Creativity and contextual performance represent two forms of voluntary, extra-role behaviors in the sense that they involve engaging in task-related behaviors at a level that is beyond minimally required or generally expected levels. According to Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000) both concepts share the idea that the employee is going “above and beyond” the call of duty. Creativity refers to the production of new and useful ideas or problem solutions (Amabile et al., 2005). It generally refers to both the process and the product of idea generation or problem solving. Creativity can range from suggestions for incremental adaptations in work procedures to radical breakthroughs in the development of new products (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; Shalley et al., 2004). Contextual performance is defined as work behaviors and activities that are not necessarily related to work tasks but that contribute to the social and psychological aspects of the organization (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Contextual performance contributes to organizational effectiveness, and “includes volunteering to carry out task activities that are not formally part of the job and helping and cooperating with others in the organization to get tasks accomplished” (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997, p. 100). Contextual performance can be directed toward the organization at large and towards individuals (Dalal, 2005; Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Employees are generally suggested to show extra-role behaviors when they are highly motivated (Podsakoff et al., 2000); therefore, resources come at play.

We argue that the extent to which employees engage in these extra-role behaviors will be related to a process in which they create and invest resources of their environment. According to Hobfoll (2002), individuals are constantly striving to maximize and protect resources – objects, conditions, personal characteristics, and energies that are either valued in their own right, or act as a means to obtain valued objectives. Job resources can be provided to the employee, for instance, through top-down approaches (e.g., support and feedback from the supervisor). However, job resources can also be created or mobilized by the individual employee, for example, through a bottom-up approach such as job crafting (e.g., by asking for support and feedback from the supervisor). This is also in line with the suggestions of Dawis and Lofquist (1984) that individuals use strategies to increase correspondence between their environment (so-called reinforcers like rewards, colleagues, management) and their needs in order to increase fit. Having resources in the areas of one’s goals motivates employees and makes them feel happy (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001; Diener, 2000; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). When relevant job resources are available, employees’ level of motivation and well-being may be fostered, and these may enhance the likelihood of taking advantage of the current job resources and being able to create new ones. Indeed, employees are suggested to invest resources to build further resources; Hobfoll (2002) calls this ‘gain spirals’ or ‘resource caravans’. Following this logic, we suggest that engaged and flourishing employees will have abundant resources to invest in their job and thus show behaviors that are not formally required by their job. Thus, employees with access to resources will exhibit enthusiasm in their job and behave in ways that benefit the organization and/or other employees (Dalal, 2005). We will now explain why job crafting is related to a resources-generation process.

Job Crafting, Work Engagement, and Flourishing Job crafting represents actions employees take to alter the physical task boundaries of a job (i.e., type or number of activities), the cognitive task boundaries of a job (i.e., how one sees the job), and the relational boundaries of a job (i.e., whom one interacts with at work) (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), with the goal of becoming more engaged, satisfied, resilient, and thriving at work (Berg, Dutton & Wrzesniewski, 2008). Job crafting involves both active and reactive behaviors through which employees increase fit with their environment by changing it (cf. Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Eggerth, 2008; Tims & Bakker, 2010). Although Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001, p. 181) define job crafting as “everyday” behavior, Lyons (2008) found that on average only 1.5 crafting episodes occur per year using their conceptualization which is far from daily behavior. This is perhaps because individuals do not alter the perceptions regarding the significance of their work on a daily basis (cf. cognitive crafting).