Abstract
In a labor market characterized by augmented dynamics and uncertainties, people increasingly need competencies to self-manage their career across their working lives. Based on a career self-regulation framework and an iterative process including researchers, career counselors, and stakeholders from education, business, and labor associations, we specified key career self-management competencies (CSM-C) in the domains of (a) goal setting, (b) mapping resources and barriers, (c) formulating and implementing action plans, and (d) monitoring and revising career management. We then developed and validated a new short 8-item measurement scale to assess self-perceived CSM-C. In two studies with two independent samples in Germany, we confirmed the new scale’s positive relation with measures of professional skills, personality traits, perceived social and organizational support, career attitudes and orientations, and career adaptability. We moreover established incremental validity for engagement in career behaviors, workplace status, employability, and career satisfaction beyond a range of constructs and a prominent existing career competencies scale. We outline how future research and career assessment practice can use the presented framework and measure to obtain a better understanding of what allows people to successfully manage their careers in an adaptable, self-directed way.
Introduction
Current careers are increasingly dynamic and unpredictable (Hall et al., 2018; Hirschi & Koen, 2021). This requires the ability to manage one’s career in a self-directed way by enacting various career self-management (CSM) behaviors (Wilhelm et al., 2024). Against this background, the concept of career competencies has gained increased importance as an essential personal career resource that people can draw on to successfully navigate their career. As shown by the systematic review of the career competencies literature by Talluri et al. (2024), an increasing body of research confirms that different career competencies are positively related to various desirable career outcomes, such as work performance (Bäker et al., 2021), successful career transitions (Blokker et al., 2019), or more work-home enrichment (Akkermans & Tims, 2017).
Despite the emerging consensus that career competencies are a pivotal construct to understanding how people can successfully manage their careers, the current literature suffers from several limitations. First, there are conceptual shortcomings. Existing research on career competencies is not based on a common theoretical perspective or on a systematic analysis of the key career behaviors individuals need to competently execute CSM (Talluri et al., 2024). Indeed, existing models of career competencies present a somewhat arbitrary list of central career competencies. Many do not offer a strong theoretical foundation for selecting the identified key career competencies, which raises the question of why these and not other competencies were included in the framework (Seibert et al., 2024). To conceptually advance the theoretical foundation of career competencies, it thus seems pivotal to base them on a solid theoretical foundation, identify the key career behaviors based on such a foundation, and derive key career competencies from them.
A second major shortcoming of existing career competencies research lies in the applied measurements. As identified by Talluri et al. (2024), most existing research used proxies of other constructs (e.g., trait proactivity). Existing scales specifically focusing on career competencies are often lengthy or focused on specific careers (e.g., global careers, entrepreneurship), limiting their use in research and practice applications (Talluri et al., 2024). In addition, existing measurement scales suffer from construct validity issues. It is broadly acknowledged that it is best practice to assess competencies with clear behavioral indicators to describe or illustrate the observable actions in the domain of interest resulting from the competencies (Campion et al., 2011). However, this is not consistently implemented in existing scales which suffer from varying degrees of construct contamination and deficiency.
For example, the most frequently used scale by Akkermans et al. (2013) contains items that tap into a self-assessed capacity to engage in career behaviors (e.g., “I am able to show others what I want to achieve in my career”) and are thus useful behavioral indicators of career competencies. However, several other items are not behavioral but attitudinal (e.g., “I know what is important to me in my career”) or self-rated availability of social resources (e.g., “I know a lot of people within my work who can help me with my career”). When scales include items that measure attitudes or perceived resources rather than competencies themselves, this creates construct contamination that compromises measurement validity. Such contamination obscures the boundaries between career competencies and their theoretical antecedents or outcomes, making it hard to accurately examine their relations. This not only creates construct ambiguity but also limits their potential practical utility as a competency framework.
In sum, there is a need for a new career competency framework and measurement scale that assesses career competencies more specifically and precisely and avoids the construct validity issues of existing scales. For researchers, this would help to theoretically and empirically understand better the factors leading to attaining career success and allowing people to create personally meaningful careers (Seibert et al., 2024). For practice, this could be used in career assessment to determine who needs what type of support due to a lack of career competencies and to develop systematic career interventions to promote pivotal career competencies.
To achieve this aim, we base our research on the career self-regulation framework by Hirschi and Koen (2021), which provides a specific, clear, and comprehensive theoretical foundation. Given the pivotal role of active CSM in the present career environment (Hall et al., 2018; Wilhelm et al., 2024), in the current paper, we specifically focus on the career competencies that allow successful CSM, which we refer to as career self-management competencies (CSM-C), defined as the combination of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) needed to successfully develop one’s career through CSM behaviors. CSM-C thus represent the underlying antecedent capabilities to successfully engage in various CSM behaviors–rather than the degree to which a person is engaged in CSM behaviors, as typically assessed in CSM behavior measures (Wilhelm et al., 2024) This allows a sharp focus and conceptual clarity to identify four core domains of CSM-C pertaining to: (a) goal development and selection; (b) mapping resources, opportunities, and barriers; (c) developing action plans and engaging in diverse CSM behaviors; and (d) monitoring goal progress and revising goals, plans, and actions.
Part 1 of the current paper describes the process by which we established the final competency framework, integrating feedback from career counselors, career researchers, and various stakeholders from industry and education. This includes creating a detailed competency framework with specific behavioral indicators for each competency corresponding to best-practice recommendations (Campion et al., 2011). Part 2 focuses on the development and evaluation of a new measurement scale for CSM-C across two samples (N = 416/516 employees), including the steps of (1) item generation, (2) item selection and model confirmation, and (3) establishing convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of the new measure. These steps led to the development and validation of a brief 8-item scale that taps the four critical dimensions of CSM-C based on a career self-regulation framework.
