Job Crafting and Work–Life Balance in a Mature Organization

Abstract

The aim of this research was to identify individualization areas in which employees (generations Y and Z) have the freedom to make changes. The study required an analysis of factors that might affect the balance between professional and personal life, i.e., working time and work organization, autonomy at work, or linking the nature of work with employee interests. As a result, the following topics were examined: areas of individualization, the work that respondents carried out and would like to carry out, and their participation in job crafting and professional development. The study focused on two areas of job crafting: modifying job activities by employees (task crafting) and their mental perception of the work they carried out (cognitive crafting). A substantial literature review was included in the paper; additionally, the research consisted of a survey, questionnaires, discussions, and an analysis of working conditions. Employees’ opinions (n = 300) were analyzed. The three most frequently mentioned individualization areas in which the respondents were allowed to make changes were work organization, working time, and task timeline. A strong link between job crafting and work–life balance was indicated. A positive relationship between the ability to develop job crafting in the work organization and satisfaction areas was also found. Calculations were performed using IBM SPSS. It was found that, in mature organizations, employees were able to identify individualization areas and in some cases were allowed to implement job crafting. Most of them were satisfied with their jobs, which means that they were able to maintain a good work–life balance. This research could be used as a basis for further studies.

1. Introduction

According to dictionary definitions, organization maturity means the achievement of the highest level of development and the highest quality of products or services, in addition to a readiness to combat challenges [1]. Consequently, process maturity refers to the ability of an organization to effectively manage processes and continuously improve them [2,3]. The attributes of a process-mature organization are an ability to build and improve products/services, with fully defined, planned, monitored, and quickly corrected processes, with a clearly defined division of roles, responsibilities, and control, in addition to constant IT support and knowledge sharing [3,4].

Auksztol and Chomuszko [5] discuss some process maturity models, including the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), the Business Process Maturity Model (BPMM), some models based on CMM/CMMI or BPMM, and organizational models with some maturity elements, like Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL), which has a process maturity framework (PMF) that is related to process maturity [5]. Additionally, a multidimensional process maturity model was presented by D. M. Fisher in 2004; in 2009, the Gartner Group, a consulting company, proposed the Gartner’s Process Maturity Model and successfully applied it. Both CMM and BPMM identify five maturity levels [6]. The maturity levels used for the present research were adapted to the maturity conditions in the BPMM model and to key processes in Polish firms.

Mature organizations are more likely than others to learn about the latest solutions to organizational and managerial challenges, and they are increasingly more effective in putting them into practice. They are open and flexible, with a high level of human resource management and a large share of highly qualified employees [7,8]. More often than others, they make changes in human resource policies. Such organizations pay attention to the retention of the best employees, using the latter’s potential through the implementation of a good working environment. Mature organizations care about work–life balance (WLB), trying to ensure an equilibrium between employee professional and personal life. To promote individualization at work, they systematically perform a thorough analysis of employee needs, setting individual paths in assuring work–life balance, regardless of the age and experience of the employee in question. Mature organizations indicate the possibilities and limits of redesigning the workplace at the early stages of a new employee’s adaptation.

In their strategies, they try to counteract occupational burnout through sustainable actions, like shaping employee awareness and attitudes [8]. Such actions affect work–life balance, but also job satisfaction, and assure the protection and development of human capital.

The idea of work–life balance can be considered at both organizational and individual levels. From the perspective of an organization, the balance between professional and personal life can be evaluated on the basis of costs, profits, and commitment to efficiency. On the other hand, in individual terms, the balance can be conceived on the basis of a subjective image of the professional and private space, managed by the employee according to subjective proportions. It is obvious that there must be a great deal of subjectivism in the reception and assessment of this equilibrium, and the extent of work–life balance endeavors ought to be determined considering the above viewpoints. Additionally, the strategy employed to support work–life balance is constantly affected by changes occurring in both society and a given organization.

Firstly, there are generational changes in society. It seems that different generations (Baby Boomers and Generations X, Y, and Z) perceive and deal with their professional life in different ways, having different approaches to work processes, job crafting, remuneration, and sustainable development. The problem of the generation gap in the labor market is complex. It is often not about the age difference itself, but about the values people share. In Poland, the Baby Boomers generation (born 1946–1964) are people who primarily care for stability. Generation X is a group of employees (born 1964–1985) who value tradition and a conflict-free work environment. Attached to their workplace, they are ready to work hard, facing constant changes and staying in the same company for many years. On the other hand, Generation Y (born 1985–1995) is a group of employees who have had contact with technology almost since childhood. They do not want to work for the same company for a longer time, showing a tendency to change jobs, and associating professional duties with passion and enjoying free time. Generation Z, so-called Millennials (born after 1995), are employee who fully use virtual spaces and who are open to different cultures, easily making friends around the world. They work not only for a living, but also for self-improvement.

Secondly, changes in society are often affected by economic phenomena, like market turbulence, inflation, or investment volatility. Thirdly, dramatic changes have occurred as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, leading to social distancing, remote work, remote management and communication, and increasing work virtualization. The pandemic also resulted in new challenges affecting education, medical training, and people’s wellbeing. Fourthly, there are also changes in individual adjustment of employees, with their increased qualifications and autonomy in the workplace, all of which in turn affect their development. The consequences of these changes are noticeable in individualization and in job crafting [9,10].

The phrase “job crafting” was used by Wrzesniewski and Dutton in 2001. According to them, the term encompasses physical and cognitive changes employees make at work. Job crafting pertains to three areas: performing work activities (task crafting), interpersonal relationships (relational crafting), and mental attitude to the work (cognitive crafting) [11]. In the present research, it has been recognized that the area of task crafting includes tasks that allow for professional development, tasks that bring satisfaction, and tasks that boost an employee’s own scope for work. However, the area of mental attitude to work (cognitive crafting) comprises linking interests with work, satisfaction with performed activities, and treating work as a sum of tasks. The third area (not analyzed in this paper) is that of interpersonal relations and includes building new interpersonal connections or deepening existing ones and avoiding conflicts.

It is worth noting that the idea of job crafting was already present in the works of Kulik, Oldham, and Hackman from 1987 [12]. Kulik et al. suggested that employees could redesign their workplaces with or without management involvement, which was consistent with the definition proposed later by Wrzesniewski and Dutton [13]. In the present paper, the author adopted the above understanding of job crafting, noting that its main idea is to give employees a sense of satisfaction through developing their interest in their role and increasing their commitment to it. In this process, it is important to think comprehensively about work, recognizing that it consists of many equally important material and intangible elements. As also mentioned by Atwater and Dionne, job crafting activities aim to ensure individualized adjustment of work to an employee’s abilities and predispositions so as to increase their commitment and responsibility [14]. Job crafting aims to adapt work to employee needs and abilities; in other words, it pushes the boundaries of the work closer to employees needs so that it is exciting and compatible with their abilities and with the company’s [15] plans and goals [15].

