Regulatory Focus Mediates the Relationship Between Psychological Capital and Team Job Crafting: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Background

Modern healthcare’s increasing complexity requires team-based nursing care, yet the psychological mechanisms of nurses’ team job crafting remain under explored. This study aims to explore the association between psychological capital and team job crafting in clinical nurses and to test the mediating effect of regulatory focus.

Methods

A cross-sectional design was employed, with 465 clinical nurses recruited from five hospitals in China. Data collection included a demographic questionnaire and three validated scales: the Psychological Capital Scale for Nurses, the Regulatory Focus Scale, and the Chinese version of the Team Job Crafting Scale. Data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0 for descriptive statistics and Amos 23.0 for structural equation modeling to examine the hypothesized path relationships.

Results

Nurses’ team job crafting averaged 3.95±0.64, with significant positive correlations to psychological capital and regulatory focus (p<0.05). The regression model (Adjusted R²=0.731) identified age, gender, length of service, higher sense of responsibility and confidence, and both promoting/defensive focus as significant predictors. Regulatory focus partially mediated the psychological capital-team job crafting (β=0.214, 95%CI [0.114,0.221]), accounting for 32.4% of the total effect.

Conclusion

Clinical nurses demonstrated moderate team job crafting levels, suggesting room for improvement. Significant predictors included older older, female, and with long work experience. Regulatory focus emerged as both a direct predictor and partial mediator (32.4%) between psychological capital and team job crafting.

Keywords

psychological capital regulatory focus team job crafting mediating effect structural equation model

Introduction

Modern healthcare’s increasing complexity has rendered solo nursing practice uncommon, with most clinical tasks requiring coordinated team efforts (Rosengarten, 2019; Simpson-Collins et al., 2023). Nursing, as a collaborative profession, is fundamentally shaped by team job crafting—a key driver of team efficacy. By adopting a collaborative team framework that actualizes collective agency, nurses can enhance organizational flexibility and adapt to complex healthcare settings (Stahlke & Dahlke 2020). Iida et al. (2021) reported that team job crafting promotes cooperation among nurses, enhances team cohesion, improves organizational efficiency, reduces turnover intention, and increases job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Review of Literature

With the advancement of modern medicine, multidisciplinary team collaboration has become dominant in hospital nursing, making team-based job crafting more critical than individual-level design (Goh 2020). Iida et al. (2021) defined team job crafting as “behaviors beneficial to ward nurses in designing work tasks, relationships and cognition”, which indirectly influences nursing leadership, improves team service quality, and predicts team work participation. Research has shown that team job crafting positively affects individuals, teams, and organizations, potentially stimulating team vitality and improving performance (Lee & Kim 2023; Zhou et al., 2025). In China, cultural emphasis on collectivism and team spirit further highlights the importance of studying team-level job crafting behaviors over individual ones (Hung et al., 2020). However, most studies focus on individual job design, neglecting team dynamics in healthcare settings.

Grounded in the Job Demands-Resources Model, psychological capital is a critical personal resource helping nurses navigate high-stakes clinical environments (Yuan et al., 2023b). Evidence shows that nurses’ psychological capital—comprising self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience—buffers occupational stress and catalyzes positive work behaviors. A scoping review of 111 studies confirmed a consistent positive correlation between registered nurses’ psychological capital and desirable outcomes including work engagement, organizational commitment, and retention intention (Flinkman et al., 2023). A meta-analysis of 6,092 nurses demonstrated a significant inverse correlation between psychological capital and burnout (Orgambídez et al., 2025).

Beyond mitigating negative outcomes, psychological capital drives constructive workplace behaviors. Research has shown that psychological capital mediates the relationship between authentic leadership and nurses’ caring behavior (Zhang et al., 2023), influences job performance through problem-focused coping and work engagement (Chen et al., 2024), and partially mediates the relationship between work readiness and work well-being among newly graduated nurses (Ding et al., 2024). Psychological capital also moderates the pathway from emotional labor to workplace deviant behavior (Meng et al., 2024) and functions as a chain mediator between organizational commitment and perceived professional benefit (Qiu et al., 2025). Within the Job Demands-Resources Model, personal resources like psychological capital generate positive emotions that build enduring resources, fostering work engagement and proactive behaviors such as job crafting (Huang et al., 2022; Lee & Kim 2023). Iida et al. (2021) confirmed that psychological capital serves as intrinsic motivation driving nurses’ mental health, stress relief, and work efficiency. Thus, clinical nurses with higher psychological capital are more likely to engage in team-level proactive behaviors. This study hypothesized that clinical nurses’ psychological capital is positively correlated with their team job crafting.

The theory of regulatory focus, proposed by Higgins et al. (2001), refers to the ways individuals achieve work goals. Two main types exist: promoting focus (pursuing positive results, improvement, and growth) and defensive focus (focusing on negative outcomes and avoiding punishment). Promoting-focused individuals attend to development needs and ideals; defensive-focused individuals emphasize security, caution, and avoidance (Liu et al., 2020). In nursing, regulatory focus reflects task-oriented behavioral tendencies based on intrinsic motivation (Wallace & Chen 2010). Clinical nurses’ team decision-making is influenced by their work focus: promotion focus maximizes team gains, while prevention focus minimizes collective losses (Liu et al., 2022). This study speculated that regulatory focus is also related to team job crafting in clinical nurses.

