Printer Friendly

Self efficacy & career self management: moderating role of proactive personality.


Scholars have emphasized the need for a better understanding of career self management (King, 2004; Kossek et. al, 1998) due to the changing nature of career moving from a traditional, "bounded" and driven by employment relations to being boundaryless and increasingly self directed by the employee (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996). Despite extensive studies in vocational behavior about the role of self efficacy, there has been little consideration of the role of self efficacy for career self management (King, 2004). King (2001) pointed to the little consideration given while examining the relationship of self efficacy and career self-management though Crant (2000) has argued that self efficacy is associated with proactive behavior. The objective of the present study is to bridge the gap by examining the influence of self efficacy and career self management with the moderating role of proactive personality.

Career Self Management

Career self-management has been defined as the degree to which one regularly gathers information and plans for career problem solving and decision making (Kossek et al., 1998). Studies reveal that individuals seek and collect information related to their careers to assess personal competence and job opportunities to take informed decisions about their careers. Greenhaus's (1987) has defined career management as a problem solving method by which individuals gather relevant information through career exploration to develop a greater awareness of themselves and their environment, in order to develop career strategies. Individuals need to understand their own strengths and weakness before making decisions regarding their careers. Seeking information related to one's career is central to the effectiveness of the entire career management process. Orpen (1994) argued that career management is the "joint responsibility" of both individuals and the organizations employing them. Organization career management consists of policies and practices deployed to increase the career effectiveness of its employees while individual career management (career self-management) consists of personal efforts made by employees to advance in their own careers (Open, 1994).

In order to manage one's own career well, individuals take on new roles and responsibilities, engage in constant self monitoring and review their perceptions associated with their careers Kossek et al. (1998). The concept of career self management is grounded on the concept of career resilience where individuals strive be aware of one's strengths and weakness, keep oneself updated about market trends, proactively working towards skill sets that the organization needs in the near future and accordingly updating one's skill set (Waterman, Waterman & Collard, 1994). Such individuals are more likely to seek feedback on their strengths and weakness. Career self management also overlaps with career exploration and management (Greenhaus, 1987; Hall, 1986).

Career literature has focused on individuals collecting career related information to explore job opportunities in order to aid career decision making. "Career exploration" has been defined as an individual's collection and analysis of career-related information (Kossek et al., 1998) and is central to the effectiveness of the entire career management process. The information gathering process concerns not only the existing role or current employer but also other prospective employers or other career opportunities. For this purpose individuals also network either formally or informally to know about other job opportunities. In other words, career self management aims at gathering information that would help individuals prepare oneself for movement internal or external based on career opportunities (Kossek et al., 1998).

However, career self management need not essentially focus on mobility outside the existing organization. For example, King (2004) noted that a comprehensive view of career management needs to consider inter-organizational mobility and motivational factors like personal development and knowledge gathered. However, careers possibly can have a personal as well as a vocational meaning for many people. Most career theorists acknowledge that "career" includes non work sphere also, therefore it is important to consider relationship between work and non work areas (King, 2004). A holistic picture of career self management needs to consider individual aspirations for their lives beyond work boundaries and explore adjustment mechanisms while they are with their families or while they are fulfilling their commitments to leisure (King, 2004). Career self management gets demonstrated through developmental feedback seeking and job mobility preparedness (Kossek et al.,1998).

Proactive Personality

Crant (2000) defined proactive behavior as "taking initiative in improving current circumstance or creating new ones; it involves challenging status quo rather than passively adapting to present conditions". He proposed an integrated model relating antecedents of proactivity to proactive behavior in organizations leading to career outcomes in which one set of individual difference variables that were used to capture proactive behavior across situations was proactive personality and personal initiative (Seibert et al., 2001). Bateman and Crant, (1993) define proactive personality as "one who is relatively unconstrained by situational forces, and who effects environmental change". They viewed proactive personality as a favorable disposition to proactive behaviors. Proactive people scan the environment, demonstrate initiative through specific actions and persist until they bring about change (Bateman and Crant, 1993). On the contrary people who are not proactive fail to identify opportunities to bring about change. Such individuals lack initiative and rely on others for change (Bateman and Crant, 1993).

Proactive individuals treat their jobs and careers differently compared to less proactive people (Seibert et al., 1999). They are more likely to engage in opportunities for self improvement through high education or acquiring skills for future promotions. This personal initiative is an active self starting approach going beyond the boundaries for formal job mandates (Frese et al., 1996, 1997). By taking initiative and being proactive allows the individual to develop long term focus outside the requirements of role (Frese et. al, 1996). Both initiative and being proactive are likely to be mutually inclusive. For example, Frese et al., (1997) noted that personal initiative and proactive personality are theoretically similar. Proactive individuals tend to take initiative to do things without being prompted to do so. Both the concepts of proactive personality and personal initiative describe propensities towards proactive behavior (Crant, 2000).

Self Efficacy

Self efficacy, a key element in Bandura's (1977a, 1977b) social learning theory refers to an individual's belief in the capability to perform a specific task. Self efficacy is defined as "people's judgment of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances" (Bandura, 1986: 391). Bandura's (2001) social cognitive theory proposes that humans are evaluative, proactive regulators of their actions and that self efficacy influences human agency. Self efficacy arises through acquisition of cognitive, social, and/or physical skills through experience and it affects one's choice of settings and activities, effort spent and the initiation and persistence of coping efforts in the face of adverse situations (Bandura, 1982). Stronger is an individual's self efficacy beliefs, more likely that the individual persist to perform successfully in a job. Research has also proven that self efficacy is associated with increased effort, persistence and goal directed behavior (Bandura, 1986). Hackett and Betz (1981) and Betz and Hackett, (1981) reported the applicability of self efficacy to theory of vocational behavior.

Self Efficacy & Career Self Management

Self efficacy affects the extent to which an individual engages in career self management (King, 2004). Self efficacy arises out of a realistic appraisal of one's own capabilities. Self efficacy has been positively linked to developmental orientation such as the ability to continue career growth (Bell & Staw, 1989). Kossek et. al, (1998) found the career self efficacy influenced career self management. People who are high on self efficacy are more likely to engage in career self management behaviors. It is highly unlikely to expect career management behaviors from individuals who do not believe that they would be able to perform those activities. King (2001) argued that attainment of career outcomes are likely to be associated with a person's level of self efficacy, and people who have attained their desired career outcomes might be expected to have higher self efficacy compared to those who have not. Bandura (1977a) suggested that efficacy expectations also influence the choice of environment. For example, assuming all other factors controllable and held constant, an employee with high self efficacy might choose to apply for an advertised vacancy that offers more challenge and pay, while an employee with low self efficacy might choose to remain in the current situation. Individuals appear to weigh, integrate, and evaluate information about their capabilities before regulating their choices and efforts accordingly (Bandura, Adams, Hardy & Howells, 1980). Bandura (1982) explained that self efficacy affects one's choice of settings and activities, skill acquisition, effort expenditure, the persistence of coping efforts in the face of obstacles. Those with moderate to high self efficacy tend to persist longer in coping efforts when engaging in task related activities; this leads to more mastery experiences, which in turn enhance self efficacy. While those with low self efficacy tend to engage in fewer coping efforts; give up more easily under adversity and demonstrate less mastery, which in turn reinforces their low self efficacy (Bandura, 1977a, 1982). Therefore it is reasonable to assume that people with high levels of self efficacy are more likely to engage in career self management compared to those with low levels of self efficacy. The present study focuses on examining the influence of self efficacy and career management behaviors, hence as opposed to generalized self efficacy, career self efficacy is chosen as the predictor variable. Kossek et al. (1998) defined career self efficacy as "the employee's belief that the employee is competent and able to self-manage his or her career". In their study Kossek et al. (1998) defined career self management behaviors as being related to job mobility preparedness and development feedback seeking. It is expected that people with high levels of self efficacy will engage in career self management behaviors more often. Thus based on the discussion, it is proposed that:

H1a: Career self efficacy will positively influence career self management behaviors such as job mobility preparedness

H1b: Career self efficacy will positively influence career self management behaviors such as developmental feedback seeking behaviors

Proactive Personality

There is strong theoretical evidence to suggest that personality variables should be included in models of career management (Seibert et al., 1999). Career researchers have proposed that individuals in boundaryless careers need to be proactive (Mivris & Hall, 1996). Proactive individuals approach their jobs and careers differently than less proactive people (Seibert et al., 1999). Unlike demonstrating passive behavior and being reactive to situations, proactive individuals seek information for improving things (Crant, 2000). Proactive behaviors are characterized in a number of work-related situations like, challenging the status quo or actively managing one's career (Ashford & Black, 1996).

