Motivational Career Resources and Subjective Career Success: A Test of Mediation and Moderation

Abstract

Changes in the global economic environment in which careers unfold have made the development and use of various career-related resources essential for one’s career success. Drawing on the conservation of resources (COR) theory, this study unpacks the relationship between motivational career resources and subjective career success, by detailing a mediating role of job crafting and a moderating role of age. Hypotheses are tested using data gathered in two waves separated by a six-month interval. Results indicated that (a) motivational career resources were positively related to job crafting; (b) job crafting was positively related to subjective career success; (c) job crafting mediated the linkage between motivational career resources and subjective career success; and (d) age moderated the relationship between motivational career resources and job crafting. This study provides novel insights into the intervening mechanism (i.e., job crafting) that elucidates how motivational career resources relate to job crafting. Furthermore, the findings enrich the existing literature by introducing a substantive moderator (i.e., age) in the relationship between motivational career resources and job crafting.

Keywords

motivational career resources job crafting subjective career success conservation of resources theory life stages

Introduction

The traditional notions of careers as “a job for life” (Judge et al., 2017) or “upward advancement within the organizations” (Gaio Santos & Martins, 2019) have become less salient in our fast-changing, technology-rich, global organizational structures. At the same time, employment relationships have become shorter and more flexible (Modestino et al., 2019), and the planning and managing of careers have become increasingly more self-directed (Wiernik et al., 2019). In today’s dynamic and boundaryless career context, employees need career resources to manage their careers proactively and attain career success (Smale et al., 2019).

Research has consistently demonstrated the importance of career resources for employee career success (e.g., Coetzee & Bester, 2019; Kundi et al., 2022a), with career resources defined as “anything that helps an individual attain his or her career goals” (Hirschi et al., 2018, p. 2). Accordingly, employees with limited career resources are less likely to succeed in their careers (Blokker et al., 2019). Numerous scholars (e.g., Dubbelt et al., 2019; Haenggli & Hirschi, 2020) advocate increasing employees’ career resources in order to enhance efforts toward career success. Hirschi et al. (2018) developed an integrative framework of critical factors that promote career success, termed ‘career resources’. They proposed four general types of career resources that could help individuals attain their desired career success: human capital career resources (resources such as knowledge, skills, and abilities that are essential to meet performance expectations for a given occupation), environmental career resources (resources that are external to individuals such as growth opportunities and social support), motivational career resources (resources that include career-related psychological factors), and career management behaviors (behaviors aimed at achieving career goals and person-environment fit).

In the current study, our focus is on the motivational career resources, which consist of three career-related psychological factors: (a) career involvement, which refers to the degree to which individuals actively engage in career-related activities; (b) career confidence, referring to the belief in one’s ability to develop one’s career effectively; and (c) career clarity which refers to the clarity and self-determination of career goals. The rationale for choosing motivational career resources is that, according to Hirschi et al. (2018), one may not necessarily have access to all forms of resources, such as environmental or/and human capital resources; however, they are more likely to have greater control over the motivational career resources because these resources belong to people.

Evidence suggests that motivational career resources are positively related to employee career success (Haenggli & Hirschi, 2020). Although some research (e.g., Bagdadli & Gianecchini, 2019; Haenggli & Hirschi, 2020) has been carried out on examining the positive effects of motivational career resources on the objective component of career success, research on the subjective component of career success is scant. Subjective career success, defined as individuals' subjective evaluations of their careers (Greenhaus et al., 1990) or perceptions regarding their career progress (Ng & Feldman, 2014), has emerged as an important variable in careers research (Spurk et al., 2019) for mainly two reasons. First, objective indicators of career success, such as promotion or increase in salary, are often not available to everyone in organizations (Smale et al., 2019). Hence, subjective evaluation criteria (e.g., how people experience their career success) have become more salient (Bagdadli & Gianecchini, 2019; Semeijin et al., 2020). Second, subjective career success has been found to impact people’s overall wellbeing, which is more important than job-related outcomes (e.g., Hagmaier et al., 2018; Katz et al., 2019). Therefore, in the present study, we focus on subjective indicators (i.e., career commitment and career satisfaction) rather than the objective indicators of career success. Career commitment and career satisfaction are chosen mainly for two reasons: first, they are closely aligned with individuals’ positive evaluations of their career experiences (Kundi et al., 2022a, 2022b). Second, they provide insights into the individual’s subjective perceptions of their career (Kundi et al., 2021), which are essential aspects of their overall career well-being and success.

While evidence supports a positive relationship between career resources and career success, there is a gap in our understanding of the underlying mechanisms (Hirschi et al., 2018). In our study, we aim to examine job crafting (defined as the employee’s proactive measure to shape, mold, and redefine his/her job in order to achieve better person-job fit; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) as a mediating variable in the association among motivational career resources and subjective career success. Drawing from the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, we propose that individuals with motivational career resources are better equipped to take proactive steps in crafting their jobs. They can utilize existing resources to meet the demands of their job, ultimately leading to a more positive perception of career success.

Additionally, our study delves into the moderating role of age in the relationship between motivational career resources and job crafting. Although age is one of the demographic variables often linked with job crafting (e.g., Buonocore et al., 2020), our understanding of the specific role of age in the career resource-job crafting linkage remains unknown. In particular, we do not know how younger and older people with career resources behave differently in job crafting.

Study Contributions

Our contributions are fourfold: First, our study extends our understanding of the implications of motivational career resources in the workplace (Haenggli & Hirschi, 2020) on subjective components of career success rather than the objective components (e.g., employability, salary, and promotion). We, therefore, extended present careers literature (i.e., Bagdadli & Gianecchini, 2019; Francis-Smythe et al., 2013; Fugate et al., 2004) by investigating how and when motivational career resources foster employees’ subjective career success. Second, responding to the calls for future research on what leads to employee job crafting (e.g., Buonocore et al., 2020; Niessen et al., 2016), we demonstrate motivational career resources as a novel and significant predictor of job crafting and thus highlight the role of motivational career resources in facilitating individuals’ motivation and desire to craft their jobs. Third, we posit that job crafting mediates the linkage between motivational career resources and subjective career success for the following reasons. First, job crafting represents a successful strategy that mobilizes personal resources for favorable outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). Second, job crafting better explains how personal factors relate to employee subjective career success (e.g., Akkermans & Tims, 2017; Cenciotti et al., 2017; Plomp et al., 2016). Third, individuals engaged in job crafting have greater feelings of positive experiences such as achievement, enjoyment, and meaning, ultimately leading to greater subjective career success (Lo Presti et al., 2023). Finally, our study adds to the still limited knowledge about individual factors (i.e., age) that moderate the effectiveness of career-related resources (Zacher, 2014) and thus identifies motivational career resources that are more appropriate for younger and older workers. Our research model is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Research model.

