Does Career Resilience Promote Subjective Well-Being? Mediating Effects of Career Success and Work Stress

Abstract

Drawing on the “top-down” view of life satisfaction, this study investigates the influence of employee career resilience on life satisfaction and examines mediating effects of indicators of career success (i.e., salary, job level, job satisfaction) and work-related well-being (i.e., work stress) on this relationship. Data were collected from a sample of 527 working professionals from various organizations across the central United States. Results revealed that career resilience was positively associated with life satisfaction. Two indicators of career success (job satisfaction and salary) and work stress were found to mediate this relationship. Taken together, these findings signal that career resilience contributes to employee subjective well-being and that both career success and work stress are instrumental in explaining this relationship.

Keywords

career resilience life satisfaction career success work stress job satisfaction career motivation

In today’s globalized world, economic pressures, rapidly growing markets, and technological advancement have placed employees in a challenging work environment, characterized by shifting work demands, role ambiguity, and increasing levels of job insecurity (Callanan, Perri, & Tomkowicz, 2017; Lee, Huang, & Ashford, 2018). To cope with this turbulence, employees need to demonstrate resilience and a capacity to adapt to changing workplace demands (King, Newman, & Luthans, 2016). Career resilience may be defined as “a developmental process of persisting, adapting, and/or flourishing in one’s career despite challenges, changing events and disruptions over time” (Mishra & McDonald, 2017, p. 216). Although career resilience is a core component of career motivation (London, 1983) and has been conceptualized as a key predictor of career success (Mishra & McDonald, 2017; Day & Allen, 2004), empirical studies testing its influence on career outcomes and employee well-being have been sparse.

Career motivation theory (London, 1983) proposes that career resilience is a key component of career motivation, which plays a central role in predicting career-related decisions and behaviors. Career resilience reflects the persistence component of career motivation and is characterized by a strong ability to adjust to a changing environment and cope with adverse circumstances (Noe, Noe, & Bachhuber, 1990). As a result of their high level of persistence and adaptability, individuals who are career resilient are better equipped to overcome career obstacles and disruptions (e.g., impediments to achieving career goals, uncertainty, poor relationships with coworkers; Caza & Milton, 2012; Gu & Day, 2013). Having its roots in motivational concepts, including self-efficacy, need for achievement, and hardiness, career resilient employees tend to engage in more effective career management behaviors (London, 1983; Mishra & McDonald, 2017). For example, they are inclined to keep pace with market changes by monitoring market trends and gauging the skills the company will need in the future (Waterman, Waterman, & Collard, 1994). They also more deliberately assess their strengths and weaknesses and seek out opportunities to upgrade their skills so that they can respond quickly to possible career disruptions (Mishra & McDonald, 2017). In their study of 127 employees testing the relationship between career resilience and career management, Chiaburu, Baker, and Pitariu (2006) found that career resilience is positively associated with the display of career self-management behaviors and mediates the effects of employee proactivity. In interpreting these findings, they asserted that career resilience “brings together the necessary long-term commitment and persistence needed to engage in career self-management” (p. 623).

The “top-down” perspective on life satisfaction emphasizes the role that individual differences play in contributing to one’s overall well-being (see Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2003; Steel, Schmidt, & Shultz, 2008). Although recognizing that specific events and experiences in different life domains (work, family, health, leisure) combine to form one’s overall perceptions of life satisfaction (i.e., the bottom-up perspective), the top-down perspective posits that individual characteristics shape the occurrence of specific life events and how one interprets and responds to these events (Erdogan, Bauer, Truxillo, & Mansfield, 2012; Heller, Watson, & Ilies, 2004). In this respect, individual differences may act as critical predictors of one’s life satisfaction, exerting their effects through one’s domain-specific (e.g., work, family) experiences and perceptions of these experiences (Erdogan et al., 2012; Heller et al., 2004). Consistent with this perspective, meta-analytic evidence indicates that the Big Five personality constructs account for approximately 18% of the variance in life satisfaction, with neuroticism (ρ = −.38) emerging as the strongest predictor (Steel et al., 2008). Other personality constructs that extend beyond the Big Five model (e.g., trait affectivity, core self-evaluations, proactive personality) have also been shown to be associated with life satisfaction (e.g., Greguras & Diefendorf, 2010; Heller, Judge, & Watson, 2002). Despite this evidence highlighting the importance of dispositional variables in shaping perceptions of life satisfaction, the impact of career-related individual difference variables on employee well-being has been understudied (Erdogan et al., 2012).

