Abstract
This study was based on a theory-driven training course, Staying Relevant. It aimed at developing university students’ proactive personality and career adaptability resources (concern, control, curiosity, and confidence) with the assumption that 6 months later, they would demonstrate appropriate adapting responses (career planning, career decision-making self-efficacy, career exploration, and occupational self-efficacy). A randomized control trial, the study used the pretest–posttest–posttest one control group (n = 49) and one experimental group (n = 49) design. Compared to the control group, results indicated that the training group had higher proactivity and career adaptability resources immediately after the training and 6 months later as well as showed higher adapting responses 6 months later. Theoretical contributions and practical implications of these results are also discussed. The study concluded that the Staying Relevant course embodying an eclectic mix of intervention best practices could be successful in facilitating a smooth university-to-work transition.
Keywords
The transition from university to workplace is usually a daunting experience for many university students because of the stress caused by an increasingly competitive job market, obstacles to finding an appropriate job (Helyer & Lee, 2014), academic workload, leaving home, and financial issues (Robotham & Julian, 2006). Additionally, not having a clear view of employability and its significance (Tymon, 2013), limited prior work experience (Koen, Klehe, & Van Vianen, 2012), and lack of key employability skills (Shahbaz, 2016) may make this transition difficult for soon-to-be graduates. Given these challenges to starting a successful career, it would be advisable to equip students with the resources required for a successful transition into the workplace (Koen et al., 2012). Such resources are reflected in career adaptability (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012) representing an individual’s willingness, knowledge, skills, and attitudes to manage important career development tasks, handle transitions, address potential career challenges with resilience (Savickas, 2005), and find suitable employment even in tough economic times (Koen et al., 2012). University students may therefore need to be proactive with regard to developing career adaptability resources (concern, control, curiosity, and confidence; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012) for crafting their careers during their bachelor’s studies to effectively transition from university to employment (Koen et al., 2012). Being proactive implies having an attitude of constructive discontent, focusing on the future, seeking self-improvement, and identifying valuable opportunities long before others can (Bateman & Crant, 1993). As such, being proactive may be particularly important for university students to amass career adaptability resources for actively constructing their careers. Several researchers have also identified a positive relationship between proactive personality and career adaptability (e.g., Cai et al., 2015; Hou, Wu, & Liu, 2014; Jiang, 2017; Öncel, 2014). Moreover, there is evidence suggesting that proactive personality is an important psychological resource in the college-to-career transition (e.g., D. J. Brown, Cober, Kane, Levy, & Shalhoop, 2006; Chan & Schmitt, 2000; Erdogan & Bauer, 2005). Therefore, an intervention designed to enhance both proactivity and career adaptability resources among university students may help them plan and manage their careers for a smooth transition into the workplace.
Previous intervention studies have also shown to enhance university students’ career adaptability resources (e.g., Cheung & Jin, 2015; Coolen, 2014; Koen et al., 2012). However, career interventions have yet to focus on developing proactivity and career adaptability resources together through a training course on proactive personality. This study is an attempt in this regard. Furthermore, many researchers have stressed on the significance of studying the long-term effects of career interventions (Heppner & Heppner, 2003; Perdrix, Stauffer, Masdonati, Massoudi, & Rossier, 2012; Savickas et al., 2009; Verbruggen & Sels, 2008), but only a few studies (e.g., Koen et al., 2012) have chosen to do so including the present study. In addition, this is one of the few studies to have focused on the development of all four career adaptability resources. Finally, yet importantly, the training designed for this study is an intelligent mix of intervention best practices (see Method section for further details) suitable for addressing the career challenges of today’s labor market. It is noteworthy that career interventions of over a decade ago may be less fruitful today, thereby requiring researchers and practitioners to find innovative ways to devise and implement career training interventions that are more relevant to participants’ needs (Herr, 2001; Koen et al., 2012). Therefore, the first objective of this study was to determine the effect of a current and relevant training course, entitled Staying Relevant, on the development of proactivity and career adaptability resources (primary outcomes) among university students immediately after the training and 6 months later.
Proactive personality has shown to be associated with a host of important outcomes such as learning, readiness to change (Spitzmuller, Sin, Howe, & Fatimah, 2015), career initiative, creativity, and career success (Fuller & Marler, 2009). Furthermore, career adaptability interventions have shown to advance higher employment quality (Koen et al., 2012), greater career success, higher job satisfaction (de Guzman & Choi, 2013), and increased future orientation (Soresi, Nota, & Ferrari, 2012). In this study, however, we focus on the four adaptive responses (career planning, career decision-making self-efficacy, career exploration, and occupational self-efficacy; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012) as outcomes based on the development of proactivity and career adaptability resources among university students 6 months after the intervention. We chose them as outcomes because they are self-regulatory responses to career obstacles (Klehe, Zikic, van Vianen, & de Pater, 2011) that enable students to engage in career preparation activities to meet the requirements of today’s job market for aptly managing the transition from university to employment (Germeijs & Verschueren, 2007; Neuenschwander & Garrett, 2008; Savickas, Porfeli, Hilton, & Savickas, 2018). Furthermore, proactivity plays a crucial role with regard to shaping different forms of adapting behaviors in the contemporary vocational landscape (Fuller & Marler, 2009; J. P. Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010). Research has indicated that proactive personality is also related to career planning (Presbitero, 2015), career exploration (Cai et al., 2015), career commitment (Vandenberghe & Ok, 2011), and career self-efficacy (Fuller & Marlet, 2009; Spitzmuller et al., 2015). Additionally, career adaptability resources represent people’s strengths (Bimrose, Brown, Barnes, & Hughes, 2011; P. A. Creed, Fallon, & Hood, 2008) and act as catalysts in nurturing appropriate career adapting responses (Hirschi, Herrmann, & Keller, 2015; Rudolph, Lavigne, & Zacher, 2017; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012; Šverko & Babarović, 2018). Researchers have also theorized that concern, curiosity, control, and confidence correspond with career planning, career exploration, career decision-making self-efficacy, and occupational self-efficacy, respectively (P. Creed, Macpherson, & Hood, 2011; Hirschi et al., 2015; Koen et al., 2012; Savickas, 2005; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). Moreover, there is evidence that career adaptability predicts adapting responses (Rudolph et al., 2017) and has also shown to relate to career planning (Taber & Blankenmeyer, 2015), career exploration (Hirschi & Valero, 2015), occupational self-efficacy (Hirschi et al., 2015), and career decision-making self-efficacy (Duffy, Douglass, & Autin, 2015).