It is worth adding that there are different types of employees, who have different approaches to job crafting. For example, considering personality types, optimists and pessimists are distinguishable, but there are also creative, conservative, confrontational, agreeable, resistant, and committed employee personality types. However, when considering their roles in the company (important for effective teamwork), leaders, creators, evaluators, specialists, contractors, and animators should also be mentioned.

There is an increasing number of scientific publications on job crafting, but no attempt has been made to investigate the link between job crafting and work–life balance in mature organizations. The above gap in the literature motivated the author to undertake research in this area.

The problem this paper deals with is important for businesspeople (the author is one of them), executives, and employees. For business owners, it is a way to increase work efficiency [13,16,17,18], to balance human resources [19,20,21,22,23,24], and to reduce the risk of staff turnover costs [25,26,27]. Managers can use the results to improve work performance through involving employees and improving teamwork [13,19,24,28,29,30]. For employees, on the other hand, it is a way to increase autonomy and self-fulfillment [31] and to foster cooperation and innovation [32,33].

Between 2012 and 2023, a steady increase in researchers’ interest in the problem of work–life balance (WLB) was observed, but research gaps remained, especially in relation to job crafting implementation in mature organizations. The literature does not refer much to those topics or to individualization areas in which employees are allowed to make changes. By entering the phrase “work–life balance” and narrowing down the search to article titles in the databases of SCOPUS, ProQuest, and EBSCO Essentiales, an increasing interest in that topic can be noticed (according to the data available on 26 March 2023). Between 2012 and 2017, about 570 publications on the topic were registered in the SCOPUS database, with 934 between 2018 and 2023. In the ProQuest database (section: scientific journals), 7768 publications were registered between 2012 and 2017 (from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2017). Between 2018 and 2023 (from 1 January 2018 to 1 January 2023), there was a significant increase, amounting to as many as 17,247 publications. In another database, EBSCO Essentiales, an almost twofold upward trend in the number of scientific studies on work–life balance can be observed. Between 2012 and 2017 (from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2017), 967 publications were registered in EBSCO Essentiales, with 1672 between 2018 and 2023 (1 January 2018–1 January 2023). However, following a search for the phrase “work–life balance and mature organizations”, it was difficult to find any papers extensively dealing with this area.

In addition, Google Trends was applied to determine whether the interest in work–life balance, job crafting, and mature organizations was growing or decreasing. The data recorded from 1 January 2012 to 1 January 2023 indicated a moderately increasing trend, but it remained low, with 0–100 views within a few days. The maximum number for job crafting is 100 views from 27 March to 2 April 2022 (these data were accessed on 26 March 2023). It can be concluded that its popularity was not large, and the upward trend was small. During the same period, the “work–life balance” phrase was searched more often, e.g., until March 2021, the maximum number of views was 60, and from April 2021, an increase to 63–100 was observed. The “mature organization” phrase was the most popular, and in the same period, the number of views increased from 0 to 100. The biggest increase was in October 2012, with 92 views, in February 2016, with 99 views, in July 2016, with 97 views, in February 2022, with 100 views, and in November 2022, with 99 views (these data were accessed on 26 March 2023).

The gaps in theoretical studies and empirical research in management and quality sciences provide areas for investigating WLB. Therefore, the purpose of the research is to identify individualization areas in mature organizations in which employees have freedom to make changes and to determine the degree of overlap between the job they do and the job they would like to do. The participation of employees in job crafting, work–life balance, and professional development is examined. The research is focused on task and cognitive crafting, but the area of interpersonal relationships at work (relational crafting) is not included and requires further research.

There is a saying that goes “do what you love and you’ll never work a day in your life”. According to many studies, people who have combined their passions with their professional work and have freedom in job crafting are happier, less stressed, and more easily achieve work–life balance.

With this in mind, the following research questions were posed:

• Research Question 1 (Q1): What are the individualization areas in which employees are allowed to make changes?
• Research Question 2 (Q2): What is the overlap between the job that employees do and the job they would like to do?
• Research Question 3 (Q3): Does the overlap between the job they do and the job they would like to do affect work–life balance in mature organizations?

In the research, the areas of individualization in which employees had freedom to make changes (job crafting) were indicated, and the degree of self-organization was investigated. It was also assumed that a good way to determine the possibility of job crafting implementation in mature organizations is to research the balance between the job the employees do and the job they would like to do. Consequently, the right balance gives employees a strong motivation to increase work efficiency and professional development [31].

2. Materials and Methods

A good work–life balance (WLB) strengthens employees’ awareness and integrity in their professional and private lives. If they understand the meaning of WLB and have a chance to improve it, they will achieve job satisfaction faster. Yet, WLB cannot be associated solely with limiting the time at work or with treating working time and private life separately, even if work and private life are, to some extent, antagonistic [34].

Reviewing the literature, it is difficult to find a strictly defined definition of work–life balance. Some authors stress the differences between professional and private life, others emphasize the importance of an equilibrium between them, and some others treat WLB as a skillful adjustment in domestic and professional responsibilities [35,36,37]. Despite the different perceptions of WLB as a concept, the term most frequently used in this context is “employee wellbeing”, with management efforts aiming to take care of an employee’s good mental and physical condition, resulting in satisfaction with work. According to many authors, the conflict between professional and private life occurs when the demands made by family life and work are incompatible [38]. J.H. Greenhaus and N.J. Beutell [39] found that the conflict between work and life occurs when the demands associated with one of them hinder or even exclude the performance of the other. A person who tries to meet the requirements of both professional and private life may notice how difficult it is to reconcile them [38]. The conflict between private life and work occurs when an individual’s responsibilities in one role interfere with the responsibilities of the other [34]. Greenhaus and Beutell [39] argue that work–life imbalance occurs when the pressure of work is, in some respects, mutually irreconcilable with family life; here, professional responsibilities interfere with family duties, and vice versa [40]. Apart from remuneration, a good atmosphere allowing reconciliation of professional and family responsibilities together with individualization based on matching work to the employee’s competence constitutes an important factor in determining the decision of what job to choose and whether to stay in a job or to leave [9].

In Poland, work–life balance (WLB) is a relatively well-known concept. Companies increasingly consider it to be supportive for effective human resource policies. In addition, WLB strongly correlates with corporate social responsibilities (CSRs). It might be said that it is an instrument of CSRs [41,42,43,44,45,46]. The data in the 2014 Workers Preferences and Workplace Agility report show the growing importance of the WLB concept. For 56% of employees worldwide, WLB is more important than wages or promotion, and in Poland, 42% of employees share this view [46]. It is believed that this percentage will increase in the future, which will in turn affect employees’ behavior and their choice of whether to stay in a job or change it. Currently, the willingness of employers to change employee working conditions is increasing, if only because of labor shortages in some sectors. This makes the employer care for employees more, allowing them to balance professional and private life and to execute job crafting. In the literature, work–life balance is often associated with job crafting [8,47].