Past studies on career management have focused on a single aspect such as exploration behavior (e.g. Stumpf, Colarelli &Hartman, 1983). Some of the behaviors could involve proactively seeking information about current job opportunities available, updating one's resume on timely basis, attending job fares or forums where recruiters meet or network with people who could provide vital information on various openings in the job market and the kind of profile being sought for. Greater is the information sought regarding one's career greater is the likelihood of accurate estimation of development opportunities to set correct career expectation based on one's experience (Stumpf & Hartman, 1984). In the event of failure to engage in such exploratory behavior either due to complacency or fear results in insufficient data for career problem solving and decision making (Greenhaus, 1988). Development feedback seeking is more self-directed towards improving one's competency by engaging in dialogue to learn new skills, acquire knowledge and subsequently improve performance.

Past research shows that proactive behaviors like personal initiative correlated in engaging in career management behaviors like career planning and executing them (Frese et al., 1997). According to Bateman and Crant (1993), proactive individuals take initiative for actions to bring about positive change and persevere until that goal is attained. They also explained that proactive individuals actively engaged in networking to potentially advance in their careers. Certain individuals could engage in proactive behavior as a part of their role. For example, quality engineer might proactively check the defects in the finished product without being asked to fulfill a larger goal of quality assurance. Extra role behaviors can also be proactive (Crant, 2000). For example, individuals might identify opportunities for internal movements within an organization (say from R&D to sales) to change the nature of their responsibilities that are in alignment with their own areas of interests or strengths.

Proactive personality has been found to influence career management behaviors with respect to career success (Seibert et. al., 1999, Claes and Ruiz-Quintanilla, 1998). Proactive personality and behaviors have been associated with career management behaviors like career planning (Frese et. al., 1997). Researchers have mentioned that individual differences may be important to ascertain the extent to which individuals take initiative in career management (Bell and Staw, 1989; Seibert et. al., 1999). Proactive individuals are more likely to engage in career management activities such as seeking out job and organizational information, obtaining sponsorship and career support, conducting career planning and persisting in the face of career obstacles (Ashford & Black, 1996; Frese et al., 1997). Though individuals may have an accurate self assessment of their own capabilities, they may not necessarily engage in career management behaviors if they lack proactive personality. Thus it is expected that proactive personality will moderate the relationship between self efficacy and career self management. Koessek et al. (1998) define career self management in two main ways: job mobility preparedness and developmental feedback seeking. While both are potentially useful in obtaining desirable career outcomes, focus of activities are different. Job mobility behavior focuses mainly on collecting information by exploring ones networks to gather data on potential career opportunities.

Parker et al., (2006) reported support for engaging in proactive behaviors that involve making decisions whether such actions will be successful and involves assessments about one's capability to engage in such behaviors (self efficacy). Their study adds to the existing literature by proving that proactive personality has its effect on self efficacy. Building one's self efficacy is more likely to build a proactive workforce (Parker et. al., 2006). Proactive individuals tend to have greater self determination and self efficacy (Greenberger & Strasser, 1986; Greenberger, Strasser & Lee, 1988). Proactive people are expected to take complex action difficult to sustain oneself even at times of difficulties. Self efficacy would determine their persistence in their efforts towards overcoming these difficulties. This is so because self efficacy helps to increase the probability of performing a challenging action. Conversely, people with low self efficacy would shirk personal initiative since they are likely to avoid challenging situations in quickly giving up in face of obstacles (Speier & Frese, 1997). When situations provide an opportunity to work on challenging assignments, person not only learns but also develops a sense of mastery, which is self efficacy (Speier & Frese, 1997). Therefore it is proposed that:

H2a: Proactive personality will moderate the relationship between career self efficacy and career self management behaviors like job mobility preparedness behavior such that the relationship will be stronger at higher than lower levels of proactive personality

H2b: Proactive personality will moderate the relationship between career self efficacy and career self management behaviors like self developmental feedback seeking behaviors such that the relationship will be stronger at higher than lower levels of proactive personality

Participants & Procedure

Data for the present study were collected by means of a questionnaire. The researcher used snowball sampling approach, which is a commonly used means for data collection through a few people known to the researcher. These persons served as informants helping in locating others who would qualify for being included in the sample. 45 employees from various manufacturing companies were asked to participate voluntarily in this study. The researcher self-administered a questionnaire with an accompanying cover letter that stated the purpose of the research. The initial set of participants were met and were asked to identify up to ten individuals each from the managerial and/or non-managerial ranks from their respective organizations and to request them to anonymously fill out surveys and return them directly in sealed envelopes.

In total, 186 completed questionnaires were received out of approximately 302 distributed yielding a response rate of 62 percent. Responding managers and non managers were from over 38 manufacturing companies based in India from a variety of functional backgrounds and occupations, including sales/ marketing (22 percent), managerial (16 percent), production (35 percent), customer service (8 percent) and administrative (19 percent). The mean age of the sample was 34.72 years (SD = 9.26) and the mean organizational tenure was 6.78 years (SD = 3.8). Women represented 32 percent of the respondents and they were on the av erage younger than men were. About 72 percent of the respondents were married and 12 percent held a post graduation degree.


Career self efficacy was measured using the 11 item scale developed by Kossek et. al (1998). Sample items include, "When I decide to do something about my career, I go right to work on it", When I have something unpleasant to do that will help my career, I stick with it until I am finished" and "I rely on myself to accomplish my career goals". The response scale for career self efficacy was a Likert-type scale anchored by "1 = strongly agree" to "5 = strongly disagree". The present study indicated coefficient of alpha as 0.81.

Proactive personality was measured using the ten item scale from Bateman and Crant (1993). Sample items include, "I am constantly on the look out for new ways to improve my life", "I enjoy facing and overcoming obstacles to my ideas" and "No matter what the odds, if I believe in something I will make it happen". Respondents indicated on a 7point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) their levels of agreement that each of the statements is an "accurate description of yourself." Seibert et al. (1999, 2001) have used the same scale for their study. In the present study the internal consistency reported was 0.85

Career self management was measured through job mobility preparedness and developmental feedback seeking behaviors (Kossek et. al.,1998). The same scale was used by Chiaburu et al. (2006). Employees had to respond to specific questions after reading the initial statement ("Over the past six months, to what extent have you......"). Developmental feedback seeking (five item scale) included questions such as {"to what extent have you initiated feedback about your....} "Service to your customers", "Career progress to date" and "Training and development needs". The response scale for development feedback seeking behaviors was a Likert-type scale anchored by "1 = not at all" to "5 = a great deal". Coefficient alpha for the present study was 0.83.

For job mobility preparedness (seven item scale) employees were asked about the extent to which they "Reviewed internal job postings", "Sought out any new personal connections at work for the purpose of furthering your career" and "Thought about what position you would like to have next". The response scale for development feedback seeking behaviors was a Likert-type scale anchored by "1 = not at all" to "5 = a great deal". Internal consistency for the present study was reported to be 0.79

Two variables were controlled, gender and work experience (Mihail, 2008) that have been found to be significant predictors of career self management. Gender was assessed as a dichotomous variable (coded 0 = female, 1 = male). Work experience was measured by the number of years of the respondents' total work experience in the current organization.


The study used hierarchical multiple regression to test the hypotheses by entering the control variables first, the main effect variables second, and the interaction term last. The interaction term was formed by transforming the raw scores of the causal and moderator variables into deviation scores with means equal to zero. Such transformation eliminates problems of multi-collinearity with the interaction term due to scaling (Aiken & West, 1991). The entire data set was tested for violations of the assumptions of linearity, normality, heteroscedasticity, and multi-collinearity; no significant problems were found after three outlier cases were deleted and work experience variables was transformed into log forms.

To examine the internal structure and convergence validity of career self efficacy and proactive personality the items were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis using Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) criterion with Barlett Test of Sphericity and "varimax" rotation. Three factors emerged with an adjusted goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of 0.92 and a rootmean-square residual (RMSR) of .04 and with loadings ranging from 0.61 to 0.89.

