This section consists of three main parts.

The first part reviews dependent variable that is Career

Adaptability; major conceptual research models and findings for it. The second part reviews literature of
independent variables that are Internal locus of control and career decision making self-efficacy. The
third part reviews literature relating to moderating role of career satisfaction and mediating role of
occupational engagement. The goal of this literature review is to link the different ideas of authors to
form a cohesive and coherent study.

Career adaptability is a self-managing, transactional, and bending skill, useful

to address developmental tasks and to handle present and future changes in
career contexts. It is also useful to promote adjustment and successful shifts
during the career lifetime (Rossier, 2015; Rudolph et al., 2017). It involves
people’s skills to consider environmental eventualities to proactively adjust it
to their necessities and values (Massoudi et al., 2018). Career adaptability
includes four problem-solving and coping strategies or resources: concern,
control, curiosity, and confidence (Savickas, 2013). Concern involves being
conscious about and making plans for forthcoming transitions, with a hopeful
attitude with respect to the future (Santilli et al., 2017). Control involves
owning the future and feeling able to make suitable career-related decisions.
Curiosity concerns exploring the self and the environment. Finally, confidence
concerns problem-solving skills and resources to adequately face difficulties,
challenges, and impediments.

It can increase their opportunity to find a job, thereby enhancing career success and subjective well-
being (Tolentino et al., 2014; Zacher, 2014)

2.1 Major Research Models

In order to understand Career Adaptability researchers have relied on ‘Protean Career Orientation
Theory’ , Super's and Savika’s ‘career construction theory’. However, in most research studies the
backbone for understanding Career Adaptability was based on Super and Savickas theory with the other
theories integrated.

2.1.2

Hall (2004) termed the sense of the continuous learning of the individual toward the achievement of
his/her personal objectives as protean career orientation. In times of economic, organizational, and
employment hardship, Protean career orientation may help individuals to acquire and maintain
employability. Individuals characterized by strong sense of personal identity and values guide their
career decision opposing the traditional concept of career in an organization. Adaptability and identity
(or self-awareness) are the two main competencies that makes individual more protean (Hall, 2004).
Employees have progressively moved from being focused on associations to being focused on
professions, from permitting the associations for which they work to guide their professions to being
self-directed, and from esteeming headway in one association to esteeming opportunity and
development(Hall, 2004) . The protean career orientation [PCO] spurs states like agency (through self-
bearing) and clarity (through being values-driven) to direct pursuit of employment exercises, which are
more explicit states than having a sense of confidence in self (Waters et al., 2014) . The prominent
aspect of the protean career orientation is that people are in control of their profession improvement
and movement decisions rather than depending on the organization to outline succession plan for them
(Hamori, 2010). Engagement in horizontal move or job transitions that take place at the same level of
the hierarchy within an organization could be the way through which people take control of their own
development and progression (Kong et al., 2012) whereas, Sargent and Domberger (2007) argues that
horizontal moves can also take place between organizations when an individual remains at the same
basic hierarchy level. As Hall (2004) states, the blend of a powerful contemporary labor market and
horizontal organizations has changed the regular profession movement model to be more complex and
unpredictable, to include more horizontal moves, and to introduce multidirectional advancement both
within and between associations. The viewpoints of Kong et al. (2012) and Ng et al. (2007) propose that
development has become key to advancement in the contemporary labor market, and Waters et al.
(2014) guarantee that having a protean career orientation facilitates mobility. In conclusion, people now
don’t define now success with objectivity, it is more of a subjective term now and goals are set on
individual based on their personal identity and values (Hall, 2004).Briscoe et al.(2012) hypothesized that
self-managed careers are preferred by individuals in order to seek fulfillment in their lives through their
work, which was echoed by(Hofstetter & Rosenblatt, 2017). In support of SDT Sheldon et al. (2003)
proposed employees seek out to fill their highest potential, and literature on the PCO would hypothesize
the method to do that would be to engage in self-directed adaptable and versatile career management
strategies in order to advance learning and personal growth. The PCO is partially characterized by
valuing freedom to choose a career path and also defines achievement (an individual’s own personal
satisfaction with the outcomes of decisions) subjectively not by title and pay, thus this study presumes
the link between attitudes and behaviors discussed by (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977).

