The impact of protean career on career sustainability: Mediating effect of perceived employability

Abstract

Despite the studies on protean career attitude in the career management literature, career sustainability and its potential outcomes have been subjected to study with limited empirical evidence. With this context, this study propounds a conceptual model connecting protean career orientation and perceived employability with career sustainability. Besides, sequentially, we posit that lifelong learning and proactive skill development mediate the relationship between protean career orientation and perceived employability. To establish the relationship, this study gathered data from Italy and Cyprus. Structural equation modelling was performed using the data collected. The results indicated serial mediation paths through which protean orientation impacts career sustainability.

Keywords

Protean career orientation lifelong learning proactive skill development career sustainability hospitality industry psychology of sustainability psychology of sustainable development

Introduction

Deliberations and discussions on career management are vital as the career is a significant source of identity affirmation for individuals who derive satisfaction and well-being (Baruch & Sullivan, 2022; Gillet et al., 2022). Career scholars have developed theories and concepts that reflect employees’ attitudes across the career span. Career theories have been categorised as first- and second-generation career theories (Baruch & Sullivan, 2022). First-generation career theories were anchored on the importance of agency, adaptability, and flexibility to changing labour market demands. Concepts like protean attitude and boundaryless careers (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Hall, 1996) discussed careers from an individual perspective. Protean career orientation (henceforth, PCO) has been regarded as a first-generation career concept, and scholars have widely embraced the concept (Gubler et al., 2013). The protean person's career choices and search for self-fulfilment are the unifying or integrative elements in their life. The protean career is shaped more by the individual than the organisation and may be redirected occasionally to meet the person's needs (Hall, 1996, p. 10). The ever-changing job market scenario necessitates developing such neo-career attitudes among millennials (Gubler et al., 2013; Nimmi et al., 2020).

The drastic changes due to economic and societal transformations (Rapuano, 2022) result in unexpected events disrupting career continuity (e.g. the COVID-19 pandemic) and fast-paced technological innovations (e.g. Automation, Robotisation and AI-led systems), which have changed the form and meaning that work assumes for each individual (Di Fabio, 2017a; Di Fabio & Blustein, 2016). Such complex circumstances require attention to protect and promote healthy organisational conditions and psychological well-being for people per the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs; United Nations, 2015). A new paradigm in career studies that follows this assumption is career sustainability (hereafter, CS), which is surging as prominent in current times. This paradigm, which emerged from the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development (Di Fabio, 2017a, 2017b; Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018; Di Fabio & Rosen, 2018, 2020; Rosen & Di Fabio, 2023), emphasises that fostering individual responsibility to build employability is key (Baruch & Sullivan, 2022; Seibert et al., 2001). Indeed, individual and organisational efforts should adopt a prevention focus and aim at promoting decent work, decent lives, a higher quality of life and psychological well-being throughout one's career by enriching, growing and adapting/renewing resources (Di Fabio, 2017b; Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018, 2023; Di Fabio & Rosen, 2018, 2020; Kenny et al., 2024; Peiró et al., 2023). By the mid-2000s, many neo-career theories developed, amongst which sustainable careers theory – considered a second-generation career theory – have received widespread acceptance among practitioners and academicians (Donald et al., 2024).

Our study aim was to investigate and test a theoretical integration, explaining how first-generation career concepts have paved the way for second-generation career concepts. We hypothesised that PCO is key for a sustainable career because it allows resourcefulness at the basis of a psychologically sustainable life and career course (Chin et al., 2022; de Vos et al., 2020). PCO represents the prevention-oriented self-endorsed approach to career development – which supports meaningful life and career projects through a predisposition to change goals, adapt skills and knowledge, and integrate previous experience to meet new career challenges even under complex and ever-changing circumstances – that underpins CS (Di Fabio et al., 2017a; Di Fabio & Rosen, 2018).

Even though the association is pertinent, scholarly work has not thoroughly discussed the association between PCO and CS, despite the literature continuously hinting that PCO leads to achieving sustainability in a career (Tomlinson et al., 2018). Next, we examined the mechanism through which protean employees attain CS. From a resource-based perspective (Conservation of Resources, henceforth, CoR theory; Hobfoll et al., 2018), protean employees may rely on lifelong learning (henceforth, LLL) and proactive skill development (henceforth, PSD) to enrich their resource reservoirs and equip themselves against the ever-changing demands in the job market (Gubler et al., 2013). This lifelong and life-wide learning could equip them with the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities. As they accumulate skills, knowledge, and necessary work attitudes, they initiate a resource-gain spiral (Kirves et al., 2014), resulting in higher employability (Peeters et al., 2019). For instance, emotional intelligence is one of the vital job attitudes that have a significant role in the career decisions of an employee in the organisation (Di Fabio et al., 2013; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2016). The presence of this resource caravan could further lead to beneficial outcomes, such as protecting or enhancing a sustainable career (de Vos et al., 2020).

This study affirmed the need to study the connection between PCO and CS, which could be paramount because well-established theoretical notions can be adopted to nurture new career paradigms. Given the research gaps, the current study examined the relationship between PCO and CS. We advanced the importance of perceived employability (henceforth, PE), LLL, and PSD in connecting PCO and CS among employees in the hospitality sector. This paper argued that understanding the shift from protean orientation to sustainable careers is expected and desirable since the conduct and the approach protean employees hold may generate CS through developing PE. In a practical sense, this study is essential as protean attitude is a win-win for both parties, that is, not only for the respective employee but also for the organisation (Holtschlag et al., 2020).

