A critical incident study: Exploring Korean workers’ experiences with career chance events

A literature review on career chance experiences: Conceptualization and sociocultural influences on research

“…These two characteristics are different and dynamically interact resulting in different outcomes. Baruch and Lavi‐Steiner (2015), and Kim and Baek (2020) presented similar arguments.…”

“…These skills have often been empirically examined in relation to other career variables such as career engagement, career decision self-efficacy, career decision certainty (Kim et al, 2014a), dysfunctional career thoughts and selfefficacy (Kim et al, 2015), tolerance of uncertainty, and career satisfaction (Kim et al, 2016), and vocational identity status (Rhee et al, 2016). Similar skills have also been identified as helpful in several qualitative studies (Blanco & Golik, 2015;Kim & Baek, 2020;Kim et al, 2019;Williams et al, 1998) and the positive impact on career development has been confirmed. Based on this review, there seems to be considerable consensus in academia on what skills are necessary or helpful to take advantage of a career chance event, and these skills have been the most prevalent research topic in the career chance literature.…”

“…A review of the literature that classified the types of chance events and the frequency of their occurrence revealed the trends. Until very recently, the studies classified similar types of career chance events with only minor revisions or additions (Kim & Baek, 2020). The types of influential chance events that have been frequently cited in the literature are personal or professional connections, previous work experience, and unexpected personal events.…”

“…In contrast, in the study with 22 CEOs in Latin America (Blanco & Golik, 2015), professional or personal connections and marriage and family were the main events. More recently, a critical incident study conducted with 85 South Korean workers (Kim & Baek, 2020) resulted in substantially different chance event types including work relationship‐based events (40%), experience‐based events (27.1%), personal experience‐based events (18.8%), and personal relationship‐based events (14.1%).…”

“…Although numerous terms in the literature refer to similar events (Bandura, 1982; Cabral & Salomone, 1990; Roe & Baruch, 1967; Scott & Hatalla, 1990), I chose chance as the representative term based on Krumboltz's happenstance theory (Krumboltz, 2009). This theory has often been used as a theoretical framework in many studies on career chance experiences (Kim & Baek, 2020).…”