Haenggli Hirschi 2020 Career+Adaptability+and+Career+Success Preprint

CAREER ADAPTABILITY AND CAREER SUCCESS 1
This is an unedited manuscript published in the Journal of Vocational Behavior.

Please note that the published version underwent minor additional editing in style and content.
Complete reference:
Haenggli, M., & Hirschi, A. (2020). Career Adaptability and Career Success in the Context of a Broader
Career Resources Framework. Journal of Vocational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103414
Career Adaptability and Career Success in the Context of a Broader Career Resources
Framework
Madeleine Haenggli and Andreas Hirschi
University of Bern, Switzerland
Author Note
Acknowledgement: This research was financially supported by the Foundation “Stiftung Suzanne
and Hans Biäsch zur Förderung der Angewandte Psychologie” with an individual research grant
awarded to Andreas Hirschi. The funding source had no involvement in the study design, the
collection, analysis and interpretation of data, the writing of the report, or the decision to submit
the article for publication.
Declarations of competing interest: none.
Address all correspondence about this manuscript to Madeleine Haenggli, Work and
Organizational Psychology, University of Bern, Institute of Psychology, Fabrikstrasse 8, 3012
Bern, Switzerland, [email protected]
Highlights
- We consider career adaptability (CA) resources in a broader resource framework.
- CFA support the theoretically presumed distinction between CA and other career
resources.
- Subjective career success (SCS) was assessed with a multidimensional measurement.
- Objective career success (OCS) was assessed in terms of salary.
- We found incremental utility of different career resources for SCS and OCS beyond CA.
Abstract
Increasing dynamics of careers make the development and application of different career
resources important for successful career development. The study aimed to understand how
different career resources are related to each other and different forms of career success.
Examining 574 employees with 3-waves of 1-month time lags, we assessed relations between
key resources (i.e., self-esteem and optimism), career adaptability resources (i.e., concern,
control, curiosity, confidence), and knowledge/skills, motivational, and environmental career
resources and their predictive utility for different forms of subjective and objective career
success (i.e., salary). Results showed that career adaptability resources are highly related to other
types of career resources, but career adaptability and other career resources each explain unique
variance in different facets of career success. Using relative weight analyses, we found that
especially motivational and environmental career resources are meaningfully positively related
to different facets of subjective career success, whereas knowledge and skills career resources
are most prominently positively related to objective career success. Under consideration of other
career resources, career adaptability related negatively to salary. The findings contribute to
career construction theory by situating career adaptability within a broader resource framework
in relation to career success.
Keywords: Career adaptability; Career resources; Key resources; Subjective career

success; Objective career success; Career construction theory
Career Adaptability and Career Success in the Context of a Broader Career Resources
Framework
Now more than ever, individuals are faced with a constantly changing work environment which
is a result of job restructuring, technological advancements, and globalization (Greenhaus,
Callanan, & Godshalk, 2009). These changes have made careers less predictable, and people
need to take increasing responsibility for their own career development (e.g., Lawrence, Hall,
Arthur, De Vos, Van der Heijden, 2015). As a consequence, self-directed and individually
customized career paths have gained importance, and personal resources (e.g., career
adaptability resources) are becoming more and more relevant for successful career development
(Savickas, 2013). Career adaptability (CA) is defined as a psychosocial resource that represents
“the readiness to cope with the predictable tasks of preparing for and participating in the work
role, and with the unpredictable adjustments prompted by changes in work and working
conditions (Savickas, 1997, p. 254)”. It comprises four factors: concern about the future helps
individuals look ahead and prepare for what might come next, control refers to taking
responsibility for one’s career by using self-discipline, curiosity means having an inquisitive
attitude toward possible future selves, and confidence refers a person being able to actualize
choices to implement their life design. CA is a core construct in career construction theory
(CCT; Savickas, 2005), which posits that individuals differ in their willingness (adaptivity) and
ability (adaptability) to engage in positive career-related behaviors (adapting). These adapting
behaviors, in turn, lead to successful adaptation, experienced as career success (Savickas, 2013).
Research on CA has considerably increased in recent years, and most studies have
focused on predictors and outcomes of CA (Johnston, 2018; Rudolph, Lavigne, & Zacher, 2017).
This research generally supports the utility of the four CA resources for explaining a range of
outcomes, for example, career satisfaction (Rudolph et al., 2017). However, few studies have
examined CA in the context of other pivotal career resources or attempted to evaluate the
incremental utility of CA in a broader career resources context. This seems important because
the four specific resources that constitute CA in terms of concern, control, curiosity, and
confidence are only some of many career resources that allow people to successfully manage
their careers (Hirschi, 2012). In fact, in an overview of relevant literature, Hirschi, Nagy,
Baumeler, Johnston, and Spurk (2018) have identified ten important career resources that
encompass knowledge and skills, and motivational and environmental resources, all of which
have been shown to be critical for career success (e.g., Ng & Feldman, 2014a; Ng & Feldman,
2014b). The large number of resources potentially important for successful career development
raises the question of how different types of resources are related to each other, and what their
combined and unique effect is on pivotal career outcomes, such as subjective and objective
career success. However, few studies have used a resource framework to investigate predictors
of subjective and objective career success (e.g., Spurk, Hirschi, & Dries, 2018). Based on a
systematic review of the career success literature, Spurk et al. (2018) concluded that more
research is needed not only to identify the most important antecedents of career success, but also
to identify the relative importance of different factors for various aspects of career success.
To address these issues, in the current paper, we draw on conservation of resources
(COR) theory (Hobfoll, 2002; Hobfoll, Halbesleben, Neveu, & Westman, 2018) to provide an
integrative framework of CA resources in relation to other types of (career) resources and career
success. COR theory is, in its essence, a motivational theory that explains human behavior based
on the evolutionary need to acquire and conserve personal and social resources for survival
(Hobfoll et al., 2018). COR theory is thus a meta-theory of how people use different resources to
attain personally valued goals. Within this general theoretical approach, CA resources and other
(career) resources can be seen in an integrative way as factors that help people attain the
personally valued aims of subjective and objective career success. In the present study, we focus
on CA in relation to other career-specific resources which we assume to be on the same
conceptual level (e.g., no traits and developable). In addition, we include general psychological
resources (i.e., key resources) which are relevant for career development. Specifically, these key
resources (e.g., self-esteem) are important, based on conservation of resources (COR) theory,
because they represent resources that enable the selection, alteration, and implementation of
other resources, e.g. CA, knowledge and skills, and motivational and environmental resources
(Hobfoll, 2002; Hobfoll et al., 2018). Thus, these key resources are necessary for other resources
to be obtained and applied. Also, in career construction theory, such key resources may be seen
as adaptivity, or the adaptive readiness of a person (Porfeli & Savickas, 2012). However,
existing research has not addressed the issue how such key resources are related to CA versus
other career resources.
In sum, although the utility of CA is well demonstrated, we currently lack an
understanding of how CA relates to other career resources, how key resources differently relate
to CA and other career resources, and what the relative importance of CA versus other career
resources is in relation to pivotal career outcomes (i.e., adaptation results), such as subjective and
objective career success. This knowledge would be important for a deeper understanding of the
functioning of CA vis-à-vis other career resources and could thus meaningfully contribute to
career construction theory specifically, and research on career development and career success
more broadly.
To address these issues, the main objectives of the present paper are, first, to examine the
relation of CA resources to other types of career resources (i.e., knowledge/skills, motivational,
environmental) and key resources (i.e., self-esteem and optimism) and second, to examine the
relative importance and incremental utility of CA resources compared to other types of career
resources in relation to different facets of career success. Hence, our study contributes to a better
understanding of the specific role of CA resources for subjective and objective career success
within a larger nomological net of resources.
The Role of Career Resources for Career Development

In recent years, a number of researchers have demonstrated the importance of different
career resources for career development (Hirschi, 2012; Hobfoll, 2002; Hobfoll et. al., 2018).
Generally, career resources can be defined as entities that are valuable in their own right (e.g.,
self-esteem) or entities that can act as means to acquiring valued (career) outcomes (e.g., career
satisfaction: Hobfoll, 2002; Hobfoll et al., 2018). A growing body of research has focused on CA
as a career resource in the last decade (e.g., Johnston, 2018; Maggiori, Johnston, Krings,
Massoudi, & Rossier, 2013; Zacher, 2014). In career construction theory, the model of adaptation
(Hirschi, Herrmann, & Keller, 2015; Savickas, 2013; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012; Tolentino et al.,
2014) suggests that CA is significantly related to adaptivity (e.g., self-esteem or optimism) and
adaptation outcomes (e.g., career success). A recent meta-analysis from Rudolph et al. (2017)
confirmed that CA is significantly associated with measures of adaptivity (e.g., self-esteem and
optimism), adapting responses (e.g., career exploration and career planning), and adaptation
results (e.g., career identity, career satisfaction). However, CA resources are only some among
several critical resources necessary for successful career development (Hirschi, 2012). We thus
aim to situate CA resources within a broader career resources framework that also encompasses
key resources and different personal and environmental career resources.
Key Resources for Career Development

Apart from CA resources, one important type of resource relevant for successful career
development are key resources. Key resources (such as self-esteem and optimism) describe a
specific subtype of personal resources according to COR theory (Hobfoll, 2002; Hobfoll et al.,
2018). In essence, key resources are typically considered as stable traits (Ten Brummelhuis &
Bakker, 2012), which enable the selection, utilization, and alteration of other personal resources
(Hobfoll et al., 2018). The concept of key resources helps us to understand how other resources
are utilized (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker 2012). Thus, people employ key resources not only to
deal with stressors, but also to build or sustain a reservoir of resources for times of future need
(Hobfoll et al., 2018). Such a reservoir of sustaining resources might consist of CA or other
career resources relevant for successful career development.
In our study, we specifically focus on the key resources of self-esteem and optimism,
which are specifically mentioned as key resources in previous studies (e.g., Ten Brummelhuis &
Bakker, 2012; Hobfoll et al., 2018) and are broadly recognized as important personality traits in
career developmental studies (e.g., Rudolph et al., 2017). Self-esteem is important because a
growing body of evidence supports the notion that self-esteem does have substantial
consequences in different life domains (Orth, 2017; Orth & Robins, 2014). More specifically, a
recent meta-analysis showed that self-esteem is an important factor for being satisfied and
successful at work (Orth, Erol, & Luciano, 2018). There is also evidence from longitudinal
studies (e.g. Kuster, Orth, & Meier, 2013, Orth, Robins, & Widaman, 2012) that suggests that
self-esteem is positively related to work success. Similarly, many studies have investigated the
relation between optimism and being successful and satisfied. A substantial amount of literature
confirms that people who are higher in dispositional optimism have higher levels of subjective
well-being, and a larger number and higher quality of social relationships (Mens, Scheier,
Carver, 2016). Several studies have suggested that optimism creates an approach orientation such
that people feel empowered to work towards goals rather than feel a need to withdraw or avoid
harm, which makes desirable outcomes less likely (Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005; Wrosch,
Scheier, & Miller, 2003). Specifically, people who are more optimistic will improve performance
which then increases the chance of success (Tenney, Logg, More, 2015). Research has also
specifically confirmed that optimism is positively related to subjective (e.g., Spurk, Kauffeld,
Barthauer, & Heinemann, 2015) and objective (Lounsbury et al., 2003) career success. In
addition, previous studies (e.g., Cai et al., 2015; Rudolph et al., 2017; Tolentino et al., 2014)
found a positive relation of self-esteem and optimism and CA resources. In sum, a substantial
body of research supports the importance of self-esteem and optimism as two pivotal key
resources according to COR theory for successful career development. Moreover, in CCT, these
key resources can be conceptualized as representing adaptivity which is the personality trait of
flexibility of willingness to adapt (Savickas, 2013). Hence, based on previous theoretical
implications and previous research, considering self-esteem and optimism in a broader resource
framework that links CA resources with other resources and career success seems important and
meaningful.
Knowledge/Skills, Motivational, and Environmental Career Resources