Wrzesniewski and Dutton propose that job crafting should include three aspects: task crafting, relational crafting, and cognitive crafting [11]. Job crafting is a bottom–up process, aiming to optimize and modify work by tailoring it to the employee’s preferences [11,17,48,49,50]. It must be admitted that inflation, together with the slow pace of economic recovery and the COVID-19 pandemic, have affected work–life balance, making it difficult for employers and employees to implement it. However, such problems usually trigger changes in self-organization and managerial methods, resulting in job restructuring and in the introduction of new models of work [51,52]. An increasing number of researchers stress the importance of job crafting in maintaining employee autonomy [31], motivation at work [53], individualization of work arrangements [9], and in creating conditions for innovation [54,55]. The literature offers proposals for changes that could encourage employees to adapt to their work in order to increase commitment and to achieve satisfaction [21]. Researchers indicate that organizations should look for devoted employees who are able to maintain their motivation [56,57].

According to the present author, the model of Kooij and van Woerkom et al. [58] is noteworthy [58]. The adoption of the job crafting model of Kooij, van Woerkom, and others results in a better match between the worker and the job. Its construction is based on two types of job remodeling: the first—towards better use of employee strengths (crafting towards strengths); the second—towards employees tailoring their jobs to their interests (crafting towards interests). Both improve the balance between personal strengths and interests [58] and work [58]. This in turn translates into better work–life balance. Kooij and Kuijpers [59] added a third type, which is crafting towards development, which is close to the present author’s interest.

As mentioned earlier, an increasing number of publications on work–life balance and job crafting can be noticed; new views appear, along with differences and scientific disputes. This encouraged the author to undertake research in this area. Revealing research gaps to be scientifically filled, the literature review significantly influenced the direction of the present study. The aim of this research was to indicate those areas of individualization in which employees were allowed to make changes and to determine the degree of overlap between the job they do and the job they would like to do. The research goal required an analysis of job crafting factors affecting work–life balance. They include time and organization of work, autonomy at work, and linking the nature of work with personal interests. As a result, the following elements were identified and analyzed: individualization areas, the job the respondents do and the job they would like to do, and their participation in work scope creation and in their own development.

The research process started with a literature review, followed by analysis of the data on working conditions, and a survey, including questionnaires and interviews. In 13 groups, time-limited guided discussions were held as a supplementary means. Selected issues were considered using questions and answers, with an exchange of thoughts, ideas, and critical opinions. Although discussion is not a method of scientific work, it was decided to use it in order to clarify problems related to job crafting and work–life balance. Thanks to the discussion, qualitative research was employed, and existing discrepancies were clarified. It provided the basis for further exchange of opinions, reconciling different, even contradictory views. Such a discussion can be successfully used in organizational management and for educational purposes.

As mentioned above, the author used data collection methods including a literature review (books, journals, articles, and reports), surveys (a printed form that the respondents filled in), interviews (an interview form to be filled in by the interviewer), and discussions (a form filled in by the moderator—participants did not agree to being recorded). The sample was deliberately selected. The study consisted of two stages. The first one was selecting respondents who worked for mature organizations. A questionnaire prepared by the author was used in the interview on the process maturity in their company. The inspiration for the questionnaire was a model based on five-stage process maturity (Business Process Maturity Models—BPMM) [6,7,60,61]. An indication that the organization they worked or had worked for was a mature one was the condition for qualifying respondents for the second stage. The third (PIII), fourth (PIV), or fifth (PV) maturity levels were distinguished, with the following characteristics: PIII—predictable and consistent; PIV—complete; PV—optimized [8]. The second stage included respondents qualified during the first stage. The research was anonymous, and mature organizations were not named.

The research was performed in Poland in the Mazowieckie Voivodeship in 2019 and 2020; participants included 300 respondents working for mature organizations with different business profiles. Studying at university, the respondents were improving their qualifications.

The respondents (

Table 1. Survey metrics.

The total number of population 2019/20 [62]	The needed number of respondents	The real number of respondents	Confidence level	Fraction size	Maximum error	The area covered by the survey
1,203,998	267	300	95% α = 0.95	0.5	6%	Poland, Mazowieckie Voivodeship
Gender				Number of respondents	Respondent percentage	Response percentage
			Woman	178	59.3%	60.1%
			Man	118	39.3%	39.9%
Total				296	98.7%	100.0%
No response				4	1.3%
Total number of respondents				300	100.0%
Age				Number of respondents	Respondent percentage	Response percentage
			18–21	67	22.3%	22.5%
			22–25	157	52.3%	52.7%
			26–30	37	12.3%	12.4%
			31–40	29	9.7%	9.7%
			over 40	8	2.7%	2.7%
Total				298	99.3%	100.0%
No response				2	0.7%
Total number of respondents				300	100.0%

Source: author’s elaboration.

) included 118 men (39.3%) and 178 women (59.3%), with four participants (1.3%) choosing not to disclose their gender. Most respondents (87.6%) were from Generation Z, aged 18–30. The remaining participants (12.4%) were from Generation Y, i.e., aged 30–40 and over 40. Respondents were or had been employed as executive employees in trade and logistics (

Table 2. Occupation/type of work performed by respondents.

Occupation/Type of Work	Women		Men		Gender Not Provided		Total
	Number of Respondents	Percentage	Number of Respondents	Percentage	Number of Respondents	Percentage	Number of Respondents	Percentage
Clerk/office jobs	78	83.0%	14	14.9%	2	2.1%	94	31.3%
Salesperson/jobs in trade	47	56.6%	36	43.4%	0	0%	83	27.7%
Logistics/organizational and decision-making jobs	24	35.8%	41	61.2%	2	3.0%	67	22.3%
Specialist/executive and consulting jobs	29	51.8%	27	48.2%	0	0%	56	18.7%
Total	178	59.3%	118	39.3%	4	1.3%	300	100.0%

Source: author’s elaboration.

), as clerks (31.3%), salespeople (27.7%), logistics specialists (22.3%), and other specialists (18.7%). Everyone improved their own qualifications and was pursuing their career, feeling optimistic about the future (

Table 3. Employee participation in their development, n = 298.

Should the Participation in Your Development Be Active or Passive?
	Number of Respondents	Percentage of Respondents	Percentage of Responses
Active	275	91.7	92.3
Passive	12	4.0	4.0
No opinion	11	3.7	3.7
Total	298	99.3	100.0
No response	2	0.7
Total	300	100.0

Source: own elaboration.