Drawing on the “top-down” perspective on life satisfaction, the present study explores whether employees who are more resilient in their careers report higher levels of subjective well-being. In particular, we focus on the cognitive (vs. affective) component of well-being and assess one’s overall judgment of their satisfaction with their lives (Busseri & Sadava, 2011). Previous research has shown that positive events and outcomes experienced at work, including greater career progress and a sense of fulfillment from one’s work, can enhance perceptions of overall well-being (e.g., Andersson, 2008; Bowling, Eschleman, & Wang, 2010); however, our understanding of whether and how work-related individual differences influence these perceptions remains rudimentary (Erdogan et al., 2012). Given the dearth of research in this area and recent calls to explore the relationship between career resilience and life satisfaction (Mishra & McDonald, 2017), we test this relationship among a diverse sample of workers employed in a wide range of occupations and work contexts. We also attempt to provide a more holistic understanding of career resilience by examining its career consequences. A central premise underlying theories of career resilience is that career resilience will generate positive career outcomes (Van Vuuren & Fourie, 2000; Waterman et al., 1994); however, most studies have focused on identifying antecedents of career resilience rather than investigating its impact on career outcomes (Mishra & McDonald, 2017). Overall, this study contributes to the research literature by examining career resilience in relation to life satisfaction, and whether this effect operates through its influence on indicators of career success (job satisfaction, salary, job level) and work-related well-being (lower work stress). Findings from this research will advance our understanding of the nomological network of career resilience and shed further light on whether efforts to enhance career resilience may yield positive outcomes for workers. Next, we present our proposed process model of the career resilience—life satisfaction relationship; we then explain the specific direct and mediating relationships tested in the study.

Process Model of the Career Resilience—Life Satisfaction Relationship

In their review of research on life satisfaction, Erdogan, Bauer, Truxillo, and Mansfield (2012) propose that workplace factors play a critical role in influencing individual perceptions of life satisfaction. Drawing on the spillover hypothesis (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Demerouti, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2005), they argue that success and well-being at work should influence overall well-being due to the intentional or inadvertent transfer of resources (e.g., skills and perspectives, psychological and physical resources) between life domains. In line with this premise, we test a “top-down” process model in which four indicators of career success and work-related well-being are positioned as mediating the career resilience–overall well-being relationship (see Figure 1). Specifically, we propose that due to the tendency for career resilience individuals to be adaptable and to engage in effective career management behaviors, career resilience will influence life satisfaction via heightened subjective and objective career success (i.e., job satisfaction, salary, job level) and work-related well-being (i.e., lower work stress). Accordingly, we propose the following general hypothesis and elaborate on the rationale for the specific mediating mechanisms delineated in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1.

Proposed research model.

Hypothesis 1: Career resilience is positively associated with life satisfaction.

Career Resilience in Relation to Work Stress and Life Satisfaction

Work stress is a key indicator of work-related well-being that has been found to play a significant role in influencing the quality of one’s life (Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007). Although well-being at work has been assessed using various workplace attitudes and perceptions (e.g., job satisfaction, perceived organizational support, work stress; Orsila, Luukkaala, Manka, & Nygard, 2011; Soh, Zarola, Palaiou, & Furnham, 2016), previous research has shown that perceptions of work stress play a central role in employee physical and mental health and can significantly impact one’s life satisfaction (e.g., Andersson, 2008; Bliese, Edwards, & Sonnentag, 2017; Johnson et al., 2005). Studies have also demonstrated that perceptions of work stress can cause employee burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001), which, in turn, undermines general well-being (Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012). Drawing on this perspective and principles of the theory of work adjustment (TWA), we propose that career resilience will influence life satisfaction via employee perceptions of work stress. The TWA posits that the higher the correspondence between an employee’s abilities and the requirements of their role in the organization, the greater the likelihood that the employee will adjust effectively to work demands and achieve successful career results (e.g., job satisfaction, longer tenure; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). Because employees higher in career resilience are more adaptable and confident in their abilities, they should be more inclined to adjust effectively to the demands of their work. According to the TWA, if an employee possesses an adjustment style in which they display perseverance, flexibility, activeness, and reactiveness, then this can enhance person–environment fit and adjustment to their work role (Dawis, 2005). Individuals who are more career resilient should be more inclined to demonstrate adjustment behaviors associated with perseverance (e.g., not giving up in the face of career setbacks) and flexibility (e.g., high tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity). They are also more resourceful and determined in overcoming barriers by acting on the environment (i.e., activeness) and themselves (i.e., reactiveness; e.g., taking the initiative to expand their work skills and knowledge; Fourie & Van Vuuren, 1998). In this respect, due to improved adaptation to one’s job, career resilience may lower perceptions of work stress and enhance overall well-being. We, therefore, hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2a: Career resilience is negatively associated with work stress.

Hypothesis 2b: Work stress mediates the relationship between career resilience and life satisfaction.

Career Resilience in Relation to Indicators of Career Success and Life Satisfaction

In addition to reducing perceptions of work stress, career resilience should enhance employees’ career success, which should elevate their perceptions of well-being. Career success is a multifaceted construct that includes both objective and subjective components (Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001). Subjective career success refers to people’s reactions to their career experience and is often operationalized as job satisfaction; objective measures of career success assess more directly verifiable attainments, such as job income, and other indicators of career progression (e.g., job level and promotion rates; Heslin, 2005). In order to assess both components of career success in this study, subjective career success is operationalized as job satisfaction and career satisfaction, while objective career success is assessed using salary and job level—two of the most commonly used indicators of objective career success (e.g., Abele, Hagmaie, & Spurk, 2016; Heslin, 2005; Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005).