To deal successfully with career challenges and achieve career success, a range of
different resources are important (Ng & Feldman, 2014a, 2014b). For this study, we draw on the
career resources framework by Hirschi (2012) and its further development and operationalization
by Hirschi et al. (2018). Hirschi et al. (2018) developed a framework of pivotal career resources
that integrates existing empirical and theoretical work on different resources that are needed for
successful career development. To identify these critical resources, Hirschi et al. (2018) did an
extensive literature search in career studies concentrating on predictors of career success that can
be actively developed. This resulted in the identification of three main resources categories,
which are confirmed by international research to be critical for attaining career success (e.g., Ng
& Feldman, 2014a; Ng & Feldman, 2014b): knowledge and skills resources, motivational
resources, and environmental resources. Each of the three resource domains consists of three to
four specific resources (e.g., occupational expertise, clarity, job challenge). The study conducted
by Hirschi et al. (2018) demonstrated that all postulated factors correlated significantly and
positively with career satisfaction, job satisfaction, salary, and promotions. Thus, the career
resources model suggests a broad set of resources that are important for attaining career success.
Several studies have suggested that CA resources are related to other types of career
resources. Regarding knowledge and skills resources, positive associations between problem-
solving and decision-making skills, interactive (team) skills, communication skills, and CA were
confirmed (Coetzee, Ferreira, & Potgieter, 2015; de Guzman & Choi, 2013). Regarding
motivational career resources, Haibo, Xiaoyu, Xiaoming, and Zhijin (2017) tested the relation
between CA, organizational success, and individual career success with the moderating effect of
career identity. Career adaptability was positively related to career satisfaction and, in addition,
stronger for employees with high levels of career identity. For environmental resources, Savickas
and Porfeli (2012) stated that employees with high levels of CA can maintain good relationships
with their supervisors and co-workers and are therefore more likely to stay in organizations with
comfortable social relations and networks. In line with that, several studies confirmed the
relation of career adaptability resources and certain environmental features, such as social
support (Duffy, 2010; Tian & Fan, 2014).
In sum, studies showed that CA relates positively to specific different career resources in
terms of human capital, and motivational, and environmental resources. However, no study
systematically investigated CA in a broader resource framework, which would be important for
gaining a better understanding of the broader nomological net of CA in relation to other
resources. Therefore, the empirical relation of CA, key resources, and other career resources
should be clarified, especially the incremental utility of CA beyond other career resources for
subjective and objective career success. Combining CCT and COR theory, we conceptualize CA,
knowledge and skills, motivational, and environmental career resources on the same level of
analysis as psycho-social resources that are predicted by more basic key resources (i.e.,
adaptiveness). Therefore, we propose that the adaptive readiness of a person (or adaptivity), in
terms of the key resources self-esteem and optimism, is positively related to increased CA and
other career resources. Moreover, we presume that CA is positively related to other types of
career resources.
Hypothesis 1: Key resources, in terms of self-esteem and optimism, are positively related
to (a) CA resources, (b) knowledge and skills career resources, (c) motivational career
resources, and (d) environmental career resources.
Hypothesis 2: CA resources are positively related to (a) knowledge and skills career
resources, (b) motivational career resources, and (c) environmental career resources.
Predictive Utility of Career and Key Resources for Career Success

Past research has revealed that CA is positively related to career success (Haibo et al.,
2017; Tolentino et al., 2014, Zacher, 2014). Subjective career success is typically measured by
variables that capture individuals’ subjective judgments about their career attainment, such as
career satisfaction (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990). Objective career success is
defined as directly observable by others and typically measured by standardized indicators such
as salary (Spurk et al., 2019). Theoretically, CA is an important individual resource that can help
employees to successfully manage their career development, thereby enhancing their career
success (Savickas, 1997; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). In addition to CA, research has also
confirmed that several other types of career resources, in terms of knowledge and skills career
resources, motivational career resources, and environmental career resources, are also positively
related to subjective and objective career success (Hirschi et al., 2018; Ng & Feldman, 2014a;
Ng & Feldman, 2014b). These resources are critical for people to manage their careers
successfully and represent important personal means to achieve career goals.
Hypothesis 3. (a) CA, (b) knowledge and skills career resources, (c) motivational career
resources, and (d) environmental career resources are positively related to subjective and
objective career success.
Relative Importance of Resources in Predicting Career Success Dimensions
In addition to examining the relation of CA with other resources and career success, we
were interested in investigating the utility of CA relative to other career resources in predicting
different career success dimensions. The unidimensional measurement of subjective career

success has been criticized in several studies (e.g., Shockley, Ureksoy, Rodopman, Poteat, &
Dullaghan, 2016). Based on qualitative and quantitative research, Shockley et al. (2016)
introduced a multidimensional conceptualization of subjective career success comprising eight
facets: authenticity (shaping the direction of one’s career according to personal need and
preferences), growth and development (growing in one’s career through the development of new
knowledge and skills), influence (having an impact on others within the organization and on the
organization itself), meaningful work (engaging in work that is personally or socially valued),
personal life (having a career that positively impacts life outside of work), quality work
(producing a high-quality product or providing high-quality service), recognition (being formally
or informally acknowledged for your work by valued others), and satisfaction (positive affect or
feelings toward one’s career in general).
However, existing research on CA has not yet taken into account that subjective career
success can consist of different facets. Indeed, most studies focused only on the general
representation of subjective career success in terms of career satisfaction (Rudolph et al., 2017).
Advancing these studies, we herein focus on a multidimensional measure of subjective career
success to explore the unique relations of CA and other career resources for different facets of
subjective career success. In addition, we also examine how CA and other career resources
uniquely relate to objective career success in terms of salary. Assessing the unique contribution
of each resource can facilitate the understanding of the relative importance of certain resources
for specific career success aspects. Owing to the fact that the relative importance of different
career resources for career success facets has not yet been investigated, we decided to address
this question in an exploratory way:
Research Question: What is the relative importance of CA and other career resources
(knowledge and skills, motivation, environment) in predicting different dimensions of subjective
career success (recognition, quality work, meaningful work, influence, authenticity, personal life,
growth and development, and career satisfaction) and objective career success (salary)?
Methods
Sample and Procedure

