Inglês (pdf)
Artigo em XML
Referências do artigo
Tradução automática
Permalink
Career development has changed significantly over time, in line with changes in society and the world of work (Kenny et al., 2018; Knight & Parker, 2021). In the last decade, approaches that consider context and narratives have gained importance, as they allow a broader look at career issues in the current panorama and consider the relevance of contextual and relational factors with regard to the construction of each individual’s trajectories (Hartung, 2022; Savickas, 2020).
The concept of career adaptability was first outlined in 1980, when Donald Super conceptualized a career as a sequence of roles that a person plays throughout their life cycle. He also highlighted the concept of career maturity, considering that vocational development takes place during adolescence and early adulthood (Chen et al., 2020). However, it was psychologist Mark Savickas, years later, who restructured the concept, dividing it into four dimensions: concern, control, curiosity and confidence. Concern refers to the positive orientation towards the future of one’s career; control relates to the ability to control attempts to prepare for one’s professional future; curiosity denotes the ability to explore possible future career scenarios; and confidence refers to the willingness to implement one’s professional plans (Savickas, 2020; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012).
Social and labor relations changes have required variations in career guidance practices, as the era of stability and predictability has given way to the era of uncertainty. If before the indicator of success was to spend your life in the same company, today everyone is building their career path based on experiences that make sense and add value for them, even if they must change companies and occupations many times (Wehmeyer et al., 2019).
With the instability of the economy, mainly due to the industrial revolution, the existing career model ceased to be an orderly sequence and began to challenge the working class, which had to deal with frequent changes (Haenggli & Hirschi, 2023). If, on the one hand, Latin America, which has always presented a more unstable reality, both economically and socially, was already a favorable place to study the different ways of dealing with careers, Europe and the United States, until then, were more favorable spaces for building linear and predictable careers (Ribeiro, 2013). Changes, however, have taken place all over the world, albeit to different degrees.
In the early 2000s, only 40% of US workers were formally employed and the other 60% held outsourced and short-term jobs (Savickas, 2020). According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), in 2013 the unemployment rate in the United States rose by 16.3%, while in Europe it rose by 11%. In Brazil, according to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (2021), the unemployment rate was estimated at 13.2% in 2021. In the same year, the percentage of people with a work permit was 53.2%, two percentage points higher than the estimate for 2020, when the lowest level in the historical series was observed - 51.2%.
In this context, career adaptability, defined as the ability to deal with changes in the market and working conditions (Haenggli & Hirschi, 2023; Savickas, 2020), has gained relevance. All these transformations, after all, require not only the development of new skills, but also proactivity in creating your own professional opportunities (Nota et al., 2014). Being proactive means anticipating needs and problems. In the workplace, this is a skill that goes beyond formal requirements and can be summarized as the action of carrying out activities that transform people and the scenarios in which they are inserted (Savickas, 2020).
Rapid technological evolution, the automation of industrial processes, and globalization, as well as economic crises such as that caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, are some of the challenges facing the economy, which are generating a greater number of informal jobs and increasing the number of unemployed people (Haenggli & Hirschi, 2023). As a result, individuals are increasingly concerned and need to start thinking about ways of developing adaptability skills, so that they can find new ways of planning their professional future (Nota et al., 2014). Despite not offering many rewards, companies are demanding knowledge and adaptability skills from workers. The imbalance between what is offered and what is demanded can result in dissatisfaction and decreased performance (Nota et al., 2014). It is therefore important for each individual to create opportunities to develop their capacity for career adaptability, to avoid frustration and unwanted results.
While employers should strive to create jobs with motivational potential (Siruri & Cheche, 2021), employees also need to take responsibility for their own work-related well-being. Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) argued that employees can shape the boundaries of their jobs by creating a work environment that suits their preferences, skills and competencies. This process of proactively influencing someone’s work is called job crafting.
The concept of job crafting appeared in the early 2000s and can be defined as a proactive action to design work (Grant & Parker, 2009). The focus of this skill is to build your own tools to align your work with the preferences and motivations of the worker. It is important to note that researchers Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) identified that job crafting can be observed in all types of workers, from the most qualified to the least specialized. They also pointed out that the job crafting process does not always bring benefits to the company, as it depends on the context in which the employee is inserted.
A central feature of job crafting is that employees initiate changes in their work from the bottom up, rather than managers directing changes from the top down, as is often the case. This allows employees to take advantage of the unique knowledge they have of their job and themselves to create their jobs in more meaningful ways (Berg et al., 2010).
