Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 12, 789-805 2025 Publisher: Learning Gate DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i12.11481 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate History: Received: 29 September 2025; Revised: 10 November 2025; Accepted: 14 November 2025; Published: 16 December 2025 * Correspondence: chun-shuo.che@dpu.ac.th How perceived control drives approach job crafting through a psychological authentic climate and perceived insider status Lin Li1, Chun-Shuo Chen2* 1,2Chinese International College, Dhurakij Pundit University, Bangkok, Thailand 10210; mdcglilin@126.com (L.L.) chun-shuo.che@dpu.ac.th (C.S.C.). Abstract: This study investigates the mechanisms through which perceived control influences approach job crafting and the key factors involved. It also deepens understanding of the internal logic of the approach job crafting. Drawing on self-determination theory, a research model was developed that posits psychological authentic climate and perceived insider status serve as mediators, with informal leadership emergence functioning as a moderator. This study collected 532 valid samples from employed individuals in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen using purposive sampling. Results indicate that psychological authentic climate and perceived insider status partially mediate the relationships under examination. Additionally, the emergence of informal leadership positively moderates the relationships linking perceived control and perceived insider status to approach job crafting. This study extends the theoretical framework connecting perceived control with approach job crafting and offers practical guidance for organizations seeking to stimulate employee proactivity by fostering a psychological authentic climate and a supportive environment. Keywords: Approach job crafting, Informal leadership emergence, Perceived control, Perceived insider status, Psychological authentic climate. 1. Introduction Rapid advances in information technology have significantly affected organizations, placing high demands on them; this context exposes the limitations of traditional top-down management when facing fast-changing markets, where employee enthusiasm and creativity remain underutilized [1]. By contrast, bottom-up work approaches, which emphasize proactivity and autonomy, have gained prominence [2]. Job crafting theory highlights the importance of employees proactively adjusting and optimizing task, relational, and cognitive aspects of work to enhance meaning and facilitate personal growth [3, 4]. Empirical evidence shows that the approach job crafting not only boosts job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and performance but also helps employees cope more effectively with work stress to sustain career development [5-9]. Although prior studies have documented the effects of approach job crafting, the psychological mechanisms that sustain employees’ proactive modification of their work roles remain underexplored. Perceived control, defined as employees’ belief that they can influence their immediate work environment, therefore emerges as a particularly promising avenue for inquiry [10]. Simultaneously, it constitutes a basic psychological need highlighted by self-determination theory and a critical resource that energizes proactive behavior [11]. Integrating perceived control into the promotion-focused job- crafting framework can compensate for the insufficient attention to psychological aspects in existing research; advance understanding of self-initiated, bottom-up behaviors; and yield novel theoretical and practical insights for organizations seeking to foster sustained proactive work. Furthermore, although prior studies have enriched the understanding of approach job crafting, explanations remain limited regarding how employees translate perceived control into concrete 790 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 12: 789-805, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i12.11481 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate behaviors through subjective perceptions. A psychological authentic climate, an organizational climate that emphasizes genuine expression and sincere interaction, allows employees to experience value recognition and psychological safety at work; this is instrumental to understanding how employees shape their jobs [12]. Perceived insider status reflects the degree to which employees feel recognized and accepted in the organization; this psychological experience not only underpins psychological safety and belonging but also constitutes a key factor in explaining employees’ positive organizational behaviors [13, 14]. Incorporating a psychological authentic climate and perceived insider status into the model thus reveals potential psychological pathways of perceived control and provides an explanatory route for the behavioral formation of employees. Recognizing that the effects of approach job crafting do not manifest uniformly across contexts is also crucial. Other organizational factors often condition the strength of these processes [15]. Evidence suggests that in modern, flattened, and agile organizations, informal leadership plays a critical role. Informal leaders can motivate teams, resolve conflicts, and facilitate knowledge sharing, complementing formal leadership [16]. When individuals are spontaneously recognized by others as leaders, this naturally emergent allocation of influence establishes implicit patterns of resource flow and trust within teams [17, 18]. In settings characterized by higher levels of informal leadership, employees are more likely to experience psychological safety [19] and social identification, which, in turn, exerts positive effects on their own behaviors [20]. Focusing on employees’ psychological factors, this study examines how and under what conditions perceived control influences approach job crafting. Building on self-determination theory, the roles of psychological authentic climate, perceived insider status, and informal leadership emergence in shaping employee behaviors are investigated. This inquiry addresses gaps in existing research, deepens understanding of the internal logic of the approach job crafting, and offers guidance for organizations seeking to elicit employee proactivity and enhance organizational adaptability. 2. Literature Review and Hypotheses 2.1. Theoretical Framework Job crafting is a common phenomenon. Prior research has centered on personality traits, leadership styles, and organizational factors, while paying insufficient attention to the psychological mechanisms that activate intrinsic motivation and translate it into approach job crafting [1, 15]. To address this gap, self-determination theory [21] is adopted to explain the approach of job crafting from an intrinsic motivation perspective. The theory posits that the proactivity and persistence of behavior depend on the satisfaction of the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness [22, 23]. Perceived control is regarded as a key manifestation of employees’ autonomy need, whereas psychological authenticity climate and perceived insider status correspond to relatedness needs. Satisfying these basic psychological needs triggers intrinsic motivation, which then translates into approach job crafting. In organizations, informal leaders occupy positions of influence over organizational practices and potential individual benefits; consequently, the emergence of informal leadership strengthens goal norms prior to task execution and serves as a key motivational factor that encourages persistence in the face of challenges [20]. Figure 1 presents the research framework. 791 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 12: 789-805, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i12.11481 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Figure 1. Conceptual Framework. 