The relationship between career adaptability and job outcomes via fit perceptions: A three-wave longitudinal study

Abstract

Drawing on the career construction theory and person–environment fit theory, the current research aimed to investigate whether career adaptability could enhance job outcomes. Further, the study examined the role of person–job fit as an underlying mechanism explaining the relationship between career adaptability and job outcomes. The data were collected in three waves from 239 Indian banking employees. The results suggest that possessing psychosocial meta-capacities in the form of career adaptability stimulates employees’ self-regulation in achieving a work–environment fit, consequently leading to favourable job outcomes. The current study is the first to validate the psychological pathways linking career adaptability and job outcomes via person–job fit. Study findings carry implications for career practitioners/counsellors to acknowledge the role of career adaptability in regulating individual capacities for career development. Elaborating the interconnection between domains of career and jobs, the study encourages organizations to consider career adaptability for improving fit and job outcomes.

Keywords

Career adaptability person–job fit job performance job satisfaction career development

Introduction

Savickas (1997) conceptualized career adaptability as a central component of career construction theory. Savickas and Porfeli (2012) defined it as ‘a psychosocial construct that represents an individual’s resources to deal with current and anticipated tasks, transitions, and traumas in their occupational roles’. These self-regulatory resources enable individuals to cope effectively with changes in work and working conditions (Super & Knasel, 1981). In this context, several studies in the extant literature have found a relationship between career adaptability resources and job stress (Fiori et al., 2015), job commitment, turnover (Ito & Brotheridge, 2005), employability (Maree, 2017), and individual career outcomes (e.g. Creed et al., 2009; Hartung et al., 2008; Hirschi, 2009; Koen et al., 2012; Ozdemir, 2019). The current study aimed to determine the influence of career adaptability on job outcomes using a time-lagged study. Several researchers have explored the direct links between career adaptability and job outcomes (Fiori et al., 2015; Zacher, 2015); however, the mediating mechanisms in these pathways are yet to be explained. Our study examines the mediating role of person–job fit (P–J fit) in the career adaptability and job outcomes relationship.

Over recent years, researchers have been intrigued by the concept of person–environment fit (P–E fit) because of its positive influence on employee job outcomes, career involvement, and success (Athanasou, 2007; Bretz et al., 1994; Hollenbeck, 1989; Kristof, 1996; O’Reilly et al., 1991). They have identified several categories of fit under the blanket term of P–E fit: as person–organization fit, P–J fit, and co-worker/group fit (Judge & Ferris, 1992; Kristof, 1996). Despite P–E fit defined in these ways, all distinct relationships with employee outcomes are yet to be examined, which implies that more research is needed to investigate how each of these categories of P–E fit influences employee job outcomes. In this context, the current study addresses one category of P–E fit that of P–J fit, as a mediator in the career adaptability and job outcomes relationship.

Theory and hypotheses development

Career adaptability and P–J fit

According to career construction theory (Savickas, 2005), career development and adjustment rely on adaptation processes to manage work-related circumstances and change to achieve a better P–E fit. In this process, Guan et al. (2013) demonstrated that all four dimensions of career adaptability (i.e. concern, control, curiosity, and confidence) direct individual work behaviours and affect perceptions of P–E fit. For instance, career concern guides employees planning for fitting themselves into the work environment; career control empowers them to make decisions regarding work matters; career curiosity assists them with self-exploration and the scanning of the work environment; and career confidence facilitates individuals to confront work-related issues that might emerge while performing the job. Thus, these dimensions individually and jointly configure the environment to match the employee’s attributes with job characteristics and improve perceptions of P–E fit. We expected that these resources also enabled individuals to be proactive in making changes on the job, such as task crafting to make the job more interesting. In this context, Edwards (1991) and Kristof (1996) concluded that all types of fit, the one that corresponds most with career adaptability is P–J fit (i.e. as demand–ability fit and need–supply fit). This is further supported by Jiang (2016), who demonstrated a relationship between career adaptability and P–J fit. Consistent with these theoretical elaborations and empirical studies, and operationalizing P–E fit as demand–ability and need–supply fit, the following hypothesis was framed:

Hypothesis 1: Time 1 career adaptability is related positively to Time 2 P–J fit (demand–ability; H1a), and Time 1 career adaptability is related positively to Time 2 P–J fit (need–supply; H1b).

Relationship between P–J fit and job outcomes

Individuals, while framing their career choices, opt for that vocational role where their needs and abilities are in congruence with the work environment. In this context, Kristof (1996) defined the concept of P–J fit as ‘the compatibility between people and organisations that occurs when at least one entity provides what the other needs, i.e., they share similar fundamental characteristics or both’. This implies that P–J fit is the parity of employees’ competencies and aspirations with the job profile and environment. Further, P–J fit is classified into two categories: (a) need–supply fit, stating that an employee holds favourable working attitudes about specific jobs that fulfil their needs, such as providing career opportunities, performing challenging tasks, and a good pay scale (Cable & DeRue, 2002); and (b) demand–ability fit, which is the correspondence between the employee’s competencies, qualification, and skills with the job profile.

Both types of P–J fit have different effects on job outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction (Edwards, 1991). Li and Hung (2010) observed that when employees possess the knowledge and competencies that conform to the requirements of the job profile, they perform their job productively. For instance, job training given to employees will enhance employees’ competencies and motivate them to perform better, thereby raising their job satisfaction level (Kim et al., 2018). This implies that employees with high P–J fit, specifically demand–ability fit, will exhibit a higher level of job performance. For instance, Caldwell and O’Reilly(1990) observed that managers’ performance was higher when their competencies were a better fit with the job profile. In the context of need–supply fit, Ivancevich (1979) showed that employees’ performance levels rose when they had autonomy in taking job decisions. Similarly, when the job provides employees with growth opportunities and varied tasks, they find their job more satisfying and exciting, thereby exhibiting better job performance (Shabeer et al., 2018).

From the above literature, the study hypothesized that the more employees find their job meets their needs (e.g. salary, variety of tasks to perform) and are consistent with their qualifications and skills, the higher will be their job performance and level of job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: Time 2 P–J fit, (demand–ability fit; H2a) and (need–supply fit; H2b), is related positively to Time 3 job outcomes.

The mediating role of P–J fit

Consistent with career construction theory proposed by Savickas (2002, 2005, 2013) and the P–E fit theory of Edwards and Van Harrison(1993), we argue that career adaptability can influence job outcomes via P–J fit. We believe that career adaptability enables individuals to achieve better demand–ability fit by adapting to job requirements (Shabeer et al., 2018), which encourages individuals to perform more effectively. This is because the employees find their job more satisfying when their competencies are a better match with job profile needs. Similarly, we expected the need–supply fit to mediate in the relationship between career adaptability and job outcomes. Individuals with higher levels of self-regulatory resources, such as career adaptability, are more proactive in modifying their job environments so that a better need–supply fit is perceived (Edwards & Van Harrison, 1993). For instance, employees high on career adaptability resources are more proactive in crafting different aspects of their jobs in a way that they perceive a greater need–supply fit (Federici et al., 2019). Thus, individuals perceiving high need–supply fit convert their jobs into more interesting and challenging ones that lead to higher job performance and greater satisfaction (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005).

Moreover, career adaptability refers to being able to adjust, or fit, to a dynamic work environment, which is at the centre of the work adjustment theory (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). In line with the work adjustment theory, we argue that individuals exhibit more favourable job outcomes when their need system matches the reinforcement system of the work environment. Similarly, when employees at all levels adapt better to changing work environments, they improve performance (Hannah et al., 2008).

Consistent with propositions by Guan et al. (2013) and Shabeer et al.(2018) that career adaptability positively influences P–J fit, we hypothesized that P–J fit acts as a lubricant for the relationship between career adaptability and job outcomes (see Figure 1).

