Defining and measuring career resilience

Abstract

Various authors have argued that career resilience should be cultivated by individuals pursuing modern day careers as a critical career competency. No study has been reported thus far in the career management literature which offers a comprehensive measuring instrument for the construct. The focal point of this study was therefore the development of an instrument to operationalise the career resilience construct. Based on a review of the literature/ the "Career Resilience Questionnaire" (CRQ) consisting of 60 items was developed and administered to respondents (N=352) in white-collar employment settings. A second-order factor analysis yielded four factors which seemed to be relatively independent. The factors were named "belief in oneself"/ "disregard for traditional sources of career success", "selfreliance" and "receptivity to change". The implications of the findings are discussed.<p> <strong>Opsomming</strong> <br>Verskeie outeurs het reeds daarop gewys dat loopbaangehardheid as 'n kritiese bevoegdheid ontwikkel behoort te word in die hedendaagse loopbaankonteks. In geen studie in die loopbaanbestuuriiteratuur tot dusver is 'n omvattende instrument vir die meting van die konstruk gerapporteer nie. Die fokus van hierdie studie was dus die ontwikkeling van 'n instrument om die konstruk loopbaangehardheid te operasionaliseer. Na 'n oorsig van die literatuur is die "Career Resilience Questionnaire" (CRQ) bestaande uit 60 items, gekonstrueer en afgeneem op 'n steekproef (N=352) in witboordjie-werksomgewings. 'n Tweedeordefaktorontleding het vier faktore opgelewer wat skynbaar relatief onafhanklike faktore is. Hierdie faktore is "geloof in self", "onderbeklemtoning van tradisionele bronne van loopbaansukses", "selfgenoegsaamheid" en "ontvanklikheid vir verandering". Die implikasies van die bevindinge word bespreek

Rejoinder To Article By De Bruin And Lew: Construct Validity Of The Career Resilience Questionnaire (CRQ)

“…At the time of the Fourie and Van Vuuren (1998) study, the earlier research on resilience as a construct that may have application in the ¢eld of career management, was limited. Nor was there an instrument to measure career resilience more comprehensively than the seven-and 13 item-approaches by London (1983London ( , 1993 and Noe, Noe and Bachhuber (1990) provided for.…”

“…London (1983), in his initial exploration of the concept, conceded that the dimensions of career resilience are neither independent nor necessarily exhaustive of all possible important constructs. In con¢rming London's initial reservations, De Bruin and Lew allude to the fact that ''no explicit theoretically derived multi-dimensional model of career resilience is given'' in the Fourie and Van Vuuren (1998) article. The latter research report was, however, based on the, albeit few, e¡orts of Bridges (1995), Gordon and Coscarelli (1996), London (1983London ( , 1993 and Noe, et al (1990), who pioneered attempts to describe and delineate the construct in terms of its importance and utility.…”

“…It should be noted that the CRQ items were initially trialled, as is customary in questionnaire construction, and was also published in the public domain (Fourie & Van Vuuren, 1998). De Bruin and Lew decided to include and administer the CRQ in their study after having had the opportunity to inspect the items (and thus the face validity thereof).…”

“…At he time of publication Fourie and Van Vuuren (1998) were fully aware of the need for further exploration of their ¢ndings by stating that ''there are certain limitations to generalising and interpreting the ¢ndings of the study. In the ¢rst instance, the construct of career resilience is a complex phenomenon and research and inquiry into the nature thereof are not conclusive.…”

“…It has to be pointed out that the terms of the initial agreement on gaining access to and administering the CRQ, Lew (the second author) was explicitly alerted to the exploratory nature of the Fourie and Van Vuuren (1998) study, and that the CRQ was still in the process of being validated. It was further agreed that ¢ndings and results would be shared.…”