In a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world, employees must adapt to the challenges of internal and external work environments. As a key psychological component of career construction theory, employees’ career adaptability helps them adapt to changing conditions with concern, control, curiosity, and confidence (Savickas, 1997, 2013; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012), and can contribute to career success (Savickas, 2002). Previous researchers of career adaptability outcomes have mainly focused on a general self-regulation perspective based on the logic of adaptability resource–adapting response–adaption result (Rudolph et al., 2017). Career adaptability (adaptability resource) predicts employees’ emotions and behaviors (adapting response), such as well-being (Urbanaviciute et al., 2019), proactive work behavior, and job performance (Douglass & Duffy, 2015; Duffy et al., 2015; Ingusci et al., 2019; Ohme & Zacher, 2015; Sattar et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2018; Zacher, 2014, 2015), and also has positive organizational effects in relation to firm performance (Ingusci et al., 2019; Ohme & Zacher, 2015; Sattar et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2018; Zacher, 2014, 2015). Most previous researchers have focused on the benefits (vs. negative roles) of career adaptability. However, behavior related to employees’ career development caused by career adaptability, for example, career planning and exploration, may harm the organization.

Performance is an important index for the measurement of individual work and career development outcomes in the organizational field (Johnston, 2018; Rudolph et al., 2017), and is a vital component of the adaptation framework. Most researchers have found that career adaptability influences in-role performance positively, either directly or indirectly (Jannesari & Sullivan, 2019; Ohme & Zacher, 2015; Pajic et al., 2018). Gao et al. (2019) found a partial mediating role of career self-management in the career adaptability–in-role performance relationship, which may indicate there are other influencing paths. Further, no significant positive effect of career adaptability on daily task performance has been reported (Zacher, 2015). In addition to the small sample size and statistical reasons Zacher (2015) listed to explain this finding, Parker et al. (2006) suggested that proactive behavior may not always yield favorable performance evaluations. Therefore, negative effects, which can also occur in the career adaptability–performance relationship, may stem from different kinds of behavior predicted by career adaptability. In addition to having a strong focus on completion of work tasks, adaptable individuals actively advance their careers, which may lead to self-interested behavior that harms organizational performance. Few studies using the adaptability resource–adapting response–adaption result framework to examine in-role outcomes have analyzed the relationship between adaptability resources and extrarole outcomes (Liu & Yu, 2019; Sattar et al., 2017). Further, no empirical researchers have considered the possible negative effects of career adaptability on performance.

Proactive behavior is the main adaptive response in both organizational management and individual career development (Van Der Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006; Zacher, 2015). Most studies have shown that proactive behaviors, such as career planning and skill development, benefit organizational performance (Pajic et al., 2018), career self-management (Gao et al., 2019), and organizational citizenship behavior (Liu & Yu, 2019). However, some researchers have asserted that individuals’ career adaptability is a double-edged sword for organizations (Yu et al., 2018). Career adaptability leads to job-related adaptive behavior that enhances job performance (Rudolph et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2018). However, it also brings adaptive motivations or behaviors that may benefit the employee but negatively affect the organization, such as turnover intention (Ito & Brotheridge, 2005; Klehe et al., 2011) and career exploration (Hirschi et al., 2015). Therefore, it is necessary for individuals’ proactive and adaptive behavior to be classified, and the influence of this behavior on organizational performance to be explored.

To further examine when opposite effects are operative, we drew on self-construal theory and incorporated self-construals as an important boundary condition for the career adaptability–performance relationship (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). The combination of career construction theory with an individual character perspective to assess individuals’ degree of independence may offer distinguishing conditions that reveal the opposite pathway (Wu et al., 2018). Therefore, we tested if the indirect effect of employees’ career adaptability of their proactive behavior on their career performance depends on self-construal levels.

We investigated both the positive and negative consequences of career adaptability to identify the complexity of the career adaptability–performance relationship. First, we examined the double-edged sword effect of career adaptability by identifying two proactive behavior orientations as mechanisms that explain the career adaptability effects. Second, we tested the moderating role of self-construal in the career adaptability–performance relationship by applying self-construal theory in the career construction context. The hypothesized model is shown in Figure 1.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Mediating Role of Proactive Behavior

Proactive behavior is described as “self-initiated and future-oriented action that aims to change and improve the situation or oneself” (Parker et al., 2006, p. 636). According to the different functions and intended targets (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010; Parker & Collins, 2010) in the workplace, proactive behavior comprises two types: career-oriented proactive behavior (COPB), which relates to employees’ career development (e.g., career planning and career exploration), and work unit-oriented proactive behavior (WOPB), which relates to employees’ contribution to organizational goals (Zacher, 2015).

Career construction theory states that more (vs. less) adaptable individuals possess greater competence and more psychosocial resources, and their behavior adapts to various challenges (Savickas, 2013; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). Because proactive behavior is an important component of performance (Crant, 2000), adaptability responses may have varying effects on different kinds of performance (Parker et al., 2006). Individuals with strong COPB engage in behavior related to their career development, such as planning their career, establishing development goals, enriching their professional skills, searching for better career development platforms, and exploring career options (Guan et al., 2015, 2017; Hirschi et al., 2015; Meyers, 2020). Although this behavior promotes future career development, it may have little to do with work tasks or work content; thus, it may exhaust employees’ limited work energy and hinder their performance. WOPB aims to improve organizational or team functioning by, for example, searching for novel approaches to better execute work and speaking out about work practices (Meyers, 2020; Parker & Collins, 2010). This behavior not only fulfills an employee’s job duties but goes beyond the job description by contributing to extrarole performance, and it positively influences organizational performance (Crant, 2000; Werner, 2000).

According to the logic of adaptability resources–adapting responses–adaptation result (Rudolph et al., 2017), we proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1a: Career adaptability will be indirectly and negatively related to in-role performance though career-oriented proactive behavior.
Hypothesis 1b: Career adaptability will be indirectly and negatively related to extrarole performance through career-oriented proactive behavior.
Hypothesis 1c: Career adaptability will be indirectly and positively related to in-role performance through work unit-oriented proactive behavior.
Hypothesis 1d: Career adaptability will be indirectly and positively related to extrarole performance through work unit-oriented proactive behavior.

Moderating Role of Self-Construal

Self-construal represents the extent to which individuals see themselves as independent of, or interdependent with, others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), and all related characteristics (e.g., unique traits, abilities, preferences) influence the individuals’ attitudes and behavior (Cross et al., 2000). Independent self-construal emphasizes individuals’ wholeness and uniqueness, whereas interdependent self-construal emphasizes individuals’ belonging to an organization. Overall, self-construal is individuals’ cognition of their relationship with others, and self-construal differences raise many self-concept issues.

In the logical framework of career construction, individuals’ adaptability resource (career adaptability) responds (proactive behavior) differently in different self-construal constructs, leading to differing performance. Independent self-construal is characterized by the realization of employees that their individual value is based on their own ideas (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis, 1994), and they consider others less when deciding on their actions; for example, when they make career decisions, they may follow their own will (Ma & Yeh, 2005). Therefore, we further assume that individuals with high independent (vs. interdependent) self-construal will show more proactive behavior in their career development. Further, as COPB plays a mediating role in the career adaptability–performance relationship (in-role and extrarole), it is likely that the negative indirect effect of career adaptability on performance via COPB will be enhanced by independent self-construal.

In contrast, individuals with interdependent self-construal tend to fulfill their individual value in the collective, and they pay attention to maintaining a harmonious relationship with group members (Cross et al., 2011; Zhang & Chen, 2021). For example, they show proactive behavior not only in their enthusiasm for task completion but also in their contribution to organizational performance, such as by helping colleagues who are experiencing difficulties and speaking to superiors. Career adaptability involves behavior aimed at developing individuals’ WOPB. This behavior relates not only to employees but also to the organization. Interdependent self-construal provides the necessary motivation for individuals’ adaptation. Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: Independent self-construal will moderate the indirect effect of career adaptability on in-role performance through career-oriented proactive behavior, such that the effect is stronger for individuals high in independent self-construal.
Hypothesis 2b: Independent self-construal will moderate the indirect effect of career adaptability on extrarole performance through career-oriented proactive behavior, such that the effect is stronger for individuals high in independent self-construal.
Hypothesis 2c: Interdependent self-construal will moderate the indirect effect of career adaptability on in-role performance through work unit-oriented proactive behavior, such that the effect is stronger for individuals high in interdependent self-construal.
Hypothesis 2d: Interdependent self-construal will moderate the indirect effect of career adaptability on extrarole performance through work unit-oriented proactive behavior, such that the effect is stronger for individuals high in interdependent self-construal.

Method

Participants and Procedure

We collected data from seven Chinese enterprises in Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Shandong, China, in 2019. Human resources managers helped us to randomly select 400 employees, then we compiled a list of these employees and their corresponding supervisors. Participants were informed that this study concerned employees’ career adaptability. We coded the questionnaires and distributed them to employees by email, whereas supervisors’ paper-and-pencil surveys were distributed during a weekly internal meeting. Participants were informed that their responses would be kept anonymous and used only for research purposes.

The study had a two-wave design, wherein employees evaluated their career adaptability, self-construal, and control variables (e.g., gender, age), and immediate supervisors rated employees’ proactive behavior at Time 1. Then, 2 weeks later, the supervisors evaluated employees’ performance at Time 2. There were 327 employee-completed questionnaires evaluated by 53 supervisors, so that each supervisor rated between five and 15 employees (response rate = 81.8%). Of the 327 employees, 157 (48%) were men and 170 (52%) were women. Regarding age, 30.3% were under 25 years, 17.4% were aged 26–30 years, 35.2% were aged 31–40 years, 13.1% were aged 41–50 years, and 3.4% were aged 51–60 years. Regarding education level, 10.8% had a high school education or lower, 37.7% had an associate degree, 40.3% had a bachelor’s degree, 8.1% had a master’s degree, and 3.1% had a doctoral degree. As regards job level, 30.4% were supervisors and 69.6% were frontline employees. Among the employees, 73.2% had held their current job for 1–10 years, 18.3% for under 1 year, and 8.5% for over 10 years.

Measures

Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable for all study variables (see Table 1).

Career Adaptability
To assess career adaptability, we used a 24-item Chinese version (Hou et al., 2012) of the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale, which has been previously validated (Hou et al., 2012; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). A sample item is “Thinking about what my future will be like.” Employees rated the strength of their abilities on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (weakest) to 5 (strongest).

Self-Construal
We assessed independent and interdependent self-construals using a 10-item Independent Self-Construal Scale and a 10-item interdependent Self-Construal Scale adapted from Wu et al. (2018) and based on Lu and Gilmour’s (2007) scale. A sample item is “I believe that people should be unique and different from others.” Employees rated the statements on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Proactive Behavior
We measured proactive behavior using the three-item Career-Oriented Proactive Behavior Scale and the three-item Work Unit-Oriented Proactive Behavior Scale (Wu et al., 2018). A sample item is “The employee initiated talks with you about training or work assignments they need to develop skills that will help their future work chances.” Supervisors rated statements on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal).

In-Role and Extrarole Performance
We measured in-role performance and extrarole performance using the five-item In-Role Performance Scale and the eight-item Extrarole Performance Scale (Eisenberger et al., 2010). A sample item is “This employee adequately completes their assigned duties.” Supervisors rated the statements on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Control Variables
To remove the confounding effects of demographic backgrounds (Gao et al., 2019; Gupta, 2019; Yu et al., 2018; Zacher, 2014, 2015), we controlled for employees’ gender (0 = male, 1 = female), age (1 = 25 years or under, 2 = 26–30 years, 3 = 31–40 years, 4 = 41–50 years, 5 = 51–60 years, 6 = over 60 years), level of education (1 = high school or below, 2 = associate degree, 3 = bachelor’s degree, 4 = master’s degree, 5 = doctoral degree), position (1 = employee, 2 = manager) and tenure (1 = under 1 year, 2 = 1–5 years, 3 = 6–10 years, 4 = 11–20 years, 5 = over 20 years).

In addition, as previous researchers (Akkermans et al., 2018; Gao et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2018) have shown that career identity, career self-management, and work engagement may impact on adaptable employees’ performance, we controlled for these variables. First, we assessed career identity with the five-item Identification with Career Commitment dimension of the Vocational Identity Status Assessment (Porfeli et al., 2011). A sample item is “My career will help me satisfy deeply personal goals.” Second, we measured career self-management with the 11-item Career Self-Management Instrument (Weng & McElroy, 2010). A sample item is “I usually consider how to combine my early work experience with my future career development.” Third, we assessed work engagement using the nine-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-9 (Schaufeli et al., 2006). A sample item is “At my work, I am bursting with energy.” Career identity and career self-management were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and work engagement was rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).

Results

Preliminary Analysis

To ensure the model’s convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), we calculated average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR). Table 1 shows that all variables had acceptable convergent validity. Descriptive statistics and correlations are also shown in Table 1.

Results of a confirmatory factor analysis of the measurement model are shown in Table 2. The seven-factor model had the best fit to the data, chi square (χ²) = 1125.33, degrees of freedom (df) = 839, χ²/df = 1.34, comparative fit index (CFI) = .97, incremental fit index (IFI) = .97, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .032.

As employees were nested in work teams, supervisors rated their proactive behavior and performance. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC[1]), and within-group interrater reliability (r_wg) to examine the possibility of data homogeneity. The ICC(1) values for COPB, WOPB, in-role performance, and extrarole performance were .004, .006, .012, and .044, respectively. All median and mean r_wg values were below .70. On the basis of these fit indices, consistent with Biemann et al. (2012) and Bliese (2000), we proceeded with a single-level analysis.

Hypothesis Testing

We tested the mediating effects with Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) procedure, using Mplus 7. After we had accounted for the control variables, career adaptability was positively related to both types of proactive behavior, COPB was negatively related to both types of performance, and WOPB was positively related to both types of performance (see Table 3). We used the bootstrapping method to further analyze the mediation effects using path analysis (Williams & MacKinnon, 2008). As shown in Table 3, the direct effect of career adaptability on both types of performance was nonsignificant, indicating a suppressing effect (Lam, 2010; Zhao et al., 2010). The two indirect paths were significant in opposite directions and roughly equal in size, and they cancelled the direct effects, which, as a result, were not significant between career adaptability and performance. The indirect relationships were all significant: between career adaptability and in-role performance through COPB, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−0.36, −0.13], and through WOPB, 95% CI [0.20, 0.48], and between career adaptability and extrarole performance through COPB, 95% CI [−0.21, −0.07], and through WOPB, 95% CI [0.07, 0.23]. Therefore, Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d were supported.

The moderating and moderated mediation hypothesis testing results (Preacher et al., 2007) are shown in Figure 2. Independent self-construal significantly moderated the career adaptability–COPB relationship (β = .22, p < .05), such that when independent self-construal was high the effect was stronger, β = .53, 95% CI [0.34, 0.72], and when it was low the effect was weaker, β = .20, 95% CI [0.01, 0.39]. A simple slope analysis is plotted in Figure 3.

Interdependent self-construal was also a significant moderator of the career adaptability–WOPB relationship (β = .21, p < .05). Simple slope analysis results (see Figure 4) show that when interdependent self-construal was high, the effect was stronger, β = .58, 95% CI [0.38, 0.78], whereas when it was low, the effect was diminished, β = .23, 95% CI [0.04, 0.42].

To test the moderated mediation effects, we calculated indirect effects at high (M + 1 SD) versus low (M − 1 SD) values of the moderators. As shown in Table 4, for the COPB path, indirect effects of career adaptability on in-role performance, 95% CI [−0.53, −0,18], and extrarole performance, 95% CI [−0.32, −0.11], were significant only at the high independent self-construal level. For the WOPB path, indirect effects of career adaptability on in-role performance, 95% CI [0.30, 0.65], and extrarole performance, 95% CI [0.10, 0.32], were significant only at the high interdependent self-construal level. Therefore, Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d were supported.

Discussion

To extend previous research on career adaptability and performance, we combined career construction and self-construal theories, using two opposite mechanisms in the Chinese context. Our results show that the opposite effects influenced performance via COPB and WOPB. Further, the conditional indirect effects of career adaptability on in-role performance and extrarole performance via COPB were stronger only for employees with high independent self-construal, and the effects via WOPB were stronger only for employees with high interdependent self-construal. Our results advance understanding of how and when adaptable employees contribute to their performance.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

First, we have extended the literature on the double-edged sword effect of career adaptability in organizations (Yu et al., 2018). In our examination of the mediating effects of two proactive behaviors related to employees’ career development and job tasks (Wu et al., 2018), we found that although career adaptability can stimulate employees’ proactive behavior regarding work and career development, it may not benefit the organization. It is important to focus on contradictions in employees’ career adaptability and extend findings to an organizational perspective. Further, the results verify the applicability of the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale for use in both individual and organizational development fields (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012).

Second, as proactive behavior entails two types of adaptive responses, this variable provides a new explanatory link to deepen understanding of the effect of adaptability resources on adaptation results in the career construction theory framework, and also enriches understanding of the career construction model of adaptation (Rudolph et al., 2017). Our findings not only supplement previous results on the career adaptability–performance relationship (Ohme & Zacher, 2015; Zacher, 2014, 2015) but are also a response to Rudolph et al.’s (2017) call for further research on the effect of career adaptability on career development and behavior.

Third, previous studies on the career adaptability–performance link were mainly based on the single theoretical perspective of career construction theory (Ohme & Zacher, 2015; Yu et al., 2018; Zacher, 2015). We have extended prior research by exploring the opposite dual path from a self-construal perspective. Integrating career construction and self-construal theories has enabled us to present a theoretical account of how adaptability resources and individual situational factors jointly shape adaptive responses and adaptation results.

There are also several implications for organizational management and career counseling in this study. From the organizational management perspective, in light of the roles of proactive behavior in performance, human resource (HR) managers should pay attention to adaptable employees’ COPB, and take measures to guide them to engage in more proactive behavior in their work tasks to enhance their performance. In addition, because adaptable employees’ self-construal enhances their performance through proactive behavior, HR managers should aim to fulfill these employees’ needs and expectations, especially their interdependent self-construal, to strengthen the moderating effect and improve their performance, thereby making organizations more sustainable. From a career development perspective, employees with high-level career adaptability perform COPB. HR managers should, thus, provide employees with career development opportunities that align with organizational development goals, demonstrate the relevance between career development training and organizational tasks, coordinate WOPB and COPB, guide employees to show more WOPB than COPB to enhance their performance rating, and realize the win–win situation between personal career success and organizational development.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

First, although we collected data at two time points, this was not a longitudinal study; thus, our ability to draw conclusions about causal relationships is limited. Future researchers could employ longitudinal studies to examine causality. Second, our sample size was relatively small, which may have biased our results. We recommend that future researchers obtain more data from multiple sources to replicate our findings. Third, we tested the dual-path model’s boundary condition from a self-construal perspective only. However, organizational leadership style largely shapes employees’ motivation and behavior. For example, employees working under abusive supervision may show less proactive behavior (Mackey et al., 2018), which affects performance. Thus, our model needs to be examined in diverse organizational climates. Finally, we focused solely on performance. To examine the generalizability of the dual-pathway model, other dependent variables need to be examined. Employees’ turnover intention has always been an important issue for researchers. On the one hand, adaptable employees’ COPB promotes their ability to attain more job opportunities, which generates turnover motivation; on the other hand, there is indirect evidence that WOPB may lead to turnover motivation, because feedback-seeking behavior affects turnover intention via organizational commitment (Vandenberghe et al., 2021). Therefore, future researchers could include turnover intention when examining the dual-pathway framework.

Akkermans, J., Paradniké, K., Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., & De Vos, A. (2018). The best of both worlds: The role of career adaptability and career competencies in students’ well-being and performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article e1678.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01678

Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of proactive behaviour: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 475–498.
https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X439208

Biemann, T., Cole, M. S., & Voelpel, S. (2012). Within-group agreement: On the use (and misuse) of r_WG and r_WG(J) in leadership research and some best practice guidelines. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 66–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.006

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435–462.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600304

Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78(4), 791–808.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.791

Cross, S. E., Hardin, E. E., & Gercek-Swing, B. (2011). The what, how, why, and where of self-construal. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 142–179.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310373752

Douglass, R. P., & Duffy, R. D. (2015). Calling and career adaptability among undergraduate students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 86, 58–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.11.003

Duffy, R. D., Douglass, R. P., & Autin, K. L. (2015). Career adaptability and academic satisfaction: Examining work volition and self-efficacy as mediators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 90, 46–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.07.007

Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., & Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010). Leader–member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1085–1103.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020858

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

Gao, X., Xin, X., Zhou, W., & Jepsen, D. M. (2019). Combine your “will” and “able”: Career adaptability’s influence on performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article e2695.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02695

Guan, Y., Zhou, W., Ye, L., Jiang, P., & Zhou, Y. (2015). Perceived organizational career management and career adaptability as predictors of success and turnover intention among Chinese employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 230–237.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.04.002

Guan, Y., Zhuang, M., Cai, Z., Ding, Y., Wang, Y., Huang, Z., & Lai, X. (2017). Modeling dynamics in career construction: Reciprocal relationship between future work self and career exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 101, 21–31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.04.003

Gupta, M. (2019). Does work engagement mediate the perceived career support- and career adaptability-work performance relationship? Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing, 12(2), 310–327.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JGOSS-08-2017-0032

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://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.11.008

Hou, Z.-J., Leung, S. A., Li, X., Li, X., & Xu, H. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale–China Form: Construction and initial validation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 686–691.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.006

Ingusci, E., Spagnoli, P., Zito, M., Colombo, L., & Cortese, C. G. (2019). Seeking challenges, individual adaptability and career growth in the relationship between workload and contextual performance: A two-wave study. Sustainability, 11(2), Article e422.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020422

Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2005). Does supporting employees’ career adaptability lead to commitment, turnover, or both? Human Resource Management, 44(1), 5–19.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20037

Jannesari, M., & Sullivan, S. E. (2019). Career adaptability and the success of self-initiated expatriates in China. Career Development International, 24(4), 331–349.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-02-2019-0038

Johnston, C. S. (2018). A systematic review of the career adaptability literature and future outlook. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(1), 3–30.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716679921

Klehe, U.-C., Zikic, J., Van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Pater, I. E. (2011). Career adaptability, turnover and loyalty during organizational downsizing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 217–229.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.01.004

Lam, S. Y. (2010). What kind of assumptions need to be realistic and how to test them: A response to Tsang (2006). Strategic Management Journal, 31(6), 679–687.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.832

Liu, C., & Yu, K. (2019). Career adaptability and citizenship outcomes: A moderated mediation model. Career Development International, 24(7), 658–671.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-12-2018-0312

Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2007). Developing a new measure of independent and interdependent views of the self. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 249–257.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.09.005

Ma, P.-W. W., & Yeh, C. J. (2005). Factors influencing the career decision status of Chinese American youths. The Career Development Quarterly, 53(4), 337–347.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2005.tb00664.x

Mackey, J. D., McAllister, C. P., Brees, J. R., Huang, L., & Carson, J. E. (2018). Perceived organizational obstruction: A mediator that addresses source–target misalignment between abusive supervision and OCBs. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(10), 1283–1295.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2293

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

Meyers, M. C. (2020). The neglected role of talent proactivity: Integrating proactive behavior into talent-management theorizing. Human Resource Management Review, 30(2), Article e100703.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100703

Ohme, M., & Zacher, H. (2015). Job performance ratings: The relative importance of mental ability, conscientiousness, and career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87, 161–170.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.01.003

Pajic, S., Keszler, A., Kismihók, G., Mol, S. T., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2018). Antecedents and outcomes of Hungarian nurses’ career adaptability. International Journal of Manpower, 39(8), 1096–1114.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-10-2018-0334

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

Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 636–652.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636

Porfeli, E. J., Lee, B., Vondracek, F. W., & Weigold, I. K. (2011). A multi-dimensional measure of vocational identity status. Journal of Adolescence, 34(5), 853–871.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.02.001

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316

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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.09.002

Sattar, M. A., Rasheed, M. I., Khan, I. U., Tariq, H., & Iqbal, J. (2017). Why adaptable individuals perform better: The role of orientation to happiness. Australian Journal of Career Development, 26(3), 134–141.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1038416217724516

Savickas, M. L. (1997). Career adaptability: An integrative construct for life-span, life-space theory. The Career Development Quarterly, 45(3), 247–259.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1997.tb00469.x

Savickas, M. L. (2002). Career construction: A developmental theory of vocational behavior. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 149–205). Jossey-Bass.

Savickas, M. L. (2013). Career construction theory and practice. In R. W. Lent & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed., pp. 147–183). Wiley.

Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 661–673.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.011

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a brief questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471

Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205014

Urbanaviciute, I., Udayar, S., & Rossier, J. (2019). Career adaptability and employee well-being over a two-year period: Investigating cross-lagged effects and their boundary conditions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 111, 74–90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.10.013

Vandenberghe, C., Landry, G., Bentein, K., Anseel, F., Mignonac, K., & Roussel, P. (2021). A dynamic model of the effects of feedback-seeking behavior and organizational commitment on newcomer turnover. Journal of Management, 47(2), 519–544.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319850621

Van Der Heijde, C. M., & Van Der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2006). A competence-based and multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability. Human Resource Management, 45(3), 449–476.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20119

Weng, Q., & McElroy, J. C. (2010). Vocational self-concept crystallization as a mediator of the relationship between career self-management and job decision effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(2), 234–243.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.10.012

Werner, J. M. (2000). Implications of OCB and contextual performance for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 3–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00036-4

Williams, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing indirect effects in complex models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 15(1), 23–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701758166

Wu, C.-H., Parker, S. K., Wu, L.-Z., & Lee, C. (2018). When and why people engage in different forms of proactive behavior: Interactive effects of self-construals and work characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 293–323.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1064

Yu, H., Guan, X., Zheng, X., & Hou, Z. (2018). Career adaptability with or without career identity: How career adaptability leads to organizational success and individual career success? Journal of Career Assessment, 26(4), 717–731.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717727454

Zacher, H. (2014). Career adaptability predicts subjective career success above and beyond personality traits and core self-evaluations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(1), 21–30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.10.002

Zacher, H. (2015). Daily manifestations of career adaptability: Relationships with job and career outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 76–86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.003

Zhang, G., & Chen, S. (2021). Effect of peer work performance on the focal employee’s voice taking: The role of trust and self-construal. Psychological Reports, 142(2), 771–791.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120905520

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.
https://doi.org/10.1086/651257

This research was funded by the National Social Science Foundation of China (17BGL102).

Jie Zhang, College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 29 Jiangjun Avenue, Nanjing, Jiangsu 211106, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]