Participants were recruited through an online panel service that invited people on the
basis of our selection criteria: employed in private industry (not self-employed or in public
service), aged between 18 and 65, and working a minimum of 16 h/week. Initially, 734 people
filled in the survey, of which 160 (22%) were excluded because they failed to correctly answer
quality check items (n = 148) or showed patterns of speeding (less than 2 s/item; Huang, Curran,
Keeney, Poposki, & DeShon, 2012) or streamlining (patterns based on clicking through the
survey, e.g., flatlining; DeSimone & Harms, 2018) (n = 12). The final sample at T1 thus
consisted of 574 people (55% women), 30% had secondary school as their highest educational
achievement, 13% had obtained a high school degree, 33% had completed vocational training,
and 23% had a university degree. The majority of the participants were German (98%) and
worked an average of 35 h per week (ranging from 16 to 80 h), had an average organizational
tenure of 10 years (ranging from 0 to 45 years), and earned EUR 2’522 per month on average
(ranging from EUR 250 to EUR 20’000 per month converted to a workload of 100%). The
participants were working in a wide range of fields, including health care (14%), trade (12%),
private services (7%), transport/logistics (7%) production (6%), education (6%), construction
(3%), financial services (3%), and IT (3%).
All responders were invited to participate in a follow-up survey one month later (T2; 395
responders; response rate 69%) and two months later (T3; 360 responders; total response rate
from T1 63%). The purpose of a time-lagged data collection was to reduce common method bias
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Self-esteem and optimism were assessed at
T1, CA and the three career resources at T2, and subjective career success at T3. We checked for
attrition effects but found that participants who completed the survey only at T1 did not differ
significantly from those who completed two or all three measurement points on the T1 variables.
To avoid listwise deletion that can bias results, data were analyzed for the entire sample
participating at T1 (N = 574), and missing data were estimated with Full Information Maximum
Likelihood (FIML) in R.
Measures
Unless otherwise stated, all measures used a five-point response scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Mean, standard deviations, and Cronbach alphas are
reported in Table 1.
Self-esteem. We used the German adaptation of Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale (RSES;
Ferring & Filipp, 1996; revised version from von Collani & Herzberg, 2003) consisting of ten
items (e.g., “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”). Supporting criterion validity, the RSES
correlated significantly and positively with different affective-motivational constructs, such as
hopelessness or emotional mental state (Ferring & Filipp, 1996). Also, the Cronbach alpha for
the global scale showed a satisfactory value with α =.88 in other samples (Roth, Decker,
Herzberg, & Brähler, 2008).
Optimism. Dispositional optimism was assessed with the German Life-Orientation Test
(LOT-R; Scheier, Carver, Bridges, 1994; German version from Glaesmer, Hoyer, Klotsche, &
Herzberg, 2008). The scale consists of six items (e.g., “In uncertain times, I usually expect the
best”). Supporting criterion validity, the LOT-R correlated significantly and positively with
quality of life and negatively with depression (Herzberg, Glaesmer, & Hoyer, 2006). Despite the
relatively low reliability value in some other samples (α = .59; Glaesmer et al., 2008), the
Cronbach’s alpha in our sample was satisfactory with α = .89.
Career adaptability. We used the short form German Career Adapt-Ability Scale
(CAAS-SF; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012; German version: Maggiori et al., 2017). Participants were
asked to evaluate their skills using a five-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (not
strong) to 5 (strongest). The scale consists of 12 items divided equally into the four subscales:
concern (e.g., “Thinking about what my future will be like”), control (e.g., “Making decisions by
myself”), curiosity (e.g., “Looking for opportunities to grow as a person”), and confidence (e.g.,
“Performing tasks efficiently”). Whereas the four aspects of CA are not redundant, research
supports the applicability of the scale by using a total score (Maggiori et al., 2017). For our
research purposes, the total score seemed more appropriate because we are interested in
examining CA in relation to other types of resources, and not in the functioning of specific facets
of CA resources. Supporting criterion validity, the CA resources correlated significantly and
positively with different work and career variables, such as work engagement, employability, and
job satisfaction (Maggiori et al., 2017). Also, the Cronbach alpha of each dimension (α = .76
- .83) and the global score (α = .90) showed satisfactory values in other samples (Maggiori et al.,
2017).
Career resources. We used the Career Resources Questionnaire (CRQ; Hirschi et al.,
2018; German version from Hirschi et al., 2019) to assess knowledge and skills, motivational
and environmental career resources. Knowledge and skills resources encompass three subscales:
occupational expertise (3 items; e.g., “I have a very high level of expertise and skill in my
occupation”), job market knowledge (3 items; e.g., “I have a good overview of employment
trends in the labor market”), and soft skills (3 items; e.g., “I have many skills that I could use in a
range of different occupations)”. Motivational career resources encompass three subscales:
involvement (3 items; e.g., “Work is an essential part of my life)”, confidence (4 items; e.g., “I
believe that I can successfully manage career-related challenges)”, and clarity (3 items; e.g., “I
have a clear understanding of what I want to achieve in my career)”. Environmental resources
encompass four subscales: career opportunities (3 items; e.g., “My organization holds many
interesting positions for my future career”), organizational support (3 items; e.g., “My
organization actively supports my career development”), job challenge (3 items; e.g., “My work
allows me to fully utilize my professional skills”), and social support (4 items; e.g., “I receive a
high level of career support from my social environment)”. Confirmatory factor analyses showed
that the 3-factor solution with the 3 higher-level dimensions knowledge and skills career
resources, motivational career resources, and environmental career resources (Hirschi et al.,
2019; Hirschi et al., 2018) exhibited satisfactory fit in our sample (χ2 = 1192.270, df = 451, CFI
= .92, RMSEA = .07, TLI = .91). We thus focused on the total scores of these three resource
types, and not the single resources facets (in correspondence with our treatment of CA).
Supporting construct validity, the scale is highly correlated with existing scales measuring
closely related constructs, for example, occupational awareness, career self-efficacy, and
organizational support for development. Supporting criterion validity, all CRQ factors correlated
significantly and positively with important subjective and objective career outcomes, such as
career and job satisfaction, as well as salary and promotions (Hirschi et al., 2019; Hirschi et al.,
2018). Also, the Cronbach alpha of each scale showed satisfactory values (α = .82- .92) in other
samples (Hirschi et al., 2019; Hirschi et al., 2018).
Subjective career success. Multidimensional subjective career success was assessed
with the Subjective Career Success Inventory (SCSI; Shockley et al., 2016). The scale was
translated by the authors into German with a double-blind translation followed by a
reconsolidation meeting and final version upon mutual agreement (Van de Vijver & Leung,
1997). Participants were asked to answer the questions by using the stem “Considering my
career as a whole…”. The scale consists of 24 items divided equally into eight subscales, with
three items each: satisfaction (e.g., “My career is personally satisfying”), growth and
development (e.g., “I have stayed current with changes in my field”), authenticity (e.g., “I have
chosen my own career path”), influence (“decisions that I have made have impacted my
organization”), personal life (“I have been able to have a satisfying life outside of work”),
meaningful work (e.g., “I believe my work has made a difference”), quality work (e.g., “I am
proud of the quality of the work I have produced”), and recognition (e.g., “I have been
recognized for my contributions”). Regarding construct validity, Shockley et al. (2016) report
satisfactory evidence for criterion-related, convergent, and discriminant validity for each of the
eight dimensions, as well as for the global scale. Also, the Cronbach alpha of each dimension (α
= .74 - .92) and the global score (α = .94) showed satisfactory values in other samples Shockley
et al. (2016).
Objective career success. We assessed salary as a typical indictor of objective career
success (Spurk et al., 2019) measured as gross income in the last month ranging from (1) < EUR
500 to (21) > EUR 10’000. We converted the indicated salary into a logarithmic value
standardized for a workload of 100% (40 h per week).
Control variables. We considered age in years, gender (1 = female, 2 = male),
educational level (1 = secondary school; 2 = vocational training, 3 = high school degree, 3 =
university degree), organizational tenure in years, and working hours per week as control
variables.
Analytical Procedure
We used R Version R 3.4.3 (R Core Team, 2017) to estimate confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA), for structural equation modelling (SEM), and conduct relative weight analyses using the
packages psych (Revelle, 2017), lavaan (Rosseel, 2012), and relaimpo (Grömping, 2006). In a
first step, we tested the data for multivariate normality and found that the data showed significant
multivariate skewness and kurtosis, indicating multivariate nonnormality (Cain, Zhang, & Yuan,
2017). To account for this, we estimated all models using the robust maximum likelihood
estimation method. Model fit was assessed with the root mean squared error of approximation
(RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI). Values below .08 for
RMSEA and above .90 for CFI and TLI indicate a good model fit (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002;
Vandenberg & Lance, 2000).
Before testing the time-lagged model, we first established the foundation for the
measurement model by conducting several CFA to examine whether CA and the other three
career resources are unique constructs (Table 2). In each model, the higher-order constructs were
represented by the scale scores of their respective subscales. These subscales, in turn, were
represented by their respective items. For example, CA was represented by the scores for
concern, control, curiosity, and confidence; knowledge and skills were represented by the scores
for occupational expertise, job market knowledge, and soft skills and each of these subscales was
presented by their respective items. To assess whether alternative models show equal or superior
fit to the data, we compared the theoretically assumed four-factor solution distinguishing
between CA, knowledge and skills, motivation, and environmental career resources to several
alternative models. Specifically, we estimated different combinations of a three-factor model in
which CA was combined with each career resource factor (Models 2–4). These models would
suggest that CA cannot be differentiated from one of the three career resources. Next, we
estimated a two-factor model with CA, where the three career resources of knowledge and skills,
motivation, and environment formed one factor (Model 5). Finally, we tested a one-factor model,
which would suggest that the four assessed constructs cannot be empirically differentiated at all
(Model 6). The results revealed that the proposed four-factor solution fitted the data well (χ2 =
1655.893, df = 882, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .05, TLI = .91), and significantly better than all other
models (Table 2). The results suggest that CA and the three other types of career resources are
empirically distinct. Additionally, we conducted CFA on the item level for each subscale
separately (e.g., for CAAS-concern and CRQ-clarity). These results are reported in Appendix A
and supported construct distinctness of each scale.
To assess our hypotheses, we used SEM. Due to the large number of assessed constructs
with a total of 94 items, we did not model each scale on the item level as this would result in an
unfavorable sample size-to-parameter ratio and an increased likelihood of identification
problems in CFA (Williams & O'Boyle, 2008). We used the single items as indicators of self-
esteem and optimism and the respective subscales as indicators for CA, knowledge and skills,
motivational, environmental resources, and subjective career success. For a more in-depth
analysis of the effects of CA and career resources for different dimensions of subjective career
success, we also tested the model in Figure 1 for each facet of subjective career success as an
outcome separately. These results are reported in Appendix B. Finally, as posthoc tests, we also
assessed the model in Figure 1 for each career adaptability subdimension separately, to examine
potential differences between different facets of CA. The results of these analyses are reported in
Appendix C.
Concerning our research question, the relative importance of CA and the three career
resources for different dimensions of career success were tested using relative weights analysis.
This analysis overcomes limitations associated with multiple regression when predictors are
highly correlated, as is the case with our predictors. Relative weight analyses partition the R2
into pseudo-orthogonal sections, each section representing the relative contribution of a predictor
variable. This makes it possible to quantify the relative contribution of each predictor to the
model’s total explanatory value regardless of the ordering of the predictors. So, the central idea
is that the correlated predictors are transformed into new variables that are uncorrelated with
each other but maximally correlated to their own respective original predictor variable (Johnson,
2000; Stadler, Cooper-Thomas, Greiff, 2017). Analyses were conducted following the
procedures of Grömping (2006). The relative weights indicate the percentage of variance that
each predictor accounts for in the total R2 for each dimension of subjective and objective career
success.
Results
Correlations Between Assessed Constructs

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the study variables are displayed in Table
1. Bivariate correlations among the assessed constructs demonstrated that CA resources, the
three career resources (i.e., knowledge and skills, motivation, environment), and both key
resources (i.e., self-esteem, optimism) were all significantly positively related to each other, with
r between .15 and .89 (Table 1), providing initial support for Hypotheses 1 and 2.
Time-Lagged Model
We conducted SEM to examine how CA and the three career resources are connected
with the key resources of self-esteem and optimism, as well as with subjective and objective
career success (Figure 1). Specifically, we estimated a model where the two key resources self-
esteem and optimism acted as predictors of CA and the three career resources (knowledge and
skills, motivation, and environment). Additionally, subjective and objective career success was
regressed on CA and the three career resources. We also included the direct paths from self-
esteem and optimism on subjective and objective career success and allowed self-esteem and
optimism, career adaptability, and the three career resources of knowledge and skills, motivation,
and environment, as well as subjective and objective career success to freely correlate.
Partially supporting Hypothesis 1, the results showed that optimism was significantly
positive related to CA and all career resources. However, self-esteem did significantly negatively
predict environmental resources (b = -.60, SE =.19, β = -.35, p = .001) beyond the effect of
optimism. In turn, except for CA (b = .18, SE = .15, β = .13, p = .22), and motivation (b = .01,
SE = .19, β = .01, p = .969), the other two career resources were positively related to subjective
career success (for knowledge and skills: b = .47, SE = .19 β = .36, p = .011; for environment: b
= .21, SE = .09, β = .27, p = .016), partially supporting Hypothesis 3. Additionally, direct effects
from self-esteem and optimism to subjective career success were not significant. Two out of the
four career resources showed a significant relation with objective career success: CA resources
(b = -.14, SE = .04 β = --.34, p = .001) were negatively related to objective career success,
whereas knowledge and skills resources (b = .25, SE = .07, β = .63, p = .001) were positively
related to objective career success, partially supporting Hypothesis 3. Additionally, there was a
positive direct effect from optimism (b = .13, SE = .04, β = .46, p = .001) but not for self-esteem
on objective career success.
As a robustness check, we also estimated the model while controlling for age, gender,
educational level, organizational tenure and weekly working hours. The results did not change in
terms of direction and general strength of effects. To increase the power and interpretability of
the results we thus report the model results without the consideration of control variables
(Bernerth & Aguinis, 2016).
As a post-hoc analysis, we examined the indirect effects of self-esteem and optimism
through CA, and the three career resources on subjective and objective career success, with
bootstrap analyses (full results are reported in Appendix D). For subjective career success, the
sum of indirect effect from optimism (b = .34, p < .001) through CA, and the three career
resources on subjective career success were significant, but this was not the case for self-esteem
(b = -.05, p < .681). Among the specific indirect effects, only the effects from self-esteem
through environment (b = -.12, p = .047) and the effects from optimism through environment (b
= .18, p = .022) reached significance. For objective career success, both sums of indirect effects
from optimism and self-esteem were not significant. Among the specific indirect effects, the
effects from optimism through CA (b = -.50, p = .026) and knowledge and skills (b = .45, p
= .028) reached significance.
In another set of post-hoc analyses, we assessed the model in Figure 1 for each CA
subscale separately (full results in Appendix C). The results showed that self-esteem significantly
predicted only the CA dimension control (b = .39, p = .003). Optimism, in turn, predicted the CA
dimensions of concern (b = .32, p < .000), curiosity (b = .27, p = .012), and confidence (b = .21,
p = .001). Whereas none of the CA dimensions significantly predicted subjective career success,
the CA dimensions of concern (b = -.11, p = .001), curiosity (b = -.12, p = .004), and confidence
(b = -.18, p < .003) significantly negatively predicted objective career success.
In further post-hoc analyses, we assessed the model in Figure 1 for each dimension of
subjective career success separately (full results in Appendix B). CA did not show a significant
prediction of any of the subjective career success dimension whereas the career resources of
knowledge and skills, motivation, and environment reached significance in different dimensions
of subjective career success. However, CA significantly and negatively predicted objective
career success in all assessed models.
Relative Weight Analyses