In sum, the current paper makes an important contribution to the literature on career competencies by providing a clear theoretical foundation for understanding and assessing critical competencies for CSM based on a career self-regulation framework. It moreover contributes to future research on career success and career development by providing a short construct-valid measurement scale that can be used in future studies to gain a deeper understanding of CSM, career success, and the factors that shape people’s capacity to successfully engage in their careers over the life course. It also contributes to improving practice applications by providing a best-practice framework based on feedback from practitioners and other stakeholders and offering clear behavioral indicators for each competency – all of which are currently lacking in existing career competencies frameworks.
Career Competencies Construct Definition and Differentiation
Career competencies have been defined in different ways and there is conceptual confusion in the literature as to what career competencies are (Talluri et al., 2024). One issue is that the included and assessed content of career competencies varies greatly between different conceptualizations and measures (e.g., self-knowledge, human capital, networks). For example, the most commonly used framework and measure by Akkermans et al. (2013) depicts career competencies according to the three categories of reflective (reflection on motivation, reflection on qualities), communicative (networking, self-profiling), and behavioral (work exploration, career control). However, others have focused on competencies pertaining to goal setting and career planning, self-knowledge, job performance, career-related skills, knowledge of office politics, career guidance and networking, and feedback-seeking and self-presentation (Francis-Smythe et al., 2013; for an overview, see Talluri et al., 2024). In addition, existing conceptualizations and measures often focus on a range of specific career types (e.g., entrepreneurial careers, global careers, hotel managers) (Talluri et al., 2024). The wide span of this research has led Talluri et al. (2024) to the conclusion that career competencies represent a set of meta-competencies that allow people to develop more specific competencies, like managerial or cultural competencies.
To advance research in this field, we herein provide a more specific and targeted focus on career competencies by focusing on CSM-C. A focus on competencies for CSM has several benefits: It allows a clear behavioral focus while being general enough to be applicable to a broad range of careers and career contexts. Moreover, it can build on an established body of research that specifies which behaviors need to be competently executed and how they are theoretically integrated (Hirschi & Koen, 2021; Wilhelm et al., 2024). In contrast, a focus on competencies for careers has drawbacks because a career entails all work-related experiences over the life course. Career is thus a much broader concept than CSM and focusing on the broad notion of career competencies contributes to the existing ambiguities in the literature as to which competencies are being assessed (e.g., competencies to develop a career more broadly, engage in a specific career pathway, a specific context, a current job, or a combination thereof). Our current approach to CSM-C moreover builds on the critical notion that competencies are expressed by the ability to exhibit specific behaviors at a given level of proficiency (Campion et al., 2011). As such, CSM-C provide a meaningful extension for general frameworks of CSM processes, which focus on the more specific attitudinal (e.g., self-efficacy), contextual (e.g., social supports), and behavioral (e.g., executed career exploration) factors that build the CSM process (Lent & Brown, 2013). Complementing this perspective, CSM-C focus on the underlying capabilities as antecedent personal resources that are necessary to engage in such processes successfully.
The Nomological Net: CSM-C and Other Constructs
Professional Skills
CSM-C are different from professional skills (e.g., project planning, stakeholder communication, domain-specific technical skills) because CSM-C are not concerned with the competency to successfully perform in a given job, occupation, or career track. In contrast, CSM-C represents the more general competencies to develop a career across different jobs and occupations successfully through engagement in various CSM behaviors. CSM-C are thus more like “meta-competencies” (Talluri et al., 2024) that allow people to build diverse job and occupation-specific knowledge and skills through the enactment of various career behaviors (e.g., continuous education, job changes, networking). Contrary to some existing conceptualizations of career competencies, which include job performance (Francis-Smythe et al., 2013) or task-related skills, organizational knowledge, or knowledge of businesses (Jokinen et al., 2008), based on our more focused approach to CSM-C, we can conceptually clearly differentiate such constructs from CSM-C. We thus expect CSM-C to be positively related to, but not redundant with, professional skills.
CSM-C are positively correlated with professional skills.
Personality Traits
Research sometimes assesses career competencies with proxies in terms of personality traits, such as trait proactivity (Talluri et al., 2024). However, such traits should best be viewed as possible predictors for career competencies and should not be considered CSM-C as such. Supporting this assertion, Talluri et al. (2024) report that a range of personality traits show a positive relation with career competencies. In the current paper, we specifically focus on the relation of CSM-C with the three pivotal traits of proactivity, conscientiousness, and self-esteem. People high in trait proactivity should be more likely to take initiative in their careers through future-oriented, self-started, and change-oriented actions (Thomas et al., 2010). Research consequently shows that trait proactivity is related to a range of career attitudes, resources, and outcomes (Ng & Feldman, 2014a, 2014b). Because career proactivity is an important component of CSM (Akkermans & Hirschi, 2022), people high in trait proactivity should also be more engaged in building the necessary competencies for CSM that allow them to successfully engage in CSM and manage their careers, thus showing stronger CSM-C.
Similarly, people with high conscientiousness tend to be more planful, organized, disciplined, and persistent (Costa, 1996). Such a behavioral tendency should facilitate the development of various personal and contextual resources that are critical for developing a successful career (Seibert et al., 2024; Spurk et al., 2019), as supported by research establishing a positive relation between conscientiousness and different career success outcomes (Ng & Feldman, 2014a; 2014b). In a similar way, conscientiousness should help to build the competencies needed for CSM, resulting in higher CSM-C.
