The Holistic Life-Crafting Model: a systematic literature review of meaning-making behaviors

Pursuing meaningful life experiences is vital for wellbeing and health. Crafting strategies, such as job crafting and work-life balance crafting, have been developed to create meaning in specific life domains. However, these strategies share common underlying behaviors that transcend specific contexts. Building on this understanding, we propose a comprehensive “holistic life-crafting” approach that integrates overlapping behaviors from various crafting strategies. This study aims to clarify the theoretical conceptualization of life-crafting by identifying common strategies and behaviors underlying different meaning-making crafting approaches. Through a systematic literature search of six databases between January and April 2022, we identified 16,479 published records. Using predefined inclusion–exclusion criteria, 51 records (reflecting five crafting approaches, resulting in 223 different crafting behaviors) remained. Through content analysis, we grouped these behaviors into seven broader crafting strategies, forming the “holistic life-crafting” approach. Findings suggest that life-crafting is a holistic, continuous process of proactive meaning-making by intentionally balancing life demands with available resources and altering life’s cognitive, environmental, interest, relational, skill, and task-related aspects to promote personal growth and wellbeing. The holistic approach encompasses cognitive, environmental, interest, relational, resources-demands, skill, and task crafting strategies. This framework provides a comprehensive understanding of how individuals can actively shape their lives to promote more meaningful life experiences across different domains.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022333930.

Introduction

Pursuing meaningful life experiences is a fundamental objective of the human condition and vital for overall wellbeing and flourishing (Jacob and Steger, 2021). Meaning, defined as “the sense that people make of their existence and having an overarching life purpose they pursue” (Steger et al., 2014, p. 27), is an essential antecedent for various positive individual (e.g., happiness), organizational- (e.g., performance), and societal outcomes (e.g., economic prosperity; Jacob and Steger, 2021). Given these benefits, there is increasing interest in understanding the mechanisms and practical approaches to develop meaning (Van Zyl et al., 2010, 2020). According to Jacob and Steger (2021), ‘crafting strategies/approaches’ have become increasingly popular in the literature to help individuals actively create or (re)shape meaningful experiences in different life domains, like work, leisure, or careers. Crafting strategies pertain to a collection of domain-specific behaviors and conscious efforts aimed at changing the physical nature or perception of life/work to better align such with one’s core values, needs, strengths, and goals (Demerouti et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2022).

Largely, the crafting literature developed from industrial/organizational psychology and world of work perspectives, leading to the construction of job crafting (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). This bottom-up approach helps employees redesign their work experiences by empowering self-directed and value-driven movement toward positive change in meeting complex work demands (Roczniewska et al., 2023). However, researchers and theorists soon started broadening out the concept of crafting to other life domains, including nonwork (De Bloom et al., 2020; Laporte et al., 2021), family (Wan et al., 2021), and leisure (Berg et al., 2010; Kosenkranius et al., 2020) contexts. Currently, there is a strong push to extend the concept of crafting by creating integrative models of meaning-making that cut across different fields of study. In response to these calls, various forms of domain-specific crafting strategies have emerged, ranging from job, home, and career crafting to leisure, story, and work-life balance crafting (Chen et al., 2022). In fact, the literature is saturated with crafting strategies and behaviors, including, but not limited to, cognitive crafting, relational crafting, resource crafting, challenge crafting, demands crafting, task crafting, home crafting, family crafting, leisure crafting, temporal crafting, location crafting, and developmental crafting. These crafting approaches and strategies increase wellbeing and performance in various life domains (Demerouti et al., 2020) but have also been criticized for the fact that their underlying behaviors are stringently context-bound (e.g., crafting in work-related contexts or family life; Chen et al., 2022).

Although meaning arises through domain-specific activities (Messmann and Mulder, 2012; De Jong et al., 2020), human behavior is not entirely context-dependent (Snyder and Tanke, 1976). According to the cognitive consistency theory, people prefer congruence between their thoughts, beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors. They are motivated to behave consistently to reduce cognitive dissonance and create coherence in their self-concepts (Kruglanski et al., 2018). Trait activation theory also suggests latent personality traits generate habitual behavioral patterns regardless of context (Tett and Burnett, 2003). Moreover, as creatures of habit, people’s approach to challenges and life tasks is habitual and thus fairly consistent across domains (Snyder and Tanke, 1976; Heimlich and Ardoin, 2008). Deviating from these ingrained, habitual behaviors requires substantial mental effort because they are rooted in deep-seated beliefs, values, personality, skills, enculturation, and socialization (Heimlich and Ardoin, 2008; Wood and Rünger, 2016). Neuroscience also supports the assumption that individuals have a ‘default mode network’ in the brain that reverts thinking and behavior to innate or natural setpoints after situational deviations (De Haan et al., 2023). Therefore, individuals’ underlying psychological makeup and resulting behavioral tendencies remain relatively stable despite their contexts. Hence, crafting strategies may be domain-specific on the surface, but their underlying behaviors are likely to generalize across life domains (Chen et al., 2022). We, therefore, contend that there is an overlap between the different behaviors underpinning different domain-specific crafting strategies. The overlap may lead to a more holistic and encompassing meaning-making or crafting approach: Life-Crafting.

Life-crafting is a relatively new concept in the literature referring to a general crafting strategy comprised of universal meaning-making behaviors–but questions remain regarding its conceptualization, operationalization, and measurement (Dekker et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2022). Existing literature presents two approaches to life-crafting. The first approach, described by Schippers and Ziegler (2019), views life-crafting as an intervention framework focused on helping students discover their values/passions, reflect on their present and future competencies/habits-and social lives, consider their ideal future, set concrete goals, and undertake actions to align their values and needs to important areas of life (e.g., social, career, and leisure). Despite its novelty, no empirical evidence of the effectiveness of this approach nor a valid or reliable means to measure underlying concepts was presented. Despite providing a contextual definition for life-crafting, Schippers and Ziegler (2019) neither provide inductive or deductive reasoning for life-crafting as a meaning-making strategy nor link the components to any known meaning-centered theoretical framework. The theoretical basis for the intervention is stated to draw from several different fields (e.g., salutogenesis, positive psychology, goal-setting theory). Still, the connections between these fields and the components of their life-crafting approach are not fully fleshed out (Chen et al., 2022). Chen et al. (2022) echo these concerns by stating that “the conceptual construction of Schippers and Ziegler’s (2019) life-crafting and what it entails is severely lacking” (p. 2). The theoretical grounding and connection to the different components of this approach remain unclear.

Chen et al. (2022) offered an alternative perspective to life-crafting as a collection of meaning-centered behaviors that helps people align their inherent life goals, values, and capabilities to create more meaningful life experiences. Chen et al. (2022) drew from other crafting approaches in the literature to operationalize life-crafting as a foundation for constructing their definition and model and developing/validating a psychometric instrument to measure such. Chen et al. (2022) found evidence and support for a three-factor model of life-crafting. The model defines life-crafting as “the conscious efforts individuals exert to create meaning in their lives through (a) cognitively (re-)framing how they view life, (b) by seeking social support systems to manage life challenges, and (c) to actively seeking challenges to facilitate personal growth” (Chen et al., 2022, p. 23).

While promising, questions remain regarding Chen et al.’s (2022) conceptualization and measurement of life-crafting. First, they identified eight overlapping crafting strategies (positive thinking, personal goal attainment, creating new relationships, optimizing current relationships, utilizing social resources, resources crafting, challenges crafting, and demands crafting), which were later confirmed through qualitative interviews. However, the associated Life-crafting Scale showed that only three factors could be meaningfully extracted: cognitive crafting, seeking social support, and seeking challenges (Chen et al., 2022). Although the authors attempt to provide a psychometric explanation for why these factors did not manifest as intended (e.g., wording effects, shared variance between factors), no theoretical argument was explored for the absence of these factors. It is further unclear why ‘positive thinking’ and ‘goal attainment’ were removed from the overall assessment framework.

Second, the qualitative approach employed to explore the life-crafting strategies was conducted with a sample of Chinese participants and later confirmed within a sample from the Netherlands. However, this approach may have overlooked indigenous meaning-making behaviors specific to the Dutch sample. Because considerable cultural variations exist between Western and Eastern societies in meaning-making, people’s underlying behaviors to create more meaningful life experiences may differ (Wong, 2020; Van Zyl et al., 2023b). This position could explain why only three overarching life-crafting strategies were extracted from the data. Overall, cultural variation in life-crafting strategies represents a significant topic for which additional research is clearly needed to support more inclusive and responsive crafting theories.

Third, the theoretical foundation Chen et al. (2022) used to construct life-crafting is deeply rooted in the conservation of resources theory (Chen et al., 2022). Specifically, life-crafting is primarily focused on preventing the current or future loss of resources. This scope of evaluation is limited and dismisses a plethora of theoretical and empirical evidence suggesting that the function of meaning-making strategies, like life-crafting, is more expansive and integrated (Wong, 2020). For instance, unique features underlying life-crafting serve to support personal growth by increasing engagement in health-coping efforts (Folkman, 1997), expanding access to resilience and well-being resources (Ryff, 2014), bolstering insights on how to find flourishing through suffering (Wong et al., 2021), finding acceptance and reconfiguring ways to “make sense” out of adversity (Park, 2010), and navigating and transcending chaos (Bushkin et al., 2021). Taken as a whole, Chen et al.’s (2022) conceptualization of life-crafting seems restrictive, built mainly around conservation rather than generation or growth, a limitation acknowledged in their work. Moving forward, it will be important to shape life-crafting frameworks by evaluating the intersectionality among different theoretical approaches to meaning-making.

Fourth, the Life-Crafting Scale also posed several psychometric issues. Notably, several items reported significant and large cross-loadings between constructs. These cross-loadings suggest that there may be limited differentiation between life-crafting components (Morin et al., 2020; Van Zyl and Ten Klooster, 2022). Furthermore, the authors do not explain why certain items were dropped from the questionnaire. Chen et al. (2022) only mentioned that three items per construct were essential for parsimony but did not explain or support the process of reducing the item set. The resulting ambiguity risks undermining the conceptualization of life-crafting and its different components, a limitation actively acknowledged by Chen et al. (2022).

Taken together, these limitations provide substantive opportunities to expand the theoretical operationalization of life-crafting. The lack of consensus on the essential elements of life-crafting between Schippers and Ziegler (2019) and Chen et al. (2022), coupled with the conceptual and empirical limitations in both approaches, highlights a need for a more comprehensive, systematic investigation into the theoretical underpinnings of this concept. As such, the present study aims to advance life crafting’s theoretical foundation by identifying common behaviors underpinning different meaning-making or ‘crafting’ approaches/strategies to frame an integrative definition and model of life-crafting.

Literature review

Crafting strategies and approaches

Individuals can proactively cultivate meaning through active ‘crafting’, which refers to intentionally changing cognitive, physical, and social features of work, home, or life in general (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) suggested that crafting fosters meaning by helping people (a) assert more control over their lives and avoid alienation, (b) develop a positive self-image, and (c) fulfill basic needs for human connection. This approach, built around the principle of coherence, conveys that meaning-making is a continuous process of creating a closer alignment between the needs/values/strengths of the individual and the requirements of their environment (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). As such, various forms of domain-specific work (e.g., job [re]crafting) and personal (e.g., home, family, and leisure crafting) crafting approaches and more general crafting strategies (e.g., needs crafting and life-crafting) have emerged in the literature.

Work-related crafting approaches foster meaning by helping people consciously reframe the purpose of work, change the nature of work tasks, and create more fulfilling personal relationships at work (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). Job crafting is one of the most popular approaches to creating more meaningful work experiences; it refers to the conscious effort employees initiate to reshape the nature, function, and demands of their work environment to better fit their needs and strengths (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001; Tims and Bakker, 2010). This involves a process by which individuals either change the physical characteristics of their work (i.e., increasing structural job resources, social resources, challenging demands or decreasing hindering job demands; Tims and Bakker, 2010) or reshaping the perceptive boundaries of work-related tasks, relationships, and ways of thinking about work (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). These proactive strategies help people expand (a) their work’s nature, scope, and boundaries, (b) the meanings they attach to or derive from work, and (c) their professional identities to feel more fulfilled (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). Job crafting is also directly linked to work engagement, pro-social behaviors, innovation, and higher levels of work-related performance (Bakker et al., 2012; Dubbelt et al., 2019). Because of the noted benefits, job crafting is an important positive psychological intervention strategy to enhance employee wellbeing (Bakker et al., 2012; Van Zyl et al., 2020).

On the other hand, personal crafting approaches focus on cultivating meaning in general life domains (Chen et al., 2022). These personal crafting strategies are context-bound, often pertaining to areas outside of work-life, including home crafting, family crafting, leisure crafting, and relational crafting (Chen et al., 2022). Like Tims and Bakker (2010) conceptualization of job crafting, these crafting behaviors draw heavily from the conservation of resources theory. For example, Demerouti et al. (2020) defined home crafting as “the changes that employees make to balance their home demands and home resources with their personal abilities and needs to experience meaning and create or restore their person-environment fit” (p. 1013). In deconstructing home crafting, there are several underlying proactive behaviors, including reducing home demands (i.e., behaviors initiated to reduce the mental/emotional/physical load of strenuous activities at home after work), seeking resources (i.e., creating more variety in tasks or asking others for help) and seeking challenges (i.e., being busy at home and looking for activities to stretch one’s capabilities). Essentially, home crafting helps manage negative spillovers from work by generating more positive ‘energy’ at home (Demerouti et al., 2020).

Similarly, Wan et al. (2021) conceptualized family crafting as an extension of the job crafting framework. Drawing from the conservation of resources theory, they argued that family crafting refers to behaviors people engage in to create more meaningful family experiences by closing the gap between the family’s needs and capabilities (Wan et al., 2021). Like job crafting and home crafting, family crafting is delineated by three components: reducing hindering family demands and increasing structural family resources and challenging demands. Family crafting highlights one’s ability to alter family-related obligations, relationships, and activities to improve family functioning (De Bloom et al., 2020). Regarding interpersonal outcomes, family crafting strategies buffer against the negative effects of interpersonal conflict on positive family experiences and overall family functioning (Wan et al., 2021).

Theoretically, leisure crafting is a unique facet of meaning-making. It draws from the conservation of resources theory but is more concerned with the proactive pursuit of goal setting, human connection, learning, and personal development (Petrou et al., 2017). Petrou and Bakker (2016) argued that leisure crafting helps people change the nature of their hobbies or tasks and reshapes the relational boundaries of their free time. As with other forms of crafting, leisure crafting is (a) proactive and intentional, (b) facilitates personal growth through mastery and challenging demands, and (c) builds companionship and offers new pathways to form relationships (Petrou and Bakker, 2016). Thus, leisure crafting is an important meaning-making mechanism, highly associated with needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Chen et al., 2022).

All these approaches to crafting consider the context (e.g., work or home life) as the primary unit of analysis and define the pathways or behaviors people take to create more meaningful life experiences (Chen et al., 2022). However, a domain-specific approach “violates a more holistic account of human behavior, in which individuals in their work and not work context would be considered [simultaneously]” (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001, p. 196). As such, these domain-specific crafting strategies give credence to developing more general approaches to crafting, which consider one’s overall life approach as the unit of analysis (i.e., need-based and life-crafting approaches).

Needs crafting refers to the proactive behaviors individuals engage in to consciously manage experiences related to their basic psychological needs, including awareness of personal need satisfaction sources and a propensity to take action based on that awareness (De Bloom et al., 2020). Alternatively, life crafting refers to continuously, holistically shaping life experiences for meaning (Dekker et al., 2020). It is “a process in which people actively reflect on their present and future life, set goals for important areas of life–social, career, and leisure time–and, if required, make concrete plans and undertake actions to change these areas in a way that is more congruent with their values and wishes” (Schippers and Ziegler, 2019, p. 3). Drawing heavily from the conservation of resources theory, an alternative approach to life-crafting argues that it is “conscious efforts individuals exert to create meaning in their lives through (a) cognitively (re-)framing how they view life, (b) by seeking social support systems to manage life challenges, and (c) to actively seeking challenges to facilitate personal growth” (Chen et al., 2022, p. 23). These three approaches provide a set of general meaning-making behaviors which aim to satisfy inherent personal needs, facilitate growth, or help align one’s true-self to life goals.

Crafting behaviors

Given that most of these approaches draw from the conservation of resources theory, it is not surprising that there is considerable overlap in the associated behaviors people use to craft meaning in different life domains. A brief review of crafting strategies reveals six overlapping meaning-making behaviors: (a) cognitive crafting, (b) relational crafting, (c) task crafting, (d) resources crafting, and (e) demands/challenges crafting.

Cognitive crafting involves active efforts to alter how life and work are viewed to be more meaningful (Slemp and Vella-Brodrick, 2013). Specifically, it involves proactive attempts to understand how one’s life or work elements are connected to the success of one’s organization, community, or society (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). According to Berg et al. (2013), this cognitive framing approach is focused on changing one’s perceptions about one’s boundaries and contribution to society through expanding perceptions, focusing perceptions, and linking perceptions.

Relational crafting refers to behaviors that foster meaning by changing how, when, and with whom people interact daily (Berg et al., 2013). These behaviors attempt to establish or maintain high-quality connections or social support systems required to advance their personal or life goals (Berg et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2022). Relational crafting, therefore, aims to expand the quantity or quality of interpersonal connections by building relationships, reframing the nature of current relationships, and adapting the function of relationships (Berg et al., 2013).

Task crafting refers to the behaviors designed to physically alter the type, number, scope, and nature of tasks people perform in their daily lives (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). This process involves the autonomy to add or drop new tasks, alter how tasks are performed, or change how much time/energy is invested in completing various life tasks (Berg et al., 2013). According to Berg et al. (2013), task crafting enhances meaning through three active behaviors: adding additional tasks to work, emphasizing tasks that are energizing or meaningful, and re-engineering or redesigning existing tasks to make them more meaningful (Berg et al., 2013).

Drawing again from the conservation of resources theory, resource crafting is a set of proactive behaviors designed to maximize or optimize one’s currently available resources to achieve important work or life goals (Chen et al., 2022). These resources cut across different domains and are valued by people or are needed to achieve important life goals like financial independence, autonomy, or competence (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017). Resource crafters use their abilities, strengths, and preferences to increase or optimize their structural and social resources, enhancing their fit with their environment (Tims et al., 2016; Bakker and Demerouti, 2017). Tims et al. (2012) argued resource crafting has two main components: increasing structural and social resources. Those who resource craft aim to find a balance among available resources, environmental demands, personal abilities, needs, and goals to achieve and flourish (Tims et al., 2016).

Tims and Bakker (2010) noted that people craft their life demands and challenges to experience a deeper meaning. Challenge crafting refers to the extent to which people engage in activities that challenge their current skills or capabilities to facilitate personal growth, achievement, or accomplishment (LePine et al., 2005). Specifically, challenge crafting helps develop a sense of mastery over a particular life domain through engaging in essential and demanding activities (Chen et al., 2022). Further, where challenge crafting is growth-focused, demands crafting seeks to eliminate obstructive or hindering life demands and avoid unnecessary resource loss (Richter et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2022). These hindering life demands are obstacles to achieving individual goals and require substantial effort/energy to overcome (Demerouti and Peeters, 2018). Although these life demands cannot be entirely avoided, demand crafters manage them more effectively by simplifying tasks or making them more efficient (Demerouti and Peeters, 2018). To compensate for these hindering demands, demand crafters proactively seek ways to cope with, eliminate, or avoid the sources of these demands. Prolonged exposure to hindering demands can lead to burnout, stress, and depression (Tims and Bakker, 2010; Demerouti et al., 2020).

Current study

The marked overlap in behaviors across different crafting strategies, alongside the conceptual limitations of extant life-crafting models (Schippers and Ziegler, 2019; Chen et al., 2022), denote the need to reevaluate and expand our understanding of life-crafting. As such, this systematic literature review aims to broaden the theoretical conceptualization of life-crafting by identifying common elements and behaviors underlying different crafting approaches. Specifically, this study investigates the most common or overlapping crafting behaviors to offer a more holistic, inclusive, and integrative definition and theoretical model for life-crafting. Considering the prevailing literature on crafting, our study addresses a sorely need area of evaluation. Notably, the crafting literature is rather disparate; there is no comprehensive and overarching theoretical groundwork to guide the progression of the field (De Jong et al., 2020). Researchers and theorists constantly develop new crafting dimensions with little consideration for whether and how such dimensions add value to the literature incrementally. For example, there are significant challenges in evaluating whether new iterations of crafting are reconfigured expressions of existing crafting concepts or tapping new behaviors and strategies not found within the literature (Chen et al., 2022). In response, our study is one of the first attempts to consolidate this literature base into a meaningful, complex, and cascading crafting model to support future more scientifically framed, nuanced, and integrative research efforts. Once a grounded crafting platform is established, researchers and theorists can tackle other significant limitations (e.g., measurement issues within crafting behaviors; Chen et al., 2022) to solidify further and strengthen this field of study. However, developing theoretical grounding by consolidating and framing the current literature into a meaningful structure or model is of the utmost importance.

Methodology

Research approach

An artificial intelligence (AI) assisted systematic literature review was employed to investigate the main objective of this study. AI-assisted systematic literature reviews use active learning to train a predefined machine learning model that forecasts the relevance of records based on specific inclusion/exclusion criteria (Van de Schoot et al., 2021). This approach is particularly relevant when a large number of records are present. The PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2021) steered this systematic literature review (see Appendix G for the PRISMA 2020 checklist). This review was pre-registered on PROSPERO under registration number CRD42022333930.

The decision to implement a systematic review approach was made with consideration for the study’s primary goal and significant scientific, theoretical, and practical limitations within the crafting literature. Notably, the study aimed to evaluate an increasingly complex and expansive literature base and frame results in a digestible manner, especially for busy professionals looking to institute working models of crafting in employment and other settings. Systematic reviews are one of the most transparent, rigorous, and meaningful methods of synthesizing large quantities of data and pinpointing the most relevant aspects of disparate findings across studies (Labarca and Letelier, 2022). They present an overall impression of the quality, limitations, and lingering gaps within a literature base to support more holistic and integrative conclusions and implications, especially for policymakers, program developers, and healthcare providers (Siddaway et al., 2019). Furthermore, they are instrumental in clarifying, paring down, extending, and developing theory (Baumeister, 2003; Booth and Carroll, 2015). These benefits appear aligned well to address some of the more significant limitations within the crafting literature. While crafting is an exciting phenomenon, holding great promise in advancing employee wellbeing (Demerouti et al., 2020), the literature lacks a centered organizational structure to support theory development/extension and bolster the links between scientific evaluation and program development. Essentially, the evaluation of crafting as a scientific concept is proliferating, and there is a great need to locate and define the core components, processes, dimensions, and behavioral expressions underlying life-crafting (Chen et al., 2022). Considering the needs within the literature and benefits of systematic review, we decided to employ a rigorous, modern (AI-assisted), and transparent (pre-registered) evaluation procedure consistent with best practices for systematic reviews (Page et al., 2021).

Eligibility criteria

At the study’s onset, specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were established to determine record eligibility. Records were eligible for inclusion if they: (a) explicitly focused on developing, conceptualizing, or evaluating a novel crafting approach (e.g., job crafting, leisure crafting); (b) explicitly mentioned underlying behaviors of a crafting approach (e.g., task crafting, relational crafting); (c) were published in English or Dutch; (d) appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals or scientific books; and (e) were published between 1997 and 2022.

Records were excluded if the: (a) purpose was not explicitly focused on the development, conceptualization, or evaluation of a crafting approach; (b) focus was solely on the antecedents or outcomes of a crafting approach; (c) focus was on behaviors or approaches related to identifying sources of meaning; (d) crafting approach was not positioned as engendering meaningful life/work experiences; (e) focus was on crafting as a creative activity or hobby; (f) the record was not peer-reviewed; (g) record constituted ‘gray literature’; or (h) focus was not on individual behavior.

Search strategy

This systematic literature search of various bibliometric databases took place in January–April 2022. The following bibliographic databases were used for the search: PsychInfo, LibrarySearch, Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus. Primary and secondary search terms were used to identify relevant literature. Primary terms were: “crafting,” “crafting behavior*,” “crafting strateg*,” “cognitive crafting,” “relational crafting,” “resource* crafting,” “challenge crafting,” “demands crafting,” “life-crafting,” “task crafting,” “job crafting,” “home crafting,” “family crafting,” “leisure crafting,” “temporal crafting,” “location crafting,” “academic leisure crafting,” “crafting toward strengths,” “developmental crafting,” “career crafting,” “collaborative crafting” or “team crafting,” “supervisor rated crafting” or “colleague rated crafting,” and “study crafting.” Secondary terms were: “meaning-making,” “creat* meaning,” “meaning-making strategy,” “meaning crafting,” “strength* use,” “cognitive reframing,” “sense-making,” “mindfulness-to-meaning,” and “expressive emotional coping.” The boolean operators AND/OR were used to combine search terms. These search terms resulted in 31,261 titles from the years 1997 through 2022.

Selection procedure

The selection process followed a systematic, multi-stage approach with evaluation and expert input. First, two authors executed the search, garnering 31,261 potential records. Descriptive information (e.g., author/s, title, publication title, and publication year) was extracted, and duplicates were removed.

