Be Adaptive to Stay: A Multidimensional Examination of Career Adaptability Among Hospitality Employees

Abstract

This study seeks to examine the relationship between career adaptability (concern, control, curiosity, and confidence) and attrition intention among hospitality employees through the attitudinal and emotional mediation of career satisfaction and anxiety, respectively. Based on career construction theory, the results reveal that career satisfaction mediates the relationship between the career adaptability dimensions of concern, confidence, and curiosity to attrition intentions of hospitality employees as an attitudinal response, whereas career anxiety mediates the relationship between concern and control to attrition intentions as an emotional response. Lastly, the study also tests the moderating role of employee status and suggests that career adaptability serves as a psychological resource for full-time employees but not for part-time employees. The findings of this study provide important practical contributions to preserving the future workforce of the hospitality industry.

Keywords

attrition intentions career adaptability career anxiety career construction theory career satisfaction hospitality hospitality employees

Highlights

Career adaptability is suggested as a psychological resource for full-time employees.

Concern decreased attrition intentions through career satisfaction and anxiety.

Lack of control decreased career satisfaction and increased anxiety.

Career anxiety was shown to be a dimension that did not differ by employment status.

Introduction

To nurture a viable pipeline for the future workforce of the hospitality industry, academics and practitioners alike strive to support the career development of hospitality professionals. However, career challenges and changes, both expected and unexpected, threaten these efforts. The hospitality industry has long been known for its high turnover rates. Between 2001 and 2015, the annual turnover rate for the U.S. hospitality industry always doubled the overall turnover rate for all industries (Malek et al., 2018). The current COVID-19 pandemic has caused this situation to deteriorate, leading to a perplexing labor shortage in the U.S. hospitality industry. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022), the U.S. hospitality industry had a 130% turnover rate in 2020, compared to the national average of 57%. In November 2021, a record-high 1 million hospitality employees, representing 6.4% of the industry’s workforce, quit their jobs (Kaplan & Hoff, 2022). With the highest turnover rates and quit levels, this consumer-facing service industry is now experiencing a severe shortage of available workers. Considering the labor demand and shortage in the hospitality industry (King et al., 2021), understanding how to attract and retain hospitality employees is imperative for preserving a viable workforce and the long-term prosperity of the industry.

Extant literature suggests that employees feel an increased need to manage and navigate their own career paths (Rudisill et al., 2010). Relatedly, as the labor market continues to advance as a dynamic and boundaryless environment, especially in the context of the pandemic (e.g., expected and unexpected career changes), the literature emphasizes the need to provide individuals with the tools and resources to manage their careers—namely career adaptability (Chan et al., 2015). The dimensions of career adaptability are concern, control, curiosity, and confidence, such that career adaptability is defined as “becoming concerned about the vocational future, taking control of trying to prepare for one’s vocational future, displaying curiosity by exploring possible selves and future scenarios, and strengthening the confidence to pursue one’s aspirations” (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012, p. 663). Within the hospitality literature, career adaptability yields mixed findings regarding employee turnover; career adaptability has been found to reduce employee turnover intentions (Lee et al., 2021; Rasheed et al., 2020) as well as to prompt turnover intentions (Karatepe & Olugbade, 2017). Moreover, although these relationships are investigated in the hospitality literature, the psychological mechanisms between the four career adaptability dimensions and the long-term turnover, or attrition intentions, of hospitality employees have not previously been examined (Karatepe & Olugbade, 2017). In addition, as job attitudes and emotions can affect career-related development and decisions, it is critical to examine the mechanisms behind how individuals manage their attitudes and the emotions elicited by the four career adaptability dimensions, as well as their relationship to attrition intentions.

Therefore, this study seeks to extend career adaptability to the hospitality context by examining the four distinct dimensions of career adaptability resources (concern, control, curiosity, and confidence). In addition, the study builds on career construction theory (Savickas, 2013) to explore the influences of career adaptability dimensions on attrition intentions through a mediation mechanism of attitudinal and emotional responses (Chen & Chen, 2021; Haldorai et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2021). Attitudinal responses such as career satisfaction have been found to decrease employee turnover intentions and increase future intentions to remain in the hospitality industry (Aburumman et al., 2020; Zopiatis et al., 2016, 2018). However, when individuals are not able to regulate or manage negative emotions such as career anxiety, emotional responses have been found to lead to indecisive career decisions (Boo et al., 2021b). Additionally, examining the relationship between employee status and career adaptability could help understand how attitudinal and emotional responses among employees differ and relate to attrition intentions (e.g., Joung et al., 2018; Thorsteinson, 2003). Therefore, examining career adaptability dimensions as a potential resource to support hospitality employees to manage attitudinal (e.g., career satisfaction) and emotional (e.g., career anxiety) responses in the work environment is fundamental to the future hospitality workforce. Therefore, with the aim of mitigating hospitality industry attrition intentions, understanding employees’ attitudinal and emotional responses through the lens of career adaptability can impede career decision-making processes (i.e., voluntarily leaving the industry). Accordingly, this study can provide theoretical implications for career adaptability among hospitality employees and guide career counseling and development efforts for both academia and industry.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Career Construction Theory and Career Adaptability

According to career construction theory (CCT), career adaptability functions as a psychosocial resource for employees, such that employees with higher career adaptability tend to adapt to and successfully manage career duties and transitions (Lee et al., 2021). Rooted in the notion that career development and growth stem from the need to adapt to career tasks and transitions, CCT suggests that career adaptability is the process of influencing career behaviors and deriving meaning from career tasks and transitions (Savickas, 2013). This process is known as the career construction model of adaptation and suggests that regulating and managing career challenges and transitions is a sequential process where adaptive readiness and career adaptability (e.g., adaptability resources) predict adapting responses and behaviors. While psychological characteristics (e.g., willingness to adapt) often predict career adaptability, the psychological self-regulation and resource management of career adaptability are related to responses (e.g., cognitive, attitudinal, and emotional) and behaviors (e.g., career exploration; Shin & Lee, 2018).

While adaptive readiness tends to vary among individuals, the four dimensions of career adaptability (concern, control, curiosity, and confidence) help individuals to cope with expected and unexpected career changes (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). First, adaptive readiness is theorized as an individual’s willingness or the resources necessary to change. Second, adaptive readiness leads to the career adaptability resources of concern, control, curiosity, and confidence, which can help individuals manage change. These resources initiate subsequent behaviors, known as adapting responses, such as career commitment and job performance, that help individuals cope with career changes (for a review, see Johnston, 2018).

The four dimensions of career adaptability are known as resources that facilitate adaptabilities: concern, control, curiosity, and confidence. Concern is defined as the ability to plan for one’s career. Control refers to an employee’s perceived control over and construction of their career. Curiosity consists of exploring one’s environment for future scenarios and possibilities. Lastly, confidence reflects self-confidence in one’s ability to successfully solve career challenges. These four dimensions are resources employees can use to solve daily challenges and help direct adaptive behaviors (e.g., attrition intention, learning a new skill; Maggiori et al., 2013). In short, as a psychosocial resource, career adaptability helps individuals manage career task development and transitions and is conceptualized as attitudes, behaviors, and competencies that help prepare employees to be better equipped for a particular job.

Recent papers have examined the role career adaptability plays in the hospitality workforce. From studying the relevance of career adaptability for migrant workers in Australia, Jones et al. (2022) recommended the provision of psychological resources and hospitality-specific knowledge and skills for hospitality workers especially in times of crisis. For hospitality and tourism students, engaging in self-directed career management activities, such as internships, was imperative for career adaptability (Ramaprasad et al., 2022). Hospitality studies have also examined career adaptability as an antecedent for reducing turnover intentions (Lee et al., 2021; Rasheed et al., 2020); however, career adaptability has also been found to trigger turnover intentions among frontline employees (Karatepe & Olugbade, 2017). Career adaptability mediated the relationship between proactive personality (Lee et al., 2021) and work social support (Karatepe & Olugbade, 2017) on turnover intentions as well as acting as a mediator between individual characteristics and strategic career management (Chong & Leong, 2017). Lee et al. (2021) found that although social support at work increases career adaptability and career satisfaction while decreasing turnover intentions, career adaptability alone was found to increase turnover intentions. Therefore, investigating the mediating relationship between career adaptability and attrition intentions can help inform the process of linking career adaptability to attrition intentions.

Additionally, when high-performance work practices were in place, career adaptability was found to help hospitality frontline hotel employees advance the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to meet performance-related outcomes, with career adaptability ultimately serving as a resource to help employees manage their careers (Safavi & Karatepe, 2018). Since employees who adapt to their workplace tend to be more efficient and competent, career adaptability often signifies successful career development and progress (Safavi & Bouzari, 2019). Therefore, examining the dimensions of the career adaptability of hospitality employees could not only help mitigate attrition intentions but also help guide career counseling and career path development efforts to retain talent.

Attrition Intention

Career changes and transitions can be expected or unexpected, and the pandemic is an example and serves as a backdrop for understanding how the hospitality workforce responds to career disruptions (Bufquin et al., 2021; Chen & Chen, 2021). Since extant literature states that turnover intentions are a direct predictor of turnover behavior and have been related empirically to actual turnover and attrition behavior, examining the relationship between career adaptability and intentions to leave sheds light on the psychological mechanism contributing to turnover and attrition (Chan & Mai, 2015). High turnover and attrition are a challenge for the hospitality industry and remain understudied outcome variables for career adaptability, despite its potential supportive and beneficial outcomes to employees (Karatepe & Olugbade, 2017).

Although CCT suggests a sequence of adaptation among individuals, the distinction in the sequences is not easily distinguished in the literature. According to CCT, intentions to leave, turnover, and attrition, are sequential outcomes for adapting response (behaviors intended to help individuals manage career changes) and adaptation result (successful outcomes of career adaptability; Lee et al., 2021; Savickas, 2013). For example, in lieu of career transitions and challenges, an individual’s adaptability resources (concern, control, curiosity, and confidence) can help manage career changes, leading to behaviors and positive and negative outcomes such as skill development, organizational loyalty, or attrition (Johnston, 2018).

Attrition or the decision to leave the hospitality industry (Chen & Chen, 2021; Haldorai et al., 2019) is a relatively understudied construct in the hospitality literature, although it has been determined to be critically relevant in light of the pandemic (McGinley, 2018). Researchers have linked work stressors, especially those embedded in the nature of the hospitality industry, including working hours and scheduling demands, job demands, emotional labor, and a lack of work–life balance (Ariza-Montez et al., 2018; Gordon et al., 2018; Haldorai et al., 2019) with attrition intention among hospitality industry employees. Additionally, low career progression has also been linked with hospitality employees’ attrition intention (Haldorai et al., 2019).

Given the double-edged sword nature of career adaptability and the inconsistency in extant literature regarding the relationship between career adaptability and attrition (Karatepe & Olugbade, 2017; Rasheed et al., 2020), this study seeks to measure career adaptability as the four dimensions of concern, control, curiosity, and confidence among hospitality professionals to understand the nuanced relationship between adaptability resources and attrition.

The Mediating Role of Career Satisfaction

There is a dearth of empirical research examining attitudinal and emotional responses to career adaptability (Boo et al., 2021b). According to the career construction model of adaptation, when triggered by career transitions, problems, or decisions, career adaptability functions as a psychosocial adaptability resource, helping individuals regulate and manage career-related challenges and changes, ultimately leading to adapting responses (e.g., attitudinal and emotional responses) and behaviors (e.g., attrition intention; Shin & Lee, 2018). Although the sequential relationship between adaptive readiness, career adaptability, and responses and behaviors, is well established in the literature, understanding the psychological mechanism between career adaptability (e.g., concern, control, curiosity, and confidence) and behavioral outcomes (e.g., attrition intention) through attitudinal (e.g., career satisfaction) responses is needed.

Career satisfaction demonstrates how an employee feels about their career and their attitude towards their work environment and experiences. High career satisfaction contributes to increased quality customer service and performance within organizations that provide professional development opportunities (Karatepe, 2012). In addition to increased performance, career satisfaction as an attitude has been found to mediate the relationship between human resource practices and decreased employee turnover intentions (Aburumman et al., 2020). Career satisfaction was also found to mediate the relationship between career decision-making elements (Zopiatis et al., 2016) and job satisfaction (Zopiatis et al., 2018), resulting in increased intentions to remain in the hospitality industry.

Previous literature suggests that satisfaction is related to career adaptability in that successfully navigating career changes increases satisfaction and decreases intentions to leave. Moreover, adaptability—especially the control dimension of career adaptability—positively relates to life satisfaction (Johnston, 2018). Additional studies suggest career adaptability resources are also positively related to job and career satisfaction (Chan & Mai, 2015; Zacher & Griffin, 2015). Since career satisfaction is a predictor of attrition within the hospitality industry (Zopiatis et al., 2018), it is hypothesized that career satisfaction will mediate the relationship between the dimensions of career adaptability and attrition.

Hypothesis 1: Career satisfaction will mediate the relationship between concern (H1a), control (H1b), curiosity (H1c), confidence (H1d), and attrition intentions, such that higher career adaptability leads to higher career satisfaction, which, in turn, lowers intentions to leave the hospitality industry.