Finally, people with high dispositional self-esteem (Leary & Baumeister, 2000) should be more confident in themselves and better handle emotional challenges when dealing with career tasks. Supporting this view, research showed that dispositional self-esteem related positively to career success in terms of job satisfaction, occupational prestige, and salary (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2008; Orth et al., 2012) and is related to lower indecisiveness in career decision-making (Udayar et al., 2020). We can hence assume that this confidence should also allow people to build CSM-C more effectively, resulting in higher CSM-C. Apart from a potentially causal effect of self-esteem on building CSM-C, a close relation between the two can also be expected given that CSM-C, as assessed in the following studies, is based on self-estimated competencies. Such self-assessments are likely affected by a person’s more dispositional self-esteem. Differentiating CSM-C from a more general sense of self-esteem is thus important to support its validity as a unique and useful construct.
CSM-C are positively correlated with (a) trait proactivity, (b) conscientiousness, and (c) self-esteem.
Social and Organizational Support
Some conceptualizations and measurements of career competencies include the availability of social capital (e.g., available social network) (Talluri et al., 2024). However, the availability of social capital and environmental support should best be viewed as a potential correlate of career competencies rather than a component of them (Talluri et al., 2024). We hence propose that social support at work and from family, as predominant indicators of available social capital (Jolly et al., 2021), should help people develop CSM-C by providing emotional and practical support to build personal resources (Jolly et al., 2021), such as the necessary KSOAs that enable successful engagement in diverse CSM behaviors (i.e., CSM-C). Likewise, at the organizational level, organizational support for development (Kraimer et al., 2011) should help employees to be more engaged in building the necessary competencies for CSM behaviors by providing encouragement and support for actively developing one’s career. In support, Talluri et al. (2024) found that different forms of contextual support were positively related to different indicators of career competencies.
CSM-C are positively related to (a) perceived social support at work, (b) perceived social support from family, and (c) perceived organizational support for development.
Career Adaptability Resources
Career adaptability is defined as ‘‘the self-regulation strengths or capacities that a person may draw upon to solve the unfamiliar, complex and ill-defined problems presented by developmental vocational tasks, occupational transitions, and work traumas.” (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012, p. 662). They are assessed as self-rated strengths and abilities to engage in a range of behaviors that are important for career development across the key constructs of concern, control, confidence, and curiosity (Porfeli & Savickas, 2012). Due to their focus on strengths and capabilities relevant to successful career development, they share close conceptual proximity with career competencies (Talluri et al., 2024). However, career adaptability represents mostly abilities for very generic behaviors (e.g., preparing for the future, making decisions by myself, overcoming obstacles) and are not specifically tailored to the competencies needed to successfully perform more specific CSM behaviors. Due to their focus on available strengths and capacities for successfully managing a career, we expect that career adaptability resources are positively related to CSM-C. However, due to their different foci and specificity, we also expect the two constructs to be distinct.
CSM-C are positively correlated with career adaptability.
Career Attitudes and Orientations
CSM-C should also be meaningfully related to career attitudes and career orientations. One of the most prominent career attitudinal variables is career self-efficacy, which denotes the perceived ability to successfully engage in and execute career-related behaviors (Brown & Lent, 2019). Because self-efficacy beliefs are a key motivational variable for predicting engagement in behaviors (Brown & Lent, 2019), we can expect that people high in career self-efficacy should be more inclined to engage in various actions that help build relevant CSM-C. At the same time, possessing high CSM-C should increase a person’s confidence that they can successfully manage their career because their CSM-C, by definition, allow them doing so. Hence, we expect a very close relation between career self-efficacy and CSM-C due to their potentially intertwined causal effects. Providing indirect support for this assumption, the review by Talluri et al. (2024) found that career decision-making self-efficacy (a more specific form of career-related self-efficacy beliefs) is positively related to different measures of career competencies.
As another highly prominent attitudinal career variable, we also expect a close connection between CSM-C and a protean career orientation, referring to a self-directed and values-driven approach to CSM (Hall et al., 2018). Because people with a strong protean career orientation take an active and self-directed role in their careers (Hall et al., 2018), we can expect that they are more likely to build CSM-C to help them successfully manage their career in a self-directed and values-driven way. At the same time, possessing CSM-C might also strengthen a protean career orientation because CSM-C allow for a more successful self-directed career, which could reinforce such an attitude towards one’s career. These assumptions of potentially mutual effects are consistent with the review and theorizing of Hirschi and Koen (2021), pointing to the potentially reciprocal effects between career orientations and engagement in CSM behaviors from a self-regulation perspective. The review by Talluri et al. (2024) also found that a self-directed protean career orientation was positively related to different measures of career competencies. Moreover, a meta-analysis showed that a protean career orientation are substantially related to various CSM behaviors (Wiernik & Kostal, 2019). In sum, we expect a meaningful positive relation between a protean career orientation and CSM-C. However, the two constructs are not redundant due to their different foci on attitudes towards one’s career and perceived competencies for engaging in various CSM-C behaviors, respectively.
CSM-C are positively correlated with (a) career self-efficacy and (b) protean career orientation.