Second, the dataset consisting of 16,479 articles was uploaded in ASReview (2022) (Automatic Systematic Reviews v.0.19), where the titles and abstracts of the articles were independently screened for inclusion using the inclusion and exclusion criteria. ASReview is an AI-assisted tool that employs machine learning to assist in screening large amounts of textual data in systematic reviews (Van de Schoot et al., 2021). The Naïve Bayesian classifier was used with the default TF-IDF feature extraction approach. The initial model was trained by selecting 26 pre-identified relevant records and screening 100 randomly generated irrelevant records. The learning model was run 100 times with the same 100 irrelevant records. Plotted recall curves were generated to visualize the performance of the trained model throughout the entire simulation. Recall curves provided information about the number of publications to be screened and the number of relevant records identified (Van de Schoot et al., 2021). Two authors then re-trained the active learning model’s second iteration based on the first iteration’s labeling decisions to optimize the hyperparameters per topic to receive a more optimal screening model for the convolutional neural network (Van de Schoot et al., 2021). These simulations were then run and screened independently and separately by both authors. Of the 16,479 records, 80% were screened by the first and 51% of the papers by the second author to ensure that all eligible studies after screening were included. ASReview allows identifying 95% of the appropriate papers after screening 33% of the studies (Van de Schoot et al., 2021). In total, 88 relevant records were extracted from the data.

Third, these 88 records were further reviewed based on the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, excluding 26 further records. A total of 62 articles remained for inclusion. Fourth, full-text records were extracted and evaluated for further consideration. Two authors again screened each record based on the review protocol. After discussing incongruencies, 19 records were excluded for various reasons. Fifth, we screened their reference lists for records that may potentially be relevant. Three additional records were included. After discussions between authors, a final selection of 46 records was made. Finally, the list of final records was distributed to seven experts who provided input on potentially missing records. These academics each had at least 15 years of academic experience, had published at least 10 papers/chapters on crafting, and had published at least 10 papers/chapters related to meaning or meaning-making. Twenty-six additional records were suggested, but only five met the inclusion criteria. Reference and citation searches led to the inclusion of three more articles. In total, 51 records were retained for data extraction. Figure 1 presents the PRISMA flow chart that visually represents the steps taken in the selection process.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart.

Managing search and reporting bias

Several strategies were used to reduce selection and reporting bias during the review process. First, a clearly defined evaluation taxonomy was constructed before conducting the literature review with specific inclusion/exclusion criteria. The protocol for conducting the search and managing differences was discussed and implemented. Search terms were developed alongside three information management specialists. This taxonomy was strictly followed. Second, all searches were conducted by one author and replicated by another to help ensure no records were missed (Moher et al., 2009; Mohamed Shaffril et al., 2021). Third, two researchers screened and coded all records (titles, abstracts, full texts) independently and in parallel (Buscemi et al., 2006). At each step of the review and selection process, the researchers met to discuss/debate the inclusion/exclusion of the extracted records. The reasons for disagreements were noted, and inter-rater reliability (via Cohen’s Kappa) was calculated for each step of the review process (McHugh, 2012). McHugh (2012) states a kappa coefficient of 0.61 is deemed acceptable. After screening titles and abstracts in our review, Cohen’s kappa coefficient was 0.72, indicating substantial agreement between the raters. After screening the full article records, Cohen’s kappa coefficient was 1, which meant perfect agreement. Fourth, the reference lists of selected records were screened to ensure that all relevant records were included, and backward and forward searches were conducted (Xiao and Watson, 2019). Fifth, the final list of included records was sent to experts to determine if any important records were missed (Foo et al., 2021; Mohamed Shaffril et al., 2021). Sixth, quality assessments (similar to those reported in Van Zyl et al., 2023b) were carried out on each final paper (e.g., the corresponding author’s h-index, the number of paper citations, and the journal’s impact factor). Appendix F (see Supplementary material) shows the mean impact factor of the journals (M = 5.60; SD = 3.21) and the medians of the number of citations (71) and h-index of the corresponding author (23).

Data recording and analysis

Data from the final 51 articles were extracted and captured on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet for further analysis. Descriptive (e.g., author/s, publication year, and publication type) and content-related information (e.g., research purpose [verbatim], crafting dimensions, and behaviors) about each record was captured and reported. The data was then analyzed through conventional and summative content analysis. This method aimed to find, analyze, and interpret patterns of relevant themes obtained from textual data (Creswell, 2013). The qualitative data analysis followed Miles and Huberman’s (1994) best practice guidelines, unfolding six steps. First, two researchers read all records included in the study to acquire a general overview of types of crafting. Second, they created (both independently and in parallel) the initial codes based on the types of crafting behaviors that were systematically apparent as the data set was processed. Third, each of the two researchers’ codes was grouped (both independently and in parallel) into probable categories based on comparable qualities. Fourth, the researchers compared the themes to the coded extracts to create a thematic map based on the frequency of occurrence. The fifth step (involving all researchers) was a process of ongoing analyzes and constant revision aiming to describe the parts of each topic and guarantee that the overall analyzes tell a coherent story. Disagreements in the coding were discussed until they had been resolved. Finally, themes were compiled based on their frequency and were used to frame a definition of life-crafting. Together, these steps facilitate the trustworthiness of the data analysis process, and all raw process data were retained for scrutiny.

Results

Characteristics of included records

The systematic search identified 51 records meeting the inclusion criteria, with most (n = 33) published in academic journals during 2018–2022. The records represented five crafting approaches: job crafting (n = 32); work-life balance and home crafting (n = 6); leisure and off-job crafting (n = 5); career and reemployment crafting (n = 4); and miscellaneous crafting (n = 7). In addition, other descriptive information illustrated some unique characteristics of the retained records. In terms of composition, the retained records included quantitative (n = 23), conceptual/theoretical (n = 13), qualitative (n = 10), and mixed-method (n = 5) evaluations. Of the retained empirical/qualitative records (n = 38), the majority were conducted in WEIRD (Westernized, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) countries (n = 32; 84.2%). Table 1 summarizes the descriptive information.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Descriptive information of included records.

Crafting approaches and behaviors

Job crafting and perceived opportunity to craft

The majority of records (n = 32) concerned job crafting. Appendix A shows the characteristics of the 32 job crafting records. Most records conceptualize job crafting as involving some combination of task, relational, cognitive, physical, skill, promotion-oriented, and prevention-oriented crafting behaviors. These categorized behaviors are used to optimize job resources and demands to create positive meaning or outcomes. Specific approaches like daily crafting, role-based crafting, perceived opportunity to craft, and crafting self-efficacy are also covered.

Looking at the components of job crafting, different perspectives were presented. The first perspective showed that job crafting has three main dimensions: task crafting, relational crafting, and cognitive crafting. Eight papers referred to these three dimensions (e.g., Berg et al., 2013; Slemp and Vella-Brodrick, 2013; Niessen et al., 2016). Task crafting refers to “altering the set of responsibilities prescribed by a formal job description by adding or dropping tasks, altering the nature of tasks, or changing how much time, energy, and attention are allocated to various tasks” (Berg et al., 2013, p. 2). Relational crafting refers to “exercising discretion about whom one interacts with at work” (Slemp and Vella-Brodrick, 2013, p. 127). Cognitive crafting “comprises re-framing how employees perceive their job and altering their cognitive representation of the job” (Niessen et al., 2016, p. 1289). Berg et al. (2010) used these dimensions but named them task emphasizing, job expanding, and role re-framing. Biron et al. (2023) used physical crafting as a dimension of job crafting instead of task crafting. They described physical crafting as the “active efforts to maintain work-nonwork boundaries and task allocation through managing the quantity, scope, and location of job tasks” (Biron et al., 2023, p. 3). Bindl et al. (2019), p. 607 included promotion-oriented job crafting (“approach whereby the employee adds to and extends existing job aspects”) and prevention-oriented job crafting (“active changes to one’s job that will prevent negative outcomes from occurring”). Prevention-oriented job crafting does not constitute a withdrawal from work but rather proactive behavior. Bindl et al. (2019), p. 607 furthermore added skill crafting that can occur as promotion-oriented (“gaining a wide range of skills through seeking out training opportunities or engaging in stretching assignments/projects”) or prevention-oriented (“minimizing failures by focusing on what one does best and optimizing performance in one’s area of expertise”). Lazazzara et al. (2020), Bruning and Campion (2018), Hu et al. (2020), and Melo et al. (2021) used the terms approach and avoidance crafting. Approach crafting is often defined as attempts “directed toward solving problems, improving the work situation, and accepting and interpreting stressors in a positive way” (Melo et al., 2021, p. 1307). Avoidance crafting refers to “efforts to evading, reducing or eliminating parts of one’s work” (Bruning and Campion, 2018, p. 8). Furthermore, Melo et al. (2021), Hu et al. (2020), and Zhang and Parker (2019) described job crafting with the term behavioral crafting instead of task and relational crafting. Hu et al. (2020) described behavioral crafting as conscious efforts to change the nature of tasks and relationships at work.

Another view on job crafting is finding ways to optimize one’s job resources and manage job demands (Tims et al., 2012). Thirteen records drew from this perspective and classified these behaviors as increasing structural job resources (“resources variety, opportunities for development, and autonomy”; Tims et al., 2012, p. 176), increasing social job resources (“gaining access to instrumental and emotional support from others and fulfilling their psychological need for relatedness”; Petrou et al., 2017, p. 132), increasing challenging demands (“attempts to engage in new activities”; Nielsen and Abildgaard, 2012, p. 376), and decreasing hindering demands in this dimension (“efforts to reduce aspects or areas at work which drain energy”; Tims et al., 2012, p. 175). Nielsen and Abildgaard (2012) also included decreasing social job demands (“active attempts to avoid emotionally challenging situations”; p. 376) in their job crafting dimensions. Kooij et al. (2015) classified these dimensions into accommodative crafting (“crafting activities directed toward regulating losses”; p. 156) and developmental crafting (“crafting activities that are directed toward learning new skills or growth”; p. 156). Lichtenthaler and Fischbach (2016) divided the resources and demands dimensions into promotion-focused job crafting (increasing resources and challenging demands) and prevention-focused job crafting (decreasing hindering demands). Demerouti and Peeters (2018) used the same division of the resources and demands but labeled them expansion-oriented (seeking resources and challenges) and reduction-oriented (reducing demands). Demerouti and Peeters (2018) and Roczniewska et al. (2020) added optimizing resources (“the simplification or optimization of work processes to make them more efficient”; Demerouti and Peeters, 2018, p. 211) to this dimension. Melo et al. (2021) mentioned resources and demands in the cognitive and behavioral crafting practices within approach and avoidance crafting.

The results further showed that job crafting might include behaviors where individuals are crafting toward strengths (“the self-initiated changes that individuals make in the task boundaries of their work to make better use of their strengths”; Kooij et al., 2017, p. 5) and crafting toward interests (sculpting and changing task boundaries at work to access and work within one’s interests; Kooij et al., 2017). Further, Kuijpers et al. (2020) included crafting toward development (“the initiatives that employees take to realize their potential by creating developmental opportunities for themselves”; p. 3). Kooij et al. (2020) further explored crafting as a daily activity, finding support for two behaviors: daily interests (“the self-initiated changes that individuals make in their work to make it more enjoyable”; p. 165) and the term daily work pressure (“the self-initiated changes that individuals make in their work to lower their work pressure”; p. 165) crafting.

Finally, Rofcanin et al. (2019) described relational job crafting as a form of job crafting. Relational crafting consists of expansion-oriented practices (expanding the type, number, and meaning of interactions employees have with coworkers at work) and contraction-oriented relational job crafting practices (contracting the type, number, and meaning of interactions employees have with coworkers at work). Van Wingerden and Niks (2017) described the dimension of perceived opportunity to craft (POC), which describes “employees’ perception of their opportunity to craft their job and may determine whether they will proactively craft their job” (p. 1). Wessels et al. (2019) described time-spatial job crafting with the elements of reflection (“a deliberate process of thinking about the tasks and private demands and working hours, places, and locations of work available on any particular”; p. 5), selection (“the actual choice of working hours, work locations, and workplaces, which is then likely to play a part in reaching the best time/spatial-demands fit”; p. 5), and adaption (“performing adaptive behaviors that address changing condition”; Hirschi et al., 2015, p. 1).

Work-life balance crafting and home crafting

The characteristics of the six records about work-life balance crafting and home crafting can be found in Appendix B. Five records focused on gaining more insights into work-life balance crafting. In contrast, Demerouti et al. (2020) focused on home crafting using empirical data in a quantitative study. The records about work-life balance crafting used empirical data (qualitative, n = 4 and both quantitative and qualitative, n = 1). Caringal-Go et al. (2022) focused on employees with telecommuting work arrangements, Dreyer and Busch (2021) focused on co-working couples running their own small family business, and Jammaers and Williams (2021) focused on individuals with a disability. Four records explored strategies, techniques, and/or activities individuals use to shape their work-life balance. Jammaers and Williams (2021) argue that studies on work-life balance have neglected the impact of self-care needs of people with disabilities. The five records yielded their definition of work-life balance crafting, but all were based on existing definitions.

Work-life balance crafting is “proactive, goal-oriented and self-initiated activities to shape boundaries and manage WLB in physical, cognitive, and relational ways” (Dreyer and Busch, 2021, p. 2). Reflecting on the presented dimensions of work-life balance-and home crafting, the results showed that most of the included records shared three components: physical-, cognitive-, and relational crafting. Physical crafting describes “how work is organized, and it entails joint decisions to change and distribute demands” (Dreyer and Busch, 2021, p. 12). Cognitive crafting “involves defining and framing perceptions of what a job means and entails” (Sturges, 2012, p. 1541). Finally, relational crafting “involves strategies workers employed to manage both work and non-work relationships” (Caringal-Go et al., 2022, p. 123).

Further, one record included physical crafting as a dimension of work-life balance crafting. It splits this crafting type into two dimensions: temporal-and locational (physical) crafting (Jammaers and Williams, 2021). The paper by Jammaers and Williams (2021) described physical temporal crafting as the orienting “around controlling the length of a working day” (p. 122). On the other hand, Physical locational crafting is described as the “strategy, locational crafting, employees change the location of their work or home, to cut down the hours needed to get to or physically be present in their standard workplace” (Jammaers and Williams, 2021, p. 122).

Like work-life balance crafting, home crafting was found as an additional way individuals craft the nature and function of their home lives. Demerouti et al. (2020) defined home crafting as “changes that employees make to balance their home demands and home resources with their personal abilities and needs, to experience meaning and create or restore their person-environment fit” (p. 1013). These authors distinguished between three types of home crafting behaviors: seeking home resources (strategies employed at home to increase the availability of the required resources needed to manage home demands and to achieve goals), seeking home challenges (seeking new challenging tasks or taking on more responsibilities once home tasks are completed) and reducing home demands (efforts to lessen the emotional, psychological, or physical taxing aspects of home life).

Leisure crafting and off-job crafting

The next category of crafting strategies derived from the literature relates to crafting activities in one’s leisure time. The results summarized in Appendix C show that these crafting strategies comprise leisure crafting (n = 4) and off-job crafting (n = 1). The records about leisure crafting were qualitative (n = 1), quantitative (n = 2), and mixed-method (n = 1) in nature. The off-job crafting paper by Kosenkranius et al. (2020) was a quantitative study, whereas Tsaur et al. (2020) developed a scale for leisure crafting. Three records proposed leisure-crafting dimensions/strategies, and Kosenkranius et al. (2020) developed and designed a framework for off-job crafting. Petrou and Bakker (2016) focused on employee leisure crafting. Berg et al. (2010) described leisure crafting pursuing unanswered callings.

Leisure crafting is defined as “the proactive pursuit of leisure activities targeted at goal setting, human connection, learning, and personal development” (Petrou and Bakker, 2016, p. 508). In this respect, two approaches were apparent. First, Berg et al. (2010) focused on crafting leisure in pursuit of unanswered occupational callings. This record divided leisure crafting into two dimensions: vicarious experiencing (“seeking fulfillment through others’ participation in one’s own unanswered calling”; p. 980) and hobby participation (“pursuing leisure and volunteer activities related to an unanswered calling outside of work”; p. 980).

Second, three approaches drew from the conservation of resources theory (Petrou and Bakker, 2016; Petrou et al., 2017; Tsaur et al., 2021) in their conceptualization of leisure crafting. These three records indicated that leisure crafting pertains to efforts associated with increasing resources and managing demands. These authors argued that leisure crafting consists of three dimensions: increasing social resources, increasing structural resources, and increasing challenging demands. Increasing social resources is described as “gaining access to instrumental and emotional support from others and fulfilling their psychological need for relatedness” (Petrou et al., 2017, p. 132). Increasing structural resources is “creating enriched jobs and a motivating job environment” (Petrou et al., 2017, p. 132). Lastly, increasing challenging demands is the “increasing feelings of competence and mastery experiences and by creating a challenging environment that promotes growth and learning” (Petrou et al., 2017, pp. 132–133). Tsaur et al. (2021) added decreasing leisure barriers as an additional dimension. Decreasing leisure barriers refers to “reduce factors hindering leisure participation” (Tsaur et al., 2021, p. 6). Additionally, Petrou and Bakker (2016) argued that leisure crafters actively craft through three activities: Goal setting (setting personal goals and creating strategies for actively achieving such through leisure activities), building human connection (increasing social contact with others and implementing strategies to develop new human relations during leisure time) and pursuing learning and personal development opportunities (seeking growth and development opportunities via leisure activities).

Like leisure crafting, Kosenkranius et al. (2020) introduced off-job crafting as a concept that refers to employees’ proactive and self-initiated changes in their non-working lives to satisfy their psychological needs. From this perspective, off-job crafting comprises of six proactive behaviors: crafting for detachment (“mentally disengaging from work-related matters”), crafting for relaxation (“proactively striving for feeling physically well and for reducing effortful activities”), crafting for autonomy (“striving for a feeling of being in control over one’s actions, life, and choices”), crafting for mastery (“seeking learning opportunities and optimal challenges to experience feelings of achievement and competence”), crafting for meaning (“engaging in activities that individuals perceive as opportunities to gain something valuable in life”), and crafting for affiliation (“the desire to experience relatedness and belongingness with other people”; Kosenkranius et al., 2020, p. 2).

Career crafting and reemployment crafting

Career crafting and reemployment crafting emerged as distinctive crafting strategies individuals employ to facilitate career progression or to gain meaningful employment. Appendix D summarizes the different perspectives relating to career- (n = 3) and reemployment crafting (n = 1). De Vos et al. (2019) provided an overview of career crafting, while Lee et al. (2021) introduced a career crafting assessment, and Hulshof et al. (2020) introduced the concept of reemployment crafting.

Career crafting is defined as “a set of proactive and congruence-seeking behaviors that (a) broadens career-relevant resources in response to the evolving nature of jobs and (b) explores career options more congruent to one’s changing needs, values, and interests” (Lee et al., 2021, p. 718). Lee et al. (2021) divided career crafting into three dimensions: career-level task, career-level relationship, and career-level cognition crafting. Career-level task crafting is “the practice of changing the type, scope, and number of job tasks to suit an individual’s strengths and values better” (Lee et al., 2021, p. 718–719), which includes expanding task boundaries (“take on extra tasks to experience new career-related responsibilities in their organization”; Lee et al., 2021, p. 731). Career-level relationship crafting is defined as changes in “the amount and quality of interactions with other people encountered on the job” (Lee et al., 2021, p. 719) and includes changing relational boundaries (“the vital role of proactive relational crafting in producing positive career outcomes”; Lee et al., 2021, p. 731) and utilizing relational resources (“the vital role of proactive relational crafting in producing positive career outcomes”; Lee et al., 2021, p. 731). Career-level cognition crafting “involves altering the individual’s perception of their work, such as interpreting their job as a part of fulfilling their life story instead of viewing work as a means of living” (Lee et al., 2021, p. 719). This form of crafting includes reflecting positive career meaning (“indicating that career crafters view their careers as a significant part of their life”; Lee et al., 2021, p. 731).

Tims and Akkermans (2020, p. 14) explained that proactive career behaviors “should allow individuals to achieve life and career success.” Tims and Akkermans (2020) split proactive career behaviors into proactive career reflection and construction. Proactive career reflection represents “individuals who proactively reflect on their career motivations and skills (e.g., on motivations and qualities; p. 22).” Proactive career construction reflects “individuals who proactively try to advance their careers by networking, may be more likely to achieve careers they find fulfilling [e.g., networking and setting goals]”; (Tims and Akkermans, 2020, p. 22).

In their approach to career crafting, De Vos et al. (2019) described career crafting as an “Individual’s proactive behaviors aimed at optimizing career outcomes through improving person-career fit” (p. 129). Individuals should actively craft their careers over time by (a) reflecting on and being mindful of their career aspirations and motivation and (b) making choices that can impact both short-term and long-term success.

Finally, reemployment crafting was introduced as a set of behaviors and strategies for the unemployed and drew from the conservation of resources theory. Reemployment crafting is described as “the proactive, self-initiated behaviors undertaken by the unemployed to shape the environmental conditions of their job search in a way that enhances person-environment (P-E) fit during the job search process” (Hulshof et al., 2020, p. 58). Reemployment crafting consists of three dimensions: seeking resources (the individual’s personality, social support, financial resources, and ability to structure one’s time during unemployment), reducing hindering demands (minimizing those aspects of the job search that exceed one’s capabilities), and seeking challenging demands (creating more positively interpreted demands to feel motivated to continue one’s job search).

Miscellaneous crafting types

Crafting strategies and behaviors that could not be classified into the aforementioned categories were classified as miscellaneous crafting types. These crafting strategies represent new or emerging research fields, the characteristics of which are summarized in Appendix E. This category includes life-crafting (n = 2), leader role crafting (n = 1), study crafting (n = 1), needs crafting (n = 1), bodily crafting (n = 1), and crafting within and across life domains (n = 1). The records relating to leader role crafting, bodily crafting, and study crafting were qualitative, whereas those describing needs crafting and life-crafting employed mixed-method approaches. The final life-crafting record and the record about crafting within and across life domains were theoretical. Three records introduced new concepts, and two records provided more insights into an already-known concept. Two records developed and validated a measure for a concept, and one validated the adaption of the job demands-resources theory. De Bloom et al. (2020) proposed a model to account for past conceptualizations of crafting motives.

Bodily crafting is described as “the unofficial techniques and activities disabled employees use to work on their bodies and keep fit for both work and non-work purposes to better articulate life and work–to better grasp the embodied experience of a neglected group of workers” (Jammaers and Williams, 2021, p. 120). Jammaers and Williams (2021) mentioned two dimensions of bodily crafting, namely cognitive crafting (“employees redefining what WLB means to them”; p. 122) and relational crafting (“building good relationships with key people in one’s environment, both inside and outside the workplace, to establish a better balance”; p. 122).

Study crafting is described as “the proactive changes that students make in their study demands and study resources, and therefore the active influence of the student on his or her study environment” (Körner et al., 2021, p. 14). Study crafting consists of increasing structural and social resources and limiting study demands. Increasing structural resources are behaviors that influence the study’s design. Increasing social resources is the social aspect of one’s study and consists of social support from lecturers and social support from fellow students. Limiting study demands are concerned with the psychological, physical, social, or organizational study aspects that require effort and are associated with mental or physiological costs (Körner et al., 2021).

“Life-crafting is about (1) finding out what you stand for (i.e., values and passions), (2) finding out how to make it happen (i.e., goal-attainment plans), and (3) telling someone about your plans (i.e., public commitment; Schippers and Ziegler, 2019, p. 12).” Seven steps were designed to craft lives. These steps are (1) discovering values and passion, (2) reflecting on current and desired competencies and habits, (3) reflecting on present and future social life, (4) reflecting on a possible future career, (5) writing about the ideal future, (6) writing down specific goal attainment and “if-then” plans, and (7) making public commitments to the goals set.

Chen et al. (2022) described life-crafting as “conscious efforts individuals exert to create meaning in their lives through (a) cognitively (re-)framing how they view life, (b) by seeking social support systems to manage life challenges, and (c) to actively seeking challenges to facilitate personal growth” (p. 1). Cognitive crafting is the “individual’s ability to proactively reshape or cognitively re-frame the physical, cognitive or social features of work or life in order for it to be perceived as more meaningful” (p. 1). Seeking social support is defined as “the extent to which individuals seek out social support systems and networks to achieve personal/professional goals and aid in managing adversity” (p. 1). Seeking challenges is “the active efforts implemented by individuals to stretch their current capabilities and learn new skills/abilities to facilitate personal growth and environmental mastery” (Chen et al., 2022, pp. 12–13).

Crafting within and across life domains is described as a motivated process, including goal-directed initiation and engagement in crafting efforts to satisfy psychological needs (De Bloom et al., 2020). It consists of approach-and avoidance-focused crafting strategies. Approach-focused strategies consist of the “expansion-oriented crafting efforts aimed at approaching or adding desirable aspects of work or nonwork identities” (De Bloom et al., 2020, p. 1424) and include autonomy (“the need to decide by oneself which activities to complete”), competence (“the need to effectively bring about desired effects and outcomes”), and relatedness (“the need to feel close and connected to significant others”; Bindl et al., 2019, p. 606). Avoidance-focused crafting strategies are “contraction-oriented crafting aimed at avoiding or reducing the negative aspects of work or nonwork roles” (De Bloom et al., 2020, p. 1424). Avoidance needs include detachment (a subjective experience that goes beyond the pure physical distance from one’s workplace; Sonnentag and Fritz, 2015, p. 74). Relaxation (a process often associated with leisure activities is characterized by a state of low activation and increased positive affect; Sonnentag and Fritz, 2007, p. 206), whereas stress reduction is the need for strategies that manage one’s reaction to stress and induce feelings of calmness and relaxation.