).

To a greater or lesser extent, they declared that they had family responsibilities, and they valued their private lives. The degree of commitment to family responsibilities was not taken into account when selecting the sample.

The confidence index of the survey was α = 0.95, with the fraction size of 0.5 and the maximum error of 6%. The respondents’ attitude towards the survey was positive, but the main limitation was a lack of literature reports on the assessment of the relationship between job crafting and work–life balance, which made it impossible to conduct a comparative analysis.

Calculations were done with IBM SPSS (Version: 24). To assess differences between variables and the significance of differences between groups, chi-squared tests were performed and contingency tables were used. Pearson’s chi-squared test was applied to determine how likely it was that any difference was due to chance. There are three types of Pearson’s chi-squared test: goodness of fit, homogeneity, and independence. Cramér’s V is the intercorrelation of two discrete variables. It may be used with variables having two or more levels. It is a symmetrical measure: it does not matter which variable is placed in columns and which in rows. Additionally, the order of rows/columns does not matter, so Cramér’s V may be used with nominal data types or higher (notably, ordered or numerical). Cramér’s V varies from 0 (corresponding to no association between the variables) to 1 (complete association) and can reach 1 only when each variable is completely determined by the other. It may be viewed as an association between two variables as a percentage of their maximum possible variation. The limit of statistical significance was assumed to be p < 0.05.

The methodology of such an analysis can be found in works in the areas of general management, human resources, and sustainable development [63,64,65].

3. Results

Job crafting implementation is closely connected to sustainable development in mature organizations. It also affects work–life balance, being a tool to improve the quality of professional and personal life. Due to job crafting, the impact of employees on the organization is expanding. They become the creators of some part of the organization, being promoters of changes in which they participate. By adjusting the place and type of work or working time to individual competences and preferences, the effectiveness of a given employee increases. This effectiveness is strengthened even more due to a high correlation between the level of employee engagement and the degree of customer satisfaction. Indeed, the discussion showed that an increase in the loyalty of employees to an organization resulted in greater loyalty among customers. Additionally, with job crafting, the employee’s focus on work improves and satisfaction and creativity increase, while absenteeism decreases, which leads to stabilization of employment and lower costs.

Consequently, research hypotheses were formulated.

H1: Employees of mature organizations are free to make changes in the individualization areas of work organization and working time, while in other areas they have limited freedom.

H2: There is overlap between what employees do and the job they would like to do in jobs related to trade, office work, and in those related to work organization and management.

H3: Overlap between the job that employees do and the job they would like to do affects work–life balance in a mature organization.

To answer Research Question 1 (Q1), the respondents indicated the areas of individualization in which they, as employees, are free to make changes (

Table 4. Individualization areas in which the respondents are allowed to make changes, n = 300.

Contingency Table (Multiple Choice)		Number of Response Responses Percentage		Respondent Percentage
Indicate the areas of individualization where you are allowed to make changes.	Form and duration of the employment contract	72	8.5%	24.2%
	Working time	143	16.8%	48.0%
	Workplace	55	6.5%	18.5%
	Task timeline (start, end)	103	12.1%	34.6%
	Scope of work	46	5.4%	15.4%
	Work process	95	11.2%	31.9%
	Work organization	162	19.1%	54.4%
	Selection of co-workers	56	6.6%	18.8%
	Form of remuneration	35	4.1%	11.7%
	Social benefits	23	2.7%	7.7%
	Other	3	0.4%	1.0%
	I don’t have the freedom to make changes	56	6.6%	18.8%
Total		849	100.0%	284.9%

Source: own elaboration.

).

Three areas of individualization were indicated most frequently: work organization (54.4%), working time (48%), and task timeline (34.6%). Most mature organizations, which are, by definition, more innovative, give employees more opportunities to introduce changes in those areas, which is the basis of job crafting. References to job crafting in terms of work organization and working time can be often found in work–life balance programs. Those individualization areas are used by employers to improve time management and work organization and to increase labor productivity. Other researchers have come to similar conclusions [13,16,17,18]. In addition, freedom in those areas is treated by employees as an indicator of managerial competency. Individualization areas concerning social benefits (7.7%), the form of remuneration (11.7%), and the scope of work (15.4%) were rated low. In the vast majority, the employers leave these areas for themselves to decide about.

According to the answers concerning work–life balance and job crafting in accordance with gender, the vast majority of women (79.8%) and men (74.6%) liked their work and were willing to apply job crafting to balance their professional and personal life. The above translated into a willingness to go to work, expressed by as many as 71.9% of women and 69.5% of men. At the same time, both groups fully understood the idea of work–life balance. They stated that, in their workplace, the concept of WLB was implemented in combination with job crafting (clerks—66.4%, salespeople—86.9%, logistics specialists—52.3%, other specialists—56.7%). The remaining respondents answered in the negative, stating that in their organizations the standard of work and work–life balance, even if the latter was correctly introduced, had not changed for many years. It can be concluded that an organization in which there were no changes in WLB was perceived negatively and the employees of such organizations considered themselves to be at a disadvantage. Such organizations should adopt the principle that improvements have no end and should always be implemented, even small ones.

Regarding expectations concerning WLB and workplace redesign, the answers were different by gender. Women (87.3%) were more likely than men (43.7%) to pay attention to individual work schedules and flexible working hours. As part of the organization of work, they preferred partially remote work, using a so-called home office (76.9%), while men chose it less often (54.3%). Another element was the flexibility of the timeline/deadline. In this area, the distribution of responses was different. This was an important area of work–life balance only for women (37.8%), and they would like to have an opportunity to influence its design. For 67.4% of men, the timeline was very important. It can be concluded that women more often paid attention to working hours and organization of work, adapting them to everyday household and parental duties. Men, on the other hand, valued flexible timelines/deadlines. It can be assumed that this was due to their desire to self-determine their peak productivity and to decide when they started and finished work. It is believed that employers should implement programs that cultivate the equal development of women and men by creating, improving, implementing, controlling, and correcting their duties.

The respondents often negatively perceived WLB programs when they were focused only on employees with seniority and regarded it as an unequal treatment (63.4%). Almost half of them understood that their older colleagues were, for obvious reasons, more involved in family life and had to cope with the problems that arise from that fact (43.6%). Only a few of them realized that WLB programs would also cover them in a few years’ time (11.3%), which indicated that they treated WLB from the present-day perspective and the current model of work. Yet, generally, the discussion showed that young employees (Generations Y and Z), even if without strong family responsibilities, appreciated the importance of WLB.

Mature organizations more often than others are flexible and open to new ideas. With a high level of human resource management, they cater for work–life balance programs and use employee competences to implement job crafting. However, according to the present research, as many as 18.8% of those responding to questionnaires were not allowed to introduce any changes. Furthermore, the discussion showed that some organizations, although mature, do not create sufficient conditions for job crafting. The survey results suggested that the managerial staff, apart from the three most frequently mentioned areas, i.e., work organization, working time, and task timeline, did not create favorable conditions for introducing changes. The discussion shows that a lack of regulations in the implementation of changes and the reluctance to introduce them are the main obstacles. If organizations do not pay more attention to those problems, they may face demotivation among their employees, inhibition of innovation, and loss of resources. Nevertheless, the results partially confirmed Hypothesis 1 (H1), that employees of mature organizations are allowed to make changes in some individualization areas. This was confirmed in the area of work organization (54.4%). However, less freedom was observed concerning working time (48%). On the other hand, only every third person (34.6%) was allowed to make changes in the area of their task timeline. These low results indicate that employers evaluate their subordinates negatively. They feel unappreciated by them. Employees believe that their superiors are not interested in their problems, and it is difficult to count on their support. Their ability to make independent decisions is limited.

An important aspect of assessing the relationship between work–life balance and job crafting in mature organizations is overlap between the job the employees do and the job they would like to do. It turned out that among the surveyed people there was such overlap in jobs related to trade, to organization and management, and to office work, which confirms Hypothesis 2 (H2). In the contingency tables (

Table 5. Overlap between the job the respondents do and the job they would like to do (an office job), n = 300.

Contingency Table
			Do you Have An Office Job?		Total
			No	Yes
Would you like to have an office job?	No	N of respondents	132	37	169
		% in the line	78.1%	21.9%	100.0%
		% in the column	77.2%	28.7%	56.3%
	Yes	N of respondents	39	92	131
		% in the line	29.8%	70.2%	100.0%
		% in the column	22.8%	71.3%	43.7%
Total		N of respondents	171	129	300
		% in the line	57.0%	43.0%	100.0%
		% in the column	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Chi-squared tests
	Value	df	p	p (two-sided)	p (one-sided)
Pearson’s chi-squared test	70.344	1	0.000
Likelihood Ratio	68.386	1	0.000
Linear-by-Linear Association	72.816	1	0.000
Fisher’s exact test				0.000	0.000
N of valid observations	300
Symmetric measures
				Value	p
Nominal by Nominal		Phi		0.484	0.000
		Cramer’s V		0.484	0.000
N of valid observations				300

Source: own elaboration.

,

Table 6. Overlap between the job the respondents do and the job they would like to do (a trade-related job), n = 300.

Contingency Table
			Do you Have A Trade-Related Job?		Total
			No	Yes
Would you like to have a trade- related job?	No	N of respondents	147	38	185
		% in the line	79.5%	20.5%	100.0%
		% in the column	82.1%	31.4%	61.7%
	Yes	N of respondents	32	83	115
		% in the line	27.8%	72.2%	100.0%
		% in the column	17.9%	68.6%	38.3%
Total		N of respondents	179	121	300
		% in the line	59.7%	40.3%	100.0%
		% in the column	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Chi-squared tests
	Value	df	p	p (two-sided)	p (one-sided)
Pearson’s chi-squared test	78.562	1	0.000
Likelihood Ratio	76.431	1	0.000
Linear-by-Linear Association	80.716	1	0.000
Fisher’s exact test				0.000	0.000
N of valid observations	300
Symmetric measures
				Value	p
Nominal by Nominal		Phi		0.512	0.000
		Cramer’s V		0.512	0.000
N of valid observations				300

Source: own elaboration.

and

Table 7. Overlap between the job the respondents do and the job they would like to do (a job related to work organization and management), n = 300.

Contingency Table
			Do you Have A Job Related to Work Organization and Management?		Total
			No	Yes
Would you like to have a job related to work organization and management?	No	N of respondents	177	10	187
		% in the line	94.7%	5.3%	100.0%
		% in the column	76.6%	14.5%	62.3%
	Yes	N of respondents	54	59	113
		% in the line	47.8%	52.2%	100.0%
		% in the column	23.4%	85.5%	37.7%
Total		N of respondents	231	69	300
		% in the line	77,0%	23.0%	100.0%
		% in the column	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Chi-squared tests
		Value	df		p
Pearson’s chi-squared test		87.352	1		0.000
Likelihood Ratio		84.726	1		0.000
Linear-by-Linear Association		89.110	1		0.000
N of valid cases		300
Symmetric measures
			Value		p
Nominal by Nominal		Phi	0.540		0.000
		Cramer’s V	0.540		0.000
N of valid observations			300

Source: own elaboration.

), overlap between the jobs that the respondents do and the job they would like to do is presented.

Among people who performed office work (n = 129), almost 72% like this job (Table 5). Similarly, among people who performed trade-related work (n = 121), almost 69% like this job (Table 6). However, among people who performed work related to task organization and management (n = 69), almost 86% like this job (Table 7). In their opinion, the work of organizing and leading has more to do with autonomy. This probably resulted in a higher response rate in this group (almost 86%).

People who declare that they like their job find it interesting and declare great attachment to the company. They believe that they feel good in their role and they see their future in it. They are not willing to change jobs. Respondents’ indications may indicate a significant role of employee–job matching. This is a very strong signal for human resources management in organizations.

According to the survey and the directed discussion, overlap between the job that employees do and the job they would like to do affects work–life balance (WLB) in mature organizations (Research Question 3—Q3). The data in Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 indicate that some respondents had or have had a job they did not like. The discussion showed that this was due to several reasons. First of all, there were no available offers consistent with their desired job. Secondly, they were unable to find an organization offering satisfactory wages. Thirdly, there was a considerable distance to the workplace, which meant increased costs and longer separation from the family, both affecting work–life balance. It turned out that an important reason for choosing another job was better working conditions and higher organizational culture, high business prestige of the employing organization and better professional communication. Furthermore, it was obvious that overlap between performed and desired work would increase if the interests and expectations of candidates, with the possibility of job crafting, were included in the selection process.

Job satisfaction is an individual psychological reaction, and it leads to greater commitment and readiness to accept professional challenges. The majority of respondents (65.2%) were satisfied with the job they did (

Table 8. Job satisfaction and employers’ willingness to consider employees’ opinion, n = 299.

Are you satisfied with your job in the current organization?
	Number of respondents	Respond percentage	Response percentage
Yes	195	65.0%	65.2%
No	55	18.3%	18.4%
No opinion	49	16.3%	16.4%
Total	299	99.7%	100.0%
No response	1	0.3%
Total	300	100.0%
Do your supervisors/managers consider your opinion about the job?
	Number of respondents	Respondent percentage	Response percentage
Yes	213	71.0%	71.2%
No	39	13.0%	13.0%
No opinion	47	15.7%	15.7%
Total	299	99.7%	100.0%
No response	1	0.3%
Total	300	100.0%

Source: own elaboration.