Table I presents the means, standard deviations, and inter correlations of the variables. On the average, respondents reported experiencing a level of proactive personality of 5.86 (measured on a seven point scale), career self efficacy of 3.78, self developmental feedback of 3.14 and job mobility preparedness of 3.67 (measured on a five-point scale). Proactive personality was positively and significantly related to self development feedback (r = 0.36, p < 0.001) and job mobility preparedness (r = 0.44, p < 0.001) consistent with the findings of Chiaburu et al. (2006) findings. Career self efficacy was significantly and positively correlated with proactive personality (r = 0.42, p < 0.001) supporting Brown et al. (2006) findings of positive correlation between proactive personality and self efficacy. Similarly, career self efficacy was positively correlated with self developmental feedback (r =0.51, p < 0.001) and job mobility behavior (r =0.39, p < 0.001); both correlations being supported by Kossek et al. (1998) findings. The strongest correlations were found between career self efficacy and self development feedback and between career self efficacy and job mobility preparedness.

The effects of career self efficacy and proactive personality on career self management variables are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

H1a predicted that career self efficacy would positively influence job mobility preparedness, and H1b predicted that career self efficacy would positively influence developmental feedback seeking. Multiple regression analysis testing the main effects model yielded significant and positive regression of career self efficacy on job mobility preparedness (8 = 0.21, p < 0.01) and on self developmental feedback (8 = 0.28, p < 0.001), suggesting support for the two hypothesis.

H2a predicted that proactive personality would moderate the relationship between career self efficacy and job mobility preparedness behaviors and H2b stated that proactive personality will moderate the relationship between career self efficacy and developmental feedback seeking behaviors. As shown in model 3 (Table 3), there is a significant interaction between career self efficacy and proactive personality for development feedback seeking behavior ([beta] = 0.16, p < 0.001) that explained variance in the model due to the main effects ([DELTA] [R.sup.z] = 0.02, p < 0.001). Similarly the interaction term between career self efficacy and proactive personality for job mobility preparedness behavior shown in model 3 (Table 3) is significant and positive ([beta] = 0.19, p < 0.001) ([DELTA] [R.sup.z] = 0.03, p < 0.001). Thus, H2a and H2b are supported. Simple slope analysis was performed (Aiken & West, 1991) taking into consideration high (one standard deviation above the mean) and low (one standard deviation below the mean) levels of the moderator.



Post hoc analysis showed that for those employees with low proactive personality, career self management was not related to job mobility preparedness ([beta] = 0.22, t = 1.65, p > 0.05) and development feedback seeking ([beta] = 0.12, t = 1.57, p > 0.05), whereas for those with high proactive personality, career self management was positively related to job mobility preparedness ([beta] = 1.93, t = 3.65, p < 0.05) and development feedback seeking ([beta] = 0.53, t = 3.45, p < 0.05). These results provided support for both H2a and H2b.


Understanding the factors that affect career self management is important for organizations seeking to develop motivated and competent workforces. One such factor that recently gained prominence in career research is proactive personality (Chiaburu et al., 2006). Specifically, this study focused on the effects of career self efficacy and proactive personality on career self management behaviors. Career self efficacy was found to predict both job mobility behavior and development feedback seeking behaviors. The study also empirically examined the moderating role that proactive personality played in facilitating the effects of career self efficacy on career self management behaviors. The findings indicated that proactive personality moderated the positive effects of career self efficacy on both job mobility preparedness behavior and development feedback seeking behavior. High proactive individuals reported high levels of job mobility preparedness and development feedback seeking compared to their counterparts who were characterized with low proactive personality. From traditional conceptualization of careers with movement being restricted within a single firm to being boundaryless (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996), it can be anticipated that proactive personality would remain a potent contributor to an individual's overall career management, an idea brought out in research (Seibert et al., 1999). Proactive individuals may have more employment options allowing them to select organizations where there is congruence between their individual values and preferences (Brown et al., 2006). Chiaburu et al. (2006) emphasized the need to study other factors that influenced the relationship between proactive personality and career self management. From the available data it is clear that proactive personality has considerable utility in understanding career self management behaviors. The present study proves that presence of proactive personality increased the positive significant influence of career self efficacy on career self management behaviors. This suggests that employees with strong career self efficacy are more likely to engage in career self management behaviors with proactive personality being an important factor.

Theoretical Implications

The present study contributes to the existing literature on career management. Prior studies found that training programs had no effect in changing career selfmanagement behaviors (Kossek et al., 1998), the present study found empirical evidence to the existence of an alternative predictor, proactive personality along with career self efficacy. Prior studies related proactive personality to career outcomes like promotion and salary increase (Seibert et al. 2001), and successful job search (Brown et al 2006). Unlike job search that is directed towards movement outside the existing firm, career self management are directed towards movement outside one's current position, business unit or the firm (Kossek et al. 1998). The present study adds to the existing theory by proving that proactive personality moderates the relationship between career self efficacy and career self management behaviors.

Implications for Practice

The above findings have implications for practitioners interested in career counseling or mangers who make decisions related to the career self-management behaviors of their employees. Although career self efficacy is positively related to career self-management behaviors, this relationship is moderated by proactive personality. Proactive individuals may have more employment options due to which they may choose to select jobs that are more satisfying or select to work in organizations that match their personal values. For example, studies have shown that proactive personality as a stable individual difference can be altered through training interventions (Kirby, Kirby & Lewis, 2002). Organizations could review the degree to which they have formal and institutional plans for managing employees' careers, encouragement organizations provide to individuals to develop themselves and the extent to which such schemes provide information to employees on job opportunities within the organization (Orpen, 1994). Researchers have studied the consequences of person organization fit post their hire and demonstrated that it can positively impact employee attitudes, commitment and turnover intentions (Cable & Judge, 1996). Orpen (1994) argued that career management schemes work best when organization and individuals both take equal ownership with clearly defined roles. Thus organizations can encourage employees to move within the organization taking different roles rather than opting out for a change. Organizations can encourage employees to discuss and express their interest in specific jobs within the current organization, assess their own strengths and weakness in pursuit of their career accomplishments. Career management policies can provide support to employees seeking development feedback and provide information on job openings and alternative career paths within the organization (Orpen, 1994). Therefore, organizations where career management schemes are perceived as being fair will cause employees to have better career experience within the organization. Individual career planning activities can be aligned to opportunities available within the organization, increasing organization commitment.

Limitations & Directions

First, the cross-sectional nature of the data restricts our ability to make causal inferences. It is therefore, recommened that future studies test these relationships in models designed to capture cause and effect. Second, data collection from a single source could result in single-source bias. In addition, given the focus of the study on information related to individual-directed variables (proactive personality and career self efficacy) and career self-management behaviors that are most accurately reported by the individual employees (job mobility preparedness and developmental feedback-seeking), these individuals were the most reliable source of information, as in other similar studies (Kossek et al., 1998, Chiaburu et al., 2006). More importantly, the results of several studies suggest that common method effects are less of a threat than researchers think, or are a threat only in specific situations (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Finally, this study was conducted only across manufacturing organizations in India; therefore generalizability of the present findings should be dealt with caution until confirmed by multiple studies based on data obtained from other sectors.


Aiken, L. & West S. (1991), Multiple Regressions: Testing and Interpreting Interactions Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Ashford, S.J. & Black, J.S. (1996), "Proactivity during Organizational Entry: the Role for Desire for Control", Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (2): 199-214.

Arthur, M. B, Rousseau, D.M. (1996), "Introduction: The boundaryless Career as a New Employment Principle", in Arthur M & Rousseau D (Eds.), The Boundaryless Career: A New Employment Principle for a New Organizational Era. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bandura, A. (1977a), "Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change", Psychological Review, 84 (2): 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1977b), Social Learning Theory; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1982), "Self Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency", American Psychologist, 37 (2): 122-147

Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: a Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall Press, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bandura, A. (2001), "Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective", Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (2):1-26.

Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B. & Howells, G. N. (1980), "Tests of the Generality of Self-efficacy Theory", Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4 (1): 39-66.

Bateman, T.S. & Crant, J.M. (1993), "The Proactive Component of Organizational Behavior: a Measure and Correlates", Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14 (2): 103-18.