Job crafting is particularly critical as a route to meaning in modern work contexts (Wrzesniewski et al., 2010). The idea of employees working from a fixed job description is becoming less common. In a rapidly changing knowledge economy, organizations value employee proactivity (Parker et al., 2019). Rather than reacting to a set of job responsibilities, employees’ personal initiatives in shaping their jobs can offer benefits to organizations by fostering the capacity for innovation and adaptability, as well as contributing to engagement at work (Lisbona et al., 2018).
Job crafting consists of the dimensions of task crafting, relational crafting and cognitive crafting. Understanding and developing job crafting actions can provide a significant competitive advantage (Grant & Parker, 2009). Task crafting involves modifying the scope of tasks, such as adding new responsibilities or changing the way tasks are carried out. Relational crafting focuses on social interactions in the workplace. Relational crafting involves changing the nature of the interactions and/or the quantity of them. It can be, for example, a way for the professional to seek out new connections, make adjustments to team dynamics or expand or reduce contacts with certain people (Grant & Parker, 2009). There is also cognitive crafting, which is directly linked to each individual’s motivation, as its purpose is to help professionals better align their work with their personal values and desires, which brings benefits such as improved performance and increased engagement with work (Knight et al., 2021).
Generations X - born between 1965 and 1980 - and Y - born between 1981 and 1996 - share the ideal of freedom of choice and the search for meaningful work (Twenge, 2006). In this way, they create a lot of expectations about what they dream of for their careers. This new way of thinking is characterized by a tendency towards higher turnover at work, more frequent changes in tasks and responsibilities and changes in working relationships. The main objective of this new dynamic is to seek greater meaning at work, as well as promoting greater engagement. From the point of view of organizations, it is very interesting to have employees who give new meaning to their work, because productivity depends on the commitment of each worker. In short, both employees and organizations can benefit from this trend, in which employees are more proactive and redesign their tasks and relationships.
In this context, the aim of this study was to analyze the extent to which personal characteristics (the four dimensions of career adaptability) explain job crafting (proactive actions on the part of the individual) and whether any aspect has a greater impact on this relationship. More specifically, this study sought to investigate (1) how the career adaptability variables are related; (2) which ones have the greatest impact on different types of job crafting; and (3) whether curiosity, control, confidence and concern predict levels of job crafting in adults. It is hypothesized that career adaptability and job crafting are concepts that have a positive association and that, therefore, the dimensions of career adaptability influence the three types of job crafting (Wehmeyer et al., 2019). In addition, career adaptability is expected to act as an antecedent to job crafting, i.e. it is assumed that the ability to adapt to new scenarios quickly facilitates job crafting actions (Wrzesniewski et al., 2010).
Method
Participants
A total of 253 workers took part in this study, accessed online for convenience, aged between 19 and 77 (M = 45.40; SD = 12.25). The inclusion criteria were participants aged at least 18 years old, who are working or have worked. The participants’ sociodemographic data is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Sociodemographic data
| Frequency | Percentage | |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 74 | 29.2 |
| Female | 179 | 70.8 |
| Education | ||
| Complete primary education | 2 | 0.8 |
| High school complete | 16 | 6.3 |
| Higher education incomplete | 41 | 16.2 |
| Higher education complete | 130 | 51.4 |
| Complete post-graduate degree | 64 | 25.3 |
| Marital status | ||
| Married/stable union | 159 | 62.8 |
| Single | 58 | 22.9 |
| Divorced/Separated | 30 | 11.9 |
| Widowed | 6 | 2.4 |
| Type of organization you work for | ||
| Private institution | 168 | 66.4 |
| Public institution | 30 | 11.9 |
| Startup | 27 | 10.7 |
| Self-employed | 28 | 11.1 |
Note. Source - The authors (2024).
Instruments
Initially, a sociodemographic characterization questionnaire was administered, prepared by the researchers, with the aim of obtaining information such as age, marital status, gender, schooling, family income, academic background (if applicable), occupation and position. To assess career adaptability, the Career Adaptability Scale (CAT) was used (Audibert & Teixeira, 2015), in its adapted version of the international instrument with 24 items (six per dimension). This is made up of 22 items (divided by dimension) and has adjustment indices like those obtained in other countries (Career Adapt-Abilities Scale, Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). The CAT is divided into four dimensions: concern, control, curiosity and confidence. In the scale adaptation study, the scale was found to have good fit indices (Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.951; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.945; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA, 90% I. C.) = 0.077 (0.073 - 0.080)) and satisfactory internal consistency in all dimensions (concern, α = 0.83; control, α = 0.74; curiosity, α = 0.79; and confidence, α = 0.85) (Audibert & Teixeira, 2015). In the present sample, the scale showed adequate fit and internal consistency indices (CFI = 0.948; TLI = 0.948; RMSEA (90% C.I.) = 0.078 (0.070 - 0.086); concern, α = 0.90; control, α = 0.91; curiosity, α = 0.90; and confidence, α = 0.92).
Job crafting was assessed using the Job Crafting Scale, which showed good psychometric qualities (TLI = 0.93; RMSEA (90% CI) = 0.042 (0.000 - 0.065) and high internal consistency (task crafting, composite reliability (fc) = 0.80; cognitive crafting, fc = 0.93 and relational crafting, fc = 0.70). This scale is made up of three factors (task crafting, relational crafting and cognitive crafting) and contains 15 items. All items are scored with a frequency rating of 6 points, on a scale ranging from 1 (rarely) to 6 (very often) (Pimenta de Devotto & Machado, 2020; Wrzesniewski et al., 2010). In this study, the scale obtained satisfactory fit and internal consistency indices (CFI = 0.942; TLI = 0.930; RMSEA (90% C.I.) = 0.085 (0.072 - 0.097); task crafting, ⍺ = 0.76; cognitive crafting, ⍺ = 0.88; and relational crafting, ⍺ = 0.78).
Procedures
Data collection. Participants were invited to contribute to this study by spreading the word about the research via email and social media (WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram). In addition, the communication of the survey was based on the chain of reference technique, better known as “snowballing”, in which study participants were able to indicate other people who might be interested in the survey (Patton, 2014).
The survey was collected via the Survey Monkey online platform over a period of four months, from February to May 2022, without any face-to-face contact with the respondent, who could choose whether to declare their contact email address at the end of the questionnaire. Participants only had access to the survey after agreeing to the Informed Consent Form (ICF). In order to keep the identity of the respondent confidential, the forms were not labeled by name.
Data analysis. Initially, descriptive analyses were carried out to investigate data distribution, the presence of outliers and missings. Forty-six participants with missings in the instruments applied were identified, who were excluded from the final sample and were not included in any stage of the data analysis. Data from the adaptability and job crafting scales did not show normal distribution, based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p < 0.05). In order to obtain the means and standard deviation of the adaptability and job crafting dimensions, the raw scores of these variables were calculated. However, the Pearson correlation, network and regression analyses were developed using the factor scores obtained through the confirmatory factor analysis of each instrument, applying the Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance Adjusted (WLSMV). Thus, the network and regression analyses used the factor scores of the variables investigated in this study.
After carrying out a zero-order Pearson analysis to identify the associations between the variables, a network analysis was carried out to investigate the relationships between the dimensions of adaptability and job crafting actions. In network analysis, the variables are presented as nodes, with positive relationships indicated by continuous edges and negative relationships by dotted edges. The thickness of the edges and the proximity of the nodes help to understand the magnitude of the relationships in the analyzed network, so that the greater the thickness of the edge and the proximity of the nodes, the greater the magnitude of the variables present in the system. The Lasso (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) penalty is applied so that low-magnitude relationships take on a value of zero and allow a parsimonious network to be obtained (Burger et al., 2023).
Based on the results of the network analysis, the contribution of the adaptability dimensions (concern, control, curiosity and trust) to redesign actions at work (task crafting, relational crafting and cognitive crafting) was assessed. A path analysis was therefore conducted, investigating whether the dimensions of adaptability act as antecedents of job crafting actions. Data analysis was carried out using the R program, version 4.1.2.
Ethical Considerations
This study was submitted to the Research Ethics Committee of the university where it was carried out, as well as to the Brazil Platform, and only began after it had been duly approved, under CAAE No. 57258422.2.0000.5235. All the study procedures, from planning to execution, were carried out considering the ethical criteria according to the Guidelines and Regulatory Norms for Research Involving Human Beings, in accordance with Resolution 466/12 of the National Health Council (CNS).
Participants were informed of the purpose of the research, as well as the data collection and analysis procedures. Only the university’s researchers had access to the information, thus guaranteeing the privacy of all respondents. This research represented minimal risk, as there was no intervention that could in any way impact the physical, psychological, social, cultural or spiritual structures of the participant. At the beginning of the research, before starting to answer the form, the participant was informed of their right to interrupt or withdraw from the study at any time, should there be any discomfort or need, without any burden or problem being caused. Participants only responded to the instruments after signing the informed consent form.
Results
The average scores for the adaptability variables and job crafting actions were moderate, with the lowest average being concern (M = 3.36; SD = 0.79) and the highest being cognitive crafting (M = 4.08; SD = 0.69). The results of the zero-order Pearson correlation analysis showed that the variables were positively and significantly associated. The network analysis showed that all the dimensions of adaptability (concern, control, curiosity and confidence) explained the dimensions of job crafting (task crafting, cognitive crafting and relational crafting). The adaptability variables established a strong relationship with each other, as did the dimensions of job crafting (Figure 1).
Note. P = Concern; Cn = Control; Cr = Curiosity; Cf = Confidence; RT = Task Crafting; RC = Cognitive Crafting; RR = Relational Crafting
Figure 1 Result of the network model
The relationship between the adaptability and job crafting variables was positive, weak to moderate, across all the dimensions measured by the instruments, as can be seen in Table 2. The analysis also showed that the curiosity variable played a central role.
Table 2 Magnitude of bivariate associations and network analysis between the dimensions of adaptability and job crafting in network analysis
| M (SD) | Pre | Con | Cur | Conf | RT | RC | RR | |
| Pre | 3.36 (0.79) | 0.18 | 0.38 | - | - | - | - | |
| Con | 3.91 (0.78) | 0.56** | 0.19 | 0.34 | - | 0.16 | - | |
| Cur | 3.56 (0.82) | 0.66** | 0.65** | 0.29 | - | 0.15 | - | |
| Conf | 3.95 (0.74) | 0. 49** | 0.66** | 0.65** | 0.18 | - | - | |
| RT | 3.76 (0.56) | 0.48** | 0.50** | 0.54** | 0.53** | 0.15 | 0.24 | |
| RC | 4.08 (0.69) | 0.44** | 0.43** | 0.51** | 0.34** | 0.44** | 0.26 | |
| RR | 3.50 (0.71) | 0.37** | 0.26** | 0.42** | 0.33** | 0.48** | 0.51** |
Note. M = Mean obtained from raw scores; SD = Standard Deviation obtained from raw scores; Pre = Concern; Con = Control; Cur = Curiosity; Conf = Confidence; RT = Task Crafting; RC = Cognitive Crafting; RR = Relational Crafting; Magnitudes shown on the lower diagonal refer to zero-order Pearson correlation analyses; ** p < 0.001; Magnitudes shown on the upper diagonal refer to network analysis magnitudes.
In order to investigate whether the dimensions of adaptability act as antecedents of job crafting actions, two models were tested. In the first model, the variables concern, trust, curiosity and control were inserted as antecedents. It was observed that the concern and curiosity dimensions contributed to explaining the three job crafting actions. The levels of control were antecedents of relational crafting, while trust explained the levels of task crafting. This model explained 34.6% of task crafting, 27.1% of cognitive crafting and 21.6% of relational crafting (Table 3).
Table 3 Results of the models tested using path analysis
| Outcome | Background | ||||
| Model 1 | R² | Pre (β) | Con (β) | Cur (β) | Conf (β) |
| RT | 0.346 | 0.151* | 0.061 | 0.241* | 0.237* |
| RC | 0.271 | 0.178* | 0.088 | 0.347* | 0.039 |
| RR | 0.216 | 0.234* | 0.347* | 0.294* | 0.112 |
| Model 2 | |||||
| RT | 0.343 | 0.163* | 0.251* | 0.265* | |
| RC | 0.267 | 0.193* | 0.369* | ||
| RR | 0.204 | 0.213* | 0.282* | ||
Note. Pre = Preoccupation; Con = Control; Cur = Curiosity; Conf = Confidence; RT = Task Crafting; RC = Cognitive Crafting; RR = Relational Crafting; ** = < 0.01; * = < 0.05.
Considering the results, a second model was tested in which the dimensions of job crafting were explained by the variables concern and curiosity, which were significant with all the job crafting variables, and trust, which was only significant with task crafting in Model 1 (Table 3). The second model showed that the dimensions of adaptability acted as antecedents to job crafting actions. Model 2 explained 34.3% of task crafting, 26.7% of cognitive crafting and 20.4% of relational crafting (Table 3).
Discussion
The main objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between the construct of career adaptability, in its four dimensions, and job crafting. The results indicated that all the dimensions of career adaptability, concern, control, curiosity and confidence (Savickas & Porfeli 2012) contribute to the three types of job crafting - relational crafting, cognitive crafting and task crafting.
(Pimenta de Devotto et al., 2022; Wrzesniewski et al., 2010). The four dimensions of adaptability are defined as adaptive resources that focus on managing critical tasks and transitions throughout the career-building process, thus proving important for job crafting. Although all the relationships were positive, curiosity stood out as the factor that most influences job crafting. Curiosity, which can be summarized as an interest in seeking development, deepening knowledge and seeking new challenges (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012), proved to have a strong relationship with all three forms of job crafting. This can be explained by the fact that it is a characteristic related to the ability to investigate future career prospects and, in some way, anticipate scenarios for more assertive actions (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012).
In the network analysis, the relationship between confidence, a characteristic of the individual who is sure of their actions and believes they will achieve their goals, and the and the task crafting was highlighted (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). This was also observed in the control dimension, i.e. it was clear that the greater the ability to take responsibility for their actions, the more the individual is able to transform their role at work. The concern dimension had a greater link with task crafting and relational crafting, but was also associated with cognitive crafting, a form of job crafting related to meaning and purpose, although with slightly less impact. Concern refers to a positive orientation towards the future of one’s career (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012) and, therefore, this characteristic in a worker can influence a greater attitude towards modifying the scope of tasks, such as adding new responsibilities, and seeking new social interactions in the workplace (Grant & Parker, 2009).
It is important to note that, in addition to the strong relationship between the dimensions of adaptability and job crafting, the two separately established a strong relationship with each other. The fundamental hypothesis was therefore confirmed - career adaptability and job crafting are closely connected concepts. In today’s labor market, career trajectories are increasingly the responsibility of the individual, who is gaining autonomy to lead changes in their professional life (Savickas & Baker, 2005; Vazquez et al., 2019). Likewise, the concept of job crafting has as its central characteristic the changes made autonomously by the individual, without any request or demand from the company or leader. Therefore, faced with this very changeable and volatile professional reality, which demands proactivity and self-responsibility, the worker is obliged to build paths in search of professional fulfillment and meaning (Wrzesniewski et al., 2010). The importance of adapting and taking responsibility for managing one’s own career, as well as resulting in greater commitment, generates concern for the future, making people able to make decisions that are more in line with their objectives.
The least significant relationships were found between trust and relational crafting and concern and cognitive crafting. On the other hand, the most significant relationships were between curiosity and control and cognitive crafting. The literature contains several studies on job crafting and its relationship with engagement (Groot et al., 2019; Vakola et al., 2021; Vazquez et al., 2019), but no studies were found that related the concept to career adaptability, which is why this research is so important.
The design of each career will depend largely on who leads it. From an individual point of view, the person will have to develop their own professional skills that contribute to building meaning and satisfaction in their journey (Savickas, 2019). Job crafting behavior, on the other hand, is motivated by monitoring the work context in order to avoid its negative effects, and by interactions with work partners. The consequences of such behaviors are related to the meaning of work and the achievement of a positive identity within the work environment, which will contribute to job satisfaction (Berg et al., 2010). Therefore, understanding how each dimension of career adaptability harmonizes with job crafting reinforced the hypothesis that adaptability behaves as an antecedent to job crafting, i.e. the more curious, concerned, confident and controlling the individual is, the greater their ability to redesign their task, relationships and results (Berg et al., 2010).
This study presents data from Brazilian workers on adaptability and job crafting, contributing to discussions on this topic. However, it is a cross-sectional study, with a primarily female sample, with higher education, and its limitations are that it does not track levels of adaptability and job crafting over the years, nor does it consider different generations or genders. As a suggestion for further research, it would be interesting to consider more heterogeneous samples, as well as including the engagement and subjective well-being constructs in order to observe the relationships between all the dimensions.
In summary, it can be concluded that the greater each individual’s potential to adapt to new scenarios, the greater their ability to make adjustments to their work and feel more satisfaction (Frese & Fay, 2001). This study contributes to an understanding of the intimate relationship between the dimensions of career adaptability and the three forms of job crafting and endorses the importance of the link between the individual and the environment for greater satisfaction and well-being in the job market. From the point of view of organizations, it is extremely important to know their employees better, giving relevance to understanding how personal characteristics can help or hinder each worker’s performance.