To address the research question and examine in more detail which career (adaptability)
resources are more or less important for different aspects of career success, we conducted
relative weight analyses. In detail, we evaluated the relative importance of CA compared to the
three career resources regarding the eight different aspects of subjective career success as well as
salary. The results (Table 3) indicated that motivational and environmental career resources
explained more variance in all facets of subjective career success compared to CA. Only for
quality work and salary did the career resources knowledge and skills explain more variance than
the other three career resources. However, CA also explained a significant variance of
approximately one quarter in quality work, meaningful work, authenticity, personal life, and
growth and development. These results indicate that the relative importance differs across CA
and the other career resources, depending on the specific facet of career success.
In another set of post-hoc analyses, we assessed each CA dimension separately (full
results in Appendix E). The results showed the same pattern: motivational and environmental
career resources explained more variance in different facets of subjective career success than
knowledge and skills or the different dimensions of career adaptability. Only for quality work did
CA control, CA confidence, knowledge and skills, and motivation explain a roughly equal
amount of about 20% of variance each.
Discussion
Although the importance of CA for career outcomes has been broadly investigated
(Johnston, 2018; Rudolph et al., 2017), its larger nomological net in relation to other career
resources has received comparably little attention. Moreover, the incremental effects of CA on
career success beyond other types of career resources need further clarification. Addressing
these issues, this study investigated the relation between key resources, CA resources, other
types of career resources (i.e., knowledge and skills, motivational career resources, and
environmental career resources), and subjective and objective career success. Furthermore,
our study analyzed the relative importance of CA resources and other types of career
resources for different facets of career success. The study found support for the notion that
key resources (i.e., optimism) are meaningfully related to CA and a range of other career
resources, possibly because these key resources enable the selection, alteration, and
implementation of other resources (Hobfoll, 2002; Hobfoll et al., 2018). Moreover, our results
specifically suggest that optimism is important in this regard.
The results also demonstrated that CA should be conceptualized using a larger network of
resources relevant for attaining career success. As our study indicates, CA is significantly related
to other types of career resources, but CA resources, knowledge and skills, and motivational and
environmental career resources each explain unique variance in different facets of career success.
Specifically, the relative weight analyses suggest that especially motivational and environmental
career resources may be more important to attaining subjective career success compared to CA
resources. Moreover, knowledge and skills career resources seem to be most important to attain
objective career success in terms of salary.
With this study, we extend current career adaptability research and contribute to CCT.
Previous studies based on CCT have primarily focused on CA as a key component (Rudolph et
al., 2017), and have not sufficiently investigated CA in a broader framework of important
factors. Savickas (2005) has suggested that CA is the core resource for adapting to new
circumstances and for solving unfamiliar, complex, and ill-defined situations in career
development. Thus, an adaptive individual is conceptualized as having high CA. The findings of
our study expand this notion and show that besides CA resources, other key and career resources
are also relevant for successful career development. More precisely, our study suggests that
specifically motivational and environmental resources seem to have incremental utility beyond
CA resources in predicting different faces of career success. Our study thereby also supports a
basic assumption of COR theory (Hobfoll, 2002; Hobfoll et al., 2018) that different resources
often coexist and jointly lead to positive outcomes. As we could show, each of the different
resources (CA, knowledge and skills, motivation, environment) contributes differently to
subjective and objective career success. This confirms our assertion that CA needs to be
considered in a broader resource framework to better understand its functioning and unique
value. For example, based on the results of this study, it seems that CA resources (in relation to
other career resources) are especially important for attaining subjective career success in terms
of quality and meaningful work and authenticity, but less so for recognition, influence, and
overall career satisfaction. Moreover, when considering the effects of other types of career
resources, CA resources seem to be negatively related to objective career success in terms of
salary. This indicates that CA resources might not be entirely positive for career development
outcomes and calls for future research into such potentially negative effects of CA.
There were also some unexpected results in our study. First, CA resources were not
significantly correlated with salary and significantly negatively related when also considering the
effects of the other resources. Thus, CA might indeed be more important for subjective success
which is also in line with the assumptions of CCT. This can be explained by the higher
importance of other factors for salary as also suggested in many other studies, including meta-
analyses (e.g., Rudolph et al. 2017). However, the negative effect in the overall model might be a
suppressor effect. Suppressor effects are operating when the addition of a predictor increases the
predictive power of another variable. The results thus show that CA is meaningfully related to
other resources (see Table 1), but if CA is present without other career resources (as when their
effects are controlled in the overall model), then just being adaptable might be negative for
salary. Second, in the overall model, self-esteem and environmental resources were negatively
related. However, the correlation between these variables was positive, indicating a possible
suppression effect due to the effects of other variables in the overall model. We assume that this
finding specifically occurred due to the fact that self-esteem was highly related to optimism. We
could speculate that high self-esteem without optimism leads people to develop less
environmental resources because they might rely only on themselves in a lack of a clear positive
outlook on future outcomes. However, we call for future studies to explore under what
circumstances different resources are differently related to each other as well as to important
career outcomes.
Conversely, knowledge and skills resources seem particularly important for salary and
quality work. This suggests that CA and knowledge and skills resources are crucial to experience
success in terms of conducted quality work and knowledge and skills resources is especially
important for attaining a high salary. Motivational resources relate strongly to authenticity,
meaningful work, growth and development, and general satisfaction, but less so to influence.
This means that motivational resources are of great importance to attain personal satisfaction at
work but less so for having influence. Finally, environmental resources seem especially relevant
for influence, recognition, personal life, and general satisfaction, but less so for quality work or
growth and development. This means that environmental resources play a crucial role for types
of success that center on impactful work and work-nonwork balance. Future theoretical and
empirical work is now needed to expand upon these initial findings on the different functioning
of CA versus other types of career resources in relation to different types of career success.
Limitations and Future Research

This study has a number of limitations that could be addressed in future studies. First, the
data relied on single source and self-reported data. Even though we used a time-lagged design to
reduce the common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), future
studies should use multisource data (e.g., assessment of resources and outcomes by supervisors)
to further reduce potential common method bias. Second, we assessed data over three time
points, but this does not allow for conclusions about the direction of the causal relations. It may
be possible that career success positively predicts career adaptability and career resources over
time. Longitudinal studies across several months or years are necessary to examine cross-lagged
effects of potentially mutual influences between career success and different types of resources.
Future longitudinal studies could also assess change over time in the different career
resources and thus test specifically resources gain and loss spirals (Hobfoll, 2002; Hobfoll et al.,
2018) with the assumption that key resources enable the selection, alteration, and
implementation of other resources. Relatedly, future studies should also examine changes of
different career resources over time, including potential mutual effects. Indeed, Savickas (2005)
conceptualized CA as a dynamic construct that changes over time. Also, the career resources
proposed by Hirschi et al. (2019, 2018) are not static. In this regard, researchers should apply
longitudinal research designs or conduct intervention studies. It would specifically be interesting
to see how interventions can change different types of career resources, and which type of
intervention has more effect on one type of resource compared to others.
Second, we chose self-esteem and optimism as representatives of key resources. These
two have been mentioned in several conceptual works (e.g., Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012;
Hobfoll, 2002; Hobfoll et al., 2018) and been investigated in many previous empirical studies
(e.g. Rudolf et al., 2017, Orth et al., 2018). Nevertheless, there are other important general
psychological resources that can be considered as key resources according to COR theory. In
future studies, it would be interesting to see which of these could be important for which other
resources.
Finally, Savickas (2005) suggested that CA represent psycho-social resources for
adapting to new circumstances and for solving unfamiliar, complex, and ill-defined situations in
career development. In this light, CA might be especially relevant for more complex and ill-
defined situations. Theoretically, this would also be true for the assessed knowledge and skills,
motivation, and environment career resources. However, we do not know to what extend the
investigated sample in the current study is currently facing important career transitions, complex
work situations, or precarious work conditions. It could be that in such situations, CA resources
would be activated and used more intensely. To investigate how and under what circumstances
different career resources are activated, we call for future studies to replicate our findings with
different samples in different working situations and environments.
Implications for Practice

One practical implication of the study is that organizations and career counselors might
need to focus on more than just the psychosocial CA resources of concern, control, curiosity, and
confidence to promote career success. Moreover, because our results suggest that different
resources relate differently to different aspects of career success, professionals could clarify with
their clients what they understand by career success (e.g., having meaningful work or being
acknowledged by others), and then derive tailored interventions that focus on those career
resources most likely to benefit this type of success. To foster subjective career success in
general, it would be a good recommendation, based on our study results, to focus on

motivational (e.g., career involvement) or environmental (e.g., career opportunities within the
organization) career resources because they related most strongly to different facets of subjective
career success and general career satisfaction. To foster objective career success, our results
imply that promoting knowledge and skills resources is critical, for example, by motivating
employees and clients to take part in training courses. Moreover, environmental resources, in
particular, appear to be important for various facets of career success. Environmental career
resources include aspects such as career opportunities, organizational support for development,
job challenge, and social support (Hirschi et al., 2018). Such resources could be promoted by
adequate job design and by implementing corresponding human resource practices and
structures. Furthermore, Hobfoll and colleagues (2018) state that resources do not exist in
isolation, but travel in “caravans” and influence each other, leading to resources gain and loss
spirals. That means that existing resources make it easier to build more resources and deal with
resource loss. Accordingly, career counselors and human development professionals could focus
on the resources that correspond to immanent needs and which can be effectively and efficiently
increased considering the individual and contextual conditions. Increasing a specific resource
(e.g., motivation) could then also trigger an increase in other resources (e.g., concern and
control).
Conclusion
Our study contributes to a better understanding of the specific role of CA resources for
subjective and objective career success relative to other types of (career) resources. As such, our
paper contributes to career construction theory specifically and the understanding of predictors
of career success more generally. The findings help to better position CA within a more general
resources framework, including offering greater insight into the unique contribution of CA
resources and other types of resources in relation to different aspects of career success.
References
Bernerth, J. B., & Aguinis, H. (2016). A critical review and best-practice recommendations for
control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 229-283. doi:10.1111/peps.12103
Cai, Z., Guan, Y., Li, H., Shi, W., Guo, K., Liu, Y., . . . Fang, Z. (2015). Self-esteem and
proactive personality as predictors of future work self and career adaptability: An
examination of mediating and moderating processes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 86,
86–94.
Cain, M. K., Zhang, Z., & Yuan, K.-H. (2017). Univariate and multivariate skewness and
kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence, and estimation. Behavior
Research Methods, 49(5), 1716–1735.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.
Coetzee, M., Ferreira, N., & Potgieter, I. L. (2015). Assessing employability capacities and
career adaptability in a sample of human resource professionals. SA Journal of Human
Resource Management, 13(1), 1–9.
de Guzman, A. B., & Choi, K. O. (2013). The relations of employability skills to career
adaptability among technical school students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(3),
199–207.
DeSimone, J. A., & Harms, P. (2018). Dirty data: The effects of screening respondents who
provide low-quality data in survey research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(5),
559-577.
Duffy, R. D. (2010). Sense of control and career adaptability among undergraduate students.
Journal of Career Assessment, 18(4), 420–430.
Ferring, D., & Filipp, S. (1996). Measurement of self-esteem: Findings on reliability, validity,
and stability of the Rosenberg Scale. Diagnostica, 42(3), 284–292.
Glaesmer, H., Hoyer, J., Klotsche, J., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2008). Die deutsche Version des Life-
Orientation-Tests (LOT-R) zum dispositionellen Optimismus und Pessimismus.
Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie, 16(1), 26–31.
Greenhaus, J. H., Callanan, G. A., & Godshalk, V. M. (2009). Career management: Sage.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational
experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of
Management Journal, 33(1), 64–86.
Grömping, U. (2006). Relative importance for linear regression in R: The package relaimpo.
Journal of Statistical Software, 17(1), 1–27.
Haibo, Y., Xiaoyu, G., Xiaoming, Z., & Zhijin, H. (2017). Career adaptability with or without
career identity: How career adaptability leads to organizational success and individual
career success? Journal of Career Assessment, 1069072717727454.
Herzberg, P. Y., Glaesmer, H. & Hoyer, J. (2006). Separating optimism and pessimism: A robust
psychometric analysis of the Revised Life-Orientation Test (LOT-R). Psychological
Assessment, 18, 433–438.
Hirschi, A. (2012). The career resources model: An integrative framework for career counsellors.
British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 40(4), 369–383.
Hirschi, A., Haenggli, M., Nagy, N., Baumeler, F., Johnston, C., & Spurk, D. (2019). Karriere-
Ressourcen messen: Validierung der deutschsprachigen Version des Karriere-Ressourcen
Fragebogens [Assessing Career Resources: Validation of the German version of the
Career Resources Questionnaire]. Diagnostica, 65(3), 133-141. doi:10.1026/0012-
1924/a000219
Hirschi, A., Herrmann, A., & Keller, A. C. (2015). Career adaptivity, adaptability, and adapting:
A conceptual and empirical investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87, 1–10.
Hirschi, A., Nagy, N., Baumeler, F., Johnston, C. S., & Spurk, D. (2018). Assessing key predic-
tors of career success: Development and validation of the Career Resources
Questionnaire. Journal of Career Assessment, 26, 338–358.
doi:10.1177/1069072717695584
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General
Psychology, 6(4), 307.
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.-P., & Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources
in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103–128.
Huang, J. L., Curran, P. G., Keeney, J., Poposki, E. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2012). Detecting and
deterring insufficient effort responding to surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology,
27(1), 99-114.
Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor
variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1-19. Doi:
10.1207/S15327906MBR3501
Johnston, C. S. (2018). A systematic review of the career adaptability li-terature and future
outlook. Journal of Career Assessment, 26, 3–30. doi:10.1177/1069072716679921
Kuster, F., Orth, U., & Meier, L. L. (2013). High self-esteem prospectively predicts better work
conditions and outcomes. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 668–675.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550613479806
Lawrence, B. S., Hall, D. T., M.B. Arthur, M. B., De Vos. A., Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (Eds.),
Sustainable careers then and now. Handbook of research on sustainable careers, Edward
Elgar, Cheltenham, UK (2015), pp. 432-449.
Lounsbury, J. W., Loveland, J. M., Sundstrom, E. D., Gibson, L. W., Drost, A. W., & Hamrick, F.
L. (2003). An investigation of personality traits in relation to career satisfaction. Journal
of Career Assessment, 11(3), 287-307.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does
happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803.
Maggiori, C., Johnston, C. S., Krings, F., Massoudi, K., & Rossier, J. (2013). The role of career
adaptability and work conditions on general and professional well-being. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 437–449.
Maggiori, C., Rossier, J., & Savickas, M. L. (2017). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale–Short Form
(CAAS-SF) construction and validation. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(2), 312–325.
Mens, M. G., Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (2016). Optimism. In S. J. Lopez, L. M. Edwards,
& S. C. Marques (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2014a). A conservation of resources perspective on career hurdles
and salary attainment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(1), 156–168.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2014b). Subjective career success: A meta-analytic review. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 85(2), 169–179.
Orth, U. (2017). The lifespan development of self-esteem. In J. Specht (Ed.), Personality
development across the lifespan (pp. 181–195). London, UK: Elsevier.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804674-6.00012-0
Orth, U., Erol, R. Y., Luciano, E. C. (2018). Development of self-esteem from age 4 to 94 years:
A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, doi: 10.1037/bul0000161
Orth, U., & Robins, R. W. (2014). The development of self-esteem. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 23, 381–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721414547414
Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Widaman, K. F. (2012). Life-span development of self-esteem and its
effects on important life outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
102(6), 1271.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
Porfeli, E. J., & Savickas, M. L. (2012). Career adapt-abilities scale-USA form: Psychometric
properties and relation to vocational identity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 748–
753.
Revelle, W. R. (2017). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research,
Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, https://CRAN.R-
project.org/package=psych Version = 1.8.12.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version
0.5–12 (BETA). Ghent, Belgium: Ghent University.
Roth, M., Decker, O., Herzberg, P. Y., & Brähler, E. (2008). European Journal of Psychological
Assessment 2008; Vol. 24(3):190–197. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.24.3.190
Rudolph, C. W., Lavigne, K. N., & Zacher, H. (2017). Career adaptability: A meta-analysis of
relationships with measures of adaptivity, adapting responses, and adaptation results.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 17–34. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2016.09.002
Savickas, M. L. (1997). Career adaptability: An integrative construct for life-span, life-space
theory. The Career Development Quarterly, 45(3), 247–259.
Savickas, M. L. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. Career development and
counseling: Putting theory and research to work, 1, 42–70.
Savickas, M. L. (2013). Career construction theory and practice. In S. D. B. R. W. L. (Eds.)
(Ed.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed.,
pp. 42–70). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career adapt-abilities scale: Construction, reliability,
and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
80(3), 661–673.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from
neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life
Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063.
Shockley, K. M., Ureksoy, H., Rodopman, O. B., Poteat, L. F., & Dullaghan, T. R. (2016).
Development of a new scale to measure subjective career success: A mixed-methods
study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(1), 128–153.
Spurk, D., Hirschi, A., & Dries, N. (2018). Antecedents and outcomes of objective versus
subjective career success: Competing perspectives and future directions. Journal of
Management, 0149206318786563.
Spurk, D., Kauffeld, S., Barthauer, L., & Heinemann, N. S. (2015). Fostering networking
behavior, career planning and optimism, and subjective career success: An intervention
study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87, 134–144.
Stadler, M., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Greiff, S. (2017). A primer on relative importance analysis:
Illustrations of its utility for psychological research. Psychological Test and Assessment
Modeling, 59(4), 381-403.
Team R (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.R-project.org/.
Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). A resource perspective on the work–home
interface: The work–home resources model. American Psychologist, 67(7), 545.
Tenney, E. R., Logg, J. M., & Moore, D. A. (2015). (Too) optimistic about optimism: The belief
that optimism improves performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
108(3), 377-399.
Tian, Y., & Fan, X. (2014). Adversity quotients, environmental variables and career adaptability
in student nurses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(3), 251–257.
Tolentino, L. R., Garcia, P. R. J. M., Lu, V. N., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Plewa, C.
(2014). Career adaptation: The relation of adaptability to goal orientation, proactive
personality, and career optimism. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(1), 39–48.
Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis of comparative research:
Allyn & Bacon.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance
literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research.
Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.
von Collani, G., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2003). Eine revidierte Fassung der deutschsprachigen Skala
zum Selbstwertgefühl von Rosenberg. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische
Psychologie, 24(1), 3–7.
Williams, L. J., & O'Boyle Jr, E. H. (2008). Measurement models for linking latent variables and
indicators: A review of human resource management research using parcels. Human
Resource Management Review, 18(4), 233-242.
Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Miller, G. E., Schulz, R., & Carver, C. S. (2003). Adaptive self-
regulation of unattainable goals: Goal disengagement, goal reengagement, and subjective
well-being. Personality and Social psychology bulletin, 29(12), 1494-1508.
Zacher, H. (2014). Career adaptability predicts subjective career success above and beyond
personality traits and core self-evaluations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(1), 21–30.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s Alphas, and Pearson’s Correlations for the Study Variables.
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 Self-esteem (T1) 2.78 .53 (.89)
2 Optimism (T1) 2.60 .66*** .70*** (.81)
3 Career adaptability (T2) 3.64 .58 .29*** .34*** (.89)
4 Knowledge and skills (T2) 3.46 .66 .26*** .30*** .51*** (.87)
5 Motivation (T2) 3.44 .77 .27*** .40*** .57*** .65*** (.90)
6 Environment (T2) 2.90 .85 .14*** .28*** .42*** .46*** .72*** (.94)
7 Subjective career success (T3) 3.51 .66 .35*** .47*** .51*** .52*** .61*** .58*** (.95)
8 Recognition (T3) 3.26 .89 .21*** .31*** .35*** .33*** .41*** .51*** .80*** (.92)
9 Quality work (T3) 3.68 .75 .35*** .34*** .41*** .45*** .46*** .31*** .75*** .53*** (.80)
10 Meaningful work (T3) 3.50 .78 .26*** .38*** .40*** .41*** .48*** .41*** .76*** .50*** .57*** (.78)
11 Influence (T3) 3.19 .88 .17*** .30*** .42*** .44*** .47*** .55*** .82*** .68*** .63*** .62*** (.81)
12 Authenticity (T3) 3.60 .83 .30*** .45*** .48*** .46*** .58*** .50*** .86*** .60*** .57*** .58*** .62*** (.84)
13 Personal life (T3) 3.39 .89 .29*** .38*** .31*** .32*** .36*** .37*** .73*** .57*** .67*** .42*** .52*** .64*** (.82)
14 Growth and development (T3) 3.89 .70 .30*** .40*** .51*** .54*** .59*** .47*** .84*** .59*** .54*** .61*** .60*** .72*** .54*** (.79)
15 Satisfaction (T3) 3.44 .95 .33*** .46*** .42*** .41*** .58*** .58*** .84*** .61*** .75*** .59*** .65*** .78*** .56*** .65*** (.88)
16 Salary (T1) .71 .23 .22*** .30*** -.02 .19*** .10 .09 .16* .06 .17** .12* .15** .13* .13* .09 .21*** (-)
Note. N = 574 (missings estimated with full-maximum likelihood method). In brackets internal consistency (Cronbach alpha).
*** p < .001
** p < .01
* p < .05
Table 2
Model Fit for Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Model 2 df CFI TLI RMSEA [90% CI] ΔCFI Δ2 (df)
(1) Four factors (each resource separately) 1655.893 882 .916 .910 .047 [.044; .050]
(2) Three factors (CA combined with KNSK) 1766.434 885 .905 .898 .050 [.047; .053] .011 130.94 (3)***
(3) Three factors (CA combined with MOT) 1870.930 885 .894 .886 .053 [.050; .056] .022 253.41 (3)***
(3) Three factors (CA combined with ENV) 2076.751 885 .871 .863 .058 [.055; .061] .045 492.55 (3)***
(5) Two factors (CA vs. KNSK/MOT/ENV) 1930.375 887 .887 .880 .055 [.052; .058] .029 322.55 (5)***
(6) Single factor (all resources combined) 2175.223 888 .861 .852 .061 [.058; .064] .064 611.76 (6)***
Note. N = 395 (T2 data). CA = Career adaptability, KNSK = Knowledge and skills, MOT = Motivation, ENV = Environment; all constructs
were modelled second order. 2 = chi-square test statistic; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root-mean-square
error of approximation; CI= confidence interval; ΔCFI = change in comparative fit index; Δ2 = change in SB-scaled chi-square test statistic.
All models compared to Model (1). Satorra-Bentler corrected chi-square difference tests for all comparisons were significant.
*** p < .001
Table 3
Results of Relative Weight Analyses
Percentage share of explained variance

Growth
Predictors Recogni- Quality Meaningful Authenti- Personal and Satis-
Influence Salary
tion work work city life develop- faction
ment
Career adaptability 17% (.05) 26% (.07) 24% (.07) 19% (.07) 24% (.10) 23% (.04) 25% (.11) 16% (.06) 20% (.03)
Knowledge and
11% (.03) 33% (.09) 22% (.06) 20% (.07) 18% (.07) 21% (.03) 27% (.12) 11% (.04) 61% (.01)
skills
Motivation 20% (.06) 30% (.08) 34% (.09) 18% (.07) 34% (.14) 25% (.04) 31% (.14) 34% (.14) 10% (.01)
Environment 51% (.15) 11% (.03) 20% (.05) 43% (.16) 24% (.09) 32% (.05) 17% (.07) 39% (.16) 9% (.01)
R2 total 100%(.29) 100%(.27) 100%(.27) 100%(.37) 100%(.40) 100%(.17) 100%(.44) 100%(.40) 100%(.05)
Note. The sum of the raw relative weights is equal to the value of R2 and the sum of the rescaled relative weights is 100%. In parentheses:
relative weight coefficients.
Figure 1. Standardized estimates of structural equation modelling testing the time-lagged

model of predictive utility of key resources self-esteem and optimism on CA and the three
career resources (knowledge and skills, motivation, environment), and on subjective and
objective career success. Correlations between career adaptability, knowledge and skills,
motivation, and environment at (T2) were allowed but are not displayed. The path diagram
shows significant and nonsignificant (in dashes) paths.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
CAREER ADAPTABILITY AND CAREER SUCCESS
Appendix A
Model Fit for Confirmatory Factor Analyses: Career Adaptability (CA) Subscales of Concern, Control, Curiosity, Confidence and Career Resources Questionnaire
Knowledge and Skills (CRQ KNSK) Subscales of Occupational Expertise, Job Market Knowledge, Soft Skills
CA Subscale Concern
(1) Four factors (each subscale separately) 81.789 48 .983 .976 .042 [.027; .056]
(2) Three factors (con combined with oe) 256.31 51 .894 .863 .101 [.090; .112] .089 207.24 (3)***
(3) Three factors (con combined with jmk) 271.454 51 .886 .853 .105 [.093; .116] .097 224.79 (3)***
(3) Three factors (con combined with ssk) 280.096 51 .882 .847 .107 [.096; .118] .163 238.58 (3)***
(5) Two factors (con vs. oe/ssk/jmk) 851.274 53 .588 .487 .195 [.185; .206] .395 916.91 (5)***
(6) Single factor (all subscales combined) 1017.765 54 .502 .392 .213 [.202; .223] .481 1109.4 (6)***
CA Subscale Control
(1) Four factors (each subscale separately) 69.213 48 .990 .986 .033 [015; .049]
(2) Three factors (col combined with oe) 257.795 51 .898 .868 .101 [.090; .113] .092 223.05 (3)***
(3) Three factors (col combined with jmk) 422.712 51 .816 .762 .136 [.125; .147] .174 429.44 (3)***
(3) Three factors (col combined with ssk) 306.485 51 .874 .836 .113 [.102; .124] .116 292.83 (3)***
(5) Two factors (col vs. oe/ssk/jmk) 822.615 53 .619 .526 .192 [.181; .202] .371 916.25 (5)***
33
CA Subscale Curiosity
(2) Three factors (cur combined with oe) 212.672 51 .914 .889 .090 [.078; .101] .072 167.05 (3)***
(3) Three factors (cur combined with jmk) 234.447 51 .902 .874 .095 [.084; .107] .084 192.24 (3)***
(3) Three factors (cur combined with ssk) 193.195 51 .924 .902 .084 [.073; .096] .062 145.19 (3)***
(5) Two factors (cur vs. oe/ssk/jmk) 817.682 53 .593 .493 .191 [.181; .202] .393 902.84 (5)***
CA Subscale Confidence
(2) Three factors (cof combined with oe) 270.279 51 .891 .858 .104 [.093; .116] .092 220.53 (3)***
(3) Three factors (cof combined with jmk) 365.897 51 .843 .797 .125 [.114; .136] .140 341.60 (3)***
(3) Three factors (cof combined with ssk) 248.174 51 .902 .873 .099 [.088; .110] .081 202.35 (3)***
(5) Two factors (cof vs. oe/ssk/jmk) 820.552 53 .617 .523 .191 [.181; .202] .366 902.09 (5)***
(6) Single factor (all subscales combined) 944.496 54 .555 .457 .204 [.194; 0.215] .428 1075.20 (6)***
Note. N = 395 (T2 data). con = CA Subscale Concern, oe = CRQ KNSK Subscale occupational expertise, ssk = CRQ KNSK Subscale soft skills, jmk = CRQ KNSK
Subscale job market knowledge, col = CA Subscale control, cur = CA Subscale curiosity, cof = CA Subscale Confidence; all constructs were modelled with items directly.
2 = chi-square test statistic; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; CI= confidence interval; ΔCFI =
change in comparative fit index; Δ2 = change in SB-scaled chi-square test statistic. All models compared to Model (1). Satorra-Bentler corrected chi-square difference tests
for all comparisons were significant.
***p < .001
34
Motivation (CRQ MOT) Subscales of Career Clarity, Career Involvement, Career Confidence
CA Subscale Concern
(2) Three factors (con combined with ccl) 167.389 62 .943 .928 .066 [.055; .076] .038 94.47 (3)***
(3) Three factors (con combined with cinv) 290.424 62 .876 .845 .097 [.087; .107] .105 245.66 (3)***
(3) Three factors (con combined with ccon) 181.419 62 .935 .919 .070 [.060 .080] .046 112.78 (3)***
(5) Two factors (con vs. cinv/ccl/ccon) 355.593 64 .842 .808 .107 [.098; .117] .139 352.38 (5)***
CA Subscale Control
(2) Three factors (col combined with ccl) 297.719 62 .875 .843 .098 [.088; .108] .110 277.6 (3)***
(3) Three factors (col combined with cinv) 375.040 62 .834 .791 .113 [.103; .123] .151 360.41 (3)***
(3) Three factors (col combined with ccon) 290.241 62 .879 .848 .097 [.087; .107] .106 261.68 (3)***
(5) Two factors (col vs. cinv/ccl/ccon) 350.308 64 .848 .815 .106 [.097; .116] .170 350.81 (5)***
35
(1) Four factors (each subscale separately) 84.878 59 .985 .980 .033 [.018 .046]
(2) Three factors (cur combined with ccl) 161.481 62 .942 .927 .064 [.053; .074] 102.90 (3)***
(3) Three factors (cur combined with cinv) 246.901 62 .892 .864 .087 [.077; .097] 215.45 (3)***
(3) Three factors (cur combined with ccon) 165.608 62 .939 .924 .065 [.055; .075] 108.61 (3)***
(5) Two factors (cur vs. cinv/ccl/ccon) 338.997 64 .839 .804 .104 [.095; .114] 351.02 (5)***
(6) Single factor (all subscales combined) 416.109 65 .795 .754 .117 [.100; .126] 458.37 (6)***
(2) Three factors (cof combined with ccl) 208.426 62 .920 .899 .077 [.067; .088] 176.91 (3)***
(3) Three factors (cof combined with cinv) 297.446 62 .872 .838 .098 [.088; .108] 287.28 (3)***
(3) Three factors (cof combined with ccon) 227.189 62 .910 .887 .082 [.072; .092] 200.44 (3)***
(5) Two factors (cof vs. cinv/ccl/ccon) 333.751 64 .853 .821 .103 [.094; .113] 353.36 (5)***
(6) Single factor (all subscales combined) 469.315 65 .779 .735 .125 [.116; .135] 536.01 (6)***
Note. N = 395 (T2 data). con = CA Subscale Concern, ccl = CRQ MOT Subscale career clarity, cinv = CRQ MOT Subscale career involvement, ccon = CRQ MOT Subscale
career confidence, col = CA Subscale control, cur = CA Subscale curiosity, cof = CA Subscale Confidence; all constructs were modelled with items directly. 2 = chi-square
test statistic; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; CI= confidence interval; ΔCFI = change in
comparative fit index; Δ2 = change in SB-scaled chi-square test statistic. All models compared to Model (1). Satorra-Bentler corrected chi-square difference tests for all
comparisons were significant.
***p < .001
Environment (CRQ ENV) Subscales of Organizational Career Support, Career Opportunities, Job Challenge, Social Career Support
36
CA Subscale Concern
(1) Five factors (each subscale separately) 227.002 94 .956 .943 .060 [.051; .069]
(1) Four factors (con combined with ocs) 383.212 98 .905 .884 .086 [.078; .094] .051 198.95 (4)***
(1) Four factors (con combined with cop) 375.086 98 .908 .887 .085 [.077; .093] .048 190.09 (4)***
(1) Four factors (con combined with jcha) 381.441 98 .906 .885 .086 [.078; .094] .050 195.29 (4)***
(1) Four factors (con combined with scs) 346.984 98 .917 .899 .080 [.072; .088] .039 152.48 (4)***
(2) Three factors (con combined with ocs/cop) 443.534 101 .886 .865 .093 [.085; .101] .070 282.14 (7)***
(2) Three factors (con combined with ocs/jcha) 533.349 101 .856 .829 .104 [.097; .112] .100 401.51 (7)***
(2) Three factors (con combined with ocs/scs) 493.880 101 .869 .845 .099 [.092; .107] .087 343.61 (7)***
(2) Three factors (con combined with cop/jcha) 555.898 101 .849 .820 .107 [.099; .115] .107 427.77 (7)***
(2) Three factors (con combined with cop/scs) 510.696 101 .864 .838 .101 [.094; .109] .092 367.34 (7)***
(2) Three factors (con combined with jcha/scs) 498.771 101 .868 .843 .100 [.092; .108] .088 350.76 (7)***
(5) Two factors (con vs. ocs/cop/jcha/scs) 586.221 103 .839 .813 .109 [.102; .117] .117 477.52 (9)***
CA Subscale Control
37
(1) Five factors (each subscale separately) 234.686 94 .952 .939 .062 [.053 .070]
(1) Four factors (con combined with ocs) 366.232 98 .909 .888 .083 [.075 .091] .043 168.22 (4)***
(1) Four factors (con combined with cop) 370.500 98 .907 .887 .084 [.076 .092] .045 174.04 (4)***
(1) Four factors (con combined with jcha) 370.988 98 .907 .886 .084 [.076 .092] .045 172.23 (4)***
(1) Four factors (con combined with scs) 326.694 98 .922 .905 .077 [.069 .085] .030 117.65 (4)***
(2) Three factors (con combined with ocs/cop) 433.007 101 .887 .866 .091 [.083 .099] .065 258.46 (7)***
(2) Three factors (con combined with ocs/jcha) 519.767 101 .858 .831 .102 [.095 .110] .094 374.76 (7)***
(2) Three factors (con combined with ocs/scs) 478.703 101 .872 .847 .097 [.090 .105] .080 316.02 (7)***
(2) Three factors (con combined with cop/jcha) 554.696 101 .846 .817 .107 [.099 .114] .106 415.81 (7)***
(2) Three factors (con combined with cop/scs) 505.508 101 .862 .837 .101 [.093 .108] .090 351.67 (7)***
(2) Three factors (con combined with jcha/scs) 488.318 101 .868 .844 .099 [.091 .106] .084 330.51 (7)***
(5) Two factors (con vs. ocs/cop/jcha/scs) 596.197 103 .832 .805 .110 [.103 .118] .120 479.28 (9)***
38
(6) Single factor (all subscales combined) 700.194 104 .797 .766 .120 [.113 .128] .155 621.72 (10)***
Note. N = 395 (T2 data). con = CA Subscale Concern, ccl = CRQ MOT Subscale career clarity, cinv = CRQ MOT Subscale career involvement, ccon = CRQ MOT Subscale
career confidence, col = CA Subscale control, cur = CA Subscale curiosity, cof = CA Subscale Confidence; all constructs were modelled with items directly. 2 = chi-square
test statistic; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; CI= confidence interval; ΔCFI = change in
comparative fit index; Δ2 = change in SB-scaled chi-square test statistic. All models compared to Model (1). Satorra-Bentler corrected chi-square difference tests for all
comparisons were significant.
***p < .001
Appendix B
Results of Structural Equation Modelling Examining Each Dimension of Subjective Career Success Separately
39
Dimensions of subjective career success
SCS Recognition1 SCS Quality work2 SCS Meaningful work3 SCS Influence4
b SE β p b SE β p b SE β p b SE β p
Self-esteem → CAAS .06 .11 .06 .551 .05 .11 .05 .631 .06 .12 .06 .598 .05 .10 .05 .628
Self-esteem → KNSK .15 .13 .15 .226 .14 .13 .13 .278 .14 .12 .14 .255 .14 .12 .14 .269
Self-esteem → MOT -.12 .15 -.09 .419 -.14 .15 -.10 .357 -.13 .15 -.10 .384 -.14 .15 -.10 .355
Self-esteem → ENV -.57 .19 -.33 .002** -.58 .19 -.33 .002** -.57 .19 -.33 .002** -.60 .19 -.35 .001**
Self-esteem → SCS .12 .21 .08 .571 .29 .14 .27 .034* -.25 .20 -.17 .208 -.19 .21 -.13 .382
Self-esteem → OCS -.05 .05 -.14 .252 -.05 .05 -.13 .278 -.05 .05 -.13 .264 -.05 .05 -.13 .263
Optimism → CAAS .28 .08 .40 .001** .29 .08 .41 .000*** .29 .08 .40 .000*** .29 .08 .41 .000***
Optimism → KNSK .25 .09 .34 .007** .27 .09 .35 .004** .26 .09 .35 .006** .262 .09 .36 .004**
Optimism → MOT .62 .12 .60 .000*** .63 .12 .61 .000*** .62 .12 .60 .000*** .63 .12 .61 .000***
Optimism → ENV .832 .147 .66 .000*** .84 .15 .67 .000*** .83 .15 .66 .000*** .86 .15 .68 .000***
Optimism → SCS .07 .18 .07 .683 -.08 .11 -.10 .483 .41 .17 .38 .015* .23 .18 .22 .221
Optimism → OCS .13 .04 .45 .001** .13 .04 .44 .001** .13 .04 .45 .001** .13 .04 .45 .001**
CAAS → SCS .25 .18 .16 .177 .13 .14 .12 .348 .18 .15 .12 .237 .28 .16 .19 .092
KNSK → SCS .46 .26 .30 .083 .61 .17 .59 .000*** .52 .24 .35 .033* .82 .27 .58 .002**
MOT → SCS -.48 .28 -.44 .089 -.08 .22 -.11 .712 -.05 .27 -.04 .868 -.62 .27 -.62 .022*
ENV → SCS .57 .13 .64 .000*** .04 .11 .06 .731 .13 .13 .15 .322 .56 .12 .68 .000***
CAAS → OCS -.14 .04 -.34 .000*** -.14 .04 -.34 .000*** -.14 .04 -.34 .000*** -.14 .04 -.34 .000***
KNSK → OCS .25 .07 .64 .000*** .24 .07 .63 .000*** .26 .07 .64 .000*** .25 .07 .64 .000***
MOT → OCS -.12 .07 -.44 .076 -.12 .07 -.43 .066 -.13 .07 -.45 .069 -.12 .07 -.43 .076
ENV → OCS .03 .03 .11 .398 .03 .03 .12 .346 .03 .03 .12 .354 .03 .03 .11 .405
40
Appendix B (continued)
Dimensions of subjective career success
SCS Authenticity5 SCS Personal life6 SCS Growth and development7 SCS Satisfaction8
Self-esteem → CAAS .05 .11 .06 .608 .06 .11 .06 .602 .06 .11 .06 .562 .06 .11 .06 .592
Self-esteem → KNSK .14 .13 .14 .262 .14 .13 .14 .271 .15 .12 .15 .224 .14 .12 .15 .244
Self-esteem → MOT -.14 .15 -.10 .354 -.14 .15 -.10 .361 -.12 .15 -.09 .415 -.14 .15 -.10 .358
Self-esteem → ENV -.58 .19 -.34 .002** -.58 .19 -.34 .002** -.56 .19 -.33 .003** -.58 .19 -.34 .002**
Self-esteem → SCS -.21 .15 -.18 .156 .03 .17 .02 .881 -.13 .17 -.10 .468 .10 .17 .07 .565
Self-esteem → OCS -.06 .05 -.14 .243 -.05 .05 -.14 .254 -.05 .05 -.13 .258 -.06 .05 -.14 .236
Optimism → CAAS .28 .08 .40 .001** .29 .08 .41 .000*** .28 .08 .39 .001** .28 .08 .40 .000***
Optimism → KNSK .25 .09 .35 .006** .26 .09 .36 .005** .25 .09 .34 .007** .25 .09 .34 .006**
Optimism → MOT .62 .12 .61 .000*** .63 .12 .61 .000*** .61 .12 .59 .000*** .62 .12 .60 .000***
Optimism → ENV .83 .15 .66 .000*** .85 .15 .67 .000*** .82 .15 .66 .000*** .83 .15 .66 .000***
Optimism → SCS .32 .14 .37 .019* .25 .15 .27 .090 .17 .15 .18 .260 .25 .14 .25 .075
Optimism → OCS .13 .04 .46 .001** .13 .04 .46 .001** .13 .04 .45 .001** .14 .04 .47 .001**
CAAS → SCS .17 .14 .14 .223 .01 .14 .01 .937 .22 .16 .16 .165 .04 .13 .03 .766
KNSK → SCS .17 .18 .14 .352 .31 .24 .25 .188 .60 .22 .47 .006** -.01 .21 -.01 .950
MOT → SCS .29 .19 .35 .127 -.02 .22 -.02 .934 .08 .21 .09 .699 .30 .22 .31 .166
ENV → SCS .03 .08 .04 .707 .11 .10 .16 .256 .05 .09 .07 .577 .21 .10 .27 .028*
CAAS → OCS -.14 .04 -.34 .000*** -.14 .04 -.34 .000*** -.14 .04 -.34 .000*** -.14 .04 -.34 .000***
KNSK → OCS .26 .07 .65 .000*** .26 .07 .64 .001** .25 .07 .63 .000*** .26 .08 .65 .000***
MOT → OCS -.13 .07 -.46 .061 -.13 .07 -.46 .067 -.13 .07 -.45 .065 -.13 .07 -.47 .060
ENV → OCS .03 .03 .12 .350 .03 .03 .12 .365 .03 .03 .12 .351 .03 .03 .12 .382
Note. N = 574. The same model as in Figure 1 was used but the SCS total score was replaced with the respective SCS dimension (i.e., Recognition, Quality work, Meaningful
work, Influence, Authenticity, Personal life, Growth and Development, Satisfaction) separately. SCS = Subjective career success (respective dimension in the column); CA =
Career adaptability, KNSK = Knowledge and skills, MOT = Motivation, ENV = Environment; OCS = Objective career success; 2 = chi-square test statistic; CFI =
41
comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation.
1 (χ2 = 1134.264, df = 487, CFI = .91; TLI = .90; RMSEA = .05); 2 (χ2 = 1118.384, df = 487, CFI = .91; TLI = .90; RMSEA = .05);
7 (χ2 = 1137.887, df = 487, CFI = .91; TLI = .90; RMSEA = .05); 8 (χ2 = 1099.141, df = 487, CFI = .92; TLI = .90; RMSEA = .05).
*p < .05; **p <.01; ***p < .001
42
Appendix C
Results of Structural Equation Modelling Using Each CA Subscale Separately (Concern, Control, Curiosity, Confidence)
Dimensions of career adaptability
CA Concern1 CA Control2 CA Curiosity3 CA Confidence4
Self-esteem → CAAS -.04 .10 -.04 .711 .39 .14 .34 .003** .03 .14 .03 .841 -.04 .08 -.07 .578
Self-esteem → KNSK .13 .13 .13 .300 .13 .13 .13 .292 .13 .13 .13 .296 .13 .13 .13 .295
Self-esteem → MOT -.15 .15 -.11 .319 -.15 .15 -.11 .312 -.15 .15 -.11 .315 -.15 .15 -.11 .315
Self-esteem → ENV -.59 .19 -.35 .002** -.60 .19 -.35 .001** -.60 .19 -.35 .001** -.60 .19 -.35 .001**
Self-esteem → SCS -.05 .15 -.04 .747 -.08 .15 -.06 .600 -.05 .15 -.04 .725 -.01 .15 -.01 .962
Self-esteem → OCS -.06 .05 -.14 .233 -.03 .05 -.07 .576 -.05 .05 -.13 .276 -.07 .05 -.18 .126
Optimism → CAAS .32 .09 .48 .000*** .17 .10 .20 .092 .27 .11 .36 .012* .21 .06 .43 .001**
Optimism → KNSK .27 .09 .36 .004** .27 .09 .36 .004** .26 .09 .36 .005** .26 .09 .36 .005**
Optimism → MOT .63 .12 .61 .000*** .62 .12 .61 .000*** .63 .12 .61 .000*** .63 .12 .61 .000***
Optimism → ENV .84 .15 .67 .000*** .84 .15 .67 .000*** .84 .15 .67 .000*** .84 .15 .67 .000***
Optimism → SCS .26 .13 .27 .046* .26 .13 .27 .046* .26 .13 .27 .048* .23 .13 .24 .084
Optimism → OCS .13 .04 .44 .001** .13 .04 .45 .001** .13 .04 .44 .001** .14 .04 .47 .000***
CAAS → SCS .05 .15 .03 .761 .10 .10 .08 .332 .08 .12 .07 .510 .35 .22 .17 .113
KNSK → SCS .51 .19 .40 .005** .44 .18 .34 .018* .49 .18 .38 .006** .41 .19 .31 .029*
MOT → SCS .05 .24 .05 .849 .08 .18 .09 .631 .05 .19 .05 .786 .02 .18 .02 .926
ENV → SCS .20 .09 .26 .024* .20 .08 .26 .017* .20 .09 .26 .020* .22 .08 .28 .010*
CAAS → OCS -.05 .05 -.11 .318 -.11 .03 -.31 .001** -.12 .04 -.30 .004** -.18 .06 -.29 .003**
KNSK → OCS .20 .07 .52 .005** .27 .08 .69 .001** .24 .07 .61 .001** .26 .08 .65 .001**
MOT → OCS -.15 .08 -.52 .078 -.17 .07 -.58 .020* -.15 .07 -.51 .037* -.14 .07 -.49 .044*
ENV → OCS .03 .03 .14 .287 .02 .03 .10 .437 .04 .03 .16 .213 .02 .03 .10 .450
Note. N = 574. The same model as in Figure 1 was used but the CA total score was replaced with each CA dimension of concern, control, curiosity and confidence
separately. CA = Career adaptability (respective dimension in the column), KNSK = Knowledge and skills, MOT = Motivation, ENV = Environment; SCS = Subjective
career success; OCS = Objective career success; 2 = chi-square test statistic; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of
43
approximation.
1 (χ2 = 1380.478, df = 625, CFI = .91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .05); 2 (χ2 = 1348.836, df = 625, CFI = .91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .05);
3 (χ2 = 1361.241, df = 625, CFI = .91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .05,); 4 (χ2 = 1396.437, df = 625, CFI = .91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .05).
*p < .05; **p <.01; ***p < .001
44
Appendix D
Mediation Model: Standardized Parameters of Indirect Effects, Standard Errors, and Confidence Intervals
Subjective Career Success Objective Career Success
Variables Sum of indirect Specific indirect S.E. 95% CI Sum of indirect Specific indirect S.E. 95% CI
Self-esteem (direct) -.05 .10 -.34; .24 .28 .38 -.52; .98
Career adaptability .01 .02 -.03; .04 -.13 .19 -.50; .24
Knowledge and skills .07 .07 -.06; .19 .49 .43 -.35; 1.33
Motivation .00 -.00 -.06; .06 .18 .26 -.33; .68
Environment -.12* -.06 -.25; -.00 -.30 .22 -.73; .13
Optimism (direct) .34** .09 .18; .51 -.26 .34 -.92; .41
Career adaptability .05 .04 -.04; .13 -.50* .23 -.95;-.06
Knowledge and skills .12 .06 .00; .24 .77 .35 .08; 1.45
Motivation .00 .12 -.24; .24 -.97 .55 -2.05; .11
Environment .18* .08 .02; .03 .45* .31 -.16; 1.06
Note: N = 574. Confidence intervals are based on bootstrapping analysis using MLR estimator.
** p < .001; *p < .05
45
Appendix E
Results of Relative Weight Analyses with Dimensions of Career Adaptability
Percentage share of explained variance

Growth &
Predictors Recogni- Quality Meaning- Authenti- Personal Satis-
Influence develop- Salary
tion work ful work city life faction
ment
CA Concern 5% (.02) 6% (.02) 7% (.02) 5% (.02) 9% (.03) 6% (.01) 6% (.03) 8% (.03) 3% (.00)
CA Control 10% (.03) 19% (.06) 13% (.04) 8% (.03) 10% (.04) 17% (.03) 9% (.04) 7% (.03) 2% (.00)
CA Curiosity 4% (.01) 6% (.02) 6% (.02) 6% (.03) 7% (.03) 5% (.01) 7% (.03) 4% (.02) 15% (.01)
CA Confidence 11% (.03) 21% (.08) 14% (.04) 11% (.04) 12% (.05) 13% (.02) 19% (.09) 7% (.03) 5% (.00)
Knowledge and skills 8% (.02) 20% (.07) 16% (.05) 15% (.06) 14% (.05) 14% (.03) 20% (.09) 8% (.03) 56% (.03)
Motivation 15% (.05) 21% (.07) 27% (.08) 14% (.06) 28% (.11) 18% (.03) 25% (.12) 29% (.12) 9% (.01)
Environment 47% (.15) 8% (.03) 17% (.05) 40% (.15) 20% (.08) 27% (.05) 14% (.07) 35% (.14) 10% (.01)
R2 total 100%(.31) 100%(.34) 100%(.29) 100%(.39) 100%(.40) 100%(.19) 100%(.47) 100%(.41) 100%(.06)
Note. CA = career adaptability. The sum of the raw relative weights is equal to the value of R2 and the sum of the rescaled relative weights is 100%.
In parentheses: relative weight coefficients.
46

Haenggli Hirschi 2020 Career+Adaptability+and+Career+Success Preprint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Haenggli Hirschi 2020 Career+Adaptability+and+Career+Success Preprint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Haenggli Hirschi 2020 Career+Adaptability+and+Career+Success Preprint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CAREER ADAPTABILITY AND CAREER SUCCESS 1

This is an unedited manuscript published in the Journal of Vocational Behavior.

Declarations of competing interest: none.

Keywords: Career adaptability; Career resources; Key resources; Subjective career

The Role of Career Resources for Career Development

Key Resources for Career Development

Knowledge/Skills, Motivational, and Environmental Career Resources

Predictive Utility of Career and Key Resources for Career Success

different career success dimensions. The unidimensional measurement of subjective career

Sample and Procedure

Correlations Between Assessed Constructs

Relative Weight Analyses

Limitations and Future Research

Implications for Practice

general, it would be a good recommendation, based on our study results, to focus on

Model Fit for Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Model 2 df CFI TLI RMSEA [90% CI] ΔCFI Δ2 (df)

Results of Relative Weight Analyses

Percentage share of explained variance

Figure 1. Standardized estimates of structural equation modelling testing the time-lagged

Model 2 df CFI TLI RMSEA [90% CI] ΔCFI Δ2 (df)

Model 2 df CFI TLI RMSEA [90% CI] ΔCFI Δ2 (df)

Subjective Career Success Objective Career Success

Motivation .00 -.00 -.06; .06 .18 .26 -.33; .68

Environment -.12* -.06 -.25; -.00 -.30 .22 -.73; .13

Career adaptability .05 .04 -.04; .13 -.50* .23 -.95;-.06

Motivation .00 .12 -.24; .24 -.97 .55 -2.05; .11

Environment .18* .08 .02; .03 .45* .31 -.16; 1.06

Results of Relative Weight Analyses with Dimensions of Career Adaptability

Percentage share of explained variance

You might also like