2.2. Perceived Control and Psychological Authentic Climate When employees perceive control over their work environment and tasks, they can more autonomously decide how to allocate time, sequence tasks, and address challenges [24]. Perceived control is not only a cognitive appraisal of capability but also a psychological experience that enables employees to feel autonomous even amid organizational norms and others’ expectations [11, 25]. Self- determination theory holds that motivation stems from the satisfaction of autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs [22, 24]. From a basic psychological needs perspective, perceived control helps employees identify and leverage supportive cues in the organizational environment, thereby strengthening interpersonal trust and a sense of environmental safety [24]. In other words, perceived control shapes the motivation and behavior of individuals [26], which helps lower uncertainty and psychological stress and can even energize action [27], thereby supporting the formation of a psychological authentic climate [22]. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed: H1: Perceived control positively influences psychological authentic climate. 2.3. Psychological Authentic Climate and Approach Job Crafting A psychological authentic climate reflects employees’ perceptions that the organization encourages and provides a safe environment in which they can express their authentic selves at work [12]. In such a climate, employees do not fear negative evaluation or punishment for voicing personal opinions; thus, they feel psychological safe and accepted [12]. Self-determination theory suggests that intrinsic motivation is more likely to emerge in environments that satisfy autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs, increasing behaviors that benefit personal growth and organizational development [22]. Specifically, a psychological authentic climate provides a sense of “being oneself,” a process realized through goal selection; such goals channel individuals’ positive tendencies and developmental trajectories [28]. Hence, when employees perceive a psychological authentic climate, they are more inclined to proactively adjust tasks, optimize relationships, and redefine work cognition to enhance meaning and development, core elements of approach job crafting [7, 12]. Prior research indicates that psychological safety and supportive environments stimulate employees’ proactivity and innovative behaviors, constituting a critical linkage between psychological safety space and positive work optimization. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: 792 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 12: 789-805, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i12.11481 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate H2: Psychological authentic climate positively influences approach job crafting. 2.4. Perceived Control and Perceived Insider Status Within organizations, perceived insider status reflects the extent to which individuals feel recognized, accepted, and valued by their team or organization [13]. Self-determination theory posits that individuals' competence and relatedness needs are core drivers of intrinsic motivation [22, 24]. When employees perceive greater control over work processes and outcomes, they strengthen their perceptions that leaders communicate with and treat organizational members in a differentiated manner [29]; and they become more confident in task accomplishment, decision participation, and interactions with colleagues [30]. Such confidence signals status-enhancing capability; these employees are more likely to gain informal status at work and even prospects for future promotion [31], thereby strengthening perceived insider status [13]. Moreover, when employees believe they can exert influence within the team and receive fair evaluations, their perceived insider status increases [32]. In sum, high perceived control elevates employees’ confidence, proactivity, and fairness perceptions in relationships [33], creating conditions that bolster an "insider" self-concept. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed: H3: Perceived control positively influences perceived insider status. 2.5. Perceived Insider Status and Approach Job Crafting Employees with high perceived insider status obtain greater trust and support within teams, along with additional resources and latitude [34]. When endowed with abundant work resources (e.g., coworker support and leader empowerment), employees feel safer and more capable of engaging in proactive behaviors [35]. Approach job crafting is an active adjustment of tasks, relationships, and cognitions; the more resources employees possess, the more confidence and capacity they have to experiment with new approaches [35]. According to self-determination theory, when individuals perceive recognition and acceptance from others, relatedness needs are satisfied, which further energizes intrinsic motivation and fosters a willingness to enhance personal value through proactive action [22, 24]. Moreover, higher perceived insider status is closely associated with positive organizational behaviors, including taking initiative, improving work performance, and engaging in constructive organizational activities [14, 34, 36]. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H4: Perceived insider status positively influences approach job crafting. 2.6. Mediating Role of Psychological Authentic Climate A sense of control experienced at work not only reduces uncertainty and stress stemming from the external environment but can also serve as a cohesive “glue” that binds individuals and the organization [37], thereby reinforcing trust and commitment to the organization. When employees are confident that they have a certain degree of control over task execution and outcomes, they are more likely to experience a strong sense of authenticity and positive psychological expectations [38]. Such psychological safety reduces concerns about failure or punishment, creating conditions for open communication and genuine interaction [30]. When the organizational environment provides greater autonomy and feedback, employees demonstrate higher engagement [38] and responsibility, gradually forming a climate that permits self-expression [39]. Within such a climate, intrinsic motivation is more readily transformed into positive work behaviors [30]. Overall, authenticity facilitates healthy forms of self-regulation, and the authentic self guides decisions and actions [40]. When employees, driven by perceived control, contribute to an organizational climate that is more authentic and psychological safe, they are more likely to break rigid work patterns and proactively seek ways that enhance meaningfulness and a sense of accomplishment, thereby exhibiting approach job crafting [12]. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: 793 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 12: 789-805, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i12.11481 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate H5: Psychological authentic climate mediates the relationship between perceived control and approach job crafting. 2.7. Mediating Role of Perceived Insider Status Perceived control denotes the belief that one possesses resources and capabilities to influence outcomes [25]. The adaptive capacity granted by such capabilities leads employees, when they feel empowered, to apply their surplus talents to proactive and collaborative behaviors. Perceived control can strengthen employees’ confidence in their abilities and contributions, encouraging more active displays of responsibility and initiative within the organization [41]. Such positive behaviors are more likely to be noticed and recognized by colleagues and supervisors, thereby enhancing the individuals' status identification and sense of belonging in the organization [36]. In addition, high perceived control not only shapes confidence in task accomplishment but also earns respect and trust from team members, which, in turn, raises perceived insider status [34]. Moreover, perceived insider status is a key social resource [42] that affords employees more opportunities for participation and information sharing and reduces uncertainty and role ambiguity [32]. When employees are viewed as organizational insiders, they more readily obtain extra support and resources, which not only enhances psychological safety but also strengthens motivation to experiment and explore [14]. Consequently, perceived control indirectly promotes employees' engagement in approach job crafting by elevating perceived insider status. In effect, as employees perceive recognition and appreciation from the organization, they become more motivated to proactively adjust work content and interaction patterns to achieve high meaningfulness and growth opportunities [34]. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H6: Perceived insider status mediates the relationship between perceived control and approach job crafting. 2.8. Moderating Effect of Informal Leadership Emergence on the Relationship between Perceived Control and Perceived Insider Status Individuals’ status and identity in organizations are often influenced by team climate and interaction patterns [43]. Informal leadership emergence, as a natural phenomenon in group interactions, reflects the process by which members are spontaneously recognized by others as leaders in informal contexts [20, 44]. When team members spontaneously recognize a colleague as an informal leader, this signifies trust in that individual's abilities and character [16]. This informal flow of resources, based on trust and influence, may alter the strength of the effect of perceived control on perceived insider status. When employees perceive higher levels of informal leadership emergence, a more supportive resource allocation and social identification climate will be formed in the organization [45]. Individuals’ efforts and contributions are more visible and more likely to be acknowledged, and proactive behaviors energized by perceived control are more likely to be interpreted by the team as value creation, thereby substantially elevating perceived insider status. Informal leadership emergence thus strengthens the relationship between perceived control and perceived insider status. Conversely, when informal leadership emergence is low, teams lack naturally formed networks of trust and support; even if employees exhibit strong perceived control, the absence of others’ recognition may hinder its translation into perceived insider status. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H7: Informal leadership emergence positively moderates the relationship between perceived control and perceived insider status. 2.9. Moderating Effect of Informal Leadership Emergence on the Relationship between Perceived Insider Status and Approach Job Crafting The stronger employees’ perceived insider status, the greater their willingness to engage in collective behaviors and identify with organizational goals and values [46]. When employees perceive acceptance and appreciation from the organization, they are more inclined to engage in approach job crafting, proactively adjusting task boundaries and interpersonal relationships [31] to further strengthen personal value. From a social interaction perspective, informal influence structures in teams 794 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 12: 789-805, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i12.11481 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate stabilize and absorb fluctuations in the internal environment, thereby determining the efficiency with which individuals convert resources [20, 47]. Informal leadership emergence embodies team members' spontaneous recognition of certain individuals' leadership status in interactions [44, 48, 49]. This naturally generated leadership fosters trust and support and substantiates that leadership is a process of exerting influence within a group toward shared goals [50], thereby strengthening internal resource flows. For employees who already possess high perceived insider status, a team context with elevated informal leadership emergence makes recognition and resources more readily convertible into motivation to construct work proactively, thereby manifesting higher levels of approach job crafting. Informal leadership emergence, therefore strengthens the relationship between perceived insider status and approach job crafting. Conversely, when informal leadership emergence is insufficient, employees, even those perceiving high status, may find their resource advantages constrained and less able to translate into actual proactive behaviors. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H8: Informal leadership emergence positively moderates the relationship between perceived insider status and approach job crafting. 3. Research Method 3.1. Research Participants and Data Collection A large labor force and limited high-quality employment opportunities have created a labor market characterized by a preference for overqualification [51]. With the transition of higher education from elite to mass systems, employees often experience a pronounced gap between expectations and reality. When highly qualified employees’ expectations for challenging work conflict with the repetitive, low- challenge tasks encountered in reality, the tendency to transform work becomes particularly salient. Considering the economic advantages of the eastern region and its greater capacity to absorb highly educated talent [52], employed individuals with higher education in first-tier cities within eastern provinces, such as university staff, medical personnel, and researchers, were selected as the objects of study. This study collected 532 valid questionnaires from eligible employees using purposive sampling. Contacts were established with HR departments or managers in multiple organizations, and questionnaires were obtained after obtaining consent. Participation was voluntary; before completing the survey, participants were informed of the study’s purpose and relevant details, and the questionnaire was completed anonymously. All participants completed the survey during working hours. The sample was concentrated in the 34–49 age group (54.9%). A total of 327 participants held a master’s degree (61.5%). Tenure was most concentrated in 4–6 years (37.4%), followed by 7–9 years (25.4%), indicating that participants had substantial work experience and, overall, a high level of education. Participants came from different industries: wholesale and transportation (27.4%); information and finance (19.4%); science, education, culture, and health (18.3%); public administration and services (15.6%); agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, and fishery (10.5%); and mining and manufacturing (8.8%). 3.2. Measures All constructs were assessed using established scales with high reliability. Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate higher levels of the corresponding construct. Perceived control [11] was measured using the 11-item scale. A sample item is: “Sometimes I feel I have enough control over the direction of my life.” Approach job crafting [8] was measured using the 24-item scale, which assesses the extent to which employees spontaneously adjust and expand work boundaries. A sample item is: “I proactively take on additional work tasks.” Psychological authentic climate was measured using the five-item scale from Ostermeier et al. [12], which assesses employees’ perceptions of a psychological safe and authentic organizational environment. A sample item is: “I feel encouraged to be my true self in my current workplace.” 