FUNDAÇÃO GETULIO VARGAS

ESCOLA DE ADMINISTRAÇÃO DE EMPRESAS DE SÃO PAULO

LÍVIA TIERI KUGA

EXPLORING THE CAREER DECIDEDNESS-CAREER ADAPTABILITY NEXUS:

NEW AVENUES FOR RESEARCH FROM A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY

SÃO PAULO
2023
 LIVIA TIERI KUGA

EXPLORING THE CAREER DECIDEDNESS-CAREER ADAPTABILITY NEXUS:

NEW AVENUES FOR RESEARCH FROM A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY

Trabalho Aplicado apresentado à Escola de

Administração de Empresas de São Paulo da
Fundação Getúlio Vargas como requisito
para a obtenção do título de Mestre em
Gestão para a Competitividade
Linha de pesquisa: Gestão de Pessoas

Orientador: Prof. Dr. Miguel Caldas

SÃO PAULO
2023
Kuga, Livia Tieri.
Exploring the career decidedness-career adaptability nexus: new avenues for
research from a grounded theory study / Livia Tieri Kuga. - 2023.
72 f.

Orientador: Miguel Pinto Caldas.

Dissertação (mestrado profissional MPGC) – Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola de
Administração de Empresas de São Paulo.

1. Profissões - Desenvolvimento. 2. Orientação profissional. 3. Administração de

pessoal. 4. Teoria fundamentada em dados. I. Caldas, Miguel Pinto. II. Dissertação
(mestrado profissional MPGC) – Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo.
III. Fundação Getulio Vargas. IV. Título.

CDU 331.108.44

Ficha Catalográfica elaborada por: Isabele Oliveira dos Santos Garcia CRB SP-010191/O
Biblioteca Karl A. Boedecker da Fundação Getulio Vargas - SP
 LIVIA TIERI KUGA

EXPLORING THE CAREER DECIDEDNESS-CAREER ADAPTABILITY NEXUS:

NEW AVENUES FOR RESEARCH FROM A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY

Trabalho Aplicado apresentado à Escola de

Administração de Empresas de São Paulo da
Fundação Getúlio Vargas como requisito
para a obtenção do título de Mestre em
Gestão para a Competitividade

Data da aprovação: 24/04/2023

Banca examinadora:

Prof. Dr. Miguel Caldas

Orientador, FGV-EAESP

Profa. Dra. Lucy Leal Melo

FFCLRP – USP

Profa. Dra. Vanessa Cepellos

FGV - EAESP
 AGRADECIMENTOS

Ao longo de toda nossa vida, somos obrigados a tomar decisões e nos adaptar às mudanças
conforme elas surgem. Acredito que boa parte das decisões e da nossa capacidade de adaptação
além de tudo que será abordado no artigo, tem a ver com uma outra coisa, com todas as pessoas
que nos fizeram crescer e estiveram presente ao longo da nossa jornada.

Assim, começo agradecendo meu marido, Vitor, que sempre esteve ao meu lado, apoiando minhas
decisões, ouvindo minhas intempéries com o mestrado e me incentivando diariamente a continuar.
Também aproveito para demonstrar toda minha gratidão aos meus pais, Hélio e Margarida, que
sempre apoiaram meus estudos e me incentivaram a ter uma mente desperta e curiosa.

Um pouco da motivação do estudo se baseou por uma série de diálogos e acompanhamento da

trajetória profissional de algumas pessoas, como a minha própria irmã, Tifa, e minha amiga,
Conká. Além disso, foram pessoas importantes para o progresso da tese, através das conversas
sobre o tema.
Também tiveram inúmeros candidatos durante minha trajetória profissional que compartilharam
suas histórias comigo. Cada uma delas me tocou de uma maneira diferente e elas, aos poucos,
foram me trazendo esta vontade de entender um pouco mais profundamente a temática de carreira.

Não posso deixar de falar das pessoas da minha segunda escola, a Stone. Através de diálogos sobre
a minha própria trajetória, me incentivaram e me apoiaram na decisão de fazer o mestrado: André,
Daniel, Fê T. e May. Também tiveram diversas pessoas que foram ficando curiosas e acabaram se
tornando parte das minhas reflexões e que me deram constantes opiniões ao longo do tempo da
tese: Caqui, Ari, Clarinha, Fê S. Fê S., em específico, não só se envolveu como também foi uma
pessoa (e líder) muito compreensível e me ajudou a equilibrar a dose entre mestrado e o trabalho.

Agradeço também aos meus queridos amigos que indicaram pessoas para participar da pesquisa
dentro dos critérios super específicos: Thamara, Amandinha, Kazuo, Felipe, Gabi, Rosi, Dani,
Paula, Cláudia, Nando, Marina. Marina, por sua vez, foi parte atuante durante a época das
entrevistas.
Ter a generosidade de compartilhar as histórias para transformar em fonte de conhecimento é uma
das coisas mais nobres que se pode fazer e por isso, gostaria de agradecer a cada um dos 24
participantes (nomes preservados para garantir anonimato).

Também só foi possível me adaptar ao mestrado por conta dos meus colegas de turma, como
Wagner, Louzada e Ivan, que juntos dedicamos inúmeras horas para fazer um série de trabalhos.
Muitos constructos e partículas de ondas feitas em conjunto. À turma inteira de 21/22 do MPGC -
Gestão de Pessoas, foi um enorme prazer conhecer um pouco mais de vocês e compartilhar boa
parte desses 2 anos. Também agradeço a todos os professores do MPGC ao qual tive aula, por cada
ensinamento e matéria, que me ajudou a estar mais preparada para este momento.

Agradeço à Lucy, pois desde 2013, quando fiz estágio de Orientação Profissional, fiquei com essa
pulga atrás na orelha, com vontade explorar um pouco mais este assunto. 10 anos depois, estamos
aqui, na minha defesa. Não teria pessoa melhor para estar presente nesses passos da minha carreira.
Também sou muito grata à Vanessa, por dedicar horas para contar sobre as diferenças dos métodos
qualitativos e quantitativos, dar uma série de dicas e claro, participar também da banca.

Por fim, não poderia deixar de agradecer meu (des)orientador de mestrado, Miguel. Pelas inúmeras
horas de provocações, direcionais, leituras, feedbacks, reflexões, dicas de próximos passos e pela
generosidade de ser um verdadeiro educador. Sinto que saio desta jornada como uma professional
e uma pessoa melhor. Foi uma grande felicidade ter tido o privilégio de fazer esta tese com você.

E para você, que está lendo, espero que este artigo seja um convite para que reflita sobre sua
trajetória professional e que, de alguma forma, possa te ajudar também. Agradeço pela leitura.

Livia Kuga
 RESUMO
Mesmo quando a indecisão de carreira é um tema comum entre os profissionais, este conceito tem
sido um tema controverso entre os estudiosos da área. Com base na teoria life design e no
constructo de adaptabilidade de carreira (Savickas, 1997; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012), e, de certa
forma, estendendo suas fronteiras, este estudo tem como objetivo entender como e por que os
indivíduos variam de forma decidida ou não-decidida quando enfrentam eventos emergentes “life-
design” transformacionais. Através da abordagem de teoria fundamentada (Grounded Theory),
foram realizadas 2 entrevistas com cada um dos 24 profissionais. Duas categorias primárias
emergiram dos dados, decisão de carreira (o nível de certeza sobre uma orientação de decisão de
carreira) e adaptabilidade de carreira (ser capaz de mudar sem grande dificuldade integrando-se
em papéis de vida), que são considerados como dimensões (variando de baixa a alta) gerando 4
perfis de base de decisão de carreira para os indivíduos na amostra: Estabelecido, Resolvido-
desajustado, Acomodado e Perplexo. Além disso, uma terceira dimensão adjacente também
emergiu - locus de controle (o grau de agência que se acredita ter sobre a própria vida): assim, 2
subtipos para cada um desses 4 perfis base, interno e externo, acumulando um total de 8 perfis em
um esquema teórico de 3 eixos. Nossos resultados expandem nosso conhecimento sobre decisão
de carreira por meio de uma abordagem qualitativa e sugerem novas formas de estender a pesquisa
sobre o tópico, considerando adaptabilidade como um construto relacionado, e ainda assim
distinto, em relação à decisão de carreira.

Palavras-chave:
decisão de carreira; indecisão de carreira; adaptabilidade de carreira; locus de controle; teoria
fundamentada (grounded theory)
 ABSTRACT
Even when career indecision is a common thread among working professionals, the concept of
career decidedness has been a disputed one among career scholars. Drawing from life-designing
theory and career adaptability, and aiming at extending its boundaries, this study seeks to
understand how and why individuals vary in how decided or undecided they are facing similar
emerging life-designing transformational events. Through a grounded theory approach, 2 time-
lagged interviews were conducted with each of 24 working professionals. Two primary categories
emerged from the data, career decidedness (the level of certainty about a career decision
orientation) and career adaptability (being able to change without great difficulty integrating into
life roles), which are taken as dimensions (varying from low to high) generated 4 career base-
profiles for the individuals in the sample: Established, Resolute-maladjusted, Accommodating and
Perplex. Moreover, a third adjacent dimension also emerged – locus of control (the degree of
agency one believes to have over one’s life): thereby, 2 subtypes for each of these 4 base profiles,
internal and external, accruing a total of 8 profiles in a 3-axis theoretical scheme. Our results
expand our knowledge on career decidedness through a qualitative approach and suggest new
avenues to extend research on the topic, viewing adaptability as a related yet distinct construct
relative to decidedness.
Keywords:
Career decidedness; career indecision; career adaptability; locus of control; grounded theory
 SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 8
1.1. CAREER DECIDEDNESS ................................................................................................. 9
1.2. RESEARCH QUESTION AND CONTRIBUTION ......................................................... 10
1.3. CAREER ADAPTABILITY AND CAREER CONSTRUCTION THEORY .................. 14
2. METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 17
2.1. PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................... 18
2.2. DATA COLLECTION ...................................................................................................... 20
2.3. DATA ANALYSIS............................................................................................................ 23
3. FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................ 25
3.1. VARIATION IN DECIDEDNESS .................................................................................... 27
3.2. VARIATIONS IN CAREER ADAPTABILITY ............................................................... 28
3.3. CAREER PROFILES ........................................................................................................ 30
3.3.1. Established: High career decidedness, high career adaptability ...................................... 31
3.3.2. Resolute-maladjusted: High career decidedness, low career adaptability ....................... 32
3.3.3. Accommodating: Low career decidedness, high career adaptability................................ 33
3.3.4. Perplex: Low career decidedness, low career adaptability............................................... 34
3.4. LOCUS OF CONTROL .................................................................................................... 36
4. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 39
4.1. CRITICAL CASES: RESOLUTE-MALADJUSTED AND ACCOMMODATING
PROFILES .................................................................................................................................... 39
4.2. OTHER FINDINGS ABOUT THE PROFILES IN THE SAMPLE ................................. 40
4.3. AVENUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH.......................................................................... 41
4.4. PRATICAL IMPLICATIONS ........................................................................................... 42
4.5. LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................. 43
5. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 44
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 44
APPENDIX A – First Interview Schedule (Portuguese) .............................................................. 50
APPENDIX B – Second Interview Schedule (Portuguese) .......................................................... 55
APPENDIX C – IRB (Portuguese) ............................................................................................... 60
APPENDIX D – Career Adapt-Abilities Scale (Teixeira et al., 2012) ......................................... 63
APPENDIX E – Practitioner-friendly article derived from the study .......................................... 64
 8

1. INTRODUCTION
In a well-known Cantú and Castellanos cartoon1, a child appears dressed up in physician
attire to an adult couple. The older man asks the child, “let me guess, you want to be a doctor when
you grow up”; the child then responds: “It’s been my lifelong ambition… for the last two weeks”.
The moral here is that some people – and not only children – are prone to often change their career
goals. While children are known to make grandiose plans and swap them every week as they never
existed before, some professional adults are also inclined to experience swings of career objectives
and paths, particularly in the rapidly changing world we live in. As posited by Savickas et al.
(2009), there are new social arrangements of work, in which people have to find and negotiate paid
employment, and hence occupations are less definable and less predictable, with frequent job
transitions. Abandoning and/or rerouting careers has become more frequent, given contextual or
professional difficulties that in the past would have been more likely to be weathered out. The so-
called “great resignation” during the COVID-19 pandemic involved 24 million American
employees leaving their jobs (and often career paths) between April and September 2021, an all-
time record (Sull et al., 2022). According to Serenko (2022), there is not much pattern among these
who resign and some of them moved to entirely unrelated industries and jobs that require different
knowledge. This illustrates how career re-routings have become more frequent in recent times as
people struggle to readjust their career paths to the constant swing of new technologies and
emerging social arrangements of work. The more such conditions around individuals change and
the more common career reorientations become, the more stimuli are presented to professionals,
which increases the difficulty to make critical career decisions, feeding the career indecision
phenomenon.
In other words, it may be fair to state that, in current times, career indecision is as frequent
as it has ever been. Yet, the concept of career decidedness, and by extension, career indecision,
has been a disputed one among career scholars. While on one hand career indecision seems to be
a common thread among working professionals in today’s work landscape (Gordon, 1998; Santos
et al., 2014), on the other, life designing career theorists bluntly suggest career indecision should
no longer be the focus of research, positing that energy should be rather on career adaptability
(Argypoulou & Kaliris, 2018; Savickas, 2013; Savickas & Savickas, 2019). According to Savickas
(1997), adaptability refers to the quality of being able to change without great difficulty.

1
Accessed on 1/9/2023 at https://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoon?searchID=CS148694.
 9

Drawing from life designing theory and career adaptability (Savickas, 1997; Savickas &
Porfeli, 2012; Teixeira et al., 2012), and yet unsatisfied with their explicit downplaying of career
indecision as a distinct and key focus of analysis, this grounded theory study seeks to understand
if and why individuals vary in career decidedness, and if such variation can or not be fully
explained by variations in career adaptability.

1.1.CAREER DECIDEDNESS
Although decision-making is a widespread and well-discussed occurrence, the scientific
literature of decidedness and indecisiveness is lacking (Rassin, 2007). Indecisiveness is related to
a tendency to experience decision difficulty in many different areas, while indecision relates to
when the decision difficulty is specific to one unique area, such as one’s career (Hallenbeck, 2020;
Rassin, 2007). Rassin (2007) argues that indecisive individuals worry about several topics even
after they have come to a decision. According to Germejis & De Boeck (2002), career indecision
represents a separate, latent, variable from indecisiveness, although there are strong associations
between both. These authors believe that while indecisiveness generalizes across decision
situations, indecision refers to a specific domain or situation. Hence, career decidedness and
indecision refer to decision problems concerning career specifically and can have all kinds of
specific causes that are distinct from – and yet somewhat related to – the factors causing
indecisiveness.
Complementary, Gordon (1998) postulated that career decidedness is the level of
confidence and certainty regarding a particular career decision orientation, which seems to be the
exact opposite of Germejis & De Boeck’s (2002) concept of career indecision. Gordon’ article
synthesized some subtypes of career decidedness based on a literature review. According to her,
career decidedness had been studied over the previous 70 years with a wide array of different
approaches.
By most accounts (e.g., Savickas, 1995), early career theorists (such as Parson 1909/1967)
would portray individuals as either career-decided or undecided, based mostly on psychological
or biographical traits differences. This dichotomic view was subsequently replaced in career theory
by Holland (1997), who guided his theory by focusing on fundamental career questions, such as
what personal and environmental characteristics lead to satisfying career decisions and what leads
to indecision. Holland postulated that career behaviors, such as indecision, are determined by an
 10

interaction between personality and environment (Holland, 1997). To Holland’s critics, such as
Savickas (1995), his approach to career decidedness can be seen as a “unidimensional continuum,”
with undecided on one end and decided on another, with varying shades determined by such
personality-environment interactions. More recently, life designing theorists (e.g., Argyropoulou
& Kaliris, 2018; Savickas et al., 2009; Savickas & Savickas, 2019), rejecting both dichotomic and
unidimensional approaches, propose career indecision has become a more complex and multi-
dimensional construct. Savickas & Savickas (2019) posit that the shift from company-based to
corporation-based careers also shifted how individuals foresee their careers.
To these authors, the twenty-first century is the age of insecure workers who are no longer
bounded by a single organization or grounded in the same job for three decades: they rather view
their careers as a portfolio of skills and a series of employers who need projects completed
(Savickas & Savickas, 2019). Indecision would thus be a natural and typical experience that occurs
to everyone, as a hesitation preceding transformation (Savickas, 1995). Argyropoulou & Kaliris
(2018) complement this approach, positing that the current economy increased uncertainty and
created enormous difficulties in decision-making process, thus vocational decisions are not
following a linear career development, but rather a nonlinear course.

1.2.RESEARCH QUESTION AND CONTRIBUTION

On one hand, the more recent developments in career theory (particularly life designing)
seem to naturalize career indecision as a natural pre-transformational hesitation and, consequently,
have nearly brought career indecision research to a halt. On the other hand, its real-life abundance
makes career decidedness ripe for further research. According to Argyropoulou & Kaliris (2018),
understanding the sources of career indecision is important to help career counselors with more
effective strategies for their clients, although, in their view, there’s another major problem, such
as identity transformation. Initially motivated by this call to better understand (i.e., in-depth and
qualitatively) career decidedness from a life designing perspective, several gaps in extant literature
prompted and further refined our research questions.
Firstly, natural as it may be as depicted by life designing theory, individuals seem to vary
in terms of when, and to what extent, they may hesitate or become undecided (Santos et al., 2014),
and extant literature has not yet clarified, again in a post-Holland view and from a life designing
viewpoint, what may explain such variance. Secondly, the same workplace transformation that
 11

brought about the “age of insecure workers”, engaged in emerging patterns of life designing, has
made such hesitation events more frequent than ever, and thus we see more individuals displaying
signs of career indecision than ever before (Santos et al., 2014; Viola et al., 2016). However, career
decidedness has been researched less than it was in the past. For example, Akkermans and Kubasch
(2017) showed that career decision making had decreased as a trending topic in their careers’ topics
review article. Thirdly, the early career decidedness and indecision studies may not have
sufficiently answered if such hesitations may vary among individuals as a trait, as a state, or as
both (Santos et al., 2014).
Fourthly, recent research has signaled several gaps in the literature and has called for more
career decidedness research to address them. One of such gaps indicated in recent studies concerns
the need for more in-depth qualitative studies, to better develop models to explain the relationship
among variables affecting career indecision (Viola et al., 2016). Santos et al. (2014) also posited
that it is essential to understand the processes that underlie the career choice of indecisive
individuals. Another gap signaled in the literature regards the need to understand the antecedents
and predictors of career decidedness and career indecision. Moreover, additional research on
career decision making could provide more ideas and guidelines that career coaches and HR
department could use to support individuals in their decisions (Akkermans and Kubash, 2017).
Several influential authors (Argypoulou & Kaliris, 2018; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012) affirm
that career indecision is not a major issue, and that career adaptability should rather be the main
construct to focus on in career theories. In other words, in a sort of “sufficiency theorem”, career
adaptability is believed to suffice and somewhat encompass indecision. In Johnson’s (2016) career
adaptability literature review, very few articles investigate career adaptability and its relationship
with career decidedness. If one adopted the career adaptability sufficiency theorem and agreed that
career research should not focus on indecision, but rather in career adaptability, then analyzing
adaptability should be enough to explain variations in career decidedness. One would thus assume
that individuals with high adaptability would also more easily cope with the life designing
indecision moments they go through, as opposed to those individuals with lower adaptability. If
career adaptability was sufficient to explain or deal with decidedness, then it would come to reason
that chronically undecided people would have low adaptability, and that it would not make sense
to exist highly adaptable individuals who are persistently undecided, or repeatedly decided
individuals who have low adaptability. However, studies in extant literature have not tried to
 12

investigate both occurrences concurrently, to test to what extent studying adaptability would
suffice to deal with chronic career indecision.
On their literature review on career research topics, Akkemans and Kubasch (2017) studied
all career-related keywords and themes investigated between 2012 and 2016 in four core career
journals (i.e. Career Development International, Career Development Quarterly, Journal of
Career Assessment, and Journal of Career Development). As their study was not focused on both
career decidedness and career adaptability, we decided to expand Akkemans and Kubasch’s (2017)
study, to better assess the impact in career research of the rise in career adaptability and its
defenders’ claim that indecision should no longer be an issue of concern. For such purpose, we
expanded Akkemans and Kubasch (2017) study in both timespan [by stretching the scope to 2001-
2022], and journals [by including the Journal of Vocational Behavior]. To search for career
adaptability related topics in the five career journals, we used as key search words “adaptability”
or “adaptable”, and for decidedness, we used “decision” or “indecision” or “decisiveness” or
“indecisiveness” or “decidedness” or “indecisive” or “decisive”. Our results (see Exhibit 1),
focusing only on decidedness and adaptability as those are our foci of interest) show a much clearer
picture of the evolution of the research on those two themes across time.
As depicted in Exhibit 1, in the years 2001 and 2002, there were more career decision-
related than adaptability articles. However, in 2003, the number of articles related to career
decidedness dropped and stabilized with an average of 7-8 articles per year, while adaptability is
still growing consistently until 2022 (our data scope went until late 2022). The research output on
adaptability has reached a 20-year peak in the career-related journals consulted in the year of 2022
(e.g., Amarnani et al., 2022; Bouckenooghe et al., 2022; Gai et al., 2022; Jia et al., 2022; Leung et
al., 2022, Nalis et al., 2022; Ocampo et al., 2022; Parola & Marcionetti, 2022; Sou et al., 2022),
after several recent years with similar relevant growth (e.g., Datu & Buenconsejo, 2021; Deen et
al., 2021; Haenggli & Hirschi, 2020; Haynie et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2021; Kim & Smith, 2021;
Maggio et al., 2021; Ocampo et al., 2020; Xu, 2020). In contrast, the career decision-related
research in the same period and journals stagnated since 2003, with about 7 or 8 articles per year
as recently as 2020 through 2022 (Arbona et al., 2021; Gati & Kulcsar, 2021; Kulcsar et al., 2020;
Phang et al., 2020; Udayar et al., 2020).
Exhibit 1. Comparison between career adaptability and indecision research, 2001-
2022
 13

120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Adaptability Decidedness

(Source: the authors)

Because we questioned that career adaptability could suffice and relegate decidedness to a
secondary role as posited by Argypoulou & Kaliris (2018) and by Savickas & Porfeli (2012), as if
the former construct would comprise the latter, our study focuses on understanding, through a
grounded theory lens (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Locke, 2002), if individual variation in career
decidedness can be sufficiently explained by career adaptability alone. We thus conducted a
qualitative study of 24 working professionals, with two time-lagged interviews per participant,
plus a survey in a third data collection wave utilizing a well-validated adaptability scale (Savickas
& Porfeli, 2012; Teixeira et al., 2012), focusing on the following research questions:
Do individuals vary in career decidedness facing similar emerging life-designing
transformational events? If they do vary, why, and can such variation be fully explained by
variations in career adaptability?
Given this study used a grounded theory approach, our research questions evolved during
its implementation. While at the beginning the primary research question was “do individuals vary
in career decidedness?”, as we analyzed the data and iterated with the literature, the following parts
of the question and the second question emerged, about decidedness as it may relate to career
adaptability from a life-designing perspective.
 14

From our data, differences and similarities among the 24 individuals emerged in three main
dimensions: careers indecision/decidedness, adaptability, and locus of control. By mapping and
comparing such variations, 4 base-profiles emerged, with two subtypes each. From these profiles,
and with our literature iteration, we posit we have found critical cases (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Yin, 2018)
of the adaptability sufficiency theorem in this study, once there were participants defying the
adaptability-decidedness linearity extant life-designing theorists have implied. We found
individuals with high career adaptability and yet low career decidedness, as well as its opposite –
people with low career adaptability and high career decidedness. Therefore, the main contribution
of our study is showing that in some individuals decidedness and adaptability converge, while they
differ in others, thus positing that future research should consider both as very related, and yet
distinct, career constructs.
The paper is structured as follows: in the remaining parts of this section, we summarize the
literature surrounding the main theoretical categories comprised in our study. In the following
section, we outline our methodological approach, including a description of our use of well-
established grounded theory principles and procedures. In the findings section, we report how our
study results suggest that career adaptability and decidedness are related, but distinct, and the 4
base-profiles that emerged in the sample. In the last section, we conclude by discussing how our
study has contributed to the field and may provide potential directions for further research in this
space.

1.3. CAREER ADAPTABILITY AND CAREER CONSTRUCTION THEORY

Savickas and Savickas (2019) claim that in modern society, individuals may have decision-
making difficulties in choosing an occupation. According to these authors, career counselors began
with the goal of empowering individuals to make educational and vocational choices that match
their abilities and interests.
Chen et al. (2020) evidence that over time, the theory of career adaptability was
continuously revised, starting in 1950, with Super’s career development theory. Super and Knasel
(1981) defined adaptability as a state of readiness which is required to cope with tasks that can be
predicted by current or future job roles and to adapt to unpredictable work environment. Savickas
developed a richer and more extended career adaptability theorization and is considered one of the
main life-designing theorists.
 15

Life-designing theorists, such as Savickas & Savickas (2019), depart from the idea that we
currently live in a “global economy”, in terms of the four stages of economic development depicted
by Lesthanege (2010). According to Lesthanege (2010), the recent world has gone through four
economic eras: (a) Agricultural (1850-1909), in which most people lived in farms, and there were
no specialized jobs; (b) Industrial cities (1910-1949) where individuals who lived in commercial
cities were assigned just one task in an industry (which became known as their “job”); (c)
Corporate societies (1950-1999) filled with hierarchical corporations with a labor force distributed
in a pyramid shape, and with that the concept of the corporate ladder, each step with more
responsibility and pay; and lastly (d) Global economy (2000-nowadays), in which the
institutionalized life course pattern of modernity is transitioned into an individualized life-course
designing of post-modernity.
Savickas and Savickas (2019) claim that in the global economy, both employers and
employees act as businesses, which means that there is no longer commitment to a single
organization or viability to remain in the same job for three decades. Workers, thus, would need
to construct their careers with adaptation and personal responsibility. The life designing process
was developed to be an iterative process throughout a person’s life cycle; therefore, career
specialists should try to construct contextualized models and engage individuals in the personal
project of life-building and coping with their unique contexts (Savickas et al., 2009).
This life designing approach to careers, also called Career Construction Theory (Savickas,
2013), became primarily focused on the measurement and correlates of career adaptability
(Rudolph et al., 2018). This theory believes that a successful career development is a continuous
process of adaptation (Savickas et al., 2009; Rudolf et al., 2017). To theorists in this space,
adaptability refers to the quality of being able to change without great difficulty (Savickas, 1997).
It denotes an individual’s psychosocial resources for coping with current and anticipated
vocational development tasks, occupational transitions, and work traumas that, to some degree
large or small, alter their social integration (Savickas, 1997). According to Chen et al. (2020) and
Rudolf et al. (2017), with the rapid development of society and technology, adaptability is
becoming more and more important and career adaptability can help individuals to smoothly adapt
to changes when coping with their career roles.
 16

As it relates specifically to career adaptability within a life designing perspective, authors

seem to converge in perceiving it in four dimensions: concern, control, curiosity, and confidence
(Savickas & Porfeli, 2012; Savickas, 2013) (see Table 1).

Table 1. Career adaptability Dimensions

(Source: Savickas, 2013)

According to Savickas & Porfeli (2012), concern about the future helps individuals look
ahead and prepare themselves for the future; control is what makes individuals responsible for
their career with self-discipline, effort, and persistence; curiosity prompts a person to think about
themselves in different scenarios and roles; and confidence makes people think they are able to
implement their life designing. Therefore, career adaptability is a multidimensional construct
composed of four factors (those four dimensions), used as resources by individuals to manage their
career transitions (Savickas, 2013).
After several years, Savickas & Porfeli (2012) produced an international measure of career
adaptability, called Career Adapt-Abilities Scale (CAAS), with collaborators from 13 countries
demonstrating consistency and reliability to measure the adaptability construct and its dimensions.
Subsequently, several authors have followed proposing, among other research avenues, the
expansion of career adaptability studies in other areas of the world (e.g., Fiorini et al., 2016),
additional research with different populations, as well as using longitudinal, qualitative and
 17

intervention methods (e.g., Rudolf et al., 2018). In a systematic review, Johnston (2016) mapped
predictors and outcomes of career adaptability resources and responses. In Johnston’s (2016)
study, 28 correlates were found: however, career decidedness appeared quite subtly with merely 2
articles, but only as correlation, not as a predictor or outcome. All these authors, including Johnston
(2016), Rudolf et al. (2018) and Fiorini et al. (2016) conclude there should be more theoretical
refinement in career adaptability.

2. METHODS
Our study used mainly interview-based grounded theory, with a supplement of survey-
based data. With the purpose of understanding how, and mostly why, individuals vary in both
adaptability and decidedness, we employed grounded theory principles and commonly adopted
procedures (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Locke, 2002). This approach was chosen because it draws
from symbolic interactionism’s focus on articulating the role subjective experiences have in
everyday interaction and behavior (Locke, 2002). It is also ideal to better capture participants’
inner experiences, determine how meaning is formed, and to discover, rather than to test, the
subjects under investigation (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Although qualitative studies are relatively
new to organizational and vocational psychologists, they have been increasingly utilized, mainly
to achieve additional understanding across new and evolving topics (Fouad et al, 2019; Lee et al.,
1999). To capture the level of career adaptability of individuals in our sample in line with CAAS-
based studies, we supplemented our interview data with an additional survey-based data collection.
Corbin & Strauss (2008) prescribe that grounded theory is a suitable approach if the
researchers are interested (as we are, to some extent) in extending a substantive theory or raising
a substantively derived theory to the level of a middle-range theory. Moreover, Locke (2002)
explains that grounded theory is designed to support theory development, enriching existing
theories, and according to Lee et al. (1999), qualitative research methods are well suited for
purposes of describing, interpreting, and explaining. We thus considered it an ideal approach given
our goal of exploring the career decidedness-career adaptability nexus in depth, and also in
response to previous calls in extant literature for in-depth qualitative investigation of career
decidedness (e.g., Viola et al., 2016).
The generally accepted grounded theory process of analysis was followed. As Locke
(2002) prescribed, we selected specific individuals through theoretical sampling, who yielded rich
 18

and varied information on our topics of interest. We purposefully targeted people whose diverse
profiles would offer varied views on both career decidedness and career adaptability issues. Once
we had the initial data set transcribed, open coding was utilized following Saldana’s (2009)
procedures, in which data was fragmented sentence-by-sentence for analysis and opened to
interpretation (Corbin & Strauss, 2007; Locke, 2002). In such type of coding, as the data is
analyzed, each incident in data is compared with other incidents for similarities and differences, a
process called “constant comparison” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Locke, 2002).
Another necessary procedure, as per Locke’s (2002) prescriptions, is to “compose
theoretical elements”, meaning generating provisional conceptualization, robust working
categories, identifying relationships between categories, and integrating a framework of themes or
categories. The memo-writings during analysis and theoretical sampling were also tools we
continuously used during our coding-to-categorization process.
After the time-lagged interviews phase was completed, iterations with the literature
indicated we needed to align our coding of career adaptability in our sample of participants with
an accepted measure in the field. We thus supplemented our qualitative data by distributing to all
our interviewees a survey using one of the validated versions (Teixeira et al., 2012) of the Career
Adapt-Abilities Scales (CAAS)(Savickas & Porfeli, 2012; see appendix D). We compared the
survey-based categorization of each individual who responded the survey with those we accrued
through our coding, and the categorizations highly matched, although the quantitative data
provided finer nuance between low, medium, and high levels of career adaptability, whereas we
had initially coded it as simply low or high.

2.1.PARTICIPANTS
Our study’s participants were recruited via personal networks, using theoretical sampling,
meaning we recruited the sample purposefully in order to develop potential theoretical categories
(Bryman, 2012). Hence, we designed our sample with maximum variation and purposeful
stratification (Creswell, 2007), ensuring variance in the following pre-defined criteria: average of
years in the same job, perceived social class (low, middle, high), age, and level/type of education
(did or did not pursue a college degree; switched or maintained majors or specializations) (see
Table 2). All 24 participants were born, live, and work in the same country. Basically, first we
 19

defined the criteria, and after that, the researchers mobilized their personal network to find
individuals fitting those characteristics.
Table 2: Summary of Sample Participants

COLLEGE EDUCATION
Inter- Number Average Social
viewee Age Gend Has college Switched (S) of years in number of Class
# er degree or or job years in (self-attributed)
not? Maintained market each job
(M)

I1 48 F Y M 28 7 High
I2 29 M Y S 4 1 Low
I3 26 F Y S 5 2.5 Low
I4 22 F Y M 8 1 Low
I5 29 N Y M 8 2 High
I6 39 M Y M 21 4.2 Low
I7 25 M Y M 4 4 Low
I8 34 M Y S 11 1.4 Low
I9 43 M Y S 25 1.4 High
I10 28 M Y S 14 7 Low
I11 28 M Y M 5 0.9 High
I12 47 M Y S 32 6.4 High
I13 58 M Y S 36 2 High
I14 52 F Y S 35 2 Low
I15 40 M Y S 18 4.5 Mid
I16 59 M Y S 32 8 High
I17 24 F N n/a 10 2.5 Low
I18 41 M N S 24 8 Mid
I19 49 M N n/a 35 35 Low
I20 34 M N S 18 2.6 Low
I21 28 F N S 10 1 Low
I22 56 F N n/a 43 8.6 Low
I23 48 F N n/a 30 4.3 Low
I24 22 M N S 6 2 Low
 20

The final sample consisted of 24 participants (8 females, 16 males), ranging in age from
22 to 59. Four did not pursue higher education, four were college dropouts, and 16 graduated from
college. Of those that pursued college, 6 remained in the same major and college throughout, and
10 switched majors and/or colleges. Seven classified themselves as high class, 15 as low class, and
2 as middle class. The average of years in the same job varied from 0.9 to 35. Although these 24
individuals constituted our final sample, two of the participants did not respond wave 3’s career
Adapt-Ability questionnaire, and hence these two participants will not be considered in the results
and discussion.

2.2.DATA COLLECTION
We used in-depth, semi-structured interviews, in line with the grounded theory approach,
to examine several aspects of each participant’s trajectory and professional career. We conducted
two time-lagged interview sessions with each participant, with an average time lag of 112 days
between the two sessions. Four reasons drove the two time-lagged interview sessions design: first,
to allow rapport to build between the first and the second session, easing into more sensitive and
subjective topics surrounding choices during life-designing events. Second, to enable more fruitful
interactions by encouraging participant reflection between sessions. Third, to better comprehend
subjective processes without anchoring on specific career circumstances occurring during each
interaction. And fourth, the time lag was long enough to mitigate many of the commonly listed
drivers of interviewee biases (e.g., Bryman, 2012; DeAndrea et al., 2012).
Following theoretical sampling procedures as preconized by Bryman (2012), interviews
were cumulative. As the schedule evolved somewhat from the first to last interview, we returned
to participants (mostly via phone calls or text messages) when a question was not initially asked,
to achieve appropriate comparability and all participant responses could contribute to the analysis
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
The interview schedule for both sessions was based on extant literature and our research
questions. For the interview questions, we created a series of topics, formulated questions, and
used comprehensible language for the interviewees (Bryman, 2012). At the beginning of the
interview, after obtaining formal consent, we collected basic information, such as age, tenure in
the workforce, area of study or specialization (if any pursued or completed) and educational path,
 21

as well as self-attributed social class. After that, we prompted for an overview of their professional
trajectory until the moment of the interview. We asked each interviewee about how they decided
on their educational path, and on each of their career transitions until their current job. We inquired
about their engagement and satisfaction in each job and satisfaction overall about their entire career
paths. Subsequently, we queried about their view on future career decisions, and lastly, asked a
few open questions about careers, vocations, and job regrets (see final schedules in Appendix A
and Appendix B). Consistent with theoretical sampling guidelines, throughout the interviews, we
remained open to discover relevant concepts and their properties and dimensions (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008).
The first of the two interview sessions lasted between 22 and 128 minutes, with an average
of 56 minutes, and the second session between 10 to 49 minutes, with an average of 25 minutes.
When the two sessions were aggregated, each participant interaction lasted between 33 and 201
minutes, and on average, 101 minutes. The variation in interview length was mostly due to the
number of previous jobs each person had, given the schedule required going over many questions
about each single job in participants’ career histories. In total, the two time-lagged interactions
with our 24 interviewees generated over 40 hours of recorded materials and 621 pages of
transcribed data (see Table 3).
Interviews were all conducted online, utilizing the Google Meet platform. At the beginning
of each interview, we discussed the informed consent, obtained and recorded their verbal consent
as per prior IRB approval (appendix C), and requested formal permission to record the interview.
One of the authors conducted all interviews, which were recorded and were subsequently
professionally transcribed verbatim and, in their entirety, with personal identifying details
removed. All transcripts were coded and analyzed line-by-line individually, utilizing MAXQDA
as supporting software. Given that all interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed, in
Portuguese, after our memoing and coding procedures, all quotes chosen for inclusion in the article
were double back-translated from Portuguese to English, following generally accepted procedures
(Hult et al., 2008).
 22

Table 3. Overview of Data Collection

Interview time Number of transcription Feedback CAAS
Interviewee (min) pages collected completed
1 90 28 Y Y
2 153 26 Y Y
3 81 22 Y Y
4 93 21 Y Y
5 83 27 Y Y
6 136 33 Y Y
7 83 22 N Y
8 143 35 Y Y
9 106 34 N N
10 99 28 Y Y
11 155 33 N Y
12 129 37 Y Y
13 201 45 N Y
14 154 34 N Y
15 219 46 Y Y
16 71 19 N Y
17 46 13 N Y
18 77 19 Y Y
19 33 13 N Y
20 73 21 Y Y
21 40 10 Y Y
22 47 17 Y Y
23 70 21 N N
24 38 17 Y Y
Total 2420 621 62,50%* 91,67%*
* interviewees’ responses / total number of interviewees

Our first sample was conducted with 15 interviewees, trying to understand their
professional trajectories and decisions, engagement, satisfaction with their work, and future career
 23

planning and vocation. Subsequently, we realized that our initial 15 interviewee sample did not
include individuals without a college degree, and thus we recruited nine more individuals without
higher education who varied in age, perceived social class, and years per job, to better understand
the concepts we were investigating. Theoretical saturation (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Bryman,
2012) was reached between the 20th and the 21st interviewee, but all initiated interviewees had their
second session, to conclude the agreed-upon interactions.
As previously mentioned, after coding all interviews and noticing our coding for
adaptability would benefit to be more strongly aligned with extant literature, we distributed an
online survey using a validated version of CAAS (Teixeira et al., 2012), which was administered
through an online application, using Google Forms as supporting software to collect the data. We
obtained 22 responses from the 24 participants, as will be better explained in the results section.

2.3. DATA ANALYSIS

We first examined the transcript word-by-word and line-by-line, using open coding. This
type of coding was chosen because it provides an opportunity for the researcher to reflect deeply
on the contents and nuances of the data (Saldana, 2016; Bryman, 2012). After the open coding, we
used axial coding as an extension of the analytic work obtained from open coding (Saldana, 2016).
Axial coding is conducted as a tool to group similar coded data and reduce the number of codes
generated during open coding (Saldana, 2016). We also used ‘constant comparison’ (Locke, 2002)
to emerge categories and saturate them (Bryman, 2012; Creswell, 2007).
We understood how participants decided on their education paths, what factors influenced
their career choices and decisions, such as previous interest in the field, influence from their
network (friends, family, professors), as well as perceived status or prestige. Naturally, we also
investigated in depth how they decided about each of their jobs and their careers in general, and if
such decision patterns changed over time. Although decisions about job targets or changes had
many similarities with education/degree choices, some other criteria emerged, such as
necessity/need, personal values, and dissatisfaction with a previous job or boss.
Moreover, we also explored how they saw and planned their future career. There were
some interesting findings: seven interviewees in our sample did not make or planned to make any
future career plans. Of those who made future career plans, fourteen focused on growing their
careers, and three wanted more work-life balance.
 24

After coding and extensively comparing, one main category emerged from the sample,
mostly from the questions about how they decided their career transitions and college choices. The
first category was first termed “career decidedness” – the level of confidence and stability about a
career decision. After our coding-literature iterations, we concluded that Gordon’s (1998)
definition of career decidedness was the most fitting with our data, given it portrays career
decidedness as “the level of confidence or certainty about a particular career-related decision”
(Gordon, 1998).
We also found an adjacent category we first termed “influences”, related to how
interviewees located what had influenced each of their career choices. Subsequently, after more
coding-literature iterations, we applied the most accepted theorizations of the locus of control
construct (Rotter, 1966; McGee & McGee, 2016) to redefine the “influences” our interviewees
utilized to make choices. Hence, those interviewees who prioritized an inner orientation were
coded as having an internal locus of control, given that “individuals with an internal locus of
control generally believe that events are contingent upon their own actions” (Rotter, 1966).
Conversely, interviewees who were outer-oriented were coded as having an external locus of
control, as “individuals with an external locus of control generally perceive events to be ‘the result
of luck, chance or fate’ or ‘as under the control of powerful others’” (Rotter, 1966).
The last core concept to emerge from the data came from responses to the question “how
would you approach a possible transition?” and about possible plans made when they transitioned
from job to job. The difficulties (or lack thereof) interviewees reported in such transitions were,
after iterations with literature, closely related to “career adaptability”, meaning the extent people
are more or less prepared to change, differ in their resources to manage change, demonstrate more
or less change when change is needed, and as a result become more or less integrated into life roles
over time (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012).
In addition to the coding for adaptability we did from the interview transcripts, we applied
the CAAS form (Teixeira et al., 2012) to verify and refine the adaptability coding with the typical
quantitative measures used in extant literature, and to further understand possible differences and
similarities between individual levels of career adaptability and career decidedness among
participants in our sample. Comparing, contrasting and re-grouping all accrued categories, we
organized our data structure using Gioia et al. (2012) prescriptions, and generated a Gioia Diagram
to better visualize our coding to categorization nexus. By plotting these three ultimate categories
 25

(career decidedness, career adaptability and locus of control) on top of each other, used as
dimensions in a frame, four base-profiles (with 2 subtypes each) emerged from the data, creating
a 3-axis theoretical scheme with a total of 8 profiles (4 base-profiles, each with two variations –
internal and external locus of control).
After developing our profiles, we validated our theoretical scheme as prescribed by Corbin
& Strauss (2008), by asking all interviewees to read and comment on how well we seemed to have
fitted their cases in our 3-axis theoretical scheme. We obtained 15 validation responses from our
22 interviewers. With their feedback, we refined our theoretical scheme, and responding
participants could recognize themselves in the story we read back to them (Corbin & Strauss,
2008). In the next section, we will further explore more about such categories and profiles that
emerged in our study.

3. FINDINGS
We present our findings organized in our grounded methodology process and in the order
in which we completed our analysis. As previously mentioned, by investigating our interviewees’
career paths, transitions, and perceptions, we defined two primary categories (career decidedness
and career adaptability) and a third adjacent category (locus of control, external or internal). By
utilizing the two primary categories as dimensions (varying from low to high) in a Cartesian plane,
we generated 4 career base profiles for the individuals in our sample: Established, Resolute-
maladjusted, Accommodating, and Perplex. The third adjacent dimension defined two possible
subtypes for each of these 4 base profiles, one inner-oriented and one outer-oriented subtype.
Therefore, a total of 8 profiles in a 3-axis scheme emerged from our data. Exhibit 2 shows the data
structure leading to 3 categories in a Gioia Diagram, while Exhibit 3 depicts our 3-axis theoretical
scheme.
 26

Exhibit 2. Gioia Diagram of Data Structure in Sample – Career Decidedness, Career Adaptability, and Locus of Control
Aggregate
1st Order Concepts/Codes 2nd Order Themes Dimensions

"It was a very safe decision for me to study medicine because it's what I truly
Decided – higher “level of confidence
wanted. I really enjoy what I do." (I16)"
I'm quite self-aware, so I can usually tell when something isn't going to work out or or certainty about a particular career-
when it's headed in the wrong direction" (I13). related decision” (Gordon, 1998)
Career
"I had never switched jobs before, it was pretty intense, you know? Emotionally, it Undecided – does not have confidence Decided-
was a lot to handle. You start to second guess yourself and wonder if you're making ness
or certainty about a particular career-
a mistake." (I2).
related decision
" My career in the job market so far has been a mess, it's been really confusing, and
I've had to struggle a lot." (I4)
High - “prepared to change, manage
change, and change become more
"it's been a long journey, but I'm sure I'm going to get there eventually (…) You integrated into life roles” (Savickas &
Porfeli, 2012) Career
have to make a change." (I1)
“it just changed naturally because I felt it was the right thing to do." (I13) Adapta-
bility
Low - less prepared to change, manage
“I don´t know what I would do. Basically, everything I know in my life is what they change, and change become less
taught me. I really wouldn’t know what to do.” (I19) integrated into life roles” (Savickas &
“I’m worried about how I will be able to come back to the workplace” (I14) Porfeli, 2012)

"It was all up to me - it was completely in my hands." (I6) Internal – “believes that events are
"Give me something to work with and I'll make it happen." (I7) contingent upon their own actions”
(Rotter, 1966)
Locus of
" It wasn't my fault, I didn't do anything wrong or harm someone to be sent away." Control
(I12) External – “believes that much of what
"The world can be so unfair, like I missed out on a lot of opportunities for not having happens is beyond their control”
a high IQ or access to these opportunities." (I20) (Rotter, 1966)
 27

Exhibit 3. Career Profiles Theoretical Scheme

3.1.VARIATION IN DECIDEDNESS
We found in our sample two contrasting positionings in terms of career decidedness (as
defined by Gordon, 1998), with shades in between the extremes: on one side, there were very
decided participants, and on the other, very undecided ones, with several somewhere between the
extremes.
For example, I1(from here on, interviewees will be named I2, I13, I18, etc.) always seems
to have had certainty about what her previous and future choices were, as we can see in the quote
below:
“I only go for what I really want. I don’t put myself through anything I don’t want to.” (I1)
She only had 4 jobs in 28 years in the job market, and clearly in all of her jobs she thought
about which paths she was willing to take, and which she was not, drawing the path she thought
was the best option for her in each transition.
Another example is I13. He had 18 different jobs in 36 years in the job market, becoming
a prestigious professional in his field (technology services for financial industry), becoming CIO
 28

in many of the companies he worked for. When we asked about his career decisions, he had
certainty about focusing on his education and on building a good network to grow in his career:
“When I really thought about what I was doing to advance my career, I realized that my
focus was always on education. I put a lot of effort into studying and taking courses at top
universities. I also made an effort to connect with people who were considered experts in their
fields” (I13)
Both I1 and I13 are examples of a high level of career decidedness. When a moment of
decision arrived, they would go with their guts, believing that they were making the best move.
In contrast, some other interviewers experienced lower levels of uncertainty. For example,
I2 was asked the same question. He was 29 years old when interviewed, and he had 4 jobs in 4
years in the job market. We could easily notice that it was emotionally challenging for him and
that he was very insecure about what he was doing:
“Emotionally, it was a lot to handle. You start to second guess yourself and wonder if
you’re making a mistake” (I2)
After answering that, he explained how confusing this process was for him:
“So, when it comes to making a transition, it can be a tough process. It’s about figuring
out how to do something, not whether you’re doing it well or poorly” (I2)
Interviewee I4 also sees her career as messy and confused. Although she was 22 years old,
she had been working since she was 14 years old and has had 8 different jobs in 8 years:
“My career in the workforce so far was pretty messy. It was very confusing, with much
fighting” (I4)
We can see that both I2 and I4 struggle with their career decisions, fighting against their
own thoughts, and are not sure if their decisions were the best they could have made. From our
memoing process, it was clear that some people are much more decisive about their career paths,
while some were not certain at all, and found the whole career progress difficult and/or confusing.
That is how decidedness was clearly the first construct that emerged in our coding process.

3.2. VARIATIONS IN CAREER ADAPTABILITY

As previously mentioned, adaptability refers to the quality of being able to change without
great difficulty (Savickas, 1997). Although at first we coded adaptability (understood in Savickas’
[1997] terms) qualitatively from the interviews, our final theoretical scheme was based on the
 29

refined coding of each participant using survey-based data on a supplemental CAAS survey
measure. Unfortunately, 2 of the participants did not complete the CAAS survey, hence, there were
22 final profiles that were fully analyzed.

Table 4. Career Adaptability CAAS-based Results

Interviewee Concern Control Curiosity Confidence Career Adaptability Adaptability profile

1 4,50 4,83 4,67 4,83 4,71 High
2 4,17 4,33 3,83 4,67 4,25 High
3 4,40 4,17 3,67 4,67 4,23 High
4 4,00 4,83 4,17 4,83 4,46 High
5 3,50 4,67 2,83 2,00 3,25 Low
6 4,33 4,83 3,67 4,83 4,42 High
7 4,00 4,50 4,67 4,67 4,46 High
8 3,33 4,33 4,17 4,67 4,13 High
9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
10 3,83 4,67 3,67 4,17 4,08 High
11 4,17 3,83 4,00 4,00 4,00 Low
12 4,00 4,50 3,50 4,50 4,13 High
13 4,50 4,83 4,67 4,83 4,71 High
14 3,67 3,50 3,67 3,83 3,67 Low
15 4,83 5,00 4,67 5,00 4,88 High
16 3,67 4,00 3,50 3,83 3,75 Low
17 4,67 4,83 4,50 4,83 4,71 High
18 4,67 4,33 4,00 3,67 4,17 High
19 1,50 1,33 1,50 1,83 1,54 Low
20 3,67 3,67 3,67 4,00 3,75 Low
21 4,50 4,50 4,67 4,50 4,54 High
22 5,00 5,00 5,00 4,83 4,96 High
23 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
24 3,00 4,17 4,00 4,33 3,88 Low
Average 4,00 4,30 3,94 4,24 4,12
 30

When the validated version of CAAS we utilized was created, the mean for adaptability
was 4.06, varying from 1 as the lowest point to 5 as the highest (Teixeira et al., 2012). Because
our data was obtained in the same context where such mean was accrued, we thus interpreted as
high career adaptability those participants who had an average above 4.06 and, below such grade,
as low. In our sample, there were 15 participants with high career adaptability and 7 with low
career adaptability. Career adaptability average in the sample was 4.12, with a maximum 4.95 and
a minimum 1.54. In this sample, the curiosity dimension had the lowest scores (3.94), while control
dimension had the highest (4.3). Career adaptability CAAS-based results are shown in Table 4.

3.3.CAREER PROFILES
Through the interviews and their analysis, and with the added refinement of individual
quantitative survey-based data, we could distinctively perceive the categories previously
mentioned emerge. Ultimately, as we plot the two primary dimensions (career decidedness and
career adaptability) on top of each other in a Cartesian plane, four career base-profiles emerge (see
Table 5 and 6).

Table 5. Career Base-Profiles

Career Career Career Profile Characteristics
Base-Profile Decidedness Adaptability
Individual has high level of certainty about particular
Established High High career-related decisions, and is also prepared to change,
integrating it into his/her life
Resolute- Individual has high level of certainty about particular
maldjusted High Low career-related decisions, and is not well prepared to
change and manage it
Individual is not certain about particular career-related
Accomodating Low High decisions, but is prepared to change, integrating it into
his/her life
Individual is not certain about a particular career related
Perplex Low Low decision, and is also not well prepared to change and
manage it
 31

Table 6. Interviewee’s Profile Allocations

Profile Interviewee Allocation Quantity
Established I1, I4, I6, I10, I12, I13, 10
I15,I18, I21,I22
Resolute-maladjusted I14, I16, I19 3
Accommodating I2, I4, I7, I8, I17 5
Perplex I5, I11, I20, I24 4
Total (fully analyzed 22
interviewees)

Subsequently, we will briefly illustrate each of these base profiles that emerged in our sample.

3.3.1. Established: High career decidedness, high career adaptability

Established individuals are those that have a high level of certainty about each particular
career-related decision and are also highly prepared to change when the change occurs, integrating
it into their own lives over time.
One example is how I1 explained the way she shaped her career:
“That’s how I shaped my career. I took a course at [name-of-university], and it’s been a
long journey, but I’m sure I’m going to get there eventually. I’ve been trying to build a network
that will help me get there (…) You have to make a change.” (I1)
I1 is always building her own career. She worked in a multinational company in her early
career years and was fired from it. After that, she started her own business with a colleague. The
first attempt didn’t go as expected and had to shut down. Even so, she started another company
that has since succeeded, and currently is preparing herself to act as a board member in other
companies. Her career adaptability score was 4.7, configuring it as high. Although her career path
did not always go as expected, she is always making some adjustment to be prepared when changes
occur and was quite certain about her career paths when she was interviewed.
Another example is I13: he had several jobs along his life, but he was certain about his
career choices and has been making consistent efforts to keep himself on each chosen track:
“I never really gave it much thought, and I never felt the need to worry about it [career]
because I had a firm belief I have always held on to. I knew it wasn’t a guarantee, so I just tried
 32

to do my best and deliver what was necessary and then I’d be noticed (…) I never made a conscious
effort to do things that would change my career, it just changed naturally because I felt it was the
right thing to do.” (I13)
I13 had been working for the previous 36 years, switching jobs 18 times. In most of his
jobs he decided to leave when a better opportunity arrived; but there were times that he was fired
or had problems with his boss or with the company management decisions, and he would quit.
Even with his career transitions, his description of his transitions indicated he was always adapting
and deciding with certainty. As I1, his career adaptability score was 4.7, classifying it as high.
Established individuals tended to be confident about their previous and future decisions,
and when they had to change or make the change happen, they were ready and adapted to it. This
was the profile that emerged the most, with 10 of 22 interviewees in the “established” quadrant. If
on one hand is possible that our sample incidentally had a high proportion of established
professionals, it is also possible that people have an “established ideal” about themselves and may
try to convey their views on career that way when responding questions or surveys.

3.3.2. Resolute-maladjusted: High career decidedness, low career adaptability

Resolute-maladjusted people tend to have a high level of certainty about each particular
career-related decision, but they are not well prepared to change and to manage it so as to integrate
it into their lives over time.
I19 is a good example. He practically only worked in one job for his entire career, for 35
years, being very loyal to his company and to his supervisors. When asked about his intentions
about his main job, he answered:
“I want to stay until the last day, if my boss wants to. I want to retire and keep working
there, surely” (I19).
We asked subsequently what he would do if his boss would fire him, and he basically
wouldn’t know how to deal with it:
“I don´t know what I would do. Basically, everything I know in my life is what they taught
me. I really wouldn’t know what to do.” (I19)
Although I19 has lived no uncertainty throughout his career and seem very decided about
what he wants, if some eventuality arrives, he admits he would not be prepared to deal with it. It
can also be corroborated with his career adaptability score, 1.54, configuring it as low.
 33

Another example is I14. She also has been working for 35 years. Differently than I19, she
had 18 jobs over that time span. One year and half before her interview, she chose to pursue another
college degree, and is currently working part-time as an independent consultant. We asked about
her future plans:
“I’m worried about how I will be able to come back to the workplace. Maybe I’ll have to
work for another company, but my main goal is, since I’m acquiring more knowledge at [name-
of-university], I want to build a company in the sustainability space.” (I14)
Through her career paths, she has always been very decided about the career track she
chose. Beyond that, she is worried about how she will fit and become prepared for what is coming
after she graduates. Her career adaptability score was 3.67, qualifying her as a low score.
I14 e I19 are two examples of people that are certain about their career decisions, but they
are insecure about how they will adjust if/when changes arise. This profile was the one that
appeared the least, with 3 interviewees out of 22 (as mentioned above, we will discuss here only
22 of the 24 interviewees participating, as only 22 completed wave 3 survey, which provided their
adaptability scores).

3.3.3. Accommodating: Low career decidedness, high career adaptability

People with an accommodating profile are not certain about each particular career-related
decision they make. However, when change arises, they are prepared for it, integrating it into their
lives over time.
I8 has been working for 11 years, switching career 8 times. He has also switched college
three times. He founded two startups, one went bankrupt, and according to him, he decided to
leave the other one because his partner “was really rude”. He also worked for other companies as
an employee. We asked about his career path, and he feels that he could have achieved his current
stage earlier if he had chosen differently.
“(I feel as if) I was running on a treadmill for a long time without getting anywhere. I
accumulated a lot of baggage and gained a lot of experience. It’s important for me to be here now,
but I feel like I could have been here sooner. But that’s life, you know? When we make a choice,
we never know where it is going to take us. So, I’m okay with it.” (I8)
He was undecided for practically his whole career, making some decisions that he believe
have set him back progress-wise. However, albeit his uncertainty, he is optimistic and is always
 34

adjusting his career and life as he goes. That can be confirmed with his career adaptability score
of 4.12, classified as high.
On his turn, I7 has been working for only 4 years, and was always in the same company.
Although he only worked in one place, by his own account all his career decisions were made
hesitantly. He did not know what major to choose, but when the time came, he did choose and
made it work. After that, when he was almost through with college, he needed an internship to
graduate. He joined a customer success department in a startup because it was the only option
available for him at the time. He has been working there since then. We also asked him about his
career in such path:
“I’ve had doubts about my career for most of my life, and I felt lost about where it was
going. I had plans to become a teacher or public servant, but when I gave up on those dreams, I
felt like I had no goal. I fell into a sort of autopilot mode, just taking whatever opportunities came
my way. I ended up taking an internship 3 months before graduating that involved working with
clients, even though I never wanted to do that. Now I’m the leader of client relationships, even
though I like to work with numbers. I still feel quite lost” (I7)
Although he did not know what path to choose, he grabbed the opportunities as they came
up, and adapted his life to them, becoming the leader in a field he unsurely joined 4 years ago.
Although he has a successful career path, considering his years of experience, he’s still uncertain
about it, although he has clearly adapted to such path. To further the case for his higher
adaptability, he also had a high career adaptability score of 4.45.
People with an accommodating profile tend to have difficulties with their career choices,
being uncertain about them, but they adapt their career and life according to what happens with
their career plans. There were 5 interviewees out of 22 fitting this profile.

3.3.4. Perplex: Low career decidedness, low career adaptability

People with a perplex profile are not certain about a particular career related decision and
are not well prepared to change and manage it to integrate it into their lives over time.
I24 is an example of a perplex profile. He tried 4-year colleges three times, but only
managed to obtain an associate degree in graphic design. He tried to work for companies, but then
he chose to become a freelancer and work on his own terms. We asked him about his history in
college:
 35

“Initially, I was looking to do something that I enjoyed because I was feeling really
frustrated after studying computer science. I was thinking about pursuing other majors but hadn’t
considered graphic design before. I wasn’t sure if it was something I could do (…) Whenever I
started a course, I’d try to imagine myself working in that field, but with programming I just
couldn’t see it. Advertising was too theoretical for me (…) I am confident in my talents and
interests in Graphic Design, though I don’t think it is something I’ll do forever“ (I24)
Overall, I24 is not a very decided person when it comes to his career. In both majors he
initiated, he had problems to adapt, and eventually gave up. Besides, although he graduated in
graphic design (third major initiated, only that he finished), he still does not know if this is
something he will do for the remainder of his professional career. We also asked more deeply
about his work experiences. Although he has been working as freelancer, he also has worked for
some companies and he seems to be always trying to conciliate something he likes with the
compensation, as we can see from another of his statements about one of his work transitions:
“The demands were too high, the salary was not good. And, then I realized that I’ve being
working so hard, toppling my creativity and making it very monotonous, and I was losing that
spark I had for design. Despite I’ve been satisfied with my salary, now I don’t like the overall
experience” (I24)
In other parts of our interaction with him, I24 shows he is hardly satisfied with choices and
has issues to adapt, and his survey-based adaptability score was low (3.88). He seems to have
difficulties adjusting and finding balance between routine activities, family, and a compensation
he is satisfied with:
“There would be (something he would do differently on career path), but then, it wouldn’t
be the same outcome (…) I would have taken better advantage of some opportunities like job
outside of the city (…) I turned down some opportunities thinking about my family and the people
here at home” (I24)
Another example of perplex is I11. Although he never switched majors, he struggled
choosing what to graduate on. Also, he had 6 different jobs in very disparate employers, such as a
public institution, one NGO, some startups, and recently he decided to start a cafe. He entered the
job market 5 years prior to his interview and spent less than 1 year in each of his jobs. As he is the
owner of his cafe, he expected to have more fulfillment than in the other jobs he had. This is what
he said when we asked about his experience as an entrepreneur:
 36

“I feel like I’m in a therapy session. I had lots of highs and lows (…) I don’t feel I’m as
engaged as I should be (…) I don’t feel as satisfied as I could be. I quit the other place because I
didn’t like to plan, manage… I wanted to have more human contact, and I knew that I would have
as a cafe owner. But, I do a lot of the same things I did in the last place (…) I was sad in the end,
with spreadsheets, projections, management stuff, and I keep doing the same thing here. So, I can’t
be satisfied.” (I11)
We them asked about his future plans and he says that he has dreams, but not plans.
“Can you give me three minutes for me to cry real quicky? (laughing) No, I don’t have
plans… I have a dream to expand and to experience other cities (…) As I told you, I’m very
frustrated I didn’t have an exchange experience (…) I think I would be happy living in those cities.
But it’s just projections of a person that never lived in any of those cities (…) As you can see, its
only wondering, not plans.”
It would seem I11 is always looking for something, but when he actually makes a move to
something that appear to interest him more, he still struggles. He gives the impression of a person
who has difficulty to adapt his “dreams” with his daily work experiences, getting recurrently
frustrated with his life and work. His career adaptability is lower than average (4.0).
We believe that I11 and I24 are two good examples of the perplex profile: people who are
not certain about their careers and who also do not adapt to their own career paths. There were 4
out of 22 interviewees fitting this profile.

3.4.LOCUS OF CONTROL
A third key construct that emerged in our study with the interaction between interviews
content and literature was locus of control, meaning individuals’ beliefs about the degree of control
over events in their lives (Rotter, 1966; McGee, 2015). As previously mentioned, this emerged
initially as an “influences” code, related to how interviewees located what forces had affected each
of their career choices. After iterations with the literature, the concept of locus of control fit the
data perfectly, and hence we relabeled it accordingly. Individuals with an external locus of control
believe that outcomes are primarily matters of fate or chance, while individuals with an internal
locus of control believe outcomes depend primarily on their own efforts (Rotter, 1966; McGee &
McGee, 2016). Individuals are either categorized as having an internal or external locus of control,
 37

generally conceived as a stable trait, but there are also some authors defending it should be seen
as a state (Ryon et al., 2013).
According to Watson et al. (2017), career development is moving along continually from
an external to an internal locus of control since career transition has become a constant in this
century. Besides, there has been some interest in the topic correlating with employment (Gallo et
al., 2003; Caliendo et al., 2015; McGee, 2015; McGee & McGee, 2016). Despite the continued
interest in locus of control, researchers have posited that how it influences behaviors is still
insufficiently understood (McGee & McGee, 2016).
We could clearly identify how some participants made sense of the forces acting on their
career choices as coming from the outside in, meaning they looked at the environment or at people
around them for a better understanding of what their career was or should be, whereas others saw
such forces solely, or mostly, inside themselves.
While the former exemplifies an external locus of control, the latter is the case of an inner-
oriented person. For example, I10 also believes that his own career depends on him:
“At the end of the day, your career is all up to you, you know? That’s something I learned
(…) I’m like the saying goes, I only believe it when I see it. So, you’ve got to take a risk to know if
it’ll work out or not. And if it doesn’t, you learn from it and move on.” (I10)
I6 was another example of internal locus of control:
“I was engaged with my work because it was all up to me – it was completely in my hands.
(…) I always give it my all, I always give the best that I have, so if I need to do something, I’ll do
it twice as good. I always try to deliver more than I promise (…) Anything that depends on me, I
make sure to give it my best shot, always.”(I6)
I10 and I6 both believe that their careers happen through their own efforts, configuring
examples of internal locus of control. On the other hand, there are also people whose career
decisions are outer-oriented, mostly when they perceive events and their own careers as an
outcome of external factors (Rotten, 1966). One example is I20: we asked him how satisfied he
was with his career, and he emphasized the influence of the outer-directed injustice of the world
in his career path:
“I think [I] had some huge ambitions, yet life didn’t give [me] the chance to fulfill them.
(…) the world can be so unfair, like I missed out on a lot of opportunities for not having a high IQ
or access to these opportunities.” (I20)
 38

E20 has this belief that most of the things he could not accomplish were due to forces acting
from the outside world in, forces that he perceived are far from his control.
One other example of external locus of control is I12. He was fired from a company in
which he believed he was on track for success, and suddenly everything he did went wrong because
of major forces he believes were surrounding him:
“I was on the fast track to success, but then it all came crashing down. It was like a decade
and a half of plans just gone. It hurts because it wasn’t my fault, I didn’t do anything wrong or
harm someone to be let go. I’m not playing the victim here, but it wasn’t something I had control
over. You just feel powerless.” (I12)
In our sample, it was evident interviewees would portray career events or paths either from
an internal or an external locus of control: some people believed that their career paths are more
determined by internal factors (motivation, their own actions), and others by external factors
(uncontrollable events, genetic traits, boss, industry, and so on).
In our theoretical scheme, we called locus of control an “adjacent” category (rather than
primary, as the other two) because (a) it was mostly binary, rather than relatively continuous as
the other two categories; and (b) it did not define fully distinct profiles per se if taken as a primary
dimension, but rather would variate in an either-or fashion (inner-directed or outer-directed) each
of the existent profiles. In other words, for each of the 4 base profiles, it generated two sub-types:
one inner-directed, and the other outer-directed (see Exhibit 2).
Although these four profiles and their sub-types clearly emerged in our data, it is important
to note that as in any grounded theory study, we cannot make universalization claims beyond our
sample: on the contrary, we believe future research should investigate larger and more diversified
samples to verify if these profiles can also be found elsewhere. We also believe these profiles
should be seen as “ideal types”, as most of us fall more in between the thresholds than precisely in
any extremity. Moreover, we see the profiles as unconscious predispositions relative to one’s
career that seem to be somewhat stable for individuals in our sample, but that should not be seen
as unbreakable cages. Both our participants, and most likely people in general, may change over
time as their circumstances dictate. Someone without any career pre-envisioned path may though
time become more certain about career goals and act more decisively. At any rate, we posit more
research is justified from this study, as will be discussed in the next section.
 39

4. DISCUSSION
Although many theorists (Argypoulou & Kaliris, 2018; Savickas, 2013) suggest career
adaptability should be the focus of career research, instead of career decidedness, in our study, we
have found that career decidedness and adaptability may be distinct constructs and thus that
decidedness should be studied as adaptability currently is.
Although in several cases adaptability and decidedness went hand in hand, the former high
when the latter was high, and vice-versa, some participants in our sample assumed the role of
critical cases, meaning cases that contradicted well-established theory (Yin, 2018). In fact, two of
the emerged profiles, resolute-maladjusted and accommodating, showcase a mismatch between
career adaptability and decidedness. We believe these findings in our study allow future research
to rethink both constructs, their distinctions, and relations. Both profiles that we interpret as critical
cases are depicted in the next section.

4.1. CRITICAL CASES: RESOLUTE-MALADJUSTED AND ACCOMMODATING

PROFILES
According to Yin (2018: p. 40), a critical case represents a test of a well-formulated theory
and use a single case to determine it the propositions are correct or rather some alternative set of
explanations could be more relevant and should be pursued.
Through our grounded theory approach and our willingness to extend a substantive theory
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008), we analyzed the relation between Career Adaptability (Savickas, 1997;
Savickas & Porfeli, 2012; Teixeira et al., 2012) and Career Decidedness (Gordon, 1998). Although
there were 14 interviewees of 22 whose adaptability and decidedness profiles appear to vary hand
in hand (i.e., people portrayed high career adaptability as well as high decidedness, or rather low
career adaptability along with low decidedness), there were 3 interviewees (I14, I16, I19) with low
career adaptability and yet high decidedness (resolute-maladjusted profiles) and 5 interviewees
(I2, I4, I7, I8, I17) with high career adaptability and low decidedness (accommodating profiles).
Therefore, we classified these 8 out of 22 cases as critical cases of the well-established theory in
the literature adopting what we termed the “career adaptability sufficiency theorem”. It seems that,
if our results hold in larger and diversified samples, and these constructs may be indeed related but
yet distinct, a rich vein of research that further investigates their separate validity and potential
relationships can be opened by our study.
 40

The fact that Savickas (2013: p.160) suggests that low levels of career control, one of career
adaptability’s dimensions, should be called “career indecision” does add to the confusion if career
adaptability comprises or encompasses career decidedness. Savickas (2013, p. 160) stated that
“control involves intrapersonal self-discipline and the process of being conscientious, deliberate,
organized, and decisive in performing vocational development tasks and making occupations
transitions”.
We took a closer look at our interviewees’ career control scores from our survey data, and
there were even more discrepancies. In addition to the eight critical cases mentioned above, I5 and
I24 had high scores in the adaptability control dimension but were classified as undecided. In this
sense, further concept refinement may need to be achieved about career control specifically, and
more research may be necessary to determine if it is or not the same as career decidedness.
Flyvbjerg (2006) defines a critical case as a case that transcends any sort of rule-based
criteria: “if this is not valid for this case, then it does not apply to all cases” (Flyvberg, 2006, p.
230). Although 14 of our 22 interviewees’ responses are behaving accordingly to established (life-
designing) theory, 8 of them can be seeing as critical cases, suggesting that there should be more
research (Yin, 2018), and in our case, specifically on the career adaptability sufficiency
assumption.

4.2. OTHER FINDINGS ABOUT THE PROFILES IN THE SAMPLE

After matching the profiles with the sample, some possible correlates needing future
research emerged from some of the profiles: age, social status, length of employment per job and
gender.
The accommodating and the perplex profile had a prevalence of younger interviewees (for
both profiles the highest age was 34 years old), while resolute-maladjusted only had interviewees
with more seniority (the lowest age was 49 years old). On the other hand, the established profile
had people from 22 to 58 years old, varying in age. Therefore, we believe that age may have some
influence on the way people decide and adapt through their career trajectories. Perhaps some of
the younger people are more insecure about their decisions while some of the older people are
certain when they must decide, but not necessarily think about how to adapt when the change
comes or project themselves for their future. Therefore, we believe more research is needed
involving age, career adaptability, and career decidedness.
 41

We also checked if social status associated with the profiles in our sample. In our study,
among accommodating individuals (low decidedness and yet high adaptability), there were people
only from lower classes. Hence, we believe future studies could attempt to verify if these profiles
may vary per social strata, perhaps with a larger and more finely stratified sample. Perhaps there
are some external components in lower class career trajectories that increase their difficulty to
make some career decisions but yet that increase their ability to adjust, in a sort of ‘survivor’
behavior. And, if such association can be found in future research, there seems to be other avenues
for investigation about possible interventions and what makes some lower-class individuals less
decided than others.
We also verified within the confines of our sample if the length of employment per job can
be an indication or an outcome for some of the profiles. In our sample, all people with a perplex
profile switched jobs many times. This seems to be a logical outcome of people having recurrent
difficulties in choosing and in adapting, being typically uncomfortable with any job, and hence
making them more prone to change jobs frequently.
Lastly, all perplex participants in our sample were male. Although some previous studies
(e.g., Cammarosano et al., 2017) found no relation between adaptability and gender, further
research investigating both career decidedness and adaptability could further assess the potential
intervening role of gender.

4.3. AVENUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

As previously mentioned, we do not claim that the profiles we found in our sample will
necessarily hold beyond our sample or universally, nor that they are constant traits that individuals
are stuck to, consonant to the tradition of grounded theory. Hence, we believe it would be most
prudent if future research could study larger and more diversified samples, to verify if the profiles,
as well as some level of career adaptability and career decidedness distinctiveness, hold well
quantitatively. Future research could also focus on verifying if these profiles hold both over time
and in different settings, and if so, our study may open research opportunities to develop and
validate psychometrically sound scales to differentiate one’s career decidedness profile in a given
point in time.
 42

Another evident potential for future research lies in the scale instrumentalization and
validation for career decidedness. After that is established, future research could more deeply
explore the relation between career decidedness and adaptability, refining both constructs.
Expanding demographics also constitutes a research opportunity: although there were
several studies about the career-related decidedness topic in the literature, only a few involved
adults (Jain, A., 2014; Watson et al., 2017). Mostly all articles about career decidedness or career
adaptability we were able to locate were about senior high schoolers or college students. Our
results indicate that more research is needed on career-related decidedness among expanded
demographics, including adult and mature working professionals.
Future research could also focus on some of the listed gaps in extant literature on career
decidedness we have already pointed out in this study. For instance, further research on the
antecedents and possible outcomes of the several career profiles we found could be pursued in
future studies, particularly using longitudinal research designs, as proposed by Spurk (2021).

4.4.PRATICAL IMPLICATIONS
There are practical implications of our study at the individual and the organizational levels,
mostly derived from the more in-depth knowledge about career decidedness and career
adaptability we believe it has generated, as we all as from the career profiles that emerged in our
data.
At the individual level, this study could be informative by helping professionals, such as
career counselors, coaches, and therapists, to develop interventions either for instances when
adaptability and decidedness mismatch, or for each career profile that emerged in our study.
Moreover, for individuals, such type of interventions inspired by this study could become tools for
people to make sense of themselves and of their career choices in light of profiles they may have
fitted in overtime, thus generating self-knowledge. In fact, among the feedback on how participants
could see themselves in our theoretical scheme, we also received the following comment about
such potential of our study’s findings for individuals:
“It’s pretty cool that you were able to determine these profiles just from interviews like
mine. Doing this kind of self-analysis on my own would be impossible. I think the results will be a
great starting point for individual assessments.” (I20)
 43

At the organizational level, by acknowledging these profiles and their main particularities,
human resource functions and professionals could develop talent management practices to connect
individuals with certain career profiles and potential jobs, for example by offering extra support to
people based in the specific adaptability-decidedness profiles, or yet internal recruitment options,
rather than simply waiting by and risk losing them to the job market.
As Savickas et al. (2009) said, “at the beginning of the 21st century, we have a new social
arrangement of work that poses a series of questions and challenges”. Indeed, we believe that
career decisions throughout our entire professional lives are as important as our first career choices.
Hence, we should strive to support this insecure workforce in dealing with both career decidedness
and adaptability during their entire professional paths, because a lot more can be learned from
seeing the two as related, yet distinct, career constructs. We have drafted a practitioner-friendly
article (see Appendix E), as an example of the practical implications of our study.

4.5.LIMITATIONS
One limitation of this research is related to some characteristics of our sample. Our study
has a small number of participants, with 24 individuals, all in a single country. Although it would
be unlikely that someone would question the legitimacy or the generalization potential if our
sample was all from the US, alas, it is not. Therefore, as mentioned before, we recognize it would
be prudent to reproduce this study with samples from the US and other cultural contexts, to verify
if the profiles hold well elsewhere.
Furthermore, we understand that, as with any qualitative study, this study reflects the
researchers’ perspective on their understanding of the phenomenon, who could have some
unconscious biases (Lee et al., 1999). As such, like any grounded theory-based research, it has
limitations regarding our comprehension of the phenomenon, and, consequently, regarding the
categories and profiles we saw emerging from the data.
Although our study design has, on a positive note, the added richness of a time-lagged
design, and hence going above and beyond most of the similar studies in extant literature, it is far
from being a longitudinal study, and it does rely on retrospective accounts of participants’ careers.
Hence, further studies could benefit from studying career decidedness and adaptability
longitudinally, perhaps in a span of a years, studying individuals as they go through their career
 44

challenges, rather than relying on their recollections, as our research design, to some extent, led us
to do.

5. CONCLUSION
We believe that the new work environment that has emerged in the 21st century, and to
which Savickas et al. (2009) referred to, is an invitation to understand more about career
perceptions, decisions, and their implications for professional lives and society. We understand
that adaptability has been increasingly studied in the last two decades, precisely because of the
shifting features of our work environment. Despite such turmoil, professionals should still be
responsible for their careers, and consequently, their career decisions.
Many individuals are struggling with their careers, some because they have difficulties in
adapting in this unpredictable world; some of them because they are insecure about what path to
choose; some for both. We believe that bringing career decidedness back to light, and to further
explore its relation to career adaptability, we can better equip and support enterprises and
professionals in this age of shifting careers.

REFERENCES
Akkermans, J., & Kubasch, S. (2017) Trending topics in careers: a review and future research
agenda. Career development International, 22(6), 586-627. DOI 10.1108/CDI-08-2017-
0143
Amarnani, R.K., Howard, E.C., Restubog, S.L., To, M.L. (2022) How are career adaptable and
customer oriented employees treated? Examining career-situated factors that reduce
customer mistreatment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 136, 13740. DOI:
10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103740
Arbona, C., Fan, W., Phang, A., Olvera, N., & Dios, M. (2021). Intolerance of uncertainty, anxiety,
and career indecision: a mediation model. Journal of Career Assessment, 29(4), 699-716.
DOI: 10.1177/10690727211002564
Argyropoulou, K. & Kaliris, A. (2018). From career decision-making to career decision-
management: new trends and prospects for career counseling. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal, 5(10), 483-502. DOI:10.14738/assrj.510.5406.
Bouckenooghe, D., Kanar, A., Klene, U.C. (2022) A latent transition analysis examining the nature
of and movement between career adaptability profiles. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 136,
103728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103728
Bryman, A. (2012) Social research methods. Oxford University Press, 4th edition.
 45

Caliendo, M., Cobb-Clark, D., Uhlendorff, A. (2015) Locus of control and job search strategies.
Review of Economics and Statistics., 97(1), 88-103. DOI: 10.1162/REST_a_00459
Cammarosano, M., Melo-Silva, L.L., Oliveira, J.E.B. (2019) Validity Evidence of the CAAS in
Brazilians with Higher Education. Psico-USF, 24(2), 287-298. DOI:10.1590/1413-
82712019240206
Chen, H, Fang, T., Liu, F., Pang, L, Wen, Y., Chen, S, Gu, X. (2020). Career adaptability research:
a literature review with scientific knowledge mapping in web of science. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(16), 5986.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165986
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. Sage
Publications, 2nd edition.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Inc., 3rd edition.
Datu, J.A.D., Buenconsejo, J.U. (2021) Academic Engagement and Achievement predict Career
Adaptability. The Career Development Quarterly, 69(1), 34-48. DOI: 10.1002/cdq.12247
DeAndrea, D. C., Tom Tong, S., Liang, Y. J., Levine, T. R., & Walther, J. B. (2012). When do
people misrepresent themselves to others? The effects of social desirability, ground truth,
and accountability on deceptive self-presentations. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 400-
417. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01646.x
Deen, C.M., Restubog, S.L., Chen, Y., Garcia, P.R.J.M., He, Y., Cayayan, P.L.T. (2021). To
engage to quit: work consequences of intimate partner aggression and buffering role of career
adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103641
Fiorini, M.C., Bardagi, M.P., Silva, N. (2016) Adaptabilidade de carreira: paradigmas do conceito
no mundo do trabalho contemporâneo. Revista Psicologia: organizações e trabalho, 16(4),
236-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.17652/rpot/2016.3.676
Fouad, N. A., & Kozlowski, M. B. (2019). Turning around to look ahead: Views of vocational
psychology in 2001 and 2019. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(3), 375-390. DOI:
10.1177/1069072719841602
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry,
12(2), 219-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
Gai, X., Gu, T., Wang, Y., Jia, F. (2022) Improving career adaptability through motivational
interview among peers: An intervention of at-risk Chinese college students majoring in
foreign language. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103762
Gati, I., Kulcsar, V. (2021). Making better career decisions: From challenges to
opportunities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 126. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103545
 46

Germeijis, V., Boeck, P. (2002) A measurement scale for indecisiveness and its relationship to
career indecision and other types of indecision. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, v.18(2), p.113-122. DOI: 10.1027//1015-5759.18.2.113
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., Hamilton, A.L. (2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research:
notes on the Gioia Metholodology. Organizational Methods Research, 16(1), 15-31. DOI:
10.1177/1094428112452151
Gordon, V. (1998). Career Decidedness types: a literature review. The career development
quarterly, 46, 386-403. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1998.tb00715.x
Hallenbeck, H.W. (2020). Decision-making difficulty in major depression: understanding
indecisiveness and the role of expected affect. Arts & Sciences Electronic Theses and
Dissertations, 2321.
Haynie, J., Flynn, C.B., Herda, D. (2020) Linking career adaptability to supervisor-rated task
performance: a serial mediation model. Career Development International, 26(4), 429-442.
DOI: 10.1108/CDI-08-2019-0207
Holland, J. (1997). Making vocational choices: a theory of vocational personalities and work
environment. Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc, 3rd edition.
Hu, X., He, Y., Ma, D., Zhao, S., Xiong, H., Wan, G. (2021) Mediating Model of College Students’
proactive personality and Career Adaptability. The Career Development Quarterly, 69(3),
216-230. DOI: 10.1002/cdq.12269
Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen Jr, D. J., Griffith, D. A., Finnegan, C. A., Gonzalez-Padron, T.,
Harmancioglu, N., Cavusgil, S. T. (2008). Data equivalence in cross-cultural international
business research: assessment and guidelines. Journal of International Business Studies,
39(6), 1027-1044. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400396
Jia, Y., Hou, Z., Zhang, H., Xiao, Y. (2022) Future time perspective, career adaptability, anxiety,
and career decision-making difficulty: exploring mediations and moderations. Journal of
Career Development, 49(2), 282-296. DOI: 10.1177/0894845320941922
Johnston, C. S. (2016) A systematic review of the career adaptability literature and future outlook.
Journal of career assessment, 26(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072716679921
Kim, J., Smith, C.K. (2021) Traumatic Experiences and Female University Students’ Career
Adaptability. The Career Development Quarterly, 69(3), 263-277. DOI: 10.1002/cdq.12272
Kulcsar, V., Dobrean, A., & Gati, I. (2020). Challenges and difficulties in career decision making:
Their causes, and their effects on the process and the decision. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103346
Lee, T.W., Mitchell, T.R., Sablynski, C.J. (1999) Qualitative Research in Organizational and
Vocational Psychology, 1979-1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 161-187.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1707
 47

Leung, S.M. Mo, J., Yuen, M., Cheung, R. (2022) Testing the career adaptability model with senior
high school students in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 139, 13808. DOI:
10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103808
Lesthaege, R. (2010). The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Population and
Development Review, 36, 211-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2010.00328.x
Locke, K. (2002). The Grounded Theory Approach to Qualitative Research. In: Drasgow, F. &
Schmitt, N (Eds.). Measuring and Analyzing Behavior in Organizations. Jossey-Bass.
Maggio, I.D., Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M.L., Nota, L., Sgaramella, T.M. (2021) Career
Adaptability, Self-determination, and Life Satisfaction: a mediational analysis with people
with substante use disorder. Journal of Career Development, 48(3), 213-228. DOI:
10.1177/0894845319847006
McGee, A. (2015) How the perception of control influences unemployment job search. Industrial
Labor Relation Review, 68, 184-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793914556245
McGee, A., McGee, P. (2016) Search, effort, and locus of control. Journal of Economic Behavior
& Organization, 126, 89-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2016.03.001
Nalis, I., Kubicek, B., Korunka, C. (2022) Resources to respond: a career construction theory
perspective on demands, adaptability, and career crafting. The Career Development
Quarterly, 70(2), 138-152. DOI: 10.1002/cdq.12293
Ocampo, A.C.G., Restubog, S.L.D., Wang, L., Garciam P.R.J.M., Tang, R.L. (2022), Home and
away: how career adaptability and cultural intelligence facilitate international migrant
workers’ adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103759
Ocampo, A.C.G., Reyes, M.L., Chen, Y., Restubog, S.L.D., Chih, Y., Chua-Garcia, L., Guan, P.
(2020) The role of internship participation and conscientiousness in developing career
adaptability: a five wave growth mixture model analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
120, 103426. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103426
Parola, A., Marcionetti, J. (2022) Career Decision Making Difficulties and Life Satisfaction: the
role of career related parental behavior and Career Adaptability. Journal of Career
Development, 49(4), 831-845. DOI: 10.1177/0894845321995571
Phang, A., Fan, W., & Arbona, C. (2020). Secure attachment and career indecision: the mediating
role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Career Development, 47(6), 657-670.
10.1177/0894845318814366
Rassin, E. (2007). A psychological theory of indecisive. Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 63(1),
p.1-11. DOI 10.1007/BF03061056
Rotter, J. (1966) Generalized Expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 80(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
 48

Rudolf, C.W., Lavigne, K.N., Katz, I.M., Zacher, H. (2017). Linking dimensions of career
adaptability to adaptation results: a meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 102,
151-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.06.003
Rudolf, C.W., Zacher, H., Hirschi, A. (2018). Empirical Developments in Career Construction
Theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 111, 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.12.003
Ryon, H.S., Gleason, E.J. (2014) The role of locus of control in daily life. Society for personality
and social psychology, 40(1), 121-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213507087
Saldana, J. (2009) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage publications Inc.
Santos, P.J., Ferreira, J. A., Gonçalves, C.M. (2014) Indecisiveness and career indecision: a test of
a theoretical model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 106-114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.05.004
Savickas, M. (1995) Constructivist Counseling for Career Indecision. The Career Development
Quarterly, 43, 363-373. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1995.tb00441.x
Savickas, M. (1997) Career adaptability: an integrative construct for life-span, life-space theory.
The career development quarterly, 45, 247-259. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-
0045.1997.tb00469.x
Savickas, M. (2013) Career Construction Theory and Practice. In Brown, S.D., Lent, R.W. (Eds).
Career Development and Counseling: Putting Theory and Research to work. John Wiley &
Sons, 2nd edition.
Savickas, M., Nota, L., Rossier, J., Dauwalder, J. P., Duarte, M. E., Guichard, J., Soresi, S., Van
Esbroeck, R., & Van Vianen, A. E. (2009) Life designing: a paradigm for career
construction in the 21st century. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 239-250.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.04.004
Savickas, M., Porfeli, E. (2012) Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: construction, reliability, and
measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 66-673.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.011
Savickas, M., Savickas, S. (2019). A history of Career Counseling. In: Athanasou, J.A., Perera,
H.N. (Eds).International Handbook of Career Counseling. Springter Science, 1st edition.
Serenko, A. (2022) The Great Resignation: the great knowledge exodus or the onset of the Great
Knowledge Revolution. Journal of Knowledge Management, (ahead-of-print).
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2021-0920
Sou, E., Yuen, M., Chen G. (2022) Career adaptability as a mediator between social capital and
career engagement. The Career Development Quarterly, 70(1), 2-15. DOI:
10.1002/cdq.12289
Spurk, D. (2021) Vocational Behavior research: Past topics and future trends and challenges.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 126, 103559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2021.103559
 49

Sull, D., Sull, C., & Zweig, B. (2022). Toxic culture is driving the great resignation. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 63(2), 1-9.
Super, D.E.; Knasel, E.G. (1981) Career development in adulthood: Some theoretical problems
and a possible solution. British journal of guidance and counselling, 9(2), 194–201.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03069888108258214Teixeira, M.A.P., Bardagi, M.P., Lassance,
M.C.P., Magalhães, M.O., Duarte, M.E. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale – Brazilian
Form: Psychometric Properties and relationships to personality. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 80, 680-685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.007
Udayar, S., Levin, N., Lipshits-Braziler, Y., Rochat, S., Di Fabio, A., Gati, I., Rossier, J. (2020).
Difficulties in career decision making and self-evaluations: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Career Assessment, 28(4), 608-635. DOI: 10.1177/1069072720910089
Viola, M. M., Musso, P., Inguglia, C., & Lo Coco, A. (2016). Psychological Well-Being and
Career Indecision in Emerging Adulthood: The Moderating Role of Hardiness. The Career
Development Quarterly, 64(4), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12073
Watson, M., McMahon, M. (2017) Adult Career Counselling: Narratives of Adaptability and
Resilience. In: Maree, K. (Ed.) Psychology of Career Adaptability, Employability, and
Resilience. Springer International Publishing.
Xu, H. (2020) Incremental validity of the career adapt-abilities scale total score over general self-
efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119, 103425. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103425
Yin, R.K. (2018) Case Study research and applications: design and methods. Sage Publishing,
sixth edition.
 50

APPENDIX A – FIRST INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (PORTUGUESE)

(Início da entrevista: termo de consentimento e anuência gravada)

1. Informações básicas:
 Idade:
 Tempo no mercado de trabalho:
 Você pode comentar a respeito da sua decisão na época do vestibular? Como você
escolheu seu curso e faculdade?
 Fez mais de um curso na graduação?
(Caso tenha feito mais de uma graduação: Você pode compartilhar como foi essa
decisão de mudar de curso?)
 Renda familiar de origem
Nenhuma renda
Até 1 salário mínimo (R$1212)
Entre 1 (R$1.212) e 2 salários mínimos (R$2.424)
Entre 2 (R$2.424) e 3 salários mínimos (R$3.636)
Entre 3 (R$3.636) e 5 salários mínimos (R$6.060)
Entre 5 (R$6.060) e 7 salários mínimos (R$8.484)
Entre 7 (R$8.484) e 10 salários mínimos (R$12.120)
Entre 10 (R$12.120) e 15 salários mínimos (R$18.180)
Entre 15 (R$18.180) e 20 salários mínimos (R$24.240)
Acima de 20 salários mínimos (R$24.240)
 Renda familiar atual (referência acima)

2. Trajetória Profissional (passado)

a. Conte-me um pouco sobre sua trajetória profissional até hoje, ou seja, desde
seu primeiro emprego até os dias atuais.
b. (Caso mais de uma empresa ou cargo) Vi que trabalhou em Z empresas.
Certo? Agora, vamos entrar mais no detalhe sobre elas.
 Fale sobre a transição de X (empresa/cargo) para Y (empresa/cargo)? Por
que você tomou a decisão de ir de X para Y? (Repetir para cada transição.)
 51

 Quão satisfeito ou insatisfeito você estava em X?

(Fale um pouco sobre isso)
 Quão engajado ou desengajado você estava em X?
(Se não sair suco, perguntar em relação a outras pessoas que trabalham em
X.
(CASO A PESSOA PERGUNTE DIFERENÇA ENTRE SATISFAÇÃO E
ENGAJAMENTO:
- Satisfação: sensação positiva sobre a organização.
- Engajamento: está mentalmente e emocionalmente envolvido no trabalho
e em contribuir para o sucesso da empresa.)

3. Emprego atual
a. Fale sobre se você tem mais intenção de ficar ou de sair do seu emprego atual?
b. Quão satisfeito ou insatisfeito você está em seu emprego atual?
(Se estiver: Quais são os motivos para você se sentir assim? Fale mais a respeito.)
(E se não estiver: Quais são motivos para você se sentir assim? Fale mais a
respeito.)
(E se não souber: Você quer comentar a respeito? )
c. Nós conversamos sobre suas experiências passadas, mas pensando no seu emprego
atual, você se sente engajado?
(Se estiver: quais são os motivos que te fazem sentir desta forma?)
(E se não estiver: quais são os motivos que te fazem sentir assim?)
(E se não souber: quer comentar a respeito?)
d. Como você abordaria/decidiria hoje uma (/sobre uma) possibilidade de transição?
4. Futuro profissional
a. (Se, ao descrever a trajetória anterior isto não aparecer, perguntar: Quando você fez
as suas transições de carreira das quais a gente conversou, você tinha um plano de
futuro profissional traçado?
(SE NÃO ENTENDER: Planos futuros é algo que almejava em relação ao
seu trabalho.)
 52

(Se não tiver: Fale mais sobre como você se sente a respeito.)
(Se tiver: pode compartilhar quais eram esses planos? Como você chegou a
eles?)
(Estes seguem sendo seu plano de futuro?)
(Se sim: como você visualiza os passos para alcançar sua
visão de futuro?)
(Se não: você tem outros planos?)
(Se sim: quais? Como você visualiza os passos para
alcançar sua visão de futuro?)
(Se não: pode compartilhar como você se sente a
respeito?)
5. Percepção de carreira
a. Como você define Carreira? Qual a definição de carreira para você?
(Caso a pessoa comece a divagar: Posso te dar um exemplo de uma definição?
Exemplo: Empresa é organização que vende algum ou alguns produtos e que objetiva
gerar lucro)
b. Você se lembra em que momento começou a pensar em carreira?
(Se sim, em que momento isso ocorreu? Como foi este processo para você?)
(Se não, quer comentar algo sobre isso?)
c. Você acredita ter alguma vocação profissional?
(Se sim, conte-me mais qual é e como chegou nesta vocação)
(Se não entender: Vocação é uma inclinação natural e facilidade em realizar alguma
atividade específica. Por exemplo: o Neymar tem uma vocação para o futebol)
(Se não, quer comentar algo a respeito?)
d. Você vê propósito em sua atividade profissional?
(Caso peça definição de propósito: é um chamado para além de si mesmo, orientado
para os outros como fonte de motivação)
(Se sim, conte-me um pouco mais sobre ele. Qual seria ele? Como chegou a este
propósito?)
(Se não, consegue falar um pouco a respeito de por que você trabalha.)
 53

(E se trouxer sentimento de vazio: consegue compartilhar um pouco mais a

respeito?)
e. Você acha que alguém ou algo se beneficiam do resultado da sua atividade
profissional?
(Caso não entenda a pergunta: Por exemplo: quem se beneficia de um trabalho do
professor são os alunos. O professor repassa seus conhecimentos para os alunos)
(Se sim, quem ou o que se beneficia? Conte-me mais sobre como chegou nesta
conclusão.)
(Se não, por que você acha que suas atividades não beneficiam as pessoas/ ao entorno?)
f. Nós falamos sobre sua satisfação/insatisfação passada e atual. Olhando sua carreira como
um todo, quão satisfeito você se sente com sua carreira, de forma geral?
(Se não muito satisfeito: se você pudesse voltar no tempo, teria algo que faria
de diferente em sua trajetória profissional?)
(Se sim: Você faria algo de diferente em seu caminho?)
(Se sim: O que? Por que?)
6. Perfil e histórico pessoal
a. O quão seguro(a) você se sente no trabalho que exerce?
(Se sim, conte um pouco mais da experiência)
b. Você já teve algum ou alguns acontecimentos que aconteceram com pessoas
próximas e que afetaram sua carreira, de alguma forma?
(Se sim: conte-me qual. Como você pensava antes? O que mudou?)
c. Você já teve algum tipo de problema relacionado a estresse, burnout…?
d. E de ansiedade e/ou depressão ou outras questões de saúde mental?
e. Existem alguns traços de personalidade que podem se aplicar ou não a você. Você
poderia, por favor, indicar o quanto você concorda ou discorda com cada um dos
estados? Você deverá ranquear de acordo com o par de traços que se aplicam a você,
mesmo que uma característica se aplique mais do que a outra.
a. Extrovertida, Entusiasta
b. Rude, hostil
c. Obstinada, Motivada
d. Ansiosa(o), Temperamental
 54

e. aberta(o) a novas experiências, complexa

f. Reservada, calada
g. simpática, amorosa
h. desorganizada, indisciplinada
i. tranquila, emocionalmente estável
j. convencional, sem tanta curiosidade

(COLOCAR NA TELA) ESCALA:

1= Nada parecido comigo
2 = Não muito parecido comigo
3 = pouco parecido comigo
4 = parecido comigo
5 = muito parecido comigo

(FINALIZAÇÃO:
 Você gostaria de dizer alguma outra coisa sobre o que conversamos?
 Você tem alguma dúvida sobre a pesquisa (oferecer que pode contactar, caso se
lembre de algo.)
 Agradecimento)
 55

APPENDIX B – SECOND INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (PORTUGUESE)

(Início da entrevista: termo de consentimento e anuência gravada)
 Começar a gravação
 Agradecer a participação
 Explicar que irá fazer algumas perguntas pontuais

1. Percepção de carreira
 Teve algum evento que momento/situação que modificou sua maneira de pensar/sentir
sobre sua carreira? (Se sim, qual foi/foram? Pode compartilhar, por favor?)
 (Caso tenha filhos) Sua percepção de carreira é a mesma ou mudou depois que teve filhos?
 (Caso não tenha filhos) Você acha que sua percepção de carreira seria a mesma ou
mudaria? Explique por favor.
 Quando você começou a trabalhar, você sabe dizer como era a percepção de sua carreira?
De lá para cá, sua percepção mudou ou permaneceu a mesma?
(Se mudou - o que mudou? por que? O que acha que ocorreu para mudar?)
 Você já teve períodos em que ficou desmotivado(a) ou sem saber sobre os caminhos que
estava seguindo com sua carreira? (Se sim, como foi? )

2. Perfil e histórico pessoal

a. Caso você perca ou peça para sair do emprego, você acredita que teria suporte
familiar (casa, comida, roupa lavada)?
(Caso tenha: consegue compartilhar um pouco mais da filosofia de criação de seus
familiares?)
 Seus pais realizaram alguma correção de comportamento ao longo da sua trajetória?
Se sim, pode contar um exemplo?
b. Qual você considera ser seu nível de independência e autonomia?

Quais dessas frases se aplica à sua personalidade:

1. Eu sou meu próprio chefe
2. Se eu trabalhar duro, eu serei bem sucedido(a)
 56

3. Seja no trabalho ou na minha vida pessoal: o que eu faço é majoritariamente determinado

pelos outros
4. O destino geralmente atrapalha meus planos

Frase Nada Não muito Pouco Parecido Muito

parecido parecido parecido comigo parecido
comigo comigo comigo comigo

Encontra informações na
biblioteca acerca das
ocupações que esta
interessado

Seleciona uma carreira de

uma lista de carreiras
potenciais que está
considerando

Faz planos para seus

objetivos para os próximos
5 anos

Determina os passos para

realizar caso esteja tendo
problemas para estudar para
a carreira escolhida

Acuradamente avalia suas

habilidades

Seleciona uma ocupação de

uma lista de ocupações que
está considerando

Determina os passos que

precisa tomar para obter
com sucesso sua carreira
escolhida

Persistentemente trabalha
para sua meta de trabalho,
mesmo quando frustrado
 57

Característica Nada Não muito Pouco Parecido Muito

parecido parecido parecido comigo parecido
comigo comigo comigo comigo

Determina como seria seu

trabalho ideal

Descobre as tendências de
trabalho para sua ocupação
ao longo dos próximos 10
anos

Escolhe a carreira que

combina com seu estilo de
vida

Prepara um bom currículo

Muda de carreira se não

gostar da sua primeira
escolha

Decide o que mais valoriza

em uma ocupação

Descobre a média salarial

anual das pessoas em
determinada ocupação

Toma uma decisão de

carreira e depois não se
preocupa se foi correta ou
errada

Característica Nada Não muito Pouco Parecido Muito

parecido parecido parecido comigo parecido
comigo comigo comigo comigo

Muda de ocupações caso

não esteja satisfeito com
aquela que escolheu

Descobre o que você está ou

não está pronto para
sacrificar para obter seus
objetivos de carreira
 58

Conversa com pessoas que

já estão empregadas no
campo que você está
interessado(a)

Escolhe uma carreira que

alia a seus interesses

Identifica funcionários,
firmas, instituições
relevantes para suas
possibilidades de carreira

Define o tipo de estilo de

vida que você gostaria de
viver

Encontra informações sobre

universidades e faculdades

Gerencia bem
sucedidamente os processos
de entrevista de emprego

Identifica alternativas
razoáveis de carreira, caso
não seja possível atingir sua
primeira escolha

Característica Nada Não muito Pouco Parecido Muito

parecido parecido parecido comigo parecido
comigo comigo comigo comigo

O quanto concorda ou discorda das afirmações

Frase Discordo Discordo Concordo Concordo

fortemente fortemente

Eu sinto que sou uma pessoa

valiosa, pelo menos em um
plano de igualdade com os
outros
 59

Eu sinto que eu tenho um

número de boas qualidades

De modo geral, eu estou

inclinado a sentir que sou um
fracasso

Eu sou capaz de fazer coisas

tão bem quanto a maioria das
pessoas

Eu sinto que não tenho muito

do que sentir orgulho

Eu tenho atitudes positivas

sobre mim

De modo geral, estou satisfeito

comigo mesmo(a)

Eu gostaria que eu tivesse mais

respeito por mim mesmo(a)

Eu certamente me sinto inútil

de tempos em tempos

Em alguns momentos, eu
penso que não sou bom de
forma alguma

Característica Nada Não muito Pouco Muito

parecido parecido parecido parecido
comigo comigo comigo comigo

(FINALIZAÇÃO:
 Você gostaria de dizer alguma outra coisa sobre o que conversamos?
 Você tem alguma dúvida sobre a pesquisa (oferecer que pode contactar, caso se
lembre de algo.)
 Agradecimento)
 60

APPENDIX C – IRB (PORTUGUESE)

61
 62

TERMO DE CONSENTIMENTO LIVRE E ESCLARECIDO

1. Nome do projeto: Pesquisa sobre Percepção de Carreira

2. Características e objetivos gerais da pesquisa: A pesquisa está sendo conduzida por Lívia
Tieri Kuga, gerente de recursos humanos na Stone, para conclusão de seu Mestrado na FGV-
EAESP. O objetivo deste estudo é uma análise exploratória sobre como diferentes profissionais
percebem as suas carreiras.
3. Procedimento: a pesquisa se dará por meio de entrevistas individuais semiestruturadas com
profissionais de perfis variados.
4. Participação na pesquisa: entrevista individual gravada sobre sua trajetória profissional com
duração média de 1 a 2 horas, que poderá ser separada em duas sessões, de acordo com sua
disponibilidade.
5. Voluntariedade e direito de desistência: Sua participação não é obrigatória. A qualquer
momento, você poderá desistir de participar e retirar seu consentimento. Sua recusa, desistência
ou retirada de consentimento não acarretará prejuízo.
6. Riscos e benefícios: Os resultados da pesquisa serão disponibilizados a todos os participantes,
mas sem a possibilidade de identificação dos entrevistados. A participação na pesquisa não
implicará em custos para os participantes.
7. Direito de confidencialidade: A fim de assegurar sua privacidade, os dados obtidos por meio
desta pesquisa serão anonimizados.
8. Garantia de acesso aos dados e dúvidas em geral: Você poderá tirar dúvidas sobre o projeto
e sobre sua participação, além de obter acesso aos seus dados, a qualquer momento, através dos
contatos indicados abaixo.
Livia Tieri Kuga, gerente de recursos humanos na Stone e mestranda pela FGV-EAESP. Email:
liviakuga@gmail.com.br; celular: (12) 981413547 ou poderá entrar em contato diretamente com
o Comitê de Conformidade Ética em Pesquisa Envolvendo Seres Humanos da Fundação Getúlio
Vargas – CEPH/FGV: Praia de Botafogo, 190, sala 1611, Botafogo, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP
22250-900. Telefone (21) 3799-6216. E-mail: etica.pesquisa@fgv.br.
9. Consentimento: Caso você concorde em participar desta pesquisa, ao início da entrevista,
iremos reiterar seus direitos e gravar no google meet sua anuência, bem como encaminhar o termo
em seu e-mail.
 63

APPENDIX D – CAREER ADAPT-ABILITIES SCALE (TEIXEIRA ET AL., 2012)

Pessoas diferentes utilizam recursos diferentes para construir as suas carreiras/vidas. Ninguém é
bom em tudo; cada um procura dar o melhor de si. Por favor leia cada afirmação e indique o quanto
você desenvolveu cada uma das habilidades utilizando a escala abaixo.

1 – Muito pouco
2 – Pouco
3 – Medianamente
4 – Bastante
5 – Plenamente

Fatores Itens
Concern 1 Refletir sobre como vai ser o meu futuro
2 Perceber que meu futuro depende das escolhas de hoje
3 Preparar-me para o futuro
4 Tomar consciência das escolhas educacionais e profissionais que tenho de fazer
5 Planejar como alcançar meus objetivos
6 Estar preocupado(a) com a minha carreira
Control 1 Manter-me otimista
2 Tomar decisões por mim mesmo(a)
3 Assumir a responsabilidade pelo que faço
4 Defender as minhas convicções
5 Agir com autonomia
6 Fazer o que está certo para mim
Curiosity 1 Explorar o ambiente à minha volta
2 Procurar oportunidades pra me desenvolver como pessoa
3 Explorar alternativas antes de fazer uma escolha
4 Estar atento(a) às diferentes maneiras de fazer as coisas
5 Analisar de forma aprofundada questões que me dizem respeito
6 Ser curioso(a) sobre novas oportunidades
Confidence 1 Realizar tarefas de forma eficiente
2 Ser responsável e fazer as coisas bem
3 Desenvolver novas habilidades
4 Dar sempre o meu melhor
5 Superar obstáculos
6 Resolver problemas
 64

APPENDIX E – PRACTITIONER-FRIENDLY ARTICLE DERIVED FROM THE

STUDY
Submitted to MIT Sloan Management Review (ABS 3) on 05/07/2023

How to manage your team's different career profiles

Livia Kuga & Miguel P. Caldas
Abstract:
In an era of great resignation and quiet quitting in the workplace, many leaders are shocked to see
employees leave careers they were on track to succeed on, many of which without an alternate
plan on sight, or to witness others become alienated from career paths they previously dreamed of.
Even before the pandemic, many leaders struggle to understand their employees’ career rationale.
This article shows that the way employees approach their careers can differ significantly based on
their individual levels of decidedness and adaptability. We propose a framework that overlays
these two dimensions to reveal four distinct career profiles: established, resolute-maladjusted,
accommodating, and perplex. To help leaders identify which career profile each employee falls
into, we also provide a questionnaire anchored in established research. By understanding these
career profiles, leaders can better communicate with their team members, provide more effective
coaching, and optimize talent utilization and retention. We offer a tool anchored in established
literature for leaders to identify their employees’ individual career profiles, and advice based on
our own research on how to support employees in each profile, to optimize their organization’s
talent utilization and retention.
 65

How to manage your team's different career profiles

In an era of great resignation and quiet quitting, many employees leave careers they were on track
to succeed on, often without an alternate plan on hand, while others become alienated from career
paths they previously dreamed of. Even before the pandemic, many leaders struggle to understand
their employees’ career rationale. Each employee approaches their career differently, varying in
how much decidedness and adaptability they have. Leaders should be prepared to identify and
deal with individual career profiles to maximize talent utilization and retention.
Leaders often need to support their employees in how to manage their career decisions and
engage them with the organization. In the last few years, providing such support has become an
increasingly difficult task, by both changes in the business climate and in employees’ attitudes: for
instance, only recently we have become familiar with wide-spread remote work, or phenomena
such as the great resignation1 and quiet quitting2. Our research shows that not every employee
approaches their career or reacts equally to such contextual turmoil, and hence the way for leaders
to engage and retain their talent should widely vary. What can leaders do to identify different
career profiles and gauge their support and action appropriately?
We all know it is a new workplace out there, and employees are career-hopping in ways
not all leaders are familiar with. In the 20th century, individuals typically worked for a single
company3, crafting their growth through the “career ladders” created by their employer. Most
employees had the ambition to grow within their organization and to retire there. Leaders in those
days devoted much less effort to support their employees with career adaptation or choices, given
how much fewer career options existed, compared to the ephemeral careers and abundance of
alternatives employees have nowadays.
With the 21st century, an unprecedent global economy3 arose, bringing along novel
technology, more options and consequently multiple career paths. This means that people do not
have only one career ambition or one career goal. The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have
widened employees’ span of choices and responses in unprecedent fashion. Although a person’s
career is their responsibility, and not the leader’s or the organization’s, given employees deal with
career decisions and transitions differently, leaders should be prepared to deal with each individual
career profile and how each behaves in this new workplace.
How career profiles vary
A person’s career profile can vary mostly in terms of (a) how they approach their career
decisions in an era of an abundance of options; and (b) how well they adjust to career transitions
that have become increasingly common.
The former dimension differentiates people relative to how clear and resolute they are when
making career decisions: we call it the decidedness5 dimension. Decidedness is related to the level
of confidence or certainty a person has about each career-related decision. When someone has high
decidedness, they tend to be purposeful and have a somewhat unwavering career path. It is
typically the case of people who find their calling early on and stick to it, like a physician who
practices medicine for life. In face of the growing options they encounter, they are likely to be
 66

unhesitant and stay on path. When decidedness is low, on the other hand, the more people are
presented with career options and opportunities, the more they hesitantly waver from one path to
another, unsure and uncommitted to any given career track. A low decidedness lawyer may
transition to data science and later become a successful influencer, while still having second
thoughts about what they will do in the future. A low decidedness employee may suddenly resign
a career they were in a successful track on, even hesitantly or without an alternate plan on hand,
becoming a part of the great resignation. A lawyer may transition to data science and later try their
hand as a social influencer, while still having second thoughts about what they will do in the future.
The second dimension relates to how well a person can adapt to career-altering
circumstances. We call it the adaptability4 dimension. Adaptability reflects the ability of the
individual to be prepared to change, manage change, and integrate each different situation into his
or her life. A highly adaptable individual can easily adjust to the all-changing globalized and
technology-intensive world we live in and is typically receptive and optimistic about change.
Conversely, a person with low adaptability struggles every time conditions change, and tends to
be more rigid and embrace status quo, rather than going with the flow.
Variations in decidedness and adaptability are key to understanding how people
approach their careers
If we take these two dimensions – decidedness and adaptability – with their low and high
extremes and we plot them as two independent axes layered on top of each other, we get four
different career profiles: established, resolute-maladjusted, accommodating and perplex.
Understanding each of these profiles can help leaders empathize and manage employees in all
realms of this spectrum.
People with different career profiles should be managed in different ways
 67

Employees in each of these profiles have quite distinct viewpoints on careers, be it as it

relates to opportunities that come along, or to transitions they must confront. Some of these profiles
are easier to lead, while others struggle to make choices, or to attune to new challenges or
conditions, or to both. Managers should be prepared to lead people in all these profiles, because
diverse teams carry along individual differences and, naturally, a mix of career profiles.
Leading an employee with an established profile
When someone has high decidedness and high adaptability, they have what we call an
established profile. This type of employee displays readiness when they must make a career
decision and can rapidly adjust to change and opportunities as they arrive. They tend to be
ambitious and to be willing to take each needed step to achieve their career goals. Managers of
established employees should be prepared to be questioned about what opportunities the
organization has for them, and to argue the upside of that company as an employer relative to other
places they could go to attain their career aspirations.
Because employees with this career profile tend to be confident about what they want and
to not be afraid of change, managers should understand the employee’s career goals and, as the
opportunities arise, be prepared to show them the capabilities they should develop to attain them,
and what they may gain with in-company growth.
If the leader is not prepared to understand and manage established employees, they should
be prepared to see them constantly seek opportunities to grow outside the organization. On the
other hand, if managers can spot the established employee and help them build their career goals
aligned – and within – the organization’s possibilities, people with this career profile can be an
asset: they make great successors for key positions and can also support employees with other
career profiles to get on board with both opportunities and changes within the organization.
Leading people with a resolute-maladjusted profile
People with high decidedness and low adaptability portray what we termed a resolute-
maladjusted career profile. They know their career goals and are decisive to pursue them, but when
plans do not go as expected, they struggle to deal with the changes and to integrate them into their
lives. People with this career profile tend to be very comfortable in more stable organizations and
jobs, in which their unwavering career paths can be more easily predicted, followed, and stuck to.
In organizational settings with constant change, in which career trajectories can be
unsteady, this type of professional can easily get frustrated and confused about how they will adjust
to new conditions and opportunities. It is possible that in unstable conditions, resolute-maladjusted
people become unable to adapt and prefer to leave, nostalgic and resentful about what they perceive
to have once been a trustable organization, and in search of a more secure position elsewhere.
To lead people with a resolute-maladjusted career profile, managers should help employees
foresee industry or organization transformation scenarios and help them prepare for changes as
they become more likely to occur. One possible exercise is to look at past changes the employee
has already experienced safely and help them perceive the pros and cons such transitions had in
their careers. Hopefully that can help them see how they were more able to adjust to change than
 68

they may have thought they were. They can become more prepared to what is to come, and more
comfortable with their own ability to change and adjust to new scenarios.
Leading professionals with an accommodating profile
A person with high adaptability and yet low decidedness displays what we call an
accommodating career profile. This type of employee can easily adjust to change around them but
are taken by the flow instead of designing and managing a career path of their own. They become
what change leads them to be: in other words, the transformations they can easily adapt is what
determine their career tract, rather than constituting a context around a well-defined path.
This type of individual typically does not make career decisions, but instead their decisions
are made by the circumstances they easily adjust to. They tend to miss opportunities in hesitation,
moving only when changes around them force them to do so, which may later brew frustration and
resentment, or even quite quitting. Employees with this profile may also be insecure about
precipitating career decisions on their own, as they know they can handle whatever comes next.
An example is the individual who during disruption will happily volunteer to go off their career
track and accept any new challenge, but who later may blame their leader or the organization for
opportunities they missed, albeit would never have embraced by their own initiative.
When leading people with this career profile, the role of the manager is to help them clarify
to themselves what their core career goals are and help them keep themselves honest and self-
accountable about such goals when transformations they can masterfully navigate may lead them
astray. Effective leaders should attempt to maximize their potential to thrive in change, while at
the same time valuing their core objectives and helping them be aware of time-critical career
decisions they should not flee from.
Leading employees with a perplex profile
When a person has both low decidedness and low adaptability, they portray what we call a
perplex career profile. This type of employee struggles to understand how other people make
career decisions and adapt to change so quickly and effortlessly, and they do not. Perplexes tend
to switch careers and employers constantly. At times, because they cannot make up their minds
about a career path, they are constantly unsettled and hoping a next job will bring them clarity. It
is not uncommon to see them jumping from one workplace to another or aimlessly refocusing their
career, or at least, to see them constantly pondering about doing so. At other times, organizational
disruption is not only uncomfortable, but taken as a sign they need to move on and find their way
elsewhere.
We all know someone who has a perplex career profile. Like the human resource manager
who decides to start a small business, and one year later is backpacking through Europe, as they
consider pursuing new education avenues and career paths. To many employers, people with this
profile may seem insecure or unstable, and those who do not engage in career hoping are often
prone to quiet quitting.
This is a challenging career profile to lead, and managers should be attentive to it, because
many workplace settings have an abundance of this type of employee, commonly dazed and
 69

confused in the job market with an excess of widely diverse opportunities and distractions, and
often disengaged in their job. Managers should recognize and support perplex employees, helping
them find their own way through their organizational trajectories. Managers could help them to
more clearly develop career goals, to make their own personal career SWOTs, and to get them to
visualize the pros and cons in different career scenarios. At the same time, leaders should help
them identify how, and to what extent, such parameters align with organizational goals, and to the
best of their ability, maximize mutual gain if and while it can be accrued.
What is the career profile of each employee in your team?
Although employees should be responsible with their own career decisions and adjustment,
effective leaders can better retain and more thoroughly utilize human potential when they can
recognize how people differ in their career profiles and manage them accordingly.
Our 4-career-profile framework may help managers identify each individual profile and
gauge their leadership and mentoring approach to each team member.
Awareness about their team’s individual career profiles is the first step for a leader being
capable to help. To support leaders in identifying each of their employees’ career profile, we
synthetized an easy to apply questionnaire from well-established models in the literature4,6.

What is a person’s current career profile?

Instruction: read each item carefully and decide to what extent the
statement describes the focal professional

1 = Not true, 2 = Seldon true, 3 = Occasionally true, 4 = Somewhat true,

5 = Very true

Adaptability
not very
To what extent this individual… true true

is aware of the educational and career choices they must make 1234 5

sticks up for their beliefs 1234 5

is constantly looking for opportunities to grow as a person 1234 5

is constantly learning new skills 1234 5

counts on themselves 1234 5

 70

Adaptability
To what extent this individual… not true very true

finds it easy to make a career decision 1 2 3 4 5

is certain while making a career decision 1 2 3 4 5

characterizes themselves as a decisive person 1 2 3 4 5

easily comes to a career decision 1 2 3 4 5

does not hesitate much when has to make a career decision 1 2 3 4 5

Scoring interpretation:
1) Adaptability:
 20 – 25 – high adaptability
 16 – 19 – medium adaptability
 5- 15 – low adaptability
2) Decidedness
 20 – 25 – high decidedness
 16 – 19 – medium adaptability
 5-15 – low decidedness

3) Profiles:
 Perplex: low adaptability and low decidedness
 Resolute-maladjusted: low adaptability and high decidedness
 Accommodating: high adaptability and low decidedness
 Established: high adaptability and high decidedness

It is important to note that we see these career profiles as unconscious predispositions

relative to one’s career which somewhat stable for individuals, but that should not be seen by the
leader as unbreakable cages their employees would be stuck to. People do change: although it is
possible to identify a current career profile, people may fluctuate their profile over time, as their
circumstances dictate. For example, someone without any career calling or pre-envisioned path
may though time become more certain about a given career goal, and act more decisively from
that moment on.
Takeaways for managers and leaders
Leaders are often surprised and frustrated to lose talent to the external job market,
particularly when they perceive people left for career decisions that are difficult to comprehend.
Many times, such surprise derives from leaders’ inability to empathize with such career decisions,
 71

because they may be oblivious to the fact that people have different individual career profiles.
What makes sense to professionals with one profile, would sound irrational to another.
To avoid such surprises and to maximize talent retention and leveraging, managers should
be in tune with their team members, decipher their individual career profiles, and adapt their
leadership and mentoring approaches according to their employees’ distinct career viewpoints and
needs.
When facing major or continued difficulty to do so, managers should not hesitate to seek
support from career counselors, particularly when some of the professionals in their teams feel
“career clueless”, and leaders feel powerless to fine-tune their leadership and mentoring
approaches.
We recommend three actions managers should undertake if they want to help employees
throughout their careers.
1. Identify each employee’s individual career profile. And your own profile as well.
Apply the supplied questionnaire to derive each employee’s career profile as honestly
as possible. Do your own self-assessment as well, self-awareness can indeed help, but
be attentive to the fact that most of us overestimate both our own adaptability and
decidedness.
2. Refine your assessment of your team and gauge your leadership approach to each
individual profile. Communicate with each team member, to check and refine your
understanding of each person. You may be surprised. Then, apply what you learned
about each employee’s profile to adapt your leadership approach to each individual, to
better coach them, and to better maximize their talent use and retention. The ultimate
purpose is, on one hand, to boost the convergence of the individuals’ and the
organization’s goals, and on another, to mitigate the risk of underutilizing or losing
talent.
3. Take the initiative to support your team, but always remind them they are
responsible for their careers, not you. There is value in a leader knowing and taking
action to support employees developing more critical thinking about their career
options and decisions. However, both leader and employee should never underestimate
the importance of the individual taking charge of their own career. You can coach them
and support them, but you should never cross the line and start doing for them.

After several decades as human resource professionals and researchers, we have followed
the career choices of countless professionals. Some of them struggle, and some of them are quite
comfortable in many different turbulences through their paths. Mastering the understanding of
these career profiles can help leaders commune with their distinct team members, be better
coaches, and maximize talent utilization and retention.
 72

References
1. D. Sull, C, C. Sull and B. Zweig, “Toxic culture is driving the great resignation”, MIT
Sloan Management Review 63, no. 2 (January 2022): 1-9.
2. S. Formica and F. Sfodera, “The great resignation and quiet quitting paradigm shifts:
an overview of current situation and future research directions”, Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management 31, no. 8 (October 2022): 899-907.
3. R. Lesthaeghe, “The unfolding story of the second demographic transition”, Population
and Development Review 36, no. 2 (June 2010): 211-251.
4. M. Savickas and E. Porfeli, “Career Adapt-abilities Scale: construction, reliability, and
measurement equivalence across 13 countries”, Journal of Vocational Behavior 80, no.
3 (June, 2012): 661-673.
5. V. Gordon, “Career Decidedness types: a literature review”, The career development
quarterly 46, no. 4 (June, 1998): 386-403.
6. E. Rassin, “A psychological theory of indecisiveness”, Netherlands Journal of
Psychology 63, no. 1 (March 2007): 1-11