As such the following hypothesis based on the idea of identified motivation through SDT is brought
forward to study:

2.1.3

Super and Savickas theory

Earliest researchers to discuss the construction of career adaptability theory were

super and savickas. The work areas proposed by super for the measurement of
career adaptability initially includes :work values and work salience, autonomy or
sense of agency, planning or future perspective, exploration and establishment,
decision-making, and reflection on experience (Super & Knasel, 1979). Later,the
revision of the theory was done by super and formulated an improved model for
career adaptabilitywhich had five dimensions termed;planning, exploration,
information, decision-making, and reality orientation. However, the object scope of
the career adaptability model constructed by Super was aimed at adults (Super &
Knasel, 1981)

To overcome the lacking in research model of Super, Savickas proposed that career

adaptability consists of three important dimensions: planful attitudes, self and
environmental exploration, and adaptive decisions (Savickas, 1997).Later he further
worked on and improved the theoretical construction of career adaptability and
proposed a more complete construction model. He believed that the development of
individual career adaptability develops along four dimensions or stages, which are
career concern, career control, career curiosity, and career confidence (Savickas,
2005) .In the theory of career adaptability, career concern is regarded as the first
and most important dimension, which addresses the question “do I have a future?” It
means that an individual can pay attention to his/her own future career (Savickas,
2005)[3]. Career control is the second important dimension of career adaptability. It
addresses the question of “who owns my future?” that is, the belief that individuals 
are self-determined and responsible for building their own careers (Savickas, 2005)
[3]
. Career curiosity reflects the individual’s curiosity attitude, which motivates
individuals to explore more careers, and enables teenagers to more realistically
explore education and career choices, and then achieve future goals. The basic
function of career curiosity in career construction is the same as the function of self-
exploration and career exploration in career development theory, which means that
individuals are willing to actively try to explore themselves and the work world
(Savickas, 2005)[3]. Career self-confidence refers to individuals’ confidence in their
problem-solving abilities and self-efficacy beliefs, which can help the individual to
build a perfect future and overcome difficulties (Savickas, 2005) [3].

Occupational Engagement

According to Krieshok et al. (2009) the engagement behavior and pattern of devoted people in
engaging in life experiences that may help them widen their career alternatives and better understand
the world of work and themselves is referred occupational engagement (2009)To study career decision
and adaptability , one must consider the behavioral variables in psychological manners that affect an
individual’s career adaptability. The Trilateral Model of Adaptive Career Decision Making (Krieshok et al.,
2009) highlights the importance of occupational engagement. In the model, a behavioral component—
occupational engagement—is considered along with rationality and intuition. Occupational engagement
is not related to a final decision but involves the broad and ongoing process of career adaptability and
confidence in the world of work .On these basis this model is distinct from the other studies (Duffy &
Blustein, 2005).
 MOTIVATION, BEHAVIOR, AND ADAPTABILITY

The motivational mechanisms that promote the behaviors toward desired outcomes has been
highlighted by numerous studies. the psychological basis of performance and competence is formed by
motivation (Bandura, 1997; London, 1983). Previous studies reflected that career decisions were made
with more confidence by the people having high intrinsic motivation(Duffy & Blustein, 2005). As stated
by Pouyaud, Vignoli, Dosnon, and Lallemand (2012) an adaptive individual is always characterized by
motivation.

2.2.1 Self-determination theory

SDT is an organismic motivational approach that assumes people are innately motivated to create their
interests and abilities, to connect and contribute to other people, and to advance toward their fullest
potential. They proposed a plan of four inspirations that provide the explanation for conduct of behavior
1) External Motivation, which clarifies how individuals participate in practices for remunerations; 2)
Introjected Motivation, which clarifies that an individual takes part in practices to try not to feel
regretful; 3) Identified Motivation, which clarifies that an individual takes part in practices to
communicate values or other by and by significant sentiments; and 4) Integrated Motivation, which
clarifies that an individual takes part in practices to satisfy a cognizant coordinated self-idea(Ryan &
Deci, 2000).They proposed external and introjected inspirations are seen as controlling, though internal
and integrated inspirations are seen as independent, in light of the fact that the people inspiration is
characteristic and steady with an idea of self. Consequently, intrinsic motivation might be answerable
for deciding vocation practices, as Zafar et al (2017)pointed attention to the fact that that as workers are
more driven by internal factors and they are more likely to turned out to be bound to find ways to
guarantee they are employable in the general labor market, not just significant to their present
employers. Self-Determination Theory may, therefore, be applicable to career management activities
not just workplace engagement and workplace performance as it is traditionally studied (Fitria,
2018)potentially SDT may play a role in predicting professional mobility as well(Fitria, 2018).

Locus of Control

Motivation is considered to be linked with positive performance and competence is represented by the
variable of locus of control as a self-regulation strategy(Klein & Keller, 1990). A critical variable
representing career adaptability and career development could be internal locus of control. Locus of
control is the People’s expectation and consideration of responsibility for an outcome of behavior
(Rotter, 1966). It could be internal or external. In other words, there are two extremes in locus of
control. An individual with internal locus of control identifies all the events happening throughout the
life . High external locus of control in individuals are considered to be generally passive and not to
change according to the situation(Rotter, 1966) In contrast, high internal locus of control in individuals
are considered to have the situation in their control (Lefcourt, 1966)and have the ability to take the
responsibility of the future and coping with it(Abramowitz et al., 1973). Individual’s behavior is
controlled by the general motivation and locus of control is relatively stable characteristics of it. Internal
root causes of success or failure are defined by person’s ability (Weiner et al., 1972). Researchers have
concluded that on the basis of prior studies that an individual with a strong internal locus of control
believes career-related tasks can be controlled and performs various career activities adaptively.

CDSE

Individual’s self-confidence in performing specific career-related tasks is termed as career decision

making self-efficacy(Bandura, 1997)). More than being a general trait , CDSE serves as a motivational
variable that leads to particular behavior related to a specific task. Lent et al.(1994) formulated social
cognitive career theory, including the concept of career self-efficacy, as a central variable. Social
cognitive career theory indicates that a person’s perception of self-efficacy will affect his or her outcome
expectations, career interests, and career-related activity. An individual with high measure of CDSE will
have more goal oriented behavior as compared to individual having low measure of CDSE and that
having high CDSE will tend to lead to strong goal directed behavior. In addition to that e predictors of
high career adaptability include CDSE has been shown by the various studies(Rotter, 1966).Hirschi
(2009) belief that one’s career decision making self-efficacy is highly correlated with internal locus of
control. Individuals with a high internal locus of control leads to higher CDSE(Kim & Lee, 2018). Luzzo
(1995) provided empirical evidence that internal locus of control is positively related to CDSE Thus, we
hypothesize that CDSE will mediate the relationship between internal locus of control and career
adaptability.

On the basis of previous research, we hypothesize that internal locus of control will correlate with
career adaptability. In addition, we investigate whether the relationship between locus of control and
adaptability will be mediated by other psychological variables.

Career Satisfaction

Career Satisfaction is the appraisal of a person’s advancement concerning meeting distinct career
associated objective (e.g., achievement, income) and subjective accomplishments (Boudreau et al.,
2001). It stands to reason that the level of a person's career satisfaction would play a role in professional
mobility, such that when people are satisfied with their careers they will continue to manage them in a
consistent way, and their attitudes will dictate future behavior. Stated differently, as Latham and Pinder
(2005) claim people are motivated to reduce a discrepancy between their desired end state and their
current state, as such, if they are satisfied with their careers they should continue with their current
career management strategy. Contrarily the framework laid out by Latham and Pinder (2005) would
suggest if a person is not satisfied with their career that individual would in turn become motivated to
change course and employ a novel strategy for career progression. The goal argument of Latham and
Pinder (2005) follows Scheier and Carver’s (1988) CT framework, which suggests people are motivated
to become closer to the versions of the idealized self. Stated simply under the CT framework the
comparator of career satisfaction would motivate people to act according to their career attitudes when
they are satisfied and as their level of career satisfaction drops they would become increasingly
motivated to act in an opposite way than their career attitudes would suggest. Carbery et al. (2003)
observed evidence for psychological factors as playing a role in hotel management turnover; however,
did not specifically test to see how or why hotel managers would change careers altogether. While
empirical evidence linking satisfaction and career attitudes is scant, a longitudinal study was conducted
in Switzerland with professional workers (who were not specific to any industry) the related construct of
job satisfaction moderated the association between professional orientation and turnover intentions
(Tschopp et al., 2013). The study found that when job satisfaction remained high over the course of a
year, there was a direct relationship between a person’s professional orientation (protean or loyal) and
turnover. However, when job satisfaction was lower at the second time interval, those with loyalty
orientations rather than protean orientations were less likely to still have low turnover intentions.
Career satisfaction – a related yet independent construct from job satisfaction – may also affect some of
the same relations and is probably more salient as it relates to careerlevel variables, since career
satisfaction and PCO are career-level, not job-level, variables. Consistent with Tschopp et al. (2013), if
people have a low PCO and are unsatisfied with their careers, they would be more likely to seek out
professional mobility, because they would be motivated to rectify their lack of satisfaction in their
careers by pursuing an alternative strategy as CT would suggest and would be echoed by Latham and
Pinder’s (2005) work on goal attainment. However, those who have low career S.P. McGinley
International Journal of Hospitality Management xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx 3 satisfaction levels, but harbor a
high PCO would be likely to want to remain in their positions for the long-term as an alternative strategy
for managing their careers (again to reduce the discrepancy between their actual and idealized self).
Alternatively, Campion et al. (1994) observed workers who were more mobile within their organizations,
and were also more satisfied in their employment, harbored lower turnover intentions than those who
wished to gain knowledge and skill growth through mobility outcomes, but could not. Those who were
less mobile and did not have the opportunity to be professionally mobile were less satisfied, harbored
higher turnover intentions, and were less committed to the organization than their more mobile
counterparts. The findings of Campion et al. (1994) and Tschopp et al. (2013) indicate that satisfaction
with a job moderates organizational outcomes when a person’s professional orientation is considered,
which is consistent with the CT idea that people make comparisons regarding goal progress and then
become motivated to change behaviors or goals to continue reducing the discrepancy between their
current and their desired states. The definition of career satisfaction, according to Greenhaus et al.
(1990), takes a longer time horizon into consideration than job satisfaction and therefore, it may be a
stronger, more salient factor when determining how it moderates the relations between PCO and
outcomes such as the intentions to change one’s career altogether. In short, the lower PCO is, the less
likely an individual is to be mobile (as SDT suggests people would be motivated to act based on their
identified motivation), but as satisfaction with a career decreases, the relations may change so that
when those who are increasingly less protean oriented and are unsatisfied seek out professional
mobility as a way to rectify their situations. Essentially this paper hypothesizes career satisfaction
moderates the association because it provides comparative information to individuals regarding the
current states of their careers with their idealized states. When individuals’ PCO levels are relatively high
they are hypothesized to be more mobile; however as they become increasingly less satisfied with their
careers they may become less interested in becoming professionally mobile, as that adaptive self-
directed approach may have led to an unsatisfactory career. When people are satisfied their attitudes
should be predictive of future behaviors; contrarily, when they are unsatisfied they may recognize the
need to behave in a novel way in order to make progress towards their goal. Consistent with the work
on CT that suggests people are motivated to reach some desired end state and will be motivated to
engaged with an “effector” or a mechanism to adjust behavior in pursuit of that end state, moderated
hypotheses are thus proposed: with career satisfaction acting as a comparator (proposed in this study as
a moderating condition) between how a person is oriented to a career and organizational outcomes (the
effector proposed in this study is career change):

Previous studies have revealed that employees who are higher in adaptability experience more
satisfaction with their career (e.g., Niu & Guo, 2009; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012; Tolentino et al., 2013;
Zacher, 2014). Thus, the next hypothesis proposed: