The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm

Personality
Personality and boredom at work: and boredom
the mediating role of job crafting at work
Bogdan Oprea, Dragos Iliescu, Vlad Burtăverde and
Miruna Dumitrache 315
Department of Psychology,
University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania Received 15 August 2018
Revised 1 November 2018
25 January 2019
Abstract 1 May 2019
21 June 2019
Purpose – Boredom at work is associated with negative consequences, therefore it is important to 28 June 2019
investigate whether employees engage in job crafting behaviors that reduce boredom and what are the Accepted 1 July 2019
individual differences associated with these behaviors. The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach – A questionnaire study was designed to examine the mediating role of
job crafting in the relationship between conscientiousness and emotional stability and boredom among
252 employees (Study 1) and in the relationship between Machiavellianism and psychopathy and boredom
among 216 employees (Study 2).
Findings – The results showed that conscientiousness is negatively related to work-related boredom. This
relationship is mediated by job crafting. Neuroticism and psychopathy are positively associated with
boredom at work, but these relationships are not mediated by job crafting behaviors.
Research limitations/implications – The study was based on self-reported measures, which might raise
questions of common-method bias, and the research samples contained mostly women and young employees,
which raises questions about generalizability of our findings. At the same time, the cross-sectional design
does not allow causal inferences.
Practical implications – Organizations can select employees based on their personality for jobs that
predispose to boredom and give them enough autonomy to be able to craft them. Moreover, they can identify
employees who need support to manage their boredom and include them in job crafting interventions.
Originality/value – Traditionally, boredom at work has been considered as resulting from characteristics of
tasks and jobs. The findings indicate that some employees can make self-initiated changes to their work in
order to reduce their boredom and possibly its negative consequences.
Keywords Big Five, Mediation, Job crafting, Dark triad, Boredom at work
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Boredom at work represents the state of low arousal and dissatisfaction, which is
attributed to an inadequately stimulating work environment (Mikulas and Vodanovich,
1993; Reijseger et al., 2013). It is relatively common, 11–56 percent of British employees
from the 80s reporting that they find their entire job boring and 79–87 percent
reporting that they sometimes feel bored at work (Fisher, 1993). Boredom is associated
with negative consequences, including counterproductive work behaviors (Bruursema
et al., 2011; van Hooff and van Hooft, 2014), absenteeism (Kass et al., 2001), turnover
intentions (Reijseger et al., 2013) and depressive symptoms (Wiesner et al., 2005).
The involved costs of employees spending time on private affairs during working
hours because of boredom are estimated at over $750bn per year in the USA alone
(van der Heijden et al., 2012).
Despite its consequences and associated costs, boredom at work drew little attention from
researchers in comparison with other psychological states (Loukidou et al., 2009; Piotrowski,
2013). Most studies focused on identifying the characteristics of tasks and jobs (Loukidou et al.,
2009; Reijseger et al., 2013; Shackleton, 1981; van Hooff and van Hooft, 2017) that are associated Career Development International
with boredom. This line of research has led to practical solutions for reducing boredom, such as Vol. 24 No. 4, 2019
pp. 315-330
alternation of operations, job rotation and job redesign (Ayough et al., 2012; Azizi et al., 2010; © Emerald Publishing Limited
1362-0436
Shackleton, 1981). What is still not well known is which employees tend to feel less bored at DOI 10.1108/CDI-08-2018-0212
CDI work and why. Research revealed some individual differences that are associated with
24,4 work-related boredom, such as boredom proneness (Farmer and Sundberg, 1986), but literature
is still scarce. This topic needs more attention because studying individual differences can have
a major impact on selection for jobs where employees can get bored easily or on identifying
employees who need organizational support to manage their boredom.
We intend to address this gap by investigating the association between personality and
316 work-related boredom. Modern approaches regard the employees as active agents that can
change at their own initiative certain job characteristics (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001).
One such initiative is job crafting, namely the changes regarding job demands and job
resources that employees proactively make (Tims et al., 2012). Employees may reduce their
boredom through job crafting and, indeed, recent cross-sectional and longitudinal studies
show a negative association between job crafting and boredom at work (Harju et al., 2016;
Harju et al., 2018; van Hooff and van Hooft, 2014). Given that recent studies already show a
link between personality and job crafting (Roczniewska and Bakker, 2016; Rudolph et al.,
2017), we propose that this form of bottom-up job design is one of the mediators in the
relationship between personality and boredom at work.

Personality and boredom at work

One of the trends in work-related boredom research is to investigate the relationship
between individual differences and boredom (Loukidou et al., 2009), but existing literature
on this relationship has certain limitations. Studies cited in literature reviews addressing
boredom at work (Loukidou et al., 2009; Shackleton, 1981) are conducted in educational
settings or laboratory conditions (e.g. Pekrun et al., 2006; Sansone et al., 1999), with very
small samples and with participants that are often not employees. Therefore, it is
questionable if their results can be generalized to ecological settings with employees.
Moreover, the work environment means more than the tasks themselves; it involves a wide
range of characteristics, including autonomy, feedback or social relationships (Bakker and
Demerouti, 2007; Hackman and Oldham, 1975). If studies consider only the tasks, it is hard
to really capture the relationship between personality and work-related boredom.
For example, studies cited in the existing reviews (Loukidou et al., 2009; Shackleton,
1981) investigated the relationship between personality and performance on repetitive or
vigilance tasks by asking small samples of undergraduates to solve these tasks under
laboratory conditions (e.g. Davies and Hockey, 1966; Davies et al., 1969; Sansone et al., 1999).
Other studies are based on qualitative research or do not report the isolated relationship
between certain personality traits and boredom (e.g. Whiteoak, 2014). There are studies that
show a positive relationship between neuroticism and boredom at work, but these have been
done on small samples of employees (e.g. Hill, 1975). In order to compensate for existing
limitations in the literature, we explored the relationship between personality and the
general level of boredom at work on employee samples that reported their level of boredom
in relation to the whole workplace activity.

The mediating role of job crafting

The first correlates of boredom that researchers have considered were characteristics of
tasks and jobs. Initial studies regarding this psychological state focused on the relationship
between unvaried work and boredom, findings indicating that interest in work decreases
with the reduction of operations performed during tasks ( for a review see Shackleton, 1981).
Monotony and routinization were other two factors found to be associated with boredom at
work ( for a review see Loukidou et al., 2009). As a consequence of these studies, the two
practical implications that emerged as solutions for managing work-related boredom
were the alternation of operations between tasks (Shackleton, 1981) and job rotation
(Ayough et al., 2012; Azizi et al., 2010).
 Going beyond the nature of the tasks, Reijseger and colleagues (2013) studied Personality
work-related boredom from the perspective of job demands-resources model ( JD-R; Bakker and boredom
and Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). From this point of view, boredom is the at work
result of a working environment lacking both resources and demands. Data support the
JD-R perspective, their findings suggesting that boredom at work is negatively associated
with both job resources (i.e. autonomy, support from colleagues and supervisor) and job
demands (i.e. workload, emotional and mental demands). These results are in line with the 317
findings of another recent study (van Hooff and van Hooft, 2017), in which the authors
studied boredom based on Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) job characteristics model ( JCM).
As predicted, work-related boredom correlates negatively with task autonomy, task
significance, task identity, skill variety and feedback.
However, Kulik et al. (1987) highlighted the fact that employees can redesign their jobs
on their own initiative, even without explicit permission from management. One form of
this bottom-up job design is job crafting (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). Although this
construct has been operationalized in different ways (Demerouti, 2014), the most common
approach is that of Tims et al. (2012). Tims and colleagues (2012) operationalized
job crafting from the perspective of the JD-R model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007;
Demerouti et al., 2001) as changes initiated by the employees regarding job demands
and job resources. They also developed job crafting scale as a measurement instrument of
the construct.
Job crafting consists of four components (Tims et al., 2012). The first one, increasing
structural job resources, involves seeking autonomy, variety in work and opportunities for
learning and professional development. The second one, increasing social job resources, refers
to increasing social support, supervisory coaching and feedback. The third component of job
crafting is decreasing hindering job demands, representing the measures employees take to
make their work mentally and emotionally less intense. A recent meta-analysis questions the
inclusion of this dimension in the general concept of job crafting (Rudolph et al., 2017), but
there is still no consensus on this issue, leaving future studies to clarify it. The fourth
component of job crafting is increasing challenging job demands (Tims et al., 2012), which
refers to the employee’s involvement in new projects on his own initiative and to taking extra
tasks without receiving rewards for it.
Recent studies investigated the relationship between job crafting and work-related
boredom with promising results. For example, a study done by van Hooff and van Hooft
(2014) found a negative correlation between job crafting (increasing structural resources
and increasing challenging demands) and both work-related boredom (i.e. time seeming to
go slowly and getting bored with work) and bored behavior (i.e. taking long breaks and
involving in activities to kill time). These findings are consistent with results of a cross-
lagged study (Harju et al., 2016) in which seeking challenges negatively predicted job
boredom three years later. Finally, in a multilevel study, stimulating job crafting was the
explanatory mechanism by which servant leadership decreased followers’ work-related
boredom (Harju et al., 2018). Considering that existing studies support a relationship
between personality and job crafting (Roczniewska and Bakker, 2016; Rudolph et al.,
2017), we expect that job crafting mediates the relationship between personality and
work-related boredom. This prediction is in line with the operationalization of boredom at
work from the perspective of the JD-R model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli and
Bakker, 2004) as the result of an environment lacking both resources and demands
(Reijseger et al., 2013).

Study 1: conscientiousness and emotional stability

The relationship between personality and job crafting can be explained by conservation of
resources (COR; Hobfoll, 1989) theory. COR theory proposes that people are motivated to
CDI acquire and protect resources (i.e. anything that people value, such as objects, conditions,
24,4 personal characteristics and energy). More than that, after resources are acquired, they are
invested to obtain additional ones (Hobfoll, 2001). Personality factors can be seen as
resources, because they affect the way people react to the processes of losing, gaining, or
investing resources (Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999).
The Big Five model of personality, consisting of extraversion, agreeableness,
318 conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness, is the most used model of personality
structure due to its cross-cultural validity (De Raad and Perugini, 2002). The Big Five relies on
the psycho-lexical approach which assumes that the most important individual differences in
personality are contained in the lexicon of a language (Goldberg, 1981). The psycho-lexical
approach has been tested in over 30 languages, and, in most cases the revealed trait taxonomy
resembled, to a great extent, the Big Five model. Consequently, many authors argued that this
model reflects the structure of personality (De Raad and Mlačić, 2017). Of all the personality
factors, conscientiousness and emotional stability are the most relevant in work contexts,
being the most universally valid predictors of job performance (Barrick and Mount, 2005),
and, therefore, significant resources in the workplace.
Conscientiousness refers to a person’s disposition to be organized, punctual, dutiful and
perfectionist (De Raad and Mlačić, 2017). It is associated with learning orientation (Colquitt
and Simmering, 1998; Yeo and Neal, 2004), therefore conscientious employees will seek
opportunities to develop their capabilities and to learn new things at work (structural
resources). At the same time, conscientious employees are motivated by organizational
concerns (i.e. volunteering for extra organizational activities because they really care about
organization; Bourdage et al., 2012), thus they are more likely to get involved in or to start
new projects (challenging demands). From a COR perspective, conscientiousness can be
considered a valuable resource, because it allows individuals to regulate their other
resources in an effective manner (Penney et al., 2011) and to regulate their effort in ways that
increase the chances of achieving desired goals (Bidjerano and Dai, 2007). In addition,
conscientiousness is a resource that allows employees to perform tasks in a timely manner,
helping them conserve resources and invest them in a different direction (Zellars et al., 2006).
Applying COR theory, we argue that highly conscientious employees are more likely to
look for new resources and invest them in challenging projects, in order to get even more
resources. A recent meta-analysis (Rudolph et al., 2017) found a positive correlation between
conscientiousness and increasing both structural resources and challenging demands. At the
same time, as already mentioned, both increasing structural job resources and increasing
challenging job demands are negatively associated with work-related boredom (van Hooff and
van Hooft, 2014). Since conscientious employees increase their resources and demands, we
expect that they are less likely to feel bored at work. This expectation is in line with the
operationalization of boredom at work from the JD-R model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007;
Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004) perspective, boredom emerging from a work environment lacking
both resources and demands (Reijseger et al., 2013):
H1. The negative relationship between conscientiousness and boredom at work is
mediated by increasing structural resources and challenging demands.
Emotional stability refers to a person’s disposition to be calm, balanced, not to be easily
annoyed and having good coping mechanisms (De Raad and Mlačić, 2017). Employees with
low emotional stability prefer a slow pace of work and not too many tasks (Sterns et al.,
1983), therefore they will not seek learning opportunities or challenges and they will try to
reduce their demands. Therefore, individuals with low emotional stability, due to their high
anxiety, amplify their concern and focus on job responsibilities. However, they may not do
well when facing challenges because they usually do not behave in a proactive manner in
these situations, usually being reactive and defensive. This rationale is supported by studies
that found a positive relationship between emotional stability and work engagement and a Personality
negative one between emotional stability and burnout (Kim et al., 2009). and boredom
From the perspective of COR theory, emotional stability can be seen as a resource. at work
Emotionally stable employees can allocate resources in an effective manner to achieve their
goals, because they do not have to consume their resources in order to regulate their
emotions (Barrick and Mount, 2005). Negative states experienced by people with low
stability are associated with withdrawal from stimulation and a strong desire for rest (Keller 319
and Nesse, 2005). Therefore, the low level of emotional stability will make employees reduce
their hindering demands and avoid additional challenging tasks.
Employees with high emotional stability are more likely to seek new resources at work
and to invest them in challenging tasks and less likely to reduce their hindering demands. In
a study that involved 63 women engaged in simple, repetitive work, emotional stability was
negatively related to boredom (Hill, 1975). The association between those two variables may
be explained by job crafting behaviors, given the fact that meta-analytic findings support a
relationship between emotional stability and job crafting components (Rudolph et al., 2017)
and that job crafting (i.e. increasing structural resources and challenging demands) is
associated with lower levels of work-related boredom (van Hooff and van Hooft, 2014):
H2. The negative relationship between emotional stability and boredom at work is
mediated by increasing structural resources and challenging demands and by
decreasing hindering demands.

Method
Participants and procedure
The sample included in this study consisted of 252 Romanian employees working in the
following sectors: information and communication (19.8 percent), commerce (15.5 percent),
finance and insurance (9.5 percent), science and technology (9.1 percent), education
(6.3 percent), healthcare (5.2 percent), manufacturing (5.2 percent) and other areas (33.7
percent). The sample consisted of 76.6 percent women (n ¼ 193) and 23.4 percent men (n ¼ 59).
The average age of the sample was 27.26 (SD ¼ 7.49). The study was conducted on a
non-random convenience sample. For the sample to include as many occupations as possible,
we used two sources of data collection: social media platforms and the e-mail addresses of the
employees from companies that agreed to participate in the study. Thus, participants received
the link to the questionnaire via their e-mail address or on social media platforms. The first
page of the survey informed the participants of the purpose of the study and explained that
the individual data of the participants would be confidential. 252 individuals completed the
questionnaire. There were no missing values and all respondents were employed.

Measurement instruments
Job boredom was measured using the Dutch Boredom Scale (DUBS; Reijseger et al., 2013).
The scale contains six items capturing the cognitive, affective and behavioral manifestation
of job boredom (e.g. “At work, time goes by very slowly”). The items were scored on a
five-point scale (1 ¼ never to 5 ¼ always).
Increasing structural job resources, decreasing hindering job demands and increasing
challenging job demands were examined using the Job Crafting Scale (Oprea and Ştefan,
2015; Tims et al., 2012). The scale contains five items for increasing structural resources
(e.g. “I try to develop myself professionally”), six items for decreasing hindering demands
(e.g. “I manage my work so that I try to minimize contact with people whose problems affect
me emotionally”), and five items for increasing challenging demands (e.g. “If there are new
developments, I am one of the first to learn about them and try them out”). The items were
scored on a five-point scale (1 ¼ never to 5 ¼ very often).
CDI Conscientiousness and emotional stability were measured using the IPIP Big Five
24,4 Inventory (Iliescu et al., 2015; Goldberg et al., 2006). The IPIP Big-Five scales contain ten
items for conscientiousness (e.g. “I pay attention to details”) and ten items for emotional
stability (e.g. “I am relaxed most of the time”). The items were scored on a five-point scale
(1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree).

320 Results
Measurement model
Before data analysis, we used Mahalanobis distance (Yuan et al., 2004) to find multivariate
outliers (i.e. unusual item response patterns). Based on the results, nine cases were removed.
Then, to maintain an adequate parameter-to-sample size ratio (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994),
we used item parcels as manifest indicators of the latent constructs. Subsequently, we
parceled the items based on the magnitude of the factor loadings, each parcel sequentially
taking up the items with the highest and the lowest factor loadings (Matsunaga, 2008), as
follows: two parcels for increasing structural resources (one parcel by averaging two items
and one parcel by averaging three items), three parcels for decreasing hindering demands (two
items for each), two parcels for increasing challenging demands (one parcel by averaging two
items and one parcel by averaging three items), and three parcels for job boredom (two items
for each). In order to safeguard against estimation bias caused by a reduced number of parcels
(Matsunaga, 2008), we used five parcels for conscientiousness and five parcels for emotional
stability (by averaging two items for every parcel).
In order to test the factor structure of our measures, we conducted Confirmatory Factor
Analysis using MPlus (Muthén and Muthén, 1998-2011). The CFA results for the
hypothesized 6-factor model ( χ2 ¼ 245.112, df ¼ 155, RMSEA ¼ 0.05, CFI ¼ 0.96, TLI ¼ 0.96,
SRMR ¼ 0.05) fitted the data better than any alternative model, e.g. the model where all
parcels loaded on a single factor model ( χ2 ¼ 1,720.750, df ¼ 170, RMSEA ¼ 0.19, CFI ¼ 0.38,
TLI ¼ 0.31, SRMR ¼ 0.15), or the model where boredom and emotional stability loaded on a
single factor ( χ2 ¼ 572.500, df ¼ 160, RMSEA ¼ 0.10, CFI ¼ 0.83, TLI ¼ 0.81, SRMR ¼ 0.12).
For the proposed six-factor model, the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA)
was lower than 0.06, the comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) were
close to 0.95 and the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) was lower than 0.08,
as recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999). Therefore, the measures adopted in our study
were valid.

Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables

Table I shows the means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations between the
study variables (conscientiousness, emotional stability, job crafting components and
boredom at work).

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Conscientiousness 3.52 0.69 (0.83)

2. Emotional stability 2.80 0.81 0.28*** (0.89)
3. Increasing structural resources 4.27 0.56 0.40*** 0.13* (0.83)
Table I.
4. Decreasing hindering demands 2.81 0.84 −0.03 −0.16* −0.13* (0.80)
Means, standard
deviations, reliabilities 5. Increasing challenging demands 3.34 0.92 0.25** 0.15* 0.43*** −0.17** (0.84)
and correlations 6. Boredom at work 2.28 0.77 −0.43*** −0.29*** −0.41*** 0.27*** −0.35*** (0.82)
among Study 1 Notes: n ¼ 243. Cronbach’s α reliabilities are in parentheses on the diagonal. *p o0.05; **p o0.01;
variables ***p o0.001
Hypotheses testing Personality
The hypotheses were tested with bootstrapping procedures using MPlus. Standardized direct and boredom
and indirect effects were computed for 5,000 bootstrapped samples. All constructs in the at work
model were included as latent variables operationalized by the respective parcels. The
hypothesized model included direct effects from conscientiousness and emotional stability to
boredom. At the same time, in the proposed model, conscientiousness and emotional stability
had indirect effects on boredom through job crafting. The path between emotional stability 321
and increasing structural resources, the path between emotional stability and increasing
challenging demands, and the path between increasing challenging demands and boredom
were not statistically significant, so they were removed from the model. Decreasing hindering
demands did not mediate the relationship between emotional stability and boredom. The only
significant mediation relationship was the one in which increasing structural resources
mediated the relationship between conscientiousness and boredom. The final model included
only this mediation and the direct path between emotional stability and boredom. This model
showed a good fit to the data ( χ2 ¼ 161.127, df ¼ 85, RMSEA ¼ 0.08, CFI ¼ 0.96, TLI ¼ 0.95,
SRMR ¼ 0.06). Conscientiousness had a standardized total effect on boredom of β ¼ −0.45,
( po0.001) and an indirect effect through increasing structural resources of β ¼ −0.16
( po0.01), partially supporting H1. H2 was not supported by our findings. The final model is
presented in Figure 1.

Discussion
We predicted that increasing structural resources and challenging demands will mediate the
negative relationship between conscientiousness and boredom at work (H1). The data
partially supported H1. This finding is in line with the claim of Loukidou and colleagues
(2009) regarding conscientiousness and boredom, our cross-sectional data being consistent
with the results from laboratory conditions (Sansone et al., 1999). Our study contributes to
the understanding of this relationship by identifying job crafting as a mediator. Existing
literature already supports a negative relationship between emotional stability and boredom
at work (Hill, 1975). However, job crafting did not mediate the relationship between the two
variables; H2 is not supported by our data. The positive association between neuroticism
and boredom at work can be explained by the poor emotional adjustment of neurotic
employees, which makes them predisposed to experience frustration and emotional upset in
relation to tasks (Hill and Perkins, 1985).

Conscientiousness

–0.29***
0.49***
Increasing –0.16**
Boredom at
structural job
work
resources Figure 1.
Standardized
estimates for the
relationships between
–0.20** conscientiousness,
Emotional
stability emotional stability,
and boredom at work,
mediated by job
crafting
Notes: **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
CDI Study 2: Machiavellianism and psychopathy
24,4 Considering that work is a complex social activity, it leads to the expression of both the bright
and the dark side of human nature. The bright side of human nature is expressed in the work
context in terms of integrity (Ones et al., 1993), organizational citizenship behavior (Organ,
1997), prosocial behaviors (George, 1991), or common goals and values (Finegan, 2000). The
dark side of human nature is expressed at the workplace in abusive supervision (Tepper,
322 2007), counterproductive behaviors (Bowling and Gruys, 2010), or organizational politicking
(Poon, 2003). Therefore, it is assumed that desirable and undesirable dispositional individual
differences are responsible to a great extent for both of the behavior categories mentioned
above (Furnham et al., 2013). By measuring individual differences that are expected to lead to
negative behaviors, organizations are able to prevent and control them. When it comes to
individual differences that lead to the expression of the dark side of human nature at the
workplace, the Dark Triad is the most used conceptual model (Furnham et al., 2013). As a
consequence, for a better understanding of workplace behaviors it would be useful to
investigate how undesirable personality dispositions are related to important workplace
outcomes, such as job crafting and boredom.
The organizational behaviors associated with Dark Triad were explained relying on the
Social exchange model (O’Boyle et al., 2012). The evolutionary explanation of personality
suggests that dispositions emerged in the “social landscape to which humans have had to
adapt” (Buss, 1991, p. 471). Therefore, personality traits are considered responsible for the
way in which people get their place within the group and gain status and reputation (O’Boyle
et al., 2012). Most people do this relying on evolutionary stable strategies such as compassion,
altruism and cooperation, characteristics that are prosocial in their nature (Buss, 2008). Still, a
part of the individuals solves these problems through more individually agentic, exploitative
means as those encompassed by the Dark Triad ( Jonason and Webster, 2010). Evolutionary
personality researchers highlight the adaptive value of the Dark Triad as the individuals
characterized by these traits extract resources from the collective (O’Boyle et al., 2012).
Social exchange theory describes how relationships are developed through the fair
exchange of rewards and the impositions of costs between individuals. Applied to
organizational contexts, the theory explains that employees work in exchange for direct
rewards such as pay and services and indirect rewards such as admiration and reputation
(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). The Social exchange theory is considered a suitable
framework in the conceptualization of the impact of the Dark Triad on work behaviors
(O’Boyle et al., 2012) because employees characterized by the Dark Triad traits tend to
violate the assumptions of a fair-exchange relationships ( Jonason, Li and Teicher et al.,
2010). Drawing on the Social exchange theory, we propose the Dark Triad traits as
important individual differences in understanding boredom at work.
Machiavellianism refers to the tendency to manipulate others for personal benefits and to
a cynical view of human nature (Paulhus and Williams, 2002). Machiavellian individuals
usually seek success and social reputation through political machination rather than
concentrating on their work settings (O’Boyle et al., 2012). Therefore, in order to have time
for political machination, Machiavellians may decrease hindering job demands (i.e. making
their work mentally and emotionally less intense). As a consequence, decreasing hindering
demands may lead to boredom at work because individuals may perceive their work context
as unstimulating due to the leisure associated with the decrease of demands:
H3. The positive relationship between Machiavellianism and boredom at work is
mediated by decreasing hindering job demands.
Psychopathy is described in terms of low-empathy and anxiety, impulsivity, low remorse,
thrill-seeking, difficulty in complying with rules and willingness to take risks (Hare, 1991).
Psychopath’s actions are usually inconsistent with the principles of social exchange such as
cooperation, resource exchange and reciprocity (O’Boyle et al., 2012). Researchers showed that Personality
psychopathy is an indicator of a fast life strategy ( Jonason, Koenig and Tost 2010) – which is and boredom
derived from the life history theory (Figueredo et al., 2005). Life history theory relies on the at work
general evolutionary theory. This theory identifies fundamental trade-offs that individuals
must resolve when allocating limited resources to various aspects of their lives and highlights
the environmental conditions that favor particular resource allocations. Life history
strategies vary on a slow-to-fast continuum, in congruence with the manner individuals 323
resolve life history trade-offs ( Jonason, Koenig and Tost 2010). Regarding psychological and
behavioral implications, fast strategies are related to preferences toward immediate
gratification, short-term opportunism and risk-seeking. On the contrary, slow strategies are
associated with preferences for long-term planning and decisions (Griskevicius et al., 2011).
Relying on this, we can assume that individuals high in psychopathy may seek immediate
gratification, act opportunistically and show a general antisocial attitude at their workplace
which may make them express boredom at work and decrease hindering job demands.
Indeed, recent findings ( Jonason and O’Connor, 2017) indicate that employees high in
psychopathy are more likely to cut corners at work (i.e. minimizing the effort expended when
doing work, skipping tasks and using short-cuts to get ahead). Moreover, psychopaths tend to
perform well when they work in environments that require an emotionless behavioral style
(O’Boyle et al., 2012). Therefore, they may try to make their work environment emotionally less
intense by decreasing hindering demands. Even though most people would encounter external
and internal barriers in reducing demands, it is not the case for psychopaths because they have
diminished concerns for moral and social values ( Jonason et al., 2015), they have difficulties in
complying with rules (Furnham et al., 2013), and are characterized by a fast life strategy.
Because psychopaths are characterized by a fast life strategy, being opportunistic and oriented
to immediate gratification, they are unlikely to meet these needs by taking additional tasks,
because they are not oriented toward making an effort to contribute to the group. Therefore,
psychopathy is not expected to correlate with increasing challenging job demands.
H4. The positive relationship between psychopathy and boredom at work is mediated
by decreasing hindering job demands.

Method
Participants and procedure
The sample included in this study consisted of 216 Romanian employees working in the
following sectors: information and communication (8.3 percent), commerce (9.7 percent), finance
and insurance (6 percent), science and technology (9,7 percent), education (13 percent),
healthcare (23.1 percent), manufacturing (2.3 percent) and other areas (32.4 percent). The
sample consisted of 81.5 percent women (n ¼ 176) and 18,5 percent men (n ¼ 40). The average
age of the sample was 33.40 (SD ¼ 10.37). The procedure was the same as in Study 1.

Measurement instruments
Machiavellianism and psychopathy were measured using the Short Dark Triad Scale ( Jones
and Paulhus, 2014). The scale contains nine items for Machiavellianism (e.g. “I like to use
clever manipulation to get my way”) and nine items for psychopathy (e.g. “People who mess
with me always regret it”). The items were scored on a five-point scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree
to 5 ¼ strongly agree).
The other measurement instruments were the same as in Study 1.

Results
Measurement model
We have used the same statistical procedures as in Study 1. Based on Mahalanobis distance,
five cases of unusual item response patterns were removed. Then, we parceled the items
CDI based on the magnitude of the factor loadings, as follows: three parcels for decreasing
24,4 hindering demands (two items for each), three parcels for boredom (two items for each), four
parcels for Machiavellianism and four parcels for psychopathy (three parcels by averaging
two items and one parcel by averaging three items). The hypothesized four-factor model
( χ2 ¼ 101.507, df ¼ 71, RMSEA ¼ 0.04, CFI ¼ 0.97, TLI ¼ 0.96, SRMR ¼ 0.05) fitted the data
better than any alternative model, e.g. the model where all items loaded on a single factor
324 model ( χ2 ¼ 534.518, df ¼ 77, RMSEA ¼ 0.16, CFI ¼ 0.56, TLI ¼ 0.48, SRMR ¼ 0.13), or the
model where Machiavellianism and psychopathy loaded on a single factor ( χ2 ¼ 180.013,
df ¼ 74, RMSEA ¼ 0.08, CFI ¼ 0.89, TLI ¼ 0.87, SRMR ¼ 0.07). Therefore, the measures
adopted in our study were valid.

Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables

Table II shows the means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations between the
study variables (Machiavellianism, psychopathy, decreasing hindering demands and
boredom at work).

Hypotheses testing
The hypothesized model included direct effects from Machiavellianism and psychopathy to
boredom and indirect effects from these two personality traits to boredom through
decreasing hindering demands. Effects were computed for 5,000 bootstrapped samples. The
direct paths from Machiavellianism to boredom was not statistically significant, as well as
the path from psychopathy to decreasing hindering demands, so they were removed from
the model. The final model showed a good fit to the data ( χ2 ¼ 103.392, df ¼ 72,
RMSEA ¼ 0.05, CFI ¼ 0.97, TLI ¼ 0.96, SRMR ¼ 0.06). H3 and H4 were not supported by
the data. The final model is presented in Figure 2.

Discussion
The mediation hypothesis has not been supported for the relationship between
Machiavellianism and boredom at work (H3) and for the relationship between psychopathy
and work-related boredom (H4). Although employees with a high level of psychopathy tend to
be more bored at work, job crafting is not a mediator in this relationship. This positive
association may be explained by the excitement seeking tendencies of psychopaths (Hare, 1991).
Future studies can investigate why employees high on psychopathy feel more bored at work,
considering variables such as procrastination (Lyons and Rice, 2014).

General discussion
Theoretical and practical implications
From a theoretical point of view, the present study contributes to the understanding of
boredom in terms of job characteristics. Increasing structural job resources and increasing
challenging job demands were negatively associated with boredom. Our results support the
assumption of the JD-R model (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004),

M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Machiavellianism 2.95 0.78 (0.80)

Table II.
2. Psychopathy 1.88 0.64 0.51*** (0.80)
Means, standard
deviations, reliabilities, 3. Decreasing hindering demands 2.54 0.77 0.28*** 0.15* (0.77)
and correlations 4. Boredom at work 1.97 0.73 0.19** 0.24*** 0.34*** (0.82)
among Study 2 Notes: n ¼ 211. Cronbach’s α reliabilities are in parentheses on the diagonal. *p o0.05; **p o0.01;
variables ***p o0.001
 Personality
Psychopathy
and boredom
at work
0.30*

325
Boredom at
work
Figure 2.
Standardized
Decreasing estimates for the
hindering job 0.32***
relationships between
demands psychopathy, job
crafting, and boredom
at work
Note: *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001

according to which boredom occurs due to a working environment lacking both resources and
demands. Our findings are in line with the results of another study (van Hooff and van Hooft,
2017), in which boredom was negatively associated with all the job characteristics from
Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) JCM, such as autonomy and skill variety.
Beyond that, we have identified a mediator in the relationship between personality and
boredom at work. Most studies focus only on the relationship between individual differences
and boredom, without providing an explanatory mechanism (Loukidou et al., 2009;
Shackleton, 1981). As we discovered, conscientious employees can be active agents in
determining the psychological states they experience at work. By crafting their jobs,
conscientious employees can increase their level of resource, which may reduce boredom.
This finding is in line with the existing literature regarding job crafting and work-related
boredom (Harju et al., 2016; Harju et al., 2018; van Hooff and van Hooft, 2014) and it provides
a possible explanation for the relationship between personality and boredom.
In terms of practical implications, organizations can select employees high in
conscientiousness and low in psychopathy for jobs that predispose to boredom, by applying
personality testing. They can also give employees enough autonomy to be able to craft jobs.
More than that, organizations can identify employees who need support to manage their
boredom and include them in job crafting interventions. Employees can be trained to craft
their jobs by developing self-directedness through self-monitoring and goal setting (van den
Heuvel et al., 2015), especially if they are low in emotional stability or high in psychopathy.
Finally, organizations can also provide training for managers in order to instruct them to
stimulate their subordinates to craft structural resources. These solutions have the potential
to reduce employees’ boredom and to mitigate its negative consequences, such as
depression, distress (van Hooff and van Hooft, 2014), counterproductive work behaviors
(van Hooff and van Hooft, 2014), absenteeism (Kass et al., 2001) and turnover intentions
(Reijseger et al., 2013).

Limitations and future directions

Like any other study, this one has certain limitations. First, the design of the research was cross-
sectional, therefore no conclusions can be drawn about causality. A longitudinal design would
be necessary to disentangle the directionality of effects between job crafting and boredom at
work. Second, we considered only the broad personality factors. Narrow dimensions of each
broad factor may offer interesting results regarding the hypothesized relations. Further studies
in this area may consider this aspect. Thirdly, the study was based on self-reported measures,
CDI which might raise questions of common-method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Fourth, the
24,4 research samples contained mostly women and the participants were relatively young, which
raises questions about generalizability of our findings. Unbalanced samples may lead to
construct irrelevant variance (Haladyna and Downing, 2004). Further research on this topic
should rely on multiple sources of reporting and on more balanced samples in terms of gender
and age. Ultimately, researchers can implement job crafting interventions to investigate if
326 employees who learn to craft their job will later report lower levels of boredom.

Conclusion
Traditionally, boredom at work has been considered as resulting from characteristics
of tasks and jobs. The findings of this study indicate that employees high in conscientiousness
can make self-initiated changes to their work in order to reduce their boredom. At the same
time, employees low in emotional stability and high in psychopathy are more likely to
experience boredom at work. Therefore, organizations can manage the level of boredom
experienced by the employees and its negative consequences through recruitment based on
personality testing, job design for more autonomy and job crafting interventions.

References
Ayough, A., Zandieh, M. and Farsijani, H. (2012), “GA and ICA approaches to job rotation scheduling
problem: considering employee’s boredom”, The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 60 No. 8, pp. 651-666, doi: 10.1007/s00170-011-3641-7.
Azizi, N., Zolfaghari, S. and Liang, M. (2010), “Modeling job rotation in manufacturing systems: the
study of employee’s boredom and skill variations”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 123 No. 1, pp. 69-85, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.07.010.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands-resources model: State of the art”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328, doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (2005), “Yes, personality matters: moving on to more important matters”,
Human Performance, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 359-372, doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1804_3.
Bidjerano, T. and Dai, D.Y. (2007), “The relationship between the Big-Five model of personality
and self-regulated learning strategies”, Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 69-81, doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.02.001.
Bourdage, J.S., Lee, K., Lee, J. and Shin, K. (2012), “Motives for organizational citizenship behavior:
personality correlates and coworker ratings of OCB”, Human Performance, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 179-200,
doi: 10.1080/08959285.2012.683904.
Bowling, N.A. and Gruys, M.L. (2010), “Overlooked issues in the conceptualization and measurement
of counterproductive work behavior”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 54-61, doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.008.
Bruursema, K., Kessler, S.R. and Spector, P.E. (2011), “Bored employees misbehaving: the relationship
between boredom and counterproductive work behaviour”, Work & Stress, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 93-107,
doi: 10.1080/02678373.2011.596670.
Buss, D.M. (1991), “Evolutionary personality psychology”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 1,
pp. 459-491, doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.002331.
Buss, D.M. (2008), “Human nature and individual differences: evolution of human personality”, in John, O.P.,
Robins, R.W. and Pervin, L.A. (Eds), Handbook of Personality. Theory and Research, 3rd ed., The
Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp. 29-61.
Colquitt, J.A. and Simmering, M.J. (1998), “Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to learn
during the learning process: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 4,
pp. 654-665, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.654.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900, doi: 10.1177/0149206305279602.
Davies, D.R., Hockey, G.R.J. and Taylor, A. (1969), “Varied auditory stimulation, temperament Personality
differences, and vigilance performance”, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 453-457. and boredom
Davies, E. and Hockey, G.R.J. (1966), “The effects of noise and halving the signal frequency on at work
individual differences in visual vigilance performance”, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 57
Nos 3-4, pp. 381-389.
De Raad, B. and Mlačić, B. (2017), “Psycho-lexical studies of personality structure across cultures”, in
Church, T. (Ed.), Personality Across Cultures, Praeger, Santa Barbara, pp. 161-192. 327
De Raad, B. and Perugini, M. (2002), “Big Five factor assessment: introduction”, in De Raad, B. and
Perugini, M. (Eds), Big Five Assessment, Hogrefe and Huber Publishers, Seattle, Toronto, Bern
and Gottingen, pp. 1-26, doi:10.1037/a0017184.
Demerouti, E. (2014), “Design your own job through job crafting”, European Psychologist, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 237-247, doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000188.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The job demands-resources model of
burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 499-512, doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.499.
Farmer, R. and Sundberg, N.D. (1986), “Boredom proneness – the development and correlates of a new
scale”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 4-17, doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5001_2.
Figueredo, A.J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B.H., Sefcek, J.A., Kirsner, B.R. and Jacobs, W.J. (2005), “The
K-factor: individual differences in life history strategy”, Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 1349-1360, doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.009.
Finegan, J.E. (2000), “The impact of person and organizational values on organizational commitment”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 149-169, doi: 10.1348/
096317900166958.
Fisher, C.D. (1993), “Boredom at work: a neglected concept”, Human Relations, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 395-417,
doi: 10.1177/001872679304600305.
Furnham, A., Richards, S.C. and Paulhus, D.L. (2013), “The dark triad of personality: a 10 year review: dark
triad of personality”, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 199-216,
doi: 10.1111/spc3.12018.
George, J.M. (1991), “State or trait: effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 299-307, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.299.
Goldberg, L. (1981), “Language and individual differences: the search for universals in personality
Lexicons”, in Wheeler, L. (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Sage Publication,
Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 141-165.
Goldberg, L.R., Johnson, J.A., Eber, H.W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M.C., Cloninger, C.R. and Gough, H.G. (2006),
“The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures”,
Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 84-96, doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007.
Grandey, A.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1999), “The conservation of resources model applied to
Work–Family conflict and strain”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 350-370,
doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1998.1666.
Griskevicius, V., Delton, A.W., Robertson, T.E. and Tybur, J.M. (2011), “Environmental contingency in life-
history strategies: the influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on reproductive timing”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 241-254, doi: 10.1037/a0021082.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), “Development of the job diagnostic survey”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 159-170, doi: 10.1037/h0076546.
Haladyna, T.M. and Downing, S.M. (2004), “Construct‐irrelevant variance in high‐stakes testing”,
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 17-27, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.
2004.tb00149.x.
Hare, R.D. (1991), The Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised, Multi-Health Systems, Toronto.
Harju, L.K., Hakanen, J.J. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2016), “Can job crafting reduce job boredom and increase
work engagement? A three-year cross-lagged panel study”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 95-96, pp. 11-20, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2016.07.001.
CDI Harju, L.K., Schaufeli, W.B. and Hakanen, J.J. (2018), “A multilevel study on servant leadership, job
24,4 boredom and job crafting”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 2-14, doi: 10.1108/
JMP-08-2016-0237.
Hill, A.B. (1975), “Work variety and individual differences in occupational boredom”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 128-131, doi: 10.1037/h0076346.
Hill, A.B. and Perkins, R.E. (1985), “Towards a model of boredom”, British Journal of Psychology,
328 Vol. 76, pp. 235-240, doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1985.tb01947.x.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-524, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001), “The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process:
advancing conservation of resources theory”, Applied Psychology an International Review,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 337-421, doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00062.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55, doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.
Jonason, P.K. and O’Connor, P.J. (2017), “Cutting corners at work: an individual differences perspective”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 107, pp. 146-153, doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.045.
Jonason, P.K. and Webster, G.D. (2010), “The dirty dozen: a concise measure of the dark triad”,
Psychological Assessment, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 420-432, doi: 10.1037/a0019265.
Jonason, P.K., Koenig, B.L. and Tost, J. (2010), “Living a fast life”, Human Nature, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 428-442,
doi: 10.1007/s12110-010-9102-4.
Jonason, P.K., Li, N.P. and Teicher, E.A. (2010), “Who is James Bond? The dark triad as an agentic
social style”, Individual Differences Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 111-120.
Jonason, P.K., Strosser, G.L., Kroll, C.H., Duineveld, J.J. and Baruffi, S.A. (2015), “Valuing myself over
others: the dark triad traits and moral and social values”, Personality and Individual Differences,
Vol. 81, pp. 102-106, doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.045.
Jones, D.N. and Paulhus, D.L. (2014), “Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): a brief measure of dark
personality traits”, Assessment, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 28-41, doi: 10.1177/1073191113514105.
Kass, S.J., Vodanovich, S.J. and Callender, A. (2001), “State-trait boredom: relationship to absenteeism, tenure,
and job satisfaction”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 317-327, doi: 10.1023/
A:1011121503118.
Keller, M.C. and Nesse, R.M. (2005), “Is low mood an adaptation? Evidence for subtypes with symptoms
that match precipitants”, Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 27-35, doi: 10.1016/j.jad.
2004.12.005.
Kim, H.J., Shin, K.H. and Swanger, N. (2009), “Burnout and engagement: a comparative analysis using
the Big Five personality dimensions”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 96-104, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.06.001.
Kulik, C.T., Oldham, G.R. and Hackman, J.R. (1987), “Work design as an approach to person environment
fit”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 278-296, doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(87)900.
Loukidou, L., Loan-Clarke, J. and Daniels, K. (2009), “Boredom in the workplace: more than monotonous
tasks”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 381-405, doi: 10.1111/
j.1468-2370.2009.00267.x.
Lyons, M. and Rice, H. (2014), “Thieves of time? Procrastination and the dark triad of personality”,
Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 61-62, pp. 34-37, doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.002.
Matsunaga, M. (2008), “Item parceling in structural equation modeling: a primer”, Communication
Methods and Measures, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 260-293, doi: 10.1080/19312450802458935.
Mikulas, W. and Vodanovich, S. (1993), “The essence of boredom”, The Psychological Record, Vol. 43
No. 1, pp. 3-12.
Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2011), Mplus User’s Guide, 6h ed., Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Personality
O’Boyle, E.H. Jr, Forsyth, D.R., Banks, G.C. and McDaniel, M.A. (2012), “A meta-analysis of the Dark and boredom
Triad and work behavior: a social exchange perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 at work
No. 3, pp. 557-579, doi: 10.1037/a0025679.
Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C. and Schmidt, F.L. (1993), “Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test
validities: findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 679-703, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.679. 329
Oprea, B. and Ştefan, M. (2015), “Scala pentru modificarea postului: adaptare la limba română”,
Psihologia Resurselor Umane, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 39-52.
Organ, D.W. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s construct clean-up time”, Human
Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 85-97, doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2.
Paulhus, D.L. and Williams, K.M. (2002), “The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism,
and psychopathy”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 556-563, doi: 10.1016/
S0092-6566(02)00505-6.
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A.J. and Maier, M.A. (2006), “Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: a
theoretical model and prospective test”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 3, pp. 583-597,
doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.583.
Penney, L.M., Hunter, E.M. and Perry, S.J. (2011), “Personality and counterproductive work behaviour: Using
conservation of resources theory to narrow the profile of deviant employees”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 58-77, doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02007.x.
Piotrowski, C. (2013), “Boredom research: an analysis of topical domain and historical trends”, Journal
of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 50-52.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Poon, J.M.L. (2003), “Situational antecedents and outcomes of organizational politics perceptions”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 138-155, doi: 10.1108/02683940310465036.
Reijseger, G., Schaufeli, W.B., Peeters, M.C.W., Taris, T.W., van Beek, I. and Ouweneel, E. (2013),
“Watching the paint dry at work: psychometric examination of the Dutch Boredom Scale”,
Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 508-525, doi: 10.1080/10615806.2012.720676.
Roczniewska, M. and Bakker, A.B. (2016), “Who seeks job resources, and who avoids job demands?
The link between dark personality traits and job crafting”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 150
No. 8, pp. 1026-1045, doi: 10.1080/00223980.2016.1235537.
Rudolph, C.W., Katz, I.M., Lavigne, K.N. and Zacher, H. (2017), “Job crafting: a meta-analysis of
relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 102, pp. 112-138, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.008.
Sansone, C., Wiebe, D.J. and Morgan, C. (1999), “Self‐Regulating interest: the moderating role of
hardiness and conscientiousness”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 701-733, doi: 10.1111/
1467-6494.00070.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 293-315, doi: 10.1002/job.248.
Shackleton, V.J. (1981), “Boredom and repetitive work: a review”, Personnel Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 30-36,
doi: 10.1108/eb055445.
Sterns, L., Alexander, R.A., Barrett, G.V. and Dambrot, F.H. (1983), “The relationship of extraversion
and neuroticism with job preferences and job satisfaction for clerical employees”, Journal of
Occupational Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 145-153, doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1983.tb00122.x.
Tepper, B.J. (2007), “Abusive supervision in work organizations: review, synthesis, and research
agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 261-289, doi: 10.1177/0149206307300812.
CDI Tims, M., Bakker, A.B. and Derks, D. (2012), “The development and validation of the job crafting scale”,
24,4 Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 173-186, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009.
van den Heuvel, M., Demerouti, E. and Peeters, M. (2015), “The job crafting intervention: Effects on job
resources, self-efficacy, and affective well-being”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 511-532, doi: 10.1111/joop.12128.
van der Heijden, G.A.H., Schepers, J.J.L. and Nijssen, E.J. (2012), “Understanding workplace boredom among
white collar employees: temporary reactions and individual differences”, European Journal of Work
330 and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 349-375, doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2011.578824.
van Hooff, M.L.M. and van Hooft, E.A.J. (2014), “Boredom at work: proximal and distal consequences of
affective work-related boredom”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 348-359,
doi: 10.1037/a0036821.
van Hooff, M.L.M. and van Hooft, E.A.J. (2017), “Boredom at work: towards a dynamic spillover model
of need satisfaction, work motivation, and work-related boredom”, European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 133-148, doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1241769.
Whiteoak, J.W. (2014), “Predicting boredom-coping at work”, Personnel Review, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 741-763,
doi: 10.1108/PR-09-2012-0161.
Wiesner, M., Windle, M. and Freeman, A. (2005), “Work stress, substance use, and depression among
young adult workers: an examination of main and moderator effect models”, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 83-96, doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.83.
Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J. (2001), “Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their
work”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 179-201, doi: 10.5465/AMR.2001.4378011.
Yeo, G.B. and Neal, A. (2004), “A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: effects of ability,
conscientiousness, and goal orientation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 231-247,
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.231.
Yuan, K.-H., Fung, W.K. and Reise, S.P. (2004), “Three mahalanobis distances and their role in
assessing unidimensionality”, British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, Vol. 57,
pp. 151-165, doi: 10.1348/000711004849231.
Zellars, K.L., Perrewé, P.L., Hochwarter, W.A. and Anderson, K.S. (2006), “The interactive effects of
positive affect and conscientiousness on strain”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 281-289, doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.11.3.281.

Further reading
Holt, J.K. (2004), “Item parceling in structural equation models for optimum solutions”, paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Columbus, OH, October.
Iliescu, D., Popa, M. and Dimache, R. (2016), “Adaptarea românească a Setului Internațional de Itemi de
Personalitate: IPIP-Ro”, Psihologia Resurselor Umane, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 83-112.
Kelloway, E.K. (1998), Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher’s Guide, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Corresponding author
Bogdan Oprea can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]