Study Context

The study occurred in France, a country experiencing significant shifts in workforce demographics affecting how individuals approach their careers (Guan & Frenkel, 2019). There is a rise in temporary and project-based jobs; thereby, French organizations are restructuring their structures to meet the demands of these workers (Fisher & Connelly, 2017). Moreover, employees’ careers are no longer stable or long-term due to the changing nature of jobs, particularly in France (Kundi et al., 2022a). Hence, what leads to career success has become an important area of investigation for career counselors, practitioners, and individual workers (Hirschi et al., 2018). Furthermore, since France is an individualistic society (Kundi et al., 2021), individuals focus more on job autonomy and career-related success (Triandis, 2001), are curious about their career growth and development, and put in efforts to advance their careers (Mielly et al., 2017). Despite these characteristics, research lacks the relationship between individual factors/characteristics and career success in the French context (Hennequin, 2007), which warrants more research (Giraud et al., 2019). Based on the cultural characteristics of France and the scarcity of research on factors affecting individual career success within a French context, we investigate the relationship between motivational career resources and employee subjective career success.

Theory and Hypotheses

Conservation of Resources Theory

We draw support from Hobfoll’s (1989) theory of COR to underpin our research model. The theory suggests that individuals strive to obtain, retain, foster, and protect the resources they hold in high regard. They do this intending to build a reservoir of key resources (Yen et al., 2019) that can be drawn upon to meet future needs (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Consequently, we propose that motivational career resources enable individuals to invest in job crafting behavior. These motivational career resources, such as career confidence, clarity, and involvement, represent valuable assets individuals possess in their careers (Haenggli & Hirschi, 2020).

Furthermore, in line with COR theory, individuals will be motivated to invest their existing resources in activities that align with their preferences and goals to gain or maintain resources or prevent resource loss (Meijerink et al., 2020). According to Pan et al. (2018), employees are inspired to self-expand their existing resources to increase other resources, leading to job/career-related goals. Consequently, we posit that individuals with higher motivational career resources will be more inclined to proactively shape and modify their job roles, tasks, and responsibilities. By doing so, they can tailor their work environment to align with their skills, interests, and preferences, ultimately leading to greater subjective career success (Kundi et al., 2022a).

COR theory also suggests that individual differences in coping capabilities during stressful events are attributable to each employee’s resources in the workplace (Hobfoll & Wells, 1998). Thus, we argue that individual differences or personal resources play a role in the relationship between career resources and job outcomes. In this regard, we propose that personal resources, such as age, moderate the relationship between motivational career resources and job crafting.

By incorporating COR theory into our research model, we can gain valuable insights into the dynamic interactions between motivational career resources, job crafting, and subjective career success. Understanding these relationships and the role of personal resources can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing employees’ career development and outcomes.

Motivational Career Resources and Employee Job Crafting

As previously discussed, career-related resources play a constructive role at work (Haenggli & Hirschi, 2020). Career resources such as career adaptability, career competencies, and psychological capital facilitate employees’ ability to manage their behaviors in order to preserve existing resources and accumulate new resources needed for goal attainment and better performance (Akkermans & Tims, 2017). According to Federici et al. (2019), job crafting is considered an important consequence of resources. Career-related resources promote job crafting (Plomp et al., 2016), a form of proactive employee behavior (Rudolph et al., 2017). Job crafting also refers to proactively redesigning one’s job (Petrou et al., 2018). Kim et al. (2018) argued that via job crafting, individuals might alter the nature of tasks they perform (e.g., performing additional tasks), alter the relational boundaries of interpersonal interactions (e.g., mentoring a new coworker), and change the way of viewing a job (e.g., doing a job to help others rather than to earn money). Similarly, Akkermans and Tims (2017) argued that job crafting is an effective strategy through which employees expand their existing resources to fit their jobs to their characteristics. Job crafting cultivates employees’ experiences of trying new things and how to enhance their personal resources (Hu et al., 2019).

Research has revealed that employees use their existing resources to acquire additional resources (i.e., to gain a resource; Loi et al., 2019). Hence, under the assumptions of COR theory, we argue that employees’ motivational career resources in terms of career involvement, career clarity, and career confidence will enable them to further invest in job crafting, accumulating additional job/career resources (Hu et al., 2019). Prior research has found that employees possessing career resources successfully comprehend and control their work environment (Plomp et al., 2016; Yen et al., 2019). Additionally, they are motivated to create new job domains in order to assert control within their job environment to achieve greater person-job fit (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). In fact, empirical evidence from prior research (e.g., Federici et al., 2019; Kundi et al., 2022a; Yang et al., 2022) supports the notion that employees who possess career-related resources actively craft their jobs at work. Therefore, we suspect that motivational career resources will engender job crafting.

Hypothesis 1:

Motivational career resources positively relate to employee job crafting.

Job Crafting as an Antecedent of Subjective Career Success

Most of the studies on employee job crafting to date have either concentrated on examining its positive outcomes on individuals’ job attitudes (e.g., Loi et al., 2019; Tims et al., 2016) or performance in a work domain (e.g., Kuijpers et al., 2020; Shin et al., 2020). However, empirical work on the job crafting - subjective career success relationship is limited (e.g., Cenciotti et al., 2017; Kundi et al., 2021, 2022a). Research has demonstrated that individuals’ proactive and intentional actions at work positively construct their careers (e.g., Dubbelt et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2018) and promote career success (Akkermans & Tims, 2017). Thus, it is important to investigate the relationship between job crafting and individuals’ career success because managing one’s career is a core issue for most employees (Blokker et al., 2019).

Career success refers to “the positive psychological or work-related outcomes or achievements one accumulates as a result of work experiences” (Seibert et al., 1999, p. 417). It is further classified into two types: subjective career success and objective career success. In our research, we measure subjective career success with two dimensions: career satisfaction and commitment. The former refers to how satisfied individuals are with their careers (Greenhaus et al., 1990), while the latter refers to individuals’ motivation to advance in their current career roles (Blau, 1985). Career commitment is an important indicator of subjective career success because it shapes attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes related to one’s career progression. Moreover, individuals who exhibit strong career commitment are more likely to demonstrate higher levels of dedication toward their career goals (Zhu et al., 2021). In our study, subjective career success is assessed with career commitment and career satisfaction because of their long-standing tradition in careers research (Ng & Feldman, 2014; Semeijn et al., 2020), as well as their use as key variables studies that assessed subjective career success within an organizational context (e.g., Kundi et al., 2021; Shockley et al., 2016; Yen et al., 2019).

Kim and Beehr (2018) argued that individuals’ proactive behaviors through which they alter the boundaries of their jobs facilitate the attainment of their career goals, ultimately leading to higher career success. In the organizational context, these proactive behaviors can be well represented in terms of job crafting (Cenciotti et al., 2017), which consists of behaviors intended to achieve person-job fit (Tims et al., 2016), the meaningfulness of work (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), and desired job/career goals (Kundi et al., 2022a). Moreover, prior research has highlighted the role of job crafting in positively constructing one’s career (e.g., Akkermans & Tims, 2017; Dubbelt et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2018) and subsequently promoting career success. Nevertheless, research on the job crafting-subjective career success linkage has been limited (e.g., Cenciotti et al., 2017; Kundi et al., 2021, 2022a). Research has suggested that individuals engaged in job crafting behaviors experience positive feelings such as excitement, achievement, meaning, and enjoyment (Tims et al., 2015). In turn, they are more satisfied and committed in their careers (Kundi et al., 2021, 2022a). We therefore present the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2:

Job crafting positively relates to subjective career success in terms of (a) career satisfaction and (b) career commitment.

The Mediating Role of Employee Job Crafting

In addition to our anticipation that possessing motivational career resources directly contributes to one’s subjective career success, we propose that job crafting will mediate the relationship between motivational career resources and subjective career success by mobilizing these resources to enhance person-job fit (Akkermans & Tims, 2017), which in turn, is likely to lead to subjective career success (Kundi et al., 2022a). In other words, to take advantage of one’s career-related psychological factors, it would be necessary to transform these resources into behavior that can help individuals be more successful in their careers by achieving higher career satisfaction and commitment to their career paths. Based on the above arguments and evidence, we suggest that crafting one’s work may be a key behavior that transforms employees' motivational career resources (i.e., career-related psychological factors) into subjective career success.

Job crafting is a strategy through which employees reshape the content of their jobs to create a better person-job fit and achieve desired career-related goals (Kim et al., 2018; Kuijpers et al., 2020; Petrou et al., 2018). According to Tims et al. (2016), individuals with their personal abilities and preferences are engaged in job crafting behaviors in order to achieve a balance between their job resources and job demand. Akkermans and Tims (2017) argued that an individual’s personal resources have the potential to boost job characteristics, which, in turn, can lead to enhanced individual outcomes through a motivational process (refers to “the motivational role that job resources have, leading to the experience of work engagement and stimulating individual growth and achievement”; Brenninkmeijer & Hekkert-Koning, 2015, pp. 148–149). Akkermans et al. (2013) demonstrated that career resources might act similarly to personal resources because career resources are related to job resources. Furthermore, Akkermans and Tims (2017) emphasized that job crafting might be considered a mean of mobilizing personal resources that positively impacts one’s career-related outcomes. Therefore, we argue that job crafting could be a potential strategy to mobilize motivational career resources to achieve desired career success.

In a recent study, Akkermans and Tims (2017) investigated whether the availability of career-related competencies (i.e., personal resources) could increase employee subjective career success. Their results suggested that personal resources in the form of career competencies could enhance one’s subjective career success through a motivational process that leads to job crafting. Likewise, support for these ideas comes from a meta-analysis by Hirschi et al. (2018) in which the researchers found that motivational career resources had a direct positive association with proactive behavior that develop and activate these resources in order to develop one’s career and attain career success. Specifically, crafting one’s job in terms of achieving career-related goals stimulates personal growth (Hu et al., 2019) that leads to higher levels of satisfaction and commitment with one’s careers (Dubbelt et al., 2019; Kim & Beehr, 2018). From a COR perspective, employees utilize and use their existing resources to acquire additional resources by adopting crafting strategies. According to Guan and Frenkel (2019, p. 1759), “obtaining additional resources from existing resources increases the likelihood of stronger work motivation and enhanced capability to successfully execute more challenging work”. Therefore, motivational career resources viewed as personal resources enable employees to craft jobs as an investment intended to pay off in terms of greater career satisfaction and career commitment. Thus, we hypothesize the following.

Hypothesis 3:

There is indirect relationship between motivational career resources and subjective career success in terms of (a) career satisfaction and (b) career commitment via job crafting.

The Moderating Role of Age

Previous research has shown that the relations between career-related resources and outcomes are moderated by individual differences (Kundi et al., 2022a). In the current study we examine how age interacts with motivational career resources to influence job crafting behaviors. COR theory, which emphasizes the importance of protecting and building resources (e.g., career-related, physical, and social) to cope with workplace challenges (Halbesleben et al., 2014), provides a foundation for our investigation. The theory also emphasizes the significance of contextual factors in understanding how the utilization of specific resource sets may vary across different circumstances (De Clercq et al., 2023).

Accordingly, in line with COR theory, we propose that age-related factors, such as resource accumulation, coping with losses, and access to resources, may play a significant role in shaping the relationship between motivational career resources and job crafting. As individuals age and accumulate career-related resources, they may have a stronger foundation of skills, experiences, and social connections, enhancing their ability to engage in job crafting (Zacher, 2014). According to Coetzee et al. (2017) and Li et al. (2021), younger workers are in phase of resource acquisition i.e., motivated to gain more resources and opportunities. In addition, they have a drive for personal growth and development (Coetzee et al., 2017), which might encourage them to engage in job crafting to achieve person-job fit and expand their skillsets. In contrast, older workers craft their jobs to align with their established identities and maintain stability (Kooji et al., 2020). Furthermore, aging individuals facing resource losses due to declining abilities may adapt their jobs using remaining motivational career resources. The age might also influence access to career-related resources, with younger employees more inclined to acquire them, impacting their job crafting behaviors. Conversely, older workers' accumulated career resources might shape their job crafting in different ways.

Based on the above discussion, we know little about when the relationship between motivational career resources and job crafting is stronger, whether in younger or older workers. Therefore, we aim to explore the age differences in the relationship between motivational career resources and job crafting in order to gain a better understanding of when this relationship is strongest. By examining the age-related factors that influence job crafting behavior, we hope to provide insights that can help organizations better support their employees' career development and job satisfaction across different age groups. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 4:

Age moderates the relationship between motivational career resources and job crafting.

Methods

Participants and Procedure

Data were collected at two-time points, 6 months apart, from 193 full-time employees working across multiple sectors in France. The sectors include tourism, consultancy, telecom, manufacturing, information technology, and banking. Data were gathered via both online surveys and the paper-and-pencil method. Online surveys were conducted with the alumni of authors’ business schools and professionals working in different organizations, whereas paper-and-pencil surveys were conducted with the business professionals enrolled in business schools (N = 5) in France.

Due to the lack of clear theoretical guidance on the appropriate time lag between measurements, we implemented a 6-month time lag for three reasons. First, it provides sufficient separation between our independent and dependent variables, which helps reduce the common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Second, it allows us to capture both short-term changes and stable individual characteristics. It provides ample time for participants to experience significant work-related events that may influence their subjective career success. Third, it allows enough time to pass between the experience of job crafting as a result of motivational career resources and its subsequent positive impact on subjective career success to emerge.

Participants who received an online invitation were informed about the purpose of the study, confidentiality of responses, and pre-survey consent was taken. Information about participants’ race or ethnicity was not collected in accordance with French Constitutional law. The invitation also contained the links to the questionnaire (both in English and French language). On the other hand, participants who were given a questionnaire in hard form (i.e., paper-and-pencil method) received a cover letter with supporting details from one of the researchers. All participants were asked to provide their email-ids to approach them for the second-wave questionnaire. To qualify for participation in the study, a respondent had to be a full-time employee (at least 35 hours per week) and provide an email address. Motivational career resources and job crafting were measured at Time 1, whereas subjective career success was measured at Time 2. According to Martinescu et al. (2022), research designs in which dependent variables are measured after the mediator (rather than instantaneously) provide a more robust assessment of the expected nomological mediation sequence.

Of 944 invitations sent, 375 employees (i.e., 40% response rate) participated in the initial survey (i.e., at Time 1). At Time 2, of 375 employees, 193 participated, yielding a response rate of 51.4%. Respondents’ email addresses were used to match Time 1’s and Time 2’s responses. To control for potential selection bias, we carried out several dropout analyses as suggested by Cuddeback et al. (2004). We found that respondents at Time 1 and Time 2 did not differ significantly from the corresponding nonrespondents in demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age, education) or on any of the key variables of this study. Of the 193 employees, 59% were women, with an average age of 30.97 years (SD = 7.41) and an average job experience of 6.38 years (SD = 5.39). Among participants, 53% worked in managerial positions and 72% received a master’s degree.

Measures

All scales were taken from prior studies to ensure validity and reliability. Following prior research (Kundi et al., 2021), the questionnaire was administered in both English and French as these two languages are commonly used and spoken in organizational contexts. Following Brislin (1970) standard back-translation method, survey items (originally in English) were translated to French. Items were gauged on a 10-point Likert-type scale rating scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (10). Cronbach’s alphas of the constructs can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1.

Correlations and Descriptive Analysis.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	8	10
1. Age	30.97	7.41	−
2. Gender	1.59	.49	−.16^*	−
3. Job experience	6.38	5.39	.66^**	−.11	−
4. MCR T1	7.20	150	.14^*	.08	.04	(.77)
5. Job crafting T1	7.78	1.49	−.03	.14^*	−.01	.53^**	(.84)
8. Career satisfaction T2	7.47	1.62	.06	.23^**	−.02	.45^**	.50^**	(.91)
10. Career commitment T2	7.38	1.82	.01	.01	.01	.21^**	.35^**	.27^**	(.94)

Note. N = 193; ^*p < .05, **p < .01; SD = standard deviation, MCR = motivational career resources, T = Time. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are shown in parentheses along the diagonal of the table.

Motivational Career Resources (Time 1)

We measured motivational career resources with a 9-item scale from the Career Resource Questionnaire proposed by Hirschi et al. (2018), which included three factors. Career involvement was measured with three items (An example item is “I feel strongly attached to my work”). Career clarity was measured with three items (An example item is, “I have a clear understanding of what I want to achieve in my career”). Career confidence was measured with three items (An example item is “I am capable of successfully managing my career”).

Job Crafting (Time 1)

We measured employee job crafting using nine items taken from Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (2013), as used by Kundi et al. (2021, 2022a). The measurement comprised three dimensions: task crafting, cognitive crafting, and relational crafting. Three items were used to assess task crafting (A sample item is “I give preference to work tasks that suit my skills or interests”), three items to assess relational crafting (A sample item is “I make efforts to get to know people well at my work,” and three items to assess cognitive crafting (A sample item is “I think about different ways of doing work which can positively impact my life”). Prior research (e.g., Kundi et al., 2021, 2022a; Niessen et al., 2016) has demonstrated good internal consistency reliability scores for the job crafting scale (α ranging from .86 to .87).

Subjective Career Success (Time 2)

We measured subjective career success with career satisfaction, which was measured using a five-item scale (Greenhaus et al., 1990). An example item is, “I am satisfied with the progress I have made towards meeting my overall career goals.” Career commitment was measured using a five-item scale (Ellemers et al., 1998). An example item is, “My career plays a central role in my life.” Prior research (e.g., Kundi et al., 2022a, 2022b, 2022c, 2023) has demonstrated good internal consistency reliability scores for career satisfaction (α ranging from .85 to .91) and career commitment (α ranging from .90 to .93) scales.

Demographic Variables

Age was measured in years. Moreover, we controlled for gender and job experience (measured in years) due to their relationship with subjective career success outcomes as identified by previous research (Spurk et al., 2016; Smale et al., 2019). Gender was dummy coded (1 = Male; 2 = Female).

Analytical Strategy

Following the analytical procedure of Tse et al. (2018), we examined our research model (Figure 1) in two phases. In the first phase, a simple mediation model (Hypotheses 1–3) was tested, while in the second phase, we examined the overall moderated-mediation model (Hypothesis 4) by adding age (moderating variable) into the motivational career resources → job crafting → subjective career success mediation model. Before testing the structural model, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the measurement model and construct distinctiveness. The analyses were performed using AMOS 24 software with Maximum Likelihood estimation. Additionally, we employed the bootstrapping approach with 5,000 resamples to test the indirect effects.

Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for all variables.