In light of the aforementioned, a modern-day career intervention such as the Staying Relevant training course may be effective at strengthening the relationship of proactive personality and career adaptability resources with each of the four career adapting responses. This is probably because the development of proactivity based on the lessons learned from the training may enable students to engage in career preparation activities. For instance, formulating career goals and taking concrete steps for achieving them, availing professional development opportunities, preparing for the workplace (Clements & Kamau, 2018), identifying and seizing valuable career opportunities, and anticipating and addressing vocational problems (Bateman & Crant, 1993). In addition, the development of career adaptability resources based on the lessons learned from the intervention may enable students to perform important career tasks. For instance, identifying future jobs commensurate with their career interests, deciding what they value most in their future jobs, obtaining information about job opportunities in their area of interest, and preparing themselves for meeting the requirements of their future jobs. Hence, assuming that the training strengthens association between the variables, the second objective of the study was to determine the relationship of university students’ proactivity and career adaptability resources with their career adapting behaviors 6 months after the training.
Finally, considering that the training enhances students’ proactivity and career adaptability resources over the long run in a sustainable manner, the third objective was to determine the difference in career adapting responses between the two groups 6 months after the training.
Theoretical Framework
This study is based on the first three components of the career construction model of adaptation (Hirschi et al., 2015; Rudolph et al., 2017; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). The model (Figure 1) highlights the process of career construction during an individual’s life span based on the relationship among its four components: adaptive readiness, adaptability resources, adapting responses, and adaptation results (Šverko & Babarović, 2018). The model proposes that “adaptive readiness mobilizes adaptability resources that shape adapting responses to produce adaptation results” (Savickas et al., 2018, p. 139). In this contribution, we attempt to explain the possible value of proactivity and career adaptability resources in encouraging university students to demonstrate adapting responses for an effective transition into employment.
The career construction model of adaptation.
Adaptive Readiness–Proactive Personality
Adaptive readiness is often operationalized as proactivity or proactive personality (Hirschi et al., 2015; Savickas, 2013). Introduced by Bateman and Crant (1993), proactive personality represents a stable tendency in individuals to “scan for opportunities, show initiative, take action, and persevere until they reach closure by bringing about change” (p. 105) in their surroundings. Further, acting on their natural inclinations, proactive individuals are able to identify personal development opportunities, demonstrate creativity, reinvent themselves, and improve the current state of affairs to manage their careers more effectively (Crant, 2000).
Career Adaptability Resources
Considered essential for career self-management (Hirschi, 2012), the four resources enable individuals to manage, negotiate, or address career changes (Savickas, 2013). Career concerns are the apprehensions about managing what one believes pertinent to one’s career-related future (Code, Bernes, Gunn, & Bardick, 2006). Career control is the inclination to think of the future as manageable suggesting the use of self-regulation strategies to adjust to the needs of different situations and influence the setting (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). Career curiosity is the propensity to explore the environment to acquire information about the self and career options to match the self with the available occupational situations. Career confidence represents the personal competencies of individuals to face and address career challenges for attaining success in their vocational tasks and transitions (Savickas, 2005).
Career Adapting Responses
Career planning entails thinking actively about future career developments, making plans, and taking the necessary steps to attain personal career goals (May, 2005). Career decision-making self-efficacy represents the extent to which individuals believe they can successfully make career decisions pertaining to career opportunities, interests, goals, and barriers (Taylor & Betz, 1983). Career exploration entails obtaining knowledge about the self—personal interests, preferences, and values—and about educational and employment opportunities—educational options, training courses, and occupations (Porfeli & Lee, 2012). Occupational self-efficacy enables individuals to adjust themselves in their vocational roles to manage them efficaciously (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012).
Developing Proactivity and Career Adaptability
The theory-based training intervention on proactive personality developed for this study is distinct, as it embodies a motivational component based on these adult teaching and learning assumptions by Knowles (1990): (1) the need to know, (2) self-directedness, (3) previous experience, (4) readiness to learn, (5) orientation to learning, and (6) motivation to learn. These assumptions are crucial for making learning more permanent, practical, and relevant to learners’ needs (Green & Batool, 2017). This component enables students to learn valuable lessons about career construction and integrate them into their daily lives (see Method section for further details).
Furthermore, the intervention is valuable, as it makes use of behavioral outcomes in the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains of learning to promote observable behavior change in learners. According to Thoen and Robitschek (2013), an intervention is not meaningful unless the differences in the measured constructs do not result in observable behavior change. Behavioral outcomes clearly indicate the capabilities learners should be able to demonstrate after completing the requirements of a learning experience (Gallagher & Smith, 1989). Behavioral objectives are therefore a fundamental aspect of any training intervention, which only sparse studies have chosen to consider (e.g., Green, 2019a, 2019b; Green & Batool, 2017). It is worth noting that no training-based career intervention study has explicitly focused on the use of behavioral outcomes yet. Behavioral outcomes build personal resources or competencies, as they promote active learning and engagement in the learning process (Patel, 2010; K. Thomas, 2004). They may also advance self-efficacy to perform various vocational tasks (Green, 2019c). Behavioral outcomes related to the Staying Relevant training course may help learners in building competencies required for identifying, sharing, and adapting strategies for a smooth transition into the workplace. Cognitive outcomes may develop intellectual competencies to discuss and describe the concepts learned, arrange and consolidate information, analyze data, and apply the knowledge acquired to new areas (Soulsby, 2009). For example, after the course, students will be able to describe the role of the Five Ps (Predict, Prevent, Plan, Participate, and Perform) of demonstrating proactivity in promoting a successful vocational future, analyze the barriers to a successful transition into the workplace, plan suitable strategies for availing pertinent vocational opportunities, and discuss the competencies required for effective career planning and decision-making self-efficacy. Affective outcomes may build emotional competencies permitting learners to practice active listening, participate actively, develop a strong character, practice self-restraint, be self-sufficient, manage their emotions, improve their performance, and engage in personal development activities (Green, 2019a; Pacific Crest, 2009). For instance, after the training, learners will be able to explain why they would want to reinvent themselves, suggest how proactivity promotes career adaptability resources, anticipate the consequences of their present vocational decisions, and explain how an attitude of constructive discontent relates to their studies and career preparation. Psychomotor outcomes may develop skill-based competencies allowing learners to emulate a particular skill, perform a task with proficiency, implement best practices, and manage personal plans for self-improvement (Kennedy, 2007; Patel, 2010). For example, after the intervention, participants will be able to adapt various guidelines for developing a proactive disposition, implement different job crafting strategies, participate in activities for globalizing their thinking, and manage personal plans for developing career adaptability resources. Additionally, we incorporated training best practices—suggested by various researchers and facilitators—into the training course as detailed in the Method section.
Hypotheses
In line with the career construction model of adaptation and findings from previous empirical work as reviewed above, we propose the following hypotheses:
Method
Participants
Hundred and four final year Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) students enrolled at a private university in Islamabad volunteered to participate in the study. However, the inclusion and exclusion criteria disqualified six students from the study. Next, the research randomizer allocated each of the remaining 98 students to two groups (one control and one experimental group) to form groups of 49 participants each. Relevant inclusion criteria included (a) prior education—students having completed the Pakistan’s Matriculation system of education (equivalent to freshmen and sophomores in the United States) and intermediate (equivalent to juniors and seniors in the United States) instead of the British system of Ordinary and Advanced Levels, (b) age—students between 22 and 26 years of age, and (c) 3-month internship experience—a requirement in the third year of the bachelor’s program. Students not meeting the inclusion criteria were excluded from the study. Additionally, a priori power analysis in G*Power for Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA; global effects) with an effect size of 0.3, using an α of .05, two groups, and nine response variables suggested a total sample size of 88 participants (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2013). Thus, a sample size of 98, that is, 49 students in each group was adequate for the present study.
The sample of students comprised 57 men (58%) and 41 women (42%). Their mean age was 24.21 years (standard deviation [SD] = 1.32). The majority of students reported being single (94%) and living with their parents in their family-owned residence (72%).
Instruments
Career adaptability
This was assessed through the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale (CAAS)–International Form 2.0 developed by Savickas and Porfeli (2012) at Time 1 (pretraining), Time 2 (posttraining), and Time 3 (follow-up measurement). Sample items in the 24 items four-factor scale are “realizing that today’s choices shape my future” (concern), “taking responsibility for my actions” (control), “looking for opportunities to grow as a person” (curiosity), and “learning new skills” (confidence). Participants rate each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not strong; 5 = strongest). As reported by the developers, the Cronbach’s α values related to concern, control, curiosity, and confidence were .83, .74, .79, and .85, respectively. However, they reported a high internal consistency (α = .92) for the global scale. The pilot study determined the validity and reliability of the scale. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed that the CAAS-International was an adequate fit, χ2(188, N = 253) = 209.37, p < .001; χ2/df = 1.11; RMSEA = .048; CFI = .97; TLI = .96; IFI = .97; SRMR = .061. The Cronbach’s α value for the global scale showed a high internal consistency (α = .94). Concern had an α value of .83, control .87, curiosity .82, and confidence .89. The four factors were moderately correlated, and factor loadings ranged from .63 to .87. Higher scores on the scale suggest greater career adaptability.
Proactive personality
This was measured through the 17-item Proactive Personality Scale (PPS) by Bateman and Crant (1993) at Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3. The scale uses a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). The reliability of the unidimensional scale as reported by them was .83. A sample item in the scale is “I am constantly on the lookout for new ways to improve my life.” The pilot study showed that the CFA was a good model fit, χ2(165, N = 253) = 197, p < .001; χ2/df = 1.19; RMSEA = .053; CFI = .96; TLI = .95; IFI = .96; SRMR = .073. Furthermore, Cronbach’s α indicated a high internal consistency of the scale (α = .91). Factor loadings ranged from .55 to .83. Higher scores on the PPS indicate greater proactivity.
