more easily result in demonstrable results needed when competing for grants, positions, etc. As I have

Doubt


113 personally experienced the rejection of a grant proposal solely on the basis of too few publications, this is something that I keep in mind. On the other hand it seems that at least in my daily work environment, it is highly valued if we take more time to elaborate on new research ideas. This, and the fact that I now have a tenured position, helps me to withstand the lure of easy projects.

We are constantly under pressure to publish and attract grants. Especially in

I am very much aware that if I fail to publish, and fail to attract

the latter case, it is very clear that only a small percentage of people who

grants, I have a high likelihood of losing my job. This is not only

apply for a grant, will receive it. In that sense, your colleagues success

very stressful, but also leads to lower intrinsic motivation.

higher the chances for your loss.

Ironically, I have not been able to 'succeed' (publish papers) as

Your chances for success are significantly improved if you have more

much since I've become aware of this high pressure. It thus has a

publications. This creates constant pressure and competition, especially

negative effect on my productivity, motivation, and job

among those in the beginning of their career, on temporary contracts (like

satisfaction.

Included

me). For me personally the competitive pressure within academia is not so big,

It does not influence my personal daily work experience much, at

since I do not have the intention to stay in academia after this position, and

this moment. However, during my PHD-studies, the pressure to

up until now I have been fortunate enough to receive many rejections on

publish did have a negative influence during the first year and a

paper submissions. However, the choice not to pursue a career in academia

half.

has definitely been influenced by the reward system. I do notice that the pressure is very big on several of my colleagues. Especially for obtaining funding and fixed positions the competitive pressure is huge. The pressure for publishing is of course present, but is a lot less, since the ratio failure/success is a lot better than in the case of obtaining funding or new

Doubt


114

positions. A lot of pressure, especially as there are only a few opportunities to apply

Little, I just continue my job, try to make the best the resources

for.

available

The competition is actually a competition to (career) death! I need grants to

There is hardly any space for risk and long term thinking. Most of

get further funding of my research, I need publication to get grants and

my energy is focused on getting things to work well and fast to

positions and if I don't get this in time, it becomes harder and harder to carry

get a positive feedback from this "loop“: getting as much

on my career. To the point that if It doesn't work we'll enough I might have

published things as possible, with a sexy story to reach high

to stop completely working as a researcher for lack of funds and

impact factor journals.

opportunities. It is some sort of loop with positive feedback: when it goes

Competition also affects negatively the way a group or

well, it gets better and better, and the opposite is also true.

collaborators work together: individuals tend to keep as much as

Doubt

Included

possible things to themselves in order to not share to much the "rewards" (paper authorship, grants, talks in conferences...) of their research outcome. More competition often means less cooperation, more protection towards ongoing work. Career advancement in my faculty (i.e. promotion from Assistant to

I work on grant applications during my "free time" i.e. evenings,

Associate Professor) depends on success in attracting external funding

weekends, and holidays. I am worried that if I don't attract

(NWO, EU funding).

external financing, I will not be appreciated as a researcher in my

Included

research group. I am not a typical researcher as I have also (mainly) worked outside

The consequence is that I am very picky in the positions I want to

Academia. However, this may have partly been due to the perceived

apply for. Now that I have been hired, I am also wondering in

competitive pressure. As I am mainly interested in the research itself, and

what tasks I should put energy in, as my contract will end after 3

not in wasting time for writing grants etc., and as I am also not interested in

years (which is a luxury these days, I have been told). Because I

competition or in status, did the easiest solution seem to be to apply for a job

have a family and want to buy a house, I also wonder if I should

Doubt


115

elsewhere? However, when the current position came by for which there

be very careful to devote my time mainly to those tasks which

was already funding available, I did not hesitate to write an application

either seems to have a high chance to deliver results or which may

letter.

result in skills/experiences that can easily be transferred to outside Academia.

It creates pressure to publish and write grant proposals, although in our

Because I and my group are not very successful in grant

department that pressure is easing off a bit, and with my permanent position

applications and have a different publication strategy than the rest

it doesn't affect me too much anyway.

of the department, we sometimes get bad evaluations from

Included

Research Evaluation Committees. By assigning conditional, temporary contracts leading to follow-up

It does promote strategic behavior (i.e. going with the perceived

evaluations with the possibility that working conditions are degraded (e.g.

mainstream, doing things just because one thinks they are

more administrative and teaching duties leaving less time for research), a

rewarded, not because they are found relevant).

promotion is withheld or the appointment is canceled.

However, since I keep reflecting on and criticizing the academic

Many of the conditions (in particular publications and grants) are subject to

incentive system as we have it, particularly the administrators

factors beyond one's control, such as scarcity of means, science hypes,

who have not the slightest clue how this system works, I try to

perceived relevance etc. These external to the subject, i.e. the researcher, yet

stay authentic and rather take the risk of receiving a negative

the researcher is held accountable for the outcome.

outcome than giving up my value of authenticity. Let's make it

Included

clear: If my faculty is dissatisfied with all that I am doing, this is obviously not the right place for me to be. No grants/publications (achieved through competition) means no money for

Lots and lots of working overtime!

Included

The competition for grants makes so that (likely, for the majority of

Many factors which influence the outcome of a competition are

Included

researchers involved) the time spent in proposal writing amounts to a waste

beyond control; lack of control upon one's performance turns the

of time, i.e., the rate of awarding those proposals is too low to warrant the

academic work (by definition, of an exceptionally fulfilling

your research, possible job loss.

COMPETITION AMONG RESEARCHERS time spent. Research time is wasted. The peer-review process (for both grants and publications) is sometimes subjective, a feature which is not corrected by a rebuttal phase. (Formal rebuttals, which may change the review outcome, are very rarely in place). Subjectivity has no place in most sciences; furthermore, subjectivity may make a competition unfair.

116 nature) into a less fulfilling, more "commercial" type of work.


117

Table 9 Correlations Between Personal Resources (Achievement Goals, Self-efficacy in Coping With the Competitive Pressure, Job-Related Affective Well-Being and Meaning of Work) for the Competition-Focus Group and the Control Group (N = 100) 1

2

1 Performance-Approach

1

2 Performance-Avoidance

.26**

3 Mastery-Approach

.07

.22*

4 Mastery-Avoidance

.01

.28**

5 Self-efficacy

.16

6 Positive affect 7 Negative affect 8 Meaning Note. ** Correlation significant at α = .01 (2-tailed). * Correlation significant at α = .05 (2-tailed).

3

4

5

6

7

1 1 .17

1

-.03

-.13

-.04

1

.09

-.18

.02

-.20*

.43**

1

-.22*

-.01

.01

-.29**

-.44**

.04

-.07

.12

.25*

.50**

.27** -.14

1 -.23*


118

Table 10 Coping Strategies Collected in the Pilot Study, by Job Crafting Category, Subcategories and Final Category as Used in the Study Strategy

Job crafting

Subcategory st

Subcategory nd

category

(1 rater)

(2 rater)

1

Try to ignore it

cognitive crafting

avoiding

distancing

2

The only coping habit I have, is to try and not take it

cognitive crafting

avoiding

distancing

all too seriously 3

Ignore

cognitive crafting

avoiding

distancing

4

Try to not think about it too much

cognitive crafting

avoiding

distancing

5

I try not to think about it because it makes me

cognitive crafting

avoiding

distancing

cognitive crafting

avoiding

distancing

unhappy and counter productive 6

I try to avoid losing time with worrying or complaining

7

Try not to worry too much about it

cognitive crafting

avoiding

distancing

8

Try not to compare myself to others

cognitive crafting

avoiding

distancing

9

Keep going, don't worry be happy

cognitive crafting

be positive

positive

10

I use humor to keep cool

cognitive crafting

be positive

positive

11

Enjoy the work

cognitive crafting

be positive

positive

12

I try to focus on here and now (and not on the fact

cognitive crafting

be positive

positive

cognitive crafting

comparison

put into

that I don't have a job in 1.5 years’ time) 13

Considering your good position/achievements compared to colleagues

perspective

Final category

COMPETITION AMONG RESEARCHERS 14

Look at vitaes of those around me and see how I am

119 cognitive crafting

comparison

doing compared to others at my level

put into perspective

15

Keep the long term perspective

cognitive crafting

future

future perspective

change time perspective

16

Stay open for new possibilities and opportunities

cognitive crafting

future

future perspective


17

Dream of different carrier opportunities

cognitive crafting

future

future perspective


18

Reflecting on past achievements (if I could do it back

cognitive crafting

past

past achievements


then, I will be able to do it now and in the future) 19

Consider that I've been relatively successful so far

cognitive crafting

past

past achievements


20

Reflecting on what I already achieved in terms of

cognitive crafting

past

past achievements


publications and funding 21

I remind myself that I already achieved an awful lot

cognitive crafting

past

past achievements


22

Try to see the positive side of writing an unfunded

cognitive crafting

positive job aspects

positive


grant proposal 23

Focus on what I love about being a scientist

cognitive crafting


positive


24

Read nice emails from supervisors or collaborators

cognitive crafting


positive


25

Keep helpful thoughts from others in mind

cognitive crafting


positive


26

Seeing it as service to research, society, PhD students

cognitive crafting


positive


cognitive crafting


positive


cognitive crafting


positive


cognitive crafting

reappraisal

positive

and giving jobs to post-docs 27

I am internally motivated by understanding laws of nature and science itself

28

Celebrate the freedom this job creates (i.e., flexibility etc.)

29

I have to be careful not to lose all my enthusiasm and


120

inspiration for my work 30

Accepting that you can't be the best in every domain

cognitive crafting

reappraisal


31

Relativize, appreciate life outside academia (family,

cognitive crafting

reappraisal

nature, art, music) 32

Don't take it personally


cognitive crafting

reappraisal


33

Not generalizing failure in one domain (grants) to

cognitive crafting

reappraisal

other domains (publications) 34

Acknowledging that intrinsic motivation and

perspective cognitive crafting

reappraisal

extrinsic motivation go hand in hand 35

Realize that you cannot always win

put into


cognitive crafting

reappraisal


36

Being realistic regarding the chances to get grants

cognitive crafting

reappraisal

realistic goals

realistic goals

37

Realistic aims and goals

cognitive crafting

reappraisal

realistic goals

realistic goals

38

Lowering expectations

cognitive crafting

reappraisal

realistic goals

realistic goals

39

Try not to be too much of a perfectionist

cognitive crafting

reappraisal

realistic goals

realistic goals

40

I like to work in teams (with nice colleagues)

relational crafting

positive interaction

collaboration


41

Have pleasant conversations with your colleagues

relational crafting


talking


and supervisor(s) 42

Collaboration

relational crafting

strategic interaction

collaboration

collaboration

43

Collaboration with peers and supervisor

relational crafting


collaboration

collaboration

44

Collaborate

relational crafting


collaboration

collaboration


121

45

Collaborate with other people

relational crafting


collaboration

collaboration

46

Work with others

relational crafting


collaboration

collaboration

47

Collaboration with colleagues to improve quality of

relational crafting


collaboration

collaboration

results 48

Network/communicate looking for new opportunities

relational crafting


collaboration

collaboration

49

Think a lot about possible collaborative partnerships

relational crafting


collaboration

collaboration

relational crafting


talking

relational crafting

support

support

support

for science and grants 50

Discuss with colleagues whose opinion I value and respect

51

Talk to friends and colleagues in the same position, share the burden

52

Enlist help/advice

relational crafting

support

support

support

53

Complain about promotion possibilities with

relational crafting

support

support

support

colleagues and friends 54

Talk to co-workers who experience similar pressures

relational crafting

support

support

support

55

Ask my supervisors for advice

relational crafting

support

support

support

56

Talk to colleagues

relational crafting

support

talking

57

Talk to people in the same family

relational crafting

support

talking

58

Talking with colleagues

relational crafting

support

talking

59

Just do the job

task crafting

just work

work focus

60

Stop procrastinating

task crafting

just work

work focus

61

Through working on research proposals

task crafting

just work

work focus

62

If you don't buy a ticket to the lottery you will not

task crafting

just work

work focus


122

even have the chance to win (to cope with rejections) 63

Take part in funding competitions

task crafting

just work

work focus

64

Perseverance

task crafting

just work

work focus

65

Working on publications

task crafting

just work

work focus

66

Cross something off my to-do list

task crafting

planning

work focus

67

Deal with students and organizational stuff in the

task crafting

planning

work focus

task crafting

planning

work focus

morning 68

Plan meetings on one day to have the rest of the week time for research

69

Make schedules for work to be done

task crafting

planning

work focus

70

I try to manage my time

task crafting

planning

work focus

71

Know the hot research topics

task crafting

strategic planning

work focus

72

Relate the present work with current needs (industrial

task crafting

strategic planning

work focus

application) 73

I don't put all eggs in one basket

task crafting

strategic planning

work focus

74

I try to find academic jobs outside of the Netherlands

task crafting

strategic planning

work focus

where promotion is possible. 75

Diversify research topics to stand on more legs

task crafting

strategic planning

work focus

76

I have to think about it to come up with a good

task crafting

strategic planning

work focus

strategy 77

Have a plan for the next year and long-term plan

task crafting

strategic planning

work focus

78

Discuss promotion possibilities during assessments

task crafting

strategic planning

work focus

79

Take sufficient breaks (at least one day without

task crafting

work balanced

work balance


123

working per week) 80

Work at regular times, do what you have to do, but

task crafting

work balanced

work balance

balanced (between work and private life) 81

Not reading my email

task crafting

work balanced

work balance

82

Avoid work entirely for a few days/read a non-work

task crafting

work balanced

work balance

book 83

Take breaks

task crafting

work balanced

work balance

84

Trying to avoid email and social media in the

task crafting

work balanced

work balance

evenings 85

I try to do tasks quickly

task crafting

work efficiently

work focus

86

Work on a project or paper I have in the pipeline

task crafting

work efficiently

work focus

87

Efficiently using work of students for publications

task crafting

work efficiently

work focus

88

Be efficient

task crafting

work efficiently

work focus

89

Prioritize

task crafting

work efficiently

work focus

90

I try to remain focused

task crafting

work efficiently

work focus

91

Don’t forget to preserve my ideas

task crafting

work efficiently

work focus

92

Always aim at perfection and high-impact journals

task crafting

work efficiently

work focus

93

I work at home

task crafting

work efficiently

work focus

94

Working hard

task crafting

work hard

work focus

95

Work hard on research and resulting publications

task crafting

work hard

work focus

96

Work hard

task crafting

work hard

work focus

97

Just keep doing as much as and to the best I can do

task crafting

work hard

work focus

98

Work hard

task crafting

work hard

work focus


124

99

Work harder

task crafting

work hard

work focus

100

I can only do my very best

task crafting

work hard

work focus

101

Try to do better than other

task crafting

work hard

work focus

102

Work on weekends and evenings

task crafting

work hard

work focus

103

Write a journal

task crafting

work hard

work focus

104

Work more

task crafting

work hard

work focus

105

Make over hours, a lot. Every evening from 10 pm to

task crafting

work hard

work focus

1.30 am 106

Take on important teaching tasks

task crafting

work hard

work focus

107

Engage in more projects than I rationally speaking

task crafting

work hard

work focus

should get involved with 108

Participate in research proposals

task crafting

work hard

work focus

109

Start a new project or class, take a new class online

task crafting

work hard

work focus

110

I make long hours

task crafting

work hard

work focus

111

Do research that really interests me

task crafting

work passionate

work focus

112

Choose research topics that I find interesting and

task crafting

work passionate

work focus

other

enjoy life

spare time

relevant 113

Have a family, so that you are not excessively focused on the pressure to compete

114

Watch movie

other

enjoy life

spare time

115

Play with my child

other

enjoy life

spare time

116

Watch one episode TV series

other

enjoy life

spare time

117

Enjoy (family) life

other

enjoy life

spare time


125

118

Cooking, no thinking

other

enjoy life

spare time

119

Live day by day

other

enjoy life

spare time

120

Hang out with friends (not-related to academy)

other

enjoy life

spare time

121

Have a drink at the evening

other

enjoy life

spare time

122

Visit family

other

enjoy life

spare time

123

Cultivating hobbies

other

enjoy life

spare time

124

Drink beer

other

enjoy life

spare time

125

Smoke weed

other

enjoy life

spare time

126

I keep calm by playing with the kids

other

enjoy life

spare time

127

Do sports

other

health

sports

128

Doing sports

other

health

sports

129

Gym

other

health

sports

130

Sport and meet with friends regularly

other

health

sports

131

Play sports

other

health

sports

132

Engage in sports, leisure time activities

other

health

sports

133

Jogging and physical fitness are as essential as

other

health

sports

other

health

health

mental fitness 134

I take good care of myself (at the cost of being a less successful scientist)

135

Sports

other

health

health

136

Give up drinking alcohol entirely

other

health

health

137

Listen to music to isolate myself

other

relax

spare time

138

Take sleeping pills

other

relax

spare time


126

139

Read to relax

other

relax

spare time

140

Zen meditation and self-reflection on my goals in life

other

relax

spare time

(mental fitness) 141

Meditation

other

relax

spare time

142

Do other relaxing stuff outside of work

other

relax

spare time

143

Planning to try out yoga/meditation practice

other

relax

sports

144

Talking with friends

other

support

talking

145

I do not apply for grants

unclassified

146

I think I could be a better scientist if there were less

unclassified

competition


127

Table 11 Correlations Between Personal Resources, Social Resources, Work Engagement and Distress at T1 for the Job Crafting and the Control Groups (N = 152)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 Self-efficacy

1

2 Positive affect

.44**

1

3 Negative affect

-.38**

-.46**

1

4 Meaning

.26**

.50**

-.33**

1

5 Informational support

.06

.17

-.18*

.07

1

6 Emotional support

.05

.25**

-.17

.21*

.64**

1

7 Feedback support

.04

.20*

-.17

.08

.78**

.63**

1

8 Practical support

.02

.13

-.06

.17*

.71**

.56**

.70**

1

9 Work engagement

.39**

.62**

-.30**

.55**

.16

.22*

.16

.12

1

.54**

-.22*

-.12

-.09

-.08

-.07

-.32**

10 Distress -.41** -.54** Note. **Correlation is significant at α = .01 (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at α = .05 (2-tailed).


128

Table 12 Strategies of Researchers in the Cognitive Job Crafting Group Positive job aspects

Realistic goals

Future / past focus

Code

Good discussions with PhD students about

Finish and submit PVP/SDS paper

Overall performance over the past year was very

Included

their work, unexpected results etc.

good, both in grants/publications as in teaching.

The ability to do world-class research while

I could settle down and just enjoy the

... Or become Professor by the age of forty.

Included

living in a modern society.

scenery.

Variation of the job

Write a paper before August 2014

?

2 strategies

Academic freedom that I have to focus on

At least submit 2 of my Veni papers this

I had a Veni and I am a great team player, so I

Included

the societal topics I am interested in.

year.

aim for collaborative projects in the future.

Freedom to do what I like and opportunities

I will never have publications in the top

I am still young and there is still time for me to

to learn new things

journals, because they do not fit my research

"make it"

Included

area Freedom and flexibility of job

Cannot be the best

Keep the job

Included

The ability to make a difference in the

Obtain 2 last author articles this year.

I obtained 2 grants this year, on novel research,

Included

research field Work towards a more sustainable future

showing that peers like my ideas Always have at least three papers in the

Keep enjoying my job

Included

Apply for grants for at least in three

Become researcher and get a kind of stability for

Included

consecutive rounds

5 years

Competitions are stochastic processes, not

Due to an increasing network, my opportunities

getting funding does not mean the proposal

will improve.

pipeline Meaningful to society

Increase knowledge, follow interests.

Included


129

is bad, don't be disappointed after a negative result. Working with PhD candidates

Realize publications in both A and B

Don't understand this question

2 strategies

Included

journals Freedom of choosing what to take at hand

Get not distracted from tasks of the job by

I have established myself in the group as a spill

and flexibility of working hours and filling

other people outside job

for deeper insight in theory and interpretation;

in job

use this enhance possibilities within academic job by doing the tasks set well;

secondly my

few hour/week consultancy job gives a different perspective Teaching students to think carefully and

-

-

1 strategy

My job is highly creative and that makes

In the upcoming months, I need to apply and

I want to get a more stable situation in order to

Included

me happy

get a personal research grant.

define a long-term research plan

The ability to make a contribution to

Achieve funding for 1 post-doc position in

Appointed as the youngest staff scientist at

society

the next year

EMBL Hamburg

critically about the world around them

Included

In future aim at a better

balance in personal/professional life Being able to be curious all the time

Submit paper on personality

Nice paper

Included

It's fun to be able to work on interesting

Finish data-analysis of one study

?

2 strategies

I like to be curious, ask questions and find a

Do honest and thoughtful research in a

I have struggled for the permanent position I

Included

way to address them.

happy mood

now have. I know I can survive to high pressure!

topics for research

I now gained more

teaching and institutional responsibilities,


130

and I am also happy of that. Performing societal relevant applied

Development of set-ups for microfluidic

research

platform tests

Flexibility, freedom

Just try to get the PLos Genetics paper

UD

Included

Did good things in the past, great opportunity I

Included

have now You discover new things

Article on ZNA by the end of the year

My total publication number so far is high, and

Included

the latest publications were actually cited rather well Acknowledging the freedom of the job

Being realistic regarding the chances of

Achieved in past month: a publication valued as

Included

grants

excellent

Freedom

Book publication

Future position and research

Included

Freedom...

Apply for next grant in 1.5 yrs.

Get next grant and it's all good

Included

Freedom to do interesting research

Prepare paper in order to cowork in EU

Recent publications in journals

Included

Included

funding proposal Make a contribution to the advancement of

Prepare for a good presentation in view of

Will I get my funding or not, response this week,

understanding within my field

future plans

what to do if yes, what to do if no?

Learning how to solve problems

Developing an expert profile

Getting funding

Included

Increasing knowledge about groups

Doing my best

Found a job I like

Included

The most important aspect would be for me

I was always realistic (sometimes too

It would be the most perspective change in my

Included

to reduce my work time to normal level (to

realistic), therefore this type of advice does

career if I win a group leader position or I get

max. 40-50 hours per week). At this

not help too much.

students who work with me.

moment I work completely alone on my

academic competition I should mention to

projects, therefore I should work much

you that not everybody makes the

(Considering the

COMPETITION AMONG RESEARCHERS more than the normal work time, in order to

conventional way of doing scientific career,

be competitive with other people who work

but using methods, which morale or ethic

in a team or as a group leader.

points of view are highly disputable.

131

Consequently we can find lot of people in high ranking positions, who should not be there and lot of other people in low ranking positions or outside the academics, who should be in higher-ranking positions.) Interaction with and supervision of (PhD)

Finish background-work for current

None. There will not be permanent positions

students in my supervisory role

students' research project this week.

opening up for me and I have very little interest

2 strategies

in industry opportunities so far. Being creative

Make one article really good

Hirsch index is already 13

Included

Freedom to exploit own directions

To get one instead of multiple papers out of

Find a way to pursue academic career without

Included

my current project

personal grant at this moment

Interaction with colleagues and students

Get progress with my publications

Set specific time allotments for specific goals

Included

Occupy your mind with interesting

Submissions must be decent enough, but

It is the perfect moment to apply for this grant, I

Included

questions following a relatively free

they don't need to be perfect.

have not lost any realistic opportunity

I can't get every grant I apply for.

Positive things will come from unexpected

schedule The freedom to focus my research on topics I am interested in. The diversity and flexibility

Included

directions Reduce time spent on education to be able to

In future position I will be able to influence the

spend more time on proposal and

policy

publication writing

Included


132

Scientific progress.

Produce papers.

Successful publication.

Included

Contribute to knowledge and methodology

Accept that colleagues always request more

Based on regular interactions with colleagues,

Included

in field of research

than is possible to complete in a timely

continue working on being increasingly

fashion

indispensable

The only aspect of my work I feel good

The realistic goal I and most of my less-

All I want is an alternative for this dead-end job

about is the content. There are many "real"

than-successful colleagues are committed to

I am holding. I have the talent and the

questions and there are still many people

is to prevent the hopelessness of our careers

motivation, but none of the prospects or the

that are interested in "real" answers. When

to ruin the rest of our lives. These days,

success that everything depends on these days.

everyone else is turning 100% "Brittney

many researchers (that have not been pre-

That does not mean I am a bad scientist, in fact,

Spears", the only thing I have to hold on to

selected as TOP) are committed to letting

what it means is that managed to hold on to my

s the subject matter and the truths behind it.

the job influence our existence as little as

integrity. I am a very dedicated scientist, I

I am still interested in science.

possible. Whereas before, I would strive to

publish in the best journals in my field, I work

do the maximum in the hope of achieving

together with the world's leading experts, I have

something, the lack of perspective in the

worked hard-hard-hard throughout, I have done

present misery obliges me to do the

everything and then some.... but then it turns out

minimum.

that there is no TOP-sector that I fit into. Hence

1 strategy

the university classifies me as garbage, at the age of 43. There is no time-scale that is going to change that. Seeing that students get excited about

Finishing teaching this course

biology and science

Keeping everything running, whilst going

Included

through a difficult period

I get to do really cool, new stuff in research,

Before the end of this year, write one high-

I have already come very far in my career -- on

that nobody else in the world has ever seen

potential grant proposal for one PhD/post-

merit, not by chance or luck -- so I know I can

Included

COMPETITION AMONG RESEARCHERS before!

doc type project.

133 also get much, much further (but probably not exactly in the way I think right now).

The flexibility I have within my position

I accept that I may not know all different

That I have had success with funding my

statistical methods adequately

research

Make a good presentation for an important

I want to push to become associate professor

upcoming conference.

soon (within half a year)

Supervising students in their training to

Obtain 1 NWO/ALW Open Competition

Become associate professor before 2016

Included

become researchers

grant this calendar year

I learn new things for mankind.

I will produce trustworthy data no matter

I have become an expert in at least two different

Included

what conclusions need to be attached

research fields

Aim for 1 first-author publication a year.

I have lots of data that will be published

My job satisfies my scientific curiosity

Constant intellectual stimulation: makes the job interesting every day.

Included

Included

Included

eventually, in the future.

The development my PhD students are

Realizing that important progress is slow but

Be happy and satisfied with ANY form of

Included

undergoing in their personal development

steady.

progress, however small it may seem.

Put your research (profile, quality) first

In three years I want to have written a nice book.

Included

Included

and in their scientific objectives. Freedom to analyze and critique

(rather than last) Inspiring collaborations with other

Accepting that in the choice between

I'm very good at communicating with other

researchers when making progress on a

publishing or completing grant applications,

researchers and can easily make contacts and

research problem.

publishing must be prioritized. It has the

sustain them. This is very useful for grants,

higher chance of success that is lasting, and

publishing, be invited as a speaker, etc. and this

not kill myself trying to write a super grant

is a real strength.

proposal that I actually don't have time for.


134

Table 13 Strategies of Researchers in the Relational Job Crafting Group Positive interactions

Enlisting advice / support

Collaborating

Code

Set up collaborations at upcoming meeting

Discuss progress with external referee

At upcoming meeting

Included

Organize discussion about new educational forms

Have a meeting with a professional

Select a topic to write an article or write a

Included

(like serious gaming)

(physician, from university), colleagues are

funding proposal

too much a risk Coffee break with colleagues Organize dinner with PhD-students

1 strategy Apply for better job vacancy

Organize meeting with external people to

Included

talk about research proposals Have lunch together with colleagues

Seeking help with creating exam

Brainstorm session with colleagues about

Included

potential grants To be honest, I don't feel the need to do more. I

I would like to ask advice to my colleague

Possible collaborations I would want to

have many positive interactions as it is.

about teaching experiences at the Master

establish are not with my own colleagues

level

at the UvA but with colleagues

Included

internationally, to work on a workshop proposal for a conference. Asks my PHD-student if everything is going well.

Asking a colleague for statistical advice for

2 strategies

an article I am working on and offering him the possibility to become co-author Go for lunch with a colleague that I do not see often

Talk to my supervisor

Set up a COST action

Included

COMPETITION AMONG RESEARCHERS Discuss a research idea during lunch

135 Ask for advice regarding funding for small

Set up a book proposal

Included

research project Take train together with other colleagues to attend

During R&D meeting try and find out about

2 strategies

defense of office mate

my chances for permanent position

Join colleagues for lunch.

Think about who could help getting

Email distant colleague to collaborate on

Mendeley library organized and up-to-date

writing up old data.

Have a brainstorm session with direct colleagues

Try to start a collaboration with psych

about funding

colleagues

Interact with nice colleagues: visit a workshop and

Share the burden with colleagues: ask

Discuss future collaborative book project

attend subsequent dinner.

colleagues to take share in an editorial task.

with a colleague

Go to a scientific meeting with colleagues from the

Discuss strategies to cope with funding and

Sorry, I have several collaborations

field (which also keeps me away from the lab for a

promotion with fellow Dutch PIs from other

running at the moment and don't really

week)

institutions.

have space for another one unless a

Included

2 strategies

Included

2 strategies

unique opportunity present itself at the meeting mentioned in point 1. Organizing informal meeting with colleagues

Asking for technical information and help

about results and perspectives

Carry out experiments with colleagues

Included

using techniques I do not master

Contact a colleague at another department to make

Discuss practical difficulties with another

practical arrangements about sharing materials.

colleague who is more experienced in this

Answer email of foreign collaborator.

Included

Discuss with people during meetings

Included

Plan conference attendance

Included

technique. Prepare meeting slides with colleges

Discuss with supervisor the meeting organization task

Meet for lunch/after-work drinks with colleagues

Arrange meeting for feedback with


136 colleagues

Helping colleagues with an organizing a mini-

Asking current collaborator for feedback on

Ask for Skype call to discuss (get

symposium

a subsection of a paper

feedback on) study results with current

Included

collaborator Have a brainstorming session with a colleague

Asking for feedback on a teaching portfolio

Make a draft of a proposal for a

about a future project.

I'm working on right now.

collaborative grant with another

Included

colleague. Already doing that

Already doing that

Already doing that

Excluded

Go out for drinks with friends from work

Sent a rough draft of a new paper to 2

Gather resources and set up collaborative

Included

people for feedback

paper site for a comparison of several computational methods (including mine)

Having pleasant conversations with colleagues and

Asking for information and feedback

supervisors

Collaborating with colleagues to improve

Included

quality of research Invite colleagues for my upcoming

Collective research application

2 strategies

Set up a meeting to discuss collaboration

Get two PhDs of my department involved

Included

within my clinic environment

in my course

Asking for help

Email persons in the same research field

conference Have lunch with colleagues

Taking lunch break

Included

to meet Perhaps organize an "Away Day" with the

Perhaps meet with Post-doc who is a bit

Send the emails for the Marie Curie to

colleagues to get to know them a bit better?

more skillful quantitatively than me.

three potential collaboration partners.

I want to do more creative things at work and with

Mentor program

my colleagues.

Included

2 strategies


137

Discuss with colleague from other department at

Ask feedback on an exam questions that I

See 1)

2 strategies

upcoming research event about his/her work and

draft for upcoming exam.

Ask colleague to look at a draft of my NWO

Email colleagues abroad to ask if they are

Included

report

interested in organizing a seminar

I have the feeling of having a lot of positive

I generally ask for help when I need it and

There is a project that I would like to

interaction at work already and I always had. To

people have always been responsive. I also

carry out with a different approach in

possible links with my own work. Plan next year's activities with my supervisor

me it comes down to being interested in people and always propose my help to review the grants

which one of my colleagues is versed. I

how they are doing and being open to discussions

and papers of my colleagues and ask for

think he might be interested and I will talk

at coffee break and lunch. I do it every day.

their advice when I am writing one.

about it with him.

Participate in daily coffee break (doing that too

Ask advice for setting up multi-partner grant N.a.

little lately)

application at senior / experienced

1 strategy

2 strategies

colleagues Network with interesting colleagues from abroad

Ask PhD student to help me out with a

Discuss with technical colleague about

presentation

publication

Included


138

Table 14 Means and Standard Deviations of Personal Resources, Social Resources, Work Engagement and Distress, Split by Group and Time Cognitive job crafting

Self-efficacy Meaning Positive affect Negative affect Informational support Emotional support Feedback support Instrumental support Work engagement Distress

T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2

Relational job crafting

Control group

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

6.79 6.88 4.30 3.95 3.57 3.38 2.01 1.82 3.03 3.32 3.26 3.55 2.71 3.38 2.61 3.15 4.45 4.28 10.22 8.84

1.71 1.94 0.54 0.66 0.58 0.75 0.75 0.68 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.12 0.96 1.03 1.03 1.06 0.75 0.91 4.88 5.33

7.03 7.00 4.33 3.89 3.45 3.52 2.17 1.67 3.26 3.43 3.42 3.50 3.11 3.37 3.11 3.20 4.45 4.33 12.47 10.58

1.91 1.80 0.63 1.04 0.49 0.58 0.81 0.69 1.05 0.82 1.07 0.90 1.29 0.93 1.24 0.81 0.72 0.91 7.63 7.86

6.81 7.14 4.29 3.97 3.62 3.41 2.04 1.91 3.22 3.39 3.42 3.59 3.11 3.32 3.03 3.18 4.38 4.43 9.71 8.94

1.92 1.79 0.57 0.60 0.54 0.65 0.72 0.76 1.27 1.02 1.16 1.16 1.24 1.03 1.30 1.11 0.89 0.79 5.74 6.48


139

Figure 1. The Job Demands-Resources model, adapted from Bakker and Demerouti (2007).


140

Figure 2. Interaction of resources (effort-reward-balance of publications) and demands (perceived competitive pressure for publications) on work engagement. Most importantly, perceived effort-reward imbalance is especially harmful to those who perceive high levels of competitive pressure.


141

Figure 3. Theoretical model of the expected outcomes for research question 2. Thinking about the causes and consequences of academic competition is hypothesized to increase performance goals, and to decrease self-efficacy, meaning of work and job-related affective well-being.


142

Figure 4. Theoretical model, adapted from Bakker and Demerouti (2014). Relational job crafting and increases social resources and cognitive job crafting increases personal resources, which directly increases work engagement, and decreases distress through buffering against high job demands. Grey paths are part of the updated JD-R model, but were not the focus of the intervention study.


143

Pool for entire study: N = 1548

Intervention study: N = 1298

Pilot study: N = 250

N = 214 participated N = 202 provided evaluable data

N = 44 participated

N = 52 Cognitive job crafting

T1

Two of three tasks: N = 47 Full task accomplishment: N = 43

(- 5 excluded*) T2


T1 N = 44 Relational job crafting (- 14 excluded*)


T2


N = 56

T1 N = 56 Control group

N = 36

T2

N = 50 Competition-focus

One of two tasks: N = 44 T1 Full task accomplishment: N = 36

(- 6 excluded*)

Figure 5. Participant flow. * = Those were excluded from the analyses because they either did not fill in anything or did just 1 of the 3 exercises.

COMPETITION AMONG RESEARCHERS Supplemental Material

This figure displays the manipulation for the competition-focus group.

144


This figure displays the job crafting exercises for the cognitive job crafting group.

145


This figure displays the job crafting exercises for the relational job crafting group.

146