The Mediating Role of Career Anxiety

Career anxiety is defined as a negative emotion denoting career distress, negatively impacting career development, decisions, and choices (Boo et al., 2021b). While career anxiety can motivate individuals to prepare and plan for career-related decisions and tasks, career anxiety could also discourage and overwhelm individuals (Shin & Lee, 2019). Career anxiety has been found to decrease career commitment (Kautish et al., 2021) and increase career indecision (Wang & Yan, 2018). While the negative relationship between career anxiety and career-related decisions is well established in the literature, career adaptability has been found to help regulate emotions and decrease negative employee outcomes. For example, when undergraduate students utilized career adaptability as a regulation tool, their career anxiety decreased (Boo et al., 2021b; Shin & Lee, 2019). While CCT states career development and decisions will take place throughout an individual’s life, extant literature suggests career adaptability can help attenuate the negative emotions of career anxiety (e.g., Boo et al., 2021a; Shin & Lee, 2019). Therefore, given the continuous challenges the pandemic is imposing on the hospitality workforce, it is imperative to understand career anxiety and attrition intentions.

Hypothesis 2: Career anxiety will mediate the relationship between concern (H2a), control (H2b), curiosity (H2c), confidence (H2d), and attrition intentions, such that higher career adaptability leads to lower career anxiety, which, in turn, lowers intentions to leave the hospitality industry.

The Moderating Role of Employee Status

Many hospitality business models rely on part-time, seasonal, or temporary employees, often offering flexible scheduling, lower wages, benefits, and limited opportunities for promotion (e.g., Joung et al., 2018; Thorsteinson, 2003). While part-time, seasonal, or temporary employees are cost-effective for organizations, the difference in roles and responsibilities of full-time employees compared to part-time, seasonal, or temporary employees leads to attitudinal, emotional, and behavioral differences among full- and part-time employees (Joung et al., 2018). Therefore, further explorations into understanding how employees differ in their job attitudes and emotions could shed light on the differences between full- and part-time employees and their attrition intentions (Joung et al., 2018; Thorsteinson, 2003).

Furthermore, although career adaptability research has been introduced in the hospitality literature recently, a majority of these studies have focused on full-time employees (Lee et al., 2021). Due to the hospitality industry’s reliance on part-time, seasonal, and temporary employees, more studies are seeking to understand the differences between part-time and full-time employees (Bufquin et al., 2021; Joung et al., 2018; Jowarski et al., 2018). However, the assessment of this distinction in employee status has not advanced to career adaptability literature in the hospitality industry. This is a research gap that needs to be addressed.

For this study, part-time, seasonal, and temporary employees will be identified as “part-time” employees to differentiate them from full-time employees who receive benefits like paid time off, health insurance, and retirement plans, as well as more access to promotions and training or development opportunities (Batt et al., 2014; Joung et al., 2018). Previous literature suggests that, based on equity theory, differences in pay, promotions, and treatment of employees lead to full-time employees being more satisfied than part-time employees; satisfaction, pay, and training often predict employee retention (Joung et al., 2018; Milman & Dickson, 2014). Employee status characteristics (e.g., benefits, roles, and responsibilities) could contribute to lower career adaptability and career satisfaction of part-time employees, explaining increased intentions to leave the hospitality industry among part-time employees compared to full-time employees. Therefore, employee status is postulated to contribute to attitudinal, emotional, and behavioral differences, such as career satisfaction and intentions to leave the industry. Based on the attitudinal differences of full- and part-time employees, it is hypothesized that employee status will moderate the mediation relationship between career adaptability, career satisfaction, and attrition intention.

Hypothesis 3: Employee status will moderate the mediation effects of career satisfaction in the relationships between concern (H3a), control (H3b), curiosity (H3c), confidence (H3d) and attrition intentions such that the mediation effects of career satisfaction will be stronger for full-time employees when compared to part-time employees.

In addition to the attitudinal differences between full- and part-time employees due to wages and benefits, it is hypothesized that part-time employees will have emotional differences from full-time employees. According to job embeddedness theory, since organizations prioritize full-time employees over part-time employees, part-time employees are often treated as fringe employees and may not experience as much embeddedness or belonging with the organization as full-time employees (Joung et al., 2018). For instance, previous literature suggests that part-time employees reported feeling mistreated compared to full-time employees, influencing factors such as service quality and customer satisfaction (Sobaih et al., 2011). Additionally, part-time employees have limited access to promotions, training, and development opportunities, inadvertently restricting their interactions, face time, and connections within their work environment. Comparatively, full-time employees often have longer tenure with an organization, more institutional knowledge, and stronger networks, resulting in higher embeddedness and belonging with an organization. Therefore, considering the differences between full- and part-time employees, instances of mistreatment, a sense of exclusion, or part-time employees’ limited access to promotions may evoke negative emotions. Thus, it is hypothesized that employee status will moderate the mediation relationship of career adaptability, career satisfaction, and attrition intentions, such that the attrition intentions of part-time employees will be higher among part-time employees compared to full-time employees, demonstrating attitudinal, emotional, and behavioral differences based on the employment status of hospitality employees. (Please see Figure 1 for a conceptual model).

Hypothesis 4: Employee status will moderate the mediation effects of career anxiety in the relationships between concern (H4a), control (H4b), curiosity (H4c), and confidence (H4d) and attrition intentions such that the mediation effects of career anxiety will be stronger for full-time employees when compared to part-time employees. (Please see Figure 1 for a conceptual model).

Figure 1.

Conceptual Model.

Research Design and Methods

Procedure

A quantitative study targeting current hospitality industry employees in the United States was conducted in September and October of 2021. The survey was hosted on the Qualtrics platform, and the recruitment of participants was conducted using the Prolific platform. Similar to Amazon Mechanical Turk, Prolific is a crowdsourcing platform for data collection with several benefits, including cost-effectiveness, convenience, and reliability (Cobanoglu et al., 2021). Only U.S. hospitality and tourism employees were allowed to take the survey. Attention check questions were embedded within the survey to ensure the quality of the data and overcome the limitations of crowdsourcing the data collection process. An example of an attention check question is “Please select neither disagree nor agree (4) for this statement.” Surveys that did not pass the attention check question were deleted and disregarded from the final data set.

Measurement

The survey consisted of established scales to measure the constructs that were being investigated. All scale items were measured using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). The latter part of the survey included questions inquiring about the demographic makeup of the participants.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed in two steps. First, partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was conducted using SmartPLS (Version 3.0) to test the mediating hypotheses H1 and H2 in the proposed model. Since this research is exploratory in nature, PLS-SEM is an appropriate data analysis tool (Ali et al., 2018a). Second, the moderated effect of employee status on the mediated relationships between the dimensions of career adaptability, career satisfaction, and attrition intentions and dimensions of career adaptability, career anxiety, and attrition intentions were assessed using PROCESS macro (Model 7) as suggested by Hayes (2017). SPSS (Version 27) was used to test the moderating hypotheses H3 and H4.

Results

Data Screening and Demographic Details

An initial dataset of 372 responses was collected, out of which 28 responses were removed as they were incomplete, and an additional 42 responses were discarded for failing the attention check question. The final dataset consisted of 302 responses. To assess the adequacy of the sample size, a priori power analysis using the inverse square root method (Kock, 2018) was conducted. This method is considered appropriate for hospitality industry research (Ali et al., 2018b; Singh et al., 2021). With the minimum acceptable effect size of 0.03 and a power of 80%, this method suggested a minimum sample requirement of 166 respondents. Hence, the sample size for this study was deemed sufficient. The demographic details of the respondents are described in the supplemental file (see online supplementary material).

