Sculpting Leadership on Employees’ Craft: The Conceptual Framework and Measure of Crafting Leadership

Abstract

Organizations are questioning the effectiveness of one-size-fits-all leadership approaches in managing and developing employees. This article proposes that leaders can support employees in crafting their work experience. By integrating the behavioral domains conducive to job crafting, the Michelangelo model and the leadership for organizational adaptability framework, we introduce the crafting leadership model—a behavioral style where leaders adapt their behaviors to employees’ characteristics to co-construct their fit at work and foster the development of both people and organizations—providing a conceptual foundation for identifying its key behavioral facets and highlighting its unique value compared to existing leadership styles. We developed and validated a questionnaire using structural equation modeling. In Study 1 (N = 2137) and Study 2 (N = 1507), the questionnaire was tested for factor structure, reliability, discriminant, and predictive validity. The results supported a higher-order structure of crafting leadership, underlying three distinct behavioral facets: tailoring, person–organization alignment, and catalyst. Results revealed that crafting leadership (a) was distinct from strength-based, servant, and transformational leadership and (b) correlated with and explained additional variance in employee outcomes, namely needs–supplies fit, meaningful work, job-crafting behaviors, work engagement, and turnover intentions. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

1. Introduction

The pandemic and new ways of working have deeply impacted how individuals perceive and engage with their jobs, prompting them to question the fit between their personal characteristics and the organizational context (Formica & Sfodera, 2022). An alarming 85% of employees express uncertainty or disagreement regarding their ability to find an intrinsic meaningfulness in the workplace (Dhingra et al., 2021). Growing numbers of individuals are quietly quitting or resigning from their jobs, often highlighting that their needs and core values have not been adequately addressed (Formica & Sfodera, 2022). In this regard, organizations are realizing that leadership paradigms designed to manage everyone in the same way (i.e., “one-size-fits-all”) are not effective in making employees feel valued, thus calling for new solutions (Buckingham, 2022; Harter, 2022).

According to a recent meta-analysis (Decuypere & Schaufeli, 2021) and a systematic review (Tummers & Bakker, 2021), previous models have indeed placed significant emphasis on how leaders shape employees’ functioning and working experiences based on their own beliefs, values, and behaviors. More specifically, leaders shape aspects of the working environment (e.g., granting greater job autonomy or alleviating workload), such that the overall employee experience is enriched or optimized (Tummers & Bakker, 2021). Moreover, leaders can act as role models whom employees look to and from whom they embody specific patterns of affective, cognitive, and behavioral functioning expected within the workplace (Decuypere & Schaufeli, 2021). However, insufficient attention has been given to the fact that these modeling behaviors are typically strategic and top-down driven (Bakker, 2017) and, as such, may not be necessarily suitable for all employees’ idiosyncratic characteristics. In this regard, the leader might shape employees’ characteristics and potential based on what they believe or expect is best for them, neglecting whether it is in line with their own self-representation (i.e., Pygmalion phenomenon; Rusbult et al., 2009; Veestraeten et al., 2021). This ultimately points to a significant gap in the literature, which calls for more flexible, employee-centric leadership approaches that consider and adapt to individual differences (Nöthel et al., 2023; Yukl & Mahsud, 2010).

From the employees’ perspective, individuals can proactively redesign aspects of their jobs in ways that better fit their preferences, strengths, motivations, and other characteristics valued as part of their self-concept, namely job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; Berg et al., 2013). Job crafters autonomously engineer their own unique fit and achieve higher levels of performance and well-being (see Boehnlein & Baum, 2022; Rudolph et al., 2017). Indeed, job crafters mobilize their self-knowledge to assess and adjust the aspects of the working environment they want to enhance or dismiss (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018). Although employees often shape such a fit solely through their own actions, the actualization of individual characteristics can be co-shaped with the leader through one’s interpersonal experiences (Dierdorff & Jensen, 2018; Fong et al., 2021; Martin et al., 2018). In this regard, recent reviews (Tims et al., 2022; Tummers & Bakker, 2021; Wang et al., 2016) and meta-analytic evidence (e.g., Wang et al., 2020) have started to suggest that leaders can assist employees in crafting their work experience, thus calling for a more nuanced understanding of this phenomenon. Although one prior review identified the key leaders’ behaviors conducive to job crafting (i.e., designing of resourceful jobs; promoting organizational identification; and building a trusting, open, and supportive climate; Wang et al., 2016), a comprehensive conceptual framework and operationalization attempts are still notably absent.

By bridging strategic leadership behaviors with the concept of proactive job crafting (Bakker, 2017), the aims of the present article are twofold. First, we aim to introduce a new leadership model and its behavioral facets, namely crafting leadership, which refer to a management style focused on helping followers successfully craft their own work experiences (and not the leader’s own job crafting). Second, we aim to develop and validate the psychometric properties of a questionnaire designed to assess crafting leadership.

To do so, this article describes the leadership behavioral domains conducive to job crafting identified by Wang et al. (2016) and, based on this, reviews the theoretical features and assumptions of other leadership styles (i.e., transformational, servant, empowering, engaging, and strength-based leadership) to position crafting leadership as a related but distinct concept in the literature. In order to provide an integrated theoretical framework, we ground such behaviors in the theoretical perspectives provided by the Michelangelo model (Rusbult et al., 2009) and the leadership for organizational adaptability framework (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Based on insights from the Michelangelo model (Rusbult et al., 2009), which describes an established interpersonal model where individuals sculpt each other’s selves to promote the pursuit of self-determination, we propose that crafting leaders adapt their behaviors to the characteristics that employees seek to use and develop. Moreover, drawing from the leadership for organizational adaptability framework (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007), focused on how leaders unlock the potential of people and organizations to adapt to changing and complex environments, we propose that crafting leadership is a flexible and collaborative leadership style. Specifically, in line with this framework (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007), our crafting leadership model conceptualizes how leaders orchestrate the entanglement between individual characteristics and the established organizational context to achieve strategic alignment and foster collective development. Finally, we report two studies aimed at assessing the reliability and factorial structure of the crafting leadership questionnaire and examining its distinctiveness from competitive leadership measures (i.e., strength-based, servant, and transformational leadership) as well as its added value for employee outcomes (i.e., meaningful work, needs–supplies fit, turnover intentions, job-crafting behaviors, and work engagement).

Overall, in response to scholars and practitioners’ calls, this study advances our understanding of leadership behaviors that enable employees to engage in job crafting by proposing a conceptual model that integrates and develops the three behavioral domains identified by Wang et al. (2016). The crafting leadership model makes an original contribution to literature by introducing the idea that leaders and employees collaboratively shape the working experience. Specifically, we contribute to the conceptualization and measurement of leadership behaviors that (a) allow managers to tailor their managerial approach according to the characteristics of the individuals under their supervision and (b) address the interplay between individual characteristics and the broader organizational context, balancing the management of employees’ characteristics with organizational alignment and development purposes. This contribution thus provides novel and essential insights into co-creating value for both individuals and organizations in response to the complex dynamics of contemporary organizational contexts. Finally, the model and associated instrument enables systematic research to test and refine theories regarding leadership and job crafting, the Michelangelo model in leader–employee relationships, and organizational adaptability.

2. Literature Review of Leadership Styles: Taking Stock and Moving Forward

Given the exponential increase in leadership models (Bormann & Rowold, 2018), systematically reviewing all of them is not within the scope of this article. Thus, we review only the leadership behavioral styles that incorporates a focus on managing employees’ characteristics, namely transformational, servant, empowering, engaging, and strength-based leadership, which have been previously associated with job crafting both conceptually and/or empirically1 (e.g., Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018; Tims et al., 2022; Tummers & Bakker, 2021; Wang et al., 2016, 2020).

Table 1. Leadership styles and how they address behavioral domains conducive to job crafting.

Leadership Style	Operational Definition	Behavioral Domains Conducive to Job Crafting
		Designing Resourceful Jobs	Promoting Organizational Identification	Building a Trusting, Open, and Supportive Climate
Transformational	Displays idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Source: (Avolio et al., 1991)	Attends each follower’s characteristics and mentors development	Instills a higher-order vision and leads by example	Initiates changes in perspectives and practices
Empowering	Shares power and supports both motivation and development. Source: (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014)	Provides job autonomy and responsibility	Leads by example in harmonizing autonomy with organizational goals	Not covered
Servant	Empowers, stands back, manifests stewardship, humility, and authenticity. Source: (Van Dierendonck et al., 2017)	Provides job autonomy and responsibility	Emphasizes long-term vision and social responsibility for the collective good	Learns from others’ opinions, perspectives and critiques
Engaging	Inspires, strengthens and connects. Source: (Schaufeli, 2015)	Provides job autonomy and responsibility	Enthuses with vision and plans to achieve an important mission	Fosters team spirit, collaboration and cohesion
Strength-based	Identifies, uses and develops signature strengths. Source: (Ding et al., 2020)	Helps in applying and mobilizing strengths on the job	Not covered	Not covered

summarizes the operational definition of each leadership style and how each style addresses the behavioral domains conducive to job crafting.

More specifically, Wang et al.’s (2016) review identified three leadership behavioral domains conducive to job crafting. The first behavioral domain, namely designing resourceful jobs with urgency to craft, focuses on offering a variety of resources that allow employees to develop their individual characteristics and encourage them to customize their jobs accordingly. All reviewed models advocate for personalized employee management. Transformational leadership attends each follower’s characteristics through individualized mentoring, encouraging employees to exceed performance expectations (Avolio et al., 1991). However, this behavior is ultimately conceived as a means for achieving the leader’s higher-order vision (Tourish, 2013), thereby remaining vague about how suitable strategies to each individual are tailored (Eva et al., 2019). Common to empowering, servant, and engaging leadership is the use of empowerment, focusing on providing job autonomy and delegating responsibilities to foster self-determination (Kim et al., 2018). However, empowerment assumes that all employees are equally motivated by increased autonomy and responsibility (Cheong et al., 2019) and know how to leverage it for their development (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018).

In essence, these models outline strategic behaviors to address employees’ characteristics uniformly, neglecting that the (mis)fit between the working conditions shaped by leaders and the actual attributes of the employee can lead to less adaptive outcomes (Thompson & Vecchio, 2009; Wang et al., 2019). Moreover, a specific developmental trajectory is typically expected, such as moving to an improved reality where the leader’s vision has been achieved (Tourish, 2013), from dependence to independence (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014), or “from a self-serving orientation to an other-serving orientation” (Eva et al., 2019, p. 114). Consistent with the Pygmalion phenomenon2 (Rusbult et al., 2009), such an approach compels employees to ultimately mold and conform their behaviors according to leaders’ expectations (Tourish, 2013). On the contrary, strength-based leadership provides resources for the expression of natural talents and characteristics (Linley et al., 2009), subjectively interpreted as strengths as they aid adjustment and optimal performance (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018). However, this approach has so far overlooked that, for a leader to effectively leverage a strength, they must understand how personal attributes (e.g., behavioral tendencies, skills, values, and needs) are applied within a particular context (Niemiec, 2019) and recognize that individuals may also have weaknesses that can hinder the full realization of their strengths (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018). Additionally, its application remains challenging due to a lack of conceptualization of how it fits within the organizational functioning (Burkus, 2011).

The second behavioral domain conducive to job crafting, namely promoting organizational identification, involves helping employees to understand how their actions contribute to and benefit the organization (Wang et al., 2016). Job crafters need a collective compass to regulate their behaviors and avoid conflicting directions (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). In this regard, leadership styles generally offer insights into aligning employees with the organization’s mission and strategy. Consistent with what was discussed regarding the job design shaped by leaders, a common aspect is their use of role modeling as they demonstrate beliefs, values, and behaviors that employees can actively observe and embody (Decuypere & Schaufeli, 2021). Specifically, the leadership styles under review (with the sole exception of strength-based leadership) provide behavioral examples to transmit values and reinforce expected ways of functioning in the workplace (Schein, 2010). Moreover, they articulate a compelling and long-term vision that transcends individual interests for the benefit of the organization (Avolio et al., 1991; Van Dierendonck et al., 2017), making employees feel that they are contributing to something important (Schaufeli, 2015). However, role modeling may overemphasize leaders’ personal attributes and overlook their fallibility (Fourie & Höhne, 2019; Tourish, 2013). For example, leader’s vision requires a certain level of accuracy in predicting the future (Nöthel et al., 2023). Moreover, conflicts may arise between the values championed by the leader, those of the organization, and/or those of employees (Hoffman et al., 2011; Tourish, 2013; Yukl, 1999).

Finally, the third behavioral domain conducive to job crafting, namely building a trusting, open, and supportive climate, emphasizes placing trust in employees to try new things and feel safe to share them with others, thereby fostering both individual and collective learning or development (Wang et al., 2016). Indeed, without the leader’s endorsement, job crafting may be stifled or not always visible and shared with others (Wang et al., 2016). The reviewed styles have commonly overlooked the behaviors aimed at fostering a trusting, open, and supportive climate. Engaging leadership, for instance, emphasizes positive exchanges and cohesion among team members but not towards collective learning and development (Schaufeli, 2015), whereas other styles focus on one-to-one interactions between leaders and followers (Yukl, 1999, 2012). While transformational leadership stimulates employees to question and develop existing practices (Avolio et al., 1991), it positions the leader as the primary initiator of change and innovation, rather than promoting a team-based approach. Moreover, servant leadership fosters an environment receptive to diverse perspectives, opinions, and critiques but maintains a focus on the leader’s own learning (Van Dierendonck et al., 2017). None of the models considered how leaders engage with other organizational stakeholders to implement and disseminate developmental processes within the organization (Yukl, 1999, 2012). In summary, the reviewed leadership styles do not comprehensively address all three behavioral domains that enable employee job crafting.

3. The Conceptual Framework of Crafting Leadership: Linking the Michelangelo Model with the Leadership for Organizational Adaptability

Crafting leadership is conceptualized as an approach wherein the leaders (1) adapt their management style to the distinctive characteristics of employees, (2) as a means to co-construct the fit of these characteristics with the working environment, and (3) engage in potential actualization and development of both people and organizations. We chose the term “crafting” to embody the metaphor of the leader as an artisan, sculpting their actions to unleash and nurture the raw talents and unique characteristics of individuals—their “craft”.

3.1. The Behavioral Facets of Crafting Leadership

Crafting leadership is to be understood as an emerging style stemming from three behavioral facets, namely tailoring, person–organization alignment, and catalyst. Each facet corresponds to a leadership behavioral domain conducive to job crafting identified by Wang et al. (2016) and grounded within the Michelangelo model (Rusbult et al., 2009) and the leadership for organizational adaptability framework (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018).

3.1.1. Tailoring

In the behavioral domain of designing resourceful jobs, leaders’ tailoring manifests in recognizing the employee’s distinctive characteristics, encompassing behavioral tendencies, strengths, values, and preferences, and engaging in managerial behaviors that are compatible with their expression and development. Specifically, in line with the Michelangelo model (Rusbult et al., 2009) and the leadership for organizational adaptability framework (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007), we propose that leaders successfully design resourceful jobs through an interpersonal and collaborative process with employees. The Michelangelo3 model posits that an agent (the leader) can help a target (the employee) in pursuing their self-determination by verifying the actual self (i.e., acknowledging the target’s self-representation centered on current individual characteristics) and affirming an ideal self-goal (i.e., supporting the realization of the target’s desired self-representation; Rusbult et al., 2009). That is, to design resourceful jobs, the leader needs to sculpt their behaviors on employees’ characteristics and potential by acknowledging their self-representation, identifying factors that may aid or hinder their expression and development, and engaging in facilitating behaviors. Moreover, according to the leadership for organizational adaptability framework (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007), leadership enables an adaptive space for the collaborative development of existing employees’ characteristics, knowledge, and expertise (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). In line with this perspective, to be adaptive, the designing of resourceful jobs by leaders may initiate with a collaborative process in which they attune their resource provision to the specific characteristics the employees aim to mobilize and cultivate (Nöthel et al., 2023) and allow them to shape such resources in ways to suit them best (Bakker, 2017). For instance, the leader may diversify contributions by assigning information processing activities to those with strong analytical predispositions or more creative tasks to those excelling in inventiveness (Linley et al., 2009). Alternatively, leaders may strategically delegate tasks to those striving for heightened autonomy and responsibility (Cheong et al., 2019). Additionally, the leader may amplify flexibility in work schedules for those who perform better during specific timeframes or harbor specific non-work needs (Kossek & Lautsch, 2012). The leader can also use complementary partnering on common activities, in which employees offer strengths that complement and enhance each other (Linley et al., 2009). For instance, the leader may engage in project delivery an employee who is strong in empathy to address clients’ needs, while also involving a highly conscientious employee to ensure precise project implementation. Finally, the leader discusses and shares developmental goals to help employees discover new behaviors and strategies at work (Locke & Latham, 2013) and better master their own characteristics (Bakker & van Woerkom, 2018). In doing so, leaders can provide constructive guidance in making sense of experiences, engaging employees in recognizing what has allowed them to succeed and perform at their best (Quinlan et al., 2012) and also in identifying what they wish to change or improve in the future (Kluger & Nir, 2010).

3.1.2. Person–Organization Alignment

In the behavioral domain of promoting organizational identification, person–organization alignment encapsulates the leader’s behaviors aimed at conveying to employees the values underlying the organizational strategic and operational behavior. In line with leadership for organizational adaptability framework (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007), we propose that leaders promote organizational identification by aligning employees with organizational values, reflecting the organization’s core priorities and behavioral standards that drive its strategic and operational functioning (Schein, 2010; Yukl, 2012). Indeed, according to the leadership for organizational adaptability framework (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007), leadership manages the entanglement between the adaptive dynamics and the established organizational functioning. More specifically, it enables and supports adaptive dynamics that align with the organization’s strategy and mission. In this regard, research highlighted that, to enable successful job crafting, leaders are required to elucidate to employees the rationale behind the organization’s decisions, goals, rules, and expectations (Park & Park, 2023; Wang et al., 2016). Specifically, the leader champions and shares organizational values as a role model, using them as symbolic coordinates to make sense of events and how individual actions unfold within the organizational functioning (Schein, 2010). Beyond role modeling, the leader can practically implement management systems based on organizational priorities by allocating resources to core activities, providing consistent performance evaluations and rewards, and giving meaning to visible cultural artifacts (e.g., organizational strategies and policies; Schein, 2010). In doing so, the leader can discuss and create an explicit bridge of meaning between what the organization recognizes, promotes, and evaluates in relation to employees’ behaviors and achievements (Frémeaux & Pavageau, 2022; Hoffman et al., 2011). Essentially, the person–organization alignment behavior recognizes that individuals rely on managers to make sense of the organizational context and acknowledges the importance of sharing meanings with them.

3.1.3. Catalyst

In the behavioral domain of building a trusting, open, and supportive climate, catalyst behaviors refers to the leader’s behaviors aimed at fostering the conditions for team learning and collaboration, enabling members to synergically experiment with new ideas and approaches and bridging them with organizational development. In line with the leadership for organizational adaptability framework (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007), leadership help spark collaborative efforts towards innovation and change by fostering a safe environment for exploration and learning. In this regard, leaders can facilitate goal-directed partnerships among employees where they jointly identify what needs to be crafted (Mäkikangas et al., 2017) and select individuals with suitable characteristics to do so (Linley et al., 2009). Moreover, the learnings and innovative outputs from these collaborative experiences can be bridged and integrated into the organizational fabric to catalyze organizational development (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Indeed, leaders occupy a vital role in the organizational hierarchy and networks, providing access to resources and knowledge for implementing adaptations within and throughout the organization (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). Practically, leaders encourage collaborative questioning and initiative, creating a safe environment where team members can brainstorm and challenge ideas without fear of criticism, mistakes, or conflicts (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Moreover, leaders can facilitate the exchange and recombination of interpersonal differences, such as skills, strengths, and perspectives, providing team members with the discretion to refine existing methods, tools, and practices as well as test new ones (Jansen et al., 2016; Mäkikangas et al., 2017). Finally, they engage the team’s collaborative efforts towards collective organizational development, leveraging organizational networks to secure necessary resources for implementing changes (e.g., gaining support from key stakeholders such as the top management or peers) and overcoming barriers for their diffusion (e.g., restrictive policies; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). Essentially, catalyst behaviors embody the idea that combining and integrating employee characteristics can enhance collective functioning, similar to an orchestra harmonizing diverse instruments.

4. Materials and Methods

Building on the proposed conceptual model, the present research aims to develop a questionnaire to measure crafting leadership as a multidimensional construct and validate its psychometric properties. Moreover, we seek to establish the unique contribution of crafting leadership and its behavioral facets (i.e., tailoring, person–organization alignment, and catalyst) within the broader context of leadership styles and its added predictive value for employee outcomes. To do so, after developing the measurement tool, we conducted two studies. The first study focuses on assessing the questionnaire’s reliability and factorial validity, testing its discriminant validity against strength-based and servant leadership. Additionally, it evaluates the construct’s predictive validity in relation to employee outcomes, including needs–supplies fit, meaningful work, and turnover intentions. The second study extends this validation by further examining the factorial and discriminant validity of the questionnaire, this time comparing crafting leadership with transformational leadership. It also expands the predictive scope to include job-crafting behaviors and work engagement.

4.1. Questionnaire Development

Following guidelines reported in Crawford and Kelder (2019), the research team met to discuss the content and description of each behavioral facet of crafting leadership. Thus, the three crafting leadership subscales were developed, ensuring conceptual clarity and accounting for the semantic relationships that link each behavior to the others, but also with respect to the other existing and previously investigated leadership constructs. Then, the research team developed a preliminary pool of thirty-seven items, twelve for each of the crafting leadership facets. A team of nine external experts was involved and entrusted with the face validity check—a holistic review of each item against the general definition and the specific behavior it describes. The nine experts expressed their opinion about the representativeness of each item (using a Likert scale from 1 “not at all representative” to 3 “fully representative”) with respect to the more general construct of crafting leadership and with respect to the behavior to which the item relates. Twenty-one items with more than ninety percent agreement were retained.

4.2. Study 1

We designed this study to examine the psychometric properties of the crafting leadership questionnaire, assessed through employees’ perceptions. In detail, we explored the reliability and factorial validity of crafting leadership in order to support the distinctiveness of the three behavioral facets (i.e., person–organization alignment, tailoring, and catalyst) and their interrelationships. According to our conceptual framework, it was reasonable to expect that, while each behavior addresses unique aspects of employee management, the three facets of crafting leadership may co-occur. Indeed, when evaluating a multidimensional leadership construct, it is crucial to determine if various competencies can be effectively integrated into a cohesive behavioral style that accurately reflects their interrelationships (Bormann & Rowold, 2018). Thus, we tested whether our conceptualization of crafting leadership is empirically consistent with a higher-order model, representing the underlying style that explains the covariances between the first-order facets.

Moreover, we investigated whether crafting leadership extends beyond what is already established in the leadership literature, testing its discriminant validity compared to competitive leadership styles and its added predictive value concerning employee outcomes. Regarding discriminant validity, we compared crafting leadership with strength-based leadership (Ding et al., 2020) and servant leadership (Van Dierendonck et al., 2017). As reviewed in detail above, we expected crafting, strength-based, and servant leadership to emerge as distinct yet positively correlated behavioral styles. All three styles are employee-centered; however, unlike crafting leadership, strength-based leadership—defined as the extent to which leaders identify, use, and develop employees’ strengths (Ding et al., 2020)—is primarily focused on emphasizing individual strengths in designing resourceful jobs and does not consider behaviors aimed at promoting organizational identification or building a climate for collective development. Similarly, servant leadership—typically assessed as a multidimensional construct encompassing dimensions such as empowerment, humility, standing back, authenticity, and stewardship (Van Dierendonck et al., 2017; Eva et al., 2019)—differs from crafting leadership by primarily designing resourceful jobs through increased autonomy and by placing a distinctive focus on the leader’s personal characteristics to promote organizational identification and build a climate for collective development.

Finally, the predictive validity of crafting leadership was investigated by comparing its associations and those of strength-based and servant leadership with job-related employee outcomes, namely, needs–supplies fit (i.e., the perception that the job fulfills the employee’s personal drivers and requirements; Cable & DeRue, 2002), meaningful work (i.e., the subjective experience that one’s work is personally significant, worthwhile, and growth- and purpose-oriented; Lysova et al., 2019), and turnover intentions (i.e., the intention to quit one’s current job; Hom et al., 2017). Our choice of outcome measures in this study is informed by systematic reviews and meta-analyses linking leadership styles with them (e.g., Hoch et al., 2018; Lysova et al., 2019; Decuypere & Schaufeli, 2021). Specifically, we investigated whether (a) crafting leadership is associated with higher levels of needs–supplies fit and meaningful work, as well as lower levels of turnover intentions, and (b) it may explain additional variance in such outcomes compared to strength-based and servant leadership.

4.2.1. Sample and Procedure

The sample used in this study comprised 2137 participants working in different Italian organizations. To collect data, the research team contacted different organizations, inviting them to participate in a project aimed at validating a new leadership model and its associated measurement tool (questionnaire). Participation involved administering a questionnaire to the employees of the participating organizations. Each organization internally distributed the questionnaire, ensuring that employees could freely choose whether or not to participate.

Data were collected through an online and anonymous questionnaire with an estimated completion time of 20 min, in line with the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association (APA) and according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki. The data collection was conducted over six months in 2022. To optimize the response rate, a reminder communication was systematically sent to participants halfway through the data collection period.

Table 2. Sample statistics for Study 1 and Study 2.

	Study 1 (N = 2137)	Study 2 (N = 1507)
Gender
Female	58.6%	45.9%
Male	40.4%	53.6%
Other	1.0%	0.5%
Age
Up to 30 years old	48.6%	51.9%
From 31 to 40 years old	14.6%	13.2%
From 41 to 50 years old	11.4%	13.2%
More than 50 years old	25.4%	21.7%
Work sector
Health, social services, law enforcement	14.2%	13.8%
Business and people services (e.g., consulting or ICT)	11.8%	27.3%
Industry	5.6%	6.0%
Public Administration	7.8%	7.7%
Education sector	7.2%	4.8%
Wholesale or retail trade, repairs, transport	12.1%	16.1%
Construction	2.1%	4.8%
Tourism, hospitality, catering	6.1%	6.2%
Professional, scientific, or technical activities	7.2%	9.1%
Arts, sports, entertainment	2.0%	4.2%
Other	23.9%	0.0%
Organizational tenure
Less than 1 year	27.0%	21.3%
From 1 to 5 years	34.5%	37.4%
From 6 to 10 years	8.4%	9.9%
More than 10 years	30.1%	31.4%

(see column Study 1) provides a full description of respondents’ socio-demographic and occupational characteristics.

4.2.2. Measures

Crafting Leadership

Crafting leadership (21 items) assessed employees’ perceptions of the crafting leadership behaviors, that is, person–organization alignment (6 items), tailoring (8 items), and catalyst (7 items). See

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, item-total correlations, reliabilities, and ESEM standardized factor loadings of each item—Study 1, ESEM group (N = 1071).

Item	M	SD	Rtt	POA	TAIL	CAT
1. Champions organizational values	4.64	1.67	0.75	0.86	0.00	−0.09
2. Keeps coworkers updated on the organization’s strategic vision	4.58	1.79	0.82	0.92	−0.16	0.11
3. Ensures that organizational policies are thoroughly understood.	4.65	1.71	0.82	0.93	−0.11	0.05
4. Recognizes behaviors that align with organizational values *	4.14	1.86	0.74	0.44	0.39	0.02
5. Acts in accordance with organizational values, serving as a role model	4.46	1.83	0.79	0.74	0.17	−0.10
6. Translates strategic priorities into actionable management plans	4.51	1.74	0.78	0.69	0.04	0.10
7. Identifies specific levers to enhance my motivation	4.05	1.83	0.82	0.23	0.65	0.01
8. Considers my potential when setting goals and assigning tasks	4.55	1.83	0.83	0.06	0.88	−0.06
9. Values my strengths in task execution	4.49	1.79	0.87	−0.04	0.99	−0.15
10. Recognizes my abilities, even in routine tasks	4.35	1.77	0.86	−0.00	0.99	−0.11
11. Help me focus on what I am most passionate about in my work	4.19	1.95	0.82	0.03	0.63	0.21
12. Encourages me to cultivate synergies with others to enhance my unique contribution	4.37	1.90	0.79	0.12	0.51	0.22
13. Dedicates time to understand my personal or family needs *	3.77	1.94	0.71	−0.05	0.47	0.33
14. Utilizes his/her understanding of me to keep me motivated	3.81	1.88	0.85	−0.03	0.68	0.23
15. Listens to suggestions for improvement from our team, even if they highlight issues	4.39	1.76	0.83	0.02	0.12	0.74
16. Provides adequate discretion to our team to experiment with new ways of doing things	4.32	1.75	0.85	−0.04	0.11	0.81
17. Fosters the circulation of improvement insights from our team throughout the organization	4.36	1.77	0.88	0.06	0.08	0.79
18. Works to remove obstacles hindering the implementation of proposals from our team	4.28	1.74	0.87	0.09	0.03	0.79
19. Welcomes initiatives and improvement ideas from our team	4.50	1.71	0.89	−0.03	0.02	0.92
20. Utilizes all necessary channels to obtain resources for implementing our team proposals	4.31	1.74	0.86	0.10	−0.03	0.83
21. Advocates for improvement inputs from our team with the company’s management	4.16	1.77	0.83	0.12	0.07	0.69
Cronbach’s α coefficient				0.92	0.95	0.96

Note: The introduction to the scale reads “My manager…”. M = mean, SD = standard deviation, Rtt = corrected item-total correlation, POA = person–organization alignment, TAIL = tailoring; CAT = catalyst. Results in bold indicate loadings of the items on their target a-priori factor. * Items 4 and 13 were excluded from subsequent analyses due to their similar loadings on two distinct a priori factors.

for the full list of items. Each item was rated along a 7-point scale (1 = never, 7 = always).

Competitive Leadership Measures

Strength-based leadership was measured with the 5-item scale developed by Ding et al. (2020; α = 0.96) (e.g., “[My manager] provides me with the opportunity to let me know what I am good at”). To the best of our knowledge, this measure is the only one available in the literature that has undergone psychometric validation to assess strength-based leadership to date (Ding et al., 2020).

Servant leadership was measured with the Servant Leadership Survey (18 items; (Van Dierendonck et al., 2017); α = 0.96), assessing employees’ perceptions of leaders’ empowerment (e.g., “[…] gives me the authority to take decisions which make my work easier to me”; α = 0.93), humility (e.g., “If people express criticism, my manager tries to learn from it”; α = 0.95), standing back (e.g., “[…] keeps himself/herself at the background and gives credits to others”; α = 0.81), stewardship (e.g., “[…] emphasizes the importance of paying attention to the good of the whole”; α = 0.85), and authenticity (e.g., “[…] shows his/her true feelings to his/her staff”; α = 0.83). All items were rated along a 7-point scale (1 = never, 7 = always). Based on the review by Eva et al. (2019), we chose this questionnaire as it provides a more comprehensive and validated mapping of servant leadership behaviors than other available instruments.

Employee Outcomes

The needs–supplies fit was measured with 3 items adapted from Cable and DeRue (2002; α = 0.80) assessing how well the job’s offerings match individual needs, passions, and priorities (e.g., “There is a good fit between what my job offers me and my personal needs”). Meaningful work was measured with 6 items from the Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI; (Steger et al., 2012), α = 0.83) assessing the extent to which employees perceive the job as a source of meaning, fulfillment, and personal growth (e.g., “I understand how my work contributes to my life’s meaning”). Turnover intentions were measured with 3 items adapted from Kelloway et al. (1999; α = 0.85) assessing the degree to which the employee is contemplating leaving the current position within the organization (e.g., “I intend to leave my job within the next year”). All items were rated along a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

4.2.3. Data Analytic Strategy

In testing the factorial validity of crafting leadership, participants were randomly assigned to two groups (Mastrorilli et al., 2024; Santarpia et al., 2023, 2024a): one for Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM) and the other for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). ESEM combines aspects of CFA and exploratory factor analysis (EFA), allowing for the evaluation of item loadings on predetermined factors and their secondary loadings on other factors (Morin et al., 2016). This approach helped assess the distinctiveness of items measuring the three behavioral facets of crafting leadership. In the CFA group, we tested the proposed higher-order factorial structure of the crafting leadership questionnaire. Specifically, we compared a higher-order model—where the three facets (person–organization alignment, tailoring, and catalyst) load onto a second-order factor explaining their covariations—with three alternative models: a one-factor model (all items loaded on a single factor) and a bifactor model (items loaded both on a general factor and on the three orthogonal factors). Model fit was assessed using the chi-square (χ²) statistic, CFI and TLI (>0.90), RMSEA (<0.06), and SRMR (<0.08) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The best model was determined by comparing chi-square differences (Δχ²) and fit indices, expecting significant differences from the one-factor model and non-significant differences from the bifactor model (Credé & Harms, 2015; Mazzetti et al., 2022). Scale reliabilities were estimated using Cronbach’s alpha and item-total correlations.

We then conducted two sets of analyses to examine the discriminant and predictive validity of crafting leadership through structural equation modeling. First, we estimated the latent correlations between crafting leadership and the selected competitive leadership measures, separately for strength-based and servant leadership. For each comparison, we correlated a higher-order model of crafting leadership with other measures and then examined the specific associations of its three facets. The latent correlations and the associated 95% confidence intervals were evaluated as follows (see Rönkkö & Cho, 2022): if these are less than 0.80, there is no evidence of discriminant validity problems; values between 0.80 and 0.90 indicate marginal problems; and finally, values greater than 0.90 signal a lack of sufficient discriminant validity.

Second, we estimated the latent correlations and regression coefficients of leadership measures with our hypothesized employee outcomes (i.e., needs–supplies fit, meaningful work, and turnover intentions). In detail, we incorporated the outcome into the measurement model that compares crafting leadership as a higher-order factor with a competitive leadership measure (alternatively, strength-based leadership or servant leadership) to ascertain their correlations; next, we calculated the regression coefficient of the competitive leadership measure on the outcome; finally, we added to the model the regression coefficient of crafting leadership on the outcome while controlling for the other leadership measure. This method enabled us to evaluate the additional variance in outcomes explained by crafting leadership beyond what is accounted for by strength-based leadership or servant leadership. Multicollinearity indices—tolerance index (TI), variance inflation factor (VIF), and their 95% confidence intervals—were checked to exclude potential inflated standard errors and spurious lack of statistically significant results, following the procedure provided by Marcoulides and Raykov (2019). All analyses testing the discriminant and predictive validity of crafting leadership were conducted with the inclusion of a method factor, containing potential common-method biases on correlation and regression coefficients (Podsakoff et al., 2024). Specifically, we tested a bifactor model in which all items load onto both a general factor and the specific hypothesized dimensions. This model was tested to determine whether the correlations and regressions among dimensions are affected by the way they have been measured (e.g., content similarities). All the analyses were run using the Maximum Likelihood estimator (ML) in Mplus 8.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017).

4.3. Study 2

The second study aimed to further substantiate the reliability and factorial validity of the crafting leadership questionnaire. Additionally, we sought to extend the evidence of the instrument’s discriminant validity by comparing crafting leadership with transformational leadership (Avolio et al., 1991; DeRue et al., 2011). As reviewed, we expected the two constructs to display a positive relationship while maintaining distinctive properties. Compared to crafting leadership, transformational leadership—typically assessed as a multidimensional construct encompassing idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation (Avolio et al., 1991; DeRue et al., 2011)—manages and develops employees through a more top-down and leader-centric approach in designing resourceful jobs, promoting organizational identification, and building a climate for collective development.

Furthermore, we aimed to extend the predictive validity of our model by comparing the associations between crafting leadership, transformational leadership, and job-related employee outcomes, specifically job crafting (Tims et al., 2012) and work engagement (i.e., a positive motivational state characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption; Schaufeli et al., 2017). Indeed, emerging empirical evidence supports the association between leadership styles and job crafting (see Tummers & Bakker, 2021; Tims et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2016, 2020), while the link between leadership and increased engagement has been extensively corroborated (Decuypere & Schaufeli, 2021). Therefore, we examined whether (a) crafting leadership is associated with higher levels of job-crafting behaviors and work engagement and (b) it may explain additional variance in such outcomes compared to transformational leadership.

4.3.1. Sample and Procedure

The sample used in this study comprised 1507 participants working in different Italian organizations. Data were collected in 2023 through an online and anonymous questionnaire, replicating the procedure and methodology of Study 1. However, the organizations involved in this study were different from those in Study 1, although they operated within the same sectors. Table 2 (see column Study 2) provides a full description of respondents’ socio-demographic and occupational characteristics.

4.3.2. Measures

Crafting Leadership

We administered the crafting leadership questionnaire already described in Study 1, with the exception of item 4 and item 13, in accordance with Study 1 results.

Competitive Leadership Measures

Transformational leadership was measured with the 16-item form of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5x-Short; (Avolio & Bass, 2004); α = 0.93), assessing employees’ perceptions of idealized influence (e.g., “[My manager] considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions”; α = 0.74), inspirational motivation (e.g., “[…] talks optimistically about the future”; α = 0.88), intellectual stimulation (e.g., “[…] reexamines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate”; α = 0.85), and individual consideration (e.g., “[…] considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others”; α = 0.72). We selected the questionnaire because it is one of the most thoroughly validated and empirically tested instruments available in the literature for mapping transformational leadership behaviors (e.g., Hoch et al., 2018).

Employee Outcomes

To achieve a more comprehensive mapping of job-crafting behaviors, we adopted the distinction between promotion-oriented and prevention-oriented behaviors (see Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2019). Promotion-oriented job crafting (9 items drawn from (Tims et al., 2012); α = 0.79) assessed employees’ job crafting behaviors aimed at increasing structural and social resources as well as challenging job demands (e.g., “At work I try to develop my capabilities”). Prevention-oriented job crafting (6 items drawn from (Tims et al., 2012) and (Demerouti & Peeters, 2018); α = 0.72) assessed employees’ job-crafting behaviors aimed at reducing as well as optimizing hindering job demands (e.g., “I look for ways to do my work more efficiently”). Work engagement was measured with a 3-item ultra-short form of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-3, (Schaufeli et al., 2017); α = 0.67) assessing the degree to which the employee experienced at work a positive psychological state of vigor, dedication, and absorption (e.g., “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”).

All variables were rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always).

4.3.3. Data Analytic Strategy

We employed the modeling approach described in detail for Study 1.

5. Results

5.1. Reliability and Factorial Validity

5.1.1. Study 1

Table 3 reports the Ms, SDs, αs, corrected item-total correlation coefficients (rtt), and ESEM standardized factor loadings of each crafting leadership item estimated for the ESEM group. Items skewness and kurtosis values did not indicate violations of normality assumptions. Mean scale scores ranged from 4.20 (tailoring) to 4.50 (person–organization alignment). All items were strongly correlated with their respective scale scores, as item-total scale score correlations ranged from 0.74 (item 4) to 0.89 (item 19). The alpha coefficients ranged from 0.92 (person–organization alignment) to 0.96 (catalyst), thus attesting adequate reliability. The three-factor ESEM model provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2 = 1054.36, df = 150, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.08, and SRMR = 0.02). All item loadings on the a-priori factors exceeded |0.30|, with negligible secondary loadings. However, exceptions were noted for item 4 (person–organization alignment) and item 13 (tailoring). Thus, we subsequently dropped these items due to their overlap across multiple dimensions. Latent factors were highly correlated, with significant coefficients ranging from |0.78| (tailoring with person–organization alignment, tied with person–organization alignment with catalyst) to |0.83| (catalyst with tailoring). Moving on to the CFA group, the hypothesized higher-order model fitted the data well (χ2 = 1156.05, df = 149, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.03). According to differences in fit indices (see

Table 4. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses and alternative model comparisons—Study 1, CFA group (N = 1066) and Study 2 (N = 1507).

		Model Fit						Model Comparisons
Model		χ2	df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR	Δχ2	ΔRMSEA	ΔCFI	ΔTLI	ΔSRMR
Higher-order model	Study 1	1156.05 *	149	0.08	0.95	0.94	0.03	-	-	-	-	-
	Study 2	995.79 *	149	0.06	0.96	0.95	0.03	-	-	-	-	-
One-factor model	Study 1	3291.53 *	152	0.14	0.85	0.83	0.06	2135.48 (3) *	0.06	−0.10	−0.11	0.03
	Study 2	1395.98 *	152	0.07	0.94	0.93	0.03	40.19 (3) *	0.01	−0.02	−0.02	0.00
Bifactor model	Study 1	1067.77 *	138	0.08	0.95	0.94	0.07	88.28 (11) *	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.04
	Study 2	1011.21 *	138	0.07	0.96	0.95	0.05	15.42 (11) †	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.02

Note: * p < 0.001, † = p = 0.16; χ² = chi-square test of model fit; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual.

), the higher-order model outperformed the most parsimonious one-factor solution and demonstrated minimal deviations compared to the least parsimonious bifactor solution, suggesting the viability of the higher-order solution. Factor loadings on the first-order factors and the higher-order factor were all significant and higher than |0.30| (see Figure 1).

5.1.2. Study 2

Crafting leadership’s mean scale scores ranged from 4.19 (tailoring) to 4.53 (person–organization alignment). The alpha coefficients were 0.85 for person–organization alignment (Mrtt = 0.66, SDrtt = 0.05), 0.90 for tailoring (Mrtt = 0.72, SDrtt = 0.10), and 0.93 for catalyst (Mrtt = 0.77, SDrtt = 0.04), thus attesting adequate reliability. Items’ skewness and kurtosis values did not indicate violations of normality assumptions. The hypothesized higher-order crafting leadership model fitted the data well (χ² = 995.79, df = 149, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.03) and, according to differences in fit indices, significantly better than the most parsimonious one-factor solution and not worse than the least parsimonious bifactor solution (see Table 4). The factor loadings on the first-order factors and the higher-order factor were all significant and higher than |0.30| (see Figure 1).

5.2. Discriminant Validity

5.2.1. Study 1

Table 5. Latent correlations between crafting leadership and competitive leadership measures—Study 1 (N = 2137) and Study 2 (N = 1507).

Variables		M	SD	α	Person– Organization Alignment		Tailoring		Catalyst		Crafting Leadership
					r	95% CI	r	95% CI	r	95% CI	r	95% CI
Study 1
	Strength-based Leadership	4.31	1.66	0.95	0.38 ***	0.33, 0.43	0.76 ***	0.73, 0.78	0.59 ***	0.56, 0.63	0.68 ***	0.61, 0.74
	Servant Leadership	4.30	1.36	0.96	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.59 ***	0.50, 0.69
	Empowerment	4.53	1.50	0.93	0.07	−0.06, 0.19	0.63 ***	0.55, 0.70	0.04	−0.17, 0.25	-	-
	Humility	4.01	1.64	0.95	−0.09 *	−0.19, −0.00	0.14 **	0.05, 0.23	0.08	−0.05, 0.20	-	-
	Standing Back	4.01	1.52	0.81	−0.14 **	−0.24, −0.05	0.07	−0.03, 0.17	−0.10	−0.24, 0.05	-	-
	Stewardship	4.64	1.53	0.85	0.20 ***	0.11, 0.29	0.15 **	0.04, 0.25	−0.10	−0.25, 0.05	-	-
	Authenticity	4.10	1.50	0.83	−0.00	−0.10, 0.09	0.19 ***	0.09, 0.28	0.12	0.00, 0.24	-	-
Study 2
	Transformational Leadership	3.21	0.81	0.93	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.38 ***	0.25, 0.51
	Idealized Influence	3.31	0.86	0.74	0.71 ***	0.63, 0.79	0.22 ***	0.11, 0.32	0.32 ***	0.20, 0.43	-	-
	Inspirational Motivation	3.45	0.97	0.88	0.41 ***	0.31, 0.51	0.31 ***	0.20, 0.41	0.35 ***	0.23, 0.46	-	-
	Intellectual Stimulation	3.10	0.92	0.85	0.59 ***	0.50, 0.67	0.35 ***	0.27, 0.46	0.39 ***	0.27, 0.49	-	-
	Individualized Consideration	2.96	0.91	0.72	0.34 ***	0.22, 0.46	0.79 ***	0.72, 0.86	0.38 ***	0.25, 0.50	-	-

Note: Latent correlations were estimated with the two different measurement models for each comparison between leadership measures: the first one accounted for the correlation of crafting leadership as a higher-order factor with strength-based leadership (specified as a single factor), transformational leadership, or servant leadership (both specified as higher-order factors too); the second one accounted for the correlation of crafting leadership’s specific facets (3 correlated factors) with strength-based leadership (specified as a single factor), transformational leadership, or servant leadership (respectively, specified with 4 and 5 correlated factors). *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; α = Cronbach’s alpha coefficient; r = Pearson’s correlation coefficient; CI = confidence interval. All coefficients are controlled for a common method bias factor on which leadership items are loaded.

presents the latent correlations between crafting, strength-based, and servant leadership. The measurement model for the latent correlation between crafting leadership (higher-order factor) and strength-based leadership (single factor) fitted the data well (χ2 = 2827.26, df = 230, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.08). The latent correlation between the two styles was high and positive (r = 0.68, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.61, 0.74). On average, leadership items highly loaded on the method factor (Mλ = 0.71, SDλ = 0.08). Similarly, the measurement model for crafting leadership’s specific behavioral facets and strength-based leadership fitted the data well (χ2 = 1640.96, df = 227, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.05, and SRMR = 0.04). Tailoring was the most correlated dimension with strength-based leadership (r = 0.76, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.73, 0.78), followed by catalyst (r = 0.59, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.56, 0.63) and person–organization alignment (r = 0.38, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.33, 0.43).

The measurement model for crafting leadership and servant leadership (both specified as higher-order factors) fitted the data well (χ2 = 5230.10, df = 592, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.06). The latent correlation was high and positive (r = 0.59, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.50, 0.69). On average, leadership items highly loaded on the method factor (Mλ = 0.71, SDλ = 0.10). The measurement model for crafting leadership and servant leadership’s specific facets also fitted the data well (χ2 = 3378.96, df = 565, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.05, and SRMR = 0.02). Latent factors showed significant correlations ranging from |0.09| (person–organization alignment with humility) to |0.63| (tailoring with empowerment, ranging from 0.55 to 0.70).

Given that all the correlations are below the 0.80 threshold of the 95% confidence interval’s limits (Rönkkö & Cho, 2022), the results overall support the discriminant validity of crafting leadership relative to strength-based leadership and servant leadership.

5.2.2. Study 2

Table 5 presents the latent correlations between crafting and transformational leadership. The measurement model for crafting leadership and transformational leadership (both specified as higher-order factors) fitted the data well (χ2 = 2715.43, df = 524, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.05, and SRMR = 0.05). The latent correlation was moderate and positive (r = 0.38, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.25, 0.51). On average, leadership items highly loaded on the method factor (Mλ = 0.67, SDλ = 0.13). The measurement model for crafting leadership and transformational leadership’s specific facets also fitted the data well (χ2 = 1783.61, df = 505, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.04, and SRMR = 0.04). Latent factors showed significant correlations ranging from |0.32| (catalyst with idealized influence) to |0.79| (tailoring with individualized consideration, ranging from 0.72 to 0.86). Given that all the correlations are below the 0.80 threshold of the 95% confidence interval’s limits (Rönkkö & Cho, 2022), the results overall support the discriminant validity of crafting leadership relative to transformational leadership. The confidence intervals for the correlation between tailoring and individualized consideration fall between 0.80 and 0.90; thus, there is a marginal overlap between the two behavioral facets (Rönkkö & Cho, 2022).

5.3. Predictive Validity

5.3.1. Study 1

Table 6. Latent correlations between crafting leadership, competitive leadership measures, and employee outcomes—Study 1 (N = 2137) and Study 2 (N = 1507).

Variables		M	SD	α	Crafting Leadership		Strength-Based Leadership		Servant Leadership		Transformational Leadership
					r	95% CI	r	95% CI	r	95% CI	r	95% CI
Study 1
	Needs–Supplies Fit	4.64	1.32	0.80	0.21 ***	0.12, 0.31	0.17 ***	0.10, 0.25	-	-	-	-
	Meaningful Work	4.74	1.21	0.83	0.35 ***	0.27, 0.44	0.24 ***	0.17, 0.31	-	-	-	-
	Turnover Intentions	3.46	1.80	0.85	−0.29 ***	−0.38, −0.21	−0.16 ***	−0.23,−0.10	-	-	-	-
Study 1
	Needs–Supplies Fit	4.64	1.32	0.80	0.10 *	0.02, 0.18	-	-	0.07 *	0.00, 0.13	-	-
	Meaningful Work	4.74	1.21	0.83	0.11 **	0.03, 0.19	-	-	0.09 *	0.02, 0.17	-	-
	Turnover Intentions	3.46	1.80	0.85	−0.15 ***	−0.21, −0.09	-	-	−0.10 **	−0.17,−0.03	-	-
Study 2
	Promotion-oriented Job Crafting	4.99	0.87	0.79	0.22 ***	0.13, 0.32	-	-	-	-	0.13 **	0.04, 0.22
	Prevention-oriented Job Crafting	5.17	0.86	0.72	0.18 ***	0.09, 0.28	-	-	-	-	0.06	−0.04, 0.16
	Work Engagement	3.61	0.76	0.67	0.12 *	0.02, 0.23	-	-	-	-	0.11 *	0.02, 0.21

Note: Latent correlations were estimated by testing distinct measurement models (see Supplementary Materials), each one including crafting leadership, one competitive leadership measure, and a single employee outcome. Crafting, transformational, and servant leadership measures are specified as higher-order factors, while strength-based leadership and employee outcomes are specified as single factors. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; α = Cronbach’s alpha coefficient; r = Pearson’s correlation coefficient; CI = confidence interval. All the correlations coefficients are controlled for a common method bias factor on which leadership and employee outcomes items are loaded.

presents the latent correlations between crafting leadership, competitive leadership measures (i.e., strength-based and servant), and employee outcomes (i.e., need–supplies fit, meaningful work, and turnover intentions). All measurement models estimating such latent correlations fitted the data reasonably well (see Supplementary Materials). As expected, crafting leadership was positively correlated with needs–supplies fit and meaningful work and negatively correlated to turnover intentions (the average correlation value was |0.20|). The latent factors showed significant correlations ranging from |0.07| (servant leadership with needs–supplies fit) to |0.35| (crafting leadership with meaningful work). On average, employee outcome items showed moderate loadings on the method factor (needs–supplies fit Mλ = 0.40, SDλ = 0.02; meaningful work Mλ = 0.35, SDλ = 0.10; and turnover intentions Mλ = −0.20, SDλ = 0.09). All structural models regressing employee outcomes on leadership measures also showed an adequate fit to the data (see Supplementary Materials). Crafting leadership outperformed strength-based leadership in all regressions while controlling for a common method factor (see

Table 7. Latent regression coefficients on employee outcomes—Study 1 (N = 2137) and Study 2 (N = 1507).

		Predictors												Multicollinearity Indices
		Crafting Leadership			Strength-Based Leadership			Servant Leadership			Transformational Leadership			TI [95% CI]	VIF [95% CI]
Employee Outcomes		β	SE	p	β	SE	p	β	SE	p	β	SE	p
Study 1
	Needs–Supplies Fit	0.24	0.07	<0.01	0.05	0.05	0.35	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.92 [0.85, 0.96]	1.083 [1.039, 1.181]
	Meaningful Work	0.37	0.06	<0.001	0.00	0.05	0.93	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.86 [0.79, 0.91]	1.157 [1.094, 1.264]
	Turnover intentions	−0.33	0.06	<0.001	0.06	0.05	0.23	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.91 [0.85, 0.95]	1.095 [1.050, 1.181]
Study 1
	Needs–Supplies Fit	0.09	0.06	0.11	-	-	-	0.13	0.05	0.75	-	-	-	0.99 [0.95, 1.00]	1.010 [1.002, 1.049]
	Meaningful Work	0.09	0.06	0.11	-	-	-	0.03	0.05	0.46	-	-	-	0.99 [0.95, 1.00]	1.012 [1.003, 1.054]
	Turnover intentions	−0.24	0.10	<0.01	-	-	-	0.11	0.11	0.32	-	-	-	0.98 [0.94, 0.99]	1.025 [1.010, 1.062]
Study 2
	Promotion-oriented Job Crafting	0.20	0.05	<0.001	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.04	0.05	0.37	0.95 [0.88, 0.98]	1.054 [1.022, 1.131]
	Prevention-oriented Job Crafting	0.19	0.05	<0.001	-	-	-	-	-	-	−0.01	0.05	0.81	0.97 [0.91, 0.99]	1.034 [1.012, 1.097]
	Work Engagement	0.09	0.06	0.09	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.08	0.05	0.12	0.98 [0.92, 0.96]	1.020 [1.005, 1.091]

Note: Latent regression coefficients were estimated using different structural models (see Supplementary Materials), each one including crafting leadership, one competitive leadership measure, and a single employee outcome. Crafting, transformational, and servant leadership measures are specified as higher-order factors, while strength-based leadership and employee outcomes are specified as single factors. β = standardized regression coefficient; SE = standard error; TI = tolerance index; VIF = variance inflation factor; CI = confidence interval. All the regression coefficients are controlled for a common method bias factor on which leadership and employee outcomes items are loaded.

). Crafting leadership added 5.0% (p < 0.01) of explained variance in needs–supplies fit (moving from R² = 0.027 with only strength-based leadership to R² = 0.077), 10.2% (p < 0.001) in meaningful work (moving from R² = 0.034 with only strength-based leadership to R² = 0.136), and 7.6% (p < 0.01) in turnover intentions (moving from R² = 0.011 with only strength-based leadership to R² = 0.087). Controlling for a common method factor, crafting leadership outperformed servant leadership in lowering turnover intentions scores, while all other regressions were not significant (see Table 7). Crafting leadership added 0.3% (p < 0.05) of explained variance in turnover intentions (moving from R² = 0.021 with only servant leadership to R² = 0.024). To be sure, the values of VIF and TI exclude problems of multicollinearity between crafting, strength-based, and servant leadership.

5.3.2. Study 2

Table 6 presents the latent correlations between crafting leadership, transformational, and employee outcomes (i.e., promotion-oriented and prevention-oriented job crafting and work engagement). All measurement models estimating such latent correlations fitted the data reasonably well (see Supplementary Materials). As expected, crafting leadership was positively correlated with all employee outcomes (the average correlation value was |0.17|). Latent factors showed significant correlations ranging from |0.11| (transformational leadership with work engagement) to |0.22| (crafting leadership with promotion-oriented job crafting). On average, employee outcomes items showed low-to-moderate loadings on the method factor (promotion-oriented job crafting Mλ = 0.21, SDλ = 0.06; prevention-oriented job crafting Mλ = 0.14, SDλ = 0.03; and work engagement Mλ = 0.50, SDλ = 0.38). All structural models regressing employee outcomes on leadership measures also showed an adequate fit to the data (see Supplementary Materials). Controlling for a common method factor, crafting leadership outperformed transformational leadership in increasing employees’ job-crafting behaviors, while the regression coefficients of both styles on work engagement were not significant (see Table 7). Crafting leadership added 4.1% (p < 0.05) of explained variance in promotion-oriented job crafting (moving from R² = 0.011 with only transformational leadership to R² = 0.051) and 3.1% (p < 0.05) of explained variance in prevention-oriented job crafting (moving from R² = 0.002 with only transformational leadership to R² = 0.033). To be sure, the values of VIF and TI exclude problems of multicollinearity between crafting and transformational leadership.

6. Discussion

In response to the evolving organizational landscapes and the potential limitations of one-size-fits-all leadership solutions in managing employees, this article aimed to conceptualize crafting leadership to help them craft unique and more suitable work experiences. Additionally, this study sought to develop and validate a measurement instrument for crafting leadership. Through two studies, we confirmed the psychometric properties of our measure and established crafting leadership as a distinct and valuable concept within the leadership literature. Our findings advance the field of leadership studies and measurement in several ways discussed in the following sections.

6.1. Theoretical Contributions

In regard to our conceptual proposal, the crafting leadership model advances the understanding of leadership behaviors that facilitate employee job crafting. Indeed, we developed the leadership behavioral domains identified by Wang et al. (2016) into a comprehensive model, integrating insights from the Michelangelo model (Rusbult et al., 2009) and the leadership for organizational adaptability framework (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). In detail, we defined crafting leadership as a behavioral style where leaders adapt to employees’ characteristics to co-construct their fit at work and engage in the actualization and development of both people and organizations. Such a behavioral style is conceived to encompass three behavioral facets, namely tailoring, person–organization alignment, and catalyst. The tailoring facet refers to designing resourceful jobs through a Michelangelo-based approach, that is, the leader sculpts their behavior based on their understanding of both the current and potential idiosyncratic characteristics of the employee, thereby providing compatible resources to their use and development (Rusbult et al., 2009). The person–organization alignment facet refers to conveying organizational values to employees to regulate their behavior in accordance with strategic and operational functioning. The catalyst facet, on the other hand, focuses on fostering team-based conditions for collaborative questioning and development and bridging the innovative outputs of these processes with organizational development.

Altogether, this is the first study to apply the Michelangelo model to the literature on leader–employee relationships, emphasizing the co-constructed and collaborative nature of both leadership (Martin et al., 2018) and employee job-crafting behaviors (Tims et al., 2022). Thus, we addressed calls to explore reciprocal adaptation dynamics between leaders and employees (Yukl & Mahsud, 2010), which is moving beyond a top-down influence perspective (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Indeed, by recognizing the importance of adapting behavioral strategies to individual differences among employees (e.g., Thompson & Vecchio, 2009), this study offers an alternative perspective to both the well-known Pygmalion model, which reflects how leader expectations mold employee behavior and developmental trajectories (McNatt, 2000), and, relatedly, the use of strategic modeling to manage and develop employee characteristics documented in the literature (Decuypere & Schaufeli, 2021; Tummers & Bakker, 2021). Moreover, our contribution is the first to translate the enabling leadership function—aimed at creating an adaptive space for organizational viability and development in response to changing environments (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007)—to the management of employees’ characteristics by formal leaders. Indeed, our crafting leadership model, by leveraging individual differences among employees, is conceived to channel the emergence and integration of individual and synergistic adaptations into the established organizational functioning (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). This approach fills a crucial gap in literature for two key reasons. First, it meets the scholarly demand to translate the complexity of leadership for organizational adaptability into practical, measurable behaviors for effective employee management (Nöthel et al., 2023). Second, unlike other leadership styles that emphasized one-to-one leader–follower interactions and their alignment with organizational goals (Yukl & Mahsud, 2010), crafting leadership accounts also for collaborative interactions within the team and throughout the organization while balancing organizational alignment with developmental needs.

In regard to our measurement instrument, we demonstrated that crafting leadership is a psychometrically sound and valid measure, distinguishable from other leadership styles and incrementally explaining variance in employee outcomes. Specifically, our analyses confirmed the distinctiveness of the scales and supported satisfactory internal consistency, indicating that the crafting leadership questionnaire is a reliable tool. Results corroborated a higher-order solution, supporting that crafting leadership can be better assessed as a governing dimension encompassing the three underlying behavioral facets. In line with the leadership for organizational adaptability (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018), tailoring, person–organization alignment and catalyst have been conceptualized as co-occurrent, reflecting how leaders unlock individual differences among people and manage them both in line with the organizational current functioning and towards collective development. Thus, we advance literature on behaviors through which formal leaders enable employees’ adaptability within organizations, which have largely remained elusive and understudied to date (Nöthel et al., 2023; Yukl & Mahsud, 2010). Our construct complements the work of Nöthel et al. (2023), who proposed a measure of adaptive leadership behavior. However, their measure captures individual differences in leaders’ skills to adapt their style rather than behaviors related to managing and developing employees’ characteristics within the broader organizational functioning.

Moreover, we found moderate-to-high correlations between crafting leadership and other styles (i.e., strength-based, servant, and transformational leadership). These findings align with previous evidence (e.g., DeRue et al., 2011; Van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013) but respect the cutoffs to reject a substantial overlap between measures (Rönkkö & Cho, 2022), thereby demonstrating that crafting leadership does not contribute to unnecessary construct proliferation (Bormann & Rowold, 2018). In detail, we found that crafting leadership exhibits higher correlations with strength-based and servant leadership than with transformational leadership. Strength-based and servant leadership are inherently employee-focused, prioritizing the management and development of individual characteristics (Ding et al., 2020; Van Dierendonck et al., 2017), while transformational leadership is more leader-centric, influencing employees to achieve an overarching vision (Tourish, 2013). In terms of specific facets, tailoring aligns most closely with strength-based, empowerment, and individualized consideration behaviors, all of which emphasize personalized employee management. The use of tailoring, indeed, requires leaders to adjust their managerial approach, displaying behaviors aimed at valuing, alternatively, individual strengths, autonomy needs, or setting high achievement expectations based on the specific employee. The person–organization alignment facet showed the highest correlation with the idealized influence of transformational leadership, highlighting their shared focus on a value-driven approach to regulating employee behavior. However, it further refines leadership measurement by emphasizing organizational values over leaders’ own values and including managerial practices for conveying and reinforcing them beyond role modeling (Schein, 2010). The catalyst facet emerged as the most distinctive, displaying no correlation with servant leadership and only moderate correlations with other styles. This facet enhances leadership measurement by focusing on team-based dynamics and assessing how leaders connect individuals within the team towards collective development (Yukl, 2012).

Finally, our results showed that crafting leadership is associated with positive employee outcomes. Thus, we corroborate existing systematic and meta-analytic research linking leadership behaviors to improved psychological and behavioral adjustment in the workplace (e.g., Decuypere & Schaufeli, 2021; Tummers & Bakker, 2021). Crafting leadership increased needs–supplies fit and meaningful work and reduced turnover intentions more effectively than strength-based leadership. Moreover, it enhanced job-crafting behaviors better than transformational leadership. Overall, the percentages of additional variance explained in these outcomes reasonably align with the meta-analysis by Hoch et al. (2018), noting that the authors did not control for common method biases between leadership measures and outcomes. On the contrary, we observed null effects in the comparison between crafting and servant leadership in the prediction of employee outcomes and between crafting and transformational leadership in the prediction of employees’ engagement. This result suggests that different leadership styles, when evaluated under the same manager, may interact in complex ways in employees’ perceptions (Wang et al., 2019). For instance, rather than a direct relationship, the effects on outcomes may be nested within more complex nomological networks, potentially mediated by distinct mechanisms (see Eva et al., 2019; Decuypere & Schaufeli, 2021; Tummers & Bakker, 2021, for examples). All in all, it is reasonable to assert that the increases found in explained variance in employee outcomes, even though small, have a pragmatic value to drive intervention in applied psychology research (Hoch et al., 2018).

6.2. Practical Implications

The questionnaire can be used in employee surveys to help organizations map the level of crafting leadership behaviors within the company. When stratified based on socio-organizational variables and cross-referenced with employee wellbeing and performance data, this information can provide management and HR specialists with developmental insights. Our framework and measurement instrument can also be integrated into leadership development programs. For instance, crafting leadership could be incorporated into 180° feedback processes between managers and employees to enhance awareness of strengths and areas for improvement in valuing unique characteristics (tailoring), conveying organizational values (person–organization alignment), and enabling team-based collaborative and development-oriented efforts (catalyst). Moreover, crafting leadership could be used for designing training or coaching programs to enhance managers’ skills. To enhance tailoring, managers could receive tools for recognizing unique characteristics (e.g., motivational inclinations, personal resources, and values). Leaders could be trained in goal setting and feedback techniques to recognize and develop employees’ characteristics (Locke & Latham, 2013; Santarpia et al., 2021, 2024b). Another effective approach might involve conducting feedforward interviews (see Kluger & Nir, 2010), requiring employees to share an experience at work when they felt full of life and energized. By reflecting on the conditions that led to these peak moments and contrasting them with current work conditions, clearer pathways for enhancing employees’ self-determination in the workplace can emerge. To enhance the catalyst behavior, managers can be trained in techniques and strategies for synergizing team members’ characteristics to sustain team-based performance (e.g., complementary partnering, (Linley et al., 2009); team-based or collaborative job crafting, (Mäkikangas et al., 2017)) and engaging with stakeholders to promote organizational change (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2018). Finally, to enhance person–organization alignment, programs may focus on increasing leaders’ knowledge of organizational culture and how company strategies, goals, and values influence practices and work conditions and how leaders contribute to their promotion and sense-making (Schein, 2010).

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

There are several limitations to acknowledge. First, although we followed the latest guidelines for leadership measurement (Bormann & Rowold, 2018; Crawford & Kelder, 2019), our studies are based on employees’ perceptions and are cross-sectional. Despite controlling common method biases, future research should combine employees’ perceptions with leaders’ self-evaluations. Krüger et al. (2011) showed that correlations between leadership behaviors are generally higher in employees’ ratings compared to managers. Multi-source replications are essential to confirm the factorial and discriminant validity of crafting leadership (Bormann & Rowold, 2018). Longitudinal data are also needed to verify the construct’s stability over time and enhance its predictive validity. Second, while we focused on the outcomes of crafting leadership, exploring the individual and situational factors that may enhance leaders’ ability to assess and support employees’ unique characteristics would be valuable. For example, some leaders may be more inclined to engage in crafting leadership behaviors due to personal individual differences (e.g., those with higher emotional, cognitive, or behavioral adaptability; Nöthel et al., 2023). The application of crafting leadership may also vary due to contingent situations and events, such as differences between employees, leader–employee relationship properties (e.g., quality; Martin et al., 2018), and organizational features (e.g., overall culture; Schein, 2010); workplace inclusion; Santarpia et al., 2024a). Third, we did not explore the relationships between crafting leadership and empowering leadership (Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014), as this style also uses empowerment as in servant leadership. For the same reason and considering that it accounts also for inspirational motivation as in transformational leadership, we did not investigate engaging leadership (Schaufeli, 2015). However, future studies should examine how crafting leadership differs from these styles and if it has unique predictive value.

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, the present article introduced crafting leadership as a behavioral style through which leaders adapt to the unique characteristics of their employees as a means to co-construct their fit within the workplace and foster the development of both individuals and organizations. In an era where organizations increasingly question the effectiveness of one-size-fits-all leadership approaches, this study emphasized the importance of leaders actively supporting employees in shaping their work experience. Crafting leadership was conceptualized and operationalized through three core behavioral dimensions: tailoring, person–organization alignment, and catalyst behaviors. Our findings supported that the developed questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool for assessing these leadership behaviors, offering organizations a practical framework to tackle contemporary challenges in employee management. Furthermore, the results showed that crafting leadership is distinct from existing leadership styles, such as transformational, servant, and strength-based leadership, representing an innovative step forward in the conceptualization and measurement of leadership behaviors. Finally, this leadership style was associated with positive employee outcomes, including improved needs–supplies fit, meaningful work, job-crafting behaviors, work engagement, and reduced turnover intentions. Overall, the proposed model and questionnaire provide a practical tool for designing assessment and development programs aimed at managers. These programs can help organizations promote leadership practices that are better aligned with the evolving needs of their workforce, while effectively addressing the challenges of contemporary employee management.