Hypothesis 3: Time 2 P–J fit (demand–ability fit; H3a) and (need–supply fit; H3b) mediates the relationship between Time 1 career adaptability and Time 3 job outcomes.

Figure 1.

Proposed model: T1 career adaptability is related to T3 job outcomes via T2 P–J fit. Dashed lines indicate controlled relationships; solid lines indicate hypothesized relationships. Source: The Authors.

Proposed research model

Method

Procedure and participants

Data were collected from bank employees in India. Based on the Reserve Bank of India ranking of Indian commercial banks from 2005 to 2019, the top four banks were selected as sample units for the study. To provide adequate representation, two public sector banks (State Bank of India and Canara Bank) and two private banks (HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank) were selected. Employees were invited to participate in the study through an email distributed by the authors. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Data for the survey were collected at three time points with three months between each measurement occasion. At each measurement occasion, 300 questionnaires were distributed. In the first wave (T1), 272 employees responded. In the second wave (T2), 254 employees completed the survey, and in the third wave (T3), 247 employees completed the survey. A total of 239 respondents participated in all three surveys (response rate = 79.5%). A majority of males (57.6%) responded. The average age of the sample was 34 years, 42.8% had completed a diploma, 27.5% were graduates, and 29.6% had other higher qualification. Participants were administrative staff (64.7%), supervisors (9%), and managers (26.1%).

Measures

Career adaptability: The Career Adapt-Ability Scale developed by Savickas and Porfeli (2012) was used to assess the monthly level of career adaptability. This 24-item scale has four subscales (six items each) of ‘concern, control, curiosity, and conﬁdence’. The items were adapted to reflect levels of career adaptability monthly. Sample items include, ‘I plan how to achieve my monthly goals’ and ‘I investigate options before making a choice’. Responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongest (5) to Not strong (1). The overall career adaptability scale had reported reliability of .92 (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012).

P–J fit was measured using a 6-item scale developed by Cable and DeRue (2002), which assesses both need–supply fit (three items) and demand–ability fit (three items). Items were modified to assess monthly experienced fit. Sample items are ‘Every month, there is a good fit between what my job offers me and what I am looking for in a job’ (need–supply fit) and ‘My abilities and training are a good fit with the requirements of my job’ (demand–ability fit). Responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly agree (5) to Strongly disagree (1). Past reliability was .90 for demand–ability fit and .91 for need–supply fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002).

Job satisfaction: A 5-item measure developed by Wood et al. (1986) was used to assess participants’ job satisfaction levels. The scale was adapted to measure monthly job satisfaction levels. Example items are ‘Overall, I am satisfied with my job’ and ‘I am satisfied with the variety of activities my job offers me each month’. Responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale from Strongest (5) to Not strong (1). The scale has an established reliability level, with an alpha coefficient of .89 for the scale (Wood et al., 1986).

Job performance: A 5-item scale developed by Williams and Anderson (1991) was used to assess job performance. Riketta (2002) argued that behavioural dimensions of job performance are a better predictor of performance when self-reports are used, and although supervisory ratings are often used for measuring job performance, self-ratings also have a significant role in job performance assessment (Scullen et al., 2000). The scale used was adapted to reflect the monthly job performance level of participants. A sample item includes ‘I can competently complete monthly assigned work’. Responses were made on a 5-point Likert scale from Strongest (5) to Not strong (1). The overall job performance scale had reported reliability of .91 (Williams & Anderson, 1991).