Hypothesis development

PCO and CS

PCO pertains to freedom and autonomy in an individual's career spaces – that is, a career owned and steered by the individual rather than any particular organisation (Hall, 1996). Challenges and opportunities accompany ownership of one's career. A self-driven career is following a career path that gives an individual career success and a sense of well-being and success (Nimmi & Zakkariya, 2021). The concept was introduced by Hall (1996), and there has been a plethora of studies throughout the years conducted among varied professionals and cultural settings (Direnzo et al., 2015; Herrmann et al., 2015; Lo Presti et al., 2020; Nimmi et al., 2020). Past literature has corroborated that PCO sustains self-endorsement in different career stages, like job search, pre-employment, and career switching (Briscoe et al., 2012). As such, scholars have also found positive associations between PCO and many career and life outcomes (e.g. objective and subjective career success; Volmer & Spurk, 2011). In virtue of this, the association of PCO with CS is arguable.

From an individual perspective, the concept of the sustainable career reflects a dynamic process involving interaction between the person and the environment (e.g. job market structures, policies and stakeholders; de Vos et al., 2020). Sustainable careers are built on a cyclical, self-regulatory process in which experiences and events provide opportunities for dynamic learning (de Vos et al., 2020, p. 2). According to Chin et al. (2022), CS occurs when workers can harness or increase their psycho-social resources, act flexibly to learn new things, renew their profile to interact with the labour market effectively, experience continuity and coherence with their career anchors and authentic selves (Di Fabio, 2017b; Di Fabio & Blustein, 2016), fueling experiences of happiness, health and productivity (de Vos et al., 2020; Donald & Mouratidou, 2022). A protean employee is in constant pursuit of balancing these factors as their career orientation is towards fulfilling one's life's goal, self-directed and value-driven (Lo Presti et al., 2020). A protean employee engages in continuous development to widen opportunities and to remain competitive in the job market (Nimmi et al., 2020). That said, we proposed that:

Hypothesis 1: PCO is directly and positively associated with CS.

The mediating effect of LLL in the relationship between protean attitude and PE

Sustainable career rely upon individuals’ initiative in interacting with the environment due to their attributes and career management actions (de Vos et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022). Building upon this assumption and the CoR theory (Hobfoll et al., 2018), we attempted to unravel the mechanisms linking PCO and CS. CoR theory asserts that individuals’ behaviour is motivated to accumulate and protect various resources to reach their goals and protect their well-being against adversities they encounter throughout their lives (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Nowadays, fast-paced innovations and changes represent severe challenges to career continuity, which require a dire need to learn, unlearn, and relearn to be addressed with a resource investment, namely LLL (Nimmi et al., 2021).

From a resource-based perspective, lending to an LLL habit could help individuals enrich the resource caravan positively, thereby supplementing the positive spiralling of resources (Kirves, 2014). Said differently, a protean talent is hooked upon upskilling themselves to impact and maintain their attractiveness in the labour market (Nimmi et al., 2021; Römgens et al., 2020). Subsequently, committing to LLL accumulates, updates and renovates resources in the form of skills, attitudes and knowledge (Knipprath & De Rick, 2016; Nimmi et al., 2022). This helps people feel they can continuously catch up with fast-paced changes, maintain their employability, and traverse a chosen career path (Akkermans et al., 2021; Römgens et al., 2020). Empirical studies have already hinted at the positive impact of LLL on PE (Nimmi et al., 2021), suggesting that a dynamic learning approach enhances a positive appraisal of employment potential. Hence, based on the above explanation, we proposed that LLL is the explaining factor of the PCO-PE relationship:

Hypothesis 2: LLL mediates the relationship between PCO and PE.

Serial mediation of LLL and PE in the relationship between PCO and CS

We asserted the mediation of LLL and PE in the PCO-CS relationship. Since CS reflects the capacity/possibility to remain flexible by renewing one resource (Chin et al., 2022), it requires workers to deliberately and passionately nurture suitable strategies to ensure sustainable careers. LLL activities, self-endorsed thanks to a PCO, represent one such strategy by which individuals can remain attractive in the job market. Thus, we see varied career experiences through various learning and unlearning patterns as the basis of CS (Chin et al., 2022; Di Fabio & Cooper, 2023). Moreover, as remarked previously, such dedicated learning processes enhance the human capital worth of the individual and then shape their employability perceptions (Babos et al., 2015; Nimmi et al., 2021), and we see PE as a psychological mechanism linking LLL to CS. Indeed, PE is a crucial motivational factor that enables people to achieve career outcomes (Clarke, 2018). Many previous studies have indicated the importance of PE in determining conditions of CS, for instance, allowing workers to manage their resources with a flexible approach (Van Hootegem et al., 2019), protecting their position within the labour market and securing continuity to their experience (De Cuyper et al., 2012). Moreover, a robust body of research has corroborated that PE predisposes to CS, as it is linked to its indicators such as employee well-being, satisfaction and performance (e.g. Berntson & Marklund, 2007; Kinnunen et al., 2011; Magnano et al., 2019; Nimmi & Zakkariya, 2021; Zhou et al., 2022) In line with this, we proposed that:

Hypothesis 3: PCO impacts CS through LLL and PE.

The mediating effect of PSD between PCO and PE

Since PCO allows a self-endorsed and value-driven approach to a career, it calls upon proactive career management (De Vos et al., 2009; Fuller & Marler, 2009; Spurk et al., 2015). Proactive career behaviour involves actions that individuals adopt to manage their careers, such as building new networks, career planning, seeking advice, and acquiring skills (Strauss et al., 2012; Smale et al., 2018; Taber & Blankemeyer, 2015).

Consistent literature has shown that protean-oriented people are more likely to engage in proactive career behaviours (Herrmann et al., 2015; Park et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). Taber and Blankemeyer (2015) supported the idea that PSD is one of the ‘know-how’ aspects of proactive career behaviours. PSD involves self-started and deliberate actions that aim to attain learning and development in employment and employability skills (Ren & Chadee, 2017). PSD creates new contacts and enhances the visibility of the individual in the specific industry (Forret & Dougherty, 2004; Van Hoye et al., 2009). These skill development investments improve the individual's human capital worth (Becker, 1975), enhancing employability perceptions (Chughtai, 2019; Nimmi et al., 2020; Van der Heijde & Van der Heijden, 2006). Hence, we hypothesised that

Hypothesis 4: PSD mediates the relationship between PCO and PE.

Serial mediation of PSD and PE in the relationship between PCO and CS

Key psychological resources like PE endorse a sustainable adaptation to the world of work (Akkermans et al., 2021; Vanhercke et al., 2014). Along with the COR theory, PE, as a personal resource, should be accumulated through behaviour investment (Hobfoll, 2002). This aligns with the relevant theorising and literature, where PE is also supposed to be deeply rooted in proactivity, as the personal responsibility of security in modern career landscapes requires the individual's self-management to thrive (Clarke, 2018; Römgens et al., 2020; van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2006; Vanhercke et al., 2014). Since human capital is a core component of individual employability, investments should enhance it to increase individual value and competitiveness in the labour market (Becker, 1975). Indeed, a self-directed approach aimed at self-enhancement and growth is expected to foster influence on their environment, the equipment to deal with instability and uncertainty, and the access to valuable career and development opportunities (Fugate et al., 2004). Arguably, PSD, determined by PCO, leads to feeling empowered against career turbulence, protecting employment prospects. Under this, PSD will likely have a positive influence on PE. Research already corroborates such a relationship across different populations, such as employees (Chughtai, 2019; Soares & Mosquera, 2021; Veld et al., 2015), young people accessing the world of work, and students (Clements & Kamau, 2018; Soares & Mosquera, 2021). Moreover, as explained before (see Hypothesis 4), PE is a core factor influencing CS. That said, we hypothesised the following:

Hypothesis 5: PCO impacts CS through PSD and PE (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The hypothesised model.

Methods

Participants and procedure

The hypotheses propounded in this study were tested by employing primary data collected from hotel employees in Italy and Cyprus. Consistency in the data has been ensured by collecting data from reputed hotels. While previous works on PCO have focused on the IT sector to a certain extent, this study tries to find whether PCO would enhance CS in the hospitality industry. Understanding how individuals can create conditions for healthy and decent experiences is imperative, thus defining conditions for their CS. Indeed, the hospitality sector's dynamic and ever-changing environment, characterised by frequent economic fluctuations, technological advancements, and societal transformations, necessitates an adaptable, flexible workforce continuously engaged in skill development, qualities strictly connected to the PCO (Goh et al., 2017). Despite this, not much research has investigated the role of the protean attitude of workers, such as those employed in hospitality (Retkowsky et al., 2022).

The data were collected using an online platform designed on Qualtrics. Responses to the survey were received from September 2022 to November 2022. The respondents were approached by email. We received an aggregate of 398 responses with continuous reminders and follow-ups. We ensured the data's anonymity and disclosed that the data would be used for research purposes. The authors verified that the collected dataset aligns with the study's purposes. After eliminating the outliers and straight-lining, we used 294 responses for the data analysis. The demographic details of the respondents have been specified in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic details.

Employee details (n = 294)	Frequency (s)	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	80	26.67
Female	214	73.33
Age (in years)
< 25	12	2.82
25–34	82	28.21
35–44	70	24.36
45–54	73	24.87
Above 55	57	19.49
Education
2-year college	111	36.92
4-year college	58	19.74
High school graduate and below	28	9.74
Post-graduation	97	33.59
Country
Italy	186	62.56
Cyprus	108	37.44

Measures

The online survey comprised seven sections. The first one, the introduction of the survey, comprehensively outlined the study's rationale, objectives, and characteristics, emphasising the guarantee of anonymity and confidentiality, per EU regulation no. 679/2016. Before commencement, each participant was presented with and provided informed consent.

The following five sections consisted of scale items that capture the constructs such as PCO, LLL, PSD, PE and CS. One section was devoted to gathering the respondents' background details. All the scale items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Protean career orientation

The construct was measured using a 14-item two-dimension (valued-driven approach and career self-management) scale developed by Briscoe et al. (2012), and specifically, we adopted the Italian adaptation performed by Lo Presti et al. (2011) for the Italian respondents. The sample item for the PCO includes ‘I am responsible for my success or failure in my career’.

Proactive skill development

The construct was assessed using a 4-item scale from Ren and Chadee (2017). The sample item includes ‘I purposefully attempted to learn new skills through a personal development program’. For the Italian respondents, the scale has been adapted by Lo Piccolo et al. (2024a).

Lifelong learning

LLL was assessed using a 7-item instrument. The scale items were taken from the work of Kirby et al. (2010), adapted in Italian by Lo Piccolo et al. (2024b) for the Italian respondents. One of the sample items is ‘I can deal with the unexpected and solve problems as they arise’.

Perceived employability

PE has been captured using a 5-item scale. ‘I know organisations/companies where I could get work’ is an example of item for the PE scale. The scale was considered in the work of Berntson and Marklund (2007). The Italian version employed was developed by Caricati et al. (2016).

Career sustainability

CS was measured using a 12-item scale adapted from Chin et al. (2022) four-dimension scale (Resourcefulness, Renewability, Flexibility, and Integration). The sample item of the construct involves ‘My career makes me feel like I have a bright future’. Petruzziello et al. (2024) adapted this scale in Italian.

Data analysis

By adopting a structural equation modelling (SEM) approach, a confirmatory factor analysis tested a measurement model with the AMOS software, and we used Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) to evaluate the scale's internal consistency and convergent validity (Hair et al., 2019). We confronted each variable's AVE square root with the correlation coefficients between that specific variable and other variables to test discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker criterion; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). We also used SEM to estimate the structural models and test the hypotheses. We created specific estimands to test the indirect effects.

Results

Measurement model – reliability and validity

The measurement models comprised the five core study variables (Table 2). The item factor loadings of the constructs are above the threshold limit of 0.50, except for four items of the PCO scale and one item of the LLL scale, which were removed. The revised measurement model showed an acceptable fit (χ²/df = 1.77, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.06, CFI = 0.92 and TLI = 0.91). Cronbach alpha and CR values were above the conventional acceptability threshold of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2019). AVE values were below the threshold of 0.50 for the value-driven PCO dimension, LLL and PE. However, according to Fornell and Larcker (1981), convergent validity is still supported when CR is adequate, even in the presence of below-acceptable AVE values.

Table 2.

Convergent validity measures.

Variable		Factor loadings	Cronbach's alpha	Composite reliability	Average variance extracted
PCO – Self-directed Career Management	Item 1	0.600	0.86	0.86	0.51
	Item 2	0.825
	Item 3	0.799
	Item 4	0.633
	Item 5	0.720
	Item 6	0.684
PCO – Value-Driven	Item 7	0.632	0.77	0.77	0.46
	Item 8	0.735
	Item 9	0.707
	Item 10	0.627
LLL	Item 1	0.611	0.79	0.79	0.39
	Item 2	0.751
	Item 3	0.543
	Item 4	0.597
	Item 5	0.577
	Item 6	0.641
PSD	Item 1	0.793	0.88	0.88	0.65
	Item 2	0.838
	Item 3	0.838
	Item 4	0.752
PE	Item 1	0.626	0.81	0.83	0.47
	Item 2	0.607
	Item 3	0.665
	Item 4	0.771
	Item 5	0.739
CS – Resourcefulness	Item 1	0.812	0.86	0.86	0.68
	Item 2	0.799
	Item 3	0.853
CS – Flexibility	Item 4	0.668	0.76	0.75	0.51
	Item 5	0.830
	Item 6	0.640
CS – Renewability	Item 7	0.873	0.86	0.84	0.68
	Item 8	0.838
	Item 9	0.729
CS – Integration	Item 10	0.840	0.88	0.88	0.72
	Item 11	0.883
	Item 12	0.816

Note. N = 294; PCO: protean career orientation; LLL: lifelong learning; PSD: proactive skill development; PE: perceived employability; CS: career sustainability.

Regarding Fornell and Larcker's (1981) criterion, the square roots of AVE are higher than the computed correlation between the constructs, except for the CS – flexibility subscale's AVE square root, which was lower than the correlation between this subscale and the CS – renewability subscale. Table 3 reports the correlation between the variables and the Fornell-Larcker criterion values.

Table 3.

Variables’ correlation and AVE's square root.

Variable	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.
1. PCO – Self-directed Career Management	0 . 71
2. PCO – Value-Driven	0.61**	0 . 68
3. PSD	0.24**	0.18**	0 . 80
4. LLL	0.31**	0.36**	0.46**	0 . 62
5. PE	0.25**	0.23**	0.33**	0.28**	0 . 68
6. CS – Resourcefulness	0.48**	0.24**	0.22**	0.15*	0.36**	0 . 82
7. CS – Flexibility	0.46**	0.31**	0.30**	0.18**	0.35**	0.69**	0 . 72
8. CS – Renewability	0.46**	0.29**	0.38**	0.19**	0.25**	0.63**	0.79**	0 . 82
9. CS – Integration	0.39**	0.23	0.44**	0.30**	0.28**	0.53**	0.65**	0.77**	0 .85

Note. N = 294; *p < .05, **p < .01. Values in italicised bold represent each variable's AVE's square root. PCO: protean career orientation; LLL: lifelong learning; PSD: proactive skill development; PE: perceived employability; CS: career sustainability; AVE: average variance extracted.

Common method bias

Common method bias is a critical issue in cross-sectional data (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). The authors have followed the guidelines proposed by Ketokivi and Schroeder (2004). The guidelines have been followed because the possibility of eliminating the common method bias in the primary data is difficult. In spite of this, the impact of the common method can be mitigated to a certain extent. In this regard, we used Harman's single-factor test to assess the common method bias. We found that the single factor elaborated only 35% of the aggregate variance.

Hypotheses test

We observed that the fit indices were acceptable, that is, χ²/df = 1.87, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.08, CFI = 0.91 and TLI = 0.89, which shows a good fit of the data. Table 4 indicates the hypothesis results of our study. We found a positive association between PCO and CS (β = 0.19**; H1 supported). Furthermore, we observed that LLL mediated the influence of PCO on PE (β = 0.13*) supporting H2. The results revealed that PSD significantly mediated the relationship between PCO and PE (β = 0.12**) accepting H4. Similarly, the relationship between PCO and CS was mediated serially by LLL and PE. It has a significant beta (β = 0.03*), and H3 was supported. Also, the relationship between PCO and CS serially mediated by PSD and PE was significant (β = 0.03*). In this regard, H5 was supported.

Table 4.

Structural path estimates.

Hypothesis	Path coefficient	SE	Bias-SE	p	LL	UL
Direct effects
H1: PCO-CS	0.19	0.07		0.002
Indirect effects
H2: PCO-LLL-PE	0.13	0.091	0.001	0.015	0.018	0.373
H3: PCO-PSD-PE	0.12	0.063	0.001	0.001	0.041	0.285
H4: PCO-LLL-PE-CS	0.03	0.021	0.000	0.018	0.004	0.099
H5: PCO-PSD-PE-CS	0.03	0.022	0.000	0.016	0.003	0.085

Note. N = 294; PCO: protean career orientation; LLL: lifelong learning; PSD: proactive skill development; PE: perceived employability; CS: career sustainability.

Discussion

Previous studies have shed light on the possibilities of CS by undertaking a protean path (Nimmi & Zakkariya, 2021). Our study tries to understand how PCO impacts CS among hospitality industry employees. Career sustainability is important as employment has changed drastically (Han & Hwang, 2021; Stamolampros et al., 2019). These changes have necessitated PCO and lending to job crafting among employees to sustain their careers. Our study tried to understand the activities undertaken by protean employees to enhance their job market chances and thereby attain CS.

Most career studies proposed PE as a major resource for a sustainable career. Previous studies have hinted at the role of PE as key for navigating the labour market transitions effectively and smoothly (Petruzziello et al., 2022; Vanhercke et al., 2014). The literature has also discussed the importance of PE in CS (Blokker et al., 2019; Magnano et al., 2019).

The discussions on CS are built around CoR theory, where we propose PSD and LLL as the two strategies by which the resource gain process can be activated so PE can be maintained. We found empirical support for our major objective: a PCO is positively related to CS. The data supported the mediating role of perceived skill development and LLL in enhancing PE. Later, empirical evidence supports that PE is the mechanism by which PSD and LLL lead to CS. The study extends the literature by empirically validating the antecedents of CS, corroborating, for instance, the findings of Zhang et al. (2022) on the importance of LLL for CS. Our study forms empirical evidence to understand how first-generation career concepts have paved the way for neo-career concepts like sustainable careers. Also, it is the first to disseminate the mechanism by which PCO leads to CS.

Theoretical implications

Our study tried to fill the void in vocational psychology research on empirical support for antecedents of CS. This study explored how developing a protean attitude would help maintain CS. Several studies have looked into the consequences of developing a protean attitude among employees and graduates (Alok & Rajthilak, 2021; de Vos & Soens, 2008; Nimmi et al., 2020; Volmer & Spurk, 2011). Yet, none of the prior studies have looked into the possible association between PCO and CS. de Vos and Van der Heijden (2017) have highlighted the importance of developing neo-career attitudes for sustainable careers, which reflects the need for a self-endorsed and ‘preventive’ approach in building a healthy existence, in line with the indications of the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development (Di Fabio, 2017b; Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018; Di Fabio & Rosen, 2018, 2020; Rosen & Di Fabio, 2023). In this line of thought, we proposed the possible mechanism by which developing a protean attitude could lead to CS.

Our study emphasised the importance of PE in maintaining sustainable careers. Based on CoR theory, we proposed a conceptual model that explains how PCO leads to CS by maintaining heightened employability. From a resource-based perspective, the study proposed that engaging in PSD and LLL may activate the necessary resource gain/maintenance process to protect and secure a competitive position within the labour market, thus contributing to one's PE, which is a crucial step towards CS. Our study also reciprocates the tenets of career construction theory on the importance of exercising personal agency to strive for and adapt to career circumstances reflected in proactive career development and LLL (Jiang et al., 2023) in a sustainable development framework respecting themselves and others (Guichard, 2022).

Practical implications

The findings highlight the importance of PSD and LLL in the relationship between PCO and PE, which leads, in turn, to CS. These results suggest various practical implications for both individuals and organisations. By nature, protean career success is determined by individuals’ behaviours and engagement in self-directed and continuous learning (Baltes et al., 2019); thus, organisations that focus on cultivating such cultures would benefit from it. Executive training strategies could facilitate employee initiatives to develop organisational skills and abilities. Corporate academies and other career development training activities are available to all workers to enhance and promote professional skills, proactive skills development, and LLL culture. In summary, by fostering an environment that encourages LLL, employers can enhance the employability of their workforce, preparing employees not just for current roles but also for future industry demands. This approach aligns with the finding that LLL plays a crucial role in achieving CS.

Individuals need to be in the role of primary agents, focusing on their motives and career sources through CS (de Vos et al., 2020; Kenny et al., 2023; Retkowsky et al., 2022). Considering the current study results and the CoR model, we suggest that organisations, through job redesign, could allow their employees more autonomy, challenges (Hall & Heras, 2010) and flexibility over their daily work, which is crucial in encouraging self-directed learning and proactivity in the workplace. Hence, the current study results support that organisations should target both directly supporting their employees’ initiatives for PSD and LLL by providing learning, training and development practices and indirectly through agile and autonomous working environments (Peirò et al., 2023).

Limitations

While providing valuable insights into the relationship between PCO and CS, the study acknowledges some limitations: The research was conducted among hotel employees in Italy and Cyprus, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other regions or countries with different cultural and economic environments. The specific characteristics of the hospitality industry in these countries may not fully represent those of other global contexts, potentially influencing the applicability of the results to a broader audience. Anyway, the sample presents good variability in age and education level.

The study's cross-sectional nature limits the ability to infer causality between PCO and CS. Longitudinal designs could provide a deeper understanding of the temporal dynamics and causal relationships among the constructs studied. Despite efforts to mitigate common method bias through statistical techniques, the reliance on self-reported data collected at a single point in time from the same source could influence the findings. Anyway, Harman's single-factor test results indicated that common method bias had a minimal impact. These limitations highlight areas for future research, suggesting the need for studies that explore these relationships across different geographical contexts and industries and with varied methodological approaches.

Conclusion

In this study, we developed and tested an empirical model emphasising the role of proactivity as a major driver of CS. We found that a self-endorsed approach to career development (i.e. PCO) may influence CS, and we shed light on two psychological mechanisms that explain this relationship. Indeed, we found a serial mediation of LLL and PE and PSD and PE in the PCO-CS relationship. We contributed to the rising knowledge on this topic, studying the person-related antecedents of CS and remarking on the need for a proactive and self-endorsed approach, which also meets the need for a preventive approach towards reaching CS as mandated by the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development (Di Fabio, 2017b). Our results inform imperative actions by organisations to support such a proactive approach in employees and contribute to their sustainability.

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 iDs

Nimmi P M

Marco Giovanni Mariani

Gerardo Petruzziello

References

Akkermans

Rodrigues

Mol

S. T.

Seibert

S. E.

Khapova

S. N.

(2021). The role of career shocks in contemporary career development: Key challenges and ways forward. Career Development International, 26(4), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi-07-2021-0172

Alok

Rajthilak

N. R.

(2021). Protean and boundaryless career attitude as determinants of well-being among Indian IT temporary agency workers. Vision, 27(5), 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/09722629211036208

Arthur

M. B.

Rousseau

D. M.

(1996). The boundaryless career. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195100143.001.0001

Babos

Lubyova

Studena

(2015). Lifelong learning is a growing factor in employability. Policy Brief, proceedings of LLLight'in'Europe research project. Retrievable at: www.lllightineurope.com/publications

Baltes

Rudolph

C. W.

Zacher

(Eds.). (2019). Work across the lifespan. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/c2016-0-04055-x

Baruch

Sullivan

S. E.

(2022). The why, what and how of career research: A review and recommendations for future study. Career Development International, 27(1), 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi-10-2021-0251

Becker

G. S.

(1975). Investment in human capital: Effects on earnings. In Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education, second edition (pp. 13–44). NBER.

Berntson

Marklund

(2007). The relationship between perceived employability and subsequent health. Work and Stress, 21(3), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370701659215

Blokker

Akkermans

Tims

Jansen

Khapova

(2019). Building a sustainable start: The role of career competencies, career success, and career shocks in young professionals’ employability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.02.013

10.

Briscoe

J. P.

Henagan

S. C.

Burton

J. P.

Murphy

W. M.

(2012). Coping with an insecure employment environment: The differing roles of protean and boundaryless career orientations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.12.008

11.

Caricati

Chiesa

Guglielmi

Mariani

M. G.

(2016). Real and perceived employability: A comparison among Italian graduates. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 38(4), 490–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2016.1182668

12.

Chin

Jawahar

I. M.

(2022). Development and validation of a career sustainability scale. Journal of Career Development, 49(4), 769–787. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845321993234

13.

Chughtai

(2019). Servant leadership and perceived employability: Proactive career behaviours as mediators. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(2), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-07-2018-0281

14.

Clarke

(2018). Rethinking graduate employability: The role of capital, individual attributes and context. Studies in Higher Education, 43(11), 1923–1937. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1294152

15.

Clements

A. J.

Kamau

(2018). Understanding students’ motivation towards proactive career behaviours through goal-setting theory and the job demands–resources model. Studies in Higher Education, 43(12), 2279–2293. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1326022

16.

De Cuyper

Mäkikangas

Kinnunen

Mauno

Witte

H. D.

(2012). Cross-lagged associations between perceived external employability, job insecurity, and exhaustion: Testing gain and loss spirals according to the Conservation of Resources Theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(6), 770–788. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1800

17.

De Vos

De Stobbeleir

Meganck

(2009). The relationship between career-related antecedents and graduates’ anticipatory psychological contracts. Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9107-3

18.

De Vos

Soens

(2008). Protean attitude and career success: The mediating role of self-management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.08.007

19.

De Vos

Van der Heijden

B. I.

(2017). Current thinking on contemporary careers: The key roles of sustainable HRM and sustainability of careers. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 28, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.07.003

20.

De Vos

Van der Heijden

B. I.

Akkermans

(2020). Sustainable careers: Towards a conceptual model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 117, 103–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.011

21.

Di Fabio

(2017a). Positive healthy organisations: Promoting well-being, meaningfulness, and sustainability in organisations. Frontiers in Psychology. Organisational Psychology, 8, 303–313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01938

22.

Di Fabio

(2017b). The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development for well-being in organisations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1534. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01534

23.

Di Fabio

Blustein

D. L.

(2016). From meaning of working to meaningful lives: The challenges of expanding decent work. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01119

24.

Di Fabio

Cooper

C. L.

(2023). The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development and well-being in organisations. In Di Fabio

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Psychology of sustainability and sustainable development in organizations (pp. 3–19). Routledge Taylor & Francis.

25.

Di Fabio

Kenny

M. E.

(2016). Promoting well-being: The contribution of emotional intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01182

26.

Di Fabio

A. D.

Palazzeschi

Asulin-Peretz

Gati

(2013). Career indecision versus indecisiveness: Associations with personality traits and emotional intelligence. Journal of Career Assessment, 21(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072712454698

27.

Di Fabio

Peiró

J. M.

(2018). Human capital sustainability leadership to promote sustainable development and healthy organisations: A new scale. Sustainability MDPI, 10(7), 2413. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072413

28.

Di Fabio

Peiró

J. M.

(2023). Human capital sustainability leadership and healthy organizations: Its contribution to sustainable development. In Di Fabio

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Psychology of sustainability and sustainable development in organizations (pp. 93–103). Routledge Taylor & Francis.

29.

Di Fabio

Rosen

M. A.

(2018). Opening the black box of psychological processes in the science of sustainable development: A new frontier. European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 2(4), 47. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejosdr/3933

30.

Di Fabio

Rosen

M. A.

(2020). An exploratory study of a new psychological instrument for evaluating sustainability: The sustainable development goals psychological inventory. Sustainability MDPI, 12(18), 7617. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187617

31.

Direnzo

M. S.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Weer

C. H.

(2015). Relationship between protean career orientation and work-life balance: A resource perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(4), 538–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1996

32.

Donald

W. E.

Mouratidou

(2022). Preparing for a sustainable career: Challenges and opportunities. GiLE Journal of Skills Development, 2(2), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.52398/gjsd.2022.v2.i2.pp3-5

33.

Donald

W. E.

van der Heijden

B. I.

Baruch

(2024). Introducing a sustainable career ecosystem: Theoretical perspectives, conceptualisation, and future research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 151, 103989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2024.103989

34.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

35.

Forret

M. L.

Dougherty

T. W.

(2004). Networking behaviors and career outcomes: Differences for men and women? Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(3), 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.253

36.

Fugate

Kinicki

A. J.

Ashforth

B. E.

(2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational behavior, 65(1), 14–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.005

37.

Fuller

Jr Marler

L. E.

(2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.05.008

38.

Gillet

Morin

A. J.

Huyghebaert-Zouaghi

Austin

Fernet

(2022). How and when does personal life orientation predict well-being? The Career Development Quarterly, 70(4), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12304

39.

Goh

Muskat

Tan

(2017). The nexus between sustainable practices in hotels and future Gen Y hospitality students’ career path decisions. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 17(4), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2017.1362971

40.

Gubler

Arnold

Coombs

(2013). Reassessing the protean career concept: Empirical findings, conceptual components, and measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1908

41.

Guichard

(2022). How to support the design of active lives that meet the challenges of the twenty-first century (economy, ecology and politics)? Australian Journal of Career Development, 31(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/10384162221090815

42.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2019). Multivariate Data Analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

43.

Hall

D. T.

(1996). Protean careers of the 21st century. Academy of Management Perspectives, 10(4), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1996.3145315

44.

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(2/3), 448–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.613

45.

Han

M. C.

Hwang

P. C.

(2021). Crafting job and leisure activities when you are overqualified. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 48, 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.05.017

46.

Herrmann

Hirschi

Baruch

(2015). The protean career orientation as predictor of career outcomes: Evaluation of incremental validity and mediation effects. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.03.008

47.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6(4), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307

48.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Halbesleben

Neveu

J. P.

Westman

(2018). Conservation of resources in the organisational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organisational Psychology and Organisational Behavior, 5, 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640

49.

Holtschlag

Masuda

A. D.

Reiche

B. S.

Morales

(2020). Why do millennials stay in their jobs? The roles of protean career orientation, goal progress and organisational career management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 118, 103366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103366

50.

Jiang

Wang

Peng

K. Z.

C. H.

(2023). Career proactivity: A bibliometric literature review and a future research agenda. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 72(1), 144–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12442

51.

Kenny

M. E.

Di Fabio

Carr

S. C.

(2023). Editorial special issue “Career and sustainable working: Fostering decent work and decent lives”. Australian Journal of Career Development, 32(3), 183–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/103841622312085

52.

Kenny

M. E.

Fabio

A. D.

Carr

S. C.

(2024). Sustainable working, sustainable livelihoods, sustainable career: Fostering decent work, decent lives, and healthy lives. Australian Journal of Career Development 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/10384162241233912

53.

Ketokivi

M. A.

Schroeder

R. G.

(2004). Perceptual measures of performance: Fact or fiction? Journal of Operations Management, 22(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-6963(04)00007-5

54.

Kinnunen

Mäkikangas

Mauno

Siponen

Nätti

(2011). Perceived employability: Investigating outcomes among involuntary and voluntary temporary employees compared to permanent employees. Career Development International, 16(2), 140–160. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431111115604

55.

Kirby

J. R.

Knapper

Lamon

Egnatoff

W. J.

(2010). Development of a scale to measure lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 29(3), 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601371003700584

56.

Kirves

K. E.

(2014). Perceived employability. Antecedents, trajectories and well-being consequences [Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Tampere.

57.

Kirves

Kinnunen

De Cuyper

Mäkikangas

(2014). Trajectories of perceived employability and their associations with well-being at work. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000103

58.

Knipprath

De Rick

(2016). How social and human capital predict participation in lifelong learning: A longitudinal data analysis. Adult Education Quarterly, 65(1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713614561855

59.

Lo Piccolo

Mariani

M. G.

Petruzziello

(2024a). Proactive Skill Development scale: contribution to the adaptation of the Italian Version [Proactive Skill Development scale: contributo all'adattamento della Versione Italiana]. Counseling: International Journal of Research and Intervention, 17(2), 45–53. DOI: 10.14605/CS1722405

60.

Lo Piccolo

Mariani

M. G.

Petruzziello

(2024b). Lifelong Learning Scale (Short form): Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version [Lifelong learning scale (versione breve): Adattamento e Proprietà Psicometriche della Versione Italiane]. Counseling: International Journal of Research and Intervention 17(2), 35–44. DOI: 10.14605/CS1722404

61.

Lo Presti

Magrin

M. E.

Ingusci

(2020). Employability as a compass for career success: A time-lagged test of a causal model. International Journal of Training and Development, 24(4), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12198

62.

Lo Presti

Nonnis

Briscoe

J. P.

(2011). The protean and boundaryless career in Italy: Game on? In Tanucci

Cortini

Morin

(Eds.), Boundaryless careers and occupational wellbeing: An interdisciplinary approach (1st ed., pp. 7–17). Palgrave Macmillan.

63.

Magnano

Santisi

Zammitti

Zarbo

Di Nuovo

(2019). Self-perceived employability and meaningful work: The mediating role of courage on quality of life. Sustainability, 11(3), 764. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030764

64.

Nimmi

P. M.

Zakkariya

K. A.

(2021). Determinants of perceived employability in current career context: Evidence from India. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 15(5), 804–820. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-05-2020-0187

65.

Nimmi

P. M.

Zakkariya

K. A.

Nezrin

(2020). Insight to impact: The effect of protean career attitude on employability perceptions of IT professionals. Colombo Business Journal, 11(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.4038/cbj.v11i1.55

66.

Nimmi

P. M.

Zakkariya

K. A.

Philip

A. V.

(2022). Enhancing employee wellbeing-an employability perspective. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 30(1), 102–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-03-2021-0116

67.

Nimmi

P. M.

Zakkariya

K. A.

Rahul

P. R.

(2021). Channelling employability perceptions through lifelong learning: An empirical investigation. Education + Training, 63(5), 763–776. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2020-0295

68.

Park

Lee

J. G.

Jeong

H. J.

Lim

M. S.

M. R.

(2022). How does the protean career attitude influence external employability? The roles of career resilience and proactive career behavior. Industrial and Commercial Training, 54(2), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-06-2021-0045

69.

Peeters

Nelissen

De Cuyper

Forrier

Verbruggen

De Witte

(2019). Employability capital: A conceptual framework tested through expert analysis. Journal of Career Development, 46(2), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845317731865

70.

Peiró

J. M.

Svicher

Di Fabio

(2023). Innovative behaviors and eudaimonic well-being: The contribution of human capital sustainability leadership to sustainable career, decent work, decent lives, and healthy lives. Australian Journal of Career Development, 32(3), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/10384162231202224

71.

Petruzziello

Chiesa

Mariani

M. G.

(2022). The storm doesn't touch me!—The role of perceived employability of students and graduates in the pandemic era. Sustainability, 14(7), 4303. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074303

72.

Petruzziello

Lo Piccolo

Galassi

Mariani

M. G

. (2024). Career sustainability scale: Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Italian version [Career Sustainability Scale: Adattamento e Proprietà Psicometriche della Versione italian]. Counseling: International Journal of Research and Intervention 17(2), 24–34. DOI: 10.14605/CS1722403

73.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Organ

D. W.

(1986). Self-reports in organisational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408

74.

Rapuano

(2022). Career management in organisations: The insights from literature review. Social Transformations in Contemporary Society, 10, 5–17. http://stics.mruni.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/STICS_2022_10_5-17.pdf

75.

Ren

Chadee

(2017). Influence of work pressure on proactive skill development in China: The role of career networking behavior and Guanxi HRM. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.11.004

76.

Retkowsky

Nijs

Akkermans

Jansen

Khapova

S. N.

(2022). Toward a sustainable career perspective on contingent work: A critical review and a research agenda. Career Development International, 28(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi-06-2022-0181

77.

Römgens

Scoupe

Beausaert

(2020). Unraveling the concept of employability, bringing together research on employability in higher education and the workplace. Studies in Higher Education, 45(12), 2588–2603. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1623770

78.

Rosen

M. A.

Di Fabio

(2023). Psychology of sustainability and sustainable development in organisations: Empirical evidence from environment to safety to innovation and future research. In Di Fabio

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Psychology of sustainability and sustainable development in organizations (pp. 20–41). Routledge Taylor & Francis.

79.

Seibert

S. E.

Kraimer

M. L.

Crant

J. M.

(2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 845–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00234.x

80.

Smale

Bagdadli

Cotton

Dello Russo

Dickmann

Dysvik

Gianecchini

Kaše

Lazarova

Reichel

Rozo

Verbruggen

(2018). Proactive career behaviors and subjective career success: The moderating role of national culture. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2316

81.

Soares

M. E.

Mosquera

(2021). Linking career management practices with individual outcomes: The mediating role of perceived employability. Journal of Business Research, 124, 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.049

82.

Spurk

Kauffeld

Barthauer

Heinemann

N. S.

(2015). Fostering networking behavior, career planning and optimism, and subjective career success: An intervention study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.12.007

83.

Stamolampros

Korfiatis

Chalvatzis

Buhalis

(2019). Job satisfaction and employee turnover determinants in high contact services: Insights from Employees’ Online reviews. Tourism Management, 75, 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.04.030

84.

Strauss

Griffin

M. A.

Parker

S. K.

(2012). Future work selves: How salient hoped-for identities motivate proactive career behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 580. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026423

85.

Taber

B. J.

Blankemeyer

(2015). Future work self and career adaptability in the prediction of proactive career behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 86, 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.10.005

86.

Tomlinson

Baird

Berg

Cooper

(2018). Flexible careers across the life course: Advancing theory, research and practice. Human Relations, 71(1), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717733313

87.

United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

88.

Van Der Heijde

C. M.

Van Der Heijden

B. I. J. M.

(2006). A competence-based and multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability. Human Resource Management, 45(3), 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20119

89.

Vanhercke

De Cuyper

Peeters

De Witte

(2014). Defining perceived employability: A psychological approach. Personnel Review, 43(4), 592–605. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-07-2012-0110

90.

Van Hootegem

Niesen

De Witte

(2019). Does job insecurity hinder innovative work behaviour? A threat rigidity perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management, 28(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12271

91.

Van Hoye

Van Hooft

E. A.

Lievens

(2009). Networking as a job search behaviour: A social network perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(3), 661–682. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317908x360675

92.

Veld

Semeijn

van Vuuren

(2015). Enhancing perceived employability: An interactionist perspective on responsibilities of organisations and employees. Personnel Review, 44(6), 866–882. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-05-2014-0100

93.

Volmer

Spurk

(2011). Protean and boundaryless career attitudes: Relationships with subjective and objective career success. Zeitschrift für Arbeitsmarkt Forschung, 43(3), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12651-010-0037-3

94.

Zhang

Chin

Lin

C. L.

Shan

Y. N.

Ventimiglia

(2022). The impact of career competence on career sustainability among Chinese expatriate managers amid digital transformation in Vietnam: The role of lifelong learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 791636. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.791636

95.

Zhou

Pan

Jin

Feng

(2022). Impact of self-perceived employability on sustainable career development in times of COVID-19: Two mediating paths. Sustainability, 14(7), 3753. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073753