Career Adaptability: The Role
of Developmental Leadership
and Career Optimism
, and Ben Searle
Researchers suggest contextual and personal factors may interact to predict career adaptability and
that antecedents of career adaptability have received less research attention. Consequently, we
examined the relationship between developmental leadership, career optimism, and career adapt-
ability, and the potential moderating role of career optimism. Data were collected from workers
pursuing an MBA program in leadership and other business courses in a Ghanaian University. Results
showed that developmental leadership and career optimism relates positively to career adaptability.
Finally, we observed developmental leadership relates positively to career adaptability for employees
low on optimism but was unrelated to career adaptability for employees high on optimism. Together,
the results suggest that although both developmental leadership and career optimism are beneficial for
career adaptability, developmental leadership is particularly important, for less optimistic employees.
We have discussed implications and limitations of our findings.
career adaptability, developmental leadership, career optimism, Ghana
Computerization of jobs, along with constantly changing job demands and labor markets (Bimrose &
Hearne, 2012; Fleigh-Palmer, Luthans, & Mandernach, 2009; Sylva, Mol, Den Hartog, & Dorenbosch,
2019), has contributed to creating a dynamic and decentralizedwork environment in modernorganizations
(Frese & Fay, 2001; Grant & Parker, 2009). These developments have created work settings requiring
employees to deal with changing responsibilities and novel situations (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2007;
Frese & Fay, 2001; Grant & Parker, 2009). To meet shifting career requirements and seize opportunities
to excel, employees need to be adaptive,capable not only of coping with change but also of taking initiative
in enhancing their fit to the changing work environment (Grant & Parker, 2009; Parker & Collins, 2010).
Proactive person–environment fit is a phenomenon that describes a wide range of work behaviors,
including feedback inquiry (Ashford & Black, 1996; Ashford et al., 2003), feedback monitoring
Fisher, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Eric Delle, Fisher, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Journal of Career Development
ªCurators of the University
of Missouri 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
(Parker & Collins, 2010), and career initiative (Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). Career-focused
proactive person–environment fit can also involve proactively planning one’s career, extending one’s
competences and skills, and consulting with one’s supervisor in order to maximize fit between oneself
and one’s work environment (e.g., Tharenou & Terry, 1998). A psychological construct encompassing
these important capabilities is career adaptability, a psychosocial resource that enables people to align
themselves to their work (Savickas, 2013; Tolentino et al., 2014). Career adaptability has been linked
with career satisfaction and self-rated career performance (Zacher, 2014), entrepreneurial intentions
(Tolentino et al., 2014), and job search self-efficacy (Guan et al., 2013).
The benefits of career adaptability provide opportunity for identifying and examining potential
antecedents. Previous studies show that positive psychological traits including hope, optimism, and
resilience (Buyukgoze-Kavas, 2016); and conscientiousness, cognitive flexibility, and vocational envi-
ronmental exploration (Chong & Leong, 2017) relate positively to career adaptability. Utilizing the
social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent & Brown, 2019) as a framework, we contend that contex-
tual and personal factors may have a direct or interactive effect on career adaptability. Specifically, the
SCCT argues that contextual support, self-efficacy beliefs, and outcome expectations could directly or
interactively predict career behavior. Furthermore, previous studies suggest that contextual and per-
sonal factors may interact to predict career adaptability (Tolentino et al., 2014). Consequently, in line
with the SCCT and suggestions by previous researchers, we examine the direct and interactive role of
developmental leadership (i.e., a contextual factor) and career optimism (i.e., outcome expectations or
personal factor) on career adaptability in the Ghanaian context.
Theory and Hypotheses Development
Career adaptability and developmental leadership. Career adaptability represents a vital psychosocial
capability that enables employees to anticipate, prepare for, and cope with changing work contexts
(Savickas, 1997). Career adaptability facilitates self-preparation and proactive adjustment to changing
work contexts (Chan & Mai, 2015). According to Savickas (1997), career adaptability is “the readiness
to cope with predictable tasks of preparing for and participating in work role and with the unpredict-
able adjustments prompted by changes in work and working conditions” (p. 254). Career adaptability
encapsulates three vital elements: “planful attitudes (i.e., developing values, skills, and abilities that
fits one into relevant careers), self- and environmental exploration (i.e., searching for or aligning to
a career or environment that fits one’s personal characteristics), and informed decision-making” about
careers (Savickas, 1997, p. 254). Therefore, career adaptability comprises behaviors, competencies,
and attitudes that might enable employees to fit well into changing work environments (Savickas,
2013). This conceptualization reveals that career adaptability could also be considered a form of proac-
tive person–environment fit behavior (Parker & Collins, 2010), whereby employees anticipate, plan,
and take actions independently to better adapt themselves to their work environments.
Zacher (2014), in a survey of Australian employees, found that career adaptability relates positively
to career satisfaction and self-rated career performance. Further, Tolentino and colleagues (2014)
found that career adaptability enhances entrepreneurial intentions. This may occur because being able
to adapt to changing demands while planning ways to maximize opportunities inculcates in people the
motivation and skills to succeed in changing environments (Savickas, 2013) and cope with emerging
career concerns (Creed et al., 2009). Given these benefits, it is worthwhile to investigate ways to facil-
itate career adaptability.
Leadership might help employees to function more effectively in changing work environments.
Research shows that empowering and contingent reward leadership behaviors relate more positively
to resilient behaviors at work (Nguyen et al., 2016) and change-related outcomes (Ahearne et al.,
2005; Pearce & Sims, 2002). Leadership behaviors that focus on the personal development and growth
of employees, clarify work goals and expectations to employees, provide support, and encourage
2Journal of Career Development XX(X)
participation at work are more likely to enhance career adaptability and related phenomena (Bardoel
et al., 2014; Harland et al., 2004; King & Rothstein, 2010; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). This study there-
fore focuses on developmental leadership behaviors as a predictor of career adaptability.
Developmental leadership represents a style of leadership, or a set of leader behaviors, that is/are
aimed at developing and enhancing employees’ work-related knowledge, skills, and competences as
well as facilitating their personal and career development (Zhang & Chen, 2013). Developmental lead-
ership behaviors, such as mentoring, coaching, guiding, counseling, and providing performance feed-
back and developmental opportunities (House, 1996), might help employees to function effectively in
the work environment. Apart from focusing on the individual, developmental leaders are development
oriented, as they pay attention to differences among followers and discover what motivates them
through careful observation, career counseling, performance feedback, delegation, and training (Bass,
1985) to enable them to perform in changing work environment.
Previous studies show that leadership behaviors are likely to help followers succeed in changing
work environments. For example, Nguyen and colleagues (2016) showed that empowering and con-
tingent reward leadership behaviors are associated with greater resilient behaviors (i.e., change adapt-
ability, learning, and networking). Furthermore, Wang et al. (2017), in a survey of employees in the
Netherlands, found that transformational leadership relates positively to adaptability. Together, these
empirical evidence suggests that through behaviors such as providing performance feedback and
coaching to increase the adaptive resources of followers, developmental leaders would make their
followers feel self-efficacious (Higgins et al., 2010; Lawler, 1986) and therefore, more capable of
handling tasks in dynamic work environments. Thus, we hypothesize that
Hypothesis 1: Developmental leadership relates positively to career adaptability.
Career adaptability and career optimism. Optimism is an inherent human tendency as people generally
expect to experience positive rather than negative events in future (Sharot, 2011; Varki, 2009).
Accordingly, Scheier and Carver (1985) defined generalized optimism as the inclination to expect pos-
itive outcomes in the future despite perceived obstacles and difficulties. Optimism is helpful in work
contexts as it can stimulate the determination to pursue career goals (Brown & Marshall, 2001) and to
adjust well to changing work environment (Carver et al., 2010). In the context of careers, we define
career optimism as the positive expectations about one’s impending career growth (Rottinghaus
et al., 2005) as well as the confidence about one’s ability to overcome work demands in changing work
environment (Hennessey et al., 2008).
Career optimism and career adaptability are distinct constructs. Vocational psychology researchers
differentiate the two constructs, as adaptivity (i.e., a stable, context-general, and trait-like psychologi-
cal characteristic which involves the readiness and willingness to adapt to career change; Rudolph
et al., 2017) and adaptability resources (i.e., the self-regulated psychosocial advantages for managing
transitions and tasks; Hirschi et al., 2015). Following previous studies, we view career optimism as a
personal indicator of adaptivity (Fang et al., 2018; Rudolph et al., 2017) and career adaptability as
adaptability resources (Hirschi et al., 2015; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012).
Positive expectations facilitate goal accomplishment because they increase the confidence and
effort of the individual (Bowlby, 1988). In the context of careers, the SCCT (Lent et al., 1994), a mod-
ification of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, is generally utilized to examine contextual, per-
son, and behavior factors that have the potential to shape career development (Lent & Brown, 2019).
According to the SCCT, person (e.g., self-efficacy and positive expectations) and contextual factors
(e.g., social support) might enable individuals to construct their careers (Lent & Brown, 2019).
Positive expectation (i.e., career optimism) has been associated with job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and performance (Kluemper et al., 2009; Youssef & Luthans, 2007); and elements of
Delle and Searle 3
adaptability including adjustment to college (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992) and coping with unemploy-
ment (Wanberg, 1997). This suggests that career optimism is likely to facilitate career adaptability.
Although some studies relate optimism to career adaptability, these come from nonwork contexts. For
example, Aspinwall et al. (2001), in a survey of Australian university students, showed that trait opti-
mism relates to career adaptability. Similarly, Rottinghaus and colleagues (2005) found that optimistic
students were likely to experience greater career adaptability. However, recent evidence shows that opti-
mism has the potential to influence career adaptability in work contexts. For example, Nguyen and col-
leagues (2016) showed that optimism relates more positively to resilient behaviors (i.e., a form of
adaptability in the face of change) at work. Furthermore, optimism is more likely to stimulate employees
to show commitment to change, cope with dynamic work contexts, and display positive behaviors at
work (Kool & Dierendonck, 2012; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Therefore, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 2: Career optimism relates positively to career adaptability.
Career optimism as a moderator. Although we have argued that developmental leadership is likely to
support career adaptability, it may not do so for everyone. The effect of leadership behavior on fol-
lowers may depend on follower characteristics (Howell et al., 1997; Shamir & Howell, 1999).
Researchers suggest that individual characteristics (Tolentino et al., 2014) including adaptive readi-
ness (Savickas, 2013), proactive personality, and optimism (Nguyen et al., 2016) might interact with
leadership to influence employee outcomes. Consequently, we suggest that the developmental leader-
ship may be beneficial to some than other followers. Therefore, it is worthwhile to investigate follower
characteristics that may predispose followers to benefit or not from developmental leadership.
Developmental supports have been seen to enhance optimism, including career optimism (Garcia et al.,
2015), but few studies have examinedhow the two interact.Nguyen and colleagues (2016) argued that opti-
mism acts as a resource that can helps employees succeed regardless of leader assistance. Optimistic indi-
viduals possess adaptive resources, as they are flexible, view the future positively, and more inclined to see
career difficulties as challenges rather than threats (Chang, 1998; Smith et al., 1993). This level of confi-
dence enables optimists to handle potential work obstacles better than their counterparts who are low on
optimism. Research shows that optimists, ratherthan pessimists, are more likely to continue gambling after
unsuccessful attempts (Gibson & Sanbonmatsu, 2004). Conversely, pessimists are more likely to take per-
formance feedback and developmental opportunities from their supervisors more seriously (Sweeny &
Shepperd, 2010), leading them to experience less disappointments and negative affect in future. This sug-
gests that leaders may be able to make more of a difference when providing developmental support to the
more pessimistic members of their team. Nguyen and colleagues (2016) found that contingent reward lead-
ership was more strongly associated with resilient behavior for pessimistic employees more than for opti-
mistic employees. Consequently, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 3: Developmental leadership relates positively to career adaptability for
employees low rather than high on career optimism.
Participants and Sample
Most African economies are categorized as emerging economies. In emerging economies, technology
and competition have made work contexts dynamic more recently than was the case in western econo-
mies. Thus, research into organizational behavior phenomena such as leadership, optimism, and adapt-
ability are important to discovering best practices for organizations in Africa, particularly adaptability
as employees would have to adapt to changes in the career landscape. The presence of multinational
4Journal of Career Development XX(X)
organizations and other private businesses, the increasing use of technology to facilitate work, and
heightened competition in Ghanaian organizations have contributed to creating a constantly changing
work environment. Therefore, adaptability could help Ghanaian employees perform well in a Gha-
naian work context that is technologically driven.
Our study comprised 210 workers enrolled in an MBA program pursuing courses in leadership and
business who voluntarily completed a paper-based survey on developmental leadership, career adapt-
ability, and career optimism. We did not offer participants compensation and they could withdraw
from the study without a consequence. The sample comprised 64%males and 75%nonmanagers.
Regarding education, 40%had a postgraduate degree, 53%had an undergraduate degree, and 6%had
a diploma. The distribution of participants across the various industries was: public service (53%),
banking (38%), consultancy (3%), health (2%), and 1%or less from nongovernmental organization,
hospitality, construction media, and oil and gas. The mean age of participants was 32.49 years old
(SD ¼7.15), and mean tenure was 4.85 years (SD ¼4.73).
Our measures were in English. Unless otherwise specified, all the scales used response options from 1
(strongly disagree)to5(strongly agree).
Developmental leadership. We assessed developmental leadership with 7-item from the measures of
developmental leadership (House, 1998) and supervisory sponsorship (Wayne et al., 1999). Previous
studies demonstrate validity of the scale, as it related positively to job satisfaction, affective commit-
ment, career certainty, organizational identification, and organizational citizenship behavior; and
negatively to bureaucracy (Rafferty & Griffin, 2006; Zhang & Chen, 2013). A sample item includes
“My supervisor helps with my career development.” Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the scale’s
items revealed a good fit (w
¼31.23, df ¼13, p¼.003, comparative fit index [CFI] ¼.97, Tucker–
Lewis index [TLI] ¼96, goodness-of-fit index [GFI] ¼.98, and root mean square error of approxima-
tion [RMSEA] ¼.08). Previous research reported a reliability coefficient of .88 for the Developmental
Leadership Scale (Zhang & Chen, 2013).
Career adaptability. We assessed the extent to which respondents adapt to their new work settings with
the 11-item Career Adaptability Scale developed and validated by Rottinghaus and colleagues
(2005). Rottinghaus and colleagues demonstrated the construct validity of this scale, showing that
it related positively to conscientiousness, openness to experience, agreeableness, teamwork, leader-
ship, and organizational management, but negatively to neuroticism. We reversed scored 2 nega-
tively worded items on this scale. Sample item includes “I am good at adapting to new work
settings.” CFA result showed a good fit (w
¼61.81, df ¼41, p< .05, CFI ¼.91, GFI ¼.95,
TLI ¼.88, and RMSEA ¼.05). Rottinghaus and colleagues reported a reliability coefficient of
.85 for the career adaptability scale in their study.
Career optimism. We assessed career optimism with the 11-items scaled by Rottinghaus and colleagues
(2005). Five items were negatively worded. We reversed scored these items prior to performing our
analysis. A sample item includes, “I get excited when I think about my career.” CFA revealed a good fit
¼63.19, df ¼38, p<.05,CFI¼.95, GFI ¼.95, TLI ¼.92, and RMSEA ¼.06). Rottinghaus and col-
leagues (2005) reported a reliability coefficient of .87 for the Career Optimism Scale, and their career opti-
mism construct is valid, as it related positively to conscientiousness, openness to experience, agreeableness,
teamwork, leadership, contextual support and barriers, career preparing behavior, vocational identity,
and career satisfaction, but negatively to neuroticism (Eva et al., 2020; Rottinghaus et al., 2005).
Delle and Searle 5
As shown in Table 1, career adaptability is positively associated with developmental leadership
(r¼.22, p¼.002) and career optimism (r¼.16, p¼.021). Finally, career optimism related
positively to developmental leadership (r¼.14, p¼.046). However, none of the demographic
factors (e.g., sex, age, and tenure) related to the main variables.
Prior to the data analysis, we screened the data set to ascertain the accuracy of the data set. We did
not have any missing cases in our data set. Because we collected data from a single source, common
method bias is a possibility (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We performed the Harman’s one-factor test to
ascertain whether common method bias might be a problem. In this test, we performed exploratory
factor analysis with unrotated principal axis factoring method using all the items measuring the key
variables in the study. The extraction of one factor suggests the presence of common method variance
or an indication that one-factor accounts for much of the covariance in the variables. We observed
eight factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. Together, the eight factors accounted for 60%of the total
variance, with variances ranging from a low of 4%to a high of 18%for each factor.
Prior to testing the hypotheses, we assessed the measurement model involving three latent constructs:
developmental leadership, career adaptability, and career optimism. All the factors loaded onto their
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics, Zero-Order Correlations, and Reliability Coefficients of Study Variables.
Variables Mean SD 123456
Sex 1.36 0.48
Age 32.49 8.15 .16*
Tenure 4.85 4.73 .08 .63***
Developmental leadership 3.72 0.76 .05 .04 .01 (.87)
Career optimism 3.81 0.50 .02 .00 .05 .14* (.68)
Career adaptability 3.92 0.39 .04 .01 .04 .22** .16* (.57)
Note.N¼210. Reliability coefficients are parenthesized.
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.
Table 2. Unstandardized Effects of Developmental Leadership and Career Optimism on Career Adaptability.
Model 1 Model 2
Estimates SE Estimates SE
Intercept 3.38*** .28 3.16*** .27
Sex 0.04 .05 0.04 .05
Age 0.00 .00 0.00 .00
Organizational tenure 0.01 .01 0.00 .00
Developmental leadership 0.10** .03 0.09** .03
Career optimism 0.10* .05 0.11* .05
Developmental Leadership Career Optimism 0.15* .07
*p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001.
6Journal of Career Development XX(X)
respective latent construct. For example, all the 7-item measuring developmental leadership loaded
significantly onto the latent developmental leadership factor. CFA showed that the model fits the data
to an acceptable level: w
¼675.19, df ¼368, p< .001, CFI ¼.81, TLI ¼.79, RMSEA ¼.06.
We tested the hypotheses using path analysis in IBM SPSS AMOS Version 24. Prior to testing the
model, the predictor (developmental leadership) and moderator (career optimism) were centered
(Aiken & West, 1991). In the first model, we entered the main effects of developmental leadership and
career optimism, and the covariates (e.g., sex, age, and organizational tenure), with the interactive term
added in Model 2. Results in Model 1 shows that developmental leadership, b¼.20, SE ¼.03, p¼
.003; and career optimism, b¼.13, SE ¼.05, p¼.046 relates positively to career adaptability, respec-
tively. We found similar results in Model 2. Thus, our results support Hypotheses 1 and 2, respectively.
Model 2 also showed that developmental leadership and career optimism interacted to predict career
adaptability, b¼.14, SE ¼.07, p¼.043.
To understand the effect of developmental leadership on career adaptability at the level of the
moderator (i.e., career optimism), we followed the procedure suggested by Aiken and West
(1991) using regression lines and effect variances to plot effects at standard deviation above and
below the mean. As illustrated in Figure 1, developmental leadership related more to career
adaptability particularly for respondents low on career optimism (simple slope, b¼.33, SE ¼
.09, p< .001) but was unrelated to career adaptability for respondents high on career optimism
(simple slope, b¼.04, SE ¼.10, p¼.701).
Employees are more likely to succeed in their work if they can adapt to changes associated with their
careers. Our results are consistent with the SCCT (Lent & Brown, 2019), as we showed that both devel-
opmental leadership and career optimism directly and interactively predicted career adaptability, suggest-
ing that contextual and personal factors are important determinants of career behavior. Our results have
important implications for research in the field of vocational psychology and practice in organizations.
Our expectation that developmental leadership relates positively to career adaptability was supported.
This result is consistent with previous studies (Higgins et al., 2010; Lawler, 1986), suggesting that
Figure 1. Career optimism moderates developmental leadership–career adaptability relationship, Model 2.
Delle and Searle 7
employees under developmental leaders are able to adapt to their work environment because of the
empowerment they receive through the performance feedback, training and development, career coun-
seling, and advice. Furthermore, the result shows that developmental leadership is an important con-
textual factor that might build adaptability resources in employees (Higgins et al., 2010).
Career optimism related positively to career adaptability, corroborating previous research (Aspin-
wall et al., 2001; Rottinghaus et al., 2005). We reasoned that because optimists are positive about the
future, are resilient, and see work obstacles as challenges (Kool & Dierendonck, 2012; Nguyen et al.,
2016; Youssef & Luthans, 2007), they are able to adapt to their work environment.
Finally, as expected, we note that developmental leadership relates positively to career adaptability
for employees low on optimism and insignificantly to those high on optimism, corroborating previous
studies (Rottinghaus et al., 2005; Tolentino et al., 2014). Specifically, our results show that develop-
mental leadership enables people low on optimism to adapt to their work environment. We reasoned
that because optimists are capable of coping effectively with career demands (Aspinwall et al., 2001),
leveraging on their positive feelings and unshakable sense of confidence, and utilizing their compe-
tences (i.e., social and intellectual) to manage work-related changes (Fredrickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek,
& Finkel, 2008). Therefore, contextual support (i.e., developmental leadership) may not be beneficial
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
We acknowledge that there are limitations associated with our study. First, we utilized cross-
sectional data that prevent us from drawing causal conclusions. To ascertain the validity of the path
model, longitudinal studies are preferred. While common method bias may be a problem, the Har-
man’s one-factor test results show that common method bias may play a relatively small role in our
findings. Furthermore, we note that common method error tends to suppress moderation effects in
cross-sectional data (Podsakoff et al., 2003), suggesting our effects may be stronger than reported.
Notwithstanding this, we recommend the use of longitudinal designs and multisource data to rule out
this effect in future research.
Further, this study was limited to workers in Ghana. There is the need for a cross-cultural study or
samples from different sectors of the business environment to establish the differential effect of lead-
ership and other factors on career adaptability because adaptability is bounded by social, institutional,
and cultural context (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). However, we feel this is a strength given the paucity of
research on management phenomena in Africa.
Implications for Practice
Our findings may have relevant implications for organizational leaders and consultants who aim to
maintain and increase employee career adaptability. Given that dynamic and technological nature
of work in modern organizations, employers should see adaptability as an important recruitment and
retention issue for employees. Our results indicate that developmental leadership helps employees to
adapt to their careers and might help people low on optimism to adapt effectively to their work envi-
ronment (Nguyen et al., 2016; Rottinghaus et al., 2005; Tolentino et al., 2014). Conversely, our results
suggest that optimistic employees require less developmental leadership, perhaps because they already
feel confident that they can manage their own career issues (Aspinwall et al., 2001).
Our study also has implications for employees. Optimistic employees are more adaptable than less
optimistic ones, and developmental leadership is beneficial for helping less optimistic employees adapt
to their work environment. Therefore, employers should exercise caution with regard to optimism-
enhancing interventions, as these could result in unrealistic positive expectations and overconfidence
8Journal of Career Development XX(X)
(Icekson et al., 2014), leading optimistic employees to not benefit from the support developmental
leaders provide, and hence affecting their adaptation to the work environment.
Finally, managers should design supportive work environments, that is, environment that
encourages and supports career counseling, coaching, and mentoring, which have the potential to fos-
ter optimism among employees (Garcia et al., 2015; Lent & Brown, 2019; Rottinghaus et al., 2017;
Spurk et al., 2015).
As the first to study the circumstances under which developmental leadership influences career adapt-
ability in the African context, the findings have considerable management implications. Based on the
outcome of our study, we suggest that organizations (especially those based in Africa) may benefit
when leaders strive to empower their teams, especially the less optimistic members, because this has
the potential to enhance adaptive and proactive forms of person–environment fit, such as career adapt-
ability. However, further research is needed to confirm these findings in other settings, ideally utilizing
more robust designs such as a longitudinal or a daily diary approach.
Eric Delle may relocate to Ghana in July.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
Eric Delle https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6572-905X
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical
examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology,90(5), 945–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.945
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control.
Journal of Applied Psychology,81, 199–214.
Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & Van de Walle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on
feedback- seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management,29, 769–799.
Aspinwall, L. G., Richter, L., & Hoffman, R. R. (2001). Understanding how optimism works: An examination of
optimists’ adaptive moderation of belief and behavior. In E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism and pessimism:
Implications for theory, research, and practice (pp. 217–238). American Psychological Association.
Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation: A longitudinal investigation of the
impact of individual differences and coping on college adjustment and performance. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,63, 989. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.529
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.
Bardoel, E. A., Pettit, T. M., De Cieri, H., & McMillan, L. (2014). Employee resilience: An emerging challenge
for HRM. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,52(3), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12033
Delle and Searle 9
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
Bimrose, J., & Hearne, L. (2012). Resilience and career adaptability: Qualitative studies of adult career counsel-
ling. Journal of Vocational Behavior,81, 338–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjvb.2012.08.002
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. Routledge.
Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2001). Great expectations: Optimism and pessimism in achievement settings. In
E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice (pp. 239–255).
American Psychological Association.
Buyukgoze-Kavas, A. (2016). Predicting career adaptability from positive psychological traits. The Career Devel-
opment Quarterly,64, 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12045
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review,30, 879–889.
Chan, S. H. J., & Mai, X. (2015). The relation of career adaptability to satisfaction and turnover intentions.
Journal of Vocational Behavior,89, 130–139. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.05.005
Chang, E. C. (1998). Dispositional optimism and primary and secondary appraisal of a stressor: Controlling for
confounding influences and relations to coping and psychological and physical adjustment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,74, 1109–1120.
Chong, S., & Leong, F. T. L. (2017). Antecedents of career adaptability in strategic management. Journal of
Career Assessment,25(2), 268–280. https://doi.10.1177/1069072715621522
Creed, P. A., Fallon, T., & Hood, M. (2009). The relationship between career adaptability, person and situation
variables, and career concerns in young adults. Journal of Vocational Behavior,74, 219–229.
Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2007). Personal initiative, commitment and affect at work. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology,80, 601–622.
Eva, N., Newman, A., Jiang, Z., & Brouwer, M. (2020). Career optimism: A systematic review and agenda for
future research. Journal of Vocational Behavior,116, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.02.011
Fang, W., Zhang, Y., Mei, J., Chai, X., & Fan, X. (2018). Relationships between optimism, educational environ-
ment, career adaptability and career motivation in nursing undergraduates: A cross-sectional study. Nursing
Education Today,68, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/jnedt.2018.05.025
Fleig-Palmer, M. M., Luthans, K. W., & Mandernach, B. J. (2009). Successful reemployment through resiliency
development. Journal of Career Development,35, 228–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845308327271
Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts build lives: Positive
emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,95, 1045–1062. https://doi.10.1037/a0013262
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century.
Research in Organizational Behavior,23, 133–187.
Garcia, P. R. J. M., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., Bordia, S., & Roxas, R. E. O. (2015). Career optimism: The
roles of contextual support and career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior,88,
Gibson, B., & Sanbonmatsu, D. M. (2004). Optimism, pessimism, and gambling: The downside of optimism. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin,30, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203259929
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive per-
spectives. The Academy of Management Annals,3, 317–375.
Guan, Y., Deng, H., Sun, J., Wang, Y., Cai, Z., Ye, L., Fu, R., Wang, Y., Zhang, S., & Li, Y. (2013). Career adapt-
ability, job search self-efficacy and outcomes: A three-wave investigation among Chinese university gradu-
ates. Journal of Vocational Behavior,83(3), 561–570.
Harland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J. R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2004). Leadership behaviors and subordinate resi-
lience. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,11(2), 2.
Hennessey, M. L., Rumrill, P. D., Fitzgerald, S., & Roessler, R. (2008). Disadvantagement-related correlates of
career optimism among college and university students with disabilities. Work,30(4), 483–492.
10 Journal of Career Development XX(X)
Higgins, M., Dobrow, S. R., & Roloff, K. S. (2010). Optimism and the boundaryless career: The role of
developmental relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior,31, 749–769. https://dx.doi.org/10.
Hirschi, A., Herrmann, A., & Keller, A. C. (2015). Career adaptivity, adaptability, and adapting: A conceptual
and empirical investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior,87, 1–10. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership
House, R. J. (1998). Appendix: Measures and assessments for the charismatic leadership approach: Scales, latent
constructs, loadings, Cronbach alphas, and interclass correlations. In E. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.),
Leadership: The multiple-level approaches contemporary and alternative (pp. 23–30). JAI Press.
Howell, J. P., Bowen, D. E., Dorfman, P. W., Kerr, S., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1997). Substitutes for leadership:
Effective alternatives to ineffective leadership. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the
dynamics of power and influence in organizations (pp. 381–395). University of Notre Dome Press.
Icekson, T., Roskes, M., & Moran, S. (2014). Effects of optimism on creativity under approach and avoidance
motivation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience,8, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00105
King, G. A., & Rothstein, M. G. (2010). Resilience and leadership: The self-management of failure. In M. G.
Rothstein & R. J. Burke (Eds.), New horizons in management. Self-management and leadership development
(pp. 361–394). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kluemper, D. H., Little, L. M., & DeGroot, T. (2009). State or trait: Effects of state optimism on job-related out-
comes. Journal of Organizational Behavior,30, 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.591
Kool, M., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2012). Servant leadership and commitment to change, the mediating role of
justice and optimism. Journal of Organizational Change Management,25(3), 422–433.
Lawler, E. E. (1986). High involvement management: Participative strategies for improving organizational per-
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2019). Social cognitive career theory at 25: Empirical status of the interest,
choice, and performance models. Journal of Vocational Behavior,115, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjvb.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and aca-
demic interest, choice, and performance [Monograph]. Journal of Vocational Behavior,45, 79–122.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E.
Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241–258). Berrett-
Nguyen, Q., Kuntz, J. R. C., Na¨swall, K., & Malinen, S. (2016). Employee resilience and leadership styles: The
moderating role of proactive personality and optimism. New Zealand Journal of Psychology,45(2), 13–21.
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors.
Journal of Management,36(3), 633–662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308321554
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change
management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering
leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,6(2), 172–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,88,
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Refining individualized consideration: Distinguishing developmental
leadership and supportive leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,79, 37–61.
Rottinghaus, P. J., Day, S. X., & Borgen, F. H. (2005). The career futures inventory: A measure of career-related
adaptability and optimism. Journal of Career Assessment,13, 3–24.
Delle and Searle 11
Rottinghaus, P. J., Eshelman, A., Gore, J., Keller, K., Schneider, M., & Harris, K. (2017). Measuring change in
career counseling: Validation of the career futures inventory-revised. International Journal for Educational
and Vocational Guidance,17(1), 61–75.
Rudolph, C. W., Lavigne, K. N., & 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.
Savickas, M. L. (1997). Career adaptability: An integrative construct for life-span, life-space theory. The Career
Development Quarterly,45(3), 247–259.
Savickas, M. L. (2013). Career construction theory and practice. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career
development and counselling: Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed., pp. 147–183). John Wiley & Sons.
Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career adapt-abilities scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement
equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior,80, 661–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjvb.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized
outcome expectancies. Health Psychology,4(3), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6184.108.40.206
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, 845–875.
Shamir, B., & Howell, J. M. (1999). Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness
of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,10, 257–283.
Sharot, T. (2011). The optimism bias. Current Biology,21, R941–R945. https://doi.org/10.1016/jcub.2011.10.030
Smith, C. A., Haynes, K. N., Lazarus, R. S., & Pope, L. K. (1993). In search of the “hot” cognitions: Attributions,
appraisals and their relation to emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,65, 916–929. https://
Spurk, D., Kauffeld, S., Barthauer, L., & Heinemann, N. S. (2015). Fostering networking behavior, career plan-
ning and optimism, and subjective career success. An intervention study. Journal of Vocational Behavior,87,
Sweeny, K., & Shepperd, J. A. (2010). The costs of optimism and the benefits of pessimism. Emotion,10(5),
Sylva, H., Mol, S. T., Den Hartog, D. N., & Dorenbosch, L. (2019). Person-job fit and proactive career behavior: A
dynamic approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Tharenou, P., & Terry, D. J. (1998). Reliability and validity of scores on scales to measure managerial aspirations.
Educational and Psychological Measurement,58, 475–492.
Tolentino, L. R., Garcia, P. R. J. M., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2013). Validation of the career
adapt-abilities scale and an examination of a model of career adaptation in the Philippine context. Journal of
Vocational Behavior,83(3), 410–418.
Tolentino, L. R., Sedoglavich, V., Lu, V. N., Garcia, P. R. J. M., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2014). The role of career
adaptability in predicting entrepreneurial intentions: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Vocational
Varki, A. (2009). Human uniqueness and the denial of death. Nature, 460–684. https://doi.org/10.1038/460684c
Wanberg, C. R. (1997). Antecedents and outcomes of coping behaviors among unemployed and reemployed indi-
viduals. Journal of Applied Psychology,82, 731.
Wang, H. J., Demerouti, E., & Le Blanc, P. (2017). Transformational leadership, adaptability, and job crafting:
The moderating role of organizational identification. Journal of Vocational Behavior,100, 185–195. http://
Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Kraimer, M. L., & Graf, I. K. (1999). The role of human capital, motivation and super-
visor sponsorship in predicting career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior,20, 577–595.
Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope,
optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management,33, 774–800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206307305562
12 Journal of Career Development XX(X)
Zacher, H. (2014). Career adaptability predicts subjective career success beyond personality traits and core self-
evaluations. Journal of Vocational Behavior,84, 21–30.
Zhang, Y., & Chen, C. C. (2013). Developmental leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating
effects of self-determination, supervisor identification, and organizational identification. The Leadership
Eric Delle received master of philosophy degree in industrial and organizational psychology from the University
of Ghana, Legon, and has met all the requirements to be awarded with Doctor of Philosophy Degree in organiza-
tional psychology at Macquarie University. His current research interest focuses on job crafting, employee intra-
preneurship, proactive career behavior, and work engagement. In his leisure time, he enjoys watching African
movies, cooking, and reading.
Ben Searle is an organizational psychologist and a senior lecturer at Macquarie University. His research
examines how characteristics of work influence employee well-being and behavior, with a particular interest
in the psychological mechanisms driving these effects. He also advises on the design and validation of tools
measuring employee well-being and its correlates. He hosts a podcast about psychology in the workplace
(mindonthejob.com). He enjoys reading and jogging.
Delle and Searle 13