Chapter 5

The Importance of Career Adaptability,

Career Resilience, and Employability
in Designing a Successful Life

Jérôme Rossier, Maria Cristina Ginevra, Grégoire Bollmann

and Laura Nota

Abstract Advocating a holistic approach, the life design paradigm suggests that
individual and environmental constraints as well as resources shape people’s career
journeys and their broader evolution. In particular, career adaptability and
career resilience are central personal resources that help people in designing their
career. In specific situations, people are able to activate these resources, and career
interventions can strengthen them. Career adaptability and career resilience also
help people to better use their environment’s resources, which eventually contribute
to their employability. Over time, these constant interactions between people and
their environment can lead to the development of negative spirals or virtuous
circles, ultimately fostering adaptive functioning, and a successful life. People’s
career path and employability thus depend on a combination of personal, and
environmental factors, occurring within specific organizational, social, economic,
and political structures.

Keywords Career adaptability
Employability
Resilience
Well-being

J. Rossier (&)
G. Bollmann

Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
e-mail: [email protected]
J. Rossier
G. Bollmann
NCCR-LIVEs, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
M.C. Ginevra
Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
M.C. Ginevra
L. Nota
Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology,
University of Padova, Padua, Italy
G. Bollmann
Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 65

K. Maree (ed.), Psychology of Career Adaptability, Employability and Resilience,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-66954-0_5
66 J. Rossier et al.

Introduction

Our contemporary “liquid” society is characterized by rapid and unpredictable

changes (Bauman, 2007). The evolution of the last century’ society into a liquid
society has structurally encouraged individuals to self-manage their life and career
paths. Indeed, our liquid society does not provide unambiguous role models, but a
diversity of evolving models. People can be considered as social nomads, endorsing
different roles or models simultaneously or successively. Emphasizing the impor-
tance of career self-management abilities tends to promote and valorize individual
achievement and individualism at the expense of a collective management of access
to employment. Moreover, the labor market offers less stable opportunities and a
decent work to only a part of the population (Standing, 2010). So these less sup-
portive social structures tend to require from people that they self-manage their
career in a labor market offering fewer opportunities and requiring them to adapt to
new circumstances more frequently. In this context, personal resources such as
work volition and career adaptability are crucial to access a decent work and can be
considered as protective factors (Duffy, Bluestein, Diemer, & Autin, 2016). Decent
work is supposed to contribute to basic needs that, in turn, promote satisfaction,
well-being, and a successful life.
The life design approach does not only focus on the life at work but claims that
all aspects of people’s lives have to be considered simultaneously. These aspects are
always interrelated and many spillover effects can be observed (e.g., Bernardi,
Bollmann, Potarca, & Rossier, 2017). People thus have to design, self-manage, and
self-direct their life in a holistic manner. Life design interventions include social
actions such as fighting against poverty and social exclusion, and promoting social
equality and successful human development. Seen from this perspective, the aim of
life design interventions is twofold, namely promoting access to (a) decent jobs and
(b) decent lives (Crettaz, 2015). Career interventions contribute to this social
challenge by promoting people’s career adaptability, career resilience, and ulti-
mately their employability. By doing so, career interventions also increase the
ability of individuals to adapt to external changes and constraints (Rossier, 2015).
Therefore, actions are possible at the individual level, even though more globally
collective actions are needed to promote successful life.
The aim of this chapter is to present how and in which circumstances career
adaptability and career resilience may contribute to employability and the designing
of a successful life. Our goals are thus to present (1) the life design paradigm and
what is understood as a successful life characterized by adaptive functioning in this
theoretical context, (2) these three interrelated concepts and propose one way
5 The Importance of Career Adaptability, Career Resilience … 67

through which they may combine to lead to a successful life, and (3) interventions
consistent with our perspective. Being able to design our lives becomes an
increasingly more critical competence to develop, not only to self-manage our
careers, but also more broadly to increase and manage our life quality.

Promoting a Successful Life Using the Life Design

Paradigm

The life design paradigm provides a new theoretical framework that can be used to
understand the challenges of our contemporary world and to provide more appro-
priate career and life interventions (Savickas et al., 2009). Resulting from collective
international efforts, it is not embedded in a specific culture but focuses more
broadly on promoting adaptive functioning. Living a successful life can be con-
ceived as the outcome of the conjoint action of several dynamic adaptive processes
that help people cope with their inner and contextual constraints and opportunities.

The Life Design Paradigm

The life design paradigm resulted from the integration of the career construction
theory and the self-construction theory. It takes into account the relevance of
contextual factors and of intra- and inter-individual processes (Savickas et al.,
2009). It also conceptualizes work as only “a slice of the pie” of people’s broader
life paths. Such a holistic approach facilitates a better understanding of the gradual
construction of personal life and career (Nota, Soresi, Ferrari, & Ginevra, 2014). It
is premised on the belief that individuals continually reconstruct their narratives. In
narrating their life and career stories, people shape their identities (Rossier,
Maggiori, & Zimmermann, 2015). The personal meaning of these stories allows
people to adapt to social changes that are crucial in their working lives (Nota &
Rossier, 2015).
Life design claims that career development cannot only focus on career decisions
regarding finding a suitable job according to personal competences, values, and
interests. Rather, it conceptualizes career development as a dynamic interaction
between personal characteristics and contextual factors. Specifically, according to
this paradigm, the individual is an active agent and actor of his/her own personal
and career development, of his/her present and future, by designing his/her life
stories or narratives and formulating coherent life aims and plans (Pouyaud, 2015).
He/she is not shaped by the context, but is in interdependence with it. This means
that the individual develops in a specific social and cultural context, which involves
multiple systems, i.e. organizations, societal policies, and practices that can affect
the human functioning (Ferrari, Sgaramella, & Soresi, 2015). As a result, focusing
68 J. Rossier et al.

exclusively on environmental conditions or individual attitudes, interests, and

abilities as a basis for successful career development is not enough; instead career
counselling should focus on how these multiple nonlinear interactions can have a
positive impact on career and life outcomes (Hirschi & Dauwalder, 2015).
Based on this view, life design counseling should stimulate the reflection on the
self and the context in order to create new perspectives for the future (Duarte and
Cardoso, 2015). It uses people’s narrative skills and reflexivity to help them de-, re-,
and co-construct their personal stories, finding the most significant features and
events in their experiences, and describing their needs by formulating goals and
strategies to reach them. In addition, it focuses on promoting positive career tra-
jectories by taking into consideration resources, competencies, behaviors, and
attitudes that could allow people to self-direct their professional and life paths
successfully. In a globalized society and its constantly changing work environment,
career competencies such as the ability to identify opportunities, self-determination,
the ability to decide thoroughly and rapidly, self-efficacy beliefs, and the ability to
integrate all personal changes into our life stories in a meaningful manner are
crucial (Guichard, 2015). In addition, a set of psychological resources (e.g. career
adaptability, resilience, hope, optimism, and time perspective) could possibly help
people to self-manage their career development, negotiate career transitions, and to
plan their future (Nota, Ginevra, & Santilli, 2015). Thus, life design holds that
career and life paths constantly interact in highly dynamic manner and cannot be
considered independently.

A Successful Life: Well-Being and Adaptive Functioning

One objective of the life design paradigm is to answer questions such as “How may
individuals best design their own lives in the human society in which they live?”
(Savickas et al., 2009, p. 241). Within this framework, a successful life corresponds
to one that allows individuals to reach their personal goals and satisfy basic needs,
demonstrating adaptive functioning, and experiencing subjective well-being. It is
characterized by a sustained equilibrium and adjustment, over extended periods of
time, between people’s own internal resources and constraints on the one hand and
those of their environment on the other hand.
Adaptive functioning helps people to manage their interactions with their
environment proactively, and react. As long as adaptive functioning is effective, a
congruence exists between people and different levels of their environment
(Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). If being successful in life is
usually associated with people’s achievements, the subjective feeling of a suc-
cessful life is more closely associated with well-being that is usually defined as a
combination of positive affect, an absence of negative affect, and life satisfaction in
a broad sense (Tatarkiewicz, 1947). Life satisfaction includes satisfaction with
various life domains to which people attach more or less importance, such as job or
career satisfaction, marital satisfaction, leisure satisfaction. Affective well-being and
5 The Importance of Career Adaptability, Career Resilience … 69

life satisfaction influence each other, in a dynamic and complex manner over time
(Bollmann, Johnston, Maggiori, & Rossier, submitted). Moreover, well-being can
also be seen as a subjective perception of the quality of life, that might be more
dependent on concrete living conditions, and be more influenced by specific
motives, needs, and satisfactions. In this context, career satisfaction contributes to
people’s life satisfaction, well-being, and successful lives.
In the case of adaptive functioning, minor or short-lived changes in environ-
mental or individual resources or constraints trigger either an active and/or a
reactive adjustment. People’s career adaptability and career resilience can then
contribute to proactive enactment of environmental resources as well as reactive
management of constraints, and serve to maintain employability, and prevent career
plateaus (e.g., Jiang, 2016). Such manageable changes, however, do not affect
people’s perceptions of fit with their environment, nor their well-being. In contrast,
major or long-lasting changes in the environment also trigger adjustment efforts, at
least in the beginning, but they might prove less effective in the longer run. In the
short term, adjustment efforts to major environmental evolutions prevent a decline
in well-being and emergence of inappropriate or misfit. In the longer run, however,
if adaptive behaviors prove ineffective, or adapt-abilities wane, people begin to
experience decreased subjective well-being and higher misfit with their environ-
ment, triggering negative spirals. In such cases, individuals need to exhibit resi-
lience to help them remain employable, and recreate perceptions of fit with their
environment. Importantly, when examining misfits, researchers should take into
account their directions, as well as the nature or content of the resources, and
constraints at play (Edwards, 2008). Misfits, in the form of low levels of internal
resources (e.g., low self-efficacy), could have very different effects on people’s
adaptive behaviors, their likelihood to reach their personal goals and their broader
well-being than misfits in the form of low environmental resources (e.g., low
instrumental support).
In the next section, we delve into the details of adaptive functioning, introducing
the concepts of career adaptability, career resilience, and employability. In a nut-
shell, we propose that both career adaptability and career resilience contribute to
people’s employability. We outline the respective ways in which they do so as well
as their complex interrelationships.

The Importance of Career Adaptability, Career Resilience,

and Employability

Our contemporary society is characterized by an acceleration of technological,

social, and cultural changes. The increase of uncertainty of this liquid modernity
(Bauman, 2000) induces that adaptive resources become more important for people
to self-direct their careers and lives. These resources can be internal and external
and depend on people’s ability to mobilize them. This agentic state may promote,
70 J. Rossier et al.

if conditions are favorable, virtuous cycles, well-being, and life satisfaction that can
be considered as a proxy of a successful life. Regarding these resources, we focus
on career adaptability, career resilience, and employability considered strengths to
reach a successful life.

Career Adaptability

The career adaptability construct illustrates that in a rapidly changing world,

adaptive resources or adapt-abilities are crucial and can certainly be considered as a
process variable. According to Creed and Hood (2015) “process variables are
complex, multifaceted constructs, which capture underlying cognitions, behaviors,
and affect related to career development” (p. 351). Several different process vari-
ables have been suggested such as career maturity, career decision-making abilities,
or career adaptability, to name a few. Rossier (2015) recommended that a dis-
tinction be drawn between outcomes and such process variables, considering
behavior and career choices as concrete career outcomes that are adaptive if aligned
to the environmental constraints.
Emergence of the Career Adaptability Construct. The construct of career
adaptability was first mentioned and defined by Super and Knasel (1981). In their
seminal article they suggested that this adaptive resource could be especially rel-
evant in describing people’s career paths, instead of focusing exclusively on a
developmental approach and the notion of career maturity. It is interesting to note
that Herr (1993) conceived career adaptability as a combination of career resilience,
reflexivity abilities, and career identity. These three aspects are connected and
combine processual resources (meta-cognitive skills) and representational skills (the
self-concept). Thus, vocational identity could trigger the activation of career
adaptability in order to plan and express adapted career behaviors.
If Super and Knasel (1981) suggested that career adaptability could better
describe and explain adults career paths than the concept of career maturity,
Savickas (1997), on the contrary, claimed that this dynamic resource might sustain
the integration of the two separate aspects of Super’s (1980) life-span and life-space
approach. Career adaptability is supposed to organize life themes, taking into
account these two aspects or dimensions, one being made of temporally organized
episode (life-span), whereas the other is made of different stories being organized
according to their meaning (life-space). Career adaptability conciliates these two
sets of representations within a coherent and structured self-concept. Career
adaptability is associated with dispositional adaptivity and is an important predictor
of several career-related outcomes, that should reflect adapting behaviors, such as
work engagement, work stress, career decision-making self-efficacy (e.g., Jiang,
2017; Nilforooshan & Salimi, 2016; for a review see Johnston, 2016).
Career Adaptability and Well-being. Several studies have shown that career
adaptability contributes to overall well-being, and more specifically to
life-satisfaction (for meta-analytical evidence, see Rudolph, Lavigne, & Zacher,
5 The Importance of Career Adaptability, Career Resilience … 71

2017). Celen-Demirtas, Konstam, and Tomek (2015), in their study with unem-
ployed emerging adults, showed that career adaptability was strongly positively
correlated with positive affect and life satisfaction and negatively with negative
affect. In addition, “career adaptability could trigger a virtuous cycle in time in
which the adaptive properties of career adaptability may have long lasting effects on
job attitudes through their impact on affective responses” (Fiori, Bollmann, &
Rossier, 2015, p. 120). Career adaptability is also associated with more specific
components of life-satisfaction, such as academic satisfaction (Duffy, Douglass, &
Autin, 2015), work satisfaction (Coetzee & Soltz, 2015), or career satisfaction
(Chan, Mai, Kuok, & Kong, 2016). Additionally, we know that career adaptability
can be considered as a protective factor and partially mediates the relationship
between job insecurity, job strain, and well-being outcomes (Maggiori, Johnston,
Krings, Massoudi, & Rossier, 2013).

Career Resilience

Career Resilience as a Construct to Handle Future Challenges. Resilience is

“a broad conceptual umbrella, covering many concepts related to positive patterns
of adaptation in the context of adversity” (Masten & Obradović, 2006, p. 14).
Although it has been studied for over three decades, Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker
(2000) highlighted that little consensus has been achieved about its definition and
operationalization. However, its key meaning could be assumed from Bickel’s
(2009) definition, as “the capacity to remain hardy and maintain your integrity, even
in the face of massive change, without loss of energy” (p. 4). Resilience can be
considered as a response to psychological strain associated with undesirable con-
ditions. Rather than being conceptualized as a stable trait, it is defined as a
developable ability, through repeated exposure to and successful adaptation to
adversities (Seery, Holman, & Silver, 2010). As a result of several threats and the
high levels of risks linked to social and occupational (Dagdeviren, Donoghue, &
Promberger, 2016) uncertainties and the increasing workplace organizational
pressures, resilience, and more specifically, career resilience, is featured progres-
sively more in the career development field (Di Maggio, Ginevra, Nota, & Soresi,
2016).
A growing number of studies with adolescents and adults have analyzed the role
of career resilience on career-related outcomes and vocational psychological con-
structs. For example, Di Maggio et al. (2016) observed that career resilience cor-
related positively with different psychological dimensions relevant for career
construction and development, such as future orientation, hope, optimism, and
career adaptability. Similarly, Barto, Lambert, and Brott (2015) found that resi-
lience correlated positively with career adaptability, and both these constructs were
helpful in overcoming career obstacles. Sufficient evidence is available that confirm
the significant influence of career resilience on the career construction and career
decision-making of people (including young adults).
72 J. Rossier et al.

Career Resilience and Well-being. Resilience can be regarded as a crucial

source of subjective well-being (Bajaj, Robins, & Pande, 2016). Resilient indi-
viduals tend to preserve their physical and psychological health by dealing with
negative events in a satisfactory manner on challenging times but also by enhancing
their well-being. Strong evidence exists that resilience positively predicts life sat-
isfaction and positive affect and negatively predicts negative affect, as indices of
subjective well-being (Bajaj et al., 2016). Moreover, it has been found that resi-
lience is associated with a positive view of the self, the world, and the future, and by
virtue of this, to life satisfaction.
Several studies have also shown the impact of resilience on people’s well-being
in the workplace. For example, Simons and Buitendach (2013) observed that
resilience, together with hope, optimism, and self-efficacy predicted work
engagement, i.e. a positive, satisfying, work-related state characterized by vigor,
dedication, and absorption, and, consequently, the organizational commitment in a
sample of call center employees. Lyons, Schweitzer, and Ng, (2015), involving a
sample of about 2,000 managers and professionals, found that career resilience is
positively predicted by emotional stability, internal work locus of control, the
protean career attribute of self-directedness, and negatively predicted by bound-
aryless career attitudes. They also found that career resilience mediates the rela-
tionship between these constructs and career satisfaction and subsequently
concluded that resilience acts as a positive buffer in relation to being satisfied with
one’s work. This underscores the key role of resilience in setting career goals and
coping with career barriers as well as dealing with difficulties experienced in regard
to obtaining career achievement.

Employability

Employability, a Multi-facet Construct. The concept of employability dates back

as far as the beginning of the twentieth century. Employability has been charac-
terized as “a fuzzy notion, often ill-defined and sometimes not defined at all”
(Gazier, 1998, p. 298), perhaps because of the various perspectives and disciplines
examining it (for a review, see Guilbert, Bernaud, Gouvernet, & Rossier, 2016).
Here, we borrow Guilbert’s et al. (2016) definition of employability as the
“possibility of accessing a suitable job or to remain employed in a social, economic,
cultural, and technological context” (p. 79). This definition facilitates the concep-
tualization of employability as something vested in people’s perceptions, and as
assessing it with a multi-source method, that is, not only through focal individuals
themselves, but also through others, such as HR professionals, career counselors, or
agents in placement agencies. In line with the early conceptualization of Fugate,
Kinicki, and Ashforth (2004), we view employability as characteristic of adaptive
functioning, and as determined by career identity, personal adaptability, as well as,
for instance, human and social capital. Our view, however, departs from later
operationalization (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008): We do not see employability as a
5 The Importance of Career Adaptability, Career Resilience … 73

disposition-like higher-order level construct (i.e., an aggregate construct), but rather

as an ability that might be partly stable (e.g., based on human capital) and partly
variable over time (e.g., changed over time by career adaptability or career resi-
lience). This view is in line with the view adopted by the developers of existing
measures (Rothwell, 2015), and with recent research on perceived employability
(e.g., Wittekind, Raeder, & Grote, 2010).
Research has shown that contextual factors, such as the economic situation,
unemployment rate, or the rate of job vacancies, governmental actions such as
employment programs, or higher education initiatives to align programs to the
needs of the labor market might be related to people’s employability (Berntson,
Sverke, and Marklund, 2006). At organizational level, incentives to increase
specific and transferable competences, and promote life-long learning within
organizations, as well as the meanings that employees associate and share about
such initiatives (i.e., climates) can be regarded as organizational factors and can be
introduced to increase employees’ employability (Nauta, van Vianen, van der
Heijden, van Dam, and Willemsen, 2009). At the individual level, core determi-
nants of higher perceived employability include qualifications, such as education or
training; individual differences, such as proactive personality; and demand factors
in regard to one’s occupation. Inversely, support for career and skills development,
as well as knowledge of the job market, have also been proposed as antecedents of
employability, yet evidence is mixed.
Employability, Life Designing, and a Successful Life. Several studies estab-
lished that people with higher employability also report a wealth of positive out-
comes, such as positive affect related to change, higher career success, a better
perceived health, and higher work-related and subjective well-being (Fugate &
Kinicki, 2008). They also report having conducted more intense job searches and a
higher likelihood of re-employment for those unemployed (McArdle, Waters,
Briscoe, & Hall, 2007). Additionally, employability might help asylum seekers to
better integrate and be accepted by their host societies (Bansak, Hainmueller, &
Hangartner, 2016). However, the dynamics (i.e., mechanisms and boundary con-
ditions) of these relationships are still not well understood (De Cuyper,
Bernhard-Oettel, Berntson, De Witte, & Alarco, 2008). We propose that employ-
ability might affect people’s subjective well-being in the long term through its
influence on people’s career trajectories in general, and more particularly on their
job cycle features. A job cycle refers to “the cycle that starts with entering a job and
ends with job exit” (Wang, Olson, & Schulz, 2013, p. 64). People’s careers are
characterized by specific features of their job cycles, such as their average number
and length, the various job tasks they entailed, the financial resources they allowed
to save, or whether job changes were voluntary or not (Wang et al., 2013). In turn,
the features of these job cycles might affect people’s career success. For example,
managers changing jobs very frequently may face more difficulties in accessing
permanent positions (King, Burke, & Pemberton, 2005).
Self-regulatory resources, such as adaptability and career resilience, have
been associated with employability (Coetzee, Ferreira, & Potgieter, 2015).
Employability, and its activation by such self-regulatory resources, might contribute
74 J. Rossier et al.

to people’s career trajectories by optimizing the job cycle, and in turn career suc-
cess. Self-regulatory resources are indeed expected to be activated in times of
adversity (e.g., situations of high unemployment rate; or low job satisfaction), and
found to increase employability (Trevor, 2001). In situations where this adversity is
characterized by minor or short-lived changes in the environment, individuals will
display learning behaviors, and invest more efforts to maintain adaptive function-
ing. As a consequence, their employability will secure their position (De Cuyper
et al., 2008), the job cycle in which they find themselves will be characterized by
more desirable features (e.g., more various tasks and tenure), thus enhancing their
broader career success. In contrast, as adversity evolves into more severe or
long-lasting changes, increased employability, due to the more desirable features of
their job cycle that ensued from past invested efforts, might lead people to seek
employment elsewhere, and resign from a job with which they do not see any
congruence anymore. Illustrating the notion of adaptive functioning, this strategy
might also serve their career success, and broader subjective well-being. Overall,
there is abundant support for the significance of career adaptability, career resi-
lience, and/or employability as fundamental resources to cope with stressful and
adverse life situations, to overcome career barriers affecting the work life, and to
attain a successful life (e.g., Direnzo, Greenhaus, & Weer, 2015).

Interventions to Promote a Successful Life

The personal resources described in this chapter (i.e. career adaptability, resilience,
employability) are especially important when people face adverse working condi-
tions because of their ability to help people manage their career path during the
entire life course, and therefore enhance their personal and professional well-being.
For this reason, specific interventions should be developed and implemented to
enhance these personal resources. The life design paradigm emphasizes life-long,
holistic, contextual, and preventive interventions (Savickas et al., 2009). Career
interventions should therefore be available throughout life and help individuals to
identify and develop their skills and strengths in order to help them achieve the
goals that are meaningful to them. They should also encourage individuals to
consider all their life-roles, beyond the work context. The importance of the context
in which the individual lives should also be considered, and from this perspective,
life design interventions should be inclusive and consider contextual factors. Lastly,
interventions also have a preventive role, promoting attitudes, knowledge and
behaviors which are useful to improve personal and professional well-being on the
long run (Nota et al., 2015).
Consistent with this paradigm, and adopting a preventive perspective, career
interventions can be differentiated into environment-centered (“ecological”) and
person-centered (“individual”) interventions. The main goal of the environment-
centered interventions is to positively influence the environment in which indi-
viduals live (e.g. family, community, school, etc.). In this regard, parents, teachers,
5 The Importance of Career Adaptability, Career Resilience … 75

co-workers, employers, and the like can be actively involved in such a life design
intervention to help them in supporting their children’s, students’, workers’ healthy
development and personal well-being (Nota et al., 2015; Vera & Polamin, 2012).
Conversely, person-centered interventions work with individuals directly, through
actions aimed at stimulating their life designing skills. Thus, life design interven-
tions encourage counselees to narrate their career-life stories and stimulate the
development of their personal resources to help them deal better with adverse life
and working conditions, and to manage their career paths during their entire life
course (Nota et al., 2014; Savickas, 2013). It should be noted, though, that not all
people need this kind of an intervention, which should be directed primarily to
those individuals who are the most vulnerable in the career construction process,
such as young people, immigrants, individuals with disabilities, etc. (Nota et al.,
2014). Besides individual career counselling (Duarte & Cardoso, 2015), life design
interventions also include group interventions or computer-assisted interventions,
taking advantage of new information communication technologies that might
increase the availability of interventions and help people who traditionally do not
have easy access to career services (Sampson & Osborn, 2015).
Adopting a life-long, holistic, contextual, and preventive approach, several
group or computer-assisted interventions have been developed to activate and
develop individuals’ resources and strengths in order to promote a successful life.
For example, Ginevra, Di Maggio, Nota, and Soresi (2017) proposed a career
intervention strategy based on the life design paradigm to a group of 30 at-risk
young adults. The intervention aimed to support participants to project with their
future positively, identify their strengths, set personal and career goals, and plan
how to attain them. It includes online activities, group discussions, and guided
self-reflections on their own strengths, for a total of 10 h with the whole group
(divided into two groups of 15 participants) and individual activities. Quantitative
and qualitative evaluation at the end of the intervention showed an overall increase
in career adaptability resources and in a number of important actions and emotional
components for career planning. Moreover, overall satisfaction with and perceived
utility of the career intervention was established. Masdonati, Massoudi, and Rossier
(2009) alternatively proposed a face-to-face intervention strategy structured in
terms of three stages and a total of four to five one hour sessions. The first stage
concerned the clarification of individuals’ needs and planning of their goals; the
second was dedicated to assessment and information-seeking activities; and
the third focused on decision-making and implementation of the chosen option. The
authors noted, at the end of the intervention, decreased career decision difficulties
and increased life satisfaction in participants. In addition, they found that the quality
of the working alliance between the counselor and the client had a significant
impact on the effectiveness of the career intervention.
76 J. Rossier et al.

An Example of How Well-Being Can Be Promoted

Enhancing life satisfaction, as a subjective component of well-being, can be

regarded as the main goal of life-design related interventions, and as an indicator of
its effectiveness (Masdonati et al., 2009). Based on this premise and taking into
account the preventive nature of interventions based on life design, we now present a
training intervention strategy for middle school students that showed a positive
impact on career adaptability, on future wishes future, and on life satisfaction. This
intervention (entitled “1, 2, 3… Future!”) (Nota, Santilli, & Soresi, 2016) facilitates
low cost career activities for large groups of preadolescents. It comprises three
two-hour online sessions (six hours in total), and was developed to help middle
school students reflect on some relevant resources of their career construction. The
intervention is structured in three meetings (steps). Each of them starts with a 15-min
video in which the first two authors explain the constructs on which participants will
be requested to reflect on at a later stage. More specifically, the first video (first step)
concerns the relevance of looking toward the future and taking responsibility
thereof; the second video (second step) concentrates on features of the ‘knowledge
society’ and highlights the importance of investing in education and training.
Multiple goals and multiple strategies to be attained are formulated. Emphasis in the
videos is placed on the need to invest in several work and leisure activities to
ascertain more than one source of life satisfaction (Savickas et al., 2009).
After the presentation of the video, during the first and second meetings, online
questionnaires are administered to students. These measures pertain to investment in
education, hope, optimism, resilience, future orientation, career interests and values.
At the end of the second step, students receive a personalized report representing the
personal resources they recognized in themselves. In the third meeting, after the
video, participants are asked to write down personal and professional goals, con-
sistent with their strengths and wishes, and to identify career activities that could
help them to reach these goals. This online program induced more investment in
their future, concern about the future, control over their life, curiosity about how to
make career decisions, and confidence to make and implement such decisions, and,
possibly related to these achievements, elevated levels of well-being.

An Example to Promote Adaptive Functioning

An important premise underlying life-design interventions, such as, for example,

counseling activities, is that they can activate or sustain the development of regu-
lation processes, such as emotional regulation skills or career adapt-abilities
(Rossier, 2015). This activation, or increase in adaptability, is then expected to
enable individuals to develop appropriate adaptive responses, increasing their
employability and the likelihood of career-related behaviors and choices suited to
them.
5 The Importance of Career Adaptability, Career Resilience … 77

Illustrating this, Koen et al. (2012) successfully developed a one-day training

intervention that increased the career adaptability of university graduates, and
facilitated their school-to-work transition. Their theory-driven training is based on
Savickas’ (2013) recommendation that activities fostering the development and use
of career adaptability resources should be implemented, and capitalizes on existing
suggestions to increase the effectiveness of career professionals’ interventions
(Brown et al., 2003). Participants consecutively complete a series of exercises that
relate to four aspects, targeted at various resources, including the exploration of
their self and the occupational environment to stimulate their curiosity; the planning
of information-seeking strategies, short- and long-term goals to increase concern;
decision making in regard to possible options, actions, and goals to activate control;
and (throughout training), problem solving by means of a role play and discussion
on possible obstacles to strengthen confidence in one’s decisions. The training was
shown to be effective for three out of the four career adaptability resources, namely
career concern, control, and curiosity. More particularly, it increased career
curiosity in the short-term (i.e., three days after training), and career concern, and
control in the longer-term (i.e., six months later). Moreover, even though the
training did not increase graduates’ chance to find employment compared to the
control group, they generally reported a higher employment quality in terms of a
higher job satisfaction, person-organization fit, and perceived career success, as
well as lower turnover intentions. Longer interventions planned over a year can also
improve employability, and a range of career related psychological resources
(Hernández-Fernaud, Ruiz-de la Rosa, Negrin, Ramos-Sapena, & Hernandez,
2017).
Despite the promise showed by these interventions, it is important to note that
they might be particularly effective with people who are motivated to achieve
self-change. Furthermore, since adaptability might not be equally accessible to
individuals with lower levels of education (O’Connell, McNeely, & Hall, 2008),
follow-up sessions are needed. Additionally, sufficient time should be invested to
facilitate identification, and (re)mobilization, and implementation of resources with
more vulnerable populations. For people less ready to engage in such a process, it
would be important to first work on developing a good working alliance (Whiston,
Rossier, & Hernandez Barón, 2016) and/or increasing their motivation, by using,
for example, motivational interviewing techniques (Rochat & Rossier, 2016).

Conclusion

The holistic theoretical framework and interventions promoted by the life design
paradigm include consideration of both the constraints and resources of people and
of their environment. Taken together, they shape people’s career paths and their
broader evolution across the life span. However, these different factors all interact
constantly in a dynamic manner. The evolution of people can thus constantly
change because career adaptability and career resilience are central personal
78 J. Rossier et al.

resources that help people design and structure their lives and self-manage their
careers. These resources are essential to connect and structure in a meaningful
manner or in a life story, the different roles a person endorses (life-space) across
time (life-span) to sustain the integrity and continuity of the self. They allow thus to
connect and structure the different layers of the self as an actor, agent, or author
(McAdams, 2013). In adverse situations, such as periods of unemployment, people
are able to activate their resources. Life design career interventions are designed to
strengthen peoples’ resources and to help them activate and utilize their resources
and those facilitated by their environment. Positive outcomes are known to have a
positive impact on people’s self-efficacy beliefs, their self-esteem, and their
self-concept (sense of self). These positive self-perceptions can promote further
positive outcomes and thus nurture a positive dynamic, a virtuous cycle. The
opposite can, however, also occur. Negative events can promote the use of inap-
propriate coping mechanisms, such as self-handicapping behaviors, and thus induce
the emergence of a negative spiral. Life-design interventions should allow the
emergence and sustain the development of virtuous cycles or breaking of negative
spirals. These interventions can also help counselees influence their environment or
even help them change this environment, or to use their resources. Our contem-
porary work should be ready to face many important demographic, economic, and
ethical challenges and we will need to change our social structures in order to
manage them. Career adaptability and career resilience are resources that sustain
employability and promote successful life, but these resources are also important at
a collective level to promote decent life at a larger scale.

Acknowledgements The contribution of Jérôme Rossier and Grégoire Bollmann benefited from
the support of the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research LIVES—Overcoming
vulnerability: Life course perspectives, which is financed by the Swiss National Science
Foundation (grant number: 51NF40-160590). The authors are grateful to the Swiss National
Science Foundation for its financial assistance.

References

Barto, H., Lambert, S., & Brott, P. (2015). Career adaptability, resiliency and perceived obstacles
to career development of adolescent mothers. The Professional Counselor, 5, 53–66. doi:10.
15241/hb.5.1.53.
Bajaj, B., Robins, R. W., & Pande, N. (2016). Mediating role of self-esteem on the relationship
between mindfulness, anxiety, and depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 96,
127–131. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.085.
Bansak, K., Hainmueller, J., & Hangartner, D. (2016). How economic, humanitarian, and religious
concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers. Science, 354(6309), 217 LP-222.
Retrieved from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6309/217.abstract.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.
Bauman, Z. (2007). Liquid times: Living in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Bernardi, L., Bollmann, G., Potarca, G., & Rossier, J. (2017). Multidimensionality of well-being
and spillover effects across life domains: How do parenthood and personality affect changes in
5 The Importance of Career Adaptability, Career Resilience … 79

domain-specific satisfaction? Research in Human Development, 14, 26–51. doi:10.1080/

15427609.2016.1268893.
Berntson, E., Sverke, M., & Marklund, S. (2006). Predicting perceived employability: Human
capital or labour market opportunities? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 27, 223–244.
doi:10.1177/0143831x06063098.
Bickel, J. (2009). Career resilience: Are you equipped for a long journey? Academic Physician &
Scientist, 5, 4–5. doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0834-3.
Bollmann, G., Johnston, C. S., Maggiori, C. & Rossier, J. (submitted). Reciprocal changes in life
satisfaction and affect are moderated by self-rated health.
Brown, S. D., Ryan Krane, N. E., Brecheisen, J., Castelino, P., Budisin, I., Miller, M., et al.
(2003). Critical ingredients of career choice interventions: More analyses and new hypotheses.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 411–428. doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00052-0.
Celen-Demirtas, S., Konstam, V., & Tomek, S. (2015). Leisure activities in unemployed emerging
adults: Links to career adaptability and subjective well-being. The Career Development
Quarterly, 63, 209–222. doi:10.1002/cdq.12014.
Chan, S. H., Mai, X., Kuok, O. M. K., & Kong, S. H. (2016). The influence of satisfaction and
promotability on the relation between career adaptability and turnover intentions. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 92, 167–175. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.12.003.
Coetzee, M., Ferreira, N., & Potgieter, I. L. (2015). Assessing employability capacities and career
adaptability in a sample of human resource professionals. SA Journal of Human Resource
Management, 13, 1–9. doi:10.4102/sajhrm.v13i1.682
Coetzee, M., & Soltz, E. (2015). Employees’ satisfaction with retention factors: Exploring the role
of career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 83–91. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.04.
012.
Creed, P. A., & Hood, M. (2015). Process variables: Maturity, identity, decision making, and
adjustment. In P. J. Hartung, M. L. Savickas, & W. B. Walsh (Eds.), APA handbook of career
intervention: Foundations (Vol. 1, pp. 351–372). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/14438-019.
Crettaz, E. (2015). Poverty and material deprivation among European workers in times of crisis.
International Journal of Social Welfare, 24, 312–323. doi:10.1111/ijsw.12132.
Dagdeviren, H., Donoghue, M., & Promberger, M. (2016). Resilience, hardship and social
conditions. Journal of Social Policy, 45, 1–20. doi:10.1017/S004727941500032X.
De Cuyper, N. D., Bernhard-Oettel, C., Berntson, E., Witte, H. D., & Alarco, B. (2008).
Employability and employees’ well-being: Mediation by job insecurity. Applied Psychology,
57, 488–509. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00332.
Di Maggio, I., Ginevra, M. C., Nota, L., & Soresi, S. (2016). Development and validation of an
instrument to assess future orientation and resilience in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence,
51, 114–122. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.06.005.
Direnzo, M. S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Weer, C. H. (2015). Relationship between protean career
orientation and work–life balance: A resource perspective. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 36, 538–560. doi:10.1002/job.1996.
Duarte, M. E., & Cardoso, P. (2015). The life design paradigm: From practice to theory. In L. Nota
& J. Rossier (Eds.), Life design handbook: From practice to theory and from theory to practice
(pp. 41–57). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Duffy, R. D., Blustein, D. L., Diemer, M. A., & Autin, K. L. (2016). The psychology of working
theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63, 127–148. doi:10.1037/cou0000140.
Duffy, R. D., Douglass, R. P., & Autin, K. L. (2015). Career adaptability and academic
satisfaction: Examining work volition and self-efficacy as mediator. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 90, 46–54. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.07.007.
Edwards, J. R. (2008). Person-Environment fit in organizations: An assessment of theoretical
progress. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 167–230. doi:10.1080/19416520802211503.
Ferrari, L., Sgaramella, T. M., & Soresi, S. (2015). Bridging disability and work: Contribution and
challenges of life design. In L. Nota & J. Rossier (Eds.), Life design handbook: From practice
to theory and from theory to practice (pp. 219–232). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
80 J. Rossier et al.

Fiori, M., Bollmann, G., & Rossier, J. (2015). Exploring the path through which career
adaptability increases job satisfaction and lowers job stress: The role of affect. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 91, 113–121. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.08.010.
Fugate, M., & Kinicki, A. J. (2008). A dispositional approach to employability: Development of a
measure and test of implications for employee reactions to organizational change. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 503–527. doi:10.1348/096317907X241579.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its
dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 14–38. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.
2003.10.005.
Gazier, B. (1998). Employability: Concepts and policies. Berlin, Germany: European Employment
Observatory.
Ginevra, M. C., Di Maggio, I., Nota, L., & Soresi, S. (2017). Stimulating resources to cope with
challenging times and new realities: Effectiveness of a career intervention. International Journal
for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 17, 77-96. doi:10.1007/s10775-016-9331-0.
Guilbert, L., Bernaud, J.-L., Gouvernet, B., & Rossier, J. (2016). Employability: Review and
research prospects. International Journal of Educational and Vocational Guidance, 16, 69–89.
doi:10.1007/s10775-015-9288-4.
Guichard, J. (2015). From vocational guidance and career counselling to life design dialogues.
In L. Nota & J. Rossier (Eds.), Handbook of life design: From practice to theory and from
theory to practice (pp. 11–25). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Hernández-Fernaud, E., Ruiz-de la Rosa, C., Negrín, F., Ramos-Sapena, Y., & Hernández, B.
(2017). Efficacy of an intervention program to improve employability of university students.
Spanish Journal of Psychology, 20, 1–11. doi:10.1017/sjp.2016.103.
Herr, E. L. (1993). Contexts and influences on the need for personal flexibility for the 21st century:
Part II. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 27(4), 219–235.
Hirschi, A., & Dauwalder, J. (2015). Dynamics in career development: Personal and organizational
perspectives. In L. Nota & J. Rossier (Eds.), Handbook of life design: From practice to theory
and from theory to practice (pp. 27–39). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Jiang, Z. (2016). The relationship between career adaptability and job content plateau: The
mediating roles of fit perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 95–96, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.
jvb.2016.06.001.
Jiang, Z. (2017). Proactive personality and career adaptability: The role of thriving at work.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 85–97. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2016.10.003.
Johnston, C. S. (2016). A systematic review of the career adaptability literature and future outlook.
Journal of Career Assessment. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/1069072716679921.
King, Z., Burke, S., & Pemberton, J. (2005). The “bounded” career: An empirical study of human
capital, career mobility and outcomes in a mediated labour market. Human Relations, 58,
981–1007. doi:10.1177/0018726705058500.
Koen, J., Klehe, U.-C., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2012). Training career adaptability to facilitate a
successful school-to-work transition. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 395–408. doi:10.
1016/j.jvb.2012.10.003.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individual’s
fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and
person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.
00672.x.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation
and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543–562. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.
00164.
Lyons, S. T., Schweitzer, L., & Ng, E. S. W. (2015). Resilience in the modern career. Career
Development International, 20, 363–383. doi:10.1108/CDI-02-2015-0024.
Maggiori, C., Johnston, C., Krings, F., Massoudi, K., & Rossier, J. (2013). The role of career
adaptability and work conditions on general and professional well-being. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 83, 437–449. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.07.001.
5 The Importance of Career Adaptability, Career Resilience … 81

Masdonati, J., Massoudi, K., & Rossier, J. (2009). Effectiveness of career counseling and the
impact of the working alliance. Journal of Career Development, 36, 183–203. doi:10.1177/
0894845309340798.
Masten, A. S., & Obradović, J. (2006). Competence and resilience in development. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 13–27. doi:10.1196/annals.1376.003.
McAdams, D. P. (2013). The psychological self as actor, agent, and author. Perspectives on
Psychological Sciences, 8, 272–295. doi:10.1177/1745691612464657.
McArdle, S., Waters, L., Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. (2007). Employability during
unemployment: Adaptability, career identity and human and social capital. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 71, 247–264. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.06.003.
Nilforooshan, P., & Salimi, S. (2016). Career adaptability as a mediator between personality and
career engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 94, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2016.02.010.
Nauta, A., van Vianen, A., van der Heijden, B., van Dam, K., & Willemsen, M. (2009).
Understanding the factors that promote employability orientation: The impact of employability
culture, career satisfaction, and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 82, 233–251. doi:10.1348/096317908X320147.
Nota, L., Ginevra, M. C., & Santilli, S. (2015). Life design and prevention. In L. Nota & J. Rossier
(Eds.), Life design handbook: From practice to theory and from theory to practice
(pp. 183–199). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Nota, L., & Rossier, J. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of life design: From practice to theory and from
theory to practice. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Nota, L., Santilli, S., & Soresi, S. (2016). A life-design-based online career intervention for early
adolescents: Description and initial analysis. The Career development Quarterly, 64, 4–19.
doi:10.1002/cdq.12037.
Nota, L., Soresi, S., Ferrari, L., & Ginevra, M. C. (2014). Vocational designing and career
counselling in Europe: Challenges and new horizons. European Psychologist, 19, 248–259.
doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000189.
O’Connell, D. J., McNeely, E., & Hall, D. T. (2008). Unpacking personal adaptability. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 14, 248–251. doi:10.1177/1071791907311005.
Pouyaud, J. (2015). Vocational trajectories and people’s multiple identities: A life design. In
L. Nota & J. Rossier (Eds.), Handbook of life design: From practice to theory and from theory
to practice (pp. 59–74). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Rochat, S., & Rossier, J. (2016). Integrating motivational interviewing in career counseling: A case
study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93, 150–162. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2016.02.003.
Rossier, J. (2015). Career adaptability and life designing. In L. Nota & J. Rossier (Eds.),
Handbook of life design: From practice to theory and from theory to practice (pp. 153–167).
Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Rossier, J., Maggiori, C., & Zimmermann, G. (2015). From career adaptability to subjective
identity forms. In A. di Fabio & J.-L. Bernaud (Eds.), The construction of the identiy in 21st
century: A Festschrift for Jean Guichard (pp. 45–57). New York, NY: Nova Science
Publishers.
Rothwell, A. T. (2015). Employability. In P. J. Hartung, M. L. Savickas, & W. B. Walsh (Eds.),
APA handbook of career intervention: Foundations (Vol. 2, pp. 337–350). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14439-025.
Rudolph, C. W., Lavigne, K., & Zacher, H. (2017). Career adaptability: A meta-analysis of
relationships with measures of adaptivity, adapting responses, and adaptation results. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 98, 17–34. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2016.09.002.
Sampson, J. P., & Osborn, D. S. (2015). Using information and communication technology in
delivering career interventions. In P. J. Hartung, M. L. Savickas, & W. B. Walsh (Eds.), APA
handbook of career intervention. Applications (pp. 57–70). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Savickas, M. L. (1997). Adaptability: An integrative construct for life-span, life-space theory.
Career Development Quarterly, 45, 247–259. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1997.tb00469.x.
82 J. Rossier et al.

Savickas, M. L. (2013). Career construction theory and practice. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent
(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed.,
pp. 144–180). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Savickas, M. L., Nota, L., Rossier, J., Dauwalder, J.-P., Duarte, M. E., Guichard, J., ... van Vianen,
A. E. M. (2009). Life designing: A paradigm for career construction in the 21st century.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 239–250. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.04.004.
Seery, M. D., Holman, E. A., & Silver, R. C. (2010). Whatever does not kill us: Cumulative
lifetime adversity, vulnerability, and resilience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
99, 1025–1041. doi:10.1037/a0021344.
Simons, J. C., & Buitendach, J. H. (2013). Psychological capital, work engagement and
organisational commitment amongst call centre employees in South Africa. SA Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 39, 1–12. doi:10.4102/sajip.v39i2.1071.
Standing, G. (2010). Work after globalization: Building occupational citizenship. Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar.
Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 16, 282–298. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(80)90056-1.
Super, D. E., & Knasel, E. G. (1981). Career development in adulthood: Some theoretical
problems and a possible solution. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 9, 194–201.
doi:10.1080/03069888100760211.
Tatarkiewicz, W. (1947). O Szczęściu [Analysis of happiness]. Kraków, Poland:
Wiedza-Zawód-Kultura.
Trevor, C. O. (2001). Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and job
satisfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44,
621–638. doi:10.2307/3069407.
Vera, E. M., & Polanin, M. K. (2012). Prevention and counseling psychology: A simple yet
difficult commitment. In E. M. Vera (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of prevention in counseling
psychology (pp. 3–17). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wang, M., Olson, D. A., & Shultz, K. S. (2013). Mid and late career issues: An integrative
perspective. New York, NY: Routledge Academic Press.
Whiston, S. C., Rossier, J., & Hernandez Barón, P. M. (2016). Working alliance in career
counseling: A systematic overview. Journal of Career Assessment, 24, 591-604. doi:10.1177/
1069072715615849.
Wittekind, A., Raeder, S., & Grote, G. (2010). A longitudinal study of determinants of perceived
employability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 566–586. doi:10.1002/job.646.