Analysis strategy

We used the AMOS (V21) statistical program to test a three-step fully cross-lagged panel design. In the first step, confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were used to examine the measurement model for each period. Since all the measurement scales were used three times in the analyses, the measurement model also entailed testing the longitudinal invariance of the scales to indicate consistency in responding over time (Horn & McArdle, 1992). In the second step, to access the longitudinal invariance of the scales, the best fitting CFAs obtained from Step 1 were used. The CFAs reflecting all three measurement periods were included in one analysis. For comparison of the fit of the unconstrained model with constrained models, the unconstrained model is first estimated. Next, the two models having constrained factor loadings and equal factor variances for the same scales were estimated. The scales are not considered invariant if the unconstrained model fit is better than the constrained model fit. In the last step, we test the proposed structural model. All variables were accessed and modelled in each measurement period; thus, a full panel design was utilized. Tested models were assessed using the fit statistics of χ², CFI, TLI, and RMSEA (Hooper et al., 2008). The indirect effects anticipated in Hypothesis 3 were examined by running bootstrapping (N = 1000).

Results

Measurement models

Career adaptability was considered as one latent variable having four subscales (concern, control, curiosity, and confidence) as indicators. The CFA for each period for career adaptability indicated a good fit to the data. The values for CFIs, TLIs, and IFIs were >.92 (except TLI at T3, which was .87) and for RMSEA were <.05. The two latent variables for need–supply fit and demand–ability fit also returned fit values for CFI, TLI, and IFI as >.90 and RMSEA < .08, indicating a good fit for all three measurement models (Bentler, 1990; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Job outcomes were considered as one latent variable with two scales (i.e. job performance and job satisfaction). All CFI, TLI, and IFI values were >.95 and RMSEA values were <.05. Thus, the measurement model indicated a good fit across each time. See Table 1 for means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables.

		M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1.	Career adaptability T1	2.54	.49	–
2.	DA fit T1	3.32	.87	.12	–
3.	NS fit T1	3.27	1.01	.19	.61**	–
4.	Job outcomes T1	3.94	.72	.49**	.33**	.58**	–
5.	Career adaptability T2	2.24	.45	.78**	.08	.19	.38**	–
6.	DA fit T2	3.77	.79	.34**	.47**	.46**	.50**	.30**	–
7.	NS fit T2	3.12	1.05	.29**	.39**	.61**	.51**	.37**	.67**	–
8.	Job outcomes T2	3.53	.69	.33**	.43**	.52**	.89**	.31**	.62**	.51**	–
9.	Career adaptability T3	2.04	.61	.64**	.07	.08	.34**	.66**	.21	.22	.23*	–
10.	DA fit T3	3.55	.77	.19**	.49**	.44**	.56**	.27**	.63**	.59**	.65**	.18*	–
11.	NS fit T3	3.30	.94	.27*	.30**	.59**	.53**	.31*	.52**	.78**	.69**	.16	.74**	–
12.	Job outcomes T3	3.79	.63	.38**	.47**	.39**	.82**	.42**	.59**	.57**	.88**	.37**	.50**	.67**	–

DA: demand–ability; SD: standard deviation; M: mean; NS: need–supply.

*p < .05, **p < .01; N = 239.

Longitudinal invariance

In order to check the consistency in completing the scales over time, longitudinal invariance was tested based on the best fitting CFAs reported in Step 1 (Horn & McArdle, 1992). As per the results presented in Table 2, no differences were evidenced between the constrained and unconstrained models for career adaptability and P–J fit. Hence, longitudinal invariance for both was supported. However, the factor loadings for the scale measuring job outcomes were not consistent. After evaluating each factor loading individually, job satisfaction was identified as not invariant at T1. Nevertheless, the factor loadings at T2 and T3 were constrained to be the same. This was not considered problematic as we mainly used T2 and T3 job outcomes in the data analysis.

Table 2.

Results of the longitudinal invariance tests.

	χ²	df	χ²/df	p	CFI	TLI	IFI	RMSEA
Career adaptability
Unconstrained	54.19	32			.98	.97	.99	.05
FL constrained	56.32	44	6.25/6	.47	.98	.98	.99	.05
FL and FV constrained	54.71	49	6.72/7	.65	.98	.98	.99	.04
Person–job fit
Unconstrained	137.85	113			.97	.96	.97	.06
FL constrained	154.62	109	7.32/7	.48	.97	.96	.97	.06
FL and FV constrained	168.79	110	9.98/10	.51	.97	.96	.97	.06
Job outcomes
Unconstrained	14.93	17			.99	.99	.99	.01
FL constrained	26.22	14	11.13/3	.03	.99	.99	.99	.04
FL (except T1 JS) constrained	12.78	16	0.89/4	.78	.99	.99	.99	.01
FL (except T1 JS) and FV constrained	17.36	20	4.89/5	.43	.99	.99	.99	.01

CFI: comparative fit index; FL: factor loadings; FV: factor variances, N = 239; IFI: incremental fit index; RMSEA: root mean square of approximation; TLI: Tucker -Lewis index.

Test of hypothesis

The study proposed that T1 career adaptability is associated positively with T2 P–J fit (H1). Treating T1 P–J fit as a control variable, we tested if career adaptability is significantly related to P–J fit. T1 career adaptability was found to be associated significantly with demand–ability (β = .42, p < .01) and need–supply at T2 (β = .49, p < .001). Hence, H1a and H1b were accepted. Further, the study expected that demand–ability and need–supply fit would be associated positively with job outcomes (H2). With T2 job outcomes as a control variable, we found a significant relationship between T2 demand–ability fit and need–supply fit with T3 job outcomes (β = .14, p < .05 and β = .12, p < .05, respectively). Hence, Hypotheses 2a and 2b were accepted. Last, H3 proposed that T2 P–E fit acts as a mediator between T1 career adaptability and T3 job outcomes. As need–supply and demand–ability fit were related to career adaptability (H2), we could test the contingent effect of career adaptability on job outcomes via P–J fit. The bootstrap estimate was .81 and the bias-corrected CIs (.01–.26) did not contain zero, indicating a significant mediating effect of career adaptability on job outcomes via P–J fit. Hence, Hypothesis 3 was accepted. The overall cross-lagged model fit was good, χ² = 758.06, df = 603, CFI = .93, TLI = .93, IFI = .92, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .09.

Alternative models

In addition to testing the proposed hypotheses for the relationships between career adaptability and P–J fit and job outcomes, the study also examined two alternative causal models. The first is that P–J fit triggers/reduces subsequent career adaptability, which, in turn, is associated with better job outcomes. Testing this, T1 P–E fit did not predict T2 career adaptability (demands-ability β = .18, p = .37 and need–supply fit β = −.04, p = .69), and, with T2 job outcomes as a control variable, T2 career adaptability was not associated with T3 job outcomes (β = .03, p = .38). Hence, the data did not support this model. The second model tested was career adaptability predicts T2 job outcomes, which further predict T3 P–J fit. The results showed that the path from T1 career adaptability to T2 job outcomes was not significant (β = −.13, p = .17), although the link between T2 job outcomes and T3 P–J fit was significant (both βs = .29, p < .001). Since there was no strong support for the alternate models, we accepted the proposed model.

Discussion

Career adaptability

The study found a positive and significant relationship between career adaptability and P–J fit. One explanation for this is the contextualization process of career adaptability that enables individuals to adapt to work-related changes and circumstances to achieve person–job integration. Another reason could be the contribution of the career adaptability dimensions (e.g. concern, control, curiosity, and confidence) to bias the thought processes of the individual to perceive their job as meeting both need–supply and demand–ability fit. For instance, career confidence among individuals encourages them to learn new skills that conform to job specifications, thereby perceiving demand–ability fit, and learning these new skills and competencies paves the way for future job growth opportunities, thus achieving need–supply fit.

P–J fit

We found a positive relationship between P–J fit and employee job outcomes, as measured by job satisfaction and performance. This is consistent with work adjustment theory: when a job meets the employee’s expectations regarding characteristics such as autonomy in decision making, or their qualifications correspond to the job profile, which is the main essence of fit perceptions, they exhibit more favourable job outcomes.

Job outcomes

Job outcomes in the form of job performance and satisfaction were found to be influenced positively by career adaptability via P–J fit. It could be that individuals with high levels of career adaptability resources, who proactively alter their job environment in an attempt to achieve a greater fit, tend to manifest positive job outcomes. For instance, individuals with self-regulatory resources who perceive job fit are more likely to get involved in job crafting activities to make the job more challenging and interesting; hence finding their job more satisfying and productive.

Theoretical contributions

This research aimed to examine how employees’ career adaptability influenced P–J fit and job outcomes, and also explored the intervening pathways underlying the relationship between career adaptability and job outcomes by testing the mediating role of P–J fit. The current literature advocates that employees who possess career adaptability resources adapt better to varying work conditions and more effectively deal with work traumas. Further, theory and empirical studies support that these psychological resources enable individuals to form a better fit with their work environment, doing this by regulating their needs and competencies to be in line with the work environment. In this context, the study expected that achieving fit between person and job through career adaptability resources would further enhance employee job outcomes in the form of high job performance and satisfaction level.

The findings of this three-wave study demonstrated that career adaptability positively influenced job outcomes because it positively influenced P–J fit. These results are consistent with the findings of Jiang (2016) and Yen et al.(2019), who investigated the theorized connection between career adaptability and P–J fit. Our findings add further evidence, finding that career adaptability precedes both demand–ability and need–supply fit (i.e. both dimensions of P–J fit) overtime. Further, our results corroborate the findings of June and Mahmood (2011) and Chhabra(2015): that P–J fit is positively related to job outcomes, specifically that employees’ job performance and satisfaction levels are boosted if employees perceive a higher P–J fit at the workplace. Thus, the study results augment the existing literature on the P–J fit and job outcomes relationship by supporting that employee’s performance and satisfaction levels rise when employees hold a positive view of their job.

Moreover, as the first study to empirically investigate the mediating role of P–J fit in the career adaptability and job outcomes relationship, the current study validates the intervening pathways of P–J fit as a mechanism between career adaptability and job outcomes. The present study found that adaptability resources increased the employees’ work–environment fit, and this led, consequently, to more favourable job outcomes. Career construction theory (Savickas, 2005) highlights how the career development process assists with person–environment congruence in work settings. Extending this perspective, the current study found that P–J fit acted as a ‘lubricant’ in the association between career adaptability and job outcomes. Overall, the mediating path identified in the current study is consistent with both career construction theory (Savickas, 1997, 2005) and person–environment theory (Edwards et al., 1998), that is career adaptability resources facilitate P–J fit, and this improved fit leads to more favourable job outcomes, thus supporting P–J fit as a mediating mechanism.

Practical implications

The findings have practical implications for career practitioners and counsellors, organizational/management consultants, and human resource managers. Psychosocial career adaptation is positively associated with fit perceptions and job outcomes. Career counsellors need to recognize the role of career adaptability resources in regulating individual capacities in career development and job outcomes. Thus, counsellors and practitioners can integrate the concept of career adaptability into their counselling techniques and career management, as careers and jobs are interconnected with one another.

By validating the psychological pathway linking career adaptability and job outcomes via P–J fit, the study encourages organization and management consultants to take career adaptability resources and job fit into account when guiding clients to enhance job outcomes. For instance, consultants could guide clients to exercise those tasks that enhance their skills and competencies related to their job profile, as this could boost their productivity and enjoyment. Since individuals differ in their career adaptability behaviours (Savickas, 2005), the study suggests that human resource managers might include career adaptability in their recruitment criteria, as individuals high on adaptability are likely to be more proactive in designing their work environment to form a better fit between their needs and the job, which eventually favours job outcomes.