Career Resilience, Job Satisfaction, and Life Satisfaction

Individuals who display career resilience take responsibility for their career management and are dedicated to their professional growth (Waterman et al., 1994). These employees are not only more adaptable in dealing with career setbacks, but they are also methodical in their career planning and are willing to take risks to achieve their career goals (Coetzee, Mogale, & Potgieter, 2015; Van Vuuren & Fourie, 2000). This high level of motivation and attention to career growth should enable career resilient individuals to obtain jobs that they find fulfilling. In a recent study of managerial and professional employees in Canada, Lyons, Schweitzer, and Ng (2015) found that career resilience mediates the effect of various individual difference variables (e.g., personality traits, modern career orientation) on career satisfaction. They deduced that career resilient individuals are more satisfied with their careers due to their stronger propensity to bounce back from adversity and persist in achieving career goals. Because the boundaries between work and other life domains are penetrable, satisfaction with one’s work may spill over and exert positive effects in other domains of their life (Judge & Ilies, 2004; Rode, 2004). Indeed, studies have shown that higher levels of career success can boost employee well-being (e.g., Abele et al., 2016; Wiese, Freund, & Baltes, 2002). Moreover, work satisfaction has been shown to be a key predictor of subsequent life satisfaction (Hart, 1999). Based on this evidence, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 3a: Career resilience is positively associated with job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3b: Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between career resilience and life satisfaction.

Career Resilience, Salary/Job Level, and Life Satisfaction

Career resilient employees engage in more effective career management behaviors, such as planning for potential career changes, staying knowledgeable about industry trends, and proactively learning career-relevant skills—behaviors that can improve their long-term employability and further their career advancement (Abu-Tineh, 2011; London, 1983; Van Vuuren & Fourie, 2000). According to career motivation theory, career resilient individuals are persistent in progressing toward their career goals even in the face of work challenges and setbacks (Noe et al., 1990). Higher level jobs also tend to be more complex and require greater responsibility. Because career resilient employees are more adaptable and goal-oriented, they should be better equipped to cope with these work demands, resulting in higher performance and lower turnover rates in these higher level positions.

In the well-being literature, objective indicators of career achievement, such as income level and hierarchical position, have been shown to be positively associated with employee life satisfaction (Abele et al., 2016; Pinquart & Sörensen, 2000). Individuals who are more successful in their careers have greater financial means to adopt and sustain a lifestyle they desire (Pinquart & Sörensen, 2000). Career achievements such as higher pay and promotions can also satisfy specific psychological needs including one’s sense of competence and meaning (Hall & Chandler, 2005). Because career resilient employees may be expected to advance further in their career, and career advancement can provide both extrinsic (i.e., greater material resources) and intrinsic (psychological need fulfillment) benefits to individuals, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 4a: Career resilience is positively associated with salary.

Hypothesis 4b: Career resilience is positively associated with job level.

Hypothesis 4c: Salary level mediates the relationship between career resilience and life satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4d: Job level mediates the relationship between career resilience and life satisfaction.

Method

Sample and Procedure

Data used in this study were obtained from the Professional Worker Career Experience Survey (PWCES) data set (Rosenbloom & Ash, 2009). A total of 752 working professionals from multiple organizations across the central United States participated in the survey. Participants were contacted via e-mail lists provided by various professional associations. Among the 752 participants, 527 (response rate = 70.1%) have provided complete responses for all variables assessed in the study (i.e., career resilience, work stress, job satisfaction, salary, job level, life satisfaction, and control variables), forming the final sample. The average age of the 527 respondents was 38.8, and 58% of them were male. The majority of participants (91.0%) were White, 3.3% Asian, 2.3% Latino and Hispanic, 2.1% Black or African American, and 1.3% other ethnicities. Most participants reported having a university education—46.3% had completed a bachelor’s degree and 44.2% had a master’s degree or above. A wide range of professions were represented in the sample—37.4% of participants were in business and financial occupations, 36.2% were in computer and mathematical occupations, 5.2% were in education, training, and library occupations, 3.9% were sales, 3.1% were in office and administrative support occupations, 2.5% were in legal occupations, 2.1% were health-care practitioners, and the rest were in various other occupations such as architecture, farming, fishing, and forestry.

Measures

The following measures were used to assess each of the focal constructs in the study. Unless otherwise indicated, all measures asked respondents to record their level of agreement with each item using a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree.

Career resilience

Noe, Noe, and Bachhuber’s (1990) 13-item measure of career resilience was used to assess this construct. Previous research has supported the reliability and validity of this scale, demonstrating its convergent validity in relation to other measures of career resilience, as well as its validity in predicting outcomes such as employee performance (London & Noe, 1997; Grzeda & Prince, 1997; Noe et al., 1990). A sample item is “I believe other people when they tell me that I have done a good job.” Cronbach’s α for the scale in this study was .82.

Work stress

The 6-item work stress scale developed by Lait and Wallace (2002) was used to measure participants’ reports of work stress. This scale was designed to directly measure employees’ perceptions of stress without confounding with different antecedents or outcomes of stress perception (Lait & Wallace, 2002). Accordingly, this scale has demonstrated discriminant validity in relation to both role stressors (Chen, Lin, & Lien, 2011) and stress symptoms (Tyagi & Dhar, 2014). A sample item is “I feel overwhelmed by my work.” Cronbach’s α was .91.

Job satisfaction

The satisfaction with work scale from Spector’s (1985) Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) was used to assess participants’ job satisfaction. Several studies have reported evidence of the reliability and validity of the JSS in assessing both overall job satisfaction and its specific facets (Bruk-Lee, Khoury, Nixon, Goh, & Spector, 2009; Spector, 1985; Van Saane, Sluiter, Verbeek, Frings, & Dresen, 2003). A sample item is “My job is enjoyable.” Cronbach’s α was .79.

Salary and job level

Respondents were asked to report their annual pretax salary including bonuses, commission, and overtime pay using a 12-point scale: 1 = less than $30,000 to 12 = over $200,000. Respondents were also asked to report their job level, which ranged from 1 = entry level to 6 = top executive (Rosenbloom & Ash, 2009).

Life satisfaction

Life satisfaction was measured using Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin’s (1985) 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). This scale is the most widely used global measure of life satisfaction (Pavot & Diener, 2008). Vassar (2008) reported a mean Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient of .78 for the SWLS across 62 studies. Several studies have supported the construct validity of the SWLS and also its criterion-related validity in predicting various indicators of mental and physical health (e.g., daily moods, depression, physical symptoms; Larsen, Diener, & Emmonds, 1985; Seder & Oishi, 2012; Urry et al., 2004). A sample item is “In most ways my life is close to ideal.” Cronbach’s α in this study was .91.

Control variables

Demographic variables that have been shown to be associated with life satisfaction and career success were included as control variables including employee gender (0 = men and 1 = women), age, education level (from 1 = high school to 8= doctorate), and job tenure (number of years; Georgellis & Lange, 2012; Ng et al., 2005).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To test the measurement model and assess the distinctiveness of each of four perceptual variables assessed in the study, we used AMOS 21 to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis in which the hypothesized four-factor model was tested against competing three-factor and one-factor solutions. In the hypothesized four-factor model, career resilience, job satisfaction, work stress, and the life satisfaction were each specified as unique factors. The alternative three-factor model specified the same factor structure except that career resilience and work stress were merged into one factor. Results indicated that the hypothesized model (χ² = 531.17, df = 261, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .98, TLI = .97) provided the best fit to the data. The alternative three-factor (χ² = 1,926.16, df = 264, RMSEA = .09, CFI = .85, TLI = .81) and one-factor (χ² = 5,862.43, df = 271, RMSEA = .17, CFI = .48, TLI = .37) models did not provide a good fit to the data. Overall, these results provide support for the distinctiveness of the perceptual measures used in the study.

Results

The means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for all study variables are presented in Table 1. As expected, career resilience was found to be positively associated with life satisfaction, providing support for Hypothesis 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations of Study Variables.

	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Career resilience	63.08	7.71	—
2. Work stress	14.52	7.35	−.27**	—
3. Job satisfaction	9.62	2.10	.44**	−.58**	—
4. Salary	4.38	2.54	.13**	−.04	.13**	—
5. Job level	3.09	1.55	.11*	−.05	.18**	.39**	—
6. Life satisfaction	21.49	5.67	.30**	−.43**	.39**	.17**	.09*	—
7. Gender	.42	.49	.09*	.05	.06	−.26**	−.03	−.06	—
8. Age	38.78	9.75	.05	.01	.21**	.21**	.25**	−.07*	.02	—
9. Education	6.39	1.12	.04	−.03	.06	.24**	.21**	.13**	−.14**	.03	—
10. Job tenure	5.03	5.58	−.03	.05	.13**	.16**	.15**	−.03	.02	.46**	−.15**

Note. Gender was coded as 0 = men and 1 = women. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Direct and indirect effects specified in the proposed model (Figure 1) were tested using the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2017) in SPSS 21. The PROCESS macro allows multiple mediators to be tested simultaneously, which can reduce estimation bias (Hayes, 2017). A multiple mediation analysis (model 4; Hayes, 2017) was conducted specifying work stress, job satisfaction, salary, and job level as focal mediators. To analyze indirect effects, we calculated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on bias-corrected bootstrap analyses with 5,000 repetitions. We controlled for the effects of age, gender, educational level, and job tenure in all analyses. Results from these analyses are presented in Table 2 and Figure 2. In the proposed model, career resilience was hypothesized to be negatively associated with work stress (Hypothesis 2a) and positively associated with job satisfaction (Hypothesis 3a), salary (Hypothesis 4a), and job level (Hypothesis 4b). Consistent with these hypotheses, career resilience was significantly negatively associated with work stress (β = −.27, p < .01) and positively associated with job satisfaction (β = .44, p < .01), salary (β = .13, p < .01), and job level (β = .09, p < .05).

Table 2.

Path Coefficients and Indirect Effects for Mediation Model on Life Satisfaction.

Path	Direct Effect (SE)	95% CI	Indirect Effect (SE)	95% CI	Total Effect (SE)	95% CI
Career resilience → Life satisfaction	.05 (.04)	[−.04, .14]			.24** (.04)	[.15, .33]
Career resilience → Work stress	−27** (.05)	[−.36, .18]
Career resilience → Job satisfaction	.44** (.04)	[.36, .52]
Career resilience → Salary	.13** (.04)	[.04, .21]
Career resilience → Job level	.09* (.04)	[.00, .17]
Work stress → Life satisfaction	−.29** (.05)	[−.38, −.19]
Job satisfaction → Life satisfaction	.21** (.05)	[.10, .31]
Salary → Life satisfaction	.19** (.05)	[.09, .28]
Job level → Life satisfaction	−.03 (.05)	[−.12, .06]
Career resilience → Work stress → Life satisfaction			.08** (.02)	[.04, .13]
Career resilience →Job satisfaction → Life satisfaction			.09** (.03)	[.04, .16]
Career resilience → Salary → Life satisfaction			.02* (.01)	[.01, .05]
Career resilience → Job level → Life satisfaction			−.00 (.00)	[−.02, .00]

Note. The standardized β coefficients reported here are the result of first standardizing the variables before running the PROCESS analysis because PROCESS usually reports unstandardized coefficients. 95% Confidence intervals of indirect effect were calculated from the bootstrapping analyses and are reported in parentheses.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Figure 2.