Guided by the Job Demands-Resources Model and the theory of regulatory focus (Hung et al., 2020; Lee & Kim 2023), psychological capital as a personal resource not only alleviates work stress but also promotes positive behaviors. Nurses with high psychological capital tend to adopt a promotion focus (growth and ideal realization), whereas those with low psychological capital are more likely to exhibit a prevention focus (risk avoidance and status quo maintenance) (Kohnen et al., 2024). Regulatory focus theory further explains that teams dominated by promotion focus foster innovation and proactively drive team job crafting, whereas prevention-focused teams emphasize compliance and adopt a conservative stance toward change (Zhang et al., 2024). However, the specific pathways through which clinical nurses’ psychological capital influences team job crafting via regulatory focus as a motivational mediator remain unclear. Thus, this study proposed the core hypothesis: regulatory focus mediates the relationship between nurses’ psychological capital and team job crafting.

To summarize, although previous international studies have confirmed the positive role of individual-level job crafting among nurses, the mechanisms underlying team-level job crafting—particularly how nurses’ psychological capital translates into collective work redesign—have received limited empirical attention. Moreover, the mediating role of regulatory focus between psychological capital and team job crafting has not been tested in clinical nursing settings. This study fills these gaps by providing three novel contributions. First, unlike most prior research focusing on individual job crafting, this study shifts to team job crafting, which aligns with the team-based nature of modern nursing practice and collectivist culture. Second, grounded in the Job Demands-Resources model and regulatory focus theory, this study is the first to empirically examine whether regulatory focus mediates the link between psychological capital and team job crafting among clinical nurses. Third, using structural equation modeling and bootstrap methods, this study quantifies direct and indirect effects, offering new evidence on the mediating pathway. These findings will provide nursing managers with actionable insights: for nurses with low psychological capital, strengthening prevention focus through structured guidance can rebuild confidence; for those with high psychological capital, activating promotion focus can empower innovation and proactive team redesign.

To synthesize the theoretical linkages, this study propose an integrated conceptual model: psychological capital directly enhances team job crafting, and also indirectly influences it via regulatory focus. Nurses with higher psychological capital are more likely to adopt promotion focus (seeking growth) or prevention focus (ensuring safety), both of which drive distinct forms of team job crafting—proactive redesign and cautious process optimization, respectively.

Therefore, grounded in this conceptual model, the following research hypotheses were developed:

Hypothesis 1. Psychological capital positively correlates with team job crafting.

Hypothesis 2. Regulatory focus positively correlates with team job crafting.

Hypothesis 3. Regulatory focus partially mediates between psychological capital and team job crafting.

Methods

Setting and Population

A cross-sectional study was conducted from March 1 to April 28, 2025, involving clinical nurses recruited via convenience sampling from five tertiary general hospitals in Shandong Province, China. Inclusion criteria: (1)registered nurses with a nursing professional qualification certificate; (2)engaged in clinical nursing work in this department for at least 1 year; (3)voluntarily participate in the survey and sign an informed consent form. Exclusion criteria: (1) Absence from work during the survey period; (2) Experienced major illness or life events (e.g., bereavement, divorce) within the preceding three months, as such factors may significantly impact psychological and occupational well-being.

The estimated number of participants required for this study was analysed using the G * power 3.1.9.7 programme, According to the widely accepted conventions (Faul et al., 2009), we set the effect size of 0.15, significance level of 0.05, power of 0.8, and the sample size required for the hierarchical regression analysis was 270. Allowing for a 30% dropout rate, the minimum sample size was estimated to be 386 participants. In practice, we successfully recruited and completed the survey in a total of 465 nurses, exceeding the minimum required, thereby ensuring the study was adequately powered.

Procedure

An online survey was conducted using the Wenjuanxing survey platform. On the questionnaire home page, participants were provided with an explanatory statement that outlined the research purpose, significance, and filling instructions, explicitly emphasising the voluntary nature of participation, the anonymity of responses, and the confidentiality of all collected data. An electronic informed consent form was also presented, and participants were required to provide consent before proceeding. To ensure anonymity, the platform did not collect any personally identifiable information (e.g., names, employee ID numbers, or IP addresses), and all responses were recorded without any linkage to individual participants. Data were stored on a password-protected server accessible only to the research team and were used solely for the purposes of this study. Participants were informed that they could withdraw from the survey at any time without any consequences. The research team first distributed the questionnaire link to department supervisors via dedicated WeChat groups, who then forwarded it to their respective nursing department groups. Prior to the survey, investigators contacted head nurses to facilitate communication and to provide standardised instructions on how to complete the questionnaire. All participants voluntarily agreed to take part and signed the electronic informed consent form. By completing and submitting the questionnaire, participants provided their final consent for data use.

Measurements

Data were collected using the general demographic questionnaire, psychological capital scale for nurses, team job crafting scale for nurses, and regulatory focus scale for nurses.

General Demographic Questionnaire

It included the age, gender, educational level, length of service, marital status, professional title, job position, employment mode, work department, and monthly night shift frequency.

Team Job Crafting Scale for Nurses (TJCSN)

This scale was compiled (Iida et al., 2021) to evaluate clinical nurses’ team job crafting behaviour. It included team job tasks crafting (four items) and team job cognition and relationships crafting (nine items). Using the Likert 5-point rating system and was graded from 1 (never) to 5 (very), with a total score of 13 to 65. The higher the score, the stronger the nurse team’s job crafting behavior. The researchers used the Chinese version of the TJCS-N, which was validated by Fang et al. (2024). The Cronbach’s α coefficient, split-half coefficient and test-retest coefficient were 0.945, 0.872 and 0.925, respectively, the I-CVI of the scale was from 0.778 to 1.000, and the S-CVI was 0.923. Totally two common factors were extracted by the exploratory factor analysis, the cumulative variance contributing 69.415%. The confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model had good fit. In this study, the structural validity and reliability of the scale were assessed. The internal consistency of the entire tool was 0.980.

Psychological Capital Scale for Nurses (PCSN)

This scale was developed by Yuan (Yuan et al., 2023a) to understand nurses’ psychological capital. It included six dimensions: hope (seven items), collaborative communication (six items), emotional intelligence (five items), sense of responsibility (four items), resilience (four items), confidence (four items). The items were evaluated on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (completely inconsistent) to 6 (completely consistent), with higher scores indicating better psychological capital. In this study, the Chinese version of the scale, which was validated by Wu et al. (2025), was used. Cronbach’s α coefficient, split-half reliability, test-retest reliability and the scale level content validity index was 0.981, 0.996, 0.918, and 0.956, respectively. Exploratory factor analysis extracted 6 factors, and the cumulative variance contribution rate was 77.587%. The confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the factor structure of the scale was stable. The researchers assessed the structural validity and reliability of the scale. The overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the tool was 0.983, and the Cronbach’s α coefficient for the six dimensions ranges from 0.956 to 0.968. The PCS-N scale has acceptable reliability and validity.

Regulatory Focus Scale for Nurses (RFSN)

This scale was developed for measuring nurse’s regulatory focus (Wallace & Chen, 2010). It included two dimensions: promoting focus (six items) and defensive focus (six items). The items were evaluated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (completely inconsistent) to 5 (completely consistent), dimension with higher scores reflecting nurses’ tendency towards regulatory focus. In this study, the Chinese version of the RFSN was used, which was validated by Xu et al. (2023). The item-content validity index (I-CVI) of RFSN ranged from 0.800 to 1.000, and the average scale-content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) was 0.917. The Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0. 962. And the Cronbach’s α coefficient of each dimension were 0. 929 and 0.970. The results of exploratory factor analysis showed that the cumulative variance contribution rate of the two common factors was 83. 259%,and the results of confirmatory factor analysis showed that all fitting indexes were within the acceptable range. In addition, this study assessed the structural validity and reliability of the scale. The internal consistency of the entire tool was 0.951, with a range of 0.893-0.972 for the subscales.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0 and AMOS 23.0. Descriptive statistics were performed for all variables. Continuous variables are presented as mean±standard deviation (SD), and categorical variables as frequency and percentage. Differences in team job crafting across demographic groups were compared using independent t-tests and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Pearson correlation analysis was employed to examine bivariate relationships among nurses’ psychological capital, regulatory focus, and team job crafting. Moreover, while controlling for demographic variables, hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the degree of variation in team job crafting, as a dependent variable, resulting from psychological capital and regulatory focus. AMOS 23.0 software was used to construct a structural equation model of the relationships among psychological capital, regulatory focus and team job crafting, and path analysis was performed on the association of the three variables. The bootstrap method was used to test the mediating effect of regulatory focus. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for 2000 bootstrap samples, and the values of the 95% CI that did not cross zero were considered to indicate a significant mediating effect. Given the cross-sectional design and the use of self-reported scales, the researchers performed Harman’s single-factor test to examine common method bias. All items of the three scales were entered into an unrotated principal component analysis. The first unrotated factor explained 29.2% of the total variance, which is below the 40% cutoff, indicating that common method bias did not significantly affect the results. P-values of all tests below .05 reflected statistical significance.

Results

Demographic Characteristics

A total of 465 clinical nurses, the average age was 32.92 years, comprising 412 females (88.6%) and 53 males (11.4%). Table 1 shows the characteristics of the study sample.

Table 1.

Comparison of Clinical Nurses’ Team Job Crafting With Different Demographic Characteristics (N=465)

Variables	Sample	team job crafting	t/F	P
Age (years old)
18-25	74	48.58±9.16	3.232	0.012
26-30	97	52.30±9.01
31-35	144	51.01±8.23
36-40	101	51.87±7.90
>40	49	53.30±5.81
Gender
Male	53	44.78±7.56	-6.631	<0.001
Female	412	52.16±8.08
Educational level
Junior college	25	52.98±9.07	0.549	0.578
Undergraduate	428	51.24±8.36
Master and above	12	50.67±6.26
Length of service (years)
<3	84	48.00±9.957	13.200	<0.001
3-5	62	48.27±9.03
6-10	108	50.33±8.46
11-20	173	53.63±6.64
>20	38	55.92±3.97
Marital status
Married	325	51.45±7.88	0.471	0.638
Single	140	51.02±9.38
Professional title
Junior	206	50.82±8.90	3.549	0.030
Intermediate	238	51.35±8.06
Advanced	21	55.88±3.47
Job position
None	423	51.05±8.53	3.299	0.038
Deputy head nurse	28	52.79±6.38
Nurse head	14	56.43±2.81
Employment mode
Contract system	370	51.26±8.52	2.288	0.103
Personnel agency	19	47.92±8.79
Formal establishment	76	52.45±7.20
Work department
Emergency	100	49.56±8.99	6.154	<0.001
Intensive care unit	52	47.85±7.82
Internal medicine	140	52.87±7.80
Surgery	72	54.11±6.59
Obstetrics and gynecology	39	52.37±7.54
Pediatrics	12	45.00±8.37
Operating room	29	48.33±10.35
Others	21	54.17±7.03
Monthly night shift frequency (times)
0	65	53.50±6.77	4.310	0.002
1-4	132	52.16±7.61
5-8	216	51.05±8.89
9-12	46	47.87±8.69
≥13	6	45.50±7.29

Scores of Clinical Nurses’ Psychological Capital and Regulatory Focus and Nurses’ Team Job Crafting

The mean score of clinical nurse’ psychological capital was 5.12±0.77, wherein the hope and sense of responsibility dimensions of psychological capital had the lowest and highest scores, respectively. The mean score on regulatory focus scale for nurses was 4.50±0.58, wherein the defensive focus item scored the higher (Table 2). The mean score of the nurses’ team job crafting scale was 3.95±0.64, with team job tasks crafting scoring the higher and team job cognition and relationships crafting the lower.

Table 2.

The Scores of Clinical Nurses’ Psychological Capital, Regulatory Focus and Team Job Crafting (n=465)

Variables	Score range	Scores (x±s)
Psychological capital	1-6	5.12±0.77
Hope	1-6	5.01±0.85
Collaborative communication	1-6	5.13±0.78
Emotional intelligence	1-6	5.17±0.82
Sense of responsibility	1-6	5.18±0.82
Resilience	1-6	5.15±0.86
Confidence	1-6	5.16±0.86
Regulatory focus	1-5	4.50±0.58
Promoting focus	1-5	4.47±0.61
Defensive focus	1-5	4.53±0.59
Team job crafting	1-5	3.95±0.64
Team job tasks crafting	1-5	3.95±0.67
Team job cognition and relationships Crafting	1-5	3.83±0.65

Comparison of Clinical Nurses’ Team Job Crafting With Different Demographic Characteristics

Table 1 revealed statistically significant variations in clinical nurses’ team job crafting scores across multiple demographic and occupational factors:age (F=3.232, P=0.012), gender (t=-6.631, P<0.001), length of service (F=13.200, P<0.001), professional title (F=3.549, P=0.030), job position (F=3.299, P=0.038), work department (F=6.154, P<0.001) and monthly night shift frequency (F=4.310, P=0.002).

Correlation Analysis of Clinical Nurses’ Psychological Capital, Regulatory Focus and Nurses’ Team Job Crafting

The results showed that there was a significant positive correlation between psychological capital and nurses’ team job crafting, and there was a significant positive correlation between adjustment focus and nurses’ team job crafting (Table 3).

Table 3.

Correlations Among Psychological Capital, Regulatory Focus, and Team Job Crafting (N= 465)

Variable	Psychological capital						Regulatory focus		Team job crafting
Variable	Hope	Collaborative communication	Emotional intelligence	Sense of responsibility	Resilience	Confidence	Promoting focus	Defensive focus	Team job tasks crafting	Team job cognition and relationships crafting
r(P)
Hope	1
Collaborative communication	0.81^**	1
Emotional intelligence	0.75^**	0.86^**	1
Sense of responsibility	0.73^**	0.80^**	0.86^**	1
Resilience	0.71^**	0.77^**	0.85^**	0.84^**	1
Confidence	0.74^**	0.76^**	0.81^**	0.86^**	0.84^**	1
Promoting focus	0.59^**	0.63^**	0.64^**	0.66^**	0.61^**	0.66^**	1
Defensive focus	0.57^**	0.61^**	0.63^**	0.65^**	0.61^**	0.64^**	0.87^**	1
Team job tasks crafting	0.54^**	0.55^**	0.54^**	0.60^**	0.52^**	0.60^**	0.77^**	0.75^**	1
Team job cognition and relationships crafting	0.56^**	0.58^**	0.58^**	0.63^**	0.55^**	0.63^**	0.82^**	0.80^**	0.88^**	1

Note. ^**:significant at .01.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis on Factors Influencing Clinical Nurses’ Team Job Crafting

A two-stage hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine predictors of team job crafting (Table 4), with Model 1 (demographic variables: age, gender, length of service and monthly night shift frequency) explaining 17.1% of the variance (p<0.001), and Model 2 (adding psychological capital and regulatory focus) significantly improving the prediction to 73.1% variance explained (ΔR²= 0.731, p <0.001). Key predictors in the final model included age, gender, length of service, as well as psychological factors (sense of responsibility, confidence, promoting focus, and defensive focus), with no multicollinearity (VIFs:1.081-2.107) or autocorrelation (Durbin-Watson=1.872) detected, and residual analysis confirming model assumptions.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Team Job Crafting (N=465)

Variable		Model 1					Model 2
Variable		B	S.E	β	t	P	B	S.E	β	t	P
General characteristics	Age (reference: 18-25 years old)	-1.339	0.509	-0.195	-2.632	0.009	-0.845	0.293	-0.123	-2.885	0.004
	Gender (reference: Male)	5.620	1.166	0.214	4.822	(<0.001)	1.647	0.686	0.063	2.402	0.017
	Length of service (reference: <3 years)	2.694	0.401	0.403	6.717	(<0.001)	0.827	0.238	0.124	3.473	0.001
	Professional title (reference: Junior)	-1.183	0.956	-0.081	-1.238	0.217	0.146	0.561	0.010	0.260	0.795
	Job position (reference: None)	0.555	1.025	0.027	0.542	0.588	0.108	0.587	0.005	0.183	0.855
	Work department (reference: Emergency)	0.110	0.186	0.025	0.592	0.554	-0.001	0.106	0.000	-0.011	0.991
	Monthly night shift frequency (reference: 0 times)	-1.267	0.435	-0.136	-2.911	0.004	0.030	0.253	0.003	0.117	0.907
Psychological capital	Hope						0.071	0.062	0.051	1.150	0.251
	Collaborative communication						0.009	0.099	0.005	0.091	0.927
	Emotional intelligence						-0.185	0.125	-0.091	-1.484	0.139
	Sense of responsibility						0.321	0.154	0.126	2.082	0.038
	Resilience						-0.239	0.128	-0.099	-1.869	0.062
	Confidence						0.317	0.133	0.130	2.388	0.017
regulatory focus	Promoting focus						1.019	0.118	0.449	8.661	(<0.001)
regulatory focus	Defensive focus						0.704	0.121	0.299	5.842	(<0.001)
F(p)		14.689(<0.001)					85.171(<0.001)
R ²		0.184					0.740
Adjusted R²		0.171					0.731

Mediation Effects of Regulatory Focus Between Psychological Capital and Team Job Crafting

The structural equation model was constructed with the total score of psychological capital as the independent variable, the total score of regulatory focus as the intermediary variable, and the total score of team job crafting as the dependent variable. The maximum likelihood method was used to estimate the parameters of the fitting degree of the model. After the initial model runs, the fitting indexes are unreasonable. The model was moderately modified according to the modified index and expected parameter change value in the output results, and the modified fitting indexes were within the acceptable range, indicating that the model has good fitting, as shown in Figure 1. The fitting indexes of the model was as follows: Chi-square/degrees of freedom (χ²/df) =2.810, Relative Fit Index (RFI) =0.978, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) =0.934, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) =0.991, Normed Fit Index (NFI) =0.985, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) =0.986, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) =0.062.

Figure 1.

Structural equation model of psychological capital, regulatory focus, and team job crafting

The load coefficients of the three potential variables and their observed variables in the figure were 0.790∼0.964, and the path coefficients of each potential variable were statistically significant (P<0.01). The bootstrap program (2000 sampling times) was used for significance test. The model showed that psychological capital had a direct positive predictive effect on team job crafting (β=0.446, P<0.01), psychological capital had a direct positive predictive effect on the regulatory focus (β=0.560, P<0.01), and the regulatory focus had a direct positive predictive effect on team job crafting (β=0.383, P<0.01). The regulatory focus played a partial mediating role between psychological capital and team job crafting, and the mediating value was (0.560) × (0.383)=0.214, and the total effect value was 0.446+0.214=0.660, the mediating effect accounted for 32.4% of the total effect (Table 5). This finding indicates partial mediation, meaning that psychological capital influences team job crafting through two pathways: a direct effect (β=0.446, 67.6% of total effect) and an indirect effect via regulatory focus (β=0.214, 32.4% of total effect). In other words, while psychological capital directly enhances nurses’ team job crafting, a substantial portion of its influence is channeled through regulatory focus, suggesting that regulatory focus serves as a key motivational mechanism linking personal resources to team-level proactive behaviors.

Table 5.

Results for the Total, Indirect, and Direct Effects of Psychological Capital on Team Job Crafting With Regulatory Focus as a Mediator (N=465)

Model pathways	Estimate	SE	95%CI		P	Effect proportion(%)
Model pathways	Estimate	SE	Lower	Upper	P	Effect proportion(%)
Direct effect	0.446	0.047	0.248	0.448	0.001	67.6
Indirect effect	0.214	0.034	0.114	0.221	0.001	32.4
Total effect	0.660	0.033	0.418	0.594	0.001	100.0

Abbreviations: CI, confdence interval; SE, standard error.

Discussion

The mean score of the nurses’ team job crafting scale was 3.95±0.64, indicating a moderately high level of engagement in collaborative work redesign behaviors, which was higher than the results reported by Iida et al. (Iida et al., 2021). This higher score may be attributable to the fact that all participants were recruited from tertiary general hospitals, where nurses typically have stronger clinical competencies, receive more rigorous training, and work in a team-oriented environment that encourages proactive work redesign. Additionally, the participating hospitals were located in economically developed regions with better healthcare resources. In contrast, Iida et al.’s sample included nurses from a wider range of hospital settings, potentially explaining the lower score in their study.

Moreover, results indicate that nurses respond to complexity by first reshaping team job tasks rather than cognition or relationships. This typically involves practical adjustments to workload, scope, or methods to fulfill objectives, followed by efforts to align team cognition and relational patterns. This trend aligns with the broader shift toward team-based care, in which collaborative decision-making and situational interaction naturally cultivate flexibility, interdependence, and collective efficacy. However, the study also reveals that dimensions related to team cognition and interpersonal relationship building scored relatively low, suggesting that teams may tend toward task-oriented, reactive coordination rather than relationship-oriented, proactive, and deep collaboration (Tuncer et al., 2025). Therefore, this study propose structured interventions centered on guided collective reflection—including regular collaborative debriefings and controlled role-rotation experiences—which can refine role understanding, deepen mutual trust, and foster a shared mental model for adaptive teamwork (Cannon-Bowers & Salas 1999).

This study indicated that older, female, and with long work experience have a higher level of team job crafting. In Liu’ study, The results for age were consistent with those of this study (Liu et al., 2020). This may be due to the clinical skills and knowledge level of junior nurses are limited, which can easily affect team work tasks and work efficiency. Moreover, younger nurses’ tendency to face the status of volatile income security and lower organizational loyalty, which makes them consider their team work efficiency as less important than their improvement of operational skills level. A survey showed that more than half of the nurses have low-level attitudes toward male nurses, male nurses have a lower sense of professional identity (Dhami et al., 2024). In China, the vast majority of nurses are female, with male nurses accounting for a very low proportion. They also face significant social biases and challenges related to professional identity (Wang, 2024). Low professional identity was not conducive to male nurses’ reflection and learning at work, which reduces the initiative and purpose of nursing work, thus hindering the positive behavior in future work and reducing the remodeling of team work. With the increase of length of service, the level of team job crafting showed an upward trend, which is consistent with the results of existing research (Iida et al., 2024). The accumulated expertise, skills, and clinical experience of long-serving nurses sharpen their observational and analytical abilities. According to Job Crafting Theory (Dutton, 2001), nurses adjust their work content and work relationships to better enhance the meaning and satisfaction of work. This progression enhances their nursing leadership, fosters collaborative relationships with physicians, patients, and colleagues, and facilitates both task- and relationship-focused remodeling within the team. Therefore, it is recommended to prioritize the cultivation of team job crafting among young nurses and male nurses. Specifically, a “Clinical Mentor Certification Program” could be designed for senior nurses, converting their expertise into standardized training modules to guide junior nurses. This approach would enhance professional belongingness and team collaboration, thereby improving team job crafting (Golfenshtein et al., 2024; Yuan et al., 2025).

The clinical nurses’ team job crafting was related to the level of sense of responsibility and self-confidence in psychological capital. High sense of responsibility makes it easier for nurses to form a positive attribution style and interpretation style, and have more perseverance and confidence in the face of work requirements, which helps to enhance the initiative, flexibility and openness in daily work and improve the level of work remodeling (Zhenfeng et al., 2025). Moreover, Nurses in a positive psychological state are more easily linked with and embedded in the organization and their job, and are more easily adaptive to and competent for their post (Han, 2023). Stelnicki & Carleton pointed out that nurses with high self-confidence level have higher nursing leadership (Stelnicki & Carleton 2021). Clinical leadership can improve the quality of nursing and patient outcomes, promote nurses’ job satisfaction and team cooperation (Guibert-Lacasa & Vázquez-Calatayud 2022). Therefore, it is recommended to utilize leadership behaviors to shape a team climate that supports the development of psychological capital, thereby enhancing nurses’ work engagement and occupational well-being, or to consolidate psychological capital by fostering a positive team identity, creating a psychologically safe and energizing environment where nurses feel empowered and motivated to engage in job crafting (Khattab et al., 2023; Tuncer Unver 2025; Wu et al., 2025).

This study found that regulatory focus had a partial mediating effect between clinical nurses’ psychological capital and team job crafting, indicating that clinical nurses’ psychological capital affects the level of team job crafting via the partial mediating effect of regulatory focus. The theory of regulatory focus points out that as a behavioral regulatory system of individuals, regulatory focus was a psychological regulatory tendency made by individuals in the process of achieving expected goals (Zhang et al., 2024). Nurses with promoting focus should keep working enthusiasm and creativity, conversely, nurses with defensive focus were committed to optimizing nursing processes and standards, the two complement each other and jointly promote the remodeling and improvement of team work performance (Li et al., 2023). The research results of Zhang et al. (Zhang et al., 2025) showed that psychological capital helps cultivate nurses’ regulatory focus tendency, which in turn affects their work potential and creativity, and promotes teamwork, and was consistent with the results of this study. The results of this study show that the clinical nurses’ team job crafting was affected by regulatory focus. According to the regulatory focus theory, the promotive focus individuals pursue growth, innovation and development, were willing to accept challenges, dare to take risks, and were more sensitive to the information of progress and achievements. Defensive focus individuals focused on safety and caution to avoid errors, which helps to improve the stability and reliability of work. The two kinds of regulatory focus were indispensable elements for the successful operation of the team in different work situations and stages. Therefore, managers should assess the psychological capital levels of nurses. For nurses exhibiting low self-efficacy and high burnout (weaker level), leaders should provide clear structural guidance and resource support, which helps activate their prevention focus—enabling them to rebuild confidence and regain control through process optimization and risk mitigation (Golfenshtein et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2025). Conversely, for nurses with strong psychological capital levels and high motivation, leaders should empower them to lead team innovation initiatives, encouraging them to leverage their promoting focus to explore new approaches. This strategy not only reinforces their hope and self-efficacy but also energizes the entire team (Tuncer Unver et al., 2025; Wu et al., 2025).

The applicability of this study to other regions and populations warrants discussion. Our sample was drawn exclusively from five tertiary hospitals in one province, where nurses have higher competencies and more favorable resources than those in secondary hospitals. Most participants were female, limiting generalizability to male nurses, and the local collectivist culture may also influence team job crafting levels. Future research should test this mediation model in diverse healthcare settings and cultural contexts to confirm robustness and strengthen the conclusions.

Implications for Practice

This study confirm that psychological capital and regulatory focus are positively associated with team job crafting among clinical nurses, with regulatory focus acting as a partial mediator. These results have direct implications for nursing management. To enhance team job crafting, nurse managers should first assess nurses’ psychological capital levels. For nurses with low psychological capital, providing structured guidance and clear role expectations can strengthen their defensive focus, helping them regain confidence through process optimization and error reduction. For nurses with high psychological capital, activating promoting focus—by encouraging innovation, delegating leadership in team improvement projects, and recognizing proactive behaviors—can foster team-level work redesign. Additionally, targeted training programs that combine psychological capital building with regulatory focus modulation may be particularly effective. Therefore, clinical nurse leaders, educators, and hospital administrators are encouraged to integrate these insights into routine team development and continuing education to improve both team performance and nurse retention.

Strengths and Limitations

This study has several strengths. First, it employed a large sample with adequate power, exceeding the minimum required size. Second, all instruments were well-validated in the Chinese nursing population with high reliability, and common method bias was not a major concern. Third, structural equation modeling with bootstrap methods enabled robust mediation testing while controlling measurement error. Fourth, the study provides actionable evidence for nursing management by identifying psychological capital and regulatory focus as leverage points to improve team job crafting.

However, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, convenience sampling from five hospitals in one province limits generalizability; future studies should use multi-regional probability sampling. Second, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inferences; longitudinal designs or randomized trials are needed. Third, self-reported questionnaires may introduce bias, though Harman’s test indicated this was not a major concern; multi-source data collection is recommended. Fourth, demographic variables explained only 17.1% of the variance, suggesting unmeasured factors (e.g., organizational culture, leadership styles) may influence outcomes; future research should integrate these variables.

Conclusion

This study verified the effects of regulatory focus and psychological capital on clinical nurses’ team job crafting and provided valuable information for nursing management and administration to improve the work efficiency and performance of nursing team. According to the study, the level of team job crafting at clinical nurses was acceptable, but it could still be further improved. Those who were older, female, and with long work experience had a higher level of team job crafting. Both regulatory focus and psychological capital are positively correlated with team job crafting, and psychological capital influences team job crafting partially through the mediating effect of regulatory focus. This suggests that nursing managers can effectively promote nurses’ participation in team collaboration and work optimization by intervening in their psychological capital and regulatory focus.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of all the participants in the collection of data.

ORCID iD

Xuebing Jing

Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Zibo Central Hospital (Approval No. 2025050). All participants provided written informed consent prior to participation. The study procedures were carried out in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent to Participate

All participants were informed about the purpose of the study, assured of confidentiality, and advised that participation was voluntary. Respondents could withdraw at any time without consequence.

Author Contributions

Shuo Wang: Writing-original draft, Investigation, Data curation, Project administration, Resource. Jie Yuan: Writing-original draft, Investigation, Data curation, Resources. Xiaojie Fang: Writing-review & editing, Data curation, Project administration. Yulian Wei: Writing-review &editing, Investigation, Methodology, Funding acquisition. Junjie Ma: Writing-review & editing, Project administration, Resources. Xuebing Jing: Writing-review & editing, Conceptualization, Data curation, Fundirg acquisition, Supervision, Resources.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Medical and Health Science and Technology Projects of Shandong Province in 2023 (Grant Nos. 202314020641) and the Medical and Health Research Project of ZiBo in 2024 (Grant Nos. 20242001129). The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication.

Declaration of Conflicting IHnterests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.*

References

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

Salas

(1999). Making Decisions under Stress: Implications for Individual and Team Training. Acta Psychologica, 103(3), 337-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00046-3

Chen

Kewou

N. Y. N.

Atingabili

Sogbo

A. D. Z.

Tcheudjeu

A. T.

(2024). The Impact of Psychological Capital on Nurses’ Job Performance: A Chain Mediation Analysis of Problem-focused Coping and Job Engagement. BMC nursing, 23(1), 149. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01802-6

Dhami

Shah

N. K.

Shah

K C

Pokhrel

K C

(2024). Perception of Female Nurse Towards Its Male Nurse Co-worker. Journal of Nepal Health Research Council, 22(2), 258–263. https://doi.org/10.33314/jnhrc.v22i02.5379

Ding

Tang

Zhang

Peng

Dong

Chen

(2024). The Effect of Work Readiness on Work Well-being for Newly Graduated Nurses: The Mediating Role of Emotional Labor and Psychological Capital. Journal of nursing scholarship, 56(5), 678–686. an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing . https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12976

Dutton

W. J. E.

(2001). Crafting a Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of their Work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.2307/259118

Fang

R. X.

G. C.

Wei

Zhang

L. X.

Wang

Zhou

X. J.

(2024). The Reliability and Validity of Chinese Version of the Team Job Crafting Scale for Nurses. Chinese Nursing Management, 24(1), 126–129. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2024.01.024

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical Power Analyses Using G*Power 3.1: Tests for Correlation and Regression Analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Flinkman

Coco

Rudman

Leino-Kilpi

(2023). Registered Nurses’ Psychological Capital: A Scoping Review. International journal of nursing practice, 29(5), Article e13183. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.13183

Goh

P. Q. L.

Ser

T. F.

Cooper

Cheng

L. J.

Liaw

S. Y.

(2020). Nursing Teamwork in General Ward Settings: A Mixed-methods Exploratory Study among Enrolled and Registered Nurses. Journal of clinical nursing, 29(19-20), 3802–3811. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15410

10.

Golfenshtein

Azriel

Drach-Zahavy

Srulovici

(2024). Exploring Nurse Mentors’ Job Crafting: A Longitudinal Study on Missed Nursing Care Across Student Supervision. Nurse education in practice, 80(80), Article 104143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2024.104143

11.

Guibert-Lacasa

Vázquez-Calatayud

(2022). Nurses’ Clinical Leadership in the Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review. Journal of nursing management, 30(4), 913–925. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13570

12.

Han

(2023). Nurses’ Job Crafting, Work Engagement, and Well-being: A Path Analysis. BMC nursing, 22(1), 405. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01573-6

13.

Higgins

E. T.

Friedman

R. S.

Harlow

R. E.

Idson

L. C.

Ayduk

O. N.

Taylor

(2001). Achievement Orientations from Subjective Histories of Success: Promotion Pride versus Prevention Pride. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 31(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.27

14.

Huang

Chen

Gao

Wang

Sun

(2022). Career Calling as the Mediator and Moderator of Job Demands and Job Resources for Job Satisfaction in Health Workers: A Cross-sectional Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(13), Article 856997. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.856997

15.

Hung

T. K.

Wang

C. H.

Tian

Yang

Y. J.

(2020). A Cross-level Investigation of Team-member Exchange on Team and Individual Job Crafting with the Moderating Effect of Regulatory Focus. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(6), 2044. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17062044

16.

Iida

Sakuraya

Watanabe

Imamura

Sawada

Akiyama

Komase

Miyamoto

Kawakami

(2024). The Association between Team Job Crafting and Work Engagement among Nurses: A Prospective Cohort Study. BMC Psychology, 12(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01538-7

17.

Iida

Watanabe

Imamura

Sakuraya

Kawakami

Sato

Nozawa

(2021). Development and Validation of the Japanese Version of the Team Job Crafting Scale for Nurses. Research in Nursing & Health, 44(2), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22110

18.

Khattab

S. M. A. K.

Sorour

M. S.

Abdelaliem

S. M. F.

(2023). Nurses Job Crafting: Correlation Between Organizational Identification and Workplace Attachment Among Nurses. The Journal of nursing administration, 53(12), 641–647. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000001360

19.

Kohnen

De Witte

Schaufeli

W. B.

Dello

Bruyneel

Sermeus

(2024). Engaging Leadership and Nurse Well-being: the Role of the Work Environment and Work Motivation-a Cross-sectional Study. Human resources for health, 22(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-023-00886-6

20.

Lee

E. Y.

Kim

(2023). Effects of Clinical Nurses’ Job Crafting on Organizational Effectiveness based on Job Demands-resource Model. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 53(1), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.22138

21.

Sun

Zhou

(2023). The Association between Character Strengths and Job Crafting among Nurses in Tertiary Hospitals: A Cross-sectional Survey. Nursing Open, 10(8), 5720–5727. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.1823

22.

Liu

C. E.

Xie

Liu

(2020). The Moderated-Mediation Effect of Workplace Anxiety and Regulatory Focus in the Relationship between Work-Related Identity Discrepancy and Employee Innovation. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(17), 6121. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176121

23.

Liu

Wang

Shan

Zhang

Liu

(2022). Job Crafting and Nurses’ Presenteeism: the Effects of Job Embeddedness and Job Irreplaceability. Frontiers in Public Health, 10(6), Article 930083. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.930083

24.

Meng

Jiang

Chen

(2024). The Effect of Perceived Organizational Justice on Workplace Deviant Behavior of New Nurses: The Role of Emotional Labor and Psychological Capital. BMC nursing, 23(1), 288. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-024-01937-6

25.

Orgambídez

Borrego

Cantero-Sánchez

F. J.

León-Pérez

J. M.

(2025). Relationship between Psychological Capital and Nursing Burnout: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. International nursing review, 72(3), Article e13072. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.13072

26.

Qiu

Jing

Liu

Zhang

Liu

Chen

(2025). The relationship between organizational commitment, psychological capital, positive coping styles, and perceived professional benefit among new nurses: a longitudinal study. BMC nursing, 24(1), 886. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-03524-9

27.

Rosengarten

(2019). Teamwork in Nursing: Essential Elements for Practice. Nursing Management, 26(4), 36–43. (Harrow, London, England: 1994 . https://doi.org/10.7748/nm.2019.e1850

28.

Simpson-Collins

Fry

Sheppard-Law

(2023). The Influence of Busyness on the Therapeutic Relationship, Nursing Activities and Teamwork: An Ethnography. Comprehensive child and adolescent nursing, 46(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694193.2022.2160517

29.

Stahlke

Dahlke

(2020). The Relational Role of Managers in Support of Teamwork. Nursing leadership (Toronto, Ont.), 33(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.12927/cjnl.2020.26187

30.

Stelnicki

A. M.

Carleton

R. N.

(2021). Nursing Leadership Has an Important Role in the Management of Nurses’ Mental Health. Nursing leadership (Toronto, Ont.), 34(2), 12–15. https://doi.org/10.12927/cjnl.2021.26537

31.

Tuncer

U. , G.

Celebi Cakiroglu

Boduc

(2025). Team Job Crafting as a Mediator between Sparking Leadership and Work Engagement among Nurses: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Journal of health organization and management, 10(29), 1-16. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-05-2025-0255

32.

Wallace

Chen

(2010). A Multilevel Integration of Personality, Climate, Self-regulation, and Performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 529–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00046.x

33.

Wang

J. W.

(2024). Research on the Multiple Dilemmas and Adjustment Strategies of Male Nurses’ Identity Identification. Nanjing University of Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.27241/d.cnki.gnjgu.2024.001563

34.

Sui

Xia

Zhang

Zhou

Dong

Huang

Zhang

Gong

Zhuang

(2025). The Mediating Effect of Team Job Crafting on the Association Between Transformational Leadership and Occupational Well-Being in Newly Graduated Nurses. Journal of advanced nursing, 11(7), 1-15. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.70313

35.

Hou

Niu

Zhang

Z. B.

(2023). Revision of the Regulatory Focus Scale for Nurses and Its Reliability and Validity Test. Chinese Nursing Research, 37(7), 1169–1173. https://doi.org/10.12102/j.issn.1009-6493.2023.07.008

36.

Yuan

Z. Q.

Wang

J. L.

Jin

Teng

(2023a). Development and Reliability and Validity of a Psychological Capital Scale for Nurses. Chinese Journal of Nursing, 58(1), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.3761/j.issn.0254-1769.2023.01.011

37.

Yuan

Yin

Zhang

Fiorini

(2025). Job Crafting in Nursing: A Conceptual Analysis for Theoretical Advancements in Nursing Practice. Journal of Nursing Management, 8(17), Article 6599866. https://doi.org/10.1155/jonm/6599866

38.

Yuan

Zhang

Wang

Jin

Teng

Wang

(2023b). Levels of Psychological Capital among Nurses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. International nursing review, 70(1), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12803

39.

Zhang

Tian

Zhang

Chen

Zhang

Lin

Sun

Cheng

Ding

Song

(2023b). The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital on the Relationship between Authentic Leadership and Nurses’ Caring Behavior: A Cross-sectional Study. BMC Nursing, 22(1), 441. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-023-01610-4

40.

Zhang

Zhu

Liao

(2025a). Relationships between Psychological Capital, Quality of Work Life and Career Success among Nurse Managers in Tertiary General Hospitals: A Cross-sectional Study. BMC nursing, 24(1), 1182. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-03854-8

41.

Zhang

Zhu

Huang

(2024). Regulatory Focus as a Mediator in the Relationship between Nurses’ Organizational Silence and Professional Identity. Journal of advanced nursing, 80(9), 3625–3636. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16113

42.

Zhenfeng

Wu.

Junjie

Ma.

Shuo

(2025). Analysis of the Status and Influencing Factors of Clinical Nurses’ Team Job Crafting. Journal of Nursing, 32(5), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.16460/j.issn1008-9969.2025.05.071

43.

Zhou

X. H.

Duan

D. F.

Chen

Zhang

Y. J.

Gong

Chen

(2025). The Effect of Team Job Crafting on Professional Quality of Life Among Nurses: A Latent Profile Analysis. Journal of nursing management, 7(15), Article 2320459. https://doi.org/10.1155/jonm/2320459