Limitations and future directions

Since the study was conducted using a three-wave study design with three months lag in each measurement period, it contributes to substantiating the relationships among the study variables over time. Nevertheless, future studies should consider studying career adaptability using different time lags between measurement occasions, and test the relationships between career adaptability, P–J fit, and job outcomes over time. Investigators need to also consider other indicators of job outcomes, such as turnover intention and organizational commitment (Riggle et al., 2009), and also should consider other mediators as links between career adaptability and job outcomes.

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.

ORCID iD

Harleen Kaur

References

Athanasou

J. A.

(2007). Assessment of children’s and adolescents’ career development. Career Development in Childhood and Adolescence, 2, 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789460911392_003

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Fit indexes, Lagrange multipliers, constraint changes and incomplete data in structural models. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 25(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_3

Bretz

Robert

Judge

T. A.

(1994). Person-organisation fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 44(1), 32–54. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1003

Cable

D. M.

DeRue

D. S.

(2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875

Caldwell

D. F.

O’Reilly

C. A.

(1990). Measuring person-job fit with a profile-comparison process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 648–657. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.648

Chhabra

(2015). Person-job fit: Mediating role of job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 50(4), 638–651. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/24547010

Creed

P. A.

Fallon

Hood

(2009). The relationship between career adaptability, person and situation variables, and career concerns in young adults. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 74(2), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.12.004

Dawis

R. V.

Lofquist

L. H.

(1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment: An individual-differences model and its applications. In National Library of Australia (New Catalog). University of Minnesota Press. https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/917196

Edwards

J. R.

(1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In International review of industrial and organisational psychology (pp. 283–357). Wiley.

10.

Edwards

J. R.

Caplan

R. D.

Van Harrison

(1998). Person-environment fit theory. Theories of Organisational Stress, 28, 67. https://public.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/faculty/edwardsj/edwardsetal1998.pdf

11.

Edwards

J. R.

Van Harrison

(1993). Job demands and worker health: Three-dimensional reexamination of the relationship between person-environment fit and strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 628–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.628

12.

Federici

Boon

Den Hartog

D. N.

(2019). The moderating role of HR practices on the career adaptability–job crafting relationship: A study among employee–manager dyads. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1522656

13.

Fiori

Bollmann

Rossier

(2015). Exploring the path through which career adaptability increases job satisfaction and lowers job stress: The role of affect. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 91, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.08.010

14.

Guan, Y., Deng, H., Sun, J., Wang, Y., Cai, Z., Ye, L., Fu, R., Wang, Y., Zhang, S. and Li, Y., 2013. Career adaptability, job search self efficacy and outcomes: A three-wave investigation among Chinese university graduates. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 83(3), 561–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.09.003

15.

Hannah, S. T., Eggers, J. T., & Jennings, P. L. (2008). Complex adaptive leadership. In G. B. Graen & J. A. Graen (Eds.), Knowledge Driven Corporation: A Discontinuous Model. LMX Leadership: The Series, Vol. VI. (pp. 36–75). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.

16.

Hartung

P. J.

Porfeli

E. J.

Vondracek

F. W.

(2008). Career adaptability in childhood. The Career Development Quarterly, 57(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2008.tb00166.x

17.

Hirschi

(2009). Career adaptability development in adolescence: Multiple predictors and effect on sense of power and life satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 74(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.01.002

18.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

(1989). Control theory and the perception of work environments: The effects of focus of attention on affective and behavioural reactions to work. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 43(3), 406–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(89)90045-9

19.

Hooper

Coughlan

Mullen

M. R.

(2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.

20.

Horn

J. L.

Mcardle

J. J.

(1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18(3), 117–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610739208253916

21.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

22.

Ito

J. K.

Brotheridge

C. M.

(2005). Does supporting employees’ career adaptability lead to commitment, turnover, or both? Human Resource Management, 44(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20037

23.

Ivancevich

J. M.

(1979). An analysis of participation in decision making among project engineers. Academy of Management Journal, 22(2), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.2307/255588

24.

Jiang

(2016). The relationship between career adaptability and job content plateau: The mediating roles of fit perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 95, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.06.001

25.

Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). The Elusive Criterion of Fit in Human Resources Staffing Decisions. Human Resource Planning, 15(4), 47–67. http://www.timothy-judge.com/Judge%20&%20Ferris%20HRP.pdf

26.

June

Mahmood

(2011). The relationship between person-job fit and job performance: A study among the employees of the service sector SMEs in Malaysia. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 1(2), 95–105. http://www.ijbhtnet.com/journals/Vol_1_No_2_September_2011/13.pdf

27.

Kim, T.-Y., Schuh, S. C., & Cai, Y. (2018). Person or job? Change in person-job fit and its impact on employee work attitudes over time. Journal of Management Studies, 57(2), 287–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12433

28.

Koen

Klehe

U.-C.

Van Vianen

A. E. M.

(2012). Training career adaptability to facilitate a successful school-to-work transition. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 81(3), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.10.003

29.

Kristof

A. L.

(1996). Person-organisation fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x

30.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Zimmerman

R. D.

Johnson

E. C.

(2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organisation, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x

31.

Hung

(2010). An examination of the mediating role of person‐job fit in relations between information literacy and work outcomes. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(5), 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665621011053217

32.

Maree, J. G. (2017). The psychology of career adaptability, career resilience, and employability: A broad overview. In J. G. Maree (Ed.), the psychology of career adaptability, career resilience, and employability (pp. 3–15). New York, NY: Springer.

33.

O’Reilly

C. A.

Chatman

Caldwell

D. F.

(1991). People and organisational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organisation fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487–516. https://doi.org/10.5465/256404

34.

Ozdemir

N. K.

(2019). Qualitative exploration of career adaptability of Turkish adolescents. Australian Journal of Career Development, 28(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038416218821451

35.

Riggle

R. J.

Edmondson

D. R.

Hansen

J. D.

(2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived organisational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 1027–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.003

36.

Riketta

(2002). Attitudinal organisational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 23(3), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.141

37.

Savickas

M. L.

(1997). Career adaptability: An integrative construct for life-span, life-space theory. The Career Development Quarterly, 45(3), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1997.tb00469.x

38.

Savickas, M. L. (2002). Career construction: A developmental theory of vocational behavior. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 149–205). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

39.

Savickas, M. L. (2005). The Theory and Practice of Career Construction. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (p. 42–70). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

40.

Savickas, M. L. (2013). Career construction theory and practice. In S. D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (Eds.). Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 147–183). (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

41.

Savickas

M. L.

Porfeli

E. J.

(2012). Career adapt-abilities scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 80(3), 661–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.011

42.

Scullen

S. E.

Mount

M. K.

Goff

(2000). Understanding the latent structure of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 956–970. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.956

43.

Shabeer, S., Mohammed, S. J., Jawahar, I. M. “Jim,” & Bilal, A. R. (2019). The Mediating Influence of Fit Perceptions in the Relationship between Career Adaptability and Job Content and Hierarchical Plateaus. Journal of Career Development, 46(3), 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845318763960

44.

Super

D. E.

Knasel

E. G.

(1981). Career development in adulthood: Some theoretical problems and a possible solution. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 9(2), 194–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069888108258214

45.

Williams

L. J.

Anderson

S. E.

(1991). Job satisfaction and organisational commitment as predictors of organisational citizenship and in-role behaviours. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305

46.

Wood

V. R.

Chonko

L. B.

Hunt

S. D.

(1986). Social responsibility and personal success: Are they incompatible? Journal of Business Research, 14(3), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(86)90001-9

47.

Yen

H.-C.

Cheng

J.-W.

Hsu

C.-T.

Yen

K.-C.

(2019). How career adaptability can enhance career satisfaction? Exploring the mediating role of person–job fit. Journal of Management & Organisation, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2019.75

48.

Zacher

(2015). Daily manifestations of career adaptability: Relationships with job and career outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 91, 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.003