Measurement Model Testing

To evaluate the measurement model, we conducted a four-factor CFA of Time 1 motivational career resources, Time 1 job crafting, Time 2 career satisfaction, and Time 2 career commitment. Following the empirical strategy of Akkermans and Tims (2017), variables were modeled as latent variables with their scale means or items as indicators of the latent construct. For example, we used motivational career resources as a composite measure with the three subscales’ mean scores as indicators of motivational career resources. The four-factor model showed an excellent fit to the data (χ² = 71.84, df = 59, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .03 (95% CI = .021, .043), SRMR = .03) with all loadings significant (ranged between .62 and .96). Next, the hypothesized four-factor model was compared with a single-factor model, wherein all items were loaded on a single factor. The fit of single-factor model was worse than the proposed four-factor model (χ² = 955.65, df = 90, CFI = .59, RMSEA = .22 (95% CI = .381,.403), SRMR = .16).

Hypotheses Testing

Figure 2 presents the results related to Hypotheses 1 through 4. The structural model demonstrated a satisfactory fit to the data (χ² = 153.69, df = 84, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .06 (95% CI = .055, .077), SRMR = .05). As Hypothesis 1 predicted, Time 1 motivational career resources were positively associated with Time 1 job crafting (β = .63, p < .001). Furthermore, Time 1 job crafting significantly relates to Time 2 subjective career success in the form of career satisfaction (β = .56, p < .001) and career commitment (β = .46, p < .001), confirming Hypothesis 2a and 2b. Finally, Time 1 motivational career resources had a significant indirect effect on Time 2 subjective career success in the form of career satisfaction (indirect effect = .361, 95% CI = .221, .496) and career commitment (indirect effect = .297, 95% CI = .159, .439) as hypothesized (Hypothesis 3a and 3b). Concerning Hypothesis 4, we predicted that age would moderate the relationship between motivational career resources and job crafting. Results demonstrated that the interaction of motivational career resources and age on job crafting was negative and significant (β = −.52, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 4. We ran a simple slope test and created an interaction effect figure (see Figure 3) following the procedure outlined by Aiken (1991) to check the direction at higher (+1 SD) and lower (−1 SD) values of age. As shown in Figure 2, for younger workers, increasing motivational resources is associated with increased job crafting (simple slope = .75, p < .01), whereas for older workers, the relationship is weaker (simple slope = .39, p < .01).

Figure 2.

Results of structural model. T = time. **p < .01.

Figure 3.

Moderating effect of age on the relationship between motivational career resources and job crafting.

Post-hoc Analysis

Post-hoc analysis was carried out to examine the relationship between dimensions of motivational career resources (career confidence, career clarity, and career involvement) and job crafting (relational, cognitive, and task). Upon assessing the relationship between each dimension of motivational career resources and the three dimensions of job crafting, we found all relationships to be positive and significant at p < .01. However, when we ran a model that included all dimensions of motivational career resources with the three dimensions of job crafting, we observed that career clarity was positively related to cognitive crafting (β = .19, p < .01), and career involvement was positively related to both task crafting (β = .25, p < .01) and relational crafting (β = .15, p < .05). The remaining relationships were not significant.

Discussion

The present study examined the positive process that facilitates the flow of three types of motivational career resources through employee job crafting on employee subjective career success. In line with COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), we tested whether motivational career resources (i.e., personal resources) may initiate a motivational process, which, in turn, may encourage individuals to craft their jobs to achieve higher career success. We found support for our hypotheses: motivational career resources positively relate to employee job crafting behavior. Moreover, job crafting positively mediated the relationship between motivational career resources (career involvement, clarity, and confidence) and subjective career success dimensions.

Contributions to Theory and Research

A contribution of this research is that it tests theoretically grounded propositions of the relationships of motivational career resources with job crafting and subsequent subjective career success. According to COR theory, individuals proactively build their resource reservoirs using existing resources to address future job/career needs (Yen et al., 2019). Consequently, we found that career resources may act as personal resources (Akkermans & Tims, 2017), enabling employees to craft their jobs proactively. This finding expands COR theory by highlighting that a career-related concept, namely motivational career resources, can be considered a personal resource because it enables individuals to control and influence their environment successfully. Another contribution to COR theory is that we empirically tested the role of job crafting in transforming individuals’ motivational career resources into subjective career success. Federici et al. (2019) examined job crafting in COR theory as an outcome of career-related resources. In contrast, Cenciotti et al. (2017) examined job crafting in COR theory as an antecedent of subjective career success. Our research adds to the role of job crafting in COR theory by demonstrating that it can act as an underlying mechanism linking career-related resources to subjective career success. Lastly, we contributed to COR theory by examining the moderating role of age in the motivational career resources and job crafting relationship. We found that individual differences or personal resources play a vital role in the relationship between career resources and job outcomes.

Second, our study contributes to the literature on job crafting and career by answering appeals for further research on the process linking motivational career resources to employee career success, such as that of Hirschi et al. (2018), to examine the underlying mechanisms linking motivational career resources to employee subjective career success. Following the work of Akkermans and Tims (2017), we considered job crafting as a potential mediator because job crafting behavior mobilizes individuals’ existing resources. Our results showed that job crafting is integral to how employees utilize their career resources to achieve desired career success (e.g., Akkermans & Tims, 2017; Plomp et al., 2016), and when employees are engaged in job crafting behavior, it can result in feelings of satisfaction and commitment with one’s career (Dubbelt et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2018). In other words, job crafting is a strategy through which employees achieve their career goals and success—when they possess sufficient motivational career resources. To illustrate, employees possessing motivational career resources may better understand themselves, their wants, and how they would like to get there. Accordingly, these resources would help them achieve the desired satisfaction and commitment to their careers. Hence, our research provides an important rationale for how employees’ motivational career resources relate to their subjective career success (Hirschi et al., 2018) through job crafting.

Third, this investigation extends job crafting literature by broadening our understanding of the outcomes of job crafting behaviors. To date, the majority of studies have focused on positive outcomes such as perceived employability (Akkermans & Tims, 2017), increased work engagement (Dubbelt et al., 2019), and work performance (Lazazzara et al., 2020). Our study adds to the careers literature by showing the positive association of job crafting with career commitment and career satisfaction. Furthermore, our research shows that actively participating in job crafting behavior is beneficial for employees in their career-related goals and success (Kim & Beehr, 2018; Kundi et al., 2022a).

Finally, our study highlights the pivotal role of age in explaining the relationship between motivational career resources and job crafting behavior. The findings show that although higher motivational resources are associated with greater involvement in job crafting for both younger and older workers, the relation is stronger for younger workers. Perhaps younger workers feel more empowered to take control of their work situations and shape their job duties as compared to the older employees. In the light of COR theory, these findings suggest that when younger workers have high motivational career resources, they may be more motivated to build upon and expand their existing resources in order to advance their careers and achieve their long-term goals. As a result, they may be more willing to take risks and seek out new challenges through job crafting, as they have more resources to draw upon and less fear of resource loss.

Practical Implications

Our study offers the following practical implications. First, our findings revealed that motivational career resources positively relate to job crafting. Therefore, organizations aiming to encourage job crafting among their employees should prioritize the development of individual career resources. Specifically, this can be achieved by integrating career resource development into training programs (Loi et al., 2019), providing opportunities for engagement in career centers and job search clubs (Zikic & Saks, 2009), and utilizing career assessment tools to help employees identify their motivational career resources. Through these measures, employees can enhance their self-awareness and engage in proactive career management, ultimately fostering job-crafting behaviors in the workplace (Zhang & Parker, 2019).

Second, we found that subjective career success in terms of career satisfaction and career commitment can be achieved by job crafting. Hence, managers should motivate and support employees to engage in self-management behaviors. This can be done by actively encouraging employees to search for characteristics in their jobs that fit their needs, preferences, and abilities and providing training on how to craft their jobs. On the other hand, organizations should foster work environments that encourage and reward such proactivity (Federici et al., 2019), ensure person–job fit when hiring new employees, and encourage employees to create more meaningful work (Lazazzara et al., 2020).

Third, from an employee perspective, our findings revealed that employees who possess career-related resources and actively engage in job crafting experience greater career satisfaction and commitment. As careers are becoming more flexible and temporary in nature (Fisher & Connelly, 2017), individuals must take responsibility for managing their careers (Wiernik & Kostal, 2019), be proactive in their careers (Smale et al., 2019), and successfully navigate moves within and between organizations (Lazazzara et al., 2020). Both career resources and job crafting contribute to employee wellbeing and job performance (Dubbelt et al., 2019; Plomp et al., 2016) and career success (Akkermans & Tims, 2017; Kim et al., 2018). Our study highlights that for employees who are concerned about their career growth and success, crafting one’s job can increase their motivation and lead to activities that promote career satisfaction and career commitment, ultimately shaping their careers (Kim et al., 2018).

Finally, our results suggest that organizations should consider age-related differences when designing employee career development and support programs. Both age groups (old versus young) appear to benefit from these resources, and organizations should ensure that they offer equal opportunities and support for career development. Age-specific nuances provide a platform for career counselors to tailor their interventions, thus suggesting career development strategies for diverse age cohorts. For example, younger employees with high motivational career resources can be encouraged to engage in proactive behaviors, such as job crafting, to capitalize on their resources and to advance their careers. This can help them develop their strengths and advance their careers faster than the older employees while contributing to the organization’s overall success. On the other hand, for older employees grappling with finite motivational career resources, counselors can strategically advocate the adoption of job crafting practices to enrich job satisfaction and bolster commitment. By recognizing the age-related differences, organizations can tailor their career development programs to meet their employees' unique needs and motivations and create a more engaged, committed, and satisfied workforce.

Limitations and Future Directions

The first limitation pertains to the source of the data. Because the survey data were collected from one source, common method variance could potentially be an issue. However, CMV might not be an issue in our study for the following reasons: First, constructs such as career resources and perceptions of satisfaction and commitment to one’s career cannot be measured through other sources except self-reports (Conway & Lance, 2010). As for the construct of job crafting, prior research (e.g., Federici et al., 2019; Petrou et al., 2018) used self-reporting because it is assumed that individuals know more about their crafting behaviors than others and are better able to make distinctions among the job crafting dimensions (e.g., task crafting vs. cognitive crafting) as compared to their supervisor who tends to produce overall judgments for a subordinate. Thus, self-reporting is an appropriate method to measure the construct of job crafting. However, future research should use objective and subjective career success indicators for better insights.

Second, we collected data in two waves, which limits the drawing of causal inferences. Researchers commonly employ a two-wave design to test mediation models (e.g., Dishon-Berkovits et al., 2023; Uwakwe et al., 2023) because it provides advantages over cross-sectional designs and helps mitigate the risk of attrition, especially when considering a three-wave design where participants’ retention might be a concern (as in our case). Nevertheless, future research should test the mediation model using a three-wave longitudinal study to untangle the causal relationships among study variables and gain a more robust understanding of the temporal sequence and the direction of effects. Moreover, testing the hypothesized relationships using experimental designs would be beneficial. Third, our sample participants represent a cross-section of French employees, raising concerns about the generalizability of our findings. Hence, future research should test the hypothesized model in other European cultural and geographical settings.

Fourth, while our primary analysis considers motivational career resources as an interconnected bundle of resources, we also conducted a post hoc analysis to investigate each dimension separately and examine potential differential effects on job crafting dimensions. The findings from this analysis offer intriguing avenues for future researchers to explore. In particular, future research should delve deeper into the individual dimensions of motivational career resources to understand their distinct impacts on job crafting behaviors. This exploration would shed light on which motivational career resources to prioritize for optimizing employees’ job crafting experiences. Moreover, studying how contextual factors or individual differences moderate the relationship between dimensions of motivational career resources and job crafting would enhance our understanding of the complexities involved in the interplay between these dimensions and job crafting behaviors. By addressing these research directions, scholars can further advance the field’s understanding of the underlying mechanisms that influence job crafting processes and contribute to the development of effective strategies for promoting employee engagement and well-being in various organizational settings. Finally, since we only considered motivational career resources from Hirschi et al.’s (2018) career resources framework, future research is also needed to assess other resources not captured in this study.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Yasir Mansoor Kundi

Data Availability Statement

Due to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared, so supporting data is not publicly available.

References

Aiken

L. S.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications google schola , 2, 513–531.

Akkermans

Schaufeli

W. B.

Brenninkmeijer

Blonk

R. W. B.

(2013). The role of career competencies in the job Demands—resources model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.011

Akkermans

Tims

(2017). Crafting your career: How career competencies relate to career success via job crafting. Applied Psychology, 66(1), 168–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12082

Bagdadli

Gianecchini

(2019). Organizational career management practices and objective career success: A systematic review and framework. Human Resource Management Review, 29(3), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.08.001

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2014). Job demands–resources theory. In Wellbeing: A complete reference guide (pp. 1–28). Wiley.