Bell, N& Staw B. (1989), "People as Sculptor versus Sculpture: The Role of Personality and Personal Control in Organizations", in Arthur M, Hall D.T, Lawrence B.S. (Eds.), Handbook of Career Theory, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Betz, N.E. & Hackett, G. (1981), "The Relationship of Career Related Self Efficacy Expectations to Perceived Career Options in Collage Women and Men", Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28 (5): 399-410.

Brown, D. J., Cober, R.T., Kane, K., Levy, P.E. & Shalhoop, J (2006), "Proactive Personality and Successful Job Search: A Field Investigation with College Students", Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (3): 717-26.

Cable, D. M. & Judge, T. (1996), "Person-Organization Fit, Job Choice Decisions, and Organizational Entry", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 (3), 294-311.

Chiaburu, D.S., Baker, V.L. & Pitariu, A.H. (2006), "Beyond Being Proactive: What Else Matters for Career Self-management Behaviors?" Career Development International, 11 (7): 619- 32.

Claes, R. & Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A. (1998), "Influences of Early Career Experiences, Occupational Group & National Culture on Proactive Career Behavior", Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52 (3): 357-78.

Crant, J. M. (2000), "Proactive Behavior in Organizations", Journal of Management, 26 (3): 435-62.

Frese, M, Kring, W., Soose, A.& Zempel, J (1996), "Personal Initiative at Work: Differences between East and West Germany", Academy of Management Journal, 39 (1): 37-63.

Frese, M, Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K.& Tag, A. (1997), "The Concept of Personal Initiative: Operationalization, Reliability and Validity in Two German Samples", Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 70 (2): 139-61. Greenberger, D.B., Strasser, S & Lee, S. (1988),

"Personal Control as a Mediator between Perceptions of Supervisory Behaviors and Employee Reactions," Academy of Management Journal, 31 (2): 405-17

Greenberger, D. B. & Strasser, S. (1986), "The Development and Application of a Model of Personal Control in Organizations", Academy of Management Review, 11 (1): 164-77.

Greenhaus J.H. (1987), Career Management, Hillsdale, IL: Dryden Press.

Greenhaus J.H. (1988), "Career Exploration", in London M, Mone, B (Eds.), Career Growth and Human Resource Strategies: The Role of the Human Resource Professional in Employee Development, Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Hackett, G. & Betz, N.E (1981), "A Self Efficacy Approach to the Career Development of Women", Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18 (3): 326-39.

Hall D.T. (1986), "An Overview of Current Career Development Theory, Research and Practice", Career Development in Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

King, Z (2001), "Career Self Management: A Framework for Guidance of Employed Adults" British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 29 (1): 65-78.

King, Z (2004), "Career Self management: Its Nature, Causes and Consequences", Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65 (1): 112-33

Kirby, E. G., Kirby, S. L. & Lewis, M. A. (2002), "A Study of the Effectiveness of Training Proactive Thinking", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32 (7): 1538-49.

Kossek, E.E, Roberts, K., Fisher, S. & DeMarr, B., (1998), "Career Self management: A Quasi Experimental Assessment of the Effects of a Training Intervention", Personnel Psychology, 51 (4): 935-62.

Mirvis, P.H. & Hall, D.T. (1996), "Psychological Success and the Boundaryless Career", in Arthur, M. B. Rousseau D. M (Eds.). The Boundaryless Career. A New Employment Principle for a New Organization, New York: Oxford University Press.

Orpen, C. (1994), "The Effects of Organizational and Individual Career Management on Career Success", International Journal of Manpower, 15 (1): 27-37.

Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M., & Turner, N. (2006), "Modeling the Antecedents of Proactive Behavior at Work", Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (3): 636-52.

Podsakoff, P. & Organ, D. (1986), "Self-reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects", Journal of Management, 12 (4): 531-44.

Seibert, S.E., Crant, J.M. & Kraimer, M.L. (1999), "Proactive Personality and Career Success", Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (3): 416-27

Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L. & Crant, J.M. (2001), "What Do Proactive People Do? A Longitudinal Model Linking Proactive Personality and Career Success", Personnel Psychology, 54 (4): 845-74.

Stumpf, S. & Hartman, K. (1984), "Individual Exploration to Organizational Commitment or Withdrawal", Academy of Management Journal, 27 (2): 308-29

Stumpf. S. A., Colarelli, S. M. & Hartman, K.

(1983), "Development of the Career Exploration Survey (CES)", Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22 (2): 191-226.

Speier, C. & Frese, M. (1997), "Generalized Self-efficacy as a Mediator and Moderator between Control and Complexity at Work and Personal Initiative: A Longitudinal Field Study in East Germany", Human Performance, 10 (2): 171-92.

Waterman, R.H., Waterman, J.A., & Collard, B.A. (1994), "Toward a Career-resilient Workforce", Harvard Business Review, 72 (4): 87-95

Srikanth P.B. is from XLRI, School of Business & Human Resources, Jamshedpur 831035 E-Mail:
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics: Means, Standard Deviations &

Variable                         Means   SD      1         2

1. Gender a                      0.67    0.47    --
2. Work experience b             1.78    0.19    0.03 *    --
3. Career self efficacy          3.78    0.34    0.09      0.54 **
4. Proactive personality         5.86    0.32    0.04      0.41 **
5. Self developmental feedback   3.14    0.36   -0.19     -0.59 **
6. Job mobility preparedness     3.67    0.33   -0.03     -0.43 **

Variable                          3         4         5        6

1. Gender a
2. Work experience b
3. Career self efficacy           --
4. Proactive personality         -0.42 **   --
5. Self developmental feedback    0.51 **   0.36 **   --
6. Job mobility preparedness      0.39 **   0.44 **   0.39 **   --

Notes: a: code 0 = female, 1 = male; b: natural logarithm; * p <
0.01, ** p < 0.001, n = 186

Table 2 Hierarchical Regression Results for the Effects of Career
Self Management & Proactive Personality on Developmental Feedback
Seeking Behaviors

                                 Model 1             Model 2

Variable                     [beta]     SE        [beta]     SE

Step 1: control variables
Gender                        0.42      0.01      -0.29      0.02
Work experience              -0.37 **   0.06      -0.31 **   0.04
Step 2: main effects
Career self efficacy                               0.26 **   0.04
Proactive personality                              0.52 **   0.04
Step 3: interaction effect
Career self efficacy X
Proactive personality
[R.sup.z]                               0.48 **              0.78 **
[DELTA] in                                                   0.29 ***

                                Model 3

Variable                     [beta]    SE

Step 1: control variables
Gender                       0.26      0.02
Work experience              0.32 *    0.04
Step 2: main effects
Career self efficacy         0.28 **   0.04
Proactive personality        0.54 **   0.05
Step 3: interaction effect
Career self efficacy X       0.16 **   0.06
Proactive personality
[R.sup.z]                              0.80 ***
[DELTA] in                             0.02 ***

Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, n = 186

Table 3 Hierarchical Regression Results for the Effects of Career
Self Management & Proactive Personality on Job Mobility Preparedness

                                  Mode 1              Model 2

Variable                     [beta]      SE        [beta]     SE

Step 1: control variables
Gender                       -0.49       0.02      -0.38      0.03
Work experience              -0.42 ***   0.06      -0.43 **   0.02
Step 2: main effects
Career self efficacy                               0 .17 *    0.11
Proactive personality                              0 .52 **   0.11
Step 3: interaction effect
Career self efficacy X
Proactive personality
[R.sup.z]                                0.39 **              0.64 **
[DELTA] in [R.sup.z]                                          0.24 **

                                 Model 3

Variable                     [beta]     SE

Step 1: control variables
Gender                       -0.37      0.01
Work experience              -0.43 *    0.04
Step 2: main effects
Career self efficacy          0.21 **   0.11
Proactive personality         0.55 **   0.11
Step 3: interaction effect
Career self efficacy X        0.19 **   0.16
Proactive personality
[R.sup.z]                               0.67 ***
[DELTA] in [R.sup.z]                    0.03 ***

Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, n = 186
COPYRIGHT 2012 Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:P.B., Srikanth
Publication:Indian Journal of Industrial Relations
Article Type:Abstract
Geographic Code:9INDI
Date:Oct 1, 2012
Previous Article:Determinants of talent retention in bpo industry.
Next Article:Relationship between job satisfaction & job performance: a meta-analysis.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters