Introduction

Person-environment fit among employees has important implications for organizations. For example, several studies have reported a positive association of person-job (P-J) fit with meaningfulness at work (e.g., Tims et al., 2016) and job satisfaction (e.g., Andela & van der Doef, 2019; Liao, 2021). Previous literature has also indicated a positive association between proactive personality and job crafting (Bakker et al., 2012) and between job crafting and P-J fit (Lu et al., 2014). Job crafting is defined as “the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work” (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p. 179). Bateman and Crant (1993) defined proactive personality as “one who is relatively unconstrained by situational forces, and who effects environmental change” (p. 105). The theory of proactive personality posits that proactive individuals should be more likely to actively change their work surroundings to be congruent with their characteristics and preferences compared to their passive counterparts (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Tolentino et al., 2014). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that proactive individuals should be more likely to engage in job crafting to enhance their person-environment fit.

Job autonomy is the degree to which individuals can freely, independently, and discretionarily determine work-related schedules, decisions, and methods to carry out tasks (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Based on the idea of situational strength (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Meyer et al., 2010), jobs with low autonomy are strong situations because, in such situations, individuals tend to have little latitude in deciding how to carry out their tasks, which then may restrain individuals from engaging in job crafting behaviors. Therefore, this study argued that job autonomy would moderate the proactive personality-job crafting relationship, and this relationship would be stronger for individuals with higher rather than lower job autonomy.

To the best of our knowledge, no study has explored and tested the mechanism linking proactive personality to person-environment fit. To fill this gap in previous literature, this study had three objectives. The first objective was to test whether job crafting mediates the relationships of proactive personality with P-J fit, person-organization (P-O) fit, person-group (P-G) fit, person-supervisor (P-S) fit, and person-vocation (P-V) fit. The second aim was to examine whether job autonomy moderates the proactive personality-job crafting relationship. The third goal was to examine whether job autonomy moderates the indirect effects of proactive personality on P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit through job crafting. These objectives highlight the following contributions of this study. First, to our best knowledge, previous literature (e.g., Chen et al., 2014; Tims et al., 2016) has examined only whether job crafting leads to better person-job fit. This study extended the previous literature to examine whether job crafting also improves P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit, in addition to P-J fit. Second, this study was the first to examine the indirect effects of proactive personality on P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit through job crafting. Third, this study examined not only the indirect influences of proactive personality on P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit but also the moderating effects of job autonomy on the proactive personality-job crafting relationship and the indirect relationships of proactive personality with P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit via job crafting. The knowledge of this moderated mediation process has important implications for both practitioners and academics. Specifically, managers should account for both employees’ job autonomy and proactive personality to enhance employees’ job crafting behaviors or person-environment fit. Theoretically, such a moderated mediation process may provide evidence supporting the integration of proactive personality and job crafting to predict employees’ P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit. The hypothesized model of this study is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Hypothesized Model of the Process Linking Proactive Personality to Person-Environment Fit

Full size image

We organized this article as follows. First, in the section on theory and hypotheses, we provide theoretical rationales and evidence to develop this study’s hypotheses. Second, in the method section, we describe the data sources, measures, control variables, and data analysis used in this study. Third, in the section of results, we report and interpret the results of the data analyses. Finally, based on the results of this study, the discussion section summarizes theoretical and managerial implications, addresses limitations and directions for future research, and presents a conclusion.

Theory and Hypotheses

Proactive Personality and Job Crafting

Buss (1987) indicated that people are not “passive recipients of environmental presses” (p. 1220). Bandura (1986) argued that people “create environments and set them in motion as well as rebut them” (p. 22). Based on theoretical arguments about the person-environment relationship, individuals can modify their environments. However, individuals react to their environments differently (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Bateman and Crant (1993) posited that unlike passive individuals, who tolerate and submit to the environment, proactive individuals are more likely to actively seek opportunities and then take actions to shape their surroundings. In addition, proactive employees intentionally and actively manipulate work-related surroundings to improve the congruence between their work environments and their characteristics (Crant, 1995; Seibert et al., 1999; Tolentino et al., 2014).

Employees initiate job crafting to alter their job resources and demands to improve the congruence between their jobs and their motives, needs, and preferences (Tims et al., 2012; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Furthermore, proactive individuals are relatively unconstrained by their situational forces and actively try to change their environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Accordingly, we expected that, compared to their counterparts, proactive individuals would be more likely to engage in job crafting behaviors by increasing structural job resources, social job resources, and challenging job demands and decreasing hindering job demands (Tims et al., 2012). These individuals engage in these specific behaviors because structural job resources, social job resources, and challenging job demands are positively related to positive organizational consequences; however, hindering job demands are negatively associated with positive organizational outcomes. For example, Tims et al. (2013) revealed that structural job resources, social job resources, and challenging job demands are positively associated with work engagement. Furthermore, Crawford et al. (2010) found that hindering job demands are negatively associated with work engagement. Accordingly, Tims et al. (2012) developed four dimensions of job crafting: increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources, increasing challenging job demands, and decreasing hindering job demands. In addition, proactive personality is positively associated with job crafting (e.g., Bakker et al., 2012; Tims et al., 2012). The following hypothesis was proposed based on empirical evidence and theoretical reasoning.

  • Hypothesis 1. Proactive personality will correlate positively with job crafting.

The Mediating Influence of Job Crafting

Although Erdogan and Bauer (2005) did not address why or how proactive employees develop higher P-J fit and P-O fit levels, their data indicated positive correlations between proactive personality and both P-J fit and P-O fit. In addition, Liao (2021) found that proactive personality is positively associated with P-J fit and P-O fit. However, theoretically, proactive individuals, unlike their passive counterparts, tend to take actions, such as job crafting, to shape their surroundings and improve their person-environment fit (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant, 1995; Seibert et al., 1999; Tolentino et al., 2014). Therefore, we expected that the effects of proactive personality on P-J fit and P-O fit could be indirect through job crafting.

As its definition suggests, job crafting aims to improve the fit between the job and the job holder (Tims et al., 2012; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Previous literature has also found that job crafting can effectively improve P-J fit (e.g., Kooij et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2014; Tims et al., 2016). Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect an indirect effect of proactive personality on P-J fit. Compared to their counterparts, proactive employees tend to engage in more job crafting behaviors, which enhance their P-J fit. However, this study posited that job crafting promotes not only P-J fit but also P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit. Several empirical studies have revealed the positive relationship between job crafting and P-J fit; therefore, we do not need to explain the reasons for this relationship. However, in the following paragraphs, we explain why job crafting is positively associated with P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit.

Employees’ subjective P-O fit perception refers to the extent to which they perceive the congruence between their values and their employing organizations’ values and norms (Cable & Judge, 1996; Chatman, 1989; Judge & Cable, 1997). Job crafting should correlate positively with P-O fit. For example, participating in job crafting behaviors that increase social job resources, such as seeking feedback from coworkers and supervisors, should help individuals understand the organization’s goals, norms, and values. Consequently, employees will be more able to adjust themselves to the organization’s expectations and requirements and then gain recognition, which should increase their perceptions of P-O fit (Deng & Yao, 2020; Morrison, 1993).

P-G fit refers to the congruence between an employee and his or her workgroup (Verquer, 2002). We expected a positive correlation between job crafting and P-G fit because, for instance, employees can increase their social job resources by asking for feedback from coworkers to reduce uncertainty (e.g., Ashford, 1986; Berger, 1979) and ensure that their attitudes and behaviors within the workgroup are appropriate (Louis, 1990; Morrison, 1993). This would, in turn, help employees integrate into their workgroups, leading to increased P-G fit.

Van Vianen et al. (2011) defined P-S fit as employees’ perceptions of the congruence between their characteristics, such as personality and values, and those of their supervisors. The relationship between subordinates and their supervisors can be considered a social exchange relationship involving subordinates’ contributions in exchange for supervisors’ favors (Blau, 1964; Bordia et al., 2017). The norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) posits that individuals should be obligated to return a favor to individuals involved in the social exchange if they benefit from these individuals. Based on these theoretical rationales, we expected job crafting to correlate positively with P-S fit. The reason is that employees can engage in job crafting-increasing structural job resources, such as developing job-related skills or knowledge, to improve their job performances and increase the probability of meeting the supervisor’s requirements and expectations. These subordinates’ valuable contributions would facilitate the positive reciprocity of the social exchange between these subordinates and their supervisors (de Grip et al., 2020). As a result, the quality of these subordinate-supervisor dyads’ social exchange relationships should be promoted to enhance these subordinates’ perceptions of P-S fit (Zhang et al., 2017).

P-V fit is defined as the degree to which employees’ abilities and interests match their vocation’s requirements and characteristics (Holland, 1985; Vogel & Feldman, 2009). To enhance P-V fit, individuals can actively alter their job resources and demands to align with their vocational interests. For example, if an individual is interested in managing (Glosenberg et al., 2019; Tracey, 2002), he or she can proactively increase challenging job demands by voluntarily becoming a leader of a new project. By doing so, this individual can manage and plan the major activities of the new project, which could enhance this individual’s P-V fit.

Moreover, employees should engage in job crafting-decreasing hindering job demands to avoid the possible reductions in their P-S fit and P-G fit, since hindering job demands (e.g., hassles and interpersonal conflict) would spur negative emotions within the workplace (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2013) argued that such negative emotions might induce individuals’ perceptions of P-S or P-G misfit.

According to the above empirical evidence and reasoning, this study contended that job crafting would mediate the relationships of proactive personality with P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit. Compared to passive individuals, proactive individuals tend to engage in more job crafting behaviors, enhancing their P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit. Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses.

  • Hypothesis 2a. Job crafting will correlate positively with P-J fit and mediate the relationship between proactive personality and P-J fit.

  • Hypothesis 2b. Job crafting will correlate positively with P-O fit and mediate the relationship between proactive personality and P-O fit.

  • Hypothesis 2c. Job crafting will correlate positively with P-G fit and mediate the relationship between proactive personality and P-G fit.

  • Hypothesis 2d. Job crafting will correlate positively with P-S fit and mediate the relationship between proactive personality and P-S fit.

  • Hypothesis 2e. Job crafting will correlate positively with P-V fit and mediate the relationship between proactive personality and P-V fit.

Job Autonomy’s Moderating Role

Situational strength was defined as “implicit or explicit cues provided by external entities regarding the desirability of potential behaviors” (Meyer et al., 2010, p. 122). Situational strength is posited that the validity of the individual difference-behavior relationship depends on the extent to which the situational characteristic prevents an individual from behaving in distinctive ways at his/her discretion (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Meyer et al., 2010). That is, situational strength will increase an individual’s perception of psychological pressure to behave in particular ways. This pressure is hypothesized to decrease related behavioral variance and consequently attenuate the relationship between trait and outcome (Meyer et al., 2010).

Job autonomy captures the differences in employees’ latitude to decide the work schedule, method, and other actions needed to carry out their tasks (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). In jobs with low autonomy, employees experience strong situations because they face considerable pressures or demands to comply with the supervisor’s instructions; hence, employees have little discretion in deciding when and how to perform their tasks. Such situations will attenuate the proactive personality-job crafting relationship. In contrast, employees with high job autonomy face weak situations because they face fewer pressures or demands in such situations. Consequently, employees have much discretion in making decisions, scheduling work, and choosing the methods to accomplish their tasks (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Judge & Zapata, 2015; Meyer et al., 2010; Mischel, 1977). Therefore, employees’ differences in proactive personality tend to influence job crafting behaviors in which they engage. In addition, Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) asserted that higher job autonomy increases perceived opportunities for job crafting and inspires individuals to engage in job crafting behaviors. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that job autonomy will moderate the proactive personality-job crafting relationship, which will be stronger for individuals with high rather than low job autonomy. Moreover, because job autonomy moderates the relationship of proactive personality with job crafting and job crafting mediates the relationships of proactive personality with P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit, job autonomy is expected to moderate the indirect effects of proactive personality on P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit via job crafting. These indirect effects should be stronger for employees with high rather than low job autonomy.

  • Hypothesis 3. Job autonomy will moderate the relationship of proactive personality with job crafting, and this relationship will be stronger for employees with high rather than low job autonomy.

  • Hypothesis 4a. Job autonomy will moderate the indirect influence of proactive personality on P-J fit through job crafting, and this indirect influence will be stronger for employees with high rather than low job autonomy.

  • Hypothesis 4b. Job autonomy will moderate the indirect influence of proactive personality on P-O fit through job crafting, and this indirect influence will be stronger for employees with high rather than low job autonomy.

  • Hypothesis 4c. Job autonomy will moderate the indirect influence of proactive personality on P-G fit through job crafting, and this indirect influence will be stronger for employees with high rather than low job autonomy.

  • Hypothesis 4d. Job autonomy will moderate the indirect influence of proactive personality on P-S fit through job crafting, and this indirect influence will be stronger for employees with high rather than low job autonomy.

  • Hypothesis 4e. Job autonomy will moderate the indirect influence of proactive personality on P-V fit through job crafting, and this indirect influence will be stronger for employees with high rather than low job autonomy.

Method

Data Sources

Twenty EMBA students from a university located in Taiwan's central area were invited to coordinate this study. These coordinators were instructed to invite their colleagues or friends to participate. After the invitation, 224 participants agreed to participate. This study collected the data at three time points one month apart to reduce common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We measured participants’ proactive personality and job autonomy at Time 1, job crafting at Time 2, P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit at Time 3. The cover letter of the questionnaire informed participants that their participation was voluntary and anonymous. We coded the questionnaires to match participants across the three time points. The coordinators of this study distributed and gathered the questionnaires and then returned the questionnaires to the author. After excluding invalid surveys, this study’s data set comprised 171 useful observations.

Of the 171 participants, 62% were female, 54.4% had graduated from college or university, 66.7% were operatives, and 53.2% worked in the service industry. The mean age of these participants was 39.25 years (SD = 8.91), and the mean organizational tenure was 133.13 months (SD = 103.41).

Measures

Because all the measures used in this study were created in English, the author followed Brislin’s (1980) translation and re-translation procedure to assure the equivalence of the English and Chinese measures. Unless otherwise mentioned, all response choices ranged from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 5, “strongly agree.”

Proactive Personality

This variable was measured using Seibert et al.’s (1999) 10-item version. The sample item is, “Nothing is more exciting than seeing my ideas turn into reality.” This scale’s reliability was 0.89.

Job Autonomy

Morgeson and Humphrey’s (2006) nine-item scale measured job autonomy. This scale consists of three subscales: work scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy, and work methods autonomy. Each subscale contains three items. A sample item for work scheduling autonomy is, “The job allows me to plan how I do my work.” A sample item for decision-making autonomy is, “The job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own.” A sample item for work methods autonomy is, “The job allows me to make decisions about what methods I use to complete my work.” Scale reliabilities were 0.92, 0.90, and 0.89 for work scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy, and work methods autonomy, respectively. Because the three subscales share a common theme of job autonomy and are highly related to one another, scores on the three subscales were averaged to form a single overall job autonomy score (Han et al., 2019; Lorinkova & Perry, 2017).

Job Crafting

Job crafting was assessed with a 21-item scale, developed by Tims et al. (2012), consisting of four subscales: increasing structural job resources (five items), decreasing hindering job demands (six items), increasing social job resources (five items), and increasing challenging job demands (five items). The sample item for increasing structural job resources is, “I try to develop my capabilities.” This subscale’s reliability was 0.91. A sample item for decreasing hindering job demands is, “I make sure that my work is mentally less intense.” This subscale’s reliability was 0.83. A sample item for increasing social job resources is, “I ask my supervisor to coach me.” This subscale’s reliability was 0.79. A sample item for increasing challenging job demands is, “When an interesting project comes along, I offer myself proactively as project co-worker.” This subscale’s reliability was 0.88. Since the four subscales share a common theme of job crafting and are highly related to one another, scores on the four subscales were averaged to form a single overall job crafting score (Han et al., 2019; Lorinkova & Perry, 2017).

P-J Fit

P-J fit was measured with Saks and Ashforth’s (2002) four-item scale. A sample item is, “My job fulfills my needs.” The scale’s reliability was 0.85.

P-O Fit

P-O fit was assessed with Saks and Ashforth’s (2002) four-item scale. A sample item is, “My personality matches the personality or image of my organization.” The scale’s reliability was 0.90.

P-G Fit

This study measured the P-G fit using Verquer’s (2002) three-item scale. One sample item is, “My values match the values of the members of my workgroup.” The scale’s reliability was 0.78.

P-S Fit

P-S fit was assessed with Chuang and Shen’s (2007) four-item scale that has been used in Van Vianen et al.’s (2011) study. A sample item is, “My work style matches my supervisor’s work style.” The scale’s reliability was 0.93.

P-V Fit

P-V fit was measured using Vogel and Feldman’s (2009) three-item scale. One sample item is, “There is a good fit between my interests and the kind of work I perform in my occupation.” The scale’s reliability was 0.88.

Control Variables

Gender, age, education, organizational tenure, position, and industry were used as control variables to minimize their confounding effect on the results. For example, Chang et al.’s (2010) study indicated that organizational tenure is positively associated with P-J fit and P-O fit. Gender was coded as 1 for males and 2 for females. For education, primary school, middle school, high school, vocational school, university, and graduate school were coded as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively. The industry was coded as 1 for the service industries and 2 for the manufacturing industries. Operatives, first-line managers, middle managers, and top managers were coded as 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. This study measured age in years and tenure in months.

Data Analysis

Based on variable’s unidimensionality and Hui et al.’s (2004) method, this study created parcels for proactive personality, increasing structural job resources, decreasing hindering job demands, increasing social job resources, increasing challenging job demands, P-J fit, P-O fit, and P-S fit due to the computational limits of the structural models for latent variables. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was then conducted in AMOS 26 to examine this study variables’ distinctiveness. This study compared several nested and reasonable alternative models’ fit indices with this hypothesized model.

After clarifying variables’ distinctiveness, regression and moderated regression were run in SPSS 26 to test Hypotheses 1 and 3, respectively. Since bootstrapping is considered more appropriate for testing the indirect effects compared to Sobel’s test (Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Preacher et al., 2007), Hayes’s (2018) PROCESS macro version 3.5 for SPSS was used to test Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, and 4e. This study used a bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval to adjust the differences between the bootstrapped samples and full samples (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; MacKinnon et al., 2004; Xu et al., 2015). To test Hypotheses 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, and 4e, the variables used in the interaction term were standardized to reduce multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991).

Results

Results of the CFA testing the study variables’ distinctiveness were as follows: (1) hypothesized 13-factor Model with proactive personality, work scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy, work methods autonomy, increasing structural job resources, decreasing hindering job demands, increasing social job resources, increasing challenging job demands, P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit (χ2 = 1093.76, df = 587, IFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.071); (2) 12-factor Model 1 with combined decision-making autonomy and work methods autonomy ( χ2 = 1189.52, df = 599, IFI = 0.88, CFI = 0.88, RMSEA = 0.076); (3) 12-factor Model 2 with combined P-J fit and P-V fit ( χ2 = 1133.16, df = 599, IFI = 0.89, CFI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.072); (4) 12-factor Model 3 with combined P-J fit and P-O fit ( χ2 = 1176.99, df = 599, IFI = 0.88, CFI = 0.88, RMSEA = 0.075); (5) 12-factor Model 4 with combined P-J fit and P-G fit ( χ2 = 1134.19, df = 599, IFI = 0.89, CFI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.072); (6) 12-factor Model 5 with combined work scheduling autonomy and work methods autonomy ( χ2 = 1277.52, df = 599, IFI = 0.86, CFI = 0.86, RMSEA = 0.082); (7) 12-factor Model 6 with combined P-O fit and P-G fit ( χ2 = 1156.43, df = 599, IFI = 0.89, CFI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.074); (8) one-factor Model with all 13 variables combined ( χ2 = 3703.20, df = 665, IFI = 0.38, CFI = 0.38, RMSEA = 0.164). IFI is the incremental fit index, CFI is the comparative fit index, and RMSEA is the root-mean-square error of approximation. The fit indices indicate that the hypothesized 13-factor Model fits the data better compared to other alternative nested models. Therefore, the distinctiveness of the study variables was supported. For instance, the 12-factor Model 2 had significantly poorer fit compared to the hypothesized 13-factor Model, according to models’ fit indices and the chi-square difference test (χ2[12] = 39.40, p < 0.01) (Farh et al., 2007). This example demonstrates the distinctiveness of P-J fit and P-V fit.

Table 1 summarizes the correlations between the control and study variables and the means and standard deviations of these variables. The regression analyses are presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4.

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Variablesa
Full size table
Table 2 Results of Regression Analyses for Mediationa
Full size table
Table 3 Results of Regression Analyses for Mediationa
Full size table
Table 4 Results of Regression Analyses for Moderation by Job Autonomya
Full size table

Model 1 in Table 2 included only control variables. Model 2 in Table 2 indicated that after controlling for control variables’ effects on job crafting, proactive personality was significantly associated with job crafting (β = 0.49, p < 0.01). Consequently, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Moreover, the results of Models 4 and 7 in Table 2 and Models 2, 5, and 8 in Table 3 demonstrated that proactive personality was significantly associated with P-J fit (β = 0.33, p < 0.01), P-O fit (β = 0.28, p < 0.01), P-G fit (β = 0.29, p < 0.01), P-S fit (β = 0.20, p < 0.05), and P-V fit (β = 0.35, p < 0.01). After controlling for the effects of control variables and proactive personality, the results of Models 5 and 8 in Table 2 and Models 3, 6, and 9 in Table 3 demonstrated that job crafting was significantly associated with P-J fit (β = 0.29, p < 0.01), P-O fit (β = 0.25, p < 0.01), P-G fit (β = 0.25, p < 0.01), P-S fit (β = 0.21, p < 0.05), and P-V fit (β = 0.24, p < 0.01). For the mediating hypotheses, Models 5 and 8 in Table 2 and Models 3, 6, and 9 in Table 3 indicated that except for P-J fit and P-V fit, the previously significant relationships between proactive personality and the five dimensions of person-environment fit were no longer significant when the mediator, job crafting, was presented in the models. Since proactive personality correlated positively with job crafting and the five dimensions of person-environment fit, two conditions for examining mediation were confirmed (Baron & Kenny, 1986). However, because the association of proactive personality with P-J fit and P-V fit remained significant after controlling for control variables and job crafting, the third condition for testing mediation was partially supported.

Moreover, we used Hayes’s (2018) PROCESS macro version 3.5 for Model 4 to test the proposed indirect effects based on 10,000 bootstrap samples. After controlling for the effects of gender, age, education, organizational tenure, position, and industry, the results showed that all indirect effects of proactive personality on P-J fit (effect = 0.17, boot SE = 0.07, 95% CI = [0.06, 0.33]), P-O fit (effect = 0.15, boot SE = 0.07, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.33]), P-G fit (effect = 0.14, boot SE = 0.08, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.34]), P-S fit (effect = 0.17, boot SE = 0.08, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.34]), and P-V fit (effect = 0.16, boot SE = 0.08, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.34]) via job crafting were significant as their confidence intervals did not contain zero (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Consequently, Hypotheses 2b, 2c, and 2d were supported, whereas Hypotheses 2a and 2e were partially supported.

Table 4 shows the results of the regression analysis of the moderating effects of job autonomy on the proactive personality-job crafting relationship. In Model 3 of Table 4, job autonomy significantly moderated the proactive personality-job crafting relationship (β = 0.15, p < 0.05). Accordingly, Hypothesis 3 was supported. In addition, based on Aiken and West’s (1991) approach, this study calculated regression equations for the proactive personality-job crafting relationships at low and high job autonomy levels. This study defined low and high values as minus and plus one standard deviation from the mean (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). In Fig. 2, the plot of the moderating effect demonstrates significant correlations between proactive personality and job crafting for both low (simple slope = 0.16, t = 3.48, p < 0.01) and high (simple slope = 0.25, t = 5.24, p < 0.01) job autonomy employees.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Proactive Personality and Job Crafting by Job Autonomy

Full size image

Hayes’s (2018) PROCESS macro version 3.5 for Model 7 was used to examine this study’s moderated mediation hypotheses based on 10,000 bootstrap samples. After controlling for the effects of control variables, the results indicated that except for P-S fit (low job autonomy: effect = 0.06, boot SE = 0.04, 90% CI = [0.01, 0.14]; high job autonomy: effect = 0.10, boot SE = 0.05, 90% CI = [0.03, 0.19]; index of moderated mediation = 0.02, boot SE = 0.02, 90% CI = [-0.00, 0.05]), job autonomy significantly moderated the indirect effects of proactive personality on P-J fit (low job autonomy: effect = 0.06, boot SE = 0.03, 90% CI = [0.02, 0.14]; high job autonomy: effect = 0.10, boot SE = 0.04, 90% CI = [0.05, 0.17]), P-O fit (low job autonomy: effect = 0.06, boot SE = 0.03, 90% CI = [0.02, 0.13]; high job autonomy: effect = 0.09, boot SE = 0.04, 90% CI = [0.04, 0.17]), P-G fit (low job autonomy: effect = 0.05, boot SE = 0.04, 90% CI = [0.01, 0.14]; high job autonomy: effect = 0.08, boot SE = 0.04, 90% CI = [0.03, 0.17]), and P-V fit (low job autonomy: effect = 0.06, boot SE = 0.04, 90% CI = [0.02, 0.14]; high job autonomy: effect = 0.09, boot SE = 0.04, 90% CI = [0.04, 0.17]) via job crafting, with the same index of moderated mediation of 0.02 (boot SE = 0.01, 90% CI = [0.00, 0.05]). The moderated mediation effect was deemed significant when the confidence interval of the index of moderated mediation acquired from bootstrapping did not contain zero (Hayes, 2015). Accordingly, Hypotheses 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4e were supported, whereas Hypothesis 4d was not supported.

Discussion

This study’s results indicated that compared to their counterparts, proactive individuals tend to engage in more job crafting behaviors, leading to improved P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit. Job autonomy moderated the proactive personality-job crafting relationship, which was stronger for high rather than low job autonomy employees. In addition, job autonomy moderated the indirect effects of proactive personality on P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, and P-V fit via job crafting, and these indirect effects were stronger for individuals with high rather than low job autonomy.

Theoretical Implications

The findings of this study indicated that job crafting increases not only P-J fit but also P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to reveal job crafting’s ability to predict P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit. This finding also supported job crafting as an important antecedent of P-J fit and P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit. Additionally, this study is also the first to reveal that proactive individuals, as opposed to passive individuals, are more likely to engage in more job crafting behaviors to improve their person-environment fits. This finding is consistent with the theory of proactive personality, which posits that compared to passive individuals, proactive individuals are less constrained by the environment and shape the environment actively to fit their needs (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Seibert et al., 1999).

Job autonomy’s moderating effect on the relationship of proactive personality with job crafting is consistent with the idea of situational strength (Barrick & Mount, 1993; Meyer et al., 2010), which proposes that the trait-outcome relationship should be attenuated when the situational strength is high (e.g., low job autonomy). Moreover, this study's results indicated that the proposed moderated mediation model effectively explains how, when, and why proactive individuals have better P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit compared to their passive counterparts.

Managerial Implications

This study has two managerial implications. First, because job crafting fully mediated the relationships of proactive personality with P-O fit, P-G fit, and P-S fit, managers are advised to implement the intervention utilizing job demands-resources monitor, as Bakker and Demerouti (2017) suggested, to promote passive individuals’ job crafting behaviors and thus reduce their negative and indirect effects on their P-O fit, P-G fit, and P-S fit. However, because job crafting partially mediated the relationships of proactive personality with P-J fit and P-V fit, managers may recruit and employ proactive individuals while fostering job crafting behaviors to effectively enhance individuals’ P-J fit and P-V fit. Second, as job autonomy moderated the indirect effects of proactive personality on P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, and P-V fit via job crafting, managers should redesign the jobs to support employees’ job autonomy, which would motivate individuals to engage in job crafting behaviors and enhance their P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, and P-V fit.

Limitations and Future Research

Although this study used a three-wave survey to decrease the common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003), future research could be designed to ask a participant’s significant other, for example, a friend, spouse, or parent, may be asked to evaluate the participant’s proactive personality. This study was the first to investigate the mechanism linking proactive personality to person-environment fit. However, in future research, more mediators or moderators should be explored to enrich the knowledge of the processes or boundary conditions underlying the link between proactive personality and person-environment fit. For example, because subordinates involved in more job delegation, as opposed to low delegation, can decide how to carry out their assigned tasks at their discretion (Akinola et al., 2018), delegation may also moderate the relationship of proactive personality with job crafting based on the idea of situational strength (e.g., Meyer et al., 2010), similar to job autonomy. Furthermore, idiosyncratic deals are employees’ individually negotiated employment arrangements to benefit both employee and organization (Anand et al., 2010). Theoretically, since the situational conditions constrain proactive individuals less compared to passive individuals, proactive individuals can shape their surroundings more effectively (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Accordingly, proactive individuals should be more likely to bargain with the employer for idiosyncratic deals, leading to improved person-environment fit.

Conclusion

The theory of proactive personality posits that proactive individuals, compared to their counterparts, are more likely to take actions to shape their surroundings to enhance the congruence between their characteristics and their work environments (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant, 1995; Seibert et al., 1999; Tolentino et al., 2014). Based on this theoretical rationale, this study pioneered the mechanism linking proactive personality to person-environment fit. This study’s results indicated that the relationships of proactive personality with P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, P-S fit, and P-V fit could be indirect, operating through the mediating effects of job crafting. In addition, job autonomy’s moderating effect on the relationship of proactive personality with job crafting showed that this relationship is stronger for individuals with high rather than low job autonomy. Moreover, proactive personality’s indirect effects on P-J fit, P-O fit, P-G fit, and P-V fit through job crafting are contingent upon individuals’ job autonomy so that these indirect effects are stronger for individuals with high rather than low job autonomy. This study's findings contribute significantly to the theory and practice in the research on proactive personality, job crafting, person-environment fit, and job design.