Common method bias was possible since the data were collected at one time point from each participant. Hence, a full collinearity test was performed to assess the common method bias (Wiitala & Mistry, 2021). Variance inflation factors (VIF) under the values of 3.3 indicate the absence of common method bias in the model. The VIF values for this study ranged from 1.396 to 3.292, confirming that common method bias was not an issue in this study. The low VIF values of less than 5 also indicate the absence of any multicollinearity issues (Hair et al., 2017, 2019). Additionally, Harman’s single factor test was conducted to assess common method bias. This is the most widely accepted and popularly used test for assessing common method bias in hospitality literature (Min et al., 2016). All the measurement items were constrained to be loaded on a single common factor and the variance explained by the latent factor was 29.6%. Since the total variance explained was less than the threshold of 50%, common method bias was not a major concern.

Measurement Model

The measurement model or outer model was utilized to evaluate the relationships between the variables and their indicators. The results of the measurement model analysis are highlighted in Table 1. The outer loadings for all construct indicators were statistically significant (p < .001), confirming convergent validity. Additionally, values of the outer loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, and Rho A were higher than the recommended threshold of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2019). Composite reliability (CR) values ranged from 0.871 to 0.951, also within the recommended range of 0.7 to 0.95 (Hair et al., 2019).

Table 1.

Measurement Model Results.

Construct/Item	Loading	t value	Cronbach’s α	Rho A	CR	AVE
Concern			0.89	0.90	0.91	0.64
CA1	0.77	30.78^***
CA2	0.72	19.20^***
CA3	0.86	51.84^***
CA4	0.78	27.22^***
CA5	0.86	38.83^***
CA6	0.80	26.34^***
Control			0.87	0.89	0.90	0.61
CA7	0.72	20.50^***
CA8	0.68	15.70^***
CA9	0.80	29.16^***
CA10	0.63	11.35^***
CA11	0.84	40.66^***
CA12	0.78	29.65^***
Curiosity			0.84	0.86	0.88	0.56
CA13	0.83	31.28^***
CA14	0.82	32.33^***
CA15	0.66	12.18^***
CA16	0.72	14.22^***
CA17	0.58	7.61^***
CA18	0.76	19.29^***
Confidence			0.84	0.92	0.87	0.53
CA19	0.70	17.07^***
CA20	0.76	18.97^***
CA21	0.73	19.33^***
CA22	0.80	28.76^***
CA23	0.82	38.15^***
CA24	0.85	52.13^***
Career Satisfaction			0.90	0.91	0.93	0.72
CSat1	0.85	37.70^***
CSat2	0.90	74.91^***
CSat3	0.82	34.60^***
CSat4	0.90	67.24^***
CSat5	0.78	25.59^***
Career Anxiety			0.94	0.94	0.95	0.66
CAnx1	0.81	38.94^***
CAnx2	0.80	35.60^***
CAnx3	0.83	41.44^***
CAnx4	0.74	23.86^***
CAnx5	0.86	49.67^***
CAnx6	0.75	21.18^***
CAnx7	0.81	34.80^***
CAnx8	0.83	42.06^***
CAnx9	0.80	35.60^***
CAnx10	0.88	54.82^***
Attrition Intention			0.92	0.93	0.95	0.87
AI1	0.92	70.87^***
AI2	0.95	112.14^***
AI3	0.93	77.42^***

Note. ***p < 0.001.

The discriminant validity of the measurement model was assessed using the confidence intervals of Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratios. As illustrated in Table 2, the ratios were all lower than the cut-off value of 0.85, indicating that discriminant validity was verified (Henseler et al., 2015).

Table 2.

Discriminant Validity HTMT Ratios

	AI	CAnx	CSat	Concern	Control	Curiosity
AI
CAnx	0.48
CSat	0.50	0.51
Concern	0.21	0.34	0.45
Control	0.13	0.34	0.47	0.51
Curiosity	0.23	0.39	0.38	0.57	0.73
Confidence	0.22	0.31	0.42	0.56	0.73	0.77

Note. AI = attrition intention, CAnx = career anxiety, and CSat = career satisfaction.

Structural Model

The structural model was evaluated since the results of the measurement model were satisfactory. The mediation effects, to test the proposed hypotheses, were evaluated using bootstrapping. The results of the mediation analysis are described in Table 3. For paths where the 95% confidence interval (CI) included zero, the statistical significance was not established, and the hypothesis was not supported. Conversely, paths where the 95% CI did not include zero indicated statistical significance and the hypotheses were supported.

Table 3.

Hypothesis Testing Results.

	Path	β	t value	Confidence Interval (95%)		Result
	Path	β	t value	2.5%	97.5%	Result
H1a	Concern → CSat → AI	−0.06	2.38 *	−0.11	−0.02	Supported
H1b	Control → CSat → AI	0.03	1.16	−0.02	0.08	Not supported
H1c	Curiosity → CSat → AI	−0.07	2.35 *	−0.13	−0.02	Supported
H1d	Confidence → CSat → AI	−0.06	2.31 *	−0.11	−0.01	Supported
H2a	Concern → CAnx → AI	−0.05	2.17 *	−0.11	−0.01	Supported
H2b	Control → CAnx → AI	−0.06	2.01 *	−0.12	−0.01	Supported
H2c	Curiosity → CAnx → AI	−0.01	0.36	−0.06	0.04	Not supported
H2d	Confidence → CAnx → AI	−0.04	1.37	−0.09	0.02	Not Supported

Note. AI = attrition intention, CAnx = career anxiety, and CSat = career satisfaction.

p < .05.

Hypotheses 1a,1c, and 1d were supported and career satisfaction successfully mediated the negative relationships between concern and attrition intentions (β = -0.058, t = 2.380, p = .017 < .05), curiosity and attrition intentions (β = -0.069, t = 2.353, p = .019 < .05), and confidence and attrition intentions (β = -0.059, t = 2.312, p = .021 < .05). Career satisfaction did not mediate the relationship between control and attrition intentions. Hence, Hypotheses 1b was not supported.

Furthermore, Hypothesis 2a was supported so career anxiety meditated the negative relationship between concern and attrition intentions (β = -0.052, t = 2.174, p = .030 < .05). Likewise, career anxiety mediated the relationship between control and attrition intentions (β = -0.057, t = 2.006, p = .045 < .05). Hence, Hypothesis 2b was supported. Hypotheses 2c and 2d were not supported, so career anxiety did not mediate the relationships between curiosity and attrition intention and confidence and attrition intentions. Please see Table 3 for a summary of the hypotheses testing.

