From Books to Business: The Impact of Career Goal Achievement on Career Sustainability During the School-to-Work Transition

Goal Setting During the STWT

The STWT has long been viewed as a straightforward sequence. However, contemporary studies reveal its intricate and dynamic nature (Akkermans et al., 2021a). The STWT is now perceived as a process encompassing a variety of experiences, including internships, part-time work, and continued education, that collectively shape early career trajectories (Ng & Feldman, 2007). Moreover, the dynamic nature of modern labor markets demands that individuals combine structured planning with the openness to adjust when circumstances change (Savickas, 2005).

The STWT lays a foundation for career behaviors and identities. Emerging adults face the dual challenge of adapting to new roles and environments while managing the psychological demands of redefining themselves within professional contexts. In this period of uncertainty and pressure, they must navigate employer expectations, balance financial responsibilities, and make critical decisions about their career paths (Blokker et al., 2023). Against this backdrop, career goals, defined as any desired career outcome an individual wishes to attain (Greco & Kraimer, 2020; Greenhaus, 1987), emerge as a vital instrument to guide decision-making during turbulent times (Clements & Kamau, 2018). During the STWT, these goals serve as benchmarks that enable emerging adults to manage competing demands effectively (Ng & Feldman, 2007). Additionally, the pursuit and achievement of these goals are influenced by contextual factors such as family support, social networks, and organizational environments, which provide varying levels of resources and encouragement (De Vos et al., 2020; Greenhaus & Kossek, 2014).

Nevertheless, even with clearly defined goals, alignment between intentions and outcomes is not always achieved, especially within the unpredictable terrain of contemporary labor markets. During the STWT, emerging adults face ongoing tensions between what they aim for and what their context allows, prompting an ongoing reassessment of progress, values, and priorities (Akkermans et al., 2021a). Within this dynamic environment, misalignments between desired and actual career paths may arise. These perceived gaps are commonly referred to as career goal discrepancies, defined as the distance between one’s aspired career goals and current progress toward those goals (Creed & Hood, 2015). Despite its relevance, career goal discrepancy remains an underexplored concept, particularly during formative transitions such as the STWT (e.g., Akmal et al., 2021, Akmal et al., 2024; Creed & Hood, 2015; Widyowati et al., 2024b).

While prior work has focused predominantly on negative discrepancies, fewer studies have explored positive discrepancies, where progress exceeds initial goals, and which is linked to satisfaction, enhanced confidence, and upward goal revision (Akmal et al., 2021, 2024). However, emerging adults’ experiences might also be more ambiguous, where outcomes do not clearly exceed or fall short of their original intentions. Such complexity challenges binary frameworks and underscores the need to investigate the lived, evolving nature of discrepancies. Existing models often rely on static or hypothetical constructs, assuming stable goals and linear feedback loops, as seen in foundational theories like control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1990) and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1991). These assumptions may falter during periods of rapid change, when goals themselves are in flux and responses are shaped by iterative reflection rather than fixed evaluations.

Sustainable Careers

Sustainable careers offer a dynamic perspective on how individuals maintain meaning, well-being, and performance across changing personal and professional contexts. Rather than emphasizing linear advancement or singular definitions of success, the sustainable career framework highlights how individuals preserve and build personal resources over time in ways that foster meaningful and viable careers (De Vos et al., 2020; Van der Heijden & De Vos, 2015). This framework is based on two core components: three indicators of career sustainability—happiness, health, and productivity (Van der Heijden, 2005)—and three guiding dimensions that shape these outcomes over time—person, context, and time.

Happiness refers to subjective experiences of job satisfaction and personal fulfillment; health encompasses physical and mental well-being; and productivity reflects individuals’ capacity to contribute effectively to their professional roles (Akkermans et al., 2021a; Blokker et al., 2023; De Vos et al., 2020). These indicators are not evaluated in isolation, but are interdependent and may shift in relative importance across life stages and circumstances.

The person dimension focuses on individual agency, including self-reflection, adaptability, and goal-setting behaviors that enable individuals to navigate transitions and align their careers with personal values (De Vos et al., 2020; Savickas, 2005). The context dimension highlights external factors such as organizational support, family dynamics, and labor market conditions that influence the resources and opportunities available to sustain careers (Blokker et al., 2023; De Vos et al., 2020; Greenhaus & Kossek, 2014). Finally, the time dimension emphasizes the evolving nature of careers, acknowledging that sustainability is not achieved at a single point in time but requires ongoing adjustments across life stages (De Vos et al., 2020; Van der Heijden & De Vos, 2015). This temporal lens is particularly critical during transitional periods, such as the STWT, when goals, identities, and external circumstances are all in flux (Blokker et al., 2023).