Standardized path coefficients for full mediation model.

To test the mediating effects of work stress (Hypothesis 2b), and each of the respective indicators of career success (Hypotheses 3b, 4c, and 4d), indirect effects were examined. As shown in Table 2, the indirect path from career resilience to life satisfaction via work stress was significant (β = .08, 95% CI [.04, .13]), supporting Hypothesis 2b. The indirect paths from career resilience to life satisfaction via job satisfaction (β = .09; 95% CI [.04, .16]) and via salary (β = .02; 95% CI [.01, .05]) were also both statistically significant, providing support for Hypotheses 3b and 4c. However, the indirect effect of job level was not significantly different from zero, failing to support Hypothesis 4d.

Taken together, these results indicate that career resilience is significantly positively associated with life satisfaction. Career resilience was also found to significantly predict work stress and all three indicators of career success (i.e., job satisfaction, salary, job level). In turn, work stress and two out of the three indicators of career success tested (i.e., job satisfaction and salary, but not job level) together fully mediated the relationship between career resilience and life satisfaction.

Discussion

In response to recent calls to explore whether career resilience translates into greater subjective well-being, we tested an integrative model in which career resilience predicts life satisfaction through two primary mechanisms: improved career success and greater work-related well-being (i.e., lower work stress). Consistent with the “top-down” view of life satisfaction, we found that career resilience is positively associated with employee reports of life satisfaction. Furthermore, in line with our hypotheses, the influence of career resilience on life satisfaction appears to be mediated by both objective and subjective indicators of career success (job satisfaction, salary) and work stress.

Overall, these results provide important contributions to the research literatures on both career resilience and life satisfaction. Much of the literature on life satisfaction has focused on exploring non-work-related predictors of life satisfaction, prompting calls for more systematic study of how workplace factors combine with individual difference variables to influence employee well-being (e.g., Erdogan et al., 2012; Heller et al., 2004). By testing our integrative model, which measures career resilience and different components of one’s work experience (career success, work stress), this enabled a more detailed assessment of how individual differences and workplace factors jointly shape perceptions of well-being. Taken together, our results identify career resilience as a novel career-related antecedent of life satisfaction, and suggest that processes related to enhanced career motivation (i.e., career success) and work adaptation (lower work stress) may assist in explaining why career resilient employees report higher satisfaction with their lives.

Although career resilience reflects one’s capacity to adapt and respond to career-related adversity, our study is unique in testing whether career resilience is associated with perceptions of work stress. While previous studies have demonstrated that work stress can influence life satisfaction by affecting one’s psychological and physical health (Andersson, 2008; Bliese et al., 2017; Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012), our results suggest that career resilient employees may be less subject to suffering the negative consequences of work stress (e.g., lower life satisfaction), possibly due to their stronger capacity to adapt to the demands of their job and/or cope with stress. According to the TWA, an employee’s perceptions of fit with both the requirements of their work role and the work environment are instrumental in determining their well-being. Because employees higher in career resilience are more adaptable and confident in their abilities, these employees may be less likely to view work demands as stressful. Alternatively, because career resilient employees are more ambitious and motivated to advance in their careers, they may encounter more stressful situations in their work lives, but may also be better equipped to cope with this stress effectively. The differential coping-choice model of work stress (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995) posits that workers may be differentially reactive to stress and use different coping mechanisms in responding to stress. To further illuminate how career resilience influences worker stress perceptions, future research should examine the coping strategies and adaptation mechanisms that career resilient employees use.

Our findings corroborate and extend previous work on career motivation theory (London, 1983) by directly testing career resilience in relation to both subjective and objective measures of career success. Some previous research has suggested that career resilience is positively associated with job satisfaction (subjective career success); however, these studies have primarily focused on a specific subset of jobs (e.g., nurses; Myers, Rogers, LeCrone, Kelley, & Scott, 2018; Wei & Taormina, 2014). Our findings complement this work by indicating that career resilience is associated with job satisfaction for employees in various occupations. Interestingly, we also found that employees who are more career resilient tend to obtain higher salaries, a key indicator of career progression. Despite previous evidence indicating that career resilient employees are more likely to engage in career self-management behaviors (e.g., seeking developmental feedback, monitoring industry trends; Chiaburu et al., 2006; Van Vuuren & Fourie, 2000), the effect of career resilience on promotion rates and other objective indicators of career advancement has not been studied. Additional research is needed to further elucidate how career resilience influences salary levels and other indicators of career progression. Although career resilient employees may advance further in their careers by receiving more internal promotions, it is also possible that they display higher external mobility, which also facilitates the attainment of higher salaries (Lam, Ng, & Feldman, 2012).

It is interesting to note that one of the objective measures of career success—job level—did not mediate the relationship between career resilience and life satisfaction. There are a number of potential explanations for this null finding. One possibility is that while higher levels jobs may enhance well-being for some employees, it may do the opposite for others. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that employees higher in an organization’s hierarchy may be more susceptible to experiencing work interference with family due to increased work hours and responsibility for overseeing complex problems (Brett & Stroh 2003; DiRenzo, Greenhaus, & Weer, 2011). Future studies should examine the role of work demands and work–family variables in moderating the effects of career success on employee perceptions of well-being.

Applied Implications

In practical terms, our findings highlight the potential value of providing training opportunities and other forms of organizational support (e.g., career mentoring, leadership; Day & Allen, 2004) that assist in building the career resilience of professional employees. Given that career resilience has been conceptualized as an individual difference variable that can evolve over time, counseling and training interventions may assist in fostering career resilience (Fleig-Palmer, Luthans, & Mandernach, 2009; Mishra & McDonald, 2017). Career counselors can assist in the development of career resilience by first helping the individual identify and map the career obstacles they are facing in order to pinpoint specific targets for intervention (Rochat, Masdonati, & Dauwalder, 2017). Other potentially effective counseling techniques include active listening (Bimrose & Hearne, 2012), cognitive reappraisal of stressful situations (Kim & Lee, 2018), and the use of specific psychological and behavioral strategies in response to “career shocks” (Seibert, Kraimer, & Heslin, 2016). Furthermore, a narrative approach has recently been developed that encourages clients to build their career resilience by developing alternative and more active plots for their career stories (Watson & McMahon, 2017). Likewise, the Career Construction Interview has been recommended as a means of developing career resilience by enhancing one’s sense of meaning in their work through the composition of career stories that connect one’s self-identity to their work roles (Glavin, Haag, & Forbes, 2017; Hartung, 2015).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

There are certain limitations to the study that should be noted. First, we note that correlations among the variables self-reported by participants were vulnerable to common method variance (CMV). A central aim of our research, however, was to examine specific perceptual processes (perceived work stress, subjective career success) that mediate the relationship between career resilience and life satisfaction. Therefore, examining the interrelations between these perceptual variables was a necessary feature of this study. Although CMV cannot be ruled out definitively, our CFA supported the distinctiveness of our measures and did not uncover a common method factor.

Second, while there is a strong theoretical basis for the proposed direction of causality, the cross-sectional design used in this research limits the degree to which causality can be inferred. Future research with longitudinal or experimental designs is required to help establish the causal ordering of these variables. Moreover, although our sample consisted of employees from a broad range of professional positions, most of the participants were well-educated and White. Additional research is needed to test the generalizability of our findings for workers with different demographic backgrounds and in nonprofessional jobs.

Finally, further research is needed exploring career resilience in relation to different measures of career success and well-being. A notable strength of this study is that we included both subjective and objective measures of career success; however, researchers have argued that it is not only one’s current job level but also the pace and form of their career development (e.g., how quickly one progresses in their career, how that movement compares to their expectations) that should be captured in measures of career success (Judge & Hurst, 2008). Thus, we encourage future studies to assess career success in a multi-faceted manner (including both subjective and objective indicators) while also tracking employee advancement over time. Likewise, future research should examine whether career resilience predicts different facets of well-being. It is possible, for example, that career resilience may exert a stronger influence on measures of hedonic well-being (e.g., life satisfaction) than eudaemonic well-being (e.g., meaning in life). Indeed, there is some evidence suggesting that individuals who are “objectively” successful in their career as measured through extrinsic outcomes (i.e., higher job level, salary) may still not feel satisfied with their accomplishments (Judge, Piccolo, Podsakoff, Shaw, & Rich, 2010; Nicholson & De Waal-Andrews, 2005).

Although our results suggest that career resilience may positively influence one’s career outcomes and overall well-being, further research will be vital to ascertaining the full nature and scope of the effects of career resilience on workers. Recently, there has been a renewed interest among practitioners in strengthening the career resilience of employees and encouraging workers to develop a more proactive approach to their career development (Maree, 2017). In order to consolidate our understanding of the construct and improve the design of career resilience interventions, more systematic study of both the work-related and personal consequences of career resilience is warranted.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abele

A. E.

Hagmaier

Spurk

(2016). Does career success make you happy? The mediating role of multiple subjective success evaluations. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17, 1615–1633.

Abu-Tineh

A. M.

(2011). Exploring the relationship between organizational learning and career resilience among faculty members at Qatar University. International Journal of Educational Management, 25, 635–650.

Andersson

(2008). Happiness and health: Well-being among the self-employed. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37, 213–236.

Bimrose

Hearne

(2012). Resilience and career adaptability: Qualitative studies of adult career counseling. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 338–344.

Bliese

P. D.

Edwards

J. R.

Sonnentag

(2017). Stress and well-being at work: A century of empirical trends reflecting theoretical and societal influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 389–402.

Bolger

Zuckerman

(1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890–902.

Bowling

N. A.

Eschleman

K. J.

Wang

(2010). A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between job satisfaction and subjective well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 915–934.

Brett

Stroh

(2003). Working 61 plus hours a week: Why do managers do it? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 67–78.

Bruk-Lee

Khoury

H. A.

Nixon

A. E.

Goh

Spector

P. E.

(2009). Replicating and extending past personality/job satisfaction meta-analyses. Human Performance, 22, 156–189.

10.

Busseri

M. A.

Sadava

S. W.

(2011). A review of the tripartite structure of subjective well-being: Implications for conceptualization, operationalization, analysis, and synthesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 290–314.

11.

Callanan

G. A.

Perri

D. F.

Tomkowicz

S. M.

(2017). Career management in uncertain times: Challenges and opportunities. Career Development Quarterly, 65, 353–365.

12.

Caza

B. B.

Milton

L. P.

(2012). Resilience at work: Building capability in the face of adversity. In Cameron

K. S.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive scholarship (pp. 895–908). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

13.

Chen

M. F.

Lin

C. P.

Lien

G. Y.

(2011). Modelling job stress as a mediating role in predicting turnover intention. The Service Industries Journal, 31, 1327–1345.

14.

Chiaburu

D. S.

Baker

V. L.

Pitariu

A. H.

(2006). Beyond being proactive: What (else) matters for career self-management behaviors? Career Development International, 11, 619–632.

15.

Coetzee

Mogale

P. M.

Potgieter

I. L.

(2015). Moderating role of affectivity in career resilience and career anchors. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 25, 438–447.

16.

Dawis

R. V.

(2005). The Minnesota theory of work adjustment. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career Development and Counseling (pp. 3–23). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

17.

Dawis

R. V.

Lofquist

L. H.

(1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

18.

Day

Allen

T. D.

(2004). The relationship between career motivation and self-efficacy with protégé career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 72–91.

19.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2005). Spillover and crossover of exhaustion and life satisfaction among dual-earner parents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 266–289.

20.

Diener

E. D.

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

21.

Diener

Oishi

Lucas

R. E.

(2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–425.

22.

DiRenzo

M. S.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Weer

C. H.

(2011). Job level, demands, and resources as antecedents of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 305–314.

23.

Edwards

J. R.

Rothbard

N. P.

(2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25, 178–199.

24.

Erdogan

Bauer

T. N.

Truxillo

D. M.

Mansfield

L. R.

(2012). Whistle while you work: A review of the life satisfaction literature. Journal of Management, 38, 1038–1083.

25.

Fleig-Palmer

M. M.

Luthans

K. W.

Mandernach

B. J.

(2009). Successful reemployment through resiliency development. Journal of Career Development, 35, 228–247.

26.

Ford

M. T.

Heinen

B. A.

Langkamer

K. L.

(2007). Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 57–80.

27.

Fourie

Van Vuuren

L. J.

(1998). Defining and measuring career resilience. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 24, 52–59.

28.

Georgellis

Lange

(2012). Traditional versus secular values and the job–life satisfaction relationship across Europe. British Journal of Management, 23, 437–454.

29.

Glavin

K.W.

Haag

R. A.

Forbes

L. K.

(2017). Fostering career adaptability and resilience and promoting employability using life design counseling. In Maree

(Ed.), Psychology of career adaptability, employability and resilience (pp. 433–455). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.

30.

Greguras

G. J.

Diefendorff

J. M.

(2010). Why does proactive personality predict employee life satisfaction and work behaviors? A field investigation of the mediating role of the self-concordance model. Personnel Psychology, 63, 539–560.

31.

Grzeda

M. M.

Prince

J. B.

(1997). Career motivation measures: A test of convergent and discriminant validity. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8, 172–196.

32.

Day

(2013). Challenges to teacher resilience: Conditions count. British Educational Research Journal, 39, 22–44.

33.

Hakanen

J. J.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2012). Do burnout and work engagement predict depressive symptoms and life satisfaction? A three-wave seven-year prospective study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 141, 415–424.

34.

Hall

D. T.

Chandler

D. E.

(2005). Psychological success: When the career is a calling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 155–176.

35.

Hart

P. M.

(1999). Predicting employee life satisfaction: A coherent model of personality, work, and nonwork experiences, and domain satisfactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 564–584.

36.

Hartung

P. J.

(2015). The career construction interview. In: McMahon

Watson

(Eds.), Career assessment in career development series (pp. 115–121). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.

37.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.

38.

Heller

Judge

T. A.

Watson

(2002). The confounding role of personality and trait affectivity in the relationship between job and life satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 815–835.

39.

Heller

Watson

Ilies

(2004). The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: A critical examination. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 574–600.

40.

Heslin

P. A.

(2005). Conceptualizing and evaluating career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 113–136.

41.

Johnson

Cooper

Cartwright

Donald

Taylor

Millet

(2005). The experience of work-related stress across occupations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 178–187.

42.

Judge

T. A.

Hurst

(2008). How the rich (and happy) get richer (and happier): Relationship of core self-evaluations to trajectories in attaining work success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 849–863.

43.

Judge

T. A.

Ilies

(2004). Affect and job satisfaction: A study of their relationship at work and at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 661–673.

44.

Judge

T. A.

Piccolo

R. F.

Podsakoff

N. P.

Shaw

J. C.

Rich

B. L.

(2010). The relationship between pay and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 157–167.

45.

Kim

S. R.

Lee

S. M.

(2018). Resilient college students in school-to-work transition. International Journal of Stress Management, 25, 195–207.

46.

King

D. D.

Newman

Luthans

(2016). Not if, but when we need resilience in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 782–786.

47.

Lait

Wallace

(2002). Stress at work: A study of organizational–professional conflict and unmet expectations. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 57, 463–490.

48.

Lam

S. S.

T. W.

Feldman

D. C.

(2012). The relationship between external job mobility and salary attainment across career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 129–136.

49.

Larsen

R. J.

Diener

Emmonds

R. A.

(1985). An evaluation of subjective well-being measures. Social Indicators Research, 17, 1–18.

50.

Lee

Huang

G. H.

Ashford

S. J.

(2018). Job insecurity and the changing workplace: Recent developments and the future trends in job insecurity research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 335–359.

51.

London

(1983). Toward a theory of career motivation. Academy of Management Review, 8, 620–630.

52.

London

Noe

R. A.

(1997). London’s career motivation theory: An update on measurement and research. Journal of Career Assessment, 5, 61–80.

53.

Lyons

S. T.

Schweitzer

E. S.

(2015). Resilience in the modern career. Career Development International, 20, 363–383.

54.

Maree

(2017). Utilizing career adaptability and career resilience to promote employability and decent work and alleviate poverty. In Maree

(Ed.), Psychology of career adaptability, employability and resilience (pp. 349–373). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.

55.

Maslach

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

(2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422.

56.

Mishra

McDonald

(2017). Career resilience: An integrated review of the empirical literature. Human Resource Development Review, 16, 207–234.

57.

Myers

D. R.

Rogers

LeCrone

H. H.

Kelley

Scott

J. H.

(2018). Work life stress and career resilience of licensed nursing facility administrators. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 37, 435–463.

58.

T. W.

Eby

L. T.

Sorensen

K. L.

Feldman

D. C.

(2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367–408.

59.

Nicholson

De Waal-Andrews

(2005). Playing to win: Biological imperatives, self-regulation, and trade-offs in the game of career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 137–154.

60.

Noe

R. A.

Noe

A. W.

Bachhuber

J. A.

(1990). An investigation of the correlates of career motivation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 340–356.

61.

Orsila

Luukkaala

Manka

M. L.

Nygard

C. H.

(2011). A new approach to measuring work-related well-being. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 17, 341–359.

62.

Pavot

Diener

(2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 137–152.

63.

Pinquart

Sörensen

(2000). Influences of socioeconomic status, social network, and competence on subjective well-being in later life: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 15, 187–224.

64.

Rochat

Masdonati

Dauwalder

J. P.

(2017). Determining Career Resilience. In Maree

(Ed.), Psychology of career adaptability, employability and resilience (pp. 125–141). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.

65.

Rode

J. C.

(2004). Job satisfaction and life satisfaction revisited: A longitudinal test of an integrated model. Human Relations, 57, 1205–1230.

66.

Rosenbloom

J. L

Ash

R. A.

(2009). Professional Worker Career Experience Survey, United States, 2003–2004 [Computer file]. ICPSR26782-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.

67.

Seder

J. P.

Oishi

(2012). Intensity of smiling in Facebook photos predicts future life satisfaction. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 407–413.

68.

Seibert

S. E.

Kraimer

M. L.

Heslin

P. A.

(2016). Developing career resilience and adaptability. Organizational Dynamics, 45, 245–257.

69.

Seibert

S. E.

Kraimer

M. L.

Liden

R. C.

(2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219–237.

70.

Soh

Zarola

Palaiou

Furnham

(2016). Work-related well-being. Health Psychology Open, 3, 1–11.

71.

Spector

P. E.

(1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693–713.

72.

Steel

Schmidt

Shultz

(2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138–161.

73.

Tyagi

Lochan Dhar

(2014). Factors affecting health of the police officials: Mediating role of job stress. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 37, 649–664.

74.

Urry

H. L.

Nitschke

J. B.

Dolski

Jackson

D. C.

Dalton

K. M.

Mueller

C. J.

… Davidson

R. J.

(2004). Making a life worth living: Neural correlates of well-being. Psychological Science, 15, 367–372.

75.

Van Saane

Sluiter

J. K.

Verbeek

J. H.

Frings

A. M.

Dresen

M. H. W.

(2003). Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction—A systematic review. Occupational Medicine, 53, 191–200.

76.

Van Vuuren

L. J.

Fourie

(2000). Career anchors and career resilience: Supplementary constructs? SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 26, 15–20.

77.

Vassar

(2008). A note on the score reliability for the Satisfaction with Life Scale: An RG study. Social Indicators Research, 86, 47–57.

78.

Waterman

R. H.

Jr Waterman

J. A.

Collard

B. A.

(1994). Toward a career resilient workforce. Harvard Business Review, 72, 87–95.

79.

Watson

McMahon

(2017). Adult career counselling: Narratives of adaptability and resilience. In Maree

(Ed.), Psychology of career adaptability, employability and resilience (pp. 189–204). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.

80.

Wei

Taormina

R. J.

(2014). A new multidimensional measure of personal resilience and its use: Chinese nurse resilience, organizational socialization and career success. Nursing Inquiry, 21, 346–357.

81.

Wiese

B. S.

Freund

A. M.

Baltes

P. B.

(2002). Subjective career success and emotional well-being: Longitudinal predictive power of selection, optimization, and compensation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 321–335.