Moderation Testing

Each variable was transformed by computing its items into one average score to test the moderating effect. Model 7 of the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2017) was used to assess the moderated mediation effect of employee status on the previously tested mediation relationships. All the variables used in the analysis were mean-centered to diminish the effects of multicollinearity. A sample size of 5000 was used for bootstrapping with a 95% CI. The results of Hypothesis 3 (a, b, c, and d) are highlighted in Table 4.

Table 4.

Moderated Mediation Results

		Employee Status	Indirect Effect	Standard Error	Lower-level Confidence Interval (95%)	Upper-level Confidence Interval (95%)	Result
Career Satisfaction	H3a Concern	Full time	−0.3007	0.0627	−0.4316	−0.1876	Not supported
	H3a Concern	Part time	−0.2286	0.0606	−0.3604	−0.1181	Not supported
	H3b Control	Full time	−0.3919	0.0691	−0.5343	−0.2676	Supported
	H3b Control	Part time	−0.0747	0.0651	−0.2064	0.0533	Supported
	H3c Curiosity	Full time	−0.3891	0.0713	−0.5390	−0.2584	Supported
	H3c Curiosity	Part time	−0.1456	0.0653	−0.2743	−0.0127	Supported
	H3d Confidence	Full time	−0.4426	0.0711	−0.5773	−0.3020	Supported
	H3d Confidence	Part time	−0.2419	0.0754	−0.3971	−0.0999	Supported
Career Anxiety	H4aConcern	Full time	−0.1897	0.0535	−0.2993	−0.0897	Not supported
	H4aConcern	Part time	−0.1666	0.0480	−0.2644	−0.0764	Not supported
	H4bControl	Full time	−0.3024	0.0637	−0.4343	−0.1841	Not supported
	H4bControl	Part time	−0.1672	0.0585	−0.2882	−0.0609	Not supported
	H4c Curiosity	Full time	−0.2252	0.0589	−0.3459	−0.1165	Not supported
	H4c Curiosity	Part time	−0.1263	0.0605	−0.2474	−0.0103	Not supported
	H4d Confidence	Full time	−0.2245	0.0548	−0.3320	−0.1186	Not supported
	H4d Confidence	Part time	−0.2123	0.0694	−0.3623	−0.0896	Not supported

Hypothesis 3a was not supported since the indirect effects of both full-time and part-time employee status are significant (β = 0.0721, SE = 0.0719, 95% CI [−0.0703, 0.2128]). This indicates that there is no difference in the mediated relationship between concern, career satisfaction, and attrition intentions between full-time and part-time employees. Hypothesis 3b was supported since there was a difference between full-time and part-time employees in their relationship between control, career satisfaction, and attrition intentions (β = 0.3173, SE = 0.0891, 95% CI [0.1514, 0.4994]). The results indicate that full-time employees have a stronger relationship between control, career satisfaction, and attrition intentions versus part-time employees. Likewise, Hypotheses 3c and 3d were supported, indicating a significant difference in the relationship between curiosity (β = 0.2435, SE = 0.0862, 95% CI [0.0859, 0.4234]) and confidence (β = 0.2007, SE = 0.0908, 95% CI [0.0162, 0.3709]), career satisfaction, and attrition intentions.

Table 4 showcases the results of the moderated mediation relationships between the dimensions of career adaptability, career anxiety, and attrition intentions, based on employee status. The findings from the moderated mediation analyses indicate that Hypotheses 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d were not supported. This was concluded since there was no significant difference in the mediated relationships between concern (β = 0.0231, SE = 0.0624, 95% CI [−0.0989, 0.1496]), control (β = 0.1352, SE = 0.0745, 95% CI [−0.0036, 0.2866]), curiosity (β = 0.0989, SE = 0.0778, 95% CI [−0.0479, 0.2583]), confidence (β = 0.0122, SE = 0.0805, 95% CI [−0.1573, 0.1666]), career anxiety, and attrition intention between full-time and part-time employees.

Discussion and Implications

With the goal of developing more tools and resources to help employees navigate career challenging changes, the attitudinal (e.g., career satisfaction) and emotional (e.g., career anxiety) responses to career adaptability as well as the moderating relationship of hospitality employee status were examined. First, the results of the study indicate that, as an attitudinal response, career satisfaction significantly mediated the relationship between the concern, curiosity, and confidence dimensions of career adaptability and attrition intentions, such that concern, curiosity, and confidence served as resources for career satisfaction and attrition intentions among hospitality employees. Second, as an emotional response, career anxiety significantly mediated the relationship between the concern and control dimensions of career adaptability and attrition intentions such that concern and control were related to career anxiety and attrition intentions.

The effect of career satisfaction is moderated by the status of employees—full-time versus part-time employees were hypothesized—and attrition intentions, or intentions to leave the industry, is stronger for part-time employees. Regarding the hypothesized moderation relationship of employee status (full-time compared to part-time) on the dimensions of career adaptability, career satisfaction, and career anxiety, only the relationships of confidence, control, and curiosity to career satisfaction were significant predictors of attrition intention, such that career adaptability serves as a psychological resource for full-time employees but not for part-time employees. This relationship is explained by employee status since part-time employees are often not eligible for organizational benefits and have different roles and responsibilities, decreasing the meditation relationship of career adaptability, career satisfaction, and attrition intentions.

Employee status was not found to moderate the relationship between the dimensions of career adaptability and career anxiety, such that there was no difference between full-time and part-time employees in terms of career anxiety and attrition intentions. Based on career construction theory (CCT) and the career construction model of adaptation (Savickas, 2013; Shin & Lee, 2019), the findings suggest that the mechanisms linking career adaptability to career satisfaction or anxiety, and ultimately attrition intentions, vary among hospitality full- and part-time employees (Joung et al., 2018).

Theoretical Implications

Previous literature emphasizes the need to conceptualize and contextualize career adaptability in the hospitality context. As such, the examination of career adaptability among hospitality employees extends the theoretical context and application of career adaptability by exploring the dimensions of career adaptability among hospitality professionals compared to the traditional unidimensional application of career adaptability. Examining the nuanced mechanisms and relationships between the individual dimensions of career adaptability and career satisfaction, career anxiety, and attrition intentions can guide and tailor career development efforts for hospitality employees.

First, while the dimensions of concern, curiosity, and confidence for hospitality employees significantly mitigated attrition intentions through the attitudinal response of career satisfaction, this relationship was not found for control. This finding is not surprising considering the new challenges the pandemic presented to employees. It would be understandable that the control dimension of career adaptability was swayed by the pandemic and resulted in a lack of trust in the industry. On the other hand, the dimensions of concern, curiosity, and confidence could combat the lack of industry trust with continued education, networking, and agency building, leading to increased career satisfaction as a positive attitude towards the hospitality industry. For instance, in a climate of mass layoffs and furloughs, employees could express control by intentionally pursuing and engaging with the industry to actively construct career contingency plans leading to career satisfaction, and ultimately reducing attrition intentions. While the negative consequences of the pandemic (e.g., furloughs and layoffs) may have spurred employees to become concerned about the future of their careers, curiosity for alternative opportunities or continued education and training could also boost confidence in their abilities and decisions, resulting in career satisfaction. This is consistent with CCT since concern, curiosity, and confidence can help employees regulate and manage their lack of trust and control over the rapid changes in the hospitality industry during the pandemic, ultimately reducing attrition intentions (Shin & Lee, 2019).

Second, in terms of examining career anxiety as an emotional response to the dimensions of career adaptability, concern and control were significantly related to career anxiety and attrition intentions. While previous literature suggests that some levels of anxiety can motivate individuals to prepare themselves for career transitions and challenges, our findings suggest that in lieu of a major industry disruption like the pandemic, concern and control are related to the emotional response of career anxiety such that concern and control increase career anxiety and attrition. Traditionally, employees demonstrate their concern by preparing for future challenges and changes, but the results of this study suggest that concern for the future of the hospitality industry greatly impacted hospitality professionals (Zacher, 2014). However, literature supports an overall global increasing trend of career anxiety among early career stage individuals (e.g., university students, recent graduates) across disciplines and fields. For instance, record high unemployment rates was found to catalyze career anxiety and fear among graduating university students across multiple disciplines (Rahmadani & Sahrani, 2021). Likewise, decreased interest in entrepreneurship and business among university students in Vietnam has been attributed to anxiety due to Covid-19 (Doanh et al., 2021).

Third, while existing literature supports paradoxical findings for both employee statuses, employee status was found only to moderate the mediating effect of career satisfaction in the relationships between the control, curiosity, and confidence dimensions of career adaptability and attrition intentions. Career satisfaction was hypothesized as a positive work mediator to decrease attrition intentions while career anxiety served as a negative mediator to increase attrition intentions, and employee status was hypothesized to moderate the relationships. Surprisingly, while the hypothesized relationship between control, career satisfaction, and attrition intentions was not supported (H1b), the relationship is significant when employee status is a moderator. This can be attributed to the fact that while control was not related to career satisfaction among all employees, the relationship was found to be significant for full-time employees. Full-time employees’ pay, benefits (e.g., sick leave and health insurance), or access to promotions, training, and development opportunities can provide a sense of control when compared to part-time employees, leading to increased career satisfaction and decreased attrition intentions (Joung et al., 2018; Milman & Dickson, 2014).

In terms of the mediating relationship of career adaptability (concern, control, curiosity, and confidence), career anxiety, and attrition intentions, it was hypothesized that part-time employees may experience higher levels of career anxiety without organizational benefits and ambiguous or changing job roles and responsibilities. Therefore, part-time employees experience higher levels of career anxiety and, consequently, higher attrition intentions. However, full- and part-time employees did not differ in terms of the mediating effects of career anxiety. The findings suggest an emotional impact of the pandemic on the hospitality employees, regardless of full- or part-time status. In cases of extreme events like the pandemic, regardless of employee status and associated pay, benefits, promotion, and training opportunities, employees experience anxiety and consider leaving the industry. Building off the previous argument regarding heightened career anxiety due to Covid-19, although previous literature supports differences among full- and part-time employees in terms of attitude, emotions, and behaviors (Joung et al., 2018), the mass furloughs and layoffs, as well as limited business operations, sparked employment and financial insecurity, respectively (Rahmadani & Sahrani, 2021). Therefore, the findings of this study suggest that employment and financial insecurity in nearly all disciplines and fields increased career anxiety among employees, regardless of employment status, superseding previous understandings of employee status.

The last theoretical contribution is the relevance of the mechanism behind the double-edged sword nature of career adaptability in relation to attrition intentions for hospitality employees. While career adaptability has been found to increase and decrease attrition intentions among hospitality employees (Karatepe & Olugbade, 2017; Rasheed et al., 2020), the findings of this study support the argument for career adaptability as a resource to reduce attrition intentions (e.g., Chan & Mai, 2015). Specifically, the concern dimension of career adaptability was found to decrease attrition intentions among hospitality professionals through the mediating relationships of career satisfaction and anxiety. Therefore, the significant findings of the concern dimension to career satisfaction and anxiety support CCT as a psychosocial resource and mechanism linking career adaptability to attrition intentions (Del Corso & Rehfuss, 2011).

Practical Implications

The results of this study found career adaptability to decrease attrition intentions through the mediating mechanisms of career satisfaction and anxiety. While the control and curiosity dimensions of career adaptability were not significant, the significant findings of concern and confidence provide implications for higher education and the industry in mitigating attrition intentions within hospitality professions. First, by identifying concern and confidence as significant career adaptability dimensions for hospitality employees, the industry could not only promote and develop career adaptability based on concern, control, curiosity, and confidence among students and employees, but it should also have a unified approach to boosting trust and confidence in the industry. For instance, the recent downturn of the hospitality industry could elicit a lack of trust and uncertainty in the hospitality industry. In terms of career adaptability and mitigating attrition intentions of the current and future workforce, efforts aimed at promoting limitless career paths in the hospitality industry could serve as a resource to help hospitality professionals adapt and stay in the industry. King et al. (2021) urged stakeholders to develop and promote a positive industry image in a concerted effort to retain talent within the hospitality industry. Furthermore, building a future workforce pipeline by promoting a positive industry image that focus on mitigating the concerns and improving confidence in the hospitality industry is imperative.

Second, academics and industry practices could provide career counseling and development efforts to support hospitality professionals such as interventions geared towards boosting concern and confidence as resources for professions to lean on during career challenges and changes could help abate attrition intentions. In addition to a positive industry image for hospitality professionals, the concern and confidence of future and potential hospitality professionals could be addressed even before entering the industry at an academic level. Developing career adaptability at every career stage could increase the benefits of career adaptability for the hospitality industry to not only retain its workforce, but also to help attract a future workforce with the goal of reducing attrition. For instance, career counselors could assess career adaptability as a tool for identifying an individual’s propensity for adaptability resources. For individuals reporting a presence of adaptability resources, career adaptability can be promoted as a resource—especially the dimensions of control and confidence—in hospitality higher education programs as well as in industry orientation practices. On the other hand, the absence of adaptability resources could guide the development of adaptability resources among hospitality professionals for academic and industry career development.

Lastly, since control and curiosity were not significant career adaptability resources for hospitality professionals, academics, and industry practitioners could advocate for clearer career developmental paths or alternative career paths within the industry in hopes of promoting a sense of control and curiosity for hospitality professionals. In addition to functioning as an additional career adaptability resource and tool, supporting hospitality professionals in this manner could encourage career satisfaction and abate career anxiety, and subsequently help to retain current hospital professionals and build a viable pipeline for the future workforce of the hospitality industry.

Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations to this study could guide future studies. First, although a quantitative method was implemented in this study, future studies could employ qualitative methods to explore the various ways hospitality professionals adapt in the work environment in times of crisis (Johnston, 2018). Common method bias was not found to be an issue in this study, but future studies should implement experimental methods to better understand causal relationships impacting career adaptability. Although CCT supports a sequence of adaptation, unique distinctions in adaptability resources and responses are lacking in the literature. Examining the causal relationships of career adaptability resources and responses could also help to guide future academic and practitioner interventions targeted for attrition and retention in the hospitality industry.

Second, although extant literature supports turnover intention as a predictor for turnover behavior (Chan & Mai, 2015), future studies could utilize longitudinal design or multi-source data to track actual attrition to understand how career adaptability relates to attrition behavior in the hospitality industry. Additionally, future studies could rely on longitudinal designs to measure attrition rates and individual-level factors such as employment status and family support, or objective career data like promotions and salary, to understand the factors influencing career adaptability as a resource for staying in the hospitality industry.

Lastly, future studies could extend the theoretical implications of CCT by testing potential mediators and moderators as well as individual or industry-specific antecedents. For instance, this study relies on the pandemic as a lens to examine unexpected career challenges and changes for hospitality professions, but future studies could examine expected career challenges and changes such as life stage transitions (e.g., student to employee transition or the birth of a child) to better understand how concern, confidence, control, and curiosity can be resources in managing career or life changes.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jht-10.1177_10963480221133777 – Supplemental material for Be Adaptive to Stay: A Multidimensional Examination of Career Adaptability Among Hospitality Employees

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jht-10.1177_10963480221133777 for Be Adaptive to Stay: A Multidimensional Examination of Career Adaptability Among Hospitality Employees by Lindsey Lee, Trishna G. Mistry, Sandra Sun-Ah Ponting, Xingyu Wang and Xi Y. Leung in Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-jht-10.1177_10963480221133777 – Supplemental material for Be Adaptive to Stay: A Multidimensional Examination of Career Adaptability Among Hospitality Employees

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-jht-10.1177_10963480221133777 for Be Adaptive to Stay: A Multidimensional Examination of Career Adaptability Among Hospitality Employees by Lindsey Lee, Trishna G. Mistry, Sandra Sun-Ah Ponting, Xingyu Wang and Xi Y. Leung in Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-jht-10.1177_10963480221133777 – Supplemental material for Be Adaptive to Stay: A Multidimensional Examination of Career Adaptability Among Hospitality Employees

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-jht-10.1177_10963480221133777 for Be Adaptive to Stay: A Multidimensional Examination of Career Adaptability Among Hospitality Employees by Lindsey Lee, Trishna G. Mistry, Sandra Sun-Ah Ponting, Xingyu Wang and Xi Y. Leung in Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Lindsey Lee

Trishna G. Mistry

Xingyu Wang

Xi Y. Leung

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Lindsey Lee, PhD (e-mail: lindsey.lee@temple.edu), is an assistant professor at School of Sport, Tourism, and Hospitality Management, Temple University, PA.

Trishna G. Mistry, PhD (e-mail: trishna@usf.edu), is an assistant professor at School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Muma College of Business, University of South Florida, FL.

Sandra Sun-Ah Ponting, PhD (e-mail: sandra.ponting@sdsu.edu), is an assistant professor at L. Robert Payne School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, San Diego State University, CA.

Xingyu Wang, PhD (e-mail: maxime.wang@polyu.edu.hk) is an assistant professor at School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.

Xi Y. Leung, PhD (e-mail: xi.leung@unt.edu) is an assistant professor at Department of Hospitality & Tourism Management, University of North Texas, TX.

References

Aburumman

Salleh

Omar

Abadi

(2020). The impact of human resource management practices and career satisfaction on employee’s turnover intention. Management Science Letters, 10(3), 641–652.

Ali

Kim

W. G.

J. J.

Cobanoglu

(2018a). A comparative study of covariance and partial least squares based structural equation modelling in hospitality and tourism research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(1), 416–435.

Ali

Rasoolimanesh

S. M.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

Ryu

(2018b). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.

Ariza-Montes

Arjona-Fuentes

J. M.

Han

Law

(2018). Work environment and well-being of different occupational groups in hospitality: Job Demand–Control–Support model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 73, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.010

Batt

Lee

J. E.

Lakhani

(2014). A national study of human resource practices, turnover, and customer service in the restaurant industry. Restaurant Opportunities Centers United.

Boo

Kim

S. H.

(2021a). The relationship among undergraduate students’ career anxiety, choice goals, and academic performance. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2021.1963756

Boo

Wang

Kim

(2021b). Career adaptability, future time perspective, and career anxiety among undergraduate students: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 29, Article 100328.

Bufquin

Park

J. Y.

Back

R. M.

de Souza Meira

J. V.

Hight

S. K.

(2021). Employee work status, mental health, substance use, and career turnover intentions: An examination of restaurant employees during COVID-19. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 93, Article 102764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102764

Chan

S. H. J.

Mai

(2015). The relation of career adaptability to satisfaction and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 130–139.

10.

Chan

S. H. J.

Mai

(2015). The relation of career adaptability to satisfaction and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 130–139.

11.

Chan

K. Y.

M. A.

Moon-ho

R. H.

Sam

Y. L.

Chernyshenko

O. S.

K. Y. T.

(2015). Comparing two career adaptability measures for career construction theory: Relations with boundaryless mindset and protean career attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87, 22–31.

12.

Chen

C. B.

Chen

M. H.

(2021). Well-being and career change intention: COVID-19’s impact on unemployed and furloughed hospitality workers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(8), 2500–2520. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-07-2020-0759

13.

Chong

Leong

F. T.

(2017). Antecedents of career adaptability in strategic career management. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(2), 268–280.

14.

Cobanoglu

Cavusoglu

Turktarhan

(2021). A beginner’s guide and best practices for using crowdsourcing platforms for survey research: The case of Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Journal of Global Business Insights, 6(1), 92–97.

15.

Del Corso

Rehfuss

M. C

. (2011). The role of narrative in career construction theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 334–339.

16.

Doanh

D. C.

Thang

H. N.

Nga

N. T. V.

Van

P. T.

Hoa

P. T.

(2021). Entrepreneurial behaviour: The effects of the fear and anxiety of Covid-19 and business opportunity recognition. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 9(3), 7–23.

17.

Gordon

Tang

C. H. H.

Day

Adler

(2018). Supervisor support and turnover in hotels: Does subjective well-being mediate the relationship? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.

18.

Hair

J. F. Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

Sarstedt

(2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.

19.

Hair

J. F.

Risher

J. J.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

(2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

20.

Haldorai

Kim

W. G.

Pillai

S. G.

Park

T. E.

Balasubramanian

(2019). Factors affecting hotel employees’ attrition and turnover: Application of pull-push-mooring framework. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 83, 46–55.

21.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.

22.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.

23.

Johnston

C. S.

(2018). A systematic review of the career adaptability literature and future outlook. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(1), 3–30.

24.

Jones

Manoharan

Jiang

Singal

(2022). A framework of facilitators and barriers to career adaptability: Migrant hotel workers during COVID-19. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 10963480221118820.

25.

Joung

H. W.

Choi

E. K. C.

Taylor

J. J.

(2018). Investigating differences in job-related attitudes between full-time and part-time employees in the foodservice industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(2), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-03-2016-0129

26.

Kaplan

Hoff

(2022, January 4). A record-high 1 million restaurant and hotel workers quit in November—and it shows the labor shortage might really be a wage shortage. Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/record-high-restaurant-hotel-workers-quit-in-november-labor-shortage-2022-1

27.

Karatepe

O. M.

(2012). Perceived organizational support, career satisfaction, and performance outcomes: A study of hotel employees in Cameroon. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(5), 735–752. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111211237273

28.

Karatepe

O. M.

Ngeche

R. N.

(2012). Does job embeddedness mediate the effect of work engagement on job outcomes? A study of hotel employees in Cameroon. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 21(4), 440–461.

29.

Karatepe

O. M.

Olugbade

O. A.

(2017). The effects of work social support and career adaptability on career satisfaction and turnover intentions. Journal of Management and Organization, 23(3), 337.

30.

Kautish

Walia

Kour

(2021). The moderating influence of social support on career anxiety and career commitment: An empirical investigation from India. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 38(8), 782–801.

31.

King

Madera

J. M.

Lee

Murillo

Baum

Solnet

(2021). Reimagining attraction and retention of hospitality management talent—A multilevel identity perspective. Journal of Business Research, 136, 251–262.

32.

Kock

(2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: An application in tourism and hospitality research. In Applying partial least squares in tourism and hospitality research (pp. 1–16). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78756-699-620181001

33.

Lee

Guzzo

R. F.

Madera

J. M.

Guchait

(2021). Examining applicant online recruitment: The use of fictitious websites in experimental studies. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 62(1), 76–88.

34.

Lee

P. C.

S. T.

Yang

(2021). Is career adaptability a double-edged sword? The impact of work social support and career adaptability on turnover intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, Article 102875.

35.

Maggiori

Johnston

C. S.

Krings

Massoudi

Rossier

(2013). The role of career adaptability and work conditions on general and professional well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 437–449.

36.

Malek

Kline

S. F.

DiPietro

(2018). The impact of manager training on employee turnover intentions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 1(3), 203–219.

37.

McGinley

S. P.

(2018). Shifting patterns: How satisfaction alters career change intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 74, 202–213.

38.

Milman

Dickson

(2014). Employment characteristics and retention predictors among hourly employees in large US theme parks and attractions. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(3), 447–469. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-04-2013-0178

39.

Min

Park

Kim

H. J.

(2016). Common method bias in hospitality research: A critical review of literature and an empirical study. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 56, 126–135.

40.

Rahmadani

Sahrani

. (2021, August 8). The role of stress during the COVID-19 pandemic in the future career anxiety of final-year students. In S.

Tiatri

L. C.

Seong

(Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Economics, Business, Social, and Humanities (pp. 979–984). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210805.154

41.

Ramaprasad

B. S.

Rao

Prabhu

Kumar

M. S.

(2022). Linking hospitality and tourism students’ internship satisfaction to career decision self-efficacy: A moderated-mediation analysis involving career development constructs. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 30, Article 100348.

42.

Rasheed

M. I.

Okumus

Weng

Hameed

Nawaz

M. S.

(2020). Career adaptability and employee turnover intentions: The role of perceived career opportunities and orientation to happiness in the hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 44, 98–107.

43.

Rudisill

J. R.

Edwards

J. M.

Hershberger

P. J.

Jadwin

J. E.

McKee

J. M.

(2010). Coping with job transitions over the work life. In T. W.

Miller

(Ed.), Handbook of stressful transitions across the lifespan (pp. 111–131). Springer. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/978-1-4419-0748-6_6.

44.

Safavi

H. P.

Bouzari

(2019). The association of psychological capital, career adaptability and career competency among hotel frontline employees. Tourism Management Perspectives, 30, 65–74.

45.

Safavi

H. P.

Karatepe

O. M.

(2018). High-performance work practices and hotel employee outcomes: The mediating role of career adaptability. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(2), 1112–1133. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-07-2016-0367.

46.

Sampson

J. P. Peterson

G. W.

Lenz

J. G.

Reardon

R. C.

Saunders

D. E.

(1998). The design and use of a measure of dysfunctional career thoughts among adults, college students, and high school students: The Career Thoughts Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 6(2), 115–134.

47.

Savickas

M. L.

(2013). Career construction theory and practice. Career Development and Counseling: Putting Theory and Research to Work, 2, 144–180.

48.

Savickas

M. L.

Porfeli

E. J.

(2012). Career adaptabilities scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 661–673.

49.

Singh

Bhatia

Nigam

(2021). Perceived vulnerability of job loss and satisfaction with life in the hospitality sector in times of pandemic: A multi-mediational approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.

50.

Shin

Y. J.

Lee

J. Y.

(2019). Self-focused attention and career anxiety: The mediating role of Career adaptability. The Career Development Quarterly, 67(2), 110–125.

51.

Sobaih

A. E.

Coleman

Ritchie

Jones

(2011). Part-time restaurant employee perceptions of management practices: An empirical investigation. The Service Industries Journal, 31(11), 1749–1768.

52.

Spurk

Abele

A. E.

Volmer

(2011). The career satisfaction scale: Longitudinal measurement invariance and latent growth analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(2), 315–326.

53.

Thorsteinson

T. J.

(2003). Job attitudes of part-time vs. full-time workers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(2), 151–177.

54.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022). Economic news release: Job openings and labor turnover. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.t16.htm

55.

Wang

Yan

(2018). Emotion regulation strategy mediates the relationship between goal orientation and job search behavior among university seniors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 108, 1–12.

56.

Wiitala

Mistry

T. G.

(2021). Organizational response to the COVID-19 pandemic: Does it affect hospitality industry employees’ outcomes? Journal of Global Hospitality and Tourism (Advance online publication).

57.

Zacher

(2014). Career adaptability predicts subjective career success above and beyond personality traits and core self-evaluations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(1), 21–30.

58.

Zacher

Griffin

(2015). Older workers’ age as a moderator of the relationship between adaptabilitas karier and Kepuasan kerja. Work, Aging and Retirement, 1(2), 227–236.

59.

Zopiatis

Theocharous

A. L.

Constanti

(2016). Adult vocational decision, career satisfaction and future intention: Insights from the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(12), 2696–2720. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-03-2015-0099

60.

Zopiatis

Theocharous

A. L.

Constanti

(2018). Career satisfaction and future intentions in the hospitality industry: An intrinsic or an extrinsic proposition? Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 17(1), 98–120.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

0.01 MB