Recent studies have expanded the conceptual and empirical support for the sustainable careers framework (De Vos et al., 2020), for example, by examining how proactive behaviors shape the sustainability of early careers during the STWT (e.g., Gerritsen et al., 2024) and by using it as an analytical lens in reviews to synthesize evidence across complex and uncertain contexts (e.g., Blokker et al., 2023). This framework is especially relevant for emerging adults, as the STWT represents the first major career transition and therefore lays a critical foundation for one’s long-term career sustainability (Blokker et al., 2023; Steiner et al., 2022). The above-mentioned studies illustrate how the dimensions of person, context, and time, and their focus on happiness, health, and productivity, can be applied empirically. In the context of this study, we build on the previous scholarly work in this field by applying the sustainable careers framework to examine how individuals navigate misalignment between goals and outcomes during the STWT. This approach allows us to connect the lived experiences of misalignment to the broader sustainable career indicators.

Research Design

This study employed a qualitative quasi-foundationalist approach, aligning with Amis and Silk (2008). Such an approach asserts the existence of a reality independent of our understanding but acknowledges that there is no theory-free knowledge (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). In doing so, we aimed to generate generic findings that are both grounded and scientifically credible while recognizing the interpretive paradigm, wherein the lived experiences of the researched individuals are constructed in the written text by the researcher (House, 2005). The selection of this approach is driven by the idea that a research strategy should be practical while allowing for internal reflexivity among the researchers (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). To engage with the socially constructed and relational nature of participants’ perceptions and experiences, an interpretivist ontology lens (Sandberg, 2005) was employed. An interpretivist ontology lens holds that reality is socially constructed and understood through the subjective interpretations and interactions of individuals (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

To enhance our understanding of emerging adults’ career goals during the STWT from a career sustainability perspective (De Vos et al., 2020), we conducted semi-structured interviews that allowed us to explore participants’ perceptions, opinions, motives, and attitudes (Kallio et al., 2016). This approach provided an in-depth insight into the “why” behind the career goal discrepancies, their associated behaviors, and their relationship with the indicators of career sustainability. We adopted a qualitative longitudinal design over 12 months. In the Netherlands, almost every graduating student at Universities of Applied Sciences begins their final bachelor project half a year prior to graduation (Government of the Netherlands, 2023). Therefore, we conducted interviews at the commencement of the students’ graduation projects in February, which is approximately six months before their graduation, under the premise that this marks the initiation of the STWT for this cohort. Subsequently, interviews were repeated 12 months after the initial round (i.e., around six months after their graduation, in February of that year) to capture the transition of emerging adults into the workforce. This deliberate timing aligns with the view that the STWT is best understood as a process rather than a single event (Blokker et al., 2023), allowing us to trace both anticipatory goal setting before graduation and the lived realities of early work experiences afterward. Between T1 and T2, we did not engage in participant contact, beyond scheduling the second round of interviews.

Participants and Sampling

Purposive sampling was employed for the student interviews conducted at one of the largest Applied Sciences Universities in the Netherlands to ensure a representative selection (Black, 2010). Specifically, we focused on bachelor students in the field of Economics, chosen for their comprehensive education that enables employment across various industries (Times Higher Education, 2022). Considering the potential impact of factors such as gender (Patton et al., 2002), migration (Clair et al., 2017), and educational background (Wolniak & Engberg, 2010) on career outcomes, we incorporated these elements into our sampling strategy to enhance the validity of our study (see ‘Procedure’ for the workflow). To optimize representativeness, efforts were made to maintain a balanced sample across these factors.

Procedure

Participants were recruited by directly contacting the students for the initial round of interviews. Recruitment was conducted by the first author, who contacted students individually via Microsoft Teams. All final-year students in the program were eligible to participate; no formal exclusion criteria were applied. To ensure a sound degree of randomization in our recruitment process, we began by stratifying the eligible pool by gender, migration background, and educational background. Subsequently, we randomized the contact order within each stratum. Students were approached in a top-to-bottom sequence on the randomized lists until target numbers per stratum were reached. Participation was voluntary, and no incentives were provided.