Blau

G. J.

(1985). The measurement and prediction of career commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58(4), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1985.tb00201.x

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

Brenninkmeijer

Hekkert-Koning

(2015). To craft or not to craft: The relationships between regulatory focus, job crafting and work outcomes. Career Development International, 20(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi-12-2014-0162

Brislin

R. W.

(1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 1(3), 185–216.

10.

Buonocore

de Gennaro

Russo

Salvatore

(2020). Cognitive job crafting: A possible response to increasing job insecurity and declining professional prestige. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(2), 244–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12270

11.

Cenciotti

Alessandri

Borgogni

(2017). Psychological capital and career success over time: The mediating role of job crafting. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 24(3), 372–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051816680558

12.

Coetzee

Ferreira

Shunmugum

(2017). Psychological career resources, career adaptability and work engagement of generational cohorts in the media industry. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(12).

13.

Coetzee

Bester

M. S.

(2019). Probing the role of psychosocial career mechanisms in the harmonious work passion-career satisfaction link. Personnel Review, 48(5), 1135–1149. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-01-2018-0023

14.

Conway

J. M.

Lance

C. E.

(2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6

15.

Cuddeback

Wilson

Orme

J. G.

Combs-Orme

(2004). Detecting and statistically correcting sample selection bias. Journal of Social Service Research, 30(3), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1300/j079v30n03_02

16.

De Clercq

Aboramadan

Kundi

Y. M.

(2023). How employee pandemic fears may escalate into a lateness attitude, and how a safe organizational climate can mitigate this challenge. Personnel Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-11-2022-0764

17.

Dishon-Berkovits

Bakker

A. B.

Peters

(2023). Playful work design, engagement and performance: The moderating roles of boredom and conscientiousness. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2023.2227920

18.

Dubbelt

Demerouti

Rispens

(2019). The value of job crafting for work engagement, task performance, and career satisfaction: Longitudinal and quasi-experimental evidence. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 28(3), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2019.1576632

19.

Ellemers

de Gilder

Van Den Heuvel

(1998). Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitment and behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 717–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.5.717

20.

Federici

Boon

Den Hartog

D. N.

(2019). The moderating role of HR practices on the career adaptability–job crafting relationship: A study among employee–manager dyads. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(6), 1339–1367. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1522656

21.

Fisher

S. L.

Connelly

C. E.

(2017). Lower cost or just lower value? Modeling the organizational costs and benefits of contingent work. Academy of Management Discoveries, 3(2), 165–186. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2015.0119

22.

Francis-Smythe

Haase

Thomas

Steele

(2013). Development and validation of the career competencies indicator (CCI). Journal of Career Assessment, 21(2), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072712466724

23.

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

24.

Gaio Santos

Martins

(2019). Linking career success motives and career boundaries to repatriates' turnover intentions: A case study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(16), 3458–3501. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1629985

25.

Giraud

Bernard

Trinchera

(2019). Early career values and individual factors of objective career success: The case of the French business graduates. Career Development International, 24(4), 350–382.

26.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Parasuraman

Wormley

W. M.

(1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 64–86. https://doi.org/10.5465/256352

27.

Guan

Frenkel

S. J.

(2019). Explaining supervisor–subordinate guanxi and subordinate performance through a conservation of resources lens. Human Relations, 72(11), 1752–1775. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718813718

28.

Haenggli

Hirschi

(2020). Career adaptability and career success in the context of a broader career resources framework. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119, 103414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103414

29.

Hagmaier

Abele

A. E.

Goebel

(2018). How do career satisfaction and life satisfaction associate? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 33(2), 142–160. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-09-2017-0326

30.

Halbesleben

J. R.

Neveu

J. P.

Paustian-Underdahl

S. C.

Westman

(2014). Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130

31.

Hennequin

(2007). What “career success” means to blue‐collar workers. Career Development International, 12(6), 565–581. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430710822029

32.

Hirschi

Nagy

Baumeler

Johnston

C. S.

Spurk

(2018). Assessing key predictors of career success: Development and validation of the career resources questionnaire. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(2), 338–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717695584

33.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513

34.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Halbesleben

Neveu

J. P.

Westman

(2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640

35.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Wells

J. D.

(1998). Conservation of resources, stress, and aging: Why do some slide and some spring? In Handbook of aging and mental health: An integrative approach (pp. 121–134). Boston, MA: Springer US.

36.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Taris

Shimazu

Dollard

M. F.

(2019). Resource crafting: Is it really ‘resource’crafting—or just crafting? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 614. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00614

37.

Judge

T. A.

Weiss

H. M.

Kammeyer-Mueller

J. D.

Hulin

C. L.

(2017). Job attitudes, job satisfaction, and job affect: A century of continuity and of change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000181

38.

Katz

I. M.

Rudolph

C. W.

Zacher

(2019). Age and career commitment: Meta-analytic tests of competing linear versus curvilinear relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 396–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.03.001

39.

Kim

(2018). Exploring antecedents and consequences of job crafting. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 75, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.02.014

40.

Kim

Beehr

T. A.

(2018). Can empowering leaders affect subordinates’ wellbeing and careers because they encourage subordinates’ job crafting behaviors? Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 25(2), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817727702

41.

Kooij

D. T.

Nijssen

Bal

P. M.

van der Kruijssen

D. T.

(2020). Crafting an interesting job: Stimulating an active role of older workers in enhancing their daily work engagement and job performance. Work, Aging and Retirement, 6(3), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waaa001

42.

Kuijpers

Kooij

D. T.

van Woerkom

(2020). Align your job with yourself: The relationship between a job crafting intervention and work engagement, and the role of workload. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 25(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000175

43.

Kundi

Y. M.

Baruch

Ullah

(2023). The impact of discretionary HR practices on knowledge sharing and intention to quit–a three-wave study on the role of career satisfaction, organizational identification, and work engagement. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 34(22), 4205–4231. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2023.2180652

44.

Kundi

Y. M.

Hollet-Haudebert

Peterson

(2021). Linking protean and boundaryless career attitudes to subjective career success: A serial mediation model. Journal of Career Assessment, 29(2), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072720959782

45.

Kundi

Y.M.

Hollet-Haudebert

Peterson

(2022a). Career adaptability, job crafting and subjective career success: The moderating roles of lone wolf personality and positive perfectionism. Personnel Review, 51(3), 945–965.

46.

Kundi

Y. M.

Khoso

Adnan

(2022b). Instrumental support, relational attachment, and subjective career success: The moderating role of personal support. Journal of Career Assessment, 30(4), 739–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727211069291

47.

Kundi

Y. M.

Soomro

S. A.

Kamran

(2022c). Does social support at work enhance subjective career success? The mediating role of relational attachment. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(6), 1491–1507. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-08-2020-2379

48.

Lazazzara

Tims

De Gennaro

(2020). The process of reinventing a job: A meta–synthesis of qualitative job crafting research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 116, 103267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.01.001

49.

Loi

A. J.

Chow

C. W.

Chan

W. W.

(2019). Linking customer participation to service employees' work‐to‐family enrichment: The role of job crafting and OBSE. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(2), 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12291

50.

Yang

Weng

Zhu

(2021). How different forms of job crafting relate to job satisfaction: The role of person-job fit and age. Current Psychology, 1–15.

51.

Lo Presti

Van der Heijden

Briscoe

J. P.

De Rosa

(2023). “Crafting your own success”: A time-lagged study on the mediating role of job crafting dimensions in the relationship between protean career and career success. Career Development International, 28(2), 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi-08-2022-0220

52.

Martinescu

Edwards

M. R.

Leite

A. C.

Randsley de Moura

Marques

A. G.

Abrams

(2022). The interactive effect of job skill level and citizenship status on job depression, work engagement and turnover intentions: A moderated mediation model in the context of macro‐level turbulence (of ‘Brexit’). Human Resource Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12489

53.

Meijerink

Bos-Nehles

de Leede

(2020). How employees’ pro-activity translates high-commitment HRM systems into work engagement: The mediating role of job crafting. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(22), 2893–2918. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1475402

54.

Mielly

Jones

Smith

Basistha

(2017). A passage to France: Skilled Indian SIEs in transition. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 13(4), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-01-2017-0003

55.

Modestino

A. S.

Sugiyama

Ladge

(2019). Careers in construction: An examination of the career narratives of young professionals and their emerging career self-concepts. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115, 103306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.05.003

56.

T. W.

Feldman

D. C.

(2014). Subjective career success: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(2), 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.06.001

57.

Niessen

Weseler

Kostova

(2016). When and why do individuals craft their jobs? The role of individual motivation and work characteristics for job crafting. Human Relations, 69(6), 1287–1313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715610642

58.

Pan

Guan

Han

Zhu

(2018). The interplay of proactive personality and internship quality in Chinese university graduates’ job search success: The role of career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 109, 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.09.003

59.

Petrou

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2018). Crafting the change: The role of employee job crafting behaviors for successful organizational change. Journal of Management, 44(5), 1766–1792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315624961

60.

Plomp

Tims

Akkermans

Khapova

S. N.

Jansen

P. G.

Bakker

A. B.

(2016). Career competencies and job crafting. Career Development International, 21(6), 587–602. https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi-08-2016-0145

61.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Mackenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

62.

Rudolph

C. W.

Katz

I. M.

Lavigne

K. N.

Zacher

(2017). Job crafting: A meta-analysis of relationships with individual differences, job characteristics, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102, 112–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.008

63.

Seibert

S. E.

Crant

J. M.

Kraimer

M. L.

(1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.416

64.

Semeijn

J. H.

Van der Heijden

B. I. J. M.

De Beuckelaer

(2020). Personality traits and types in relation to career success: An empirical comparison using the big five. Applied Psychology, 69(2), 538–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12174

65.

Shin

Hur

W. M.

Choi

W. H.

(2020). Coworker support as a double-edged sword: A moderated mediation model of job crafting, work engagement, and job performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(11), 1417–1438. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1407352

66.

Shockley

K. M.

Ureksoy

Rodopman

O. B.

Poteat

L. F.

Dullaghan

T. R.

(2016). Development of a new scale to measure subjective career success: A mixed‐methods study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(1), 128–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2046

67.

Slemp

G. R.

Vella-Brodrick

D. A.

(2013). The job crafting questionnaire: A new scale to measure the extent to which employees engage in job crafting. International Journal of Wellbeing, 3(2), 126–146.

68.

Smale

Bagdadli

Cotton

Dello Russo

Dickmann

Dysvik

Gianecchini

Kaše

Lazarova

Reichel

Rozo

Verbruggen

(2019). 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

69.

Spurk

Hirschi

Dries

(2019). Antecedents and outcomes of objective versus subjective career success: Competing perspectives and future directions. Journal of Management, 45(1), 35–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318786563

70.

Spurk

Kauffeld

Meinecke

A. L.

Ebner

(2016). Why do adaptable people feel less insecure? Indirect effects of career adaptability on job and career insecurity via two types of perceived marketability. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(2), 289–306.

71.

Tims

Bakker

A. B.

Derks

(2015). Job crafting and job performance: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 914–928. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2014.969245

72.

Tims

Derks

Bakker

A. B.

(2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person–job fit and meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007

73.

Triandis

. (2001). Individualism–collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 907–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.696169

74.

Tse

H. H.

M. L.

Chiu

W. C.

(2018). When and why does transformational leadership influence employee creativity? The roles of personal control and creative personality. Human Resource Management, 57(1), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21855

75.

Uwakwe

R. C.

Okolie

U. C.

Ehiobuche

Ochinanwata

Idike

I. M.

(2023). A Multi-group study of psychological capital and job search behaviours among university graduates with and without work placement learning experience. Journal of Career Assessment, 31(2), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727221118376

76.

Wiernik

B. M.

Kostal

J. W.

(2019). Protean and boundaryless career orientations: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(3), 280–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000324

77.

Wrzesniewski

Dutton

J. E.

(2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.2307/259118

78.

Yang

Yan

Zhao

X. R.

Mattila

A. S.

Cui

Liu

(2022). A two-wave longitudinal study on the impacts of job crafting and psychological resilience on emotional labor. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 52, 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2022.05.014

79.

Yen

H. C.

Cheng

J. W.

Hsu

C. T.

Yen

K. C.

(2019). How career adaptability can enhance career satisfaction: Exploring the mediating role of person–job fit. Journal of Management and Organization, 29(5), 912–929. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2019.75

80.

Zacher

(2014). Individual difference predictors of change in career adaptability over time. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(2), 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.01.001

81.

Zhang

Parker

S. K.

(2019). Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure of job crafting concepts and integrative review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2332

82.

Zhu

Kim

P. B.

Milne

Park

I. J.

(2021). A meta-analysis of the antecedents of career commitment. Journal of Career Assessment, 29(3), 502–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072720956983

83.

Zikic

Saks

A. M.

(2009). Job search and social cognitive theory: The role of career-relevant activities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(1), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.001