795 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 12: 789-805, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i12.11481 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Perceived insider status [13] was assessed using the nine-item unidimensional scale to evaluate the degree to which individuals feel accepted within the organization. A sample item is: “I feel accepted by my current organization.” Informal leadership emergence was measured using the four-item scale by Schaubroeck, et al. [48], which assesses perceptions of leadership displayed by other members in the absence of formal authority. A sample item is: “I believe other members can provide inspiration and motivation for our team.” 4. Data Analysis 4.1. Descriptive and Correlational Analyses Means and standard deviations for all variables are shown in Table 1. All variables exhibit significant correlations and are generally positively skewed. In terms of distributions, skewness values range from −1.443 to −0.470, and kurtosis values range from 0.266 to 2.234. The absolute values of skewness are below 5, and those of kurtosis are below 10, indicating that the data approximate a normal distribution [53]. Table 1. Descriptive and Correlation Analyses. 1 2 3 4 5 1 Perceived Control 1 2 Approach Job Crafting 0.532** 1 3 Psychological Authentic Climate 0.599** 0.547** 1 4 Perceived Insider Status 0.536** 0.508** 0.398** 1 5 Informal Leadership Emergence 0.254** 0.328** 0.311** 0.205** 1 Mean 3.778 3.752 3.810 3.733 3.918 Standard Deviation 0.680 0.613 0.767 0.831 0.725 Skewness −1.250 −0.470 −1.028 −1.108 −1.443 Kurtosis 1.922 0.266 1.273 1.180 2.234 Note: **p < 0.01. This study compiled the data. 4.2. Common Method Bias Given the specific time window of data collection, Harman’s single-factor test was employed to assess research error and examine potential common method bias [54]. As shown in Table 2, the KMO measure is 0.974 (p < 0.001), indicating adequacy for factor analysis. The first factor has an eigenvalue of 19.235 and accounts for 36.29% of the variance, which is below the 40% threshold. This suggests that a single factor does not explain the majority of the variance and that no salient common method bias exists [54] Table 2. Single Factor Analysis. Component Total Percentage of Variance Cumulative % Total Percentage of Variance Cumulative % 1 19.235 36.292 36.292 19.235 36.292 36.292 2 4.330 8.169 44.461 4.330 8.169 44.461 3 2.941 5.550 50.011 2.941 5.550 50.011 4 2.376 4.484 54.494 2.376 4.484 54.494 5 1.582 2.984 57.479 1.582 2.984 57.479 Note: This table presents the Harman single-factor analysis. This study compiled the data. 4.3. Validity Analyses To determine whether the fit between the theoretical model and competing models (e.g., single- factor and multifactor models) is optimal, a series of model comparisons was conducted. The five variables in the study were specified in a five-factor model. One variable was then randomly loaded onto another factor to form a four-factor model; this procedure was repeated until a single-factor model was 796 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 12: 789-805, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i12.11481 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate obtained. Finally, the overall model fit was compared. As shown in Table 3, the five-factor model demonstrates markedly superior fit. The model’s χ² is 1384.539 with df = 1315, yielding χ²/df = 1.053, which is below 5. Other fit indices are GFI = 0.913, AGFI = 0.905, CFI = 0.996, and NFI = 0.918, all exceeding 0.8; RMSEA = 0.010 and SRMR = 0.024, which are below 0.08. These results indicate good model fit [52, 55, 56]. Table 3. Multifactor Model Comparison. Indicator χ² df χ²/df GFI AGFI CFI NFI RMSEA SRMR 5 Factor 1384.539 1315 1.053 0.913 0.905 0.996 0.918 0.010 0.024 4 Factor 3318.064 1319 2.516 0.670 0.642 0.871 0.803 0.067 0.063 3 Factor 4787.265 1322 3.621 0.556 0.519 0.776 0.716 0.070 0.076 2 Factor 5382.832 1324 4.066 0.526 0.488 0.738 0.681 0.076 0.079 1 Factor 6074.548 1325 4.585 0.509 0.470 0.693 0.640 0.082 0.083 Note: This table presents the results of the multifactor model comparison. This study compiled the data. Confirmatory factor analysis shows standardized factor loadings for all measurement items ranging from 0.690 to 0.767, composite reliabilities (CR) from 0.842 to 0.962, and average variance extracted (AVE) from 0.514 to 0.571, indicating adequate convergent validity [57]. The square roots of AVE range from 0.717 to 0.755 and exceed the inter-construct correlations, supporting discriminant validity [57]. Detailed results are provided in the Appendix. 4.4. Regression Analyses Hierarchical regression was used to test the hypothesized relationships among the variables [58]. Table 4 presents the direct and mediated relationships. In Model 1 (M1), age, education, and tenure have no significant effects on approach job crafting. In Model 3 (M3), the standardized regression coefficient of perceived control on psychological authentic climate is 0.598 (p < 0.001), with R² = 36%, a t-statistic of 17.062 (t > 3.29), and VIF = 1.011, indicating a significantly positive effect of perceived control on authentic climate; thus, hypothesis 1 (H1) is supported [59]. In Model 4 (M4), psychological authentic climate has a standardized regression coefficient of 0.354 (p < 0.001) on approach job crafting, with R² = 37.8%, a t-statistic of 8.242 (t > 3.29), and VIF = 1.564, indicating a significantly positive effect of authentic climate on approach job crafting; hence, hypothesis 2 (H2) is supported. When the mediator is included, the standardized regression coefficient of perceived control on approach job crafting decreases to 0.329 (p < 0.001), from 0.541 in Model 2 (M2), indicating a reduction in effect. This suggests that authentic climate partially mediates the relationship between perceived control and approach job crafting, thereby supporting hypothesis 5 (H5). In Model 5, perceived control has a standardized regression coefficient of 0.537 (p < 0.001) on perceived insider status, with an R² of 28.7%, a t-statistic of 14.510 (t > 3.29), and a Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) of 1.011, indicating a significantly positive effect; therefore, hypothesis 3 (H3) is supported. In Model 6, perceived insider status has a standardized regression coefficient of 0.312 (p < 0.001) on approach job crafting, with an R² of 36.7%, a t-statistic of 7.587 (t > 3.29), and a VIF of 1.402, indicating a significantly positive effect; thus, hypothesis 4 (H4) is supported. When the mediator is included, the standardized regression coefficient of perceived control on approach job crafting decreases to 0.374 (p < 0.001) from 0.541 in Model 2, indicating a reduction in effect. This suggests that perceived insider status partially mediates the relationship between perceived control and approach job crafting, which supports hypothesis 6 (H6). 797 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 12: 789-805, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i12.11481 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Table 4. Regression Analyses. Model Approach Job Crafting Psychological Authentic Climate Approach Job Crafting Perceived Insider Status Approach Job Crafting M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 𝜷 (t) VIF 𝜷 (t) VIF 𝜷 (t) VIF 𝜷 (t) VIF 𝜷 (t) VIF 𝜷 (t) VIF Age 0.035 (0.795) 1.012 0.076 (2.065) 1.018 −0.004 (−0.104) 1.018 0.077 (2.230) 1.018 0.008 (0.228) 1.018 0.073 (2.097) 1.018 Education Level 0.063 (1.454) 1.003 0.086 (2.352) 1.005 0.015 (0.439) 1.005 0.081 (2.339) 1.005 −0.002 (−0.046) 1.005 0.087 (2.491) 1.005 Years of Working −0.056 (−1.275) 1.010 −0.029 (−0.786) 1.012 −0.033 (−0.956) 1.012 −0.017 (−0.495) 1.014 0.010 (0.275) 1.012 −0.032 (−0.918) 1.012 Perceived Control 0.541*** (14.740) 1.011 0.598*** (17.062) 1.011 0.329*** (7.643) 1.570 0.537*** (14.510) 1.011 0.374*** (9.058) 1.415 Psychological Authenticity Climate 0.354*** (8.242) 1.564 Perceived Insider Status 0.312*** (7.587) 1.402 𝑅2 0.008 0.298 0.360 0.378 0.287 0.367 Adj. R2 0.002 0.292 0.356 0.372 0.282 0.361 Change in R² 0.008 0.290 0.353 0.080 0.285 0.069 F value 1.424 55.823*** 74.256*** 63.917*** 53.028*** 60.965*** Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. 798 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 12: 789-805, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i12.11481 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Table 5 reports the moderating effects of informal leadership emergence on the relationships among perceived control, perceived insider status, and approach job crafting. In Model 9 (M9), the interaction term between perceived control and informal leadership emergence has a standardized regression coefficient of 0.280 (p < 0.001) on perceived insider status, with R² = 35.2%, a t-statistic of 6.994, and VIF = 1.297, indicating a significantly positive moderating effect; thus, hypothesis 7 (H7) is supported. In Model 12 (M12), the interaction term between perceived insider status and informal leadership emergence has a standardized regression coefficient of 0.231 (p < 0.001) on approach job crafting, with R² = 36.5%, a t-statistic of 6.268, and VIF = 1.118, indicating a significantly positive moderating effect; hence, hypothesis 8 (H8) is supported. The F-statistics for all models are significant, indicating that each model is statistically valid. Table 5. Moderation Analysis. Model Dependent variable Perceived Insider Status Approach Job Crafting M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 𝜷 (t) VIF 𝜷 (t) VIF 𝜷 (t) VIF 𝜷 (t) VIF 𝜷 (t) VIF 𝜷 (t) VIF Age −0.033 (−0.745) 1.012 −0.005 (−0.136) 1.055 −0.019 (−0.529) 1.058 0.035 (0.795) 1.012 0.013 (0.346) 1.044 0.010 (0.268) 1.044 Education Level −0.024 (−0.562) 1.003 −0.003 (−0.076) 1.005 −0.011 (−0.303) 1.006 0.063 (1.454) 1.003 0.074 (2.041) 1.004 0.046 (1.321) 1.019 Years of Working −0.016 (−0.372) 1.010 0.012 (0.327) 1.013 0.011 (0.320) 1.013 −0.056 (−1.275) 1.010 −0.039 (−1.081) 1.011 −0.016 (−0.463) 1.022 Perceived Control 0.517*** (13.483) 1.091 0.579*** (15.332) 1.155 Informal Leadership Emergence 0.075 (1.936) 1.108 0.179*** (4.487) 1.287 0.229*** (6.135) 1.076 0.298*** (7.902) 1.175 Perceived Control × Informal Leadership Emergence 0.280*** (6.994) 1.297 Perceived Insider Status 0.462*** (12.523) 1.050 0.453*** (12.695) 1.052 Perceived Insider Status × Informal Leadership Emergence 0.231*** (6.268) 1.118 R2 0.002 0.292 0.352 0.008 0.317 0.365 Adj. R2 0.001 0.285 0.345 0.002 0.311 0.357 change in R² 0.002 0.290 0.060 0.008 0.309 0.048 F value 0.375 43.393*** 47.607*** 1.424 48.831*** 50.201*** Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the moderating effects of informal leadership emergence on the relationships among perceived control, perceived insider status, and approach job crafting. In Figure 2, under low informal leadership emergence, perceived insider status increases more slowly as perceived control rises; under high informal leadership emergence, perceived insider status increases more rapidly with perceived control. This indicates that informal leadership emergence strengthens the effect of perceived control on perceived insider status, thereby exerting a positive moderating effect. In Figure 3, 799 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 12: 789-805, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i12.11481 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate under low informal leadership emergence, approach job crafting increases more slowly as perceived insider status rises; conversely, under high informal leadership emergence, approach job crafting increases more rapidly with perceived insider status. This indicates that informal leadership emergence strengthens the effect of perceived insider status on approach job crafting, thereby exerting a positive moderating effect. Figure 2. Moderating Effect of Informal Leadership Emergence on the Relationship between Perceived Control and Perceived Insider Status. Figure 3. Moderating Effect of Informal Leadership Emergence on the Relationship between Perceived Insider Status and Approach Job Crafting. 800 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 12: 789-805, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i12.11481 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Figure 4 presents the structural equation model results that test the hypotheses. Standardized path coefficients are labeled along the arrows, and solid lines denote significant relationships. The results indicate that all hypotheses are supported. Figure 4. Research Results. 5. Conclusion and Implication 5.1. Findings The findings indicate that the influence of perceived control is not direct; rather, it is transmitted through psychological authentic climate and perceived insider status, and ultimately translates into actual behavior. When employees experience greater autonomy and control, they tend to proactively seek ways to enhance the value of their work [24]. This result aligns with Aziz and Abdullah [25] and Hervé and Oh [11], suggesting that control stimulates employee proactivity. From a self-determination theory perspective, this is not a simple unidirectional psychological driver; it operates through a dual psychological mechanism. On the one hand, a psychological authentic climate reduces employees’ concerns about risk when attempting change, enabling more assured engagement in transformative work practices [12]. On the other hand, perceived insider status reflects the degree to which employees feel accepted and supported within the organization; such recognition and resource support increase the willingness to engage in job crafting [13]. Furthermore, when teams exhibit higher levels of informal leadership, employees are more likely to convert perceived status into proactive behavior. This echoes Judge et al. [17], who found that naturally formed leadership forces exert important behavioral-shaping effects within teams, while differing from research that places excessive emphasis on formal leadership roles. The study also responds to calls for establishing informal communication structures within organizations to foster an atmosphere of trust [60], thereby guiding individuals’ actions in ways that formal leadership cannot reach. Overall, strong perceived control enhances employees’ sense of mastery over work processes and outcomes, supporting the formation of an authentic climate and perceived insider status. This dual support creates a safe, developmental, and recognized environment that fuels proactive adjustment and optimization of tasks, relationships, and cognitions. Informal leadership emergence strengthens the 801 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 12: 789-805, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i12.11481 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate translation of individual psychological resources into environmental perceptions and proactive behaviors, thereby facilitating the realization of approach job crafting. 5.2. Theoretical Contributions This study offers several theoretical contributions to the approach to job crafting. First, prior research has largely focused on the effects of individual traits (e.g., proactive personality and self- efficacy) or leadership styles (e.g., transformational leadership) on job crafting, while underemphasizing the role of perceived control [15]. As a psychological resource, perceived control provides the motivational foundation for approach job crafting, thereby extending the theoretical lens of related studies [10]. Second, by introducing psychological authentic climate and perceived insider status, the study addresses gaps regarding how perceived control is converted into proactive behavior in prior research. It reveals the synergistic roles of authentic climate and status recognition, deepening understanding of the inner logic of job crafting. Third, the study underscores the role of informal leadership in teams. Unlike formal leadership, informal leadership emergence represents the spontaneous distribution of influence among group members [20, 43]. When teams exhibit higher levels of informal leadership emergence, perceived insider status is more readily translated into promotive job crafting, offering new avenues for the intersection of informal leadership and job crafting research. 5.3. Managerial Implications The study provides practical guidance for organizational management. First, organizations should enhance employees’ perceived control through transparent feedback mechanisms and appropriate empowerment, thereby stimulating motivation to proactively optimize work. Second, managers should cultivate a psychological authentic climate in which employees can freely express genuine ideas, reducing concerns and defensive attitudes. At the same time, increasing perceived insider status, through fair evaluation systems, open communication channels, and resource support, can strengthen employees’ sense of belonging and proactivity. Finally, under resource constraints in talent investments, prioritizing high-potential employees with strong foundations may yield the fastest returns, as they are more capable of leveraging resources to solve problems, coordinate relationships, and demonstrate outcomes. These employees can more quickly convert latent support into visible performance and leadership behaviors, thereby more easily garnering peer followership. This is consistent with prior findings that concentrating resources on informal leader members can be the most efficient strategy [61]. 5.4. Limitations and Future Directions Despite the valuable conclusions drawn, this study has several limitations. First, the data were collected using self-report questionnaires, which may introduce common method bias. Although every effort was made to minimize error in this study and the results were validated using single-factor testing, this only demonstrates that no major errors were introduced. Therefore, if circumstances permit, future research should adopt longitudinal or objective data-collection approaches to further reduce potential bias. Second, job crafting can be categorized in multiple ways, including forms such as avoidance and prevention-oriented job crafting. This study focuses solely on approach job crafting, whereas some studies on other forms are also valuable and meaningful. Future research can further compare the mechanisms across different forms of job crafting to build a more comprehensive theoretical framework. Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. This study followed all ethical practices during writing. 802 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 12: 789-805, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i12.11481 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). References [1] H.-J. Wang, E. Demerouti, and P. Le Blanc, "Transformational leadership, adaptability, and job crafting: The moderating role of organizational identification," Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 100, pp. 185-195, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.03.009 [2] Y. Shi et al., "Job crafting and employees’ general health: The role of work–nonwork facilitation and perceived boundary control," BMC Public Health, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 1196, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13569-z [3] A. Costantini, E. Demerouti, A. Ceschi, and R. Sartori, "Implementing job crafting behaviors: Exploring the effects of a job crafting intervention based on the theory of planned behavior," The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 477-512, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320975913 [4] D. Turek, H. J. Klein, and A. Wojtczuk-Turek, "Overcoming organizational constraints: The role of organizational commitment and job crafting in relation to employee performance," European Management Journal, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 944-956, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.12.001 [5] M. Tims, A. B. Bakker, D. Derks, and W. van Rhenen, "Job crafting at the team and individual level: Implications for work engagement and performance," Group & Organization Management, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 427-454, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113492421 [6] J.-C. Cheng and Y. O-Yang, "Hotel employee job crafting, burnout, and satisfaction: The moderating role of perceived organizational support," International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 72, pp. 78-85, 2018/06/01/ 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.005 [7] P. F. Bruning and M. A. Campion, "A role–resource approach–avoidance model of job crafting: A multimethod integration and extension of job crafting theory," Academy of Management Journal, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 499-522, 2018. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0604 [8] E. Lopper, K. T. Horstmann, and A. Hoppe, "The approach‐avoidance job crafting scale: Development and validation of a measurement of the hierarchical structure of job crafting," Applied Psychology, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 93-134, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12466 [9] M. S. Noesgaard and F. Jørgensen, "Building organizational commitment through cognitive and relational job crafting," European Management Journal, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 348-357, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.01.002 [10] J. M. Hamm et al., "When and how perceived control buffers against cognitive declines: A moderated mediation analysis," Psychology and Aging, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 39-53, 2024. [11] J. Hervé and H. Oh, "Quiet quitting in times of uncertainty: Definition and relationship with perceived control," Human Resource Management, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 1421-1456, 2025. [12] K. Ostermeier, D. Cooper, and M. Caldas, "Can I be who I am? Psychological authenticity climate and employee outcomes," Human Performance, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 1-30, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2021.1998060 [13] C. L. Stamper and S. S. Masterson, "Insider or outsider? How employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior," Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 875-894, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.175 [14] J. Guo, Y. Qiu, and Y. Gan, "Workplace incivility and work engagement: The chain mediating effects of perceived insider status, affective organizational commitment and organizational identification," Current Psychology, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1809-1820, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00699-z [15] S. Park and S. Park, "Contextual antecedents of job crafting:Review and future research agenda," European Journal of Training and Development, vol. 47, no. 1-2, pp. 141-165, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-06-2021-0071 [16] H. Wang, Y. Gu, P. Wan, and J. Zheng, "Linking informal leadership emergence to project performance: The role of leader-member exchange and ethical leadership," Current Psychology, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 2222-2236, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-07256-y [17] T. A. Judge, J. E. Bono, R. Ilies, and M. W. Gerhardt, "Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review," Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 765-780, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765 [18] N. Ensari, R. E. Riggio, J. Christian, and G. Carslaw, "Who emerges as a leader? Meta-analyses of individual differences as predictors of leadership emergence," Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 532-536, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.017 [19] H. Bajrami, F. Lekaj, V. Shala, B. Bajrami, and S. Bytyqi, "Enhancing organizational performance through effective leadership and communication," Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1810-1821, 2024. https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v8i4.1555 [20] K. L. Badura, B. M. Galvin, and M. Y. Lee, "Leadership emergence: An integrative review," Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 107, no. 11, p. 2069, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000997 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.03.009 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13569-z https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320975913 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.12.001 https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113492421 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.005 https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0604 https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12466 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.01.002 https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2021.1998060 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.175 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00699-z https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-06-2021-0071 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-07256-y https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.017 https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v8i4.1555 https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000997 803 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 12: 789-805, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i12.11481 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [21] I. Shin and H. Jung, "Differential roles of self-determined motivations in describing job crafting behavior and organizational change commitment," Current Psychology, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 3376-3385, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00265-2 [22] E. L. Deci, A. H. Olafsen, and R. M. Ryan, "Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science," Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, vol. 4, pp. 19-43, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108 [23] R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, "Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being," American Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 68-78, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 [24] E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan, "The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior," Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 227-268, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 [25] B. Aziz and M. I. Abdullah, "Too qualified to adapt? A study of how perceived control and demand-ability fit influence adaptive performance," Contemporary Journal of Social Science Review, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 2724-2740, 2025. [26] F. A. Khan, M. U. Quddoos, M. Qudsia, M. Adeel, M. S. Amin, and M. A. B. U. Rahim, "Resolving the project control-performance paradox: boosting individual performance through intrinsic motivation," Current Psychology, vol. 44, no. 19, pp. 15693-15708, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-08293-x [27] S. Sankaran, M. Kossowska, and U. Von Hecker, "When do they push the right buttons? Need for closure and the role of perceived control in situations of uncertainty," Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 213, p. 112316, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112316 [28] K. M. Sheldon, "Becoming oneself: The central role of self-concordant goal selection," Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 349-365, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314538549 [29] J. B. Wu, A. S. Tsui, and A. J. Kinicki, "Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups," Academy of Management Journal, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 90-106, 2010. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48037079 [30] S. K. Parker, U. K. Bindl, and K. Strauss, "Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation," Journal of Management, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 827-856, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732 [31] F. Liu, C. Duan, and M. J. Zhang, "Tall trees catch much wind? Investigating the role of supervisor perceived status threat in linking employee overqualification to supervisor undermining," Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 1-19, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-05926-w [32] A. Van den Broeck, D. L. Ferris, C.-H. Chang, and C. C. Rosen, "A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work," Journal of Management, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1195-1229, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058 [33] H. J. Shah, J. P. Ou, S. Attiq, M. Umer, and W.-K. Wong, "Does inclusive leadership improve the sustainability of employee relations? Test of justice theory and employee perceived insider status," Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 21, p. 14257, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114257 [34] Z. Liu, X. Ouyang, T. Y. Kim, and Y. Chen, "Workplace status differences and proactive behaviours: The role of perceived insider status and promotion criterion," Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 747-766, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12488 [35] H.-Y. Teng, "Job crafting, leisure crafting, and well-being among hospitality employees: The roles of work–leisure facilitation and conflict," International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 111, p. 103460, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103460 [36] H. Wang, J. Feng, P. Prevellie, and K. Wu, "Why do I contribute when I am an “insider”? A moderated mediation approach to perceived insider status and employee’s innovative behavior," Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 1184-1197, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-06-2016-0109 [37] K. Waerness, E. Solstad, and B. A. Bertheussen, "Trust-based management control in inter-organizational relationships," Journal of Management Control, vol. 34, pp. 317-346, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-023- 00357-y [38] K. E. Garrison, G. N. Rivera, R. J. Schlegel, J. A. Hicks, and B. J. Schmeichel, "Authentic for thee but not for me: Perceived authenticity in self-control conflicts," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 1646- 1662, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221118187 [39] A. Sutton, "Living the good life: A meta-analysis of authenticity, well-being and engagement," Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 153, p. 109645, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109645 [40] C. Sedikides and R. J. Schlegel, "Distilling the concept of authenticity," Nature Reviews Psychology, vol. 3, pp. 509-523, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00323-y [41] M. C. Yu, Q. X. Gu, and A. W. Zhu, "How does perceived insider status influence innovative behavior: A perspectives of employee actual inclusion and employee-organization relationship," Chinese Journal of Management, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 836–843, 2014. [42] C. Deng, H. Li, Y. Wang, and R. Zhu, "The double-edged sword in the digitalization of human resource management: Person-environment fit perspective," Journal of Business Research, vol. 180, p. 114738, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114738 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00265-2 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68 https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-08293-x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112316 https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314538549 https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48037079 https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-05926-w https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058 https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114257 https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12488 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103460 https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-06-2016-0109 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-023-00357-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-023-00357-y https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221118187 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109645 https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00323-y https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114738 804 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 12: 789-805, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i12.11481 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate [43] X. Wu, A. Adbi, and I. P. Mahmood, "The social structure of insiders and outsiders: Toward a network community perspective on firm performance," Academy of Management Journal, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 903-932, 2024. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2022.0925 [44] W. L. Gardner, A. A. Hanna, F. Noghani, and C. C. Cogliser, "Leadership emergence: Answering the “how” and “why” questions by considering levels of analysis and form of emergence," Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 139-164, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721- 040430 [45] L. Chernyak-Hai, D. Heller, I. SimanTov-Nachlieli, and M. Weiss-Sidi, "Give them a fishing rod, if it is not urgent: The impact of help type on support for helpers’ leadership," Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 109, no. 4, pp. 551-572, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001155 [46] G. Zhang, X. Zhang, and Y. Wang, "Perceived insider status and employees' innovative behavior: The role of knowledge sharing and organizational innovation climate," European Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 589-607, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-03-2022-0123 [47] R. Marion, J. Christiansen, H. W. Klar, C. Schreiber, and M. A. Erdener, "Informal leadership, interaction, cliques and productive capacity in organizations: A collectivist analysis," The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 242-260, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.003 [48] J. Schaubroeck, A. C. Peng, S. T. Hannah, J. Ma, and A. M. Cianci, "Struggling to meet the bar: Occupational progress failure and informal leadership behavior," Academy of Management Journal, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 1740-1762, 2021. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0956 [49] S. Liu, J. K. Summers, N. Guo, X. Li, and H. Wang, "Political skill and informal leader emergence: The role of relationships, competence and outcome interdependence," Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 98, no. 1, p. e12560, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12560 [50] J. Kareem, H. A. Patrick, and N. Prabakaran, "Exploring the factors of learning organization in school education: The role of leadership styles, personal commitment, and organizational culture," Central European Management Journal, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 232-251, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1108/CEMJ-12-2023-0457 [51] P. Liu, Y. Mu, and X. Li, "How does perceived overqualification beget workplace incivility? A moderated mediation model based on Kahn’s framework," Journal of Business Research, vol. 186, p. 114961, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114961 [52] H. Gu, J. Wang, and Y. Ling, "Economic geography of talent migration and agglomeration in China: A dual-driver framework," China Economic Review, vol. 86, p. 102180, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2024.102180 [53] R. B. Kline, Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press, 2011. [54] P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff, "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, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 [55] P. M. Bentler, "Comparative fit indexes in structural models," Psychological Bulletin, vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 238-246, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 [56] L. t. Hu and P. M. Bentler, "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, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 [57] C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, "Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error," Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39-50, 1981. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 [58] R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny, "The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1173-1182, 1986. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 [59] J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson, Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2010. [60] N. Denner, T. Koch, B. Viererbl, and A. Ernst, "Feeling connected and informed through informal communication: A quantitative survey on the perceived functions of informal communication in organizations," Journal of Communication Management, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 71-93, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-06-2024-0085 [61] R. Briker, S. Hohmann, F. Walter, C. K. Lam, and Y. Zhang, "Formal supervisors' role in stimulating team members' informal leader emergence: Supervisor and member status as critical moderators," Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 913-932, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2539 https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2022.0925 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-040430 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-040430 https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001155 https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-03-2022-0123 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.003 https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.0956 https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12560 https://doi.org/10.1108/CEMJ-12-2023-0457 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114961 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2024.102180 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-06-2024-0085 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2539 805 Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology ISSN: 2576-8484 Vol. 9, No. 12: 789-805, 2025 DOI: 10.55214/2576-8484.v9i12.11481 © 2025 by the authors; licensee Learning Gate Appendix A. Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Variable Items Standardized Factor Loading Cronbach’s α CR AVE AVE Square Root Perceived Control PC1 0.718 0.921 0.921 0.515 0.718 PC2 0.715 PC3 0.728 PC4 0.713 PC5 0.711 PC6 0.707 PC7 0.733 PC8 0.745 PC9 0.695 PC10 0.721 PC11 0.705 Approach Job Crafting JC1 0.696 0.962 0.962 0.514 0.717 JC2 0.727 JC3 0.715 JC4 0.724 JC5 0.711 JC6 0.727 JC7 0.718 JC8 0.713 JC9 0.743 JC10 0.708 JC11 0.708 JC12 0.733 JC13 0.695 JC14 0.723 JC15 0.710 JC16 0.736 JC17 0.716 JC18 0.740 JC19 0.740 JC20 0.712 JC21 0.708 JC22 0.690 JC23 0.704 JC24 0.709 Psychological Authentic Climate PA1 0.767 0.866 0.866 0.564 0.751 PA2 0.754 PA3 0.739 PA4 0.744 PA5 0.751 Perceived Insider Status PIS1 0.737 0.912 0.912 0.536 0.732 PIS2 0.736 PIS3 0.734 PIS4 0.732 PIS5 0.752 PIS6 0.725 PIS7 0.701 PIS8 0.721 PIS9 0.749 Informal Leadership Emergence LE1 0.747 0.841 0.842 0.571 0.755 LE2 0.754 LE3 0.769 LE4 0.751