For T1, 50 interviews were scheduled. However, data collection stopped when saturation was reached and the remaining interviews were canceled, resulting in a final sample of 44 graduating students. Saturation was determined when no new substantial themes emerged during the coding process. All 44 students from the first round of interviews were approached for a second round of interviews; 40 were scheduled. In this second round, saturation was reached after 36 interviews were conducted, the remaining interviews were canceled. The eight students who did not participate in the second round were equally spread across gender, migration and education backgrounds, ensuring that stopping data collection at 36 did not compromise our sampling strategy. Although participants’ career experiences became more complex over time, that is, once having entered the labor market, thematic saturation was reached sooner in the second round of interviews. During this round, we observed that participants’ stories often centered around clearly defined themes, resulting in increased clarity and coherence in participants’ reflections. The latter may have contributed to acquiring saturation more quickly. Additionally, as the second round of interviews was partly structured around themes that emerged from the first round, the more focused discussions likely also played a role in this regard. The final sample consisted of 36 participants, including 20 women and 16 men. With respect to their prior educational track, 14 students entered the bachelor of Economics via secondary vocational education (i.e., Dutch MBO), 17 via higher general education background (i.e., Dutch HAVO), and 5 via other routes (e.g., international diplomas). Eleven participants reported a migration background, while 25 had a Western background. Table 1 depicts the final overview of the participants.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participant Overview of Students

Respondent #	Gender	Age T1	Education background	Migration background	Interview duration T1 & T2 (minutes)
1	Male	24	SVE	Western	68; 59
2	Male	24	SVE	Western	58; 57
3	Female	27	HGSE	Migration	66; 57
4	Female	25	SVE	Migration	50; 55
5	Male	26	HGSE	Migration	47; 57
6	Male	25	Other	Western	53; 46
7	Male	24	SVE	Migration	57; 67
8	Male	23	SVE	Migration	63; 61
9	Male	25	HGSE	Migration	60; 57
10	Female	27	SVE	Western	69; 63
11	Female	21	HGSE	Western	58; 62
12	Female	23	Other	Western	61; 61
13	Female	23	SVE	Western	54; 69
14	Male	22	Other	Western	58; 59
15	Female	21	HGSE	Western	55; 70
16	Female	22	HGSE	Western	46; 47
17	Male	24	SVE	Western	61; 58
18	Male	24	HGSE	Western	68; 68
19	Female	24	Other	Migration	65; 63
20	Female	22	HGSE	Migration	53; 49
21	Male	23	SVE	Western	55; 43
22	Male	22	SVE	Western	75; 51
23	Female	23	SVE	Western	63; 59
24	Female	21	HGSE	Western	47; 55
25	Female	25	SVE	Western	47; 49
26	Male	24	HGSE	Western	78; 68
27	Male	23	HGSE	Western	63; 69
28	Female	22	SVE	Migration	65; 63
29	Male	22	HGSE	Western	54; 56
30	Female	24	SVE	Western	64; 61
31	Female	20	HGSE	Western	70; 62
32	Female	22	Other	Western	46; 50
33	Male	22	HGSE	Migration	56; 67
34	Female	20	HGSE	Western	62; 51
35	Female	22	HGSE	Western	68; 77
36	Female	20	HGSE	Migration	40; 43

We took several measures to ensure the quality of the preliminary interview guide for the first round of interviews. First, we grounded the guide empirically by incorporating happiness, health, and productivity (Van der Heijden, 2005) as the three indicators of career sustainability (De Vos et al., 2020; Van der Heijden & De Vos, 2015). Second, the research team critically evaluated two preliminary interview guides, varying in their level of structure (i.e., a more open questionnaire versus a more structured questionnaire). Third, field testing was done by four potential participants to confirm relevance and to investigate whether diverse responses came up, which led to further clarifying wording, adjusting sequencing, and adding probes to elicit more detailed responses (Chenail, 2011). Notably, participants from the pilot study were excluded from the final study. Finally, the research team finalized the interview guide, considering criteria for varied and in-depth responses, and made the necessary adjustments based on field testing. In the first round of interviews, we explicitly introduced the sustainable career indicators—happiness, health, and productivity—using the definitions from the sustainable careers literature (De Vos et al., 2020). We then prompted the participants for concrete examples to ensure that participants’ stories aligned with our theoretical definitions before moving into the open questions. To strive for quality and consistency, for the second round of interviews, we used questions similar to those in the first interview guideline (see Appendixes A and B in Supplemental Materials for the final interview guides in English).

Additionally, in the second round of interviews, we initiated the session by asking participants to graphically depict the development of their happiness, health, and productivity over the past 12 months in a drawing (i.e., the development since the last interview). This approach aligns with visual methodologies used within qualitative research (Barbour, 2019; Guillemin, 2004). Participants were asked to interpret low to high values for the sustainable career indicators on the vertical axis (see Figure 1). Before the drawing, we did not pre-define happiness, health, and productivity to avoid steering the depiction. After the drawing, however, we used brief clarification probes to ensure a shared understanding of what each line in the drawing meant (e.g., clarifying that ‘productivity’ referred to performance/success in one’s current role and anticipated future roles). When participants used different meanings, we noted these explicitly and then proceeded with consistent terminology for the interview. In these interviews, the participants were asked to consider all events from the past year and the impact on their happiness, health, and productivity. The resulting drawing was then used as a basis for the interview, focusing on the dynamics sketched within the drawing (e.g., peaks or lows). This exercise was facilitated by the flexible nature of the interview guide, which could zoom in on both peaks and lows as well as stable drawings. This allowed for an open and expressive interview style as we delved into discussions based on the drawn representations.OPEN IN VIEWER

We adhered to the ethical guidelines of the university of the first author when conducting this study. Given the absence of an ethical commission at the participating Applied Sciences University, approval was obtained from the institution’s director and the educational manager of the relevant bachelor’s program. Finally, informed consent was obtained from all participants. To facilitate a thorough analysis, all interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participant anonymity was maintained by labeling individuals with a capitalized ‘R' followed by a number (R1, R2, etc.). Both rounds of interviews were done virtually using Microsoft Teams. The interviews lasted 60 minutes on average, ranging from 40 to 77 minutes. The interviews were conducted in Dutch, the first language of both the participants and researchers. This choice facilitated the most comfortable and thorough discussions. The first author of this article conducted all interviews.

Data Analysis

We employed template analysis (King, 2004), which is a structured form of thematic analysis (Nowell et al., 2017). Unlike approaches that rely solely on inductive, data-driven coding (see Braun & Clarke, 2021), template analysis begins with an initial coding framework (a ‘template of codes’) derived from theory, which is then iteratively refined based on the data (Flach & Kakas, 2000). In line with contemporary views on longitudinal qualitative research (Masdonati et al., 2024; Neale, 2021; Vogl et al., 2018), this approach combines a deductive foundation (using literature-derived preliminary codes) with inductive flexibility to add or modify codes as new themes emerge. Braun and Clarke (2021) situated template analysis within the ‘codebook’ family of thematic analysis approaches, which combine some a priori structure with researcher reflexivity. Appendix C in Supplemental Materials provides an overview of the final codes. Participants’ drawings were initially used to structure the interviews, and were subsequently examined through thematic analysis (Nowell et al., 2017) following established practices in visual methodologies (Guillemin, 2004). Additionally, they were coded for changes in happiness, health, and productivity to complement and triangulate the interview data.

All authors jointly coded ten percent of the first-round interviews to develop a shared coding scheme, refining codes when discrepancies arose. The first author then coded the remaining interviews from both rounds, consulting the second and third authors when uncertainties arose. Analysis of the first and second rounds was done separately, after which we compared each participant’s interviews side-by-side to trace individual change over time. Consistent with longitudinal qualitative research practices (e.g., Neale, 2021; Vogl et al., 2018), we first sought to understand the individual narratives and processes of change before looking at the cross-case analysis to map broader patterns and typologies of change.

We coded career goal discrepancies as follows. At the first round of interviews, participants were explicitly asked to state their main career goals for the first six months after graduation. At the second round of interviews, participants were not directly asked whether they had achieved these goals. Instead, they were invited to depict and narrate their trajectories through drawings of their happiness, health, and productivity, as well as interview accounts. We systematically compared the goals articulated at the first round of interviews with participants’ actual post-graduation situation as described in the second round of interviews (e.g., employment/role/contract, further education, entrepreneurship). Based on the drawings and interviews, we triangulated the data to judge whether each case reflected (1) responsive alignment, (2) recalibration and erosion, or (3) reorientation after disruption. We did not ask participants to ‘classify’ their discrepancy because member-checking of interpretive categories is contested (Birt et al., 2016). Instead, we used researcher-coded cross-wave classifications to minimize hindsight bias (Roese & Vohs, 2012). To illustrate this coding process, six example cases (two from each group) of T1 goals, their corresponding T2 outcomes, and assigned typologies are provided in Appendix D in the Supplemental Materials. Importantly, the majority of goals articulated at T1 were short-term and concrete (e.g., obtaining a diploma, securing entry-level employment, or beginning a master’s program), and thus appeared to be generally attainable within the one-year time frame we examined.

To enhance transparency and provide richer insight into participants’ lived experiences, we compiled extended illustrative quotes for each of the three discrepancy typologies identified in the Findings section. These quotes can be found in Appendix E in the Supplemental Materials.

Researcher Positionality and Perspectives

This study involved a research team comprising various members from several Dutch Universities (of Applied Sciences). All team members are trained in qualitative research methods and have extensive qualitative research experience. The team’s collective expertise spans educational sciences, career research, strategic human resource management, and work and organizational psychology. The authors represent different career phases, ranging from six to 36 years of research experience. All team members are familiar with the higher education sector through their roles in Dutch Universities (of Applied Sciences), and their research expertise extends to the Dutch labor market. Aligned with the belief that everyone is entitled to a sustainable career, the research team is part of a larger research project dedicated to stimulating and facilitating proactive behaviors for career sustainability among emerging adults during their STWT. In line with calls for reflexivity in qualitative research (Finlay, 2002; Tracy, 2010), we also engaged in internal reflexivity as part of routine analysis meetings. Rather than a formal positionality protocol, we integrated reflexive checks into our analytic meetings: when background assumptions surfaced, we named them, noted possible implications for coding, and searched for discrepant cases to keep themes anchored in participants’ experiences rather than researchers’ expectations.

Group 1: Responsive Alignment

Group 2: Recalibration and Erosion

Group 3: Reorientation after Disruption

Beyond the Three Groups: Emerging Mechanisms and Evolving Reflections

To understand how career goal discrepancies affect sustainability, we identified mechanisms that cut across group lines. First, reflection emerged as a longitudinal and evolving process—one that evolved over time and shaped participants’ ability to adjust. Around graduation, many participants focused on concrete, short-term goals such as submitting a thesis, securing a job, or simply “getting it done.” These immediate aims helped manage the uncertainty of transition, but often lacked a broader sense of purpose. As participants entered the workplace and gained distance from school, their reflections began to shift. Some started asking more fundamental questions—not just whether they were reaching their goals, but also whether those goals still made sense. R25, for example, noted, “Now that I’ve graduated, it feels like I have to figure out who I want to be, not just what job I want.” Others, like R16, moved from “I just wanted to find something that paid well” to a more holistic outlook: “how it fits into the rest of my life.” When this kind of deeper reflection happened earlier, participants were generally better prepared to adapt and avoid painful discrepancies. When it came later, they were more likely to cling to outdated plans, only adjusting after experiencing significant misalignment.

Second, the interaction between personal agency and contextual support played a central role. Some participants showed strong agency through planning, reflecting, and adapting. But this was not enough on its own. Those embedded in rigid or unsupportive environments struggled to respond constructively to setbacks, even when motivated. Conversely, those with more flexible and encouraging support systems (such as mentors or families who offered feedback or validation) were better equipped to adjust. For instance, many Group 1 participants benefited from ongoing conversations that helped them reassess and refine their paths. In contrast, several Group 3 participants lacked such input and often faced the challenges alone, which intensified the impact of misalignment.

Third, discrepancies themselves were not inherently negative or positive—it was the response that shaped their effect on career sustainability. A slow erosion, if ignored, could slowly drain energy and focus. A major disruption, while destabilizing, sometimes sparked meaningful reassessment and growth. Across all groups, what mattered most was how individuals interpreted the gap between their goals and current reality, and how they responded to it over time.

Taken together, the group patterns not only show who experienced discrepancies, but why, and with what consequences. Group 1 participants demonstrated that early reflection and long-term thinking can prevent or soften misalignment. The ones in Group 2 highlighted how subtle misalignment, if unaddressed, erodes momentum and well-being. Group 3 participants showed that a major disruption, though painful, can become a catalyst for change if combined with the right support and mindset. Rather than treating discrepancies as static outcomes, they seemed to perceive them as pivotal moments in career development—challenges that can prompt either drift or direction, depending on how they are navigated. In this way, the three groups do not simply reflect degrees of discrepancy but qualitatively distinct trajectories shaped by different constellations of reflection, context, and career sustainability outcomes. Table 2 provides an overview of the core characteristics, sustainability outcomes, individual behaviors, and contextual factors observed across the three different groups.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Comparative Overview of Discrepancy Groups ^a

Group	Goal status	Sustainability outcomes	Role of context	Individual behavior
1: Responsive alignment	High alignment between goals and outcomes	Happiness, health and productivity generally strong; occasional strain from high self-imposed standards	Supportive environment that reinforced goal alignment	Proactive long-term planning, ongoing reflection and adaptive adjustment
2: Recalibration and erosion	General direction achieved, but side goals quietly dropped or deferred	Subtle erosion of engagement and momentum; “on track” outwardly but declining fulfillment	Context and routines masked misalignment; support present but not activating; external feedback often decisive	Delayed or reactive reflection, often triggered externally
3: Reorientation after disruption	Clear gap between goals and later reality	Short-term instability and distress; potential catalyst for growth when re-aligned	Lack of guiding context, or conflicting external signals; later support helped recovery	Minimal early reflection; later reevaluation and pivoting, often prompted by crisis or failure

Theoretical Contributions

This study contributes to research on career goal discrepancies and sustainable careers within the STWT context, in four key ways. First, we challenge the assumption that career goal discrepancies are best understood in binary terms, either positive (goals exceeded) or negative (goals unmet). Our findings reveal a broader spectrum that also includes partial discrepancies, where some aspects of a career goal are achieved while others are deferred or dropped. This typological expansion shows that discrepancies are not static or clearly polarized outcomes, but complex and evolving experiences. Particularly, the “recalibration and erosion” group illustrates a qualitatively distinct pattern: broad alignment with overarching goals (e.g., “having a stable job”) coexists with the gradual loss or postponement of more specific aspirations (e.g., creative ambitions or entrepreneurial plans). These subtle drifts, such as gradually letting go of goals without conscious decision, often remained under the radar, yet had meaningful implications for their happiness. By foregrounding these nuances in career goal discrepancies, we advance a more nuanced conceptualization of discrepancy as plural, layered, and shaped by shifting interpretations over time, building on and extending earlier work that treated discrepancy primarily as dichotomous (Akmal et al., 2021; Widyowati et al., 2024a). This interpretive view also aligns with career construction theory (Savickas, 2013), which highlights how individuals ‘re-author’ their career stories as circumstances evolve. Adopting this lens, discrepancies operate as prompts for narrative reconstruction. That is, career goals are recalibrated, meanings are revised, and next steps are tested. As a result, the same discrepancy can narrow, widen, or be redefined across time, underscoring that such discrepancies are processes, not static states.

Second, by integrating the sustainable careers framework (De Vos et al., 2020; Van der Heijden et al., 2020; Van der Heijden & De Vos, 2015), we reframe career goal discrepancies not merely as indicators of failure or success but as interpretive moments that can spark reflection, adaptation, and renewed direction. Our data show that even significant misalignments, such as not graduating on time or abandoning an initial plan, can become catalysts for growth if individuals engage reflectively and have the contextual support to recalibrate. Participants from Group 1 exemplify how long-term orientation and reflective planning can reduce the disruptive potential of the STWT; for them, graduation was not an endpoint but a moment within a larger, ongoing cycle of career development (De Vos et al., 2019). Their ability to treat their early career phase as an iterative process rather than as a period with one endpoint suggests that alignment is more likely when goals are framed with a long-term, value-based lens rather than short-term performance markers. This process view extends goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 2002) by emphasizing adaptive rather than evaluative responses to discrepancy and supports a process-oriented view of sustainable career development (De Vos et al., 2020).

Third, we address the limitations of prior research that relies heavily on prospective, snapshot-based approaches, which treat discrepancies as anticipated gaps between current and future goals (Akmal et al., 2021; Creed & Hood, 2015). Instead, our qualitative, longitudinal design highlights how participants often only recognized the meaning of those gaps in retrospect. For example, several individuals initially described their career path as “on track,” only to later reflect that they had suppressed meaningful aspects of their goals. This time-sensitive, meaning-making process was particularly evident in Group 2, where a delay in reflection contributed to sustained partial misalignment, potentially more detrimental than a dramatic disruption, as the former lacks an apparent trigger for action. By capturing these evolving trajectories, we show that discrepancies are not single data points but dynamic sensemaking processes shaped by context, timing, and reflection. This reframes discrepancies as interpretive developments—best understood through longitudinal, narrative methods—and answers recent calls for process-oriented approaches in career development research (Blokker et al., 2023).

