Research has consistently demonstrated the critical role of teachers' basic need satisfaction (BNS) in both teaching and learning (for teaching, see Moè & Katz, 2021; for learning, see Poulou, 2020). Consequently, enhancing BNS has emerged as a key issue within teacher education (Slemp et al., 2020). Self-determination theory posits that social support, such as collaboration, can bolster BNS, a notion supported by empirical findings (Deci et al., 2017). However, the ways in which collaboration may differentially influence various types of teachers' BNS remains understudied, despite the potential to enrich our understanding of BNS and inform educational programme design.

To address this research gap, we draw upon job crafting theory and self-determination theory to explore the potential role of job crafting in the relationship between collaboration and teachers' BNS. Job crafting theory suggests that individuals can 'shape, mould, and redefine their jobs' (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, p. 180), thereby fulfilling their needs (Bakker et al., 2023). Considering that job crafting behaviour is heavily influenced by colleague interaction (Demerouti & Peeters, 2018;), we hypothesise that job crafting behaviour mediates the relationships between collaboration and different types of teachers' BNS. 

In this study, we examine the relationships between collaboration and three types of teachers' BNS, before investigating how various forms of job crafting behaviour mediate these relationships.

Theoretical Framework

Self-determination theory proposes that individuals inherently strive to fulfil three fundamental psychological needs – autonomy, competence, and relatedness – when engaging in purposeful actions (Deci et al., 2017). Each of the three needs plays a unique role in shaping individuals' experiences and actions (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2017). Currently, studies investigating the antecedent mechanisms of BNS typically combine the three types (Deci et al., 2017). However, a review of 99 studies by Van den Broeck and colleagues (2016) highlighted a gap in knowledge regarding the potentially distinct antecedent mechanisms of each basic need.

Job crafting is defined as individuals’ self-initiated behaviour of changing their job content and scope to match their needs or competence (Tims et al., 2012). There are five general types of teachers’ job crafting: increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources, increasing challenging job demands, optimising job demands, and decreasing hindering job demands (Huang et al., 2022; Demerouti & Peeters, 2018; Tims et al., 2021). Job crafting theory posits that through different types of job crafting, individuals can establish a sense of control, meaningfulness, social connection, and positive self-image at work (Wrzeniewski & Dutton, 2001), suggesting a potential impact of job crafting on teachers’ BNS.

Job crafting theory argues that promotion-oriented job crafting, which involves increasing structural and social job resources and increasing challenging job demands, can boost individuals’ work volition, variety of skills, and collegial relationships (Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2019) and thereby contribute to their BNS (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Teachers’ BNS can benefit from optimising job demands and work procedures, allowing them to save time and effort by exploring their preferred ways to perform tasks and thereby satisfy their BNS (for competence, see Poulsen & Poulsen, 2018; for autonomy, see Bruning & Campion, 2018; for relatedness, see Huang et al., 2022). Decreasing hindering job demands behaviour, which normally involves addressing negative emotions (Crawford et al., 2010) or insufficient work motivation (Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2016), might constrain teachers’ BNS (for competence, see Rudolph et al., 2017; for autonomy, see Toyama, 2022; for relatedness, see Vansteenkiste et al., 2020).

This study was conducted in southwest China. The third author sent an online weblink including a consent form and questionnaire to potential participants through WeChat. 1,954 teacher submitted their responses. A 5-point Likert scale measured variables in the study. Six items from the revised School Level Environment Questionnaire (Johnson et al., 2007) were used to measure teacher collaboration. Subscales for the four types of job crafting – increasing structural job resources, increasing social job resources, increasing challenging job demands, and decreasing hindering job demands – were adapted from the job crafting scale (Tims et al., 2012). Optimising job demands behaviour was assessed using the five-item scale developed by Demerouti and Peeters (2018). The 23-item scale adapted by Klassen et al. (2012) was used to assess teachers’ BNS. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the factor construct validity of the variables. We adopted a latent variable model with a first-order factor containing all the measurements as indicators to detect common method variance CMV (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We used regression to examine the impact of teachers’ demographic features on job crafting and BNS and controlled the identified significant demographic variables in the subsequent analysis. Following that we built a measurement model encompassing all nine variables. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was carried out with the maximum likelihood (ML) estimation to test the hypothesised model. Bootstrapping with 2,000 samples was used to verify the mediation effect. The statistical analyses were conducted in SPSS 26.0 and Mplus 8.3. The measurement model yielded a good model fit (χ2 = 6701.494, df = 950, CFI = .923, TLI = .916, RMSEA = .056, SRMR = .053). Based on the regression analysis results, teachers’ gender and teaching experience were controlled in subsequent analyses. The SEM also showed acceptable results (χ2 = 6906.422, df = 1026, CFI = .921, TLI = .914, RMSEA = .054, SRMR = .052). The bootstrapping analysis confirmed the proposed mediating role of job crafting in the influence of collaboration on the three types of teachers’ BNS. The mediating effects of the five types of job crafting varied, indicating different antecedent mechanisms of the three types of BNS. Increasing structural job resources was the only mediator of the link to relatedness need satisfaction, and the other four job crafting behaviours mediated the link to autonomy need satisfaction. Increasing structural job resources and the two demand-crafting behaviours were significant mediators for competence need satisfaction.

1. Teacher collaboration had varying degrees of influence on teachers’ three types of BNS This study shows that teacher collaboration has a direct effect on the need satisfaction of autonomy and relatedness but not on competence. This finding is interesting because the close link between teacher collaboration and professional competence has been taken for granted in previous studies (Vangrieken et al., 2017). Notably, this study reports that without arousing teachers’ proactive behaviour, such as job crafting, collaboration activities are unlikely to increase teachers’ satisfaction with their own professional competence. 2. The different antecedent mechanisms of the three types of BNS are revealed through the mediating roles of five types of teachers’ job crafting. Regarding teachers’ autonomy need satisfaction, this study found that seeking comments from mentors and supervisors, namely increasing social structural resources, is a supportive factor. The three job-demand crafting behaviours were differently related to teachers’ autonomy need satisfaction. Increasing challenging job demands and optimising job demands can support teachers’ autonomy development by providing them with more opportunities to make decisions and saving them time and effort to focus more on educational topics of interest. In contrast, decreasing hindering job demands behaviour was confirmed as detrimental to teachers’ autonomy need satisfaction. For the competence need satisfaction of teachers, teachers’ job crafting behaviour plays a full mediating role in the impact of teacher collaboration. Of the five types of job crafting, two demand-crafting behaviours, namely increasing challenges and optimising job demands, are especially important. Only increasing structural job resources was closely connected with the satisfaction of relatedness. To increase job resources, teachers normally participate in formal or informal learning activities that provide a better understanding of their colleagues and students. This knowledge helps teachers to construct good relationships or networks.

References (abridged) Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz-Vergel, A. (2023). Job demands–resources theory: Ten years later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 25–53. Bruning, P. F., & Campion, M. A. (2018). A role–resource approach–avoidance model of job crafting: A multimethod integration and extension of job crafting theory. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 499–522. Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19–43. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. Demerouti, E., & Peeters, M. C. (2018). Transmission of reduction‐oriented crafting among colleagues: A diary study on the moderating role of working conditions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(2), 209–234. Lichtenthaler, P. W., & Fischbach, A. (2019). A meta-analysis on promotion- and prevention-focused job crafting. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(1), 30–50. Moè, A., & Katz, I. (2021). Emotion regulation and need satisfaction shape a motivating teaching style. Teachers and Teaching, 27(5), 370-387. Poulou, M. S. (2020). Students’ adjustment at school: The role of teachers’ need satisfaction, teacher–student relationships and student well-being. School Psychology International, 41(6), 499–521. Rudolph, C. W., Katz, I. M., Lavigne, K. N., & Zacher, H. (2017). Job crafting: A meta-analysis of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 112–138. Slemp, G. R., Field, J. G., & Cho, A. S. (2020). A meta-analysis of autonomous and controlled forms of teacher motivation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 121, 103459. Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 173–186. Tims, M., Twemlow, M., & Man, F. C. Y. (2021). A state-of-the-art overview of job-crafting research: Current trends and future research directions. Career Development International, 27(1), 54–78. Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C.-H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195–1229. Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201.