Career Engagement: Investigating Intraindividual Predictors of Weekly Fluctuations in Proactive Career Behaviors

Abstract

The present study applies a micro-level perspective on how within-individual differences in motivational and social-cognitive factors affect the weekly fluctuations of engagement in

Occupational Engagement and Academic Major Satisfaction: Vocational Identity's Mediating Role

“…They could also be indirect, with interventions being designed to decrease barriers to or increase motivation for occupational engagement. For example, career counselors could facilitate clients in determining their available networks for career‐related social support, as well as ways in which to expand these networks (Hirschi & Freund, ). Indirect interventions could also borrow from cognitive models such as the Integrative Contextual Model of Career Development (Sung, Turner, & Kaewchinda, ) to reduce anxiety around the potentially distressing interpersonal interactions necessary for occupationally engaging behaviors (Kim et al, ) or from theories of motivational enhancement (Kyndt, Raes, Dochy, & Janssens, ; Stoltz & Young, ) to help clients increase their willingness to be occupationally engaged.…”

Retention and Engagement of Generation Y Engineers

“…Although retention can thus be prolonged through task and work set-up engagement, retention of Generation Y engineers can ultimately not be expected as a definite, as these workers intend to leave the organisation in line with their career engagement needs. Career engagement is grounded in the affective and cognitive connection to one's career and it is demonstrated through being focused on and energised by proactive behaviours related to the development of one's career (Hirschi & Freund, 2014;Pickerell, 2013).…”

“…Various types of work-related engagement have been distinguished (Anthony-McMann, Ellinger, Astakhova & Halbesleben, 2016), including job engagement, organisational engagement, personal engagement, work engagement, employee engagement and career engagement (Du Plooy & Roodt, 2010;Hirschi, & Freund, 2014;Neault, & Pickerell, 2011;Saks & Gruman, 2014;Simpson, 2009). As these distinctive types of engagement differ in their respective antecedents and consequences, it is important to differentiate between them (Saks, 2006;Simpson, 2009) to curb confusion when researching the phenomenon (Anthony-McMann, et al, 2016;Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010).…”

Career Self-Management as a Key Factor for Career Wellbeing

“…Positive trait affectivity can increase CSM self-efficacy and outcome expectations, while negative trait affect seems to reduce CSM self-efficacy and has a mixed relation to outcome expectations Lent, Ireland, Penn, Morris, & Sappington, 2017). Within-person differences in positive, but not negative, affect have also shown a positive relation to CSM (Hirschi & Freund, 2014). The matter is made more complex when focusing on CSM as an action regulation process, with affect having different functions for different stages in the process.…”