Building on this temporal critique, we further address how discrepancies are conceptualized and measured. Although positive and negative discrepancies make sense conceptually, in our data, no positive discrepancies were found. That is, participants in our study did not report exceeding their initial goals. We argue that negative discrepancies likely trigger strong affective responses (e.g., stress, anxiety, and recalibration). By contrast, positive discrepancies are less pronounced and perceptible, thus making them more difficult to grasp. Participants narrated early achievement (i.e., meeting expectations and settling into first roles), but under our goal-anchored comparison, these accounts did not surpass their initial goal. This suggests that positive discrepancies may be structurally harder to observe in practice, particularly in early careers where aspirations are still forming. This calls into question whether existing measurement tools can adequately capture the phenomenon. Indeed, existing scales, such as the Career Goal Discrepancy Scale (Creed & Hood, 2015) and the Positive Career Goal Discrepancy Scale (Akmal et al., 2021), take a prospective stance by asking respondents to imagine future discrepancies, which may not capture how such experiences are lived and reinterpreted over time. Our findings suggest the need for refined conceptualizations and methods that can not only address whether discrepancies are “positive” or “negative”, but also how they emerge, are noticed, and redefined in the flow of early career development.

Fourth, an unexpected yet salient finding was the role of career shocks—sudden, disruptive events such as failed assessments, rejections, or confrontational feedback, that trigger deliberate career reflections (Akkermans et al., 2018, 2021b)—as critical turning points in how participants navigated discrepancies. While career shocks did not comprise a predefined focus, they surfaced across accounts, especially among those with significant negative discrepancies. In contrast to frameworks that emphasize prospective planning, these shocks often triggered unplanned but profound reassessment. For some, the disruption prompted a shift from passive drift to active goal redefinition. This suggests that shocks can catalyze not just new directions, but new interpretations of one’s career goals and values. We extend prior work (e.g., Akkermans et al., 2018, 2021b) by (1) positioning career shocks as a valuable lens for understanding career-goal discrepancies, and (2) showing that discrepancy experiences, and their interpretation, operate as a mechanism through which shocks shape career outcomes. Ultimately, career shocks are transforming discrepancies from markers of failure into entry points for meaningful, if unexpected, career development. In doing so, we bring a discrepancy-focused lens to the study of career shocks and highlight their interpretive role in early career sustainability.

Practical Implications

Our findings offer concrete strategies for institutions and educators supporting emerging adults during the STWT, particularly in navigating career goal discrepancies. First, institutions can promote adaptive goal setting by embedding structured reflection into the curriculum in a sustained, low-threshold way. Rather than relying solely on standalone counseling sessions or final-year planning tools, reflection activities should be woven into existing touchpoints, such as internships, project-based courses, or mentoring programs. For example, recurring “goal evolution” prompts can help students track how their aspirations shift over time and why. This supports prior calls for iterative, values-based approaches to career development (Savickas, 2005; Van der Heijden et al., 2020), while also resonating with our finding that long-term, reflective planning contributes to greater goal alignment and career satisfaction.

Second, students need help in detecting and interpreting discrepancies early, particularly partial or ambiguous ones that may not feel urgent but still impact engagement. One approach is to build in “discrepancy check-ins” as part of coaching conversations or digital self-assessment tools. These would encourage students to regularly compare their current path with earlier intentions and surface points of drift. While prior research has primarily focused on overt failures (Creed & Hood, 2015; Widyowati et al., 2024a), our study demonstrates that subtle misalignments can be equally disruptive if left unrecognized. Helping students to develop what might be called “discrepancy literacy” could enhance their ability to act before misalignment becomes entrenched.

Third, while support from families or mentors plays a role in helping students reflect, its impact depends heavily on how that support is given. Our findings suggest that exploratory dialogue—asking open-ended questions and validating uncertainty—is more beneficial than pushing for linear success. Institutions can support this by developing conversation guides or short briefing sessions for parents and mentors that promote reflective rather than directive support styles. This builds on prior work showing that stakeholder expectations shape student choices (Greenhaus & Kossek, 2014; Ng & Feldman, 2007), while aligning with the observation that rigid external pressure can constrain adaptive decision-making (Gerritsen et al., 2024).

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Our study has several limitations, some of which highlight areas for future research. First, there are limitations associated with the composition of our student sample. Although we took deliberate steps to ensure a balanced and representative sample by considering factors such as gender (Patton et al., 2002), migration status (Clair et al., 2017), and educational background (Wolniak & Engberg, 2010), our sample consisted solely of Dutch citizens enrolled in a specific higher education program in the Netherlands. As a result, our findings may not be generalizable to other contexts. Further empirical research is needed to determine the broader applicability of our conclusions, particularly in educational systems with different structures. For example, the university college system in the United States, which allows for greater autonomy in curriculum design, may lead to different transitions into the labor market regarding career sustainability indicators (Henri et al., 2018). This increased autonomy may influence career goal setting by encouraging students to develop a stronger sense of ownership over their career trajectories earlier in their academic journeys. Consequently, students may prioritize long-term aspirations over immediate academic milestones, potentially reducing the perceived significance of the final graduation project.

Second, while our study did not specifically aim to explore the impact of socio-economic backgrounds or family dynamics, these factors emerged as influential in the experiences of some students. Although we employed purposive sampling to ensure representation across various demographics (including gender, migration status, and educational background), migration background appeared to play a key influential role. Students from migration backgrounds occasionally emphasized the importance of family support in navigating the STWT, describing emotional or practical assistance that helped them remain resilient during challenging periods. This aligns with prior research showing that students from minority or migrant backgrounds often rely heavily on family networks to compensate for systemic disadvantages in the labor market (Leschke & Weiss, 2020). While our purposive sampling ensured demographic diversity, it may not have fully captured the variation in how migration background intersects with family support. Furthermore, more network-based recruitment strategies (e.g., snowballing) could have yielded additional nuance in the Group 2 (i.e., recalibration and erosion) by mobilizing participants’ social ties or reach underrepresented cases.

However, as we did not systematically examine the interplay between migration background and family dynamics, more research is needed to examine the impact of a migration background. Future research could explore intersectionality more deeply to better understand how migration background influences family support and career outcomes, particularly for students facing additional cultural or structural barriers (Blokker et al., 2023). By identifying how migration status affects the availability and type of family support, researchers can pinpoint gaps where students may need additional institutional or policy-level interventions. This understanding is critical for designing inclusive career interventions that address the unique challenges of students with migration backgrounds, ensuring equitable support for their career development.

Third, consistent with De Vos et al. (2020), career experiences can exert immediate and delayed effects on career sustainability, some of which only surface clearly over longer periods. Our 12-month timeframe provides valuable insights into career sustainability during the STWT, yet a longitudinal perspective extending beyond initial workforce entry is needed to fully capture evolving sustainability dynamics. Future research should thus adopt extended timeframes, such as five years, to elucidate how initial career challenges, including temporary heightened stress and health strains experienced during graduation, are navigated throughout longer-term career trajectories (Akkermans et al., 2021a). Additionally, further investigation into career goal discrepancies is warranted. Existing studies predominantly employ static, binary classifications (positive versus negative discrepancies; Akmal et al., 2021; Widyowati et al., 2024a, 2024b), yet our findings reveal nuanced, multi-dimensional experiences that shift meaningfully over time in response to personal values, external disruptions, and social comparisons. Systematic exploration of partial versus significant discrepancies and their differing implications for engagement, reflection, and sustainability is particularly promising. Longitudinal and qualitative designs, complemented by the development of dynamic, process-oriented measurement tools, will not only deepen theoretical understanding of discrepancies but also inform practical interventions aimed at fostering value-aligned, adaptive, and sustainable careers (Van der Heijden et al., 2020; Van der Heijden & De Vos, 2015).

Finally, we note the absence of positive discrepancies in our data. Whereas above in the section on theoretical contributions, we raised broader conceptual issues around the elusiveness of positive discrepancies, here we reflect on the potential methodological and contextual reasons why they did not appear in our study. While prior research distinguished between positive and negative discrepancies (Akmal et al., 2021; Creed & Hood, 2015), none of our participants described surpassing their initial goals (e.g., graduating cum laude when the goal was to simply graduate or obtaining a more prestigious/higher-level role than targeted). Because our discrepancy categories compare T1 goals with T2 outcomes, this pattern is unlikely due to retrospective rationalization. The prospective goals were, however, rather broadly formulated (e.g., good fit), which might have reduced the potential for labeling an outcome as ‘beyond’ or ‘below’ the target. In practice, not reaching one’s goal showed clear markers of distress. Consequently, this points to a methodological challenge; positive discrepancies may be inherently harder to solely capture in retrospective, narrative designs. Future studies could examine whether positive discrepancies are more visible at later career stages, or through methods that combine prospective measurement tools (e.g., Akmal et al., 2021) with longitudinal, qualitative approaches to capture how goals evolve and are reinterpreted over time. For example, future work could sample later career milestones, pre-define ‘beyond target’ criteria at T1 (base vs. stretch goals), track exceedances with monthly diaries, and triangulate with supervisor ratings or other objective changes.