) and believed that their superiors took their opinion into account (71.2%).

Such a great degree of job satisfaction is due to process maturity [66], an efficient management system, and a proper organizational culture. It usually results in managerial consent to job crafting implementation. It can be assumed that employees who have greater possibilities of modifying their work are more satisfied. The survey showed that such employees are more likely than others to accept changes (71.3%) and new goals (54.6%), and they have more freedom to participate in basic operational decisions (46.2%) (

Table 9. Relationship between the respondents’ job crafting ability and their acceptance of changes, of new goals, and of freedom to make operational decisions, n = 296.

			I Accept
			Changes	New Goals	Freedom to Make Operational Decisions	No Opinion
I can redesign my work	N	236	168	129	109	0
	% in columns	79.7%	71.3%	54.6%	46.2%	0.0%
I cannot redesign my work	N	18	3	4	0	11
	% in columns	6.1%	16.7%	22.2%	0.0%	61.1%
Other responses	N	42	12	16	2	12
	% in columns	14.2%	28.6%	38.1%	4.8%	28.6%
Total	N	296	183	149	111	23
	% in columns	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

Source: own elaboration.

). In addition, they score better results in the periodic assessment of their professional development, and they are considered more productive. This was particularly noticeable in the opinions shared by salespeople, with as many as 61.3% of them expressing this view, while only 36.3% of other specialists, 26.8% of logistics specialists, and 9.8% of clerks shared it.

The ability to redesign work involves shaping one’s workplace and work environment in order to increase motivation and engagement. The present studies found a positive relationship between the ability to implement job crafting in the area of work organization on the one hand and satisfaction with self-organization at work on the other (

Table 10. Relationship between the ability to make changes in work organization, working time, and task timeline and satisfaction with job crafting.

Contingency Table
			What is the Value of Your Satisfaction with Self-Organization at Work (Job Crafting)?					Total
			High Value	Moderate Value	Low Value	No Value	No Opinion
To redesign work organization	is not my ability	N	79	50	2	2	3	136
		% in columns	41.1%	56.2%	50.0%	100.0%	30.0%	45.8%
	is my ability	N	113	39	2	0	7	161
		% in columns	58.9%	43.8%	50.0%	0.0%	70.0%	54.2%
Total		N	192	89	4	2	10	297
		% in columns	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Chi-squared tests
			Value		df		p
Pearson’s chi-squared test			8.939		4		0.063
Likelihood Ratio			9.727		4		0.045
Linear-by-Linear Association			0.797		1		0.372
N of valid observations			297
Contingency Table
			What is the value of your satisfaction with self-organization at work (job crafting)?					Total
			high value	moderate value	low value	no value	no opinion
To redesign working time	is not my ability	N	93	52	1	2	7	155
		% in columns	48.4%	58.4%	25.0%	100.0%	70.0%	52.2%
	is my ability	N	99	37	3	0	3	142
		% in columns	51.6%	41.6%	75.0%	0.0%	30.0%	47.8%
Total		N	192	89	4	2	10	297
		% in columns	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Chi-squared tests
			Value		df		p
Pearson’s chi-squared test			6.760		4		0.149
Likelihood Ratio			7.623		4		0.106
Linear-by-Linear Association			3.334		1		0.068
N of valid observations			297
Contingency Table
			What is the value of your satisfaction with self-organization at work (job crafting)?					Total
			high value	moderate value	low value	no value	no opinion
To redesign task timeline (start, finish)	is not my ability	N	120	63	3	2	7	195
		% in columns	62.5%	70.8%	75.0%	100.0%	70.0%	65.7%
	is my ability	N	72	26	1	0	3	102
		% in columns	37.5%	29.2%	25.0%	0.0%	30.0%	34.3%
Total		N	192	89	4	2	10	297
		% in columns	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Chi-squared tests
			Value		df		p
Pearson’s chi-squared test			3.172		4		0.529
Likelihood Ratio			3.835		4		0.429
Linear-by-Linear Association			1.713		1		0.191
N of valid observations			297

Source: own elaboration.

). The majority of respondents with this ability indicated a high (58.9%) and moderate (43.8%) value of satisfaction with job crafting. The respondents indicated a high (51.6%) and moderate (41.6%) satisfaction value with job crafting concerning working time. On the other hand, in the discussions, task timeline was indicated as the third most important individualization area, but its rating was lower than expected (high value—37.5%; moderate value—29.2%).

The surveyed employees stated that mature organizations operate in accordance with accepted principles, efficiently resolving conflicts and caring for work quality. The respondents believed that satisfaction is generated mainly by employee professional achievements, self-fulfillment, and by recognition of their efforts. For most respondents, satisfaction is reflected in a planned career path, which has been confirmed by other studies [67,68]. In turn, a lack of job crafting opportunities and imbalance between professional and private life could trigger dissatisfaction.

The discussion confirmed that work–life balance is not the same for everyone, which means that job crafting and WLB programs should be introduced considering employee individual preferences. A very important advantage of job crafting, apart from increasing balance between professional and personal life, is the participation of employees in the creation and organization of work scope (

Table 11. Effect of employee participation in work scope creation on work effectiveness, n = 298.

Does the Participation of Employees in Work Scope Creation Affect Work Effectiveness?
	Number of Respondents	Respondent Percentage	Response Percentage
Yes	271	90.3	90.9
No	11	3.7	3.7
No opinion	16	5.3	5.4
Total	298	99.3	100.0
No response	2	0.7
Total	300	100.0

Source: own elaboration.

). A vast majority of respondents (90.9%) stated that their participation in the creation and organization of work scope would affect their involvement in the work process of a mature organization. Such a high score revealed a significant positive relationship between their participation in work organization on the one hand and work efficiency on the other. According to some authors, the results of work and employee participation in its organization result in increased satisfaction and is a source of strong motivation for individuals and teams [69,70]. It also translates into a desire to improve work–life balance. In the discussion, every second respondent (51.7%) strongly associated a possibility of influencing some aspects of their job with better work–life balance; meanwhile, for 39.9%, this relationship was moderate, and for 8.4%, it was weak (

Table 12. Relationship between the ability to redesign work and the improvement of work–life balance, n = 296.

			What Is the Relationship between the Ability to Redesign Work and the Improvement of Work–life Balance?			Total
			Strong	Moderate	Weak
I can redesign my work	N	236	126	109	1	236
	% in columns	79.7%	53.4%	46.2%	0.4%	100%
I cannot redesign my work	N	18	6	2	10	18
	% in columns	6.1%	33.3%	11.1%	55.6%	100%
Other responses	N	42	21	7	14	42
	% in columns	14.2%	50.0%	16.7%	33.3%	%
Total	N	296	153 (←51.7%)	118 (←39.9%)	25 (←8.4%)	296
	% in columns	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

Source: own elaboration.

). It seems that better communication between employees and management would positively affect employee perception of this connection.

Some respondents (5.4%) did not consider the impact of employee participation on work efficiency to be important. Although this was a small percentage, it indicated that they were not familiar with the concept of employee participation or had never encountered it. This ignorance might affect their willingness to undertake activities towards job crafting and work–life balance even if employers encourage them to do so. It is obvious that mature organizations should pay attention to the role of employee participation, stressing its importance, among other factors, during internal training for managers, specialists, and contractors.

Work–life balance (WLB) implementation creates an opportunity to counteract burnout and decreased motivation. This opinion was expressed by over 90% of respondents.

In the group of clerks (68.9%) and logistics specialists (71.2%), the most common reason for their support of the WLB concept in Polish organizations was their expectations regarding working conditions and pay. Generations Y and Z are particularly inclined towards this. On the other hand, the majority of salespeople (56.1%) and other specialists (52.9%), despite being from Generations Y and Z, claimed that the most common reason was competition on the market forced by modern technologies, social programs, and corporate social responsibility (CSR).

In mature organizations, the awareness of burnout is high, and a vast majority of respondents see work–life balance as a buffer against a decline in motivation. Among other elements of maturity, the elimination of workloads or competence gaps is important. The intensity of burnout at work is greatly affected by high competency among superiors, with their ability to recognize the problem and deal with it effectively being very influential. It is believed that, in this type of organization, there is a high level of response to emerging problems, one of which is a lack of work–life balance.

The active participation of employees in designing their own development is a very important part of WLB (Table 3). Active participation was declared by as many as 92.3% of respondents, with 4% preferring passive participation and with 3.7% having no opinion (n = 298). Employee participation in their development is a competence but also a strong motivator. However, from the managerial staff, it requires self-discipline, adjusting work schedules, and estimating costs. Active participation in professional development strengthens other forms of participation, triggering innovative and implementation behaviors.

The above results confirmed Hypothesis 3 (H3), that the overlap between the job the participants do and the job they would like to do affects work–life balance. The presented data give a clear signal to all organizations, not only mature ones, to actively implement job crafting and work–life balance in order to break down barriers, overcome difficulties, and take advantage of opportunities that the organization creates.

4. Discussion

The research goal was to identify individualization areas liable to be changed by the employees and the degree of overlap between performed and desired jobs. It turned out that they both affect work–life balance. The studies showed that personnel policy in a mature organization includes, among other factors, reduction or complete elimination of the conflict between professional and personal life. One of the objectives of this policy is the implementation of the work–life balance (WLB) program using job crafting. As confirmed by the present research, job crafting is a tool for improving work performance. With job crafting, the areas of influence of employees on the organization are expanding. By applying the WLB concept, the negative effects of work–life imbalance, such as physical fatigue, stress, discouragement, or professional burnout, decrease. If employees are offered additional time, then they rationally use it in the workplace and elsewhere. The sense of security of the individual and their family is also growing [71]. It was noted that the interest in WLB results mainly from an effort to fulfil employees’ needs concerning their non-professional life. In managing organizations, it is important to properly match work. Such activities are important for the implementation of the theory of organization and management and the theory of planned behavior.

Creating conditions for work–life balance is a challenge for many organizations. Additionally, such programs are expensive and thus only possible for large entities. On the other hand, a competitive advantage is one of the benefits of WLB. When a program is implemented into a socially responsible organization, the effectiveness of human capital management improves [46]. More than 90% of respondents expressed the opinion that, by introducing such a program into mature organizations (and others) it would be possible to counteract professional burnout and decreases in motivation.

Without individualization and job crafting, it is difficult to implement a WLB program, with negative effects on employees and organizations (planning, organizing, motivating, and controlling). According to some authors [38], repeated absenteeism at work and an employee’s lower engagement and weakened concentration are just some of the consequences of disharmony in the work–life relationship. References to the above-mentioned issues can also be found in the theories of organization and management and the theory of planned behavior [72]. Other negative effects include a lack of efficient performance of professional duties, poor creativity, and lower productivity [38].

For a given company, WLB disturbance (including a lack of enjoyment of work) leads to deteriorated connections with customers; meanwhile, employees struggle with their unstable relationships with their colleagues or family. This negatively affects the profits of the organization and its competitiveness in the market.

Reduced employee efficiency is associated with low investments in human capital [38] and structural changes [73,74]. According to the data obtained by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Working and Living Conditions [75], 40% of employees have no control over their work process or task timeline. Every third employee has no influence either on the methods of performing the work or on its pace. As many as 42% of European workers cannot take a break when they feel they need it, and 47% cannot decide on the date of their leave. The possibility of working flexibly was declared by 28.5% of participants. The conclusion is that a large group of employees lack autonomy at work, especially when it comes to working time, and these proportions are even higher in relation to young workers and women [75].

However, according to the present research, in mature organizations, most respondents (65.2%) are satisfied with the job they have and believe that superiors take their opinion into account (71.2%). In addition, they have freedom to design changes in the workplace. In particular, they have freedom to introduce changes in work organization (54.4%), working time (48%), and task timeline (34.6%). The maturity level of such organizations is high [66], which results in employee involvement in job crafting. In every organization, not only in mature ones, the following factors are required: proper organization of work, meeting deadlines, and cooperation with others. These are all crucial parts of teamwork. Similar conclusions were reached by O. Awuor, C. Weng, E. J. Piedad, and R. Militar; M. Körner, M. A. Wirtz, J. Bengel, and A. S. Göritz [70,76].

The perception of work among employees is strongly influenced by their competences—their ability to individualize work, mainly in the area of work organization. Many authors [77], also by means of meta-analyses [31], maintain that job crafting implementation results in many positive changes. Those positive changes include a greater devotion to work [13,31,78,79], workforce stabilization [31], and improving job satisfaction [16].

The conclusion is that if employees like their jobs and if they are important to them (Q2 and Q3 of the present research), they are more willing to go to work (71.3%) and they are satisfied with it (65.2%). The factor that may affect work–life balance is the bond of the employee—either with the family (61.4%), with work and family (27.2%), or only with work (11.4%). Surprisingly, if work is more important, the conflict between work and life does not occur. Conflict arises if the family is more important.

Comparing the results, in the Chirowska-Smolak study [75] almost half of the respondents (47%) felt more connected to the family, but for a third of them (35%), their work and family were equally important, and only every eighth respondent (13%) said that work was more important. Respondents for whom work is more important do not perceive any WLB conflict. They manage to keep a balance between professional and non-professional life, with job crafting significantly affecting this.

Job crafting can take place in any industry and at all career levels. It is natural that employees of various professions try to transform their work [11,53,80]. Some job activities can be perceived negatively because they result in burnout, routine and absenteeism.

The present research indicates that work transformation strongly depends on commitment (expressed as the acceptance of changes, new goals and freedom to make operational decisions), satisfaction, and work–life balance. Research shows that job crafting consists of three groups of activities: task crafting, i.e., redesigning work for better results; transformation of interpersonal relationships (relational crafting), i.e., improvement of internal and external communication and organizational culture; cognitive crafting, i.e., analyzing the legitimacy of undertaken activities, embracing autonomy in action, and observing and optimizing the effects of work. It should be emphasized that the good of the company is not a priority for the employees, but they transform their work on their own initiative and for personal gains. Achieving WLB depends mainly on the employee (others can only help) and is measured by the sense of their satisfaction, which is also confirmed by other studies [49,81,82].

However, before the company takes any initiative aimed at implementing the work–life balance concept, the aspects that affect it should be analyzed. S. Borkowska believes that, in order to properly construct a work–life balance program and minimize errors, several stages should be considered [71]. Respondents in the discussion assigned these stages in the following order (according to the theory of planned behavior): analysis of the socio-demographic structure of employment; analysis and evaluation of the results of the employee’s development potential; examining their needs and expectations; analysis of their satisfaction and the reasons for its absence; analysis of changes needed to implement the concept of work–life balance; employee–employer consultations; re-evaluation of the program; implementation of the program and monitoring of effects.

The present research confirmed that work–life balance tools include work organization (individual work schedule, flexible working time, partially remote work with home office), but working time was only partially confirmed. The participants in the discussion also mentioned other tools in which respondents see the potential to shape WLB. Those tools were parental care (women, especially, indicated shortening the working day, childcare subsidies, or the possibility of coming to work with a child); health and medical care (improvement of workplace ergonomics, rest facilities and hygiene areas, sports cards, and health insurance); team integration and communication (integration meetings, fruit days, and internal communications software platforms). Previous research also indicates the dominant importance of work organization in supporting work–life balance [83,84,85].

However, the present research was constrained by some limitations. Firstly, work–life balance and job crafting are presented from many different angles in the literature, and data comparison and interpretation is difficult and time consuming. Critical remarks about the timing and manner of WLB implementation are common, which has resulted in new approaches, like projects that extend the entire process of adopting changes. Employers typically expect an already tested model and its quick and flawless implementation in the organization. Secondly, there have been a lot of qualitative studies, while there is a lack of sufficient quantitative research. Thirdly, work–life balance and job crafting are complex processes that are strongly dependent on mutual support, education, and proper control. Fourthly, a low level of management maturity in the organization is a limitation because job crafting effects depend on the conditions in which this process takes place. Fifthly, the diversity of cultures and political doctrines that affect work–life balance and job crafting may also affect the research on WLB.

This study comprised respondents of Generations Y and Z; their degree of involvement in family duties is often determined by their young age. Thus, the age of the respondents also constituted a research limitation, as work–life balance may have a different meaning for workers of different age groups. Another limitation in the study was the use of a preliminary statistical analysis of selected variables and the indication of opinions. Extended measurements are planned for implementation in the next part of the study, using the following tools: Job Crafting Scale—JCS; Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale—OSES; Quantitative Workload Inventory—QWI; Emotional Wellbeing at Work Scale; Confirmatory Factor Analysis—CFA.

5. Conclusions

The results of the research indicate several important dependencies. In mature organizations, employees have the freedom to make changes in some individualization areas and to implement job crafting. Due to job crafting, employees’ focus on work improves, satisfaction and creativity increase, and their motivation is strengthened. Their loyalty to the organization increases, which results in greater loyalty among customers. Additionally, absenteeism and staff turnover are lower, which means a decrease in employment costs. According to the concept of person–environment fit, workers are likely to leave their job due to a lack of work–life balance or when their requirements are not met by the organization [86,87,88]. The results of the [86,87,88] present research indicate that job crafting implementation is the easiest way to achieve work–life balance.

The present research fills a research gap by identifying the areas of individualization at work and determining the overlap between performed and desired jobs and the impact of the above on WLB. Another contribution made by this study to science is the critical review of the literature on work–life balance and on classic job crafting. The above research enriches the theories of organization and management and the theory of planned behavior. The contribution of the studies to practice also consists of presenting employee-oriented solutions that inhibit professional burnout and increase motivation to work. Active job modification is inherently innovative and creative, which is also confirmed by other authors [33,54,89].

The research results can be applied by theoreticians to create or improve work–life balance models, using job crafting. On the other hand, such models can also be used by management practitioners, advisors, and trainers to create solutions that are friendly to employees and contribute to their wellbeing, while increasing the efficiency of organizations.

The research extends the theories of organization and management and the theory of planned behavior [90], which was based on the theory of reasoned action developed by Ajzen and Fishbein [91]. The theory assumes that people are rational and make use of the information they receive [91]. The concept of intention is a central aspect of the theoretical model.

An important component of management is the control of employee attitudes by providing them with an opportunity for individualization and allowing them to remodel their work. In mature organizations, it is natural for employees to strive to become independent, to individualize their work, and to make changes in the work process, even in the scope of work. Employees expect managers to trust their professional competences and to grant them more freedom, mainly in self-organization and working time and in decision making (job crafting).

It turns out that the most important factor that is conducive to increased employee engagement and satisfaction is the organization of work. Building trust and a sense of belonging and giving meaning to work can all provide benefits for both the employer and employee. Employees’ positive attitude toward the organization facilitates work–life balance (WLB). If they like the work they do, they achieve work–life balance more easily. Organizations implementing work–life balance programs use job crafting tools according to the needs and capabilities of their organization and employees.

This research is compatible with Society 5.0 principles, with its openness and innovation. Those principles are specifically aimed at freeing people from resource and environmental constraints. It is centered on individuals and on ensuring their wellbeing, which, as a rule, results in good work–life balance.

Additionally, it should be remembered that the constantly changing market is a big challenge for mature organizations. In addition, work–life balance and job crafting programs are usually long-term projects, and their effects are postponed in time. Furthermore, the effects of WLB programs on the performance of an organization is difficult to quantify. Yet, despite the above difficulties, the present research might result in more studies. Subsequent research should use the following measurement tools: Job Crafting Scale (JCS) to measure job transformation; Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (OSES) for measuring resources; Quantitative Workload Inventory (QWI) scale for measuring workload; the Emotional Wellbeing at Work Scale to measure wellbeing at work. To estimate the fit parameters, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) should be used. Future research may attempt to assess the degree of work–life balance impact on work efficiency and determine the contribution of job crafting in this process.