Needs crafting is “the proactive self-management of need-based experiences and entails both awareness of one’s personal sources of psychological need satisfaction and a tendency to act upon this awareness” (Laporte et al., 2021, p. 68). The three dimensions of need crafting are autonomy need crafting, competence need crafting, and relatedness need crafting. Autonomy need crafting are activities that allow for a better realization of one’s personal interests, values, and preferences. Competence need crafting consists of activities conducive to one’s skill development and emerging mastery. Lastly, relatedness need crafting is about creating genuine, reciprocal care and intimate relationships.

Finally, leader role crafting “is a conscious, purpose-driven activity aimed at influencing the development of leader roles and exploring how it is interlinked with role identities” (Gjerde and Ladegård, 2019, p. 45). Leader role crafting includes leader role identity, personal role definition, and subordinates’ role expectations. Role-crafting strategies consist of the steps (1) present, (2) adapt, (3) challenge, and (4) explore. Present consists of inform (inform subordinates about how they will enact the leader role) and demonstrate (show [behaviorally and symbolically] how they interpret the leader role) elements. Adapt includes comply (compliance to subordinate’s leader role expectations) and moderate behavior (alter behavior to meet subordinates’ leader role expectations) facets. Challenge is divided into persuade (sell in an attempt to convince subordinates about their own leader role conception) and oppose (oppose role expectations to fight for their own leader role conception) components. Explore consists of experiment with old ways (exploring old ways of enacting the leader role by drawing upon experience from previous roles) and experiment with new ways (copying ways of enacting the leader role from role models and improvising with new forms of enacting the leader role).

Categorization and classification of crafting approaches and behaviors

The extracted data were subjected to conventional content analysis to determine the overlap among various crafting approaches and their underlying behaviors. This involved an iterative process of classification and categorization, which is summarized in Table 2. First, the conceptual overlap between crafting behaviors in different domain-specific crafting strategies was identified and categorized. The results showed that 223 categories of crafting could be extracted from the data. From these crafting categories, 48 elements of crafting could be identified. These elements represented general crafting behaviors that could be subjected to further categorization. Second, the elements were categorized into seven broader themes representing general ‘life-crafting strategies’: cognitive crafting, environmental crafting, relational crafting, resources-demands crafting, skill crafting, and task crafting. Third, for inclusion into our final model of life-crafting, crafting behaviors (or elements) should have been present in at least two of the three broader domain-specific contexts. To simplify the classification process, the crafting behaviors or elements were categorized into three broad domains: crafting at work (job crafting, career crafting, reemployment crafting), crafting at home (home crafting, work-life balance crafting, leisure crafting, off-job crafting), and miscellaneous crafting. For an element to be included in the Holistic Life-crafting Model, it must be prevalent in at least two of the three crafting domains. Table 2 presents the frequency of each crafting behavior in each life domain.

TABLE 2

Table 2. Content Analysis: Life Crafting Strategies, Behaviors, and Domains

First, cognitive crafting refers to how people alter their perceptions of different areas or elements of work and life (Berg et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2022). This crafting theme consists of several elements: altering perceptions (redefine the view of life tasks), acceptance (crafting work-life balance by accepting the nature of a task or a role), identity formation (creating a positive self-concept in non-work domains through investing in important non-work identities), reflective practices (reflect on and being mindful about aspirations and motivations), meta-cognition (thinking about the process through which employees interpret and enact roles and make decisions), and cognitive detachment (disengage mentally from work-related matters). Furthermore, cognitive crafting consists of strategic risk-taking (viewing [im]balance as a consequence of choice/responsibility), expanding perceptions (cultivating meaning by widening their understanding of their jobs’ influence or purpose), cognitive withdrawal (offloading of responsibility for incidents or critical situations), focusing perceptions (emphasize the positive qualities), and linking perceptions (make use of existing components by mentally connecting certain activities or relationships to interests, outcomes, or elements of identities that are meaningful). Only identity formation, reflective practices, cognitive detachment, strategic risk-taking, and focusing perceptions were present in two or more life domains and were retained within the final model.

Second, environmental crafting refers to individuals’ adjustments to their physical work, home, or life environments to cultivate more meaningful life experiences (Dash and Vohra, 2020). The elements of environmental crafting were crafting toward development (taking the initiative to realize one’s potential by creating or seeking developmental opportunities), boundary management (managing, compartmentalizing, and controlling time to maintain work-life balance), and opportunities to craft (being conscious of or seeking opportunities to engage in crafting behavior). Only boundary management was present in two or more life domains and was retained in the final model.

Third, interests crafting refers to the behaviors exhibited to expand or engage in activities or hobbies people find interesting (Kooij et al., 2020). This theme includes elements of hobby participation (engaging directly in activities to increase a sense of joy), vicarious experiencing (seeking fulfillment by following the involvement of other people), redesigning interests (organizing work/life to match interests), interests alignment (dividing tasks/activities to match interests), and adding interests (take on more tasks/activities which one enjoys). Only hobby participation was present in two or more life domains and was retained for the final model.

Fourth, relational crafting refers to the behaviors people use to create meaning by changing how, when, and with whom they interact (Berg et al., 2013). Relational crafting includes the elements of relatedness crafting (effectively ensuring the development of relationships characterized by care and intimacy), avoiding social demands (reducing unwanted or draining interactions with individuals at home and work), building relationships (approaches people employ to foster positive, mutually beneficial relationships characterized by feelings of pride, love, dignity, appreciation, and self-worth); re-frame relationships (changing the nature of current relationships to serve a new or more meaningful purpose), expanding relationships (expanding relationships during free time), adapting relationships (changing the nature or function of a relationship), influencing and negotiating (persuading others to take over tasks), and managing social interactions (using relationships with friends and family to support and maintain work-life balance). Only building relationships, expanding relationships, and managing social interactions were present in two or more life domains and were retained in the final model.

Fifth, resources-demands crafting refers to the behaviors associated with optimizing life resources, managing obstructive or hindering life demands, and attempting to avoid unnecessary resource loss (Chen et al., 2022). Resources-demands crafting consists of autonomy crafting (allowing for a better realization of personal interests), reducing hindering demands (reducing those aspects that exceed one’s capabilities), vitality management (taking care of one’s physical and mental health), optimizing demands (the simplification or optimization of work processes to make people more efficient), seeking structural resources (actions to increase growth-promoting resources), seeking social resources (creating social support networks or gaining supervisory feedback or coaching), increasing challenging demands (initiatives to increase challenging demands in life and at work). Only optimizing demands were absent in two or more life domains and, therefore, not included in the final model.

Sixth, skill crafting is concerned with developing a wide range of skills through seeking out training opportunities, engaging in stretching assignments/projects, minimizing failures by focusing on what one does best, and optimizing performance in one’s area of expertise (Bindl et al., 2019). Skill crafting contains elements of personal growth initiatives (viewing failures as learning opportunities), using skills in different ways (seeking opportunities to use current skills in novel and creative ways), professional development initiatives (seeking out training and development opportunities), competence crafting (behaviors associated with skill development and an emerging sense of mastery), decision latitude (autonomy to make independent decisions), and skill and strengths use (seeking opportunities to use current skills, knowledge, and strengths to the fullest in life and work). Only personal growth opportunities, professional development initiatives, and skill/strengths use were present in two or more life domains and were retained in the final model.

Seventh, task crafting describes behaviors people engage in to physically alter the type, number, scope, and nature of tasks they perform at work and in life (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001; Chen et al., 2022). The elements of task crafting are work organization (reshaping systems and strategies to organize the tangible elements of life), redesigning tasks (changing the nature or function of life tasks to make them more meaningful), prioritizing tasks (prioritizing specific tasks over others to improve efficiency and task execution), task emphasizing (highlighting important tasks which are already part of a formal job description or life role); task expansion (adding tasks or projects perceived to be meaningful), task enlargement (including elements of work and related activities not originally in the formal job description), task avoidance (avoiding risky situations/cases), and task delegation (delegating tasks). Only redesigning tasks, task emphasizing, and task expansion were present in two or more life domains and were retained in the final model.

Discussion

The present study aimed to advance the theoretical understanding of life-crafting by investigating shared elements or behaviors across different crafting approaches. The review identified 51 records, reflecting five crafting approaches (job crafting, work-life balance and home crafting, leisure crafting and off-job crafting, career crafting, and miscellaneous crafting strategies), comprising 48 different crafting strategies and 223 behaviors. Based on our classification criteria, 22 dimensions were included in the holistic life-crafting model. Content analysis classified these behaviors into seven broader themes representing a general ‘life-crafting’ approach: cognitive crafting, environmental crafting, interest crafting, relational crafting, resources-demands crafting, skill crafting, and task crafting (see Figure 2). The proposed framework comprehensively explains how individuals can actively shape their lives to promote meaningful experiences. The sections below briefly discuss the findings and their implications for future research.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. The Holistic Life-Crafting Model.

The Holistic Life-Crafting Model

The first objective was to frame an integrative definition of life-crafting based on the prevailing literature. Results show that life-crafting can be defined as a holistic, continuous process of proactively creating meaning by intentionally balancing demands and resources and altering cognitive, environmental, interest, relational, skill, and task aspects to promote growth and wellbeing. Specifically, this holistic approach indicates that those individuals who actively engage in life-crafting employ seven strategies: cognitive crafting, environmental crafting, interest crafting, relational crafting, resources-demands crafting, skill crafting, and task crafting.

First, cognitive crafting refers to how individuals consciously alter the perceptions held or meaning attached to/derived from different areas of work and life. Here, the focus is not on physically changing the nature of life or life-related tasks but rather on the subjective perceptions about work or life (Berg et al., 2013). It encompasses a set of actions taken to create important non-work identities, reflect upon one’s aspirations and motivations, and the practices employed to disengage from work mentally. It further consists of taking strategic risks and emphasizing the positive qualities of work. These activities assist people in seeking, constructing, and experiencing a meaningful existence by increasing their awareness of why their life matters and what they accomplish via their daily actions. When people alter how they think about their lives, it creates a sense of control and mastery, leading to experiences that are perceived to be more meaningful (Berg et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2022). This is in line with the basic tenets of cognitive behavioral therapy, where changes in thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes lead to changes in behaviors, which, in turn, leads to changes in emotional regulation (Thoma et al., 2015).

Second, environmental crafting refers to individuals’ physical changes to their work, home, or life environments to cultivate more meaningful life experiences. Specifically, it relates to individuals’ strategies to effectively manage the boundaries between various areas of their lives. Boundary management can lead to more meaningful life experiences by allowing individuals to prioritize their values and goals, establish a sense of control/autonomy over their lives, achieve a better work-life balance, and maintain meaningful relationships with others (Kodama, 2009; Kossek et al., 2012). Given that the environment plays a vital role in both the search for and experience of meaning, it is essential to develop abilities to effectively manage the interaction between different areas of one’s life. Boundary management is a crucial aspect of environmental crafting, which includes managing, compartmentalizing, and governing time to achieve a healthy work-life balance (Wessels et al., 2019). Effective boundary management allows people to prioritize their values and goals and allocate their time and energy accordingly (Kossek et al., 2012). According to Kossek et al. (2012), setting and managing clear boundaries helps people focus on more personally meaningful activities such as spending time with loved ones, engaging in activities that align with their values, or spending time with loved ones. Effective boundary management could also increase the sense of control or autonomy people experience, leading to a greater sense of self-determination and fulfillment (Ryan and Deci, 2000).

Third, interest crafting refers to behaviors exhibited to expand or engage in activities/hobbies that people find interesting and meaningful. This includes proactively seeking out, creating, or engaging in enjoyable, fun activities that align with one’s interests and passions (Kooij et al., 2020). When involved in meaningful activities, individuals develop new skills, knowledge, and abilities that contribute to personal and professional development (Van Zyl et al., 2019, 2020). Furthermore, when people engage in interest crafting, there are greater opportunities to enhance self-efficacy. This is because when people engage in activities that are aligned with their interests/passions, they tend to feel more confident in their abilities and more motivated to achieve other goals (Rottinghaus et al., 2003). Further, Kooij et al. (2020) argued that interest crafting could foster creativity as individuals can use their unique skills and perspectives to contribute to their work/lives in new or more innovative ways. This could also lead to a sense of pride or accomplishment as people see the tangible results of their efforts and contributions to their lives (Rottinghaus et al., 2003). Finally, interest crafting can help individuals recharge and re-energize, contributing to overall wellbeing and satisfaction.

Fourth, relational crafting refers to the behaviors people use to create meaning by changing how, when, and with whom they interact. It includes behaviors required to create and expand current relationships and those needed to manage personally draining relationships. Research suggests that social relationships play the most important role in creating meaningful life experiences (Steger et al., 2014); thus, building and maintaining social connections are essential for mental health and wellbeing. Relational crafting also encompasses skills and abilities to navigate complex social situations, such as managing conflict and establishing boundaries to maintain better social health and wellbeing (Keyes, 2002). Therefore, by investing in building positive relationships and managing challenging ones, people can create more meaningful connections with others, enhancing their overall sense of purpose and fulfillment.

Fifth, resources-demands crafting refers to the behaviors associated with optimizing life resources, managing obstructive or hindering life demands, and attempting to avoid unnecessary resource loss. The underlying elements of resources-demands crafting include reducing hindering demands, vitality management, seeking social resources, seeking challenges, pursuing structural resources, increasing challenging demands, and autonomy crafting. By actively managing one’s resources and demands, people can optimize their use of their resources, manage obstructive demands, and avoid unnecessary resource loss. Research suggests that the availability and use of resources are critical components of the experience of meaning and that resources-demands crafting can help people build and maintain the resources essential for wellbeing (Tims et al., 2012). People experience less stress, conflicts, or pressure when they reduce hindering demands. In this way, people have more energy, which they can invest in other aspects of life that are perceived as meaningful. Proactive vitality management is described as adaptable behaviors that enable people to balance their physical and mental energies (Tisu and Vîrgă, 2022). Improving the balance between physical and mental energies makes people feel more purposeful, leading to a more meaningful life. Increasing structural resources includes opportunities for self-development, autonomy, and resource variety (Yen et al. 2018). These opportunities help people experience a purpose in life and, in turn, more meaning. Increasing social resources is strongly associated with pursuing social support, coaching, or feedback from others (Yen et al., 2018). People may feel more connected, have more in common with others, and have stronger social identities due to developing and maintaining meaningful relationships. Overall, having more access to resources or more opportunities to use resources may facilitate crafting behaviors. This enhances the meaning of life and contributes to an overall sense of purpose in life. Increasing challenging demands refers to the attempts to enlarge the life scope or change the content of tasks (Yen et al., 2018). People develop new skills/abilities and overcome challenges by pursuing difficult goals. Therefore, seeking challenges and increasing challenging demands may result in achievement, progress, and mastery, contributing to their sense of meaning and fulfillment in life. Autonomy crafting is described as pursuing control over one’s actions, life, and choices (Kosenkranius et al., 2020). People may enjoy a higher sense of control, authenticity, and meaning by taking responsibility for their decisions and behaviors.

Sixth, skill crafting refers to developing a wide range of skills through seeking out training opportunities, stretching assignments/projects, or minimizing failures by focusing on what one does best and optimizing performance in one’s area of expertise. In essence, skill crafting ensures a closer alignment between the capabilities of the self and the demands/needs/resources of the environment. The underlying elements of skill crafting include personal growth initiatives, professional development initiatives, and skill and strength use. Skill crafting aims to develop new and optimize current skills/abilities to facilitate personal growth and development. Activities that require a more comprehensive range of skills are seen as more meaningful (Berg et al., 2013). People grow more assured, capable, and self-aware when they take the time to develop their skills. These characteristics allow people to take advantage of new chances, work toward worthwhile objectives, and eventually find meaning and fulfillment in their lives. It also aims to develop skills and abilities to facilitate professional development. Persons can expand their knowledge base, develop a higher level of expertise in their industry, and perform better. In response, one’s sense of success and satisfaction increases, boosting confidence and self-esteem. Finally, it aims to facilitate active skills and strengths use to facilitate more meaningful life experiences. Active skill and strength use can improve a person’s sense of competence, self-efficacy, and autonomy, resulting in more fulfilling life experiences. A larger variety of skills and challenges makes tasks and life more meaningful (Li et al., 2020).

Finally, task crafting refers to the behaviors people exhibit to physically alter the type, number, scope, and nature of their tasks at work and in life. The underlying elements of task crafting include redesigning life tasks, task emphasizing, and task expansion. Task crafting aims at restructuring tasks or elements of life tasks. It enables people to shape their lives consistent with their values, talents, and interests. It gives people the power to make their lives more personally fulfilling, giving them more meaning and purpose (Hackman and Oldman, 1980). Furthermore, task crafting includes task emphasizing. People craft meaning when engaging in activities that they see as opportunities to gain something valuable (Kosenkranius et al., 2020). Finally, task crafting includes expanding one’s tasks perceived to be more meaningful. Tasks that require a wider range of skills are seen as more meaningful (Berg et al., 2013).

Similarities and differences to other life-crafting approaches

This holistic approach to life-crafting shares similarities with the Schippers and Ziegler (2019) and Chen et al. (2022) life-crafting approaches in that it aims to present elements required to create more meaningful life experiences and intentionally shape one’s life to align with one’s personal values, interests, needs, and goals. It broadly draws from both the cognitive re-framing and the conservation of resources perspectives on crafting, whereby the focus is on cognitively re-framing life experiences, actively seeking out the means to manage work/life demands, and/or increasing available resources. Furthermore, all three approaches require a deeper level of self-awareness and intentionality as they involve making intentional choices about how to shape experiences and environments. Finally, all three approaches include elements related to increasing and optimizing social aspects of life by highlighting the importance of building and maintaining current and future relationships as routes toward meaning. However, despite these similarities, these approaches have several key differences.

Unlike Schippers and Ziegler (2019) and Chen et al. (2022), our model presents a holistic perspective involving crafting all aspects of life, including nurturing work and home relationships, personal growth, and leisure to create meaning. There are also some global differences among Schippers and Ziegler (2019), Chen et al. (2022), and this approach. All three generally conceive life-crafting as a deliberate process of sculpting and designing one’s life but with a different focus. Schippers and Ziegler (2019) emphasize the psychological components of the process, whereas Chen et al. (2022) emphasize the operationalization and assessment of life-crafting. Chen et al. (2022) developed and established validity evidence for a multidimensional life-crafting measure with three dimensions: cognitive crafting, seeking social support, and seeking challenges. The degree to which people take deliberate action to build a meaningful and fulfilling existence is gaged by this scale. In contrast, Schippers and Ziegler (2019) define life-crafting as a process of looking for meaning and purpose in one’s life and placing more emphasis on its psychological aspects. They contend that the process of ‘life-crafting’ includes ongoing investigation of one’s values, aptitudes, and interests as well as soliciting feedback from others to clarify one’s sense of direction; they stress the significance of taking the initiative to live a life that is consistent with one’s values and aspirations.

The holistic life-crafting model offers clearer insight into the underlying behaviors supporting various life-crafting strategies to synthesize material and offer more comprehensive perspectives on life-crafting. By analyzing the common components and behavioral tactics for diverse crafting strategies, this research seeks to clarify the theoretical underpinnings of life-crafting. Specifically, this paper focused on changing how one thinks (cognitive), functions (environment, resource-demands), acts (task, skill, interest), and fits in (relational) to social contexts. In contrast, Chen et al. (2022) are focused more narrowly on managing resources, and Schippers and Ziegler (2019) on setting goals (aligning values with true self). Despite these global differences, there are also more nuanced differences worth noting.

Whereas Schippers and Ziegler (2019) present life-crafting as an intervention strategy, our life-crafting approach is positioned as an ongoing process whereby an individual continuously reassesses their values, needs, and goals and adjusts their life designs, ensuring better alignment. Furthermore, our approach focuses more on global crafting behaviors and strategies rather than specific solution-orientated tasks such as goal setting, goal attainment, and goal commitment. In contrast to our holistic approach, Schippers and Ziegler (2019) focus on a seven-step process to develop a future or ‘ideal state’ and develop goals required to close the gap between ideal states and the current states. The Schippers and Ziegler (2019) approach seems less about ‘crafting’ per se and is more aligned with traditional goal-setting theory, which argues that people are motivated to achieve certain life goals by setting and pursuing mastery and performance objectives (Latham and Yukl, 1975). From this perspective, an ideal state is envisioned, and a clear, actionable plan is created to facilitate the change from the current to the ideal state (Latham and Yukl, 1975). In contrast, holistic life-crafting refers to proactive behaviors required to shape life experiences to align with goals, values, and interests. Furthermore, Schippers and Ziegler’s (2019) approach focuses less on personal agency and meaning and more on improving overall ‘life performance’. Their approach is positioned as a targeted and specific intervention strategy, focusing on achieving personal life outcomes. In contrast, holistic life-crafting is broad, flexible, and focuses on creating more meaningful life experiences.

Similarly, the holistic life-crafting approach also differs from the Chen et al. (2022) framework, focusing on conserving resources (i.e., managing demands/increasing resources) and facilitating growth and development. The Chen et al. (2022) framework heavily relies on the conservation of resources theory. It negates the importance of the environment and the role of tasks, skills, and interests. Furthermore, the Chen et al. (2022) approach arguably provides an oversimplified view of the importance of social relationships in meaning-making, indicating that only relational-seeking behavior is important. In contrast, the findings from this study show that relational crafting has both promotive and preventative components, helping people increase social closeness, build new relationships (and not just seek social support), re-framing the nature of current relationships, and expanding the role of relationships beyond mere functionality. Holistic life-crafting also aims to manage the impact of relationships deemed non-beneficial or ‘draining’ through initiating strategies to avoid social demands and manage social interactions. Only three particular crafting behaviors could be inferred from the questionnaire from Chen et al. (2022): cognitive crafting, seeking social support, and seeking challenges. Our approach included 22 crafting behaviors of life-crafting. Where Chen et al. (2022) used cognitive crafting as a dimension, our holistic model of life-crafting used this type of crafting as a broader theme representing more general “life-crafting” strategies.

Implications

The holistic life-crafting model proposed in this paper offers several implications for the discipline and practical application. First, the model emphasizes the value of a comprehensive approach to life-crafting by highlighting the overlap of approaches used in different domains and their interconnectedness. Second, the model provides a practical roadmap to help develop a clear strategy for creating meaningful life experiences to guide goal-setting and decision-making. Third, the model highlights the need for a continuous process of self-reflection and assessment to adjust one’s approach over time as circumstances change. Life-crafting can have a positive impact on individuals and organizations, especially on innovation outcomes. By focusing on their personal goals and values, people may become more motivated, engaged, and productive, resulting in more creativity and innovation. Fourth, the model fosters creativity as people use their unique skills and perspectives to contribute to their work/lives in new or more innovative ways. Finally, for organizations, our concept of life-crafting can guide employers and employees in developing a more innovative and empowered culture. People are more likely to contribute fresh viewpoints and original ideas when encouraged to pursue and develop their interests and skills. This may result in a wider variety of solutions and consistent moral and work culture improvements.

Innovation and future directions

Consolidating the life-crafting literature using an AI-assisted systematic literature review significantly extends the crafting and meaning-making literature. Notably, we used stringent review and evaluation procedures to identify relevant records and evaluate the intersection of these records to promote an inclusive and delineated model (see Figure 2). Our model, Holistic Life-Crafting, pinpoints seven unique dimensions of life-crafting and highlights the unique behavioral expressions of each dimension. In this way, our model successfully consolidated the most relevant literature at the time of evaluation and produced a theoretically grounded framework to help researchers and theorists conceptualize how dynamic forms of crafting fit together. Moving forward, it will be important for researchers to evaluate the structure and formation of our model quantitatively. One unique way of accomplishing this goal is to construct and evaluate a multidimensional assessment tool. Specifically, researchers can design multi-tiered studies to construct and evaluate sets of items to determine the merit of our organizational model. It will be important for researchers to use new-wave psychometric procedures to verify the factor structure and stability of our model across time. To this end, it is recommended that researchers implement modern data driven or exploratory structural equation models (Van Zyl and Ten Klooster, 2022; Van Zyl et al., 2023a) in their studies. Such modeling techniques offer a more accurate representation of how related yet independent dimensions of a construct function together; it assesses how different dimensions intersect in complex models. Assessing intersection elements appears key in life-crating approaches as many dimensions are expected to have dynamic relationships (Chen et al., 2022).

Limitations and recommendations

Despite efforts to conduct a thorough and comprehensive systematic literature review, a few limitations are worth noting. Although we employed various methods to ensure the inclusion of all potentially relevant texts and followed best practices for systematic reviews, some manuscripts may have been overlooked. Also, excluding gray literature may have resulted in a biased view of the crafting types, as popular psychology press books, dissertations, and theses that present alternative perspectives were not included. Future research might consider a more comprehensive literature analysis, including gray literature and non-academic texts. This may provide new insights which could expand the current model. Another potential limitation relates to the novelty of this study’s machine learning-based screening methods. The model was trained on initial predefined data, but there is currently no means to evaluate the margin of error in the model. This resulted in more time-consuming manual data checking to ensure no important records were missing. Additionally, given the magnitude of the study and the available data on different crafting types, the time frame of our approach was limited (1997–2022). Innovations and publications post-2022 were not included and should be considered in future research. Finally, the criteria for constructing the final holistic life-crafting model may pose challenges. In the current study, we decided to include elements that were present in at least two life domains. However, other elements may also be used in various life domains that science has not yet explored.

Conclusion

The holistic life-crafting model offers an integrative approach to support individuals in crafting meaningful life experiences by using strategies across various areas of their lives. Our results suggest considerable overlap in the behaviors and strategies people exhibit to craft meaning in different life domains, which signifies the universality of such a concept. Unlike domain-specific approaches, like job crafting or leisure crafting, holistic life-crafting highlights the importance of considering multiple dimensions of an individual’s life to pursuit purpose, meaning, and wellbeing.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

LZ: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review, editing. NC: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review, editing. BD: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review, editing. JK: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft. LV: Writing – review, editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

We would like to extend our appreciation to the two reviewers and the editor for their expert feedback and guidance throughout the editorial review process. Their comments and suggestions significantly improved the quality of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1271188/full#supplementary-material

References

*Include record

*ASReview (2022). Active learning explained. Available at: https://asreview.nl/blog/active-learning-explained.

Google Scholar

Bakker, A. B., Tims, M., and Derks, D. (2012). Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job crafting and work engagement. Human relations, 65, 1359–1378.

Google Scholar

Baltes, P. B., and Baltes, M. M. (1990). Psychological perspectives on successful aging: The model of selective optimization with compensation. Successful aging: Perspectives from the behavioral sciences, 1, 1–34.

Google Scholar

Buscemi, N., Hartling, L., Vandermeer, B., Tjosvold, L., and Klassen, T. P. (2006). Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 59, 697–703.

Google Scholar

Bakker, A. B., and Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 22, 273–285. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000056

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baumeister, R. F. (2003). “Writing a literature review” in The portable mentor: Expert guide to a successful career in psychology. eds. M. J. Prinstein and M. D. Patterson (New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers), 57–71.

Google Scholar

Beck, J. S. (1995). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond. New York: Guilford Press.

Google Scholar

*Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., and Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work. In: B. J. Dik, Z. S. Byrne, and M. F. Steger. Purpose and meaning in the workplace. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 81–104.

Google Scholar

*Berg, J. M., Grant, A. M., and Johnson, V. (2010). When callings are calling: crafting work and leisure in pursuit of unanswered occupational callings. Organ. Sci., 21: 973–994. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0497

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bindl, U. K., Unsworth, K. L., Gibson, C. B., and Stride, C. B. (2019). Job crafting revisited: implications of an extended framework for active changes at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 104, 605–628. doi: 10.1037/apl0000362

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Biron, M., Casper, W. J., and Raghuram, S. (2023). Crafting telework: a process model of need satisfaction to foster telework outcomes. Pers. Rev., 52: 671–686. doi: 10.1108/PR-04-2021-0259

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Booth, A., and Carroll, C. (2015). Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable? Health Inf. Libr. J. 32, 220–235. doi: 10.1111/hir.12108

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Bruning, P. F., and Campion, M. A. (2018). A role-resource approach-avoidance model of job crafting: a multimethod integration and extension of job crafting theory. Acad. Manag. J., 61: 499–522. doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.0604

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bushkin, H., Van Niekerk, R., and Stroud, L. (2021). Searching for meaning in chaos: Viktor Frankl’s story. Eur. J. Psychol. 17, 233–242. doi: 10.5964/ejop.5439

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Caringal-Go, J. F., Teng-Calleja, M., Bertulfo, D. J., and Manaois, J. O. (2022). Work-life balance crafting during COVID-19: exploring strategies of telecommuting employees in the Philippines. Community Work Fam., 25: 112–131. doi: 10.1080/13668803.2021.1956880

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carstensen, L. L. (1995). Evidence for a life-span theory of socioemotional selectivity. Current directions in Psychological science, 4, 151–156.

Google Scholar

*Chen, S., Van der Meij, L., Van Zyl, L. E., and Demerouti, E., (2022). The life-crafting scale: development and validation of a multi-dimensional meaning-making measure. Front. Psychol., 13:795686. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.795686

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Clausen, T., and Borg, V. (2011). Job demands, job resources and meaning at work. J. Manag. Psychol. 26, 665–681. doi: 10.1108/02683941111181761

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Costanza, A., Di Marco, S., Burroni, M., Corasaniti, F., Santinon, P., Prelati, M., et al. (2020). Meaning in life and demoralization: a mental-health reading perspective of suicidality in the time of COVID-19. Acta Bio Med. 91:e2020163. doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i4.10515

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry, research design: Choosing among the five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Google Scholar

Dash, S. S., and Vohra, N. (2020). Job crafting: a critical review. South Asian J. Manag. 27, 122–149.

Google Scholar

David, I., and Iliescu, D. (2020). The influence of religiosity and meaning making on work outcomes: a path analysis. Curr. Psychol. 41, 6196–6209. doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-01119-y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*De Bloom, J., Vaziri, H., Tay, L., and Kujanpää, M. (2020). An identity-based integrative needs model of crafting: crafting within and across life domains. J. Appl. Psychol., 105: 1423–1446. doi: 10.1037/apl0000495

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

De Gennaro, D. (2019). Job crafting: The art of redesigning a job. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

Google Scholar

De Haan, M. D., Dumontheil, I., and Johnson, M. H. (2023). Developmental cognitive neuroscience: An introduction. New York: John Wiley, Sons.

Google Scholar

De Jong, E. M., Ziegler, N., and Schippers, M. C. (2020). From shattered goals to meaning in life: life-crafting in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Front. Psychol. 11:577708. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.577708

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*De Vos, A., Akkermans, J., and Van der Heijden, B. (2019). From occupational choice to career crafting. In: H. Gunz, M. Lazarova, and W. Mayrhofer The Routledge companion to career studies. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 128–142.

Google Scholar

Dekker, I., De Jong, E. M., Schippers, M. C., De Bruijn-Smolders, M., Alexiou, A., and Giesbers, B. (2020). Optimizing students’ mental health and academic performance: AI-enhanced life-crafting. Front. Psychol. 11:1063. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01063

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Demerouti, E., Hewett, R., Haun, V., de Gieter, S., Rodríguez-Sánchez, A., and Skakon, J. (2020). From job crafting to home crafting: a daily diary study among six European countries. Hum. Relat., 73: 1010–1035. doi: 10.1177/0018726719848809

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Demerouti, E., and Peeters, M. C. (2018). Transmission of reduction-oriented crafting among colleagues: a diary study on the moderating role of working conditions. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol., 91: 209–234. doi: 10.1111/joop.12196

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Dominguez, L. C., Dolmans, D., de Grave, W., Sanabria, A., and Stassen, L. P. (2019). Job crafting to persist in surgical training: a qualitative study from the resident's perspective. J. Surg. Res., 239: 180–190. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.02.005

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Donaldson, S. I., van Zyl, L. E., and Donaldson, S. I. (2022). PERMA+ 4: a framework for work-related wellbeing, performance and positive organizational psychology 2.0. Front. Psychol. 12:817244. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.817244

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Dreyer, R., and Busch, C. (2021). At the heart of family businesses: how copreneurs craft work-life balance. J. Fam. Bus. Manage., 12: 816–832. doi: 10.1108/JFBM-12-2020-0113

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dubbelt, L., Demerouti, E., and Rispens, S. (2019). The value of job crafting for work engagement, task performance, and career satisfaction: longitudinal and quasi-experimental evidence. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 28, 300–314. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2019.1576632

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

EFPA (2013). EFPA review model for the description and evaluation of psychological and educational tests, version 4.2.6. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations. Available at: http://www.efpa.eu/download/650d0d4ecd407a51139ca44ee704fda4.

Google Scholar

Folkman, S. (1997). Positive psychological states and coping with severe stress. Soc. Sci. Med. 45, 1207–1221. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00040-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Foo, Y. Z., O'Dea, R. E., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S., and Lagisz, M. (2021). A practical guide to question formation, systematic searching and study screening for literature reviews in ecology and evolution. Methods Ecol. Evol. 12, 1705–1720. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13654

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Gjerde, S., and Ladegård, G. (2019). Leader role crafting and the functions of leader role identities. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud., 26: 44–59. doi: 10.1177/1548051818774553

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Gravador, L. N., and Teng-Calleja, M. (2018). Work-life balance crafting behaviors: an empirical study. Pers. Rev., 47: 786–804. doi: 10.1108/PR-05-2016-0112

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hackman, J. R., and Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishers.

Google Scholar

Heimlich, J. E., and Ardoin, N. M. (2008). Understanding behavior to understand behavior change: a literature review. Environ. Educ. Res. 14, 215–237. doi: 10.1080/13504620802148881

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hirschi, A., Herrmann, A., and Keller, A. C. (2015). Career adaptivity, adaptability, and adapting: a conceptual and empirical investigation. J. Vocat. Behav. 87, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2014.11.008

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Hu, Q., Taris, T. W., Dollard, M. F., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2020). An exploration of the component validity of job crafting. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy., 29: 776–793. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2020.1756262

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Hulshof, I. L., Demerouti, E., and Le Blanc, P. M. (2020). Reemployment crafting: proactively shaping one’s job search. J. Appl. Psychol., 105: 58–79. doi: 10.1037/apl0000419

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

IOS (2011). Assessment service delivery: Procedures and methods to assess people in work and organizational settings (ISO/DIS standard no. 10667–1:2011). International Organisation for Standardization. Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:10667:-1:ed-1:v1:en.

Google Scholar

ITC (2017). ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests. International Organisation for Standardization. Available at: https://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_adaptation_2ed.pdf.

Google Scholar

Jacob, Y., and Steger, M. F. (2021). “Meaning-centred coaching in the workplace” in Positive psychology coaching in the workplace. eds. W.-A. Smith, I. Boniwell, and S. Green (Berlin: Springer Nature Switzerland AG), 555–574.

Google Scholar

*Jammaers, E., and Williams, J. (2021). Care for the self, overcompensation and bodily crafting: the work–life balance of disabled people. Gender Work Organ., 28: 119–137. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12531

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keyes, C. L. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of health and social behavior, 207–222.

Google Scholar

Kodama, M. (2009). Boundary management: Developing business architectures for innovation. Berlin: Springer Science, Business Media.

Google Scholar

*Kooij, D. T., De Lange, A. H., and Van De Voorde, K. (2022). Stimulating job crafting behaviors of older workers: the influence of opportunity-enhancing human resource practices and psychological empowerment. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy., 31: 22–34. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2021.1899161

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Kooij, D. T., Nijssen, H., Bal, P. M., and Van der Kruijssen, D. T. (2020). Crafting an interesting job: stimulating an active role of older workers in enhancing their daily work engagement and job performance. Work Aging Retire., 6: 165–174. doi: 10.1093/workar/waaa001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Kooij, D. T. A., Tims, M., and Kanfer, R. (2015). Successful aging at work: the role of job crafting. In: P. M. Bal, D. T. A. Kooij, and D. M. Rousseau Aging workers and the employee-employer relationship. Berlin: Springer, pp. 145–161.

Google Scholar

*Kooij, D. T. A. M., van Woerkom, M., Wilkenloh, J., Dorenbosch, L., and Denissen, J. J. A. (2017). Job crafting towards strengths and interests: the effects of a job crafting intervention on person–job fit and the role of age. J. Appl. Psychol., 102: 971–981. doi: 10.1037/apl0000194

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Körner, L. S., Rigotti, T., and Rieder, K. (2021). Study crafting and self-undermining in higher education students: a weekly diary study on the antecedents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18:7090. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18137090

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Kosenkranius, M. K., Rink, F. A., and De Bloom, J. (2020). The design and development of a hybrid off-job crafting intervention to enhance needs satisfaction, wellbeing, and performance: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health, 20:115. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-8224-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kossek, E. E., Ruderman, M. N., Braddy, P. W., and Hannum, K. M. (2012). Work–nonwork boundary management profiles: a person-centered approach. J. Vocat. Behav. 81, 112–128. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2012.04.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Kroon, B., Kooij, D. T., and Van Veldhoven, M. J. (2013). Job crafting and work engagement: are there differences between teams with a restrictive or unrestricted work context? Gedrag En Organ., 26: 46–65. doi: 10.5117/2013.026.001.046

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kruglanski, A. W., Jasko, K., Milyavsky, M., Chernikova, M., Webber, D., Pierro, A., et al. (2018). Cognitive consistency theory in social psychology: a paradigm reconsidered. Psychol. Inq. 29, 45–59. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2018.1480619

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Kuijpers, E., Kooij, D. T. A. M., and Van Woerkom, M. (2020). Align your job with yourself: the relationship between a job crafting intervention and work engagement, and the role of workload. J. Occup. Health Psychol., 25: 1–16. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000175

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Labarca, G., and Letelier, L. M. (2022). Is the systematic review and meta-analysis the gold standard for scientific evidence? Arch. Bronconeumol. 58, 679–680. doi: 10.1016/j.arbres.2021.08.007

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Laporte, N., Soenens, B., Brenning, K., and Vansteenkiste, M. (2021). Adolescents as active managers of their own psychological needs: the role of psychological need crafting in adolescents’ mental health. J. Adolesc., 88: 67–83. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.02.004

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Latham, G. P., and Yukl, G. A. (1975). A review of research on the application of goal setting in organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 18, 824–845. doi: 10.2307/255381

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lau, B. H. P., Chan, C. L. W., and Ng, S. M. (2021). Post-traumatic growth in the first COVID outbreak in Hong Kong. Front. Psychol. 12:675132. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.675132

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Lazazzara, A., Tims, M., and De Gennaro, D. (2020). The process of reinventing a job: a meta–synthesis of qualitative job crafting research. J. Vocat. Behav., 116:103267. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2019.01.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Lee, J. Y., Chen, C. L., Kolokowsky, E., Hong, S., Siegel, J. T., and Donaldson, S. I. (2021). Development and validation of the career crafting assessment (CCA). J. Career Assess., 29: 717–736. doi: 10.1177/10690727211002565

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., and LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: an explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 48, 764–775. doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.18803921

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, J., Sekiguchi, T., and Qi, J. (2020). When and why skill variety influences employee job crafting: regulatory focus and social exchange perspectives. Empl. Relat. 42, 662–680. doi: 10.1108/ER-06-2019-0240

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Lichtenthaler, P. W., and Fischbach, A. (2016). The conceptualization and measurement of job crafting: validation of a German version of the job crafting scale. Z. Arbeits Organisationspsychol. A&O, 60: 173–186. doi: 10.1026/0932-4089/a000219

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Lyons, P. (2008). The crafting of jobs and individual differences. J. Bus. Psychol., 23: 25–36. doi: 10.1007/s10869-008-9080-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Maharaj, I., and Schlechter, A. F. (2007). Meaning in life and meaning of work: relationships with organisational citizenship behaviour, commitment and job satisfaction. Manage. Dyn. 16, 24–41. doi: 10.10520/EJC69726

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Martela, F., and Steger, M. F. (2016). The three meanings of meaning in life: distinguishing coherence, purpose, and significance. J. Posit. Psychol. 11, 531–545. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2015.1137623

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem. Med. 22, 276–282.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

McMahon, M., and Watson, M. (2012). Story crafting: strategies for facilitating narrative career counselling. Int. J. Educ. Vocat. Guid. 12, 211–224. doi: 10.1007/s10775-012-9228-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Melo, N., Dourado, D., and Andrade, J. (2021). Reclaiming cognitive crafting: an integrative model of behavioral and cognitive practices in job crafting. Int. J. Organ. Anal., 29: 1302–1320. doi: 10.1108/IJOA-04-2020-2130

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Messmann, G., and Mulder, R. H. (2012). Development of a measurement instrument for innovative work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 15, 43–59. doi: 10.1080/13678868.2011.646894

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Google Scholar

Mohamed Shaffril, H. A., Samsuddin, S. F., and Abu Samah, A. (2021). The ABC of systematic literature review: the basic methodological guidance for beginners. Qual. Quant. 55, 1319–1346. doi: 10.1007/s11135-020-01059-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Morin, A. J. S., Myers, N. D., and Lee, S. (2020). “Modern factor analytic techniques: Bifactor models, exploratory structural equation modeling and bifactor-ESEM” in Handbook of sport psychology. eds. G. Tenenbaum and R. C. Eklund. 4th ed (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishers), 1044–1073.

Google Scholar

*Nielsen, K., and Abildgaard, J. S. (2012). The development and validation of a job crafting measure for use with blue-collar workers. Work, Stress, 26: 365–384. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2012.733543

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Niessen, C., Weseler, D., and Kostova, P. (2016). When and why do individuals craft their jobs?: the role of individual motivation and work characteristics for job crafting. Hum. Relat., 69: 1287–1313. doi: 10.1177/0018726715610642

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 134, 178–189. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: an integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychol. Bull. 136, 257–301. doi: 10.1037/a0018301

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Petrou, P., and Bakker, A. B. (2016). Crafting one’s leisure time in response to high job strain. Hum. Relat., 69: 507–529. doi: 10.1177/0018726715590453

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Petrou, P., Bakker, A. B., and Van den Heuvel, M. (2017). Weekly job crafting and leisure crafting: implications for meaning-making and work engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol., 90: 129–152. doi: 10.1111/joop.12160

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Richter, S., Van Zyl, L. E., Roll, L. C., and Stander, M. W. (2021). Positive psychological coaching tools: a systematic review and classification. Front. Psych. 12:7200. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.667200

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Roczniewska, M., Rogala, A., Marszałek, M., Hasson, H., Bakker, A. B., and von Thiele Schwarz, U. (2023). Job crafting interventions: what works, for whom, why, and in which contexts? Research protocol for a systematic review with coincidence analysis. Syst. Rev. 12. Advance online publication.:10. doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02170-z

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Roczniewska, M., Rogala, A., Puchalska-Kaminska, M., Cieślak, R., and Retowski, S. (2020). I believe I can craft! Introducing job crafting self-efficacy scale (JCSES). PLoS One, 15:7250. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237250

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Rofcanin, Y., Bakker, A. B., Berber, A., Gölgeci, I., and Las Heras, M. (2019). Relational job crafting: exploring the role of employee motives with a weekly diary study. Hum. Relat., 72: 859–886. doi: 10.1177/0018726718779121

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rottinghaus, P. J., Larson, L. M., and Borgen, F. H. (2003). The relation of self-efficacy and interests: a meta-analysis of 60 samples. J. Vocat. Behav. 62, 221–236. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00039-8

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Routledge, C., and FioRito, T. A. (2021). Why meaning in life matters for societal flourishing. Front. Psychol. 11:1899. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.601899

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and wellbeing. Am. Psychol. 55, 68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ryff, C. D. (2014). Self-realisation and meaning making in the face of adversity: a eudaimonic approach to human resilience. J. Psychol. Afr. 24, 1–12. doi: 10.1080/14330237.2014.904098

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Schippers, M. C., and Ziegler, N. (2019). Life-crafting as a way to find purpose and meaning in life. Front. Psychol., 10:2778. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02778

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., and Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 70, 747–770. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Slemp, G. R., and Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2013). The job crafting questionnaire: a new scale to measure the extent to which employees engage in job crafting. Int. J. Wellbeing, 3: 126–146. doi: 10.5501/ijw.v3i2.1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Snyder, M., and Tanke, E. D. (1976). Behavior and attitude: some people are more consistent than others. J. Pers. 44, 501–517. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1976.tb00135.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sonnentag, S., and Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 12, 204–221. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sonnentag, S., and Fritz, C. (2015). Recovery from job stress: the stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework. J. Organ. Behav. 36, S72–S103. doi: 10.1002/job.1924

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Steger, M. F. (2019). “Meaning in life and in work” in The Oxford handbook meaningful work. eds. R. Yeoman, C. Bailey, A. Madden, and M. Thompson (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), 208–222.

Google Scholar

Steger, M. F., Shim, Y., Barenz, J., and Shin, J. Y. (2014). Through the windows of the soul: a pilot study using photography to enhance meaning in life. J. Contextual Behav. Sci. 3, 27–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2013.11.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Stemler, S. (2000). An overview of content analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 7, 1–6. doi: 10.7275/z6fm-2e34

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Sturges, J. (2012). Crafting a balance between work and home. Hum. Relat., 65: 1539–1559. doi: 10.1177/0018726712457435

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tett, R. P., and Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Thoma, N., Pilecki, B., and McKay, D. (2015). Contemporary cognitive behavior therapy: a review of theory, history, and evidence. Psychodyn. Psychiatry 43, 423–461. doi: 10.1521/pdps.2015.43.3.423

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Tims, M., and Akkermans, J. (2020). Job and career crafting to fulfill individual career pathways. In J. W. Hedge and G. W. Carter. Career pathways: From school to retirement. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 165–190.

Google Scholar

*Tims, M., and Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA J. Ind. Psychol., 36: 12–20. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., and Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. J. Vocat. Behav., 80: 173–186. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tims, M., Derks, D., and Bakker, A. B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person–job fit and meaningfulness: a three-wave study. J. Vocat. Behav. 92, 44–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tims, M., Twemlow, M., and Fong, C. Y. M. (2021). A state-of-the-art overview of job-crafting research: current trends and future research directions. Career Dev. Int. 27, 54–78. doi: 10.1108/CDI-08-2021-0216

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tisu, L., and Vîrgă, D. (2022). Proactive vitality management, work–home enrichment, and performance: a two-wave cross-lagged study on entrepreneurs. Front. Psychol. 13:761958. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.761958

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tsaur, S., Yen, C., and Chen, Y. (2021). Can leisure crafting enhance leisure engagement? The role of time structure and leisure type. Leis. Stud. 40, 747–763. doi: 10.1080/02614367.2021.1926529

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Tsaur, S. H., Yen, C. H., Yang, M. C., and Yen, H. H. (2020). Leisure crafting: scale development and validation. Leis. Sci., 45: 71–91. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2020.1783728

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Van de Schoot, R., de Bruin, J., Schram, R. D., Zahedi, P., de Boer, J., Weijdema, F., et al. (2021). ASReview: open source software for efficient and transparent active learning for systematic reviews. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 125–133. doi: 10.1038/s42256-020-00287-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Van Wingerden, J., and Niks, I. M. (2017). Construction and validation of the perceived opportunity to craft scale. Front. Psychol., 8:573. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00573

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Zyl, L. E., Deacon, E., and Rothmann, S.. (2010). Towards happiness: experiences of work-role fit, meaningfulness and work engagement of industrial/organisational psychologists in South Africa. SA J. Ind. Psychol 36: 890. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v36i1.890

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Zyl, L. E., Dik, B. J., Donaldson, S. I., Klibert, J. J., Di Blasi, Z., Van Wingerden, J., et al. (2023a). Positive organisational psychology 2.0: embracing the technological revolution. J. Posit. Psychol. 2023, 1–13. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2023.2257640

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Zyl, L. E., Gaffaney, J., Van der Vaart, L., Dik, B. J., and Donaldson, S. I. (2023b). The critiques and criticisms of positive psychology: a systematic review. J. Posit. Psychol. 2022, 1–30. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2023.2178956

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Van Zyl, L. E., Hulshof, L., and Dickens, L. R. (2019). “#NoFilter: an online photographic meaningful-moments intervention” in Evidence-based positive psychological interventions in multi-cultural contexts, eds. R. Van and S. Zyl, Rothmann: Berlin: Springer, 57–82.

Google Scholar

Van Zyl, L. E., and Ten Klooster, P. M. (2022). Exploratory structural equation modelling: practical guidelines and tutorial with a convenient online tool for Mplus. Front. Psych. 12:795672. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.795672

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Van Zyl, L. E., Zondervan-Zwijnenburg, M. A., Dickens, L. R., and Hulshof, I. L. (2020). Exploring meaning in life through a brief photo-ethnographic intervention using Instagram: a Bayesian growth modelling approach. Int. Rev. Psychiatry 32, 723–745. doi: 10.1080/09540261.2020.1809357

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Varnum, M. E., Grossmann, I., Kitayama, S., and Nisbett, R. E. (2010). The origin of cultural differences in cognition: the social orientation hypothesis. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 19, 9–13. doi: 10.1177/0963721409359301

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wan, M., Shaffer, M. A., Singh, R., and Zhang, Y. (2021). Spoiling for a fight: a relational model of daily work-family balance satisfaction. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 95, 60–89. doi: 10.1111/joop.12368

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wardhani, B., Hara, A. E., and Dugis, V. (2021). Crafting Taiwan-southeast Asian relations with halal tourism. Contemp. Chin. Polit. Econ. Strateg. Relat. 7, 257–293.

Google Scholar

*Weseler, D., and Niessen, C. (2016). How job crafting relates to task performance. J. Manag. Psychol., 31: 672–685. doi: 10.1108/JMP-09-2014-0269

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Wessels, C., Schippers, M. C., Stegmann, S., Bakker, A. B., Van Baalen, P. J., and Proper, K. I. (2019). Fostering flexibility in the new world of work: a model of time-spatial job crafting. Front. Psychol., 10:505. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00505

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wong, P. T. (2020). Existential positive psychology and integrative meaning therapy. Int. Rev. Psychiatry 32, 565–578. doi: 10.1080/09540261.2020.1814703

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wong, P. T. P., Mayer, C. H., and Arslan, G. (2021). Editorial: COVID-19 and existential positive psychology (PP 2.0): the new science of self-transcendence. Front. Psychol. 12:308. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.800308

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wood, W., and Rünger, D. (2016). Psychology of habit. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67, 289–314. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033417

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Wrzesniewski, A., and Dutton, J. E.. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26: 179–201. doi: 10.2307/259118

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Xiao, Y., and Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 39, 93–112. doi: 10.1177/0739456X17723971

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Yen, C. H., Tsaur, S. H., and Tsai, C. H. (2018). Tour leaders’ job crafting: scale development. Tour. Manag., 69: 52–61. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.05.017

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

*Zhang, F., and Parker, S. K. (2019). Reorienting job crafting research: a hierarchical structure of job crafting concepts and integrative review. J. Organ. Behav., 40: 126–146. doi: 10.1002/job.2332

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar