Managing One’s Career: The Joint Effects of Job Autonomy,Supervisor Support,and Calling

Abstract

In the contemporary work environment, which is characterized by change and uncertainty, employees must proactively manage their careers to develop and maintain their competitiveness. Drawing on self-determination theory, this study developed an interactive model that uses job autonomy, supervisor support, and calling to predict career self-management. With a sample of 245 full-time employees in China, the time-lagged survey showed that job autonomy has a direct effect on career self-management, which is moderated by supervisor support and employees’ calling. Furthermore, the three-way interaction indicated that the moderating effect of supervisor support on the relationship between job autonomy and career self-management is stronger when calling is low. Finally, the implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.

Keywords

job autonomy supervisor support calling career self-management

In the current business environment, which is dominated by technological advances and globalization, a wave of organizational restructurings, downsizings, mergers, and acquisitions has led to an increasingly unpredictable and unstable work environment (King, 2004). Accordingly, organizations are increasingly unable or unwilling to manage their employees’ careers (Kossek et al., 1998). In fact, from the protean career perspective (Hall, 2004), responsibility for careers has shifted from employers to employees (Akkermans & Kubasch, 2017). Therefore, employees must take the initiative to manage their own careers. Career self-management describes the proactivity that an employee shows in regard to managing her or his career. It includes one’s efforts to make career plans, solve career problems, and carry out career objectives (De Vos & Soens, 2008; Kossek et al., 1998). In terms of employees themselves, career self-management concerns their quality of work life and career development. Employees who show greater engagement in managing their careers could obtain greater career success (Moon & Choi, 2017) and higher career satisfaction (Jung & Takeuchi, 2018). Moreover, employees’ career self-management enables organizations to develop and maintain competitive human resource advantages, thus contributing to the organization’s sustainable development.

Given the positive effects of career self-management, it is imperative to investigate how to stimulate employees’ career self-management. Previous studies have found that numerous variables, such as dispositional hope, career self-efficacy, and organizational career management help, may predict career self-management behaviors (Hirschi, 2014; Sturges et al., 2008). However, most such studies were conducted from only a single research perspective (only individual factors or organizational factors) and generally overlooked how multiple factors jointly influence career self-management. Jobs, supervisors, and the employees themselves are integral parts of employees’ work contexts and may have interactive influences on their career development. Accordingly, drawing upon self-determination theory (SDT), this study explores three such variables, namely, job autonomy, supervisor support, and calling, in combination to predict career self-management.

This study contributes to the literature in the following ways. First, we develop a three-way interactive model to predict career self-management from a multifactor perspective. Furthermore, this study offers an important test of SDT and extends it to the career-related literature. Few studies to date have applied SDT to the career literature, which mainly focuses on career attitudes (e.g., Dahling & Lauricella, 2017). The present study offers new insights into SDT by connecting it with career behavior. Second, despite plentiful findings on the antecedents of career self-management, previous studies generally neglected how job design yields career-related benefits. Our study is among the first to empirically explore how job design translates into proactive career behaviors. Examining the effect of job autonomy on career self-management, we not only advance the job design and career literature but also offer new directions for both fields, which previously developed in isolation from each other (Hall & Heras, 2010). Third, although a great deal of research has examined the relationships between calling and career attitudes and behaviors, the majority of these studies has been conducted in Western cultures (Douglass & Duffy, 2015; Praskova et al., 2014). Their limited generalizability leaves the functions of calling in non-Western cultures unclear. By answering Duffy and Dik’s (2013) call to broaden the sample diversity in calling research, we explore the function of calling in a Chinese sample. Moreover, most extant studies have only touched on the simple (direct) relationships between calling and career-related variables. By exploring the conditional effect of calling on career self-management, this study helps researchers better understand the function of calling. In addition, this study offers practical implications for facilitating career self-management.

Theory and Hypotheses

SDT

SDT is a theory of motivation that has been widely applied to explain human attitudes and behaviors in many research domains (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016; Vansteenkiste et al., 2010). It presumes that individuals are proactive organisms who have an inherent tendency to pursue personal development and growth by integrating their inner psychic structures and interacting with social environments (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Moreover, this natural pursuit of self-development requires nutriments to function optimally; these take the form of the satisfaction of three basic needs: autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Autonomy refers to the need to experience control over daily activities. Relatedness describes the need to build meaningful social connections with others. Competence describes the need to feel capable of achieving favorable outcomes. From the SDT perspective, human beings experience self-determined motivation and produce positive work outcomes when the above needs are satisfied (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Using time-lagged data, Dahling and Lauricella (2017) found that work autonomy support and work competence support contribute to need satisfaction and then strengthen self-determined motivation, which finally facilitates career commitment, career satisfaction, and perceived person–vocation fit. In this study, we build our theoretical framework based on SDT. We explain the effects of job autonomy, supervisor support, and calling on career self-management by arguing that they help to satisfy employees’ needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence and then facilitate their self-determined motivation.

The role of job autonomy

Job autonomy reflects the extent to which a job provides an employee with freedom, independence, and discretion to conduct the work (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). It has been found to be positively related to many proactive behaviors such as job crafting and voice (Dedahanov et al., 2019; Sekiguchi et al., 2017). We argue that job autonomy helps satisfy employees’ need for autonomy because it liberates them from excessive control and constraints and endows them with discretion and freedom. According to SDT, the need for autonomy is fundamental to the emergence or maintenance of self-determined motivation, which has been linked to many proactive behaviors (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Wu et al., 2018). Accordingly, we propose that job autonomy can facilitate career self-management because it satisfies employees’ need for autonomy and then enhances their self-determined motivation. Specifically, job autonomy not only provides employees with the discretion to react swiftly to changing work or career demands but also offers them the scope to “think about and plan for their future tasks and career while at work” and “explore their surroundings and look for personal growth” (Wu et al., 2018, p. 10; Zacher, 2016, p. 106). Furthermore, autonomously designed jobs allow employees to make independent decisions, which can motivate them to take responsibility for their own careers, thus initiating career self-management (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). In contrast, employees are less likely to be motivated to engage in career self-management behaviors if they must focus their efforts on coping with predefined rules and constraints. Therefore, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 1: Job autonomy is positively related to career self-management.

The moderating influence of supervisor support

Supervisor support refers to the extent to which employees perceive that their supervisors provide them with encouragement, help, and concern (Babin & Boles, 1996). Prior studies have shown that supervisor support contributes to many favorable work outcomes such as work engagement and innovative behavior (Chen et al., 2016; Swanberg et al., 2011). Supportive supervisors value followers’ contributions and care about their well-being, thus building meaningful, friendly relationships with subordinates and cultivating a supportive, friendly work climate (Cole et al., 2006). Therefore, we argue that supervisor support contributes to satisfying employees’ need for relatedness. According to SDT, social factors that help satisfy individuals’ need for relatedness can induce or facilitate the expression of intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In this study, we contend that supervisor support moderates the relationship between job autonomy and career self-management because it helps fulfill followers’ relatedness need satisfaction. As discussed earlier, job autonomy helps satisfy employees’ need for autonomy and then enhances their self-determined motivation to engage in career self-management. However, high levels of job autonomy may also result in negative outcomes such as increased role ambiguity and decreased well-being (Johlke & Iyer, 2013; Stiglbauer & Kovacs, 2018). Supervisor support, which shows concern and care for subordinates, may serve as protective resource that inspires employees to bravely explore further developments in the face of high autonomy. In other words, the positive effect of job autonomy on career self-management can be strengthened when supervisor support is high. In contrast, employees may feel insecure or view displaying proactive career behaviors as risky when supervisor support is low. As a consequence, employees are less willing to manage their careers even though job autonomy offers them discretion and freedom. Therefore, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 2: Supervisor support moderates the relationship between job autonomy and career self-management such that the relationship is stronger when supervisor support is high rather than low.

The moderating influence of employees’ calling

Calling refers to
a transcendent summons, experienced as originating beyond the self, to approach a particular life role in a manner oriented toward demonstrating or deriving a sense of purpose or meaningfulness and that holds other-oriented values and goals as primary sources of motivation. (Dik & Duffy, 2009, p. 427)
It is worth noting that prior research has manifested the critical distinction between the two dimensions of calling, namely the presence of calling and the search for calling (Domene, 2012; Duffy & Sedlacek, 2007). For example, researchers have found that the presence of calling is positively related to decidedness, self-clarity, comfort, and choice–work salience, whereas the search for calling relates negatively to the above variables (Duffy & Sedlacek, 2007). This study aims to explore the extent to which employees feel called to pursue certain careers and how calling influences career self-management. Accordingly, we focus on the presence of calling.

Hall and Chandler (2005) asserted that calling is closely related to a sense of competence (perceived competence). Empirical studies have demonstrated that calling is positively related to self-efficacy, which is distinct from, but closely related to, the sense of competence (Domene, 2012; Douglass & Duffy, 2015). Therefore, we argue that calling helps to satisfy people’s need for competence because it enhances their self-efficacy and sense of competence. According to SDT, individuals’ intrinsic motivation can be enhanced when their need for competence is satisfied (Ryan & Deci, 2000). As such, we propose that the effect of job autonomy on career self-management is strengthened when the employee has a high calling level. Specifically, because they view their work as meaningful and contributory, employees with high calling levels are more likely to enjoy high self-efficacy and then be self-motivated to carry out their calling in the process of career development (Douglass & Duffy, 2015; Hirschi & Herrmann, 2013). Prior research lends some support to our argument. For example, Hirschi (2011) maintained that calling “correspond[s] with identity achievement and promote[s] career confidence and engagement” (p. 60). In that case, job autonomy can stimulate increased career self-management behaviors because calling serves as the internal resource that gives employees the confidence to seek potential career development. Accordingly, we predict the following:
Hypothesis 3: An employee’s calling moderates the relationship between job autonomy and career self-management such that the relationship is stronger when the employee’s calling is high rather than low.

The influence of calling on the moderating effect of supervisor support

We argue that calling can influence the moderating effect of supervisor support on the relationship between job autonomy and career self-management, as predicted in Hypothesis 2. More specifically, we propose that the moderating effect of supervisor support is stronger when the employee’s calling is low rather than high. Because employees with low calling levels lack the internal resources (e.g., a sense of meaning and confidence; Galles & Lenz, 2013; Hall & Chandler, 2005; Hirschi, 2011), they must rely on external resources to encourage their career self-management behaviors. As proposed in Hypothesis 2, given the highly autonomous working context, supervisor support, which helps to satisfy the need for relatedness, can serve as protective resource that inspires employees to explore further career development. Accordingly, among employees with low calling levels, supervisor support exerts a stronger moderating effect on the relationship between job autonomy and career self-management.

In contrast, when an employee’s calling is high, the moderating effect of supervisor support on the relationship between job autonomy and career self-management is weaker. As stated in Hypothesis 3, calling, which helps to satisfy the need for competence, can serve as internal resource that helps translate job autonomy into career self-management (Galles & Lenz, 2013; Hall & Chandler, 2005; Hirschi & Hermann, 2013). Employees with high calling levels rely less on external resources (supervisor support) because they possess personal resources that energize their career self-management behaviors (Creed et al., 2014). In that case, supervisor support exerts a weaker moderating effect on the relationship between job autonomy and career self-management. Overall, we predict the following:

Hypothesis 4: There is a three-way interaction among job autonomy, supervisor support, and calling such that when an employee’s calling is low rather than high, the moderating effect of supervisor support on the relationship between job autonomy and career self-management is stronger. Figure 1 displays the theoretical model of this study.

Figure 1.
Hypothesized model. Note. The solid line represents the direct effect and the dotted lines represent the interacting effects.

Method

Participants and Procedures

To examine our hypotheses, we collected data from 310 part-time MBA students enrolled in a university in Northern China. All participants were employed full-time in a variety of occupations at the time of the survey. We ensured that participation was voluntary and offered extra credit in return for participation. We collected data at two points in time over a 1-month period. Job autonomy, supervisor support, and calling were measured at Time 1, and 272 usable surveys were returned. One month later, we measured the participants’ career self-management and demographic variables (Time 2), and 245 usable surveys were returned, representing a response rate of 79.0%. We matched these data using the unique identifier codes generated by the participants.

The respondents’ mean age was 30.84 years (SD = 6.37), and 62.9% were male. According to the admission requirements of the MBA program, all respondents had at least a 4-year college degree. The overwhelming majority (90.6%) of the participants had 3–10 years of career experience. On average, they had worked at their current companies for 4.75 years (SD = 5.20).

Measures

Because the scales used in this study were originally developed and validated in English, we translated the items into Chinese following the back-translation procedure recommended by Brislin et al. (1973). Certain wordings were adjusted to ensure accuracy and clarity.

Job autonomy

Job autonomy was assessed using the 3-item scale developed by Hackman and Oldham (1980) and revised by Idaszak and Drasgow (1987). A sample item is “The job gives me a chance to use my personal initiative and judgment in carrying out the work.” Respondents rated their agreement on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s α was .88.

Supervisor support

To measure the participants’ perceived supervisor support, we used a 3-item scale adapted from Feij and colleagues (1995) that included items such as “My supervisor provides task assignments which improve skills and knowledge.” Respondents rated their agreement on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s α was .82.

Calling

In accordance with our theoretical model, we used the 2-item presence of calling subscale from the Brief Calling Scale (BCS; Dik et al., 2012) to measure the participants’ calling. The items include “I have a calling to a particular kind of work” and “I have a good understanding of my calling as it applies to my career.” Respondents rated their agreement on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s α was .74.

Career self-management behavior

We adapted Raabe and colleagues’ (2007) 6-item scale to measure the extent to which participants apply self-management behaviors. Each item was answered on a 7-point Likert-type scale, and the labels on the answer points were adjusted for each item. For example, the response categories for the item “How actively do you seek alternative solutions to pursue your plan?” ranged from 1 (not at all actively) to 7 (very actively). The Cronbach’s α was .90.

Control variables

Several control variables were introduced into our analyses to minimize the potential effects of exogenous variables. Specifically, prior research suggested that gender and organizational tenure may influence employees’ career self-management behaviors (Jung & Takeuchi, 2018) and that older employees are more likely to manage their careers (van Veldhoven & Dorenbosch, 2008). Thus, in this study, we controlled participants’ age, gender (0 = male, 1 = female), and organizational tenure (in years).

Results

Correlation Analyses

The descriptive statistics and correlations among our study variables are presented in Table 1. Job autonomy is positively correlated with career self-management (r = .35, p < .01). In addition, supervisor support (r = .21, p < .01) and calling (r = .46, p < .01) are both positively related to career self-management.

Table 1.
The Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among the Study Variables.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Job autonomy 4.58 1.52 —

2. Supervisor support 4.75 1.26 .16* —

3. Calling 5.16 1.11 .31 .30 —

4. Career self-management 5.30 0.98 .35 .21 .46 —

5. Gender 0.37 0.48 .01 .02 −.08 −.09 —

6. Age 30.84 6.37 .11 −.22 −.05 .03 −.05 —

7. Organizational tenure 4.75 5.20 .05 −.13* .02 .04 −.04 .67** —

Note. N = 245. Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female.

*p < .05. p < .01.

Measurement Model

Prior to testing our hypotheses, we employed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the “lavaan” package in R (Rosseel, 2012) to examine the discriminant validity of job autonomy, supervisor support, calling, and career self-management measurements. The fit statistics show that the four-factor model offers good fit to the data, χ²(71) = 154.22, p < .001; CFI = .95, NNFI = .94, RMSEA = .07. Therefore, our research variables displayed adequate discriminant validity.

Hypotheses Testing

We adopted the hierarchical regression analysis method to examine our hypotheses. Before the analysis, all the relevant variables were centered to reduce multicollinearity (Cohen, 1978). We first regressed career self-management on job autonomy, supervisor support, and calling in Model 1. In Models 2 through 4, we calculated the product terms for the independent variables in the two-way interaction, then entered them into the regression equation separately to avoid possible problems (e.g., weak statistical power or high multicollinearity among interaction terms). Finally, we introduced the three-way interaction term among job autonomy, supervisor support, and calling into the regression in Model 5. Table 2 presents the results of the moderated regression analyses. The coefficients between regressions with or without control variables did not change significantly, providing evidence for the robustness of the results.

Table 2.
Results of the Moderated Regression Analyses.

Variables Career Self-Management Behavior

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Control variables — — — —

Independent variables

Job autonomy .22 .22 .22 .25**

Supervisor support .07 .08 .08 .14*

Calling .37 .38 .39 .44

Two-way interactions

Job Autonomy × Supervisor Support — .21** — .07

Job Autonomy × Calling — — .12* −.03

Supervisor Support × Calling — — — .17*

Three-way interaction

Job Autonomy × Supervisor Support × Calling — — — −.23

Total R² .27 .31 .28 .38

ΔR² — .04 .01* .03**

Note. N = 245. In all analyses, the control variables were entered into the first step. Owing to space considerations, their β values are not reported here. Job autonomy, supervisor support, calling, and their interactions were centered prior to analysis. ΔR² is the change in R² as a result of the addition of the Job Autonomy × Supervisor Support, Job Autonomy × Calling or Job Autonomy × Supervisor Support × Calling interactions to the regression.

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

According to the results of Model 1, job autonomy is significantly related to career self-management (t = 3.74, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported. The results of Model 2 reveal a significant moderating effect of supervisor support on the relationship between job autonomy and career self-management behavior (ΔR² = .04, ΔF = 14.50, p < .01). Figure 2 depicts the pattern of this interaction. Simple slope analyses show that the slope for high supervisor support is significant (b = .27, t = 5.20, p < .01), whereas that for low supervisor support is nonsignificant (b = .02, t = .45, n.s.). This indicates that the effect of job autonomy on career self-management is stronger when supervisor support is high than when it is low. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is supported.

Figure 2.
Interaction effect of job autonomy and supervisor support on career self-management.

The results of Model 3 reveal a significant moderating effect of calling on the relationship between job autonomy and career self-management (ΔR² = .01, ΔF = 4.57, p < .05). Further tests demonstrate that the relationship is stronger when the employee’s calling is high than when it is low (see Figure 3). Simple slope analyses indicate that the slope for high calling is significant (b = .20, t = 4.33, p < .01), whereas the slope for low calling is nonsignificant (b = .08, t = 1.64, n.s.), demonstrating that the effect of job autonomy on career self-management is stronger when the employee’s calling is high than when it is low. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported.

Figure 3.
Interaction effect of job autonomy and calling on career self-management.

The results of Model 4 indicate a significant three-way interactive effect (ΔR² = .03, ΔF = 11.53, p < .01). Figure 4 provides a graphical presentation of this interaction. The slope difference test reveals a significant difference in the slopes of high and low supervisor support when the employee’s calling is low (Slopes 3 and 4, t = 2.82, p < .01), but the slopes do not differ significantly when the employee’s calling is high (Slopes 1 and 2, t = −.60, n.s.; Dawson & Richter, 2006). This suggests that the moderating effect of supervisor support on the relationship between job autonomy and career self-management is stronger when calling is low than when it is high. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is supported.

Figure 4.
Three-way interaction effect of job autonomy, supervisor support, and calling on career self-management.

Discussion

From the SDT perspective of Gagné and Deci, 2005, the current study investigates the joint effects of job autonomy, supervisor support, and calling on career self-management. The results of the time-lagged survey indicate the following: (1) job autonomy is positively related to career self-management; (2) the relationship between job autonomy and career self-management is stronger when supervisor support is high than when it is low; (3) the relationship between job autonomy and career self-management is stronger when calling is high rather than when it is low; and (4) there is a three-way interaction among job autonomy, supervisor support and calling such that the moderating effect of supervisor support on the relationship between job autonomy and career self-management is stronger when calling is low than when it is high.

Theoretical Contributions

The current findings contribute to the existing literature in the following three ways. First, prior studies focused primarily on a single research perspective and paid limited attention to how multiple factors jointly influence career self-management (Hirschi, 2014; Sturges et al., 2008). This study verifies the three-way interactive effect of job autonomy, calling, and supervisor support on career self-management, thus contributing to broadening our understanding of how multiple factors interactively influence career self-management. Moreover, SDT has often been used to explain employees’ work behaviors in prior literature. Only a few studies to date have applied SDT into career literature, among which mainly focuses on career attitudes and generally neglects career behaviors (e.g., Dahling & Lauricella, 2017). Our results indicate that job autonomy, supervisor support, and calling help to satisfy employees’ need for autonomy, relatedness, and competence and then promote their career development motivation, thus contributing to more career self-management behaviors. This study shows an important test of SDT and extends it to the career literature, thus advancing research on both SDT and career theory and offering new insights for future studies.

Second, prior studies focused predominantly on personality traits and career-related variables as antecedents of career self-management (Hirschi, 2014; Sturges et al., 2008) but generally overlooked how job design translates into proactive career behaviors (Dahling & Lauricella, 2017). Although previous theoretical research recognized the relationship between job design and career development (Hall & Heras, 2010), this study is among the first to empirically connect job design to proactive career behaviors. The results advance research on both job design theory and career theory by elaborating on how job autonomy facilitates career self-management and offer new directions for both research fields, which used to develop in isolation from each other (Hall & Heras, 2010). In addition, we demonstrate that job autonomy can stimulate enhanced career self-management when supervisor support is high. Supervisor support has been considered a vital factor in predicting employees’ work outcomes (Chen et al., 2016; Swanberg et al., 2011). Our study suggests that attention should also be paid to the role that supervisor support plays in the career development of subordinates because it is supervisor who possesses useful information and relationships and directly controls resource allocation (Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2013).

Finally, although calling’s relationships with career attitudes and behaviors have been well-documented, most prior research was conducted in Western cultures (Douglass & Duffy, 2015; Praskova et al., 2014), leading to limited generalizability. By responding to Duffy and Dik’s (2013) call to study the effects of calling on employee outcomes within non-Western cultures, this study extends the literature by examining the effect of calling on career self-management in China. Our results, which are based on a sample of 245 full-time Chinese employees, highlight the positive role of calling in facilitating career self-management. Furthermore, although research on the relationships between calling and career-related variables has yielded good results, most extant studies only touched on the simple (direct) effect of calling, which limits the comprehensive understanding of calling (Duffy et al., 2012). By demonstrating the moderating effect of calling (two-way and three-way interaction), this study helps to enrich the calling research and makes the theoretical picture for this topic more complete.

Practical Implications

In addition to offering the above theoretical contributions, our findings provide practical implications for employees, managers, and organizations. Employees must first be aware that they are responsible for managing their careers. Furthermore, our results indicate that job autonomy can facilitate more career self-management when employees possess high calling levels. This suggests that employees may benefit from fostering a sense of viewing work as a calling when they are given job autonomy. For example, employees can seek meaning and fun in their work and connect meaning in work to meaning in life to inspire career calling (Dik et al., 2009).

In addition, our findings can guide managers to inspire their subordinates’ career self-management. Managers should provide sufficient support for their subordinates and avoid exerting too much control over these employees’ daily activities. For example, managers should provide their subordinates with useful information, positive feedback, and career advice; give them enough discretion to conduct work; and involve them in discussions about important plans and decisions. Moreover, our results reveal that supervisor support can significantly strengthen the positive relationship between job autonomy and career self-management, especially when calling is low. Accordingly, supervisors should focus on subordinates with low calling levels and provide them with increased care, concern, and support.

To develop and maintain competitive human resource advantages, organizations must understand the factors that contribute to employee career self-management. Our results suggest that organizations can encourage employees to self-manage their careers through job redesign. For example, autonomously designed jobs that provide discretion and independence and that demand flexibility and adaptability should be helpful. Moreover, supportive human resource practices should also be valued. Organizations can adopt human resource programs aimed at developing and improving employees’ skills and competences (e.g., mentoring and coaching), enabling them to meet the requirements of autonomy and motivating them to seek potential career development. Supervisors should also be trained to provide effective support for their subordinates’ career development. In addition, organizations can manage and motivate employees using the concept of calling. For instance, when selecting candidates for a job, organizations can measure candidates’ calling through scales and interviews (Duffy et al., 2018) and prioritize those with high calling. Furthermore, emphasis should be given to staff training, such as education on occupational significance. Emphasizing the importance of the organization’s mission and vision and linking these ideas with the employees’ calling may also be helpful.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

The findings of this investigation should be considered in light of limitations that suggest directions for further research. First, our data were collected from the same source, which may lead to common method variance issues. However, we adopted several remedies to alleviate common method bias. For example, participants were assured that their responses would be anonymous and confidential. Moreover, the major findings in this study are interactive effects, which are generally less influenced by common method bias (Evans, 1985). Nonetheless, we call for future research that gathers multisource data. Second, all the scales used in this study have been widely used in prior research (e.g., Creed et al., 2014; Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009; Sekiguchi et al., 2017) except for the scale that measures career self-management. Although Raabe and colleagues (2007) verified its reliability and validity, we encourage additional studies to use this measure. Another limitation is that some measures used in this study have only a few items (e.g., calling), so future researchers are encouraged to replicate our study using other measures (with more items). Third, although we collected data at multiple time points, the present study is essentially cross-sectional, which may lead to limited causal relationships among our variables. Thus, a longitudinal or experimental research design would help to capture robust causal relationships among our variables. Fourth, our results are based on a convenience sample of MBA students drawn from one university in China. Thus, the generalizability of our findings may be limited. Future research would benefit from replicating our study with different samples (e.g., samples in different countries or regions). In addition, we encourage future researchers to extend our theoretical framework by involving multiple factors to predict not only career self-management but also other proactive behaviors.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Job autonomy	4.58	1.52	—
2. Supervisor support	4.75	1.26	.16*	—
3. Calling	5.16	1.11	.31**	.30**	—
4. Career self-management	5.30	0.98	.35**	.21**	.46**	—
5. Gender	0.37	0.48	.01	.02	−.08	−.09	—
6. Age	30.84	6.37	.11	−.22**	−.05	.03	−.05	—
7. Organizational tenure	4.75	5.20	.05	−.13*	.02	.04	−.04	.67**	—

Variables	Career Self-Management Behavior
Control variables	—	—	—	—
Independent variables
Job autonomy	.22**	.22**	.22**	.25**
Supervisor support	.07	.08	.08	.14*
Calling	.37**	.38**	.39**	.44**
Two-way interactions
Job Autonomy × Supervisor Support	—	.21**	—	.07
Job Autonomy × Calling	—	—	.12*	−.03
Supervisor Support × Calling	—	—	—	.17*
Three-way interaction
Job Autonomy × Supervisor Support × Calling	—	—	—	−.23**
Total R²	.27	.31	.28	.38
ΔR²	—	.04**	.01*	.03**

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank our action editor, George V. Gushue, and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Author Contribution

The first two authors contributed equally to this work.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We acknowledge the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71702095) and the Humanity and Social Science Youth Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (17YJC630076).

ORCID iD

Jipeng Qi

References

Akkermans

Kubasch

(2017). Trending topics in careers: A review and future research agenda. Career Development International, 22, 586–627.

Babin

B. J.

Boles

J. S.

(1996). The effects of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor support on service provider role stress, performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 72, 57–75.

Brislin

R. W.

Lonner

W. J.

Thorndike

R. M.

(1973). Cross-cultural research methods. John Wiley.

Chen

Leung

(2016). When does supervisor support encourage innovative behavior? Opposite moderating effects of general self-efficacy and internal locus of control. Personnel Psychology, 69, 123–158.

Chiniara

Bentein

(2016). Linking servant leadership to individual performance: Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 124–141.

Cohen

(1978). Partialed products are interactions; Partialed vectors are curve components. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 858–866.

Cole

M. S.

Bruch

Vogel

(2006). Emotion as mediators of the relations between perceived supervisor support and psychological hardiness on employee cynicism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 463–484.

Creed

P. A.

Rogers

M. E.

Praskova

Searle

(2014). Career calling as a personal resource moderator between environmental demands and burnout in Australian junior doctors. Journal of Career Development, 41, 547–561.

Dahling

J. J.

Lauricella

T. K.

(2017). Linking job design to subjective career success: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Career Assessment, 25, 371–388.

10.

Dawson

J. F.

Richter

A. W.

(2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917–926.

11.

Dedahanov

A. T.

Rhee

Gapurjanova

(2019). Job autonomy and employee voice: Is work-related self-efficacy a missing link? Management Decision, 57, 2401–2413.

12.

Den Hartog

D. N.

Belschak

F. D.

(2012). When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 194–202.

13.

De Vos

Soens

(2008). Protean attitude and career success: The mediating role of self-management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 449–456.

14.

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

(2009). Calling and vocation at work: Definitions and prospects for research and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 424–450.

15.

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

Eldridge

B. M.

(2009). Calling and vocation in career counseling: Recommendations for promoting meaningful work. Professional Psychology Research & Practice, 40, 625–632.

16.

Dik

B. J.

Eldridge

B. M.

Steger

M. F.

Duffy

R. D.

(2012). Development and validation of the Calling and Vocation Questionnaire (CVQ) and Brief Calling Scale (BCS). Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 242–263.

17.

Domene

J. F.

(2012). Calling and career outcome expectations: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 281–292.

18.

Douglass

R. P.

Duffy

R. D.

(2015). Calling and career adaptability among undergraduate students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 86, 58–65.

19.

Duffy

R. D.

Bott

E. M.

Allan

B. A.

Torrey

C. L.

Dik

B. J.

(2012). Perceiving a calling, living a calling, and job satisfaction: Testing a moderated, multiple mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 50–59.

20.

Duffy

R. D.

Dik

B. J.

(2013). Research on calling: What have we learned and where are we going? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 428–436.

21.

Duffy

R. D.

Dik

B. J.

Douglass

R. P.

England

J. W.

Velez

B. L.

(2018). Work as a calling: A theoretical model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65, 423–439.

22.

Duffy

R. D.

Sedlacek

W. E.

(2007). The presence of and search for a calling: Connections to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 590–601.

23.

Dysvik

Kuvaas

(2013). Perceived job autonomy and turnover intention: The moderating role of perceived supervisor support. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 563–573.

24.

Evans

M. G.

(1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305–323.

25.

Feij

J. A.

Whitely

W. T.

Peiró

J. M.

Taris

T. W.

(1995). The development of career-enhancing strategies and content innovation: A longitudinal study of new workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 231–256.

26.

Gagné

Deci

E. L.

(2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.

27.

Galles

J. A.

Lenz

J. G.

(2013). Relationships among career thoughts, vocational identity, and calling: Implications for practice. The Career Development Quarterly, 61, 240–248.

28.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

(1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.

29.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

(1980). Work redesign. Addison-Wesley.

30.

Hall

D. T.

(2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 1–13.

31.

Hall

D. T.

Chandler

D. E.

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

32.

Hall

D. T.

Heras

M. L.

(2010). Reintegrating job design and career theory: Creating not just good jobs but smart jobs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 448–462.

33.

Hirschi

(2011). Callings in career: A typological approach to essential and optional components. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 60–73.

34.

Hirschi

(2014). Hope as a resource for self-directed career management: Investigating mediating effects on proactive career behaviors and life and job satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 1495–1512.

35.

Hirschi

Herrmann

(2013). Calling and career preparation: Investigating developmental patterns and temporal precedence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 51–60.

36.

Idaszak

J. R.

Drasgow

(1987). A revision of the Job Diagnostic Survey: Elimination of a measurement artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 69–74.

37.

Johlke

M. C.

Iyer

(2013). A model of retail job characteristics, employee role ambiguity, external customer mind-set, and sales performance. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20, 58–67.

38.

Jokisaari

Nurmi

J. E.

(2009). Change in newcomers’ supervisor support and socialization outcomes after organizational entry. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 527–544.

39.

Jung

Takeuchi

(2018). A lifespan perspective for understanding career self-management and satisfaction: The role of developmental human resource practices and organizational support. Human Relations, 71, 73–102.

40.

King

(2004). Career self-management: Its nature, causes and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 112–133.

41.

Kossek

E. E.

Roberts

Fisher

Demarr

(1998). Career self-management: A quasi-experimental assessment of the effects of a training intervention. Personnel Psychology, 51, 935–960.

42.

Moon

J. S.

Choi

S. B.

(2017). The impact of career management on organizational commitment and the mediating role of subjective career success: The case of Korean R&D employees. Journal of Career Development, 44, 191–208.

43.

Praskova

Hood

Creed

P. A.

(2014). Testing a calling model of psychological career success in Australian young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 125–135.

44.

Raabe

Frese

Beehr

T. A.

(2007). Action regulation theory and career self-management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 297–311.

45.

Rosseel

(2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.

46.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

47.

Sekiguchi

Hosomi

(2017). Predicting job crafting from the socially embedded perspective: The interactive effect of job autonomy, social skill, and employee status. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53, 470–497.

48.

Stiglbauer

Kovacs

(2018). The more, the better? Curvilinear effects of job autonomy on well-being from vitamin model and PE-fit theory perspectives. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23, 520–536.

49.

Sturges

Conway

Liefooghe

(2008). What’s the deal? An exploration of career management behaviour in Iceland. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 752–768.

50.

Swanberg

J. E.

McKechnie

S. P.

Ojha

M. U.

James

J. B.

(2011). Schedule control, supervisor support and work engagement: A winning combination for workers in hourly jobs? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 613–624.

51.

Vansteenkiste

Niemiec

Soenens

(2010). The development of five mini-theories of self-determination theory: A historical overview, emerging trends and future directions. In Urdan

Karabenick

(Eds.), The decade ahead: Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 16, pp. 105–166). Emerald Publishing.

52.

van Veldhoven

Dorenbosch

(2008). Age, proactivity and career development. Career Development International, 13, 112–131.

53.

C. H.

Parker

S. K.

L. Z.

Lee

(2018). When and why people engage in different forms of proactive behavior: Interactive effects of self-construals and work characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 61, 293–323.

54.

Zacher

(2016). Within-person relationships between daily individual and job characteristics and daily manifestations of career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 105–115.

Variables	Career Self-Management Behavior
Variables	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Control variables	—	—	—	—
Independent variables
Job autonomy	.22**	.22**	.22**	.25**
Supervisor support	.07	.08	.08	.14*
Calling	.37**	.38**	.39**	.44**
Two-way interactions
Job Autonomy × Supervisor Support	—	.21**	—	.07
Job Autonomy × Calling	—	—	.12*	−.03
Supervisor Support × Calling	—	—	—	.17*
Three-way interaction
Job Autonomy × Supervisor Support × Calling	—	—	—	−.23**
Total R²	.27	.31	.28	.38
ΔR²	—	.04**	.01*	.03**