Career planning
This was measured at Time 3 through the Thinking and Planning subscale of the Career Salience Scale by Greenhaus (1971). The 8-item scale (e.g., “I enjoy thinking about and making plans about my future career”) uses a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). It had an internal consistency of .72 as reported by Zikic and Klehe (2006). The pilot study indicated that the CFA was a good model fit, χ2(68, N = 253) = 79.56, p < .001; χ2/df = 1.17; RMSEA = .049; CFI = .95; TLI = .94; IFI = .95; SRMR = .054. The Cronbach’s α value indicated a good internal consistency of the scale (α = .87). Factor loadings ranged from .43 to .77. Higher scores on the scale suggest greater career planning.
Career exploration
At Time 3, career exploration was measured through the scale developed by Stumpf, Colarelli, and Hartman (1983). This 11-item scale measures environmental exploration—exploratory activities pertaining to jobs, occupations, and organization undertaken during the past 3 months—through 6 items (e.g., “obtained information on specific jobs or companies”). It also measures self-exploration—exploratory activities pertaining to self-assessment and self-reflection undertaken during the past 3 months—through 5 items (e.g., “reflected on how my past integrates with my future career”). The scale uses a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = a little; 5 = a great deal). Werbel (2000) reported an internal consistency of .85 for self-exploration and .88 for environmental exploration. The pilot study showed that the CFA was a good model fit for the 11 items two-factor scale, χ2(159, N = 253) = 208.25, p < .001; χ2/df = 1.31; RMSEA = .042; CFI = .96; TLI = .94; IFI = .96; SRMR = .062. Further, the global scale had an α value of .89, self-exploration .85, and environmental exploration .88. The two factors were moderately correlated, and factor loadings ranged from .32 to .68. Higher scores on the scale suggest greater career exploration. The present study used the participants’ scores obtained in the Global Career Exploration Scale.
Occupational self-efficacy
In this study, the short form of the original 20-item Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale by Schyns and von Collani (2002) was used at Time 3. Consisting of 6 items (e.g., “I can remain calm when facing difficulties in my job because I can rely on my strengths”), the short form by Rigotti, Schyns, and Mohr (2008) uses a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all true; 6 = completely true). The Cronbach’s α values ranged from .85 to .90 in samples from five countries (Rigotti, Schyns, & Mohr, 2008). Pilot testing indicated that the CFA was a good model fit, χ2(52, N = 253) = 76.41, p < .001; χ2/df = 1.47; RMSEA = .058; CFI = .97; TLI = .96; IFI = .97; SRMR = .046. In addition, the Cronbach’s α value indicated a high internal consistency of the scale (α = .91). Factor loadings ranged from .52 to .81. Higher scores on the scale indicate greater occupational self-efficacy.
Career decision-making self-efficacy
This was measured at Time 3 through the short form of the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale by Betz, Klein, and Taylor (1996). Consisting of 25 items (e.g., “determine what your ideal job would be like”), the short form uses a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = no confidence at all; 5 = complete confidence). Across different samples, the Cronbach’s α for the global scale ranged from .93 to .95 and from .78 to .87 for its subscales (Betz, Hammond, & Multon, 2005). In this study, 2 items (i.e., “select one major from a list of potential majors you are considering” and “find information about graduate or professional schools”) were excluded from the scale, as the study participants were final year bachelor’s students and therefore the items were not relevant to them. Furthermore, the scale was used as a unidimensional measure to demonstrate the unitary nature of the construct. According to Jin, Ye, and Watkins (2012), the unidimensional structure of the Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale (Short Form) suggests that as a methodical process, career decision-making encompasses several interconnected activities. As such, self-efficacy for specific activities or tasks cannot be logically and distinctly segregated. Other researchers also support the unidimensional structure of the construct (e.g., Robbins, 1985; Taylor & Betz, 1983). The pilot study revealed that the CFA for the unidimensional scale was a good model fit, χ2(108, N = 253) = 204.45, p < .001; χ2/df = 1.89; RMSEA = .06; CFI = .94; TLI = .92; IFI = .94; SRMR = .068. Factor loadings ranged from .38 to .66. Higher scores on the scale suggest greater career decision-making self-efficacy.
It is relevant to note that measures for assessing career adapting responses were only administered at Time 3. As career adaptability resources are a facilitative force in shaping appropriate adapting responses (Hirschi et al., 2015; Rudolph et al., 2017; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012; Šverko & Babarović, 2018), therefore, it was considered essential for participants to intuitively demonstrate career adapting responses according to the theoretically corresponding career adaptability resources (Koen et al., 2012; Savickas, 2005; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). For instance, career concern corresponds with career planning, as it enables people to make plans to achieve their goals (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). Further, career curiosity matches with career exploration allowing individuals to increase awareness about their knowledge, skills, attitudes, and opportunities (Savickas, 2005). In addition, career control ties in with career decision-making self-efficacy, as it strengthens decisions regarding career choices and interests (Hartung, Porfeli, & Vondracek, 2008). Finally, career confidence pairs with occupational self-efficacy, as it helps people to adapt to their vocational roles by empowering them to perform vocational tasks efficaciously and address career-related issues (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). Thus, administering a pretest would have made the two groups aware that career adapting responses were also being measured.
Procedure
The study was conducted at the premises of the private university during the summer break after obtaining the necessary approval (informed consent) from its management. The BBA program coordinator informed the final year students about the course through e-mail and WhatsApp. Before the summer break, relevant faculty members were also requested to inform the students about the training opportunity during their classes. Proper informed consent was also obtained from all the study participants who were assured that the collected data would remain confidential. They were charged no fee for attending the course and were awarded a course completion certificate. Students in the experimental group (n = 49) were taught the Staying Relevant course as one large group for a total of 24 hr (6 hr a week for 4 weeks) between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on Mondays and Fridays. During this period, they did not study any course related to their BBA program. Students in the control group or the wait-list comparison group (n = 49) did not receive any career guidance or training during the intervention period. They were also not enrolled in any course during this period. They were however offered a shorter version of the Staying Relevant course soon after the administration of the scales at Time 3. The same trainer taught the two groups, whereas participants took turns to assist him in conducting and processing the experiential learning activities. The trainer is a professional life coach having extensive experience in vocational psychology, career guidance, and counseling as well as in conducting experiential activities.
Research Design and Experimental Intervention
A randomized control trial, the longitudinal study made use of the pretest–posttest–posttest one control group and one experimental group design. Figure 2 presents the research design and the relationship between the variables determined at Time 3.
Research design and relationship between the variables determined at Time 3.
Training development
The theory-driven training course was designed by a team of professionals having several years of experience in vocational psychology, educational psychology, training, and instructional design. A facilitator’s manual was developed by the team to guide the trainer during training implementation. According to Whiston, Brecheisen, and Stephens (2003), a facilitator’s manual is imperative for addressing treatment integrity. With regard to ensuring the fidelity to the facilitator’s manual, the trainer (a) made an in-depth study of the manual before training implementation, (b) carefully reviewed the treatment content in the manual and related materials (slide presentations, participants’ workbook, handouts, worksheets, and video clips) before conducting each session, (c) followed the step-by-step instructions contained in the manual for teaching each topic and processing each experiential activity to ensure the achievement of training outcomes, (d) adhered to each session plan, (e) liaised with the manual developers to address any concern, and (f) followed the checklist of disallowed trainer behaviors as well as notes to the facilitator contained in the manual. Furthermore, to enhance the practical applicability of the course, all activities were developed to be easily incorporated into students’ everyday life. The instructions for each activity included an explanation of its objectives and its relevance, as detailed in the manual.
Training sessions and related contents
The Staying Relevant course consisted of seven sessions as well as an introductory and a closing session. Each class began with a reflection of the previous and ended with a recap. Session 1 featured such topics as the traits of proactive individuals, Five Ps of demonstrating proactivity, and how being proactive helps individuals in Staying Relevant. Session 2 focused on career adaptability and its dimensions, how proactivity promotes career adaptability resources, and career adaptability as a critical personal resource. Sessions 3–7 covered the Five Ps of demonstrating proactivity. Predict (Session 3) included such topics as developing foresight and visualizing future scenarios of success. Prevent (Session 4) was devoted to identifying and addressing barriers to a successful transition into the workplace as well as the importance of being solution-oriented and an idea champion. Plan (Session 5) shed light on career planning and career decision-making competencies, living awareness, job crafting strategies, and personal Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis. Participate (Session 6) focused on career exploration competencies, becoming a better version of oneself, and globalizing one’s thinking. Perform (Session 7) comprised these topics: occupational competencies, golden attitudes for the workplace, demonstrating constructive discontent, and building resilience. The trainer used various experiential learning activities (e.g., harvesting, self-assessment, circle of trust, worksheet completion, reflective writing, role-play, detectives, tournament, video feedback, and homework) to impart the content. The supplementary materials’ file—available upon request from the first author—presents the content of the intervention sessions; the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor objectives pertaining to each session; and details of the experiential learning activities based on the course content. These details may be crucial for replicating the training.
Motivation embodied in the training
The training endeavored to motivate learners through a warm, friendly, and open learning environment to encourage active involvement and participation—essential for understanding the dynamics of career construction. In this regard, the course made effective use of the adult teaching and learning assumptions by Knowles (1990). The trainer explained the learning outcomes, the overall utility of the Staying Relevant course, and the Five Ps of proactivity (need to know) as well as provided all the necessary tools, resources, and experiences to promote self-direction in learners (self-concept). In addition, the trainer used experiential activities to help students tap into their previous knowledge for identifying, sharing, and adapting strategies for developing proactivity and career adaptability resources (previous experience). Furthermore, the trainer related the training content to students’ future employability through real-life examples (readiness to learn) and enabled them to view proactivity and career adaptability as a process of developing increased competence to realize their full potential (orientation to learning). Most importantly, the trainer encouraged students to express their opinions freely about their future employability, engage in self-reflection, and demonstrate creativity for addressing their career obstacles. The trainer also provided them frequent and specific feedback to direct them toward the achievement of the behavioral outcomes (motivation to learn). Additionally, the trainer bolstered learners’ motivation through these strategies: asking questions, maintaining an appropriate level of difficulty to enable them to remain actively engaged on the path of learning (Lieb, 1991), being empathetic to their needs, recognizing achievements and contributions, and making learning an enjoyable and memorable experience (Lucas, 2003).
Other pertinent ingredients of the training
First, as per the recommendation of Savickas (2005), the training content was imparted through experiential activities requiring participants to engage in planning, problem-solving, exploration, and decision-making. Second, borrowing from positive psychology interventions, we adhered to the suggestions of Sin and Lyubomirsky (2009) to keep the intervention period sufficiently long for the prescription to take effect, motivate those less emotionally engaged in the training, and encourage participants to keep a record of the lessons they learn from it. Last, but not least, the training course used these intervention components suggested by S. D. Brown et al. (2003): participants’ workbook, provision of individualized feedback to students on various activities, provision of latest information about the world of work, exposure to competencies related to demonstrating adapting responses, self-assessments, outside reading assignments, and activities designed to identify and address various career obstacles.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
First, the means and SDs related to the scores of proactive personality and career adaptability resources at Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3 were calculated. Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics. Next, the two groups were examined to see whether they were comparable before the training. Results showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups for gender, χ2(1) = 1.05, p = .31. The same held true for age, F(1, 96) = 0.09; p = .76;
Descriptive Statistics and Effect Sizes (Glass’s Δ) for the Two Groups.
Note. Cohen’s criteria for effect size interpretation: small effect size (0.2), medium effect size (0.5), large effect size (0.8), and very large effect size (1.20; Sawilowsky, 2009).
Testing Hypothesis 1
The significant difference between the training and control group was determined to examine the efficacy of the training in advancing students’ proactive personality and career adaptability resources. Results of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) indicated that there was a significant difference between the training and control group for proactive personality, F(2, 95) = 73.00; p < .001;
Next, analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures determined the interaction effects of condition (as the between-subjects variable) and time (as the within-subjects variable) in relation to proactive personality and career adaptability resources. Fitzmaurice, Laird, and Ware (2004) recommend using ANOVA with repeated measures for checking whether the changes occurring in the measures of the intervention group are exclusively because of the intervention. Therefore, we used it to check whether the development of proactive personality and career adaptability resources was significant over time and could be attributed to the training course.
Interaction effects of Condition × Time in relation to proactive personality
The Mauchly’s test revealed that the assumption of sphericity was violated; therefore, the degrees of freedom were adjusted using the Greenhouse–Geisser estimates of sphericity (∊ values less than 0.75), that is, proactive personality (∊ = .68). Results revealed a statistically significant interaction due to the training for proactive personality, F(1.36, 130.61) = 73.56; p < .001;
Interaction effects of Condition × Time in relation to career adaptability resources
Here too, the assumption of sphericity was violated; therefore, the degrees of freedom were adjusted using Greenhouse–Geisser estimates of sphericity, that is, concern (∊ = .68), control (∊ = .70), curiosity (∊ = .68), and confidence (∊ = .72). Results indicated that the interaction of Condition × Time was statistically significant for career concern, F(1.36, 130.91) = 40.51; p < .001;
Development of proactive personality and career adaptability resources from Time 1 to Time 3
Based on the gain scores, MANOVAs were calculated to determine the significant difference between the training and the control groups for proactive personality and career adaptability resources from Time 1 to Time 2 and from Time 2 to Time 3. Table 1 also shows the two groups’ mean gain scores related to each variable for the two periods. The effect sizes in Table 1 show the difference between the two groups for proactive personality and career adaptability resources. Glass’s Δ was used to calculate the effect size, as the SDs of the control and training groups were not equal (Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981). Immediately after the intervention, results revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups for proactive personality, F(1, 96) = 43.05; p < .001;
The results indicated that as compared to the control group, the training group showed higher proactive personality and career adaptability resources immediately after the Staying Relevant training and 6 months later. Thus, results support Hypothesis 1.
Testing Hypothesis 2
Bivariate correlations were calculated (Table 2) to examine the relationship of proactive personality and career adaptability resources with each of the four career adapting responses at Time 3 for each group. Results indicated that proactive personality was significantly related to all four adapting responses (.34–.52, p < .05) in the experimental group; however, in the control group, proactive personality was significantly related to career decision-making self-efficacy (r = .28, p < .05) and career exploration (r = .29, p < .05). Furthermore, career concern was significantly related to the four adapting responses (.35–.49, p < .05) in the experimental group and to career decision-making self-efficacy (r = .29, p < .05) in the control group. Also, career control was significantly related to the four adaptive responses (.36 to .56, p < .05) in the experimental group and to career decision-making self-efficacy (r = .30, p < .05) in the control group. Likewise, career curiosity was significantly related to the four adapting responses (.32 to .46, p < .05) in the experimental group and to career decision-making self-efficacy (r = .28, p < .05) in the control group. Finally, career confidence was significantly related to all four adapting responses (.40 to .47, p < .05) in the experimental group and to career decision-making self-efficacy (r = .30, p < .05) in the control group. Results suggested that proactive personality and career adaptability resources were significantly related to all four career adapting responses in the training group. With regard to the control group, proactivity was significantly related to two career adapting responses, whereas career adaptability resources to only one. Moreover, these significant correlations in the control group were lower than the corresponding correlations in the training group. Hence, results confirm Hypothesis 2.
Bivariate Correlations Related to the Study Variables at Time 3.
Note. Correlations for the training group (n = 49) are displayed above the diagonal; correlations for the control group (n = 49) are displayed below the diagonal.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).
Testing Hypothesis 3
A MANOVA was calculated to investigate the differences in adapting responses between the two groups at Time 3. Table 1 also presents the means and SDs related to the adapting responses at Time 3. Results revealed a significant difference between the training and the control group with regard to the development of overall adapting responses 6 months later, F(4, 93) = 19.85, p < .001, Wilks’ Λ = .539,
Discussion
The theory-driven Staying Relevant training course developed for this study is an eclectic mix of intervention best practices recommended by various researchers and trainers. Results indicate that the intervention succeeded in enhancing students’ proactivity and career adaptability resources immediately after the training and 6 months later. It is noteworthy that as compared to the control group, the training group showed higher levels of proactivity and career adaptability resources at Time 3 than at Time 2. This indicates that the training was effective at enhancing students’ proactivity and career adaptability resources in a more sustainable manner. Moreover, the pattern of effect sizes gives credence to the idea that the training increased students’ proactivity and career adaptability resources essentially in the long run. The effect sizes show that the intervention effects were visible at Time 2 (posttest) but were larger at Time 3 (follow-up measurement). Furthermore, proactive personality and career adaptability resources were more strongly related to each of the career adapting responses in the training group than in the control group at Time 3. This suggests that the intervention may have been responsible for strengthening associations between the aforementioned variables at Time 3. Lastly, as compared to the control group, the training group reported higher levels of career adapting responses at Time 3. The results of this study therefore bear pertinent theoretical and practical implications.
Theoretical Contribution
First, results of the intervention study on proactive personality support the proposed significance of proactivity for today’s vocational environment with regard to career adaptability resources and adapting responses (Fuller & Marler, 2009; J. P. Thomas et al., 2010). The study therefore empirically supports the first three components of the career construction model of adaptation. The theory-driven training course helped students in developing their proactivity as well as their career adaptability resources. Furthermore, the bivariate correlations conducted at Time 3 indicate that the intervention was most likely responsible for strengthening associations between the study variables, as proactivity and career adaptability resources were moderately to strongly related to each of the four career adapting responses. Empirical evidence—as reviewed earlier—also indicates that both proactive personality and career adaptability resources are related to each of the four adaptive responses. The aforementioned results imply that a career intervention geared toward developing both proactivity and career adaptability resources may enable participants to demonstrate career adapting responses based on the lessons learnt from it and therefore facilitate their transition from university to workplace. Second, results support that career adaptability is a malleable and learnable construct as theorized by Savickas (2005) as well as Savickas and Porfeli (2012). Moreover, as the intervention enhanced students’ proactive personality, therefore, it too is a learnable construct. Third, the success of the training simultaneously indicates that a subtle combination of intervention best practices is effective at enhancing students’ proactivity and career adaptability resources. As such, the efficacy of the Staying Relevant course may be attributed to the use of behavioral outcomes to promote observable behavior change (K. Thomas, 2004), application of the adult teaching and learning assumptions to sustain learners’ motivation (Knowles, 1990), use of a facilitator’s manual to address training integrity (Whiston, Brecheisen, & Stephens, 2003), intervention guidelines by Sin and Lyubomirsky (2009), intervention activities recommended by Savickas (2005), and intervention components proposed by S. D. Brown et al. (2003). Fourth, pertaining to the long-term effects of the intervention, results indicate that students in the training group demonstrated greater proactivity and career adaptability at Time 3 than at Time 2 suggesting that implementing the lessons learned from the training may take some time (Koen et al., 2012). In addition, the relationship of proactivity and career adaptability resources with the four adapting responses at Time 3 suggests that students in the training group had ample time to reflect about their future employability to demonstrate self-regulatory responses to career obstacles (Klehe et al., 2011). In effect, the adaptive self-regulatory processes embedded in career adaptability (Koen et al., 2012) likely contributed to the long-term efficacy of the Staying Relevant training. Research also indicates that self-regulatory responses may enhance the efficacy of training over time (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Lastly, the development pattern of career adaptability from Time 2 to Time 3 also sheds light on the relationship of career adaptability resources with each of the four career adapting responses at Time 3. The increase in career adaptability resources from Time 2 to Time 3 indicates that the training intervention enabled university students to engage in career planning (concern) the most followed by career exploration activities (curiosity). This is probably because students in their final year are quite concerned about getting a suitable job after completing their bachelor’s studies, which increases their career curiosity (exploring self and the environment). Furthermore, during Time 2 and Time 3, students in the training group likely gained some career control, as results imply that they had developed a fair idea about their future job/career (career decision-making self-efficacy). Further, results indicate that the university students’ career confidence developed the least. This is probably because final year students have limited career-related experiences to develop the confidence required for demonstrating occupational self-efficacy. Career confidence increases as the number of career-related experiences grows (Koen et al., 2012), and young adults learn to adapt themselves within their vocational environment (Stringer, Kerpelman, & Skorikov, 2011). Essentially, career confidence nurtures an efficacious mind-set for performing career tasks and overcoming career obstacles (Moynihan, Roehling, LePine, & Boswell, 2003). It is also worth noting that these results (Table 1) as well as those related to the bivariate correlations (Table 2) support a match between career adaptability resources and their theoretically corresponding measures of behavioral career adapting (Hirschi et al., 2015; Koen et al., 2012, Savickas, 2005; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012), for instance, career concern matched with career planning, career control with career decision-making self-efficacy, career curiosity with career exploration, and career confidence with occupational self-efficacy.
Primarily developed for Pakistan’s university students, the Staying Relevant training course may be equally suitable for university students in other countries. Findings of the study are generalizable to bachelor’s students in Pakistan between 22 and 26 years of age. However, the study may also be replicated to train university students abroad, as the content is current and relevant to today’s labor market. It may be taught to university students in other countries based on examples and scenarios from their respective job markets. Additionally, the experiential learning activities used to impart the content are interesting promoting active engagement and participation. Lastly, the intervention best practices integrated into the course have a universal application.
Practice Implications
Results of the present study have implications for student affairs practitioners, instructional design specialists, education administrators, and faculty. Results support that both proactive personality and career adaptability resources may be developed through the Staying Relevant course. Student affairs practitioners in collaboration with instructional design specialists may therefore need to develop and implement training interventions that further students’ proactivity and career adaptability in tandem. It may also be relevant for such training initiatives to focus on the intervention best practices for successful results. Furthermore, the content of these interventions may need to have a high affective value based on the behavioral outcomes to promote observable change in learners’ behaviors. Previous experimental studies also indicate the same (Green, 2019a, 2019b). Training content having a high affective value is one that is current, relevant, practical, and thought-provoking to motivate learners to integrate the lessons learned from the training into their daily lives (Green & Batool, 2017). Additionally, academic and career advising may be particularly useful permitting students to enhance their career adaptability resources proactively. For instance, students may be advised on job crafting strategies, employability skills, and the stringent employability standards to allow them to demonstrate proactive career behaviors essential for developing career adaptability resources. In addition, as suggested by Addus, Chen, and Khan (2007), students may be advised on career planning (concern) and career exploration (curiosity) to help them in (a) finding information on internships, potential employers, and current job vacancies; (b) spotting their career-related interests; (c) recognizing their strengths and preferences; and (d) refining their job searching activities to permit them to find employment commensurate with their strengths, interests, and preferences. Academic advisors may also help in promoting career control and confidence by arranging relevant internships, job shadowing, and experiential learning opportunities for students based on their desired goals. The academic and career advising for enhancing proactivity and career adaptability resources may also take the form of mini training workshops based on intervention best practices. These 2- to 3-hr-long, single activity sessions may be based on problem-solving and visioneering activities, reflective circles, scenario analysis, job interviews simulations, role-playing, personal SWOT analyses, interpretive lectures, or discussions on video clips depicting the concepts taught (cf. Green, 2019b).
Results also suggest a need for strengthening career confidence among university students to empower them to demonstrate greater self-efficacy in their future jobs. Providing employment opportunities to students in the student affairs departments may nurture their career confidence to enable them to demonstrate self-efficacy in their future employment. Research has also shown that employment in the student affairs departments boosts students’ confidence, as they work and interact with others and gain valuable insights into the job market (Cheng & Alcántara, 2007). It also offers them opportunities for increased engagement that links the academic world to real-world preparation (Kuh, 2009). Also, leadership development programs may enhance students’ career confidence for occupational self-efficacy. In this context, student affairs practitioners may need to collaborate with faculty to conduct credit-bearing courses or workshops to help students acquire leadership, team, strategic planning, visioneering, social engineering, and other relevant skills.
Limitations and Future Directions
A limitation of the present study is that the sample consisted of bachelor’s students from only the Business Administration program. Testing the Staying Relevant intervention on a sample of bachelor’s students from different programs (e.g., Psychology, Computer Sciences, English, Economics, Education, and Mathematics) would have provided solid evidence of its broad scope and utility. Nevertheless, it is important to note that students from diverse disciplines may profit from the Staying Relevant course because of its design and relevance to today’s labor market. Future research may therefore consider replicating the study to train graduate and postgraduate students across Pakistan as well as abroad to validate its results and demonstrate its utility for various populations of university students. Further, implementing the training for other populations (e.g., teachers and executives working at different levels) could increase the application for proactivity and career adaptability resources. In addition, it may be advisable to use two or more follow-up measurements for an improved assessment of change in proactivity and career adaptability resources over time. This may help in developing and conducting appropriate follow-up training sessions to avoid an unwanted decrease in participants’ proactivity and career adaptability over time.
Future research may also focus on tests of mediation to demonstrate the long-term effect of the intervention on career adapting responses, that is, examining whether an increase in students’ proactivity and career adaptability 6 months after the training increases their career adapting responses. Likewise, the intervention may be replicated to determine its long-term effect on the development of students’ X factor (Green, 2019b) instead of the career adapting responses 6 months later. It would be worthwhile to analyze the long-term effects of proactivity and career adaptability on newer constructs to advance career literature. Additionally, in the future, mediators (e.g., motivation, self-determination, work orientation, and study engagement) may be important for identifying the pathways by which the intervention works.
Future research may also consider the fourth component of the career construction model of adaptation (adaptation results) to examine the effects of adaptive readiness, adaptability, and adapting responses on adaptation results (e.g., employability, work engagement, job satisfaction, and well-being) through a second follow-up measurement (Time 4). Besides, mixed methods studies focusing on explaining the quantitative results—particularly at Time 3—through qualitative data (explanatory sequential design) may provide additional insights into the long-term effect of the training intervention.
Conclusion
Results indicate that the Staying Relevant training course developed for this study may enhance university students’ proactivity and career adaptability resources in a sustainable manner over the long run to enable them to instinctively demonstrate career adapting responses based on the lessons learned from the intervention. Thus, a 4-week theory-driven training based on current and relevant content; the use of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor outcomes; the application of adult teaching and learning assumptions; the use of a facilitator’s manual; and time-tested intervention components, activities, and guidelines may facilitate a smooth university-to-work transition.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
This article has not been published elsewhere and that it has not been submitted simultaneously for publication elsewhere.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to all the study participants and their university for bringing the study to fruition. They also thank Dr. Abdul Basit, Dr. Firoza Ahmed, and Waseem Javed Qazi for their support during the study.
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.
Ethical Approval
The research protocol was submitted for consideration, comment, guidance, and approval to the university’s research ethics committee. All procedures performed in the studies were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.