Exploring the path through which
career adaptability leads to positive
reactions towards organizational
change: the roles of work engagement
and workload
!
!!
!
Marie Michelle Dillon, 11085169 University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Economics and Business
Master thesis - Leadership and Management Track Academic year: 20015-2016
Supervisor: Sofija Pajic Amsterdam, June 24 2016
!
!
!
!
This document is written by Marie Michelle Dillon who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Abstract
This study examines the direct relationship between career adaptability (CA) and reactions towards organizational change using two dimensions; (1) change readiness and (2) openness towards organizational change. Specifically, the study focuses on the role of work engagement (WE) in partially mediating the relationship between career adaptability and reactions towards organizational change. This study also looks at the moderating role of job demands, measured through workload (WL), on the direct and indirect relationships described above. Data was collected from 133 employees coming from diverse vocational backgrounds but mostly working for canadian organizations. In line with expectations, the study demonstrated that employees who were career adaptable had more positive reactions towards organizational change as demonstrated through higher levels of change readiness and openness towards organizational change. Results also showed that work engagement mediated the relationship between career adaptability and reactions towards organizational change. Further, when individuals reported higher levels of workload, the overall relationship between CA and reactions towards organizational change weakened. The implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are also included in this study.
Key words: Career adaptability (CA); Work engagement (WE); Workload (WL); Reactions towards organizational change, Change readiness; Openness towards organizational change
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Table of Content
!
!
1. Introduction……….. 5!
2. Theoretical Background……… 10!
2.1 Career Adaptability and Reactions Towards Organizational Change 2.2 Career Adaptability and Work Engagement
2.3 Work Engagement and Reactions Towards Organizational Change 2.4 Mediation Effect
2.5 Moderation Effects
!
3. Method………. 20
!
3.1 Sample and Procedure 3.2 Measures 3.3 Statistical Procedure
!
4. Results……….. 26!
4.1 Correlation Analysis 4.2 Hypotheses Testing!
5. Discussion……… 37!
5.1 Theoretical and Practical Implications 5.2 Limitations
!
6. Conclusion……… 47!
7. References………. 49!
8. Figures……… 57!
9. Appendix: Survey Invitation……… 60
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Chapter 1: Introduction
!
As workforce demographics change, markets evolve, and new technologies emerge,
organizations are being forced to adapt to constantly changing environments. In order to successfully
navigate change, organizations and the people that work for them need to be adaptable. In fact, several
scholars and business authors have coined adaptability as the modern day competitive advantage,
known as the adaptive advantage (Reeves and Deimler, 2011). Put simply, adaptability is about being
really good at learning and doing new things. That being said, studies show that as many as 70% of
organizational change projects fail, a statistic that has remained constant since the 1970’s (Ashkenas,
2013). This statistic is concerning, considering that the pace of change is certain to increase and the
nature of change is sure to evolve. Seemingly, people and organizations do not seem to be as good at
learning and doing new things as we thought they would be. As well, is it plausible that organizations
are not meeting the needs of employees to help them manage and thrive in such changing
environments?
Charles Kettering, famous american inventor and head of research at General Motors, once said:
“If you have always done it that way, it is probably wrong‟. This being said, organizational change is
vital to the growth and survival of organizations (Yousef, 2000). Specifically, organizations rely on
their employees as key drivers of effective change management (Stanley et al., 2005). Seemingly,
organizational change management is highly talent dependant. In fact, employees’ reactions towards
organizational change are fundamental to determining the effectiveness and success of the latter. For
the willingness of individuals to buy into and support the changes brought forth by management (Choi,
2011).
There is no doubt that change is a fact of life. Consequently, there is an omnipresent need for
adaptation not only for work, but for life. Although individuals should constantly expect change, and
therefore the need for adaptation, this is easier said than done. Adaptability is defined as “the quality of
being able to change, without great difficulty, to fit new or unchanged circumstances” (Savickas, 1997,
p. 254). Adaptability in individuals involves planful attitudes, self and environmental exploration, as
well as informed decision making (Savickas, 1997). On the other hand, career adaptability (CA) is a
more specific term used to describe the “attitudes, competencies, and behaviours that individuals use in
fitting themselves to work that suits them” (Savickas, 2005). Career adaptability consists of four
psychosocial resources that individuals use in order to adapt to varying work and career related
changes. These include: concern, control, confidence, and curiosity (Savickas and Porfeli, 2012).
Firstly, concern deals with how the individual portrays his or her current and future career as well as
the upcoming tasks and challenges at work. Then, curiosity is about the individual’s ability or
willingness to explore new opportunities and find information related to the development or
advancement of his or her career. Further, confidence relates to how confident the individual is with
facing challenges and overcoming those obstacles at work and in their career. Finally, control denotes
the degree to which the individual can make his or her own decisions at work and regarding their
career. Hence, the focus of this study is more on the adaptability of individuals in the world of work,
which is better described by career adaptability than individual adaptability. (Savickas and Porfeli,
Career adaptability has been linked to a range of individual-level outcomes such as
employability within and outside the organization (de Guzman and Choi, 2013), career success
(Zacher, 2014), and reemployment quality (Koen et al., 2010), and life satisfaction (Hirschi, 2009).
Additionally, career adaptability has been linked to a few organizational level outcomes such as
organizational commitment (Ito and Brotheridge, 2005), turnover rate (Klehe et al., 2011; Ito and
Brotheridge, 2005), and organizational loyalty (Klehe et al., 2011). However, it is to be noted that a
significant portion of the available career adaptability literature focuses on the school-to-work
transition, as experienced by recent graduates (Koen et al, 2012; Duffy, 2010).
With the use of Career Construction Theory (Savickas, 1997; Savickas, 2002, Savickas, 2005),
most research on career adaptability has explored the construct in relation to career-related outcomes
(Zacher, 2014; Koen et al, 2010, de Guzman and Choi, 2013). This being said, there is a lack of
research examining the role of CA on work-related outcomes such as organizational change. Further,
no studies, to our knowledge, have explored the explanatory mechanisms through which CA leads to
change related outcomes. Hence, a resulting gap is present in the existing career adaptability and
organizational change management literature. This study hopes to help bridge this gap.
In view of this gap, the role of CA and the underlying mechanisms through which it facilitates
reactions to change were examined in this study. Notably, the main purpose of the present study is to
gain a better understanding of how employees, as the key drivers of change, develop positive reactions
towards organizational change. The goal of this study, therefore, is to examine the relative importance
of career adaptability, as measured by concern, control, confidence, and curiosity, for reactions towards
current study will look at career adaptability as a possible antecedent of positive reactions towards
organizational change. Hence, do career adaptable individuals show more positive reactions towards
organizational change when compared to less adaptable ones? The study will also investigate the
mediating effect of work engagement (WE) as a motivational strategy, on the relationship between CA
and reactions towards organizational change. Then, using the Job Demand-Resources Model, this
research will examine how job demands, more specifically workload (WL), can have a negative effect
on the relationships described above.
In doing so, this study is innovative as it will be the first attempt, to our knowledge, to gain a
better understanding of the direct and indirect relationships between career adaptability and reactions
towards organizational change. Little is known about the mechanisms that contribute to the positive
effects of career adaptability (Fiori et al., 2015), hence the need to explore the mediating role of work
engagement in the career adaptability and reactions towards organizational change relationship.
Further, during a literature search, no studies looking at the possible influences of job demands on CA
and reactions towards organizational change were found.
From a practical point of view, it is important for organizations to understand how and where
employees differ in terms of their career adaptability, as this has a role to play in how they respond to
organizational changes. Then, by gaining a better understanding of how job demands affect these
relationships, organizations can more skillfully design jobs with appropriately tailored job demands so
as to help employees succeed in a changing environment. With this information, organizations will be
better able to address the different needs of employees, so that in the end, they can ensure that
employees show less resistance towards organizational change.
!
The structure of this research paper is as follows. Firstly, the next chapter provides a literature
review of the topic at hand. Then, Chapter 3 outlines the research method, including the sample,
measures, and statistical procedure. Subsequently, results are discussed and analyzed in Chapter 4. To
conclude, Chapter 5 involves a discussion of the results, the most important limitations of this study, as
well as suggestions for future research.
In sum, the following questions are proposed. See Figure 1 for conceptual model.
1. Do more adaptable individuals show more positive reactions toward organizational change compared to less adaptable ones? In other words, do higher levels of career adaptability positively relate to positive reactions towards organizational change?
2. Do more adaptable individuals show more positive reactions toward organizational change due to the fact that they are more engaged in their work?
3. What are the effects of reducing/increasing job demands, measured through workload, on the direct and indirect relationships between career adaptability and positive reactions towards organizational change?
!
Chapter 2: Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development
Figure 1, shown in the preceding section, provides a graphical depiction of the relationships
specified in the hypotheses. This section elaborates on these hypotheses and provides the theoretical
background that leads to them.
!
2.1 Career Adaptability and Positive Attitudes Towards Organizational Change Career adaptability
The field of vocational behaviour
Vocational behaviour is an extensively large domain, for which there exists a vast amount of
literature. The term vocational refers to “the responses an individual makes in choosing and adapting to
an occupation” (Savickas, 2002, p.150). According to Savickas (2002), there are two main schools of
thought in the field of vocational psychology. Firstly, some scholars have focused on the “individual
differences” view of occupations. Secondly, other scholars have focused their efforts on the “individual
development” view of careers. The “individual differences” view of occupations was first developed
by Frank Parsons (1909), in his work entitled “Choosing a Vocation”. Parsons (1909) identified
personality traits that explained how different people have different occupational requirements
(Savickas, 2002). Then, the second perspective, known as the “individual development” view of
careers, was initially developed by the work of Super (1953) who proposed a theory of vocational
development. His hypotheses dealt mainly with career maturity, career stages, and salience (Savickas,
2001).
!
!
!
Career Construction Theory
With his career construction theory (CCT), Savickas (1997, 2002, 2005) extends the work of
Super (1953) by expanding and modifying his initial theory of vocational development. CCT allows us
to better comprehend individuals’ vocational behaviours. The theory includes 16 propositions. In a few
words, according to this theory, individuals build their careers based on the meaning they attach to
their vocational behaviours. Hence, individuals do not build their careers based on their actual
behaviours but rather on the meaning they attach to them. Notably, there are 3 important components
to Savickas’ career construction theory. These include vocational personality, life themes, and career
adaptability (Savickas, 2005). Career adaptability is an important component of CCT and will be the
focus of this study.
Career adaptability
As described above, the concept of career adaptability stems from CCT and it refers to “a
psychosocial construct that denotes an individual’s readiness and resources for coping with current and
imminent vocational development tasks, occupational transitions, and personal traumas” (Savickas,
2005, p.51). It deals with how individuals constructs their career path (Omar, 2013) and how, generally
speaking, individuals adjust to the changing circumstances of their work lives (Rottinghaus et al.,
2012). The 4 C’s of career adaptability, control, concern, confidence, and curiosity, are psychosocial
resources that allow individuals to adapt to new career or work related circumstances (Savickas and
Porfeli, 2012). In their work, Career Development and Counselling, Brown and Lent (2004) developed
use as they deal with critical tasks, changes, transitions, and challenges in their daily work life and
career. Then, the intermediate level of CA in relation to CCT includes a set of homogeneous variables,
known as the ABC’s of career construction theory. These variables include the attitudes, beliefs, and
competencies that shape individual’s control, concern, confidence, and curiosity over their career and
work life. In other words, these ABC’s are seen as the “mechanisms for synthesizing vocational
self-concepts with work roles” (Brown and Lent, 2004, p. 52).
Adaptivity, career adaptability, and adapting
Further, a more recent study defined career adaptability as the "set of psychosocial resources
that condition adapting behaviours” (Hirschi et al., 2015, p.1). Evidently, this more refined definition
of career adaptability differs from Savickas’ (1997) initial introduction of the concept, with the help of
his career construction theory. When measuring career adaptability, Savickas’ 4 C’s model - concern,
curiosity, confidence, control - is often used as a guiding framework (Hirschi et al., 2015). However, in
their article Hirschi et al. (2015), based on the work of Savickas (2013), make a distinction between
adaptivity, career adaptability, adapting, and adaptation. Adaptivity refers to the psychological traits of
adaptive individuals. In this case, the authors focus on core self-evaluations and proactivity. In their
conceptual model, adaptivity is seen as an antecedent of career adaptability. Then, naturally, career
adaptability is defined as a set of psychological career resources that relate to one’s control, concern,
confidence, and curiosity over his or her career. The resources used by career adaptable individuals in
terms of concern, control, curiosity, and confidence partially mediated the effect of adaptivity on
adapting. Thirdly, adapting refers to the behaviours of individuals in response to their changing
environment. Finally, adaptation has to do with the outcomes of adapting.
!
In line with Hirschi et al.’s model (2015), for the purpose of this project, career adaptability is
seen as an antecedent of positive reactions towards organizational change, a form of “adaptation”.
Further, this project examines the specific role of work engagement, as a motivational strategy, which
will be hypothesized to partially mediate the effect of career adaptability on positive reactions towards
organizational change.
!
Reactions towards organizational change
Organizational change is a dynamic field of study (Pettigrew et al., 2007). More specifically,
resistance to organizational change is a particularly interesting area of research. Most scholars have
focused on studying the various forces that lead people to resist change (Piderit, 2000). Resistance to
organizational change and employee reactions towards change are inherently linked.
Readiness for change and openness towards organizational change
Firstly, various authors have defined readiness for change in several different ways. Choi
(2011), based on the works of Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) and Holt et al. (2007), defined readiness
for change as the: “Evaluation of the individual and organizational capacity for making a successful
change, the need for a change, and the benefits the organization and its members can gain from a
change”. (p. 488) Then, Choi (2011), based on the work of Miller et al. (1994), defined openness to
change as the “willingness to support the change and positive affect about the potential consequences
of change” (Choi, 2011, p.488).
Rafferty et al. (2013) developed a popular multi-level framework of change readiness. In
which were shown to be positively related to change readiness, included participation in decision
making (Rafferty and Restubog, 2010), opportunities for voice and self-discovery (Wanberg and
Banas, 2000), and content of change (Bartunek et al., 2006).
This being said, career adaptability may be central to the development of positive reactions
towards organizational change. As explained by Tolentino et al. (2014), career adaptability is an
important competency for employees to effectively manage work demands that occur with
environmental changes. By making use psychosocial resources such as concern, control, confidence,
and curiosity it would seem that career adaptable individuals would be more likely to embrace new
work related changes and opportunities more positively than less career adaptable individuals.
Proposition 14 of CCT (Savickas, 2002, p.156), states that “CA is a psychosocial construct that denotes
an individual's readiness and resources for coping with current and anticipated tasks of vocational
development”. Notably, previous research has given considerable attention to the impact of career
adaptability on a wide range of positive organizational level outcomes. For example, career
adaptability has been linked to affective commitment (Ito and Brotheridge, 2005) and organizational
loyalty (Klehe et al., 2001). If career adaptable employees feel a positive emotional attachment to the
organization, demonstrated through affective commitment and loyalty, then they may react better to
changes brought forth by management. Then, research has found positive relationships between career
adaptability individual level outcomes such as self-efficacy (Hirschi, 2009), openness to experience
(Zacher, 2014), and regulatory focus (Koen et al., 2012). In turn, self-efficacy has been related to
change relates outcomes such as readiness for change (Kirton and Mulligan, 1973; Paglis and Green,
2002). Then, openness, as a personal characteristic, has been positively associated with organizational
presented above, we expect a positive relationship between CA and reactions towards organizational
change. The first hypothesis states that:
Hypothesis 1: Career adaptability is positively related to positive reactions to organizational change
(change readiness and openness towards organizational change).
!
2.2 Career Adaptability and Work Engagement Work engagement
Work engagement (WE) is defined as a “positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is
characterized by: vigour, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2001). In particular, vigour is
defined by high levels of energy and mental resilience. Individuals who are vigorous are persistent,
even when faced with challenges (Schaufeli et al., 2001). As supported by Leiter and Bakker (2010),
employees who are highly engaged in their work have high levels of energy and display enthusiasm
towards their work. Secondly, dedication can be seen as somewhat synonymous for involvement.
According to Schaufeli et al. (2001), dedication refers to a high level of involvement that goes beyond
identification. Finally, absorption is about being highly focused and concentrated. (Schaufeli et al.,
2001)
!
Work engagement vs. organizational commitment
Furthermore, it is important to make the distinction between organizational commitment and work
engagement. Porter et al. (1974, p. 604) defined organizational commitment as the “strength of an
organizational commitment refers to an employee’s association with his or her organization, work
engagement refers to an employee’s association with his or her work.
The relationship between career adaptability and work engagement has been studied (Rossier et
al., 2012; Tladinyane and van der Merwe, 2016; Cotter and Fouad, 2012). While the majority of these
studies (Rossier et al., 2012; Tladinyane and van der Merwe, 2016) found that CA positively correlated
with work engagement, Cotter and Fouad (2012), contrary to hypotheses, found that CA was not
positively associated to engagement. Further, Rossier et al. (2012), also demonstrated the relationships
between several personality dimensions, such as extraversion and activity, and work engagement.
Other studies have also demonstrated the possible antecedents of work engagement, which seems to
relate closely to career adaptability. For example, psychological meaningfulness was shown to
positively relate to work engagement (Olivier and Rothmann, 2007). Psychological meaningfulness
refers to the perceived “fit” between one’s self-concept and their work role. When this fit is achieved,
individuals experience a sense of meaning. This fits nicely into career construction theory which states
that “the process of career construction is essentially that of developing and implementing vocational
self-concepts in work roles” (Savickas, 2002, p. 155). Hence, if individuals can experience this
perceived “fit”, then it would seem that they would be more likely to be engaged in their work.
Hypothesis 2: Career adaptability is positively related to work engagement.
!
Work engagement and positive reactions towards organizational change
Work engagement is likely to influence employees’ reactions towards organizational change,
more specifically change readiness and general openness towards change. The relationship between
engagement was shown to be positively and highly related to change readiness, which was measured
using four dimensions: perceived appropriateness of the change, anticipated benefit from changes,
perceived support for change among peers and leaders, and capability to implement changes (Hung et
al., 2013). As described by Schaufeli et al. (2001), individuals who are highly engaged in their work
display persistence, even in the face of challenges. Certainly, organizational changes can be seen as a
challenge and it is hypothesized that highly engaged individuals will respond more appropriately than
others to these. Furthermore, research on change management provides useful insights for this
proposed relationship. Price and Chahal (2005) included communication and workforce engagement in
their model of successful change management. Similarly, the research of Guy and Beaman (2005)
listed engagement and alignment as components of effective change management. In sum, it is
expected that as highly engaged individuals are more vigorous, persistent, and focused that they will
have better reactions towards organizational change. With this in mind, the following is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 3: Work engagement is positively related to positive attitudes towards organizational
change.
!
2.4 Mediation Effect: Work Engagement
Based on the theoretical findings presented in the sections above, one can conclude that CA
contributes to positive reactions towards organizational change. As argued previously, highly career
adaptable individuals are more likely to display vigour, dedication, and to absorbed in their work
(Rossier et al., 2012; Olivier and Rothmann, 2007). Then, existing literature has linked work
findings have described a model in which WE mediates the relationship between CA and reactions
towards organizational change.
Furthermore, in line with Hirschi et al.’s (2015) model, which makes a distinction between
adaptivity, career adaptability, and adapting, work engagement is seen as the motivational strategy that
will partially mediate the relationship between CA and reactions towards change. Work engagement
was described as a motivational concept by Leiter and Bakker (2010). As explained, “When engaged,
employees feel compelled to strive towards a challenging goal. They want to succeed” (Leiter and
Bakker, 2010, p.2). Based on the information hereupon, the following is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 4: Work engagement will partially mediate the positive relationship between CA reactions
towards organizational change (change readiness and general openness to organizational change).
!
2.5 Moderation Effects: Workload
Job demands can be defined as the “physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of
the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological effort or skills and are therefore associated
with certain physiological and/or psychological costs” (Bakker and Demerouti, 2006, p.312).
Examples of job demands include role conflict, workload, pressure, emotional exhaustion, among
many others. The present study uses workload as a measure of job demands. For the purpose of this
study, workload is measured as a quantitative job demand, meaning that it deals with a combination of
work quantity and time pressure. High levels of workload have been positively related to outcomes
such as emotional exhaustion (Greenglass et al., 2001) and negatively related to outcomes such as job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, life satisfaction, as well as performance (De Cuyper and De
According to studies, in situations where employees feel their performance levels are
threatened because of excessive job demands, coping efficacy is expected to be reduced (Parker, 2000).
On the other hand, by providing employees with job resources, organizations can create a change
oriented climate (Parker, 2000). Hence, despite one’s level of adaptability, job resources can create an
environment that eases the stresses of organizational change. In contrast, job demands, such as
workload, are expected to increase the resistance to organizational change (Parker, 2000). For example,
Karasek’s (1979) job strain model demonstrated that the combination of low decision latitude and high
job demands is associated with mental strain and job dissatisfaction. Based on the findings presented
above, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 5: Job demands, more specifically workload, will moderate the strength of the direct
positive relationship between CA and reactions towards organizational change. Specifically, the
relationship will be weaker under high workload than under low workload.
Hypothesis 6: Job demands, more specifically workload, will moderate the strength of the indirect
positive relationship between CA and reactions towards organizational change, via work WE.
Specifically, the relationship will be weaker under high workload than under low workload.
!
!
!
!
!
!
Chapter 3: Method
3.1 Sample and Procedure
In order to test the conceptual model provided in section 2.7, a survey study was conducted. In
order to collect data for this study, survey participants received a link to a web-based survey,
administered by Qualtrics, and were asked a series of questions. The survey was distributed and data
was collected for a one month period; specifically from the end of April 2016 to the end of May 2016.
With regards to this, a convenience sampling technique was used. Convenience sampling is a form of
non-probability sampling, meaning that it is done in a nonrandomized manner. However, in order to be
able to fill out the survey, participants were informed that they were required to have work experience
and also to have had experienced some form of organizational change in the company they currently
worked for. Furthermore, the survey consisted of a variety of items taken or adapted from previous
studies, which proved to be consistent and valid measurements of the variables used in this study.
Precisely, 214 employees were recorded to have begun filling out the survey. However, only 133
respondents managed to fully complete the questionnaire, which represents an overall response rate of
63% (N = 133).
Specifically, from the 133 respondents, 75 were female (56.4%), 56 were male (42.1%), and 2
chose not to declare their gender (1.5%). Their average age was 24.5 years (SDage = 14.4). Further,
the sample proved to include international participants. While most respondents originated from
Canada (82.5%), others were from countries such as the Netherlands (5.8%), the United Kingdom
(2.5%), and the United States of America (5%). Moreover, with regards to their highest level of
educational attainment, 8.3% of respondents had only completed their high school education, 25% had
finally 1.5% held a Doctoral degree. Moreover, the majority of respondents (55.3%) worked for large
companies with over 500 employees while 20.4% worked for medium sized companies and 24.2%
worked for small companies.
!
3.2 Measures
Career adaptability
Career Adaptability, the independent variable of this research model, was measured using the
24-item international version of the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale (CAAS) (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012).
The CAAS consists of four subscales with six items that each measure concern, control, curiosity, and
confidence. Participants responded to the items on a 5 point Likert-scale ranging from 1, “not strong”,
to 5, “strongest”. Four example items are: “Thinking about what my future will be like” (concern),
“Making decisions by myself” (control), “Exploring my surroundings” (curiosity), and “Working up to
my ability” (confidence). Cronbach's alpha for the scale was (.903).
!
Work engagement
Work engagement, the mediating variable of this research model, was measured with 9 items
from a scale developed and validated by Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker (2002). A 5
point Likert-scale with response options ranging from 1, “never”, to 5, “always” was used. An
example item is: “My job inspires me”. Cronbach's alpha for the scale was (.918).
!
!
!
Reactions towards organizational change
Reactions towards organizational change, the dependent variable of this research model, was
assessed using two dimensions: change readiness and openness towards organizational change.
a) Change readiness
Change readiness was measured using items from a scale developed by Holt, Armenakis, Feild,
& Harris (2007). Specifically, 7 items were chosen to measure this variable, with response options
ranging from 1, “strongly disagree”, to 7, “strongly agree”. Holt et al.’s (2007) change readiness scale
consists of three different sub-scales. For this study, only two were used as the third sub-scale, change
self-efficacy, contained several items that were repetitive and redundant. First, the change
appropriateness scale included items such as: “I think that the organization will benefit from this
change”. Then, the personally beneficial change scale included items such as: “This change will
disrupt many of the personal relationships I have developed” (counter-indicative item). Cronbach's
alpha for the scale was (.795).
b) Openness towards organizational change
Openness towards organizational change was measured using items from a scale developed by
Miller, Johnson, & Grau (1994). This measure consisted of 8 items with response options ranging from
1,”strongly disagree”, to 7, “strongly agree”, based on a 7 point Likert-scale. An example item is: “I
am looking forward to the changes in my work role brought about by the implementation of this
change”. Cronbach's alpha for the scale was (.902).
!
!
!
Workload
To measure workload, the moderating variable of this research model, 3 items from a scale
developed by Bolino and Turnley (2005) were used. Respondents were asked to answer according to a
5 point Likert-scale, ranging from 1, “strongly disagree”, to 5, “strongly agree”. One of the items was:
“I never seem to have enough time to get everything done at work”. Cronbach's alpha for the scale was
(.885).
!
Control variables
Control variables were included to control for the influence of other factors on employee’s
reactions towards organizational change and work engagement. These factors included age, gender,
and company size. Age was measured using a continuous scale measured in years. It was important to
control for age as several studies have observed a positive relationship between age and work
engagement (Schaufeli et al, 2006; Rudolph and Baltes, 2016; Kühnel et al., 2012). Then, gender was
taken as a control variable and measured in a nominal scale (Female = 1, Male = 2, Would rather not
declare = 3). This being said, the relationship between gender and work engagement has been shown,
despite being quite weak (Schaufeli et al, 2006). Finally, company size was measured using a nominal
scale (1 = Small 1-99 employees, 2 = Medium 100-499 employees, 3 = Large 500+ employees). It was
important to control for company size with regards to reactions towards change as studies have shown
relationships (both positive and negative) between company size and organizational change (Haveman,
1993).
!
3.3 Statistical Procedure
The Statistical software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to perform statistical analyses.
The data was analyzed in several steps. Firstly, counter-indicative items were recoded. Several items
from the change readiness and openness towards organizational change scales had to be recoded. Then,
reliability checks were run on all variables, specifically career adaptability, change readiness, openness
towards change, work engagement, and workload, to determine their internal consistency. According to
Field (2009) internal consistency should be above 0.70. This being said, all scales reported a high
reliability (α > .70). In other words, none of the items would substantially affect the overall scale
reliability if they were deleted. Thirdly, scale means, standard deviations, and correlations were
computed for all variables. Further, the conceptual model was tested by running mediation,
moderation, and moderated mediation tests through PROCESS, a script written by Preacher and Hayes
(2008).
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Chapter 4: Results
In this section, the correlation matrix will be analyzed (see Table 1). Furthermore, the results from the
moderation and mediation tests will be presented, based on the findings presented in the mediation as
well as the moderated mediation table (see Tables 2 and 3).
!
4.1 Correlation Analyses
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the scales used in the study are presented
in Table 1. These correlations were run in order to gain a better understanding of the relationships
between all variables, including the predictor (career adaptability), mediator (work engagement),
moderator (workload), outcome (reactions towards organizational change), and control variables
(gender, age, and company size). Consistent with expectations, results show that career adaptability
was positively and significantly related to work engagement (r = 0.33, p < 0.01) and to reactions
towards organizational change (r = 0.2, p < 0.05). This implies that individuals who display high levels
of career adaptability feel more engaged at work and they also display better reactions towards
organizational change. The correlation between work engagement and reactions towards organizational
change was also positive and significant (r = 0.33, p < 0.01). This correlation entails that individuals
who are more engaged at work have better reactions towards organizational change. Then, workload
and reactions towards organizational change were negatively and significantly related (r = -0.23, p <
0.01). In other words, individuals who experienced a high workload had more negative reactions
towards organizational change.
!
Moreover, the following control variables were introduced: age, company size, and gender.
Interestingly, age and work engagement were positively and significantly correlated (r = 0.35, p <
0.01). This correlation suggests that in line with some previous studies (e.g. Schaufeli et al, 2006;
Rudolph and Baltes, 2016; Kühnel et al., 2012) older individuals display higher levels of work
engagement. The other control variables revealed no significant correlations with the other variables of
the hypothesized model.
!
4.2 Hypotheses Testing
In order to test the proposed hypotheses, PROCESS “Model 4” (see Figure 2) and PROCESS
“Model 8” (see Figure 3) were used. The direct relationships hypothesized in this research model
(H1-H3) were first investigated. Then, the mediation effect was tested and analyzed (H4). Finally, the
moderated mediation effects were tested and analyzed (H5-H6). (See Tables 2 and 3 for results)
!
Career adaptability and reactions towards organizational change
Firstly, the direct relationship between the independent variable (career adaptability) and the
dependent variable (reactions towards organizational change) was investigated. The results (see Table
2) indicated that the effect of career adaptability on reactions towards organizational change is
significant (β= 1.14 p = < 0.05). As hypothesized, this implies that individuals who displayed higher
levels of career adaptability also displayed more positive reactions towards organizational change, as
measured through change readiness and openness towards organizational change. Hence, Hypothesis 1
of this research model is supported.
!
Career adaptability and work engagement
Then, the direct relationship between the independent variable (career adaptability) and the
mediator (work engagement) was tested. In line with the second hypothesis, the results (see Table 2)
indicated that career adaptability and work engagement were positively and significantly related (β=
1.22 p = < 0.01). This suggest that those who display higher levels of career adaptability are more
engaged at work. Thus, hypothesis 2 of this research model is supported.
!
Work engagement and reactions towards organizational change
Thirdly, the relationship between the mediator (work engagement) and the dependent variable
(reactions towards organizational change) was explored. Results (see Table 2) demonstrated that the
relationship between work engagement and reactions towards organizational change was statistically
significant (β= 0.40 p = < 0.01). Hence, as hypothesized, as individuals are more engaged in their
work, they react better to change or anticipated change. In sum, based on the results presented above,
we can conclude that the direct relationships, stated in hypotheses 1 through 3, are all significant.
!
Mediation effect
Moreover, in testing hypothesis 4 which hypothesized an indirect relationship between CA and
reactions towards organizational change through WE, we complemented the results above with the
results of a simple mediation model tested through PROCESS “Model 4” (Hayes and Preacher, 2008).
The previously evidenced significant relationship between the independent variable and the dependent
towards organizational change became non-significant after controlling for work engagement
(B=0.138, p=0.478). Accordingly, as seen in Table 6, the indirect effect is significant with bootstrapped
confidence intervals fully above zero (B=0.277l LLCI: 0.148, ULCI: 0.495). Such result indicated full
mediation. Namely, two employees who differ by one unit in career adaptability are estimated to differ
by 0.138 units in their reactions to organizational change entirely due to the tendency of those who are
more adaptable to be more engaged in their work. This being said, hypothesis 4 which states that the
effect of career adaptability on reactions towards organizational change will be partially mediated by
work engagement, is supported.
!
Moderation effect
The moderation effect proposed by this research model was tested in two steps using, once
again, PROCESS “Model 8”. The results presented below can be found in Table 2. Firstly, the
interaction effect of the independent variable (career adaptability) and the moderator (workload) on the
dependent variable (attitudes towards organizational change) was analyzed. The results indicated the
effect of career adaptability on attitudes towards organizational change to be contingent on the
employee’s workload, as evidenced by a statistically significant interaction between XW in the model
of Y ( β= -0.37 p = < 0.05). A closer inspection of the conditional effects (see Table 4 and Table 5)
indicated that the direct relationship between career adaptability and reactions towards organizational
change appeared to be changing direction for all different levels of workload. Specifically, whereas
career adaptability positively relates to reactions towards change at lower levels of workload, it
showed negative relationship with reactions towards change for higher levels of workload. However, it
inspection of confidence intervals showed none of the moderated direct effects to be significant. For
low levels of workload, the direct effect was positive but not significant (effect=0.39; LLCI: -.065 to
ULCI:.040 to effect=0.12; LLCI: -.371 to ULCI:0.394 for the levels of workload between 2 and 4,
respectively). Then, for higher levels for workload, the direct effect was negative but also not
significant (effect=-0.24; LLCI:-.730 to ULCI:.252 to effect=-0.36; LLCI:-.937 to ULCI:.209 for the
levels of workload between 3.67 and 4, respectively). Hence, as hypothesized by H5, the direct effect
of career adaptability on reactions towards organizational change is moderated by workload as
presented by the interaction effect results. However, based on the confidence intervals, the effect sizes
themselves were negligible.
Secondly, the model allowed us to examine the interaction effect between the independent
variable (career adaptability) and the moderator (workload) on the mediator (work engagement). The
effect of career adaptability on work engagement also proved to be contingent on the employee’s
workload, as evidenced by small but still marginally statistically significant relationship between XW
in the model of M (β= -0.24 p = 0.046). A closer inspection (see Table 3) of the conditional effects
indicated the indirect effect of career adaptability through work engagement to be positive and present
for almost all levels of workload. However, the indirect effect reduced in size with the increase of
workload. For lower to medium levels of workload, the indirect effect was positive and significant
(effect=0.29; LLCI:.128 to ULCI:.550 to effect=0.13; LLCI:.321 to ULCI:.028 for the levels of
workload between 2 and 3.6, respectively). On the other hand, for a high level of workload (workload
being 4 on the scale from 1 to 5) the effect became non-significant (effect=0.096; LLCI:.-.018 to
of career adaptability on reactions towards organizational change through work engagement is
moderated by workload, but only when workload if low/medium.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Table 1:
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Age 24.5 14.38 - 2. Company Size 2.31 0.84 0.13* -3. Gender 1.45 0.53 0.2* 0.09 -4. Career Adaptability 3.48 0.54 -0.11 0.02 -0.02 (0.903) 5. Workload 2.91 0.98 0.11 0.09 0.12 -0.07 (0.885) 6. Work Engagement 3.56 0.83 0.35** -0.14 0.06 0.33** -0.08 (0.918) 7. Change 5.27 1.07 -0.08 -0.16 0.04 0.2* -0.23** 0.33** (0.902 / 0.795)**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Table 2:
Moderated Mediation (PROCESS Model 8)
!
!
Consequent!
Work Engagement (M)
!
Reaction to change (Y) Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
Career Adaptability (X) a1 1.22 0.35 <0.01 c’1 1.14 .52 <.05 Work Engagement (M) - - - b1 .40 .13 <.01 Workload (W) a2 0.80 0.44 0.068 c’2 1.13 .63 =0.73 Career Adaptability x Workload (XW) a3 -0.24 0.12 =0.046 c’4 -.37 .17 <.05 Age .026 .01 <0.01 -.01 .01 =0.09 Gender .000 .12 .999 .14 .17 =0.39 Company Size -.236 .07 <0.01 -.11 11 =.33 constant i1 .65 1.26 =0.609 i2 .70 0.79 =.695 R2 = .329 R2 = .221 F(6,124) = 10.149, p<.001 F(7,123) = 5.000, p<.001
Table 3:
Mediation Table (PROCESS Model 4)
!
!
!
!
Consequent!
Work Engagement (M)!
Reaction to change (Y) Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
Career Adaptability (X) a 0.578 0.124 <0.001 c’ 0.138 0.193 0.478 Work Engagement (M) - - - b 0.479 0.128 <0.001 Age 0.025 0.004 <0.001 -0.015 0.007 <0.05 Gender .0028 .119 .981 .128 .171 0.454 Company Size -.233 .074 <0.001 -.92 0.111 0.411 constant i1 1.45 0.499 <0.001 i2 3.493 0.742 <0.001 R2 = .302 R2 = .161 F(4,131) = 13.606, p<.001 F(5,131) = 4.786, p<.001
Table 4:
Conditional Direct Effects (Moderated Mediation)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Workload Unstandardized effects SE LLCI ULCI
Conditional direct effect at change reactions for the levels of workload
2.0 0.388 0.229 -0.065 0.840 3.0 0.120 0.193 -0.371 0.394
3.67 -0.239 0.248 -0.730 0.252
Table 5:
Conditional Indirect Effects (Moderated Mediation)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Workload Unstandardized effects SE LLCI ULCI
Conditional indirect effect at change reactions for the levels of workload
2.0 0.295 0.103 0.129 0.550 3.0 0.196 0.074 0.085 0.390
3.67 0.130 0.070 0.029 0.321
Table 6:
Conditional Indirect Effect (Mediation)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Work Engagement Unstandardized effects SE LLCI ULCI
Indirect effect of CA on reactions to change through work engagement
Chapter 5: Discussion
The results of this study, as presented in Chapter 4, will be discussed and analyzed. This
section will include a discussion of the theoretical and practical implication of each finding. Then, the
limitations of this study along with suggestions for future research will be explored.
The main purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of how employees develop
positive reactions towards organizational change. Specifically, the goal of this study was to examine
the relative importance of career adaptability, as measured by concern, control, confidence, and
curiosity, on reactions to organizational change. The study also looked at the mediating role of work
engagement, as a motivational strategy, in the relationship between CA and reactions towards
organizational change. Finally, the study also set out to explore the possible negative effects of job
demands (as measured by workload) on the same relationships. Taken together, the results of this study
showed that when individuals are highly career adaptable, they become more engaged in their work.
As a result, higher levels of readiness and openness towards organizational change are seen in these
individuals. To add, the direct and indirect relationships between CA and reactions towards
organizational change were weakened when workloads were perceived as being too high. Both
employees and their employers can benefit from high levels of career adaptability in the workforce. By
being career adaptable, employees are more engaged in their work and, in turn, employers play a role
by ensuring that positions have fair and well thought out job demands, ultimately strengthening the
company’s ability to thrive in a changing environment.
5.1 Theoretical and Practical Implications
For the purpose of this study, six hypotheses were formulated. In the following paragraphs, the main
findings of each hypothesis will be reviewed followed by a relevance of these findings for theory as
well as practice.
Career Adaptability and Reactions Towards Organizational Change
Past research on career adaptability has linked the construct to outcomes related to career
transitions, such as job loss, unemployment, and reemployment. Specifically, CA has been linked to the
successful management of unemployment (Savickas, 2002) as well as reemployment quality (Zikic and
Klehe, 2006). These types of outcomes, while not being directly related to intra-organizational
outcomes such as reactions towards change, do require some level of adaptation in the sense that in
order to successfully manage a change such as unemployment, one must make use of CA resources to
reach a successful state of adaptation. Hence, the current study assumed that individuals who displayed
high levels of career adaptability would also respond more positively to organizational changes in their
organizations, as measured by change readiness and openness towards change. This being said, this
study is the first to demonstrate that higher individual career adaptability scores led to higher levels of
change readiness and openness towards organizational change, and that lower career adaptability
scores were associated with lower levels of change readiness and openness towards change. This
finding is somewhat related to those of Ito and Brotheridge (2005), which showed a weak, yet positive
relationship between CA and organizational commitment. However, the results of their study were
somewhat conflictive as CA was positively related to commitment but also to turnover. In sum, this
study adds to CA litterature as it demonstrates its a strong and significant positive relationship with
Furthermore, research has been conducted to determine the antecedents of positive reactions
towards change, more specifically change readiness (Rafferty et al., 2013). In particular, change
readiness has been linked to internal context antecedents such as participation in decision making
(Rafferty & Restubog, 2010), opportunities for voice (Wanberg and Banas, 2000), exposure to change
(Axtell et al, 2002), among many others. Then, some research has focused on the individual differences
and personality traits that lead to change readiness (Rafferty et al., 2013), such as needs (Miller et al.,
1994). This study contributed to the existing change readiness literature by exploring the role of career
adaptability, as a multidimensional construct, that not only assesses individual differences but also
includes the interactions that individuals have with others and with the environment they wish to
influence.
This finding is also fits well into career construction theory (2002). As described by Savickas
(2005), CA is the component of career construction theory that explains the “why” of vocational
behavior. In line with CCT (Savickas, 2002) and the results of this study, individuals who are highly
career adaptable are able to “tap” into adaptability resources (4 C’s) to help reach successful adaptation
outcomes (Savickas and Porfeli, 2012). For the purpose of this study, positive reactions towards
organizational change were seen as a form of successful adaptation. For these reasons, through CCT, it
is concluded that different individuals possess varying levels of CA as they possess different resources
which assist them in managing vocational changes (Savickas and Porfeli, 2012). In fact, it would seem
that the attitudes, beliefs, and competencies (ABC’s) of career adaptable individuals have a higher
adaptive fitness as demonstrated by career adaptable individual’s ability to make greater use of control,
their levels of adaptability, it can be implied that the success of their adaptation to work related
changes; hence, their reactions towards organizational change, will also vary.
This relationship, as hypothesized by H1, has important implications for practice as it increases
the significance of CA as a relatively new practice and construct that has the potential to improve how
employees react to organizational changes in their workplaces. Specifically, this study provides
implications for organizational development, training, as well as recruitment. Particularly, as CA is an
important predictor of change readiness and openness, it can be used as a diagnostic tool to identify
and further understand the types of problems that individuals with lower levels of CA might encounter
as they react to organizational changes. Then, with the goal to ultimately reduce overall levels of
change resistance, it is in the advantage of organizations to design training programs and workshops to
facilitate positive reactions to change. For example, by providing employees with change education
courses, they could develop their levels of CA by allowing them to develop adaptive attitudes and
make use of adaptive resources. Essentially, the purpose of training employees would be to make them
“fit” to withstand and thrive in their ever-changing environments. Moreover, the positive relationship
between CA and reactions towards change has implications for the recruitment process. By assessing
potential recruits’ levels of CA as an important criterion, companies can hire individuals who are
predisposed to high levels of career adaptability. Looking forward, given that the nature of work is
ever-changing, this would certainly be beneficial for organizations. Further, when new hires are CA,
they will not only react more positively to organizational change but their overall transition into the job
will be facilitated as commencing a new job is most certainly, a large change in itself.
!
Career Adaptability and Work Engagement
The results, in accordance with hypothesis 2, demonstrated that individuals who displayed
higher levels of career adaptability displayed higher levels of work engagement. This is in line with the
findings of Rossier et al. (2012) and Tladinyane and van der Merwe (2016), and contrary to those
found by Cotter and Fouad (2016). Based on the definition that was provided in Chapter 2, work
engagement referred to the “positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by
vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2001). This being said, when individuals felt more
confident about their work (confidence), were more in control of situations (control), were more open
to opportunities (curiosity), and were more concerned about their work and careers (concern), we
found that they exhibited more engagement in their work. In line with career construction theory, the
ability of highly career adaptable individuals to successfully adapt to their changing environments
requires the devotion of energy and effort in relation to one’s work (Savickas and Porfeli, 2012).
Hence, this energy and effort influences and even translates into work engagement (Rossier et al.,
2012; Tladinyane and van der Merwe, 2016). In sum, the results demonstrate that career adaptability,
which can be seen as a set of personal resources (Rossier et al., 2012), increases engagement levels.
The challenge of today’s global workforce is not only to retain employees but to fully engage
them. The benefits of a highly engaged workforce are certainly evident and well documented in the
existing literature, especially given the fact that work engagement is a popular and well-known driver
of job performance (Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010; Schaufeli et al., 2002). Namely, work engagement
is shown to be positively associated with highly desirable outcomes such as organizational
demonstrates the importance of the latter for employees to thrive and be fully engaged in their work.
Thus, by demonstrating CA as an antecedent of WE, organizations should focus on training,
developing, and enhancing the CA of employees in order to ensure that they continue to
simultaneously increase their engagement levels (Tladinyane and van der Merwe, 2016).
!
Work Engagement and Reactions Towards Organizational Change
Moreover, the relationship between work engagement and reactions towards change was
studied was in fact, supported. As individuals displayed higher levels of work engagement, they also
had more positive reactions to organizational change. This finding is consistent with Hung et al.
(2013), which also demonstrated a positive and highly significant relationship work engagement and
readiness for change. As explained by Hung et al. (2013), how individuals feel about their work
environment and the work they are tasked with can affect beliefs about organizational change.
Most of the time, organizational changes involve alterations in the way employees go about
their work. Because of this, prior to change implementation, it is important for organizations to ensure
high levels of work engagement among their workforce. Certainly, if high levels of work engagement
can contribute to employees reactions towards change, then it is in the employer’s interests to ensure
that employees are highly engaged in their work. This finding has important implications for
organizations with regards to the implementation of their change management strategies. As supported
by Price and Chahal (2005), change management teams should focus on building workforce
engagement before implementing changes. As suggested by Hung et al. (2013), in order to build
engagement, organizations could encourage staff in participative decision making. By nature, human
engagement, managers have a role to play in making employees feel a part of the change. To add, in
accordance with the concept of emotional contagion, which is defined by Bakker et al. (2001) as the
transfer of experiences from one individual to another, managers should focus on facilitating and
supporting team engagement in order to influence individual level engagement (Bakker et al., 2011). In
sum, a target issue for organizations and managers should be to create an engaged workforce and work
environment.
!
Work Engagement as a Mediator
In line with the fourth hypothesis of this research, this study attempted to further understand the
relationship between career adaptability and attitudes towards organizational change by looking at
work engagement as a potential mediator. Results demonstrated that indeed, work engagement
mediated the statistically significant and positive relationship between career adaptability and reactions
towards organizational change. Although this research has demonstrated the direct relationship
between CA and reactions towards change (H1), it has allowed us to map out a path through which CA
managed to indirectly affect reactions towards change (H4). Prior to this study, CA had been related to
work engagement (Rossier et al., 2012; Tladinyane and van der Merwe 2016). However, the available
literature on this relationship was not extensive and some findings were even conflictive (Cotter and
Fouad, 2012). Especially, the relationship had not been shown in the context of organizational change.
In accordance with career construction theory (2012), career adaptability is seen as a construct
that provides individuals with a set resources (concern, control, confidence, curiosity) that they use in
as explained by Rossier et al., 2012,: “there are specific skills or mechanisms included or encapsulated
within adaptability, such as coping skills or emotional regulation mechanisms” that help to explain the
relationship between CA and organizational level outcomes. In support of this, Savickas (2013)
described adapting responses, which follow career adaptability, as the performance of adaptive
behaviours which in turn, lead to adaptation outcomes. Hence, this research has identified work
engagement as one of those underlying mechanisms, otherwise described as an adapting response by
Savickas (2013). This being said, a significant portion of the available literature on CA has looked at
behavioural self-regulatory mechanisms as examples of adapting responses. Namely, Hirschi et al.
(2015) looked at career planning and career decision making as some of the adaptive behaviours that
allow CA to lead to adaptation outcomes. In contrast, this research explores the role of work
engagement as a motivational regulation mechanism. In order to explain this, take two individuals with
similar levels of CA, as measured through their confidence, curiosity, concern, and control resources.
The way these individuals react to organizational changes will naturally differ. This research provides
an explanation for these possible differences by explaining that adaptive resources are more likely to
be enacted and sustained in the change reaction process when individuals possess high levels of work
engagement. Additionally, this research contributes to CCT as it offers a different perspective on the
role of CA. While most CA research has focused on career-related outcomes, this study looked CA in
terms of how it could successfully impact one’s reactions towards organizational changes. Instead of
looking at career self-management strategies as adapting responses, it looks as the motivational path
through which WE can impact organizational-level outcomes such as reactions to change.