Outcomes of CSM-C
Engagement in CSM Behaviors
Regarding possible outcomes of CSM-C, we first examine its relation with engagement in CSM behaviors. CSM-C should be related to CSM behaviors because competencies represent the underlying capabilities that enable effective behavioral expression (Campion et al., 2011). Individuals with well-developed CSM-C should thus be more likely to engage in related CSM behaviors with greater frequency and proficiency. Existing assessments of CSM behaviors focus either on the general degree to which someone is engaging in CSM behaviors or on specific career behaviors, such as career exploration, networking, or job search behaviors (Wilhelm et al., 2024). While such behaviors can reflect a competency, existing measures typically do not address the quality of such behaviors, which would demonstrate a high underlying competency. Moreover, the execution of career behaviors is not only dependent on individual resources and competencies but also directly and indirectly affected by contextual characteristics (supports, barriers, affordances) that might promote or hinder CSM behaviors (Brown & Lent, 2019; Lent & Brown, 2013). It is thus possible that a person has the competency to show a behavior but does not do so under given circumstances, or that they engage in behaviors but do so at a lower level of competency. Hence, focusing only on assessing the extent to which someone engages in behaviors has limitations when one wants to assess the existence of a competency, and engagement in CSM is thus not identical with CSM-C. However, because CSM-C reflect the ability to successfully execute various CSM behaviors, we expect higher engagement in CSM behaviors to be a meaningful outcome of CSM-C.
CSM-C are positively correlated with engagement in CSM behaviors.
Subjective and Objective Career Success
As another set of important potential outcomes of CSM-C, we examine different indicators of career success. Objective (e.g., high salary) and subjective (e.g., high career satisfaction) career success is typically considered the most prominent outcome of CSM and can be indicated by a broad range of constructs (Seibert et al., 2024; Spurk et al., 2019). In the current paper, we specifically examine the relation of CSM-C to indicators of objective success in terms of salary, leadership position, and workplace status. We also explore the relation to subjective success indicators in terms of internal and external employability and career satisfaction. In line with existing theorizing on the functioning of career competencies (Talluri et al., 2024), we presume that CSM-C represent an important personal career resource that acts like a meta-competency to develop other personal and contextual resources (e.g., professional skills, networks, job opportunities). The availability of such resources then promotes the attainment of career goals and various indicators of career success (Seibert et al., 2024; Spurk et al., 2019). Supporting this reasoning, the review by Talluri et al. (2024) showed that different measures of career competencies are positively related to different career success indicators, such as employability, subjective career success, and objective career success.
CSM-C are positively related to objective career success in terms of (a) salary, (b) leadership position, and (c) workplace status.
CSM-C are positively related to subjective career success in terms of (a) internal employability, (b) external employability, and (c) career satisfaction.
Part 1: Development and Evaluation of the Framework
We developed our framework for key CSM-C based on the career self-regulation model proposed by Hirschi and Koen (2021). Self-regulation is a well-established framework in career and organizational research and commonly applied to study job search behaviors (Koopmann et al., 2021), career transitions (Akkermans et al., 2024), and career competencies (Talluri et al., 2024). This model integrates key aspects of contemporary career theories, emphasizing self-directed, adaptable, and values-driven career behaviors (Hall et al., 2018; Hirschi & Koen, 2021). It also acknowledges the reciprocal relation between individuals and their environments during career management processes (Seibert et al., 2024; Zacher et al., 2016).
We structured our framework around the four self-regulatory components: (a) goal setting, (b) mapping resources and barriers, (c) developing and executing action plans, and (d) monitoring and revising goals and actions, and identified specific behaviors, including career decision-making, planning, networking, and feedback seeking, through a thorough review of the existing CSM literature. We then gathered feedback on the framework from 14 content experts, including career counselors, researchers, educators, and representatives from vocational and employer associations who evaluated the framework’s clarity, comprehensiveness, and applicability across educational and employment contexts. Based on their input, we revised the initial framework by removing redundancies, standardizing terminology, and clarifying the recursive, context-sensitive nature of the competencies.
Career Self-Management Competency (CSM-C) Framework
Part 2: Development and Evaluation of the Measurement Scale
Step 1: Item Generation
The development and evaluation of the CSM-C self-assessment scale followed a multi-step, multi-sample approach following best practices (Hinkin, 1998; Lambert & Newman, 2023). In Step 1, we generated a pool of items based on the framework and its definitions of competencies and key behavioral indicators. In Step 2, we selected items and confirmed our hypothesized measurement model based on a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). In Step 3, we established the construct validity of the measure and assessed whether the measure demonstrates expected relations with constructs in its nomological net (i.e., convergent, discriminant, criterion- and incremental validity).
The research group developed items deductively based on our conceptual framework and its definitions of the four competencies, represented by 17 behavioral indicators. To ensure we measured competencies rather than KSAOs, resources, or enacted behaviors, we constructed items using competency-focused stems (e.g., “I am able to…”, “I know how to…”) paired with appropriate verbs (e.g., “assess”, “adjust”, “develop”). The item pool comprised 51 items and is available in the Online Appendix A1 https://osf.io/bnzty/?view_only=39d8e0ca8d1a42d2a6fdfc56d8cc141c.
Step 2: Item Selection and Model Confirmation
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants for Sample 1 were recruited through the online panel data provider Bilendi and 535 employees in Germany responded to the questionnaire. To enhance data quality, we implemented multiple attention checks (e.g., “choose strongly disagree”) and monitored response times following best-practice recommendations (Ward & Meade, 2023). Participants who failed at least two out of three attention checks were removed from the sample (n = 69). Additionally, participants who provided responses in less than 2 seconds per item on at least 50% of survey pages containing Likert-scale items were excluded for insufficient response times (n = 50). The final Sample 1 consisted of 416 employed individuals. The sample had an average age of 43.43 years (SD = 11.48), 52.88% identified as female, and 47.12% identified as male. Participants worked an average of 35.83 hours per week (SD = 6.14) and had been in their current job for an average of 11.77 years (SD = 10.35). They were employed across various industries, including healthcare and social work (18.03%), manufacturing (10.82%), education (7.21%), and scientific or technical services (4.09%). 52.71% of the sample had completed tertiary education (bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degree).
Participants for Sample 2 were recruited through the same online panel provider, excluding panelists from Sample 1. To reduce concerns about common method bias, we used a time-lagged design, measuring predictor variables at Time 1 and outcome variables two weeks later at Time 2. A total of 727 employees responded to the first questionnaire and we followed the same data quality procedures as in Sample 1, removing n = 123 participants who failed at least two out of three attention checks, and n = 48 due to unreasonable fast item-response times. Additionally, we also screened and excluded n = 40 participants based upon showing extreme values in 3 or more indices of careless responding, including invariance analysis, consistency indicators, and multivariate outlier analyses (Ward & Meade, 2023). The final Sample 2 consisted of 516 employed individuals at T1, of which 379 completed the survey at T2 and showed sufficient data quality. The final sample had an average age of 41.62 years (SD = 11.28), 52.91% identified as female, 46.71% identified as male, and 0.39% selected “other.” Participants worked an average of 38.58 hours per week (SD = 4.42) and had been in their current job for 11.00 years on average (SD = 9.21). They were employed across a variety of industries, with the most common being healthcare and social work (17.05%), manufacturing (11.63%), education (5.62%), and scientific or technical services (3.49%). 48.6% of the sample had attained tertiary education.
Measures
All measures were administered in German. If no German-language version of the scale existed, items were translated from English into German by applying the back-translation model of Brislin (1970). Unless otherwise indicated, measures were assessed in Sample 2 at T1, rated on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. All scale reliabilities are reported in Table 3.
Career Competencies
Self-perceived CSM-C were assessed in all hypotheses tests with the 8-item CSM-C scale (Table 1 and Online Appendix A2) developed in this paper. The scale development process is described below. To assesses the construct validity of the new scale, we also applied the Career Competencies Questionnaire (CCQ; Akkermans et al., 2013) which consists of six dimensions, measured with 3-4 items each (reflection on motivation, reflection on qualities, networking, self-profiling, work exploration, and career control) and is sometimes used as a composite scale (e.g., Blokker et al., 2019). Sample items include “I know what I like in my work” and “I know a lot of people within my work who can help me with my career.”
Professional Skills
We used the 3-item occupational expertise subscale (e.g., “I have a very high level of expertise and skill in my occupation”) from the German Career Resources Questionnaire (Hirschi et al., 2018).
Personality Traits
We assessed conscientiousness using a 6-item German scale from the BFI-2 short form (Rammstedt et al., 2020). An example item is “I am rather disorganized”. Self-esteem was measured using a 10-item scale (Rosenberg, 1979). A sample item is “All in all, I am satisfied with myself”. Trait proactivity was assessed using a 7-item German scale by Frese et al. (1997). A sample item is “I tackle problems actively”. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = does not apply at all to 5 = fully applies.
Perceived Support
Perceived social support at work and family was measured using 4 items each by adapting items from the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (Zimet et al., 1988), by using the referent coworkers/supervisors to assess support at work (e.g., “My colleagues/supervisors genuinely try to support me”) and the family subscale to assess family career support (e.g., “My family genuinely tries to support my career”). Responses were made on a 7-point scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Perceived organizational support for development was measured using a 6-item scale (Kraimer et al., 2011). A sample item reads, “My organization provides opportunities for employees to develop their specialized functional skills.”
Career Adaptability
We used the German-language short form of the Career Adapt-Abilities Scale (CAAS-SF), which captures four core dimensions of career adaptability: Concern, Control, Curiosity, and Confidence (Maggiori et al., 2017). Each dimension was measured with three items (e.g., “thinking about what my future will be like”). Participants rated their responses on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = not a strength to 5 = greatest strength.
Career Attitudes and Orientations
We assessed career self-efficacy beliefs with the 4-item scale from the German Career Resources Questionnaire (Hirschi et al., 2018). A sample item is “I am capable of successfully managing my career”. Protean career orientation was measured with a short-form, 7-item measure (Porter et al., 2016) adapted from the original scale by Briscoe et al. (2006). The scale consists of two dimensions, self-directed (“I am responsible for the success or failure of my career”) and values-driven (“I shape my career according to my personal values, even if they conflict with those of my employer”). Consistent with prior research, we treated protean career orientation as a unidimensional construct (e.g., Haenggli et al., 2021; Supeli & Creed, 2016).
Engagement in CSM Behaviors
In Sample 2 at T2 we used the 24-item German multidimensional measure of CSM behaviors (Wilhelm et al., 2024) consisting of seven subscales (e.g., human capital development, self-exploration, building social contacts). Based on the scale’s bifactor structure, with a general factor accounting for substantial shared variance across all behaviors alongside specific factors, we used a composite score. This approach aligns with our research focus on overall CSM engagement rather than differential relations of specific behaviors. Responses were made on a 5-point scale from 1 = never to 5 = a great deal.
Subjective and Objective Career Success
In Sample 2, at T2, perceived employability was assessed using a scale by Eby et al. (2003) composed of two dimensions each measured with 3 items, internal employability (e.g., “My organization sees me as an asset to the organization”) and external employability (e.g., “It would be easy for me to get a comparable job with another employer”). Career satisfaction was assessed with a 5-item German scale (Greenhaus et al., 1990; Spurk & Abele, 2014). A sample item is “I am satisfied with the successes I have achieved in my career so far”. Workplace status was measured using a 5-item scale (Djurdjevic et al., 2017). A sample item is “I enjoy high regard within my organization”. Responses were made on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Leadership position was assessed with a single item asking participants whether they supervised others at work (i.e., whether other people worked according to their instructions). Monthly gross salary was measured using 21 predefined salary ranges, each spanning €500 (e.g., €500-€999, €1,000-€1,499), with the exception of the highest category (over €10,000).
Results
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model Fit Comparisons Across Samples
Note. N = 416 (Sample 1), N = 516 (Sample 2). All CFAs used MLR estimator with robust fit indices. Alternative Model 1: Development of career goals and Determination of existing resources and obstacles collapsed. Alternative Model 2: Development of career goals and Creation and implementation of action plans collapsed. Alternative Model 3: Determination of existing resources and obstacles and Review and adjustment of career development collapsed. Alternative Model 4: Creation and implementation of action plans and Review and adjustment of career development collapsed. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
To further improve fit and reduce scale length, we selected 19 of 51 items (4-7 items per factor) for each of the four competencies, based on factor loadings, modification indices for cross-loadings, item coverage (i.e., whether the items jointly cover the scope of the construct definition), and item redundancy (i.e., ensuring items are not redundant in content or have similar wording). Table 2 lists the CFA model fits for all tested models. The four-dimensional model showed good fit (CFI = .960, TLI = .954, RMSEA = .056, and SRMR = .042). All dimensions were measured reliably, with α ranging from .81 to .91. Furthermore, we compared the hypothesized model with alternative models in which some factors were combined. All alternative models fit significantly worse than the 4-factor model, as indicated by significant chi-square model difference and ΔCFI values cut-offs of <.01 (Chen, 2007).
We found that while the dimensions of CSM-C can be measured reliably, and the overall 4-factor model showed acceptable fit, the single dimensions were highly correlated (ranging from .74 to .85, Online Appendix A4), making it difficult to empirically clearly distinguish CSM competencies according to their domains in practice and subsequent research. Consistent with prior research on career competencies (Blokker et al., 2019; Talluri et al., 2024) and these findings, we tested whether a hierarchical factor model is more parsimonious in which the four competencies load onto a single higher-order factor that represents the general level of CSM competency. The nested fit comparison showed that a model with a hierarchical second-order factor showed good fit (CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .058, SRMR = .045) and did not fit substantially worse than a 4-factor model based on a ΔCFI cut-off of <.01, and first-order factors had high loadings onto the second-order factor, ranging from .86 to .92. We therefore advanced to develop a shorter version which directly assesses the general level of CSM-C as represented by items assessing each of the four competency domains. We selected two items per competency dimension (based on their factor loadings, representativeness for the competency, and construct coverage), resulting in an 8-item unidimensional scale. The model showed good fit (Table 2), high internal consistency (α = .89) and standardized item loadings ranging from .64 to .81. This short version correlated very highly with the composite score of the 19-item version (r = .97), further demonstrating the adequacy of a brief scale. We replicated the factor structure of the 8-item CSM-C scale in an independent sample (Sample 2). Again, the scale showed good fit (Table 2), high internal consistency (α = .89), and standardized item loadings ranging from .63 to .80 (Online Appendix A5). This 8-item form thus shows good psychometric properties across two samples and very high correlation with the composite score of the longer scale. It might be the preferred option in research and practice to lower respondent burden, reduce missingness, and increase feasibility for large surveys, especially if the focus is on screening and overall CSM-C assessment. The 19-item form also showed solid factor structure and reliability of sub-dimensions and might be the preferred option when users intend fine-grained subscale interpretation. The following results are reported for the 8-item version, and they do not meaningfully differ from results with the 19-item version (available from the authors upon request).
Step 3: Establishing Convergent, Discriminant, and Incremental Validity
Convergent and Criterion-Related Validity
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of CSM-C and Related Constructs in Sample 2
Note. N = 379-516 (due to missing data). M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; CSM-C = Career Self-Management Competencies Scale; CCQ = Career Competencies Questionnaire; Org. = Organizational; CA = Career Adaptability; CSM = Career Self-Management. Internal consistencies are reported in the diagonal. Salary was assessed as gross monthly salary using predefined salary ranges; leadership position was coded such that 0 = no leadership position; 1 = any leadership position; gender was coded such that 0 = female, 1 = male; education was coded such that 0 = non-tertiary education, 1 = tertiary education. Correlations of .10 and above are significant at p < .05, and correlations of .13 and above are significant at p < .01.
Relations With Skills and Personality Traits
CSM-C demonstrated a significant positive correlation with professional skills (r = .35, 95% CI [.26, .43]), supporting Hypothesis 1. CSM-C was positively correlated with trait proactivity (H2a; r = .63, 95% CI [.58, .68]), conscientiousness (H2b; r = .30, 95% CI [.22, .38]), and self-esteem (H2c; r = .41, 95% CI [.34, .48]). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was fully supported.
Relation With Perceived Support
CSM-C was positively related to perceived social support at work (H3a; r = .36, 95% CI [.28, .43]), perceived social support from family (H3b; r = .32, 95% CI [.24, .39]), and perceived organizational support for development (H3c; r = .43, 95% CI [.36, .50]). These findings fully support Hypothesis 3.
Relation With Career Adaptability, Attitudes, and Orientations
Significant positive relations were found between CSM-C and all dimensions of career adaptability (Concern: r = .48, 95% CI [.40, .55], Control: r = .49, 95% CI [.41, .56], Curiosity: r = .51, 95% CI [.43, .58], Confidence: r = .43, 95% CI [.35, .51]), supporting Hypothesis 4. CSM-C was positively associated with both career self-management self-efficacy beliefs (H5a; r = .71, 95% CI [.66, .75]) and protean career orientation (H5b; r = .58, 95% CI [.52, .64]). Hypothesis 5 was therefore fully supported.
Relations with Career Behaviors and Success Outcomes
CSM-C showed a significant positive correlation with engagement in CSM behaviors (r = .42, 95% CI [.35, .49]), supporting Hypothesis 6. Regarding objective career success, CSM-C was positively related to salary (H7a; r = .22, 95% CI [.14, .30]), leadership position (H7b; r = .26, 95% CI [.16, .35]), and workplace status (H7c; r = .44, 95% CI [.36, .52]). Hypothesis 7 was fully supported. CSM-C was also positively related to subjective career success indicators, consisting of internal employability (H8a; r = .53, 95% CI [.45, .60]), external employability (H8b; r = .48, 95% CI [.40, .55]), and career satisfaction (H8c; r = .48, 95% CI [.40, .55]). Thus, Hypothesis 8 received full support.
Summary of Convergent Validity Evidence
Cumulatively, these results provide strong evidence for the convergent and criterion-related validity of the CSM-C scale. The scale demonstrated expected positive relations with related skills, personality traits, career attitudes and orientations, perceived support, career behaviors, and objective and subjective indicators of career success. At the same time, none of the relations were so strong to suggest construct redundancy.
Incremental Validity
Overview of Incremental Validity Results (Sample 2)
Note. N = 379. CCQ = Career Competencies Questionnaire. CSM = Career self-management; β = Standardized regression coefficient for Career Self-Management Competencies Scale (CSM-C) on outcome beyond the effects of the other variables in the model. The p-values for the regression coefficient (β) and ΔR2 are identical because CSM-C was the only predictor entered in the final step of the hierarchical multiple regression.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
For CSM behavior, the CSM-C scale demonstrated consistent incremental validity across all competing predictor sets (β = .20–.43, ΔR2 = .02–.15, all p < .001), adding support for Hypothesis 6. Results for objective success outcomes showed varying patterns. The CSM-C scale did not significantly predict salary after controlling for competing predictors (β = .01–.08, all p > .05), failing to additionally support Hypothesis 7a. For leadership position, CSM-C added unique variance when controlling for perceived support (β = .20, ΔR2 = .03, p < .001), professional skills (β = .16, ΔR2 = .02, p < .01), and career adaptability (β = .12, ΔR2 = .01, p = .035), but did not add unique variance when controlling for other predictor sets (β = .10–.13, p > .05), partially adding support for Hypothesis 7b. In contrast, CSM-C consistently accounted for unique variance in workplace status for all competing predictor sets (β = .16–.30, ΔR2 = .01–.07, all p < .021), fully supporting Hypothesis 7c.
For subjective career success outcomes, the findings strongly supported incremental validity over and above all competing predictor sets for perceived internal employability (β = .28–.43, ΔR2 = .03–.15, all p < .001), perceived external employability (β = .25–.44, ΔR2 = .02–.14, all p < .001), and career satisfaction (β = .21–.38, ΔR2 = .02–.12, all p < .01), consistently supporting Hypothesis 8a-c.
In summary, the CSM-C scale demonstrated incremental validity beyond all competing predictor sets for CSM behaviors, workplace status, perceived internal and external employability, and career satisfaction. The scale showed partial incremental validity for leadership position (when controlling for perceived support, professional skills, and career adaptability) but did not account for additional variance in salary beyond any of the competing predictor sets.
Discussion
This study aimed to conceptualize and operationalize CSM-C based on a career self-regulation framework, addressing conceptual and measurement limitations in existing career competencies research. As such, the present study makes several important theoretical contributions to the literature. Most notably, it clarifies the conceptual foundation of career competencies by explicitly grounding CSM-C in the career self-regulation framework (Hirschi & Koen, 2021). This approach addresses lingering concerns in the literature regarding definitional ambiguity and construct contamination (Seibert et al., 2024; Talluri et al., 2024). Prior frameworks often presented career competencies as ad hoc compilations of abilities or characteristics, lacking a clear theoretical basis for inclusion, and frequently conflating competencies with attitudes, traits, or resources. In contrast, the current study advances the field by proposing a behaviorally grounded model, in which CSM-C are defined as the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) required to competently engage in CSM behaviors. This model ensures a sharper distinction between competencies and their antecedents or outcomes, including proactive personality, career attitudes, or available support resources.
Beyond clarifying the construct definition, this study further refines the nomological net of CSM-C. The findings demonstrate that CSM-C are theoretically and empirically distinct from related constructs such as personality traits, career adaptability, and career self-efficacy, even while showing meaningful and expected associations with each (Talluri et al., 2024). This supports the conceptualization of CSM-C as a unique construct that sits at the intersection of behavior, motivation, and capability, rather than being reducible to any single category. Crucially, the scale demonstrated incremental validity beyond competing predictors for multiple career-relevant outcomes, including CSM behaviors, workplace status, perceived employability, and career satisfaction. Through these significant relations to important career constructs and outcomes, the results also support the notion that CSM-C function as a meta-competency—a higher-level resource that enables individuals to develop and enact more specific, context-bound resources over time (Talluri et al., 2024). This positions behavioral competence as a key but underrepresented element in existing career development theories, many of which focus predominantly on attitudes, traits, or motivational states while neglecting the ability to enact career-relevant behaviors competently and consistently.
From a methodological perspective, the study offers important contributions by introducing a brief, psychometrically robust 8-item scale that captures core CSM-C dimensions in a behaviorally anchored format. Developed in line with best practices in competency measurement (Campion et al., 2011), the scale is both parsimonious and conceptually precise, enhancing its usability across research and applied settings. Furthermore, the scale development process directly addresses construct validity concerns present in prior measures, which often blended behavioral competencies with attitudinal items or measures of contextual support (e.g., Akkermans et al., 2013).
Lastly, while the framework identifies multiple domains of CSM-C, empirical analyses supported an integrative structure, with the four core competency domains loading onto a single higher-order factor. This reinforces the value of conceptualizing CSM-C as a coherent construct that captures essential behavioral capabilities for CSM while allowing for differentiation between specific competency domains.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
The current paper focused on construct definition, scale development and validation. Future research could build on this and provide more in-depth theoretical and empirical extensions. A promising direction lies in the integration of CSM-C into the Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) of CSM (Lent & Brown, 2013). Building on our findings, we propose that CSM-C can be conceptualized as a consequence of personal and contextual factors (e.g., personality traits, social and organizational support), which are well-established inputs in the SCCT framework (Brown & Lent, 2019). In turn, CSM-C likely operate as precursors of self-efficacy and outcome expectations, which are central mechanisms in predicting career behavior. Given that CSM-C reflect behavioral expertise rather than mere motivational potential, we further suggest that they influence career outcomes both indirectly—via their impact on self-efficacy and behavioral engagement—and directly by shaping the quality of career behaviors. We encourage future research to explore such theoretical integrations and empirical inquiries.
In addition, the current paper did not examine longitudinal changes. Future studies should investigate the development and change of CSM-C over time, exploring how individuals gain or lose CSM capacities across career stages, transitions, and critical life events. This includes examining reciprocal relations between CSM-C and constructs like career self-efficacy and protean career orientation. Such relations may be mutually reinforcing, with behavioral competencies strengthening motivational attitudes and vice versa (Hirschi & Koen, 2021). Longitudinal and process-oriented designs will be essential to capture the developmental and cyclical nature of these interactions.
Another issue is that the current paper focused on direct relations between CSM-C and other constructs. An important line of future inquiry involves a more granular analysis of predictors, outcomes, mediators, and moderators of CSM-C. Future research should explore not only the antecedents of CSM-C—such as personality, motivation, and context—but also the mechanisms through which CSM-C translate into positive outcomes, and under what conditions these effects are amplified or constrained. In particular, identifying boundary conditions seems essential, such as under which forms of organizational support or in which career contexts CSM-C are most impactful.
Moreover, the current study relied exclusively on self-reports which might induce social desirability and other biases in competency assessment. Future studies should integrate multi-source and multi-method approaches. While our scale captures self-perceived CSM-C, triangulating this with supervisor- or peer-rated assessments of CSM-C, task performance, contextual performance, promotability, and adaptability would enhance validity and allow for a more comprehensive understanding of how CSM-C are enacted and perceived in organizational settings. The provided measurement could easily be adapted to be used as an other-rated scale for such studies by changing the item stem (e.g., “This person can set suitable and attainable career goals”).
Lastly, intervention studies represent another high-priority research direction. Given the behavioral nature of CSM-C, structured interventions such as counseling, coaching, career education, or training programs may be effective in enhancing specific competency domains. Future research should assess whether and how CSM-C can be increased and examine downstream effects on career behaviors, attitudes, and success indicators.
Implications for Practice
CSM-C offer a concrete and actionable framework to support individuals in proactively shaping their careers. Unlike relatively stable traits, competencies are learnable and malleable, making them ideal targets for intervention and development (Akkermans et al., 2013; Talluri et al., 2024). Counselors and coaches can use this framework to tailor interventions, promote targeted skill development, foster career adaptability, resilience, and satisfaction, and track progress over time. The validated CSM-C scale enables personalized diagnostic assessments that can help identify specific areas of strength and growth. The 8-item scale evaluated in this study can be used for screening and obtaining a general assessment of the extent to which a person possesses CSM-C. The 19-item long form can be useful for interpreting sub-dimensions or making individualized developmental decisions. Organizations may use CSM-C as part of talent development, internal mobility, or retention initiatives—especially in dynamic work environments where employees must take greater ownership of their career paths. Finally, the educational sector can also integrate CSM-C into career readiness curricula at both secondary and tertiary levels. The competencies’ broad relevance across life and career stages makes them highly applicable not only for students and early-career professionals but also for mid- and late-career workers navigating transitions, upskilling, or reentry.
Conclusion
In an increasingly dynamic and self-directed career landscape, understanding and measuring CSM-C is critical for advancing both research and practice. This study introduced a theoretically grounded and psychometrically robust framework and scale for CSM-C based on a career self-regulation perspective. By addressing existing conceptual and measurement challenges, the present work contributes to a clearer understanding of the competencies individuals need to actively shape their careers. The findings not only establish CSM-C as a distinct and meaningful construct but also highlight its predictive value for a range of career outcomes. Moving forward, the framework offers a valuable foundation for future research and practical interventions aimed at fostering sustainable, adaptive, and meaningful career development across diverse contexts and life stages.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental Material - Career Self-Management Competencies: Conceptualization and Measurement Based on a Career Self-Regulation Framework
Supplemental Material for Career Self-Management Competencies: Conceptualization and Measurement Based on a Career Self-Regulation Framework by Andreas Hirschi, Francisco Wilhelm in Journal of Career Assessment
Footnotes
Ethical Considerations
All data collections adhered to ethical guidelines for research with human subjects, approved by the authors’s university ethics board approval No. 2014-10-1051882.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
