Purpose This study aims to explore how employees navigate the intertwined challenges of sustainability and digitalization – referred to as the twin transformation – through integrative job crafting. Specifically, it examines how employees interpret competing transformation logics through perception-based sensemaking and translate these interpretations into proactive role redesign. Design/methodology/approach We conducted a qualitative study in a global Big Four professional services firm and analyzed 32 semi-structured interviews using Gioia-inspired coding to develop a process model of integrative job crafting under the twin transformation. Findings The findings reveal a dynamic and iterative process in which employees interpret competing transformation logics through perception-based sensemaking (e.g. interpretive ambiguity, legitimacy uncertainty, perceived coherence, and perceived scope for action), which in turn enables integrative job crafting practices, including integrative task crafting, digital resource enactment, peer-supported relational crafting, and coherence-building cognitive crafting. Over time, these practices generate reinforcing learning loops and culminate in hybrid role identities and employee-driven innovation. Practical implications Organizations pursuing the twin transformation should recognize employees as active sensemakers and support employees' integrative job crafting through consistent leadership, enabling digital tools, and cross-team learning, thereby fostering bottom-up innovation aligned with sustainability and digitalization goals. Originality/value This study provides one of the first process-based models of job crafting under the twin transformation. It extends job crafting theory by conceptualizing competing transformation logics as a distinct contextual condition and by explaining how perception-based sensemaking connects organizational conditions with integrative job crafting. The study also demonstrates how these processes contribute to hybridization and employee-driven innovation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gennaro et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: