Controlling your environment and yourself: Implications for career success

Patrick D. Converse , Jaya Pathak, Anne Marie DePaul-Haddock,

Tomer Gotlib, Matthew Merbedone
School of Psychology, Florida Institute of Technology, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 27 April 2011
Available online 26 July 2011
Given the complex and rapidly changing nature of the current work environment, individuals'
capabilities to effectively influence their environment and regulate their behavior may be
critical to career success. Drawing from the model of emergent interactive agency (Bandura,
1989), the current research examines this perspective, focusing on proactive personality and
self-control as predictors of extrinsic and intrinsic career success. Although some studies have
investigated proactive personality as a predictor of success, less research has focused on factors
involved in this relationship and very little work has examined self-control in the context of
career success. Study 1 involved a cross-sectional design with 249 full-time employees who
completed measures assessing personality and career-related variables. Study 2 involved a
longitudinal design with 1568 individuals who were rated on self-control during childhood and
completed career-related measures approximately 20 years later. Study 1 results indicated
proactive personality and self-control related to extrinsic career success (salary and
occupational prestige) through educational attainment. Study 2 results indicated self-control
related to extrinsic career success (salary and occupational prestige) through educational
attainment and intrinsic career success (career satisfaction) through occupational opportunity
for achievement. These ndings contribute to the knowledge base regarding career success by
highlighting the relevance of active control tendencies that are externally focused (proactive
personality) as well as those that are internally focused (self-control) and identifying key
factors linking these traits to career success.
2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Proactive personality
Self-control
Career success
Educational attainment
Occupational characteristics
The world of work is a complex and continually changing environment. Furthermore, individuals are increasingly responsible
for navigating their own way through this environment, as organizations are less likely to have clearly identiable career paths for
employees to follow. Given this, individuals must rely more heavily on their own capabilities to effectively inuence their
environment and regulate their behavior in order to succeed in work settings. Thus, tendencies associated with actively controlling
external factors (i.e., characteristics of one's environment) and internal factors (i.e., one's own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors)
would appear to be quite benecial in developing a successful modern career.
The purpose of the present research was to examine this issue, focusing on proactive personality and self-control as predictors
of career success. Several recent studies have examined a number of personality traits as predictors of career success (e.g.,
Boudreau, Boswell, & Judge, 2001; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001), demonstrating the
importance of dispositional characteristics in this context. The present research builds on these studies by focusing on
characteristics reecting active control tendencies that are externally focused (proactive personality), a perspective that has
received some previous attention related to career success (e.g., Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999), as well as active control
tendencies that are internally focused (self-control), a perspective that has received very little attention in previous studies of
career success. In addition, this research also examines factors that may be involved in the relationships between these individual
difference characteristics and career success in order to reveal more about why these factors relate to career outcomes.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 148159
Corresponding author at: School of Psychology, Florida Institute of Technology, 150 W. University Blvd., Melbourne, FL 32901-6975, USA.
E-mail address: pconvers@t.edu (P.D. Converse).
0001-8791/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.003
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Vocational Behavior
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ j vb
Career success
Career success has been dened as the positive psychological or work-related outcomes accumulated as a result of one's work
experiences (e.g., Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995; Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005; Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). Prior
research (see Ng et al., 2005) has identied two main components of career success: extrinsic (or objective) and intrinsic (or
subjective). Extrinsic career success is observable (e.g., salary), whereas intrinsic career success is a subjective reaction to one's
career (e.g., satisfaction). Previous research supports the idea that extrinsic and intrinsic career success are relatively independent
outcomes. For example, Ng et al. (2005) reported sample size weighted corrected correlations of .30 for salary and career
satisfaction and .22 for promotion and career satisfaction. This suggests that, although higher levels of extrinsic factors (e.g., salary)
are often considered desirable, many individuals have satisfying careers even when these factors are relatively low. Therefore,
both extrinsic and intrinsic variables should be examined in exploring career success. In the current research, extrinsic career
success was examined in terms of salary (pre-tax income) and occupational prestige (extent to which an individual's occupation is
considered prestigious). Intrinsic career success was examined in terms of career satisfaction (extent to which an individual
experiences satisfaction in his/her occupational life).
Active control tendencies and career success
The world of work is vast, complex, and rapidly changing, making navigation of this environment quite challenging. In addition,
individuals have for some time been increasingly responsible for nding their own way through this world to develop a successful
career. These characteristics of the work environment have been discussed from several perspectives (e.g., see Hall & Associates,
1996; Howard, 1995; National Research Council, 1999) and are reected in the increasing attention paid to several related career
concepts such as protean careers (focusing on a career orientation that is value driven and self-directed; e.g., Briscoe & Hall, 2006),
boundaryless careers (focusing on physical and psychological career mobility; e.g., Sullivan & Arthur, 2006), and career self-
management (focusing on gathering information and planning for career problem solving and decision making; e.g., Quigley &
Tymon, 2006).
In this context of increasing complexity and emphasis on personal responsibility, personal agency involving exerting active
control over one's behavior and environment is likely to be particularly important to career success. Broadly speaking, personal
agency can be understood in terms of Bandura's (e.g., 1986) social cognitive theory and in particular the model of emergent
interactive agency (see Bandura, 1989). This model involves the notion of triadic reciprocal causation, where action, cognitive,
affective, and other personal factors, and environmental events operate as interacting determinants (see also Bandura, 1978). The
model thus includes the idea that environmental features inuence individual actions and personal factors, but also clearly
emphasizes the role of personal agency in determining individual behaviors and outcomes. This conceptualization of human
agency also more specically incorporates the notion that individuals can have some active control over both their environments
and themselves. For example, Bandura (1989) noted: In acting as agents over their environments, people draw on their
knowledge and cognitive and behavioral skills to produce desired results. In acting as agents over themselves, people monitor
their actions and enlist cognitive guides and self-incentives to produce desired personal changes. (p. 1181). Finally, this approach
also indicates that the relative inuence of the three interacting factors (behavior, personal factors, and environmental events)
varies across circumstances and individuals (Bandura, 1978). This suggests that individuals may differ in terms of their tendencies
to engage in these forms of active control (although it should be noted that social cognitive theory itself is not a trait theory; e.g.,
see Bandura, 1986). Therefore, the present study examines proactive personality involving externally focused control tendencies
and self-control involving internally focused control tendencies as predictors of career success.
Although the focus of the current research draws from Bandura's (1989) model of personal agency, it is worth noting that this
notion of considering externally and internally focused control as important behavioral tendencies is a theme that appears in
several other theoretical perspectives. For example, Heckhausen and Schulz (1995) based their life-span theory of development on
the concepts of primary and secondary control, where primary control targets the external world and attempts to achieve effects
in the immediate environment external to the individual, whereas secondary control targets the self and attempts to achieve
changes directly within the individual (p. 285). In discussing perceived control, Weisz, Rothbaum, and Blackburn (1984) (see also
Weisz, Francis, & Bearman, 2010) described two paths to feelings of control: (a) primary, involving inuencing existing realities
where the targets include other people, objects, or environmental circumstances, and (b) secondary, involving accommodating to
existing realities where the targets include the self's expectations, goals, or attitudes. In examining stress and coping, Folkman and
Lazarus (1985)(see also Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004) discussed two major functions of coping: the regulation of distressing
emotions (emotion-focused coping) and doing something to change for the better the problem causing the distress (problem-
focused coping) (p. 152). Thus, the distinction between externally and internally focused control processes has emerged in
several contexts, suggesting this is a broadly useful perspective.
Proactive personality and self-control
Several constructs and perspectives related to proactivity have been proposed (e.g., see Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran,
2010), including viewing this concept as a personal disposition (e.g., Bateman & Crant, 1993), a pattern of behaviors (e.g., Frese &
Fay, 2001), and a manner of behaving (e.g., Grant & Ashford, 2008; see Bindl & Parker, 2011). The present research focuses on
proactivity as a dispositional characteristic referred to as proactive personality. In discussing proactive personality, Bateman and
149 P.D. Converse et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 148159
Crant (1993) identied several major characteristics associated with this disposition. These researchers described individuals high
in proactivity as those who take action to inuence their environments, are largely unconstrained by situational inuences, scan
for opportunities, showinitiative, and persevere until they bring about signicant change. Thus, this description indicates that this
trait represents an active control tendency that is externally focused. Proactive personality is related to some of the Big Five factors
but is distinguishable from these characteristics. As one example, Major, Turner, and Fletcher (2006) examined the relationship
between Big Five facets and proactivity, nding that only 26% of the variance in proactive personality was accounted for by these
facets. The denition of proactive personality suggests this may be a desirable personality characteristic in many work contexts
and recent research has supported this idea. For example, studies have linked proactive personality to job performance (Crant,
1995; Thompson, 2005), leadership (Crant & Bateman, 2000), and entrepreneurial intentions (Crant, 1996).
Muraven and Baumeister (2000) dene self-control as the exertion of control over the self by the self (p. 247). This denition
implies that self-control occurs when an individual makes an effort to modify his/her own thoughts, feelings, or behaviors.
Therefore, self-control involves active control tendencies that are internally focused. Self-control is also related to the Big Five,
with a particular connection to conscientiousness, but these characteristics are reasonably distinct. For instance, Tangney,
Baumeister, and Boone (2004) reported a correlation of .54 between self-control and conscientiousness, indicating a clear link but
far from complete overlap. Self-control and closely related constructs have been the focus of a substantial amount of research in a
variety of areas including developmental, clinical, social, and personality psychology (e.g., see Baumeister & Vohs, 2004), with
evidence indicating the ability to control oneself is a valuable capability that produces a wide range of positive results for
individuals (e.g., improved academic performance, impulse control, psychological adjustment, and interpersonal outcomes;
Tangney et al., 2004). However, dispositional self-control has not been extensively examined in work contexts. A fewstudies have
linked self-control variables with unemployment (e.g., Kokko, Pulkkinen, & Puustinen, 2000) and career orientation (a
composite involving occupational status, education, present work situation, and career stability; Pulkkinen, Ohranen, & Tolvanen,
1999), but little attention has focused on specic career success outcomes in employed individuals. The present research examines
proactive personality and self-control as predictors of extrinsic success through educational attainment and intrinsic success
through occupational opportunity for achievement.
Active control, educational attainment, and extrinsic career success
Both conceptual arguments and empirical ndings suggest a relationship between proactive personality and educational
attainment. For instance, Seibert et al. (1999) argued that proactive individuals may be more likely to engage in self-enhancing
behaviors such as pursuing further education in order to advance in their careers. In addition, previous research has demonstrated
that proactive personality is related to conscientiousness, need for achievement, and mastery goal orientation (Bateman & Crant,
1993; Briscoe, Hall, & DeMuth, 2006; Crant, 1995). Based on meta-analytic results indicating a strong relationship between
proactive personality and learning goal orientation (corrected average correlation=.59), Fuller and Marler (2009) argued that
more proactive individuals may tend to focus on developing newskills. Finally, Major et al. (2006) found that proactive personality
predicted motivation to learn and had an indirect effect on actual development activity in an organization. In combination, this
indicates more proactive individuals are oriented toward learning and development, suggesting this characteristic may relate to
greater educational attainment. It should also be noted, however, that in some cases individuals may direct their proactive
tendencies in ways that do not lead to greater education such as focusing on nonacademic pursuits (e.g., community issues) or
occupations that do not require substantial education. Thus, there would clearly be a number of exceptions, but we suggest there is
likely to be a general trend in which greater proactivity is associated with more education. The research discussed above
demonstrates proactive personality is associated with tendencies and motivation specically related to learning, and formal
education plays a large role in people's early lives and pursuits in this area are often socially rewarded (e.g., by parents and
teachers) meaning education is likely to be a salient and reinforcing target for one's proactive tendencies.
Focusing on self-control, prior work has indicated that this characteristic enhances academic performance. In a longitudinal
study, Mischel, Shoda, and Peake (1988) found that delay of gratication assessed in childhood was related to parental ratings of
academic competence in adolescence. In addition, studies have indicated that self-control is a signicant predictor of grade point
average (GPA) among university students (Tangney et al., 2004; Wolfe & Johnson, 1995) and adolescents (Duckworth & Seligman,
2005). Together, these studies provide strong evidence that high self-control facilitates enhanced academic performance. Given
that better academic performance is likely to be associated with greater ability to continue one's education (e.g., better grades
increase the chances of admission to undergraduate institutions and graduate programs) as well as increased motivation to
continue with school (e.g., poorly performing students are likely to become frustrated with school), this better performance likely
leads to greater educational attainment. Consistent with this, Kokko, Bergman, and Pulkkinen (2003) found self-control of
emotions (measured at age 8) was related to school success (measured at age 14) which was related to educational level
(measured at age 27).
There is also theoretical and empirical support for a relationship between education and extrinsic career success. As discussed
by Ng et al. (2005) in their meta-analytic review, links between education and career success are consistent with the contest-
mobility perspective of upward mobility, as this model indicates individuals get ahead through their own capabilities and
contributions. These researchers also provided empirical support for this relationship, reporting signicant correlations between
education level and salary (.29) and education level and promotion (.05). Education has also been linked to occupational prestige,
because higher education is a requirement for many prestigious occupations (e.g., Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge, & Piccolo, 2008).
This leads to the following hypotheses.
150 P.D. Converse et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 148159
Hypothesis 1. Proactive personality relates to (a) salary and (b) occupational prestige through educational attainment.
Hypothesis 2. Self-control relates to (a) salary and (b) occupational prestige through educational attainment.
Active control, occupational characteristics, and intrinsic career success
The concept of occupational opportunity for achievement (i.e., the extent to which one's occupation provides opportunities for
achievement) stems from the theory of work adjustment (TWA; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; see Dawis, 2005, for a summary). This
theory describes individual and work environment factors involved in adjusting to work, with adjustment indicated by the
satisfaction of the individual with the work environment and the satisfaction of the work environment with the individual (called
satisfactoriness). In TWA, the work environment is dened as the stimulus conditions in which work behavior takes place and is
described in terms of several dimensions including reinforcer factors. Work environment reinforcers are stimulus conditions
associated with values and needs that may be available in the work environment (e.g., conditions related to need for autonomy),
and the extent to which these reinforcers are present has implications for work adjustment. In particular, the theory proposes that
occupations vary in terms of the levels of several reinforcer factors, and this variability has relevance for individuals' satisfaction.
One of these reinforcer factors is achievement, involving the potential for accomplishment. This theoretical perspective thus
indicates that opportunity for achievement is a potentially important occupational characteristic in the context of career success.
Note that this variable involves the level of opportunity to use one's abilities, resulting in a feeling of accomplishment, rather than
more extrinsic factors such as the level of prestige.
Although previous research does not appear to have directly examined the relationship between proactive personality and
opportunity for achievement, conceptual considerations suggest such a link. For example, Frese, Garst, and Fay (2007) found that
the related concept of personal initiative predicted work characteristics consisting of control and complexity at work, suggesting
proactive personality may predict occupational characteristics. Furthermore, individuals high in proactive personality consistently
scan for opportunities, take action, and persevere until they bring about desired change (Bateman & Crant, 1993). They feel a need
to take initiative and inuence the world around them. Accordingly, individuals high in proactive personality may be more willing
and able to enter occupations in which achievement is a central characteristic. In terms of motivation, proactive individuals are
likely to be more drawn to occupations where accomplishment and achievement are possible, because these environments would
allow for greater expression of their tendencies to bring about change and improvement. Research linking proactive personality
and need for achievement (Bateman & Crant, 1993) is also consistent with this idea. In terms of ability, more proactive individuals
are likely to have achieved the higher educational levels (see the previous discussion of proactivity and education) necessary for
many achievement-oriented occupations. Furthermore, given their general tendency to positively affect their environments, it also
seems likely these individuals would produce other work-related accomplishments (see Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001) that
would also be valued in occupations with a greater emphasis on achievement. Thus, given proactive individuals' tendencies and
likely accomplishments, it seems plausible that they would often enter occupations involving greater opportunity for
achievement. Note that this perspective is consistent with work on vocational choice (e.g., Holland, 1985, 1997) and the
gravitational hypothesis (e.g., Wilk, Desmarais, & Sackett, 1995) that suggests individuals tend to gravitate toward jobs that are
compatible with their personal characteristics.
Several considerations suggest self-control may also be related to achievement opportunity. As mentioned, individuals who are
high in self-control tend to be higher achievers in educational contexts. Mischel (1961) also found that self-control (as indicated
by delay of gratication) was related to need for achievement. This link with achievement may also extend to work settings, where
more controlled individuals are often found in more achievement-oriented occupations. Furthermore, occupations involving more
achievement opportunities are also likely to involve greater responsibility. More disciplined individuals would seem to be more
willing and able to manage greater work-related responsibilities, suggesting those who are more self-controlled may be more
likely to enter and remain in these types of occupations.
Several research areas also point to a relationship between occupational opportunity for achievement and intrinsic career
success. At a general level, theories have proposed that job satisfaction is affected by the characteristics of one's work (e.g.,
Hackman & Oldham's, 1980, job characteristics model; see also Oldham& Hackman, 2005) suggesting occupational characteristics
should inuence intrinsic success. More specically related to achievement opportunity, evidence indicates making progress
toward valued goals is related to well-being (see Ryan & Deci, 2001) and there would be greater opportunity for this in more
achievement-oriented occupations. Consistent with this, Lent and Brown (2006) proposed participation in/progress at goal-
directed activity as a key predictor of work satisfaction in their social-cognitive model of satisfaction. Achievement also emerged as
an important theme in Dries, Pepermans, and Carlier's (2008) exploration of the career success construct. Finally, Kuhlen (1963)
found a positive relationship between individuals' occupational satisfaction and their perception of their occupation as potentially
satisfying the need for achievement. This leads to the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 3. Proactive personality relates to career satisfaction through opportunity for achievement.
Hypothesis 4. Self-control relates to career satisfaction through opportunity for achievement.
These hypotheses were examined in two studies. Study 1 involved a cross-sectional design and Study 2 involved a longitudinal
design.
151 P.D. Converse et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 148159
Study 1
Method
Participants
Participants were 249 full-time employees from a wide range of occupations (e.g., elementary school teacher, aerospace
engineer, registered nurse, sales representative, accountant, plumber). The sample was 55.4% female; 78.7% White, 7.2% Hispanic,
5.2% African American, 3.6% Asian, 0.8% Native American, and 0.4% Indian (3.2% indicated Other and 0.8% did not respond); and
the mean age was 41.15 (SD=12.24). Some results involve fewer individuals due to missing data.
Procedures and measures
An online survey was used to collect all participant responses. Similar to previous research (e.g., Hochwarter, Ferris, Zinco,
Arnell, & James, 2007; Hochwarter, Laird, & Brouer, 2008; Treadway et al., 2005), participants were identied and sent the link to
the survey by students enrolled in undergraduate courses at a southeastern university who received course credit.
Proactive personality was measured with a ten-itemquestionnaire fromSeibert et al. (1999; e.g., Wherever I have been, I have
been a powerful force for constructive change). These researchers reported evidence of reliability and validity for this scale. The
internal consistency reported for this measure was =.86. Additionally, Seibert et al. (1999) demonstrated validity by correlating
the ten-item measure with Bateman and Crant's (1993) 17-item proactive personality measure, resulting in a correlation of
r=.96. Self-control was assessed with a 13-item scale from Tangney et al. (2004; e.g., I am good at resisting temptation). These
authors found the scale to have high reliability, with alphas of .83 and .85 in Studies 1 and 2, respectively, and testretest reliability
of .87. The researchers also showed that scores on this measure were positively related to GPA, psychological adjustment, and
secure attachment style, and negatively related to eating disorders and problematic drinking patterns.
To measure educational attainment, participants self-reported their education level as ranging fromless than high school (coded
1) to doctorate degree (coded 8). Self-reports of education have been used successfully in previous studies (e.g., Seibert et al.,
1999). To measure occupational achievement opportunity, we asked participants to report their current occupation. Then, the
Occupational Information Network (O*NET; see http://www.onetcenter.org/) was used to obtain the level of achievement
opportunity associated with each of those occupations. Specically, achievement opportunity was measured with the O*NET
variable Achievement, dened as follows: Occupations that satisfy this work value are results oriented and allow employees to
use their strongest abilities, giving thema feeling of accomplishment. This variable is part of the Work Values area of the O*NET
content model, which is based on the TWA (see Dawis, 2005; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). Evidence supports the reliability and
validity of Work Value scores (see McCloy et al., 1999; Rounds, Armstrong, Liao, Rivkin, & Lewis, 2008), and previous research has
used the Achievement variable specically (Armstrong, Smith, Donnay, & Rounds, 2004).
Salary was self-reported as current annual pre-tax salary. Self-reports for this variable have been used in prior research (e.g.,
Seibert et al., 1999), and this approach is supported by previous ndings. For instance, Judge et al. (1995) found the average
difference between self-reported and archival salary was 1%. Consistent with recommendations (e.g., Tabachnik & Fidell, 2007)
and previous research (e.g., Boudreau et al., 2001; Judge et al., 1995; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2008), a natural log transformation
was used because the salary distribution was skewed. After the log transformation, two individuals were identied as outliers.
However, these appeared to be legitimate data points given these participants' occupations. Thus, to keep these individuals in the
sample but prevent them from being overly inuential, their salary scores were set to the next lower value in the sample (see
Tabachnik & Fidell, 2007). Occupational prestige was measured using participants' self-reported current occupation and the
O*NET. In particular, the variable Recognition (chosen in consultation with O*NET Center staff) was used to measure this
outcome, as this variable relates to occupations that are often considered prestigious. This variable has also been supported and
used in prior work (see Armstrong et al., 2004; McCloy et al., 1999; Rounds et al., 2008).
Career satisfaction was measured with a ve-itemscale fromGreenhaus, Parasuraman, and Wormley (1990; e.g., I amsatised
with the success I have achieved in my career). Greenhaus et al. (1990) showed this scale has acceptable internal consistency
(=.88). This measure has been used successfully in a number of previous studies (e.g., Boudreau et al., 2001; Judge et al., 1995;
Seibert et al., 1999).
Table 1
Study 1: descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Proactive Personality 5.08 0.93 .92
2. Self-Control 3.55 0.63 .14

.84
3. Educational Attainment 4.39 1.50 .16

.16

4. Achievement Opportunity 4.62 1.08 .16

.15

.41

5. Log Salary 10.81 0.59 .14

.16

.36

.32

6. Occupational Prestige 4.18 1.15 .15

.13

.39

.87

.41

7. Career Satisfaction 3.59 1.00 .24

.30

.13

.18

.32

.18

.91
Note. Alphas are on the diagonal.
p.05.
p.01.
152 P.D. Converse et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 148159
Results
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliability coefcients (note that for the original unadjusted salary
variable M=71955.98, SD=156815.35). To examine the hypotheses, we used a test of the indirect effects that involves a
nonparametric bootstrapping procedure outlined by Preacher and Hayes (2004, 2008; all mediation results were obtained using
the SPSS macro developed by Preacher & Hayes, 2008). In addition, several potentially relevant variables were included as
covariates. Specically, the covariates were gender, age, marital status (married vs. unmarried), race (White vs. non-White), years
in occupational eld, years full time employed, and extraversion (when proactive personality was the independent variable) or
conscientiousness (when self-control was the independent variable). The demographic characteristics were chosen because
previous research (e.g., Ng et al., 2005) and conceptual considerations suggested these variables may relate to the focal variables in
this study. The personality characteristics of extraversion (measured with the ten-item International Personality Item Pool scale;
see Goldberg et al., 2006; =.92) and conscientiousness (measured with the four-item scale developed by Donnellan, Oswald,
Baird, & Lucas, 2006; =.72) were also chosen because previous research has linked these traits to the variables in this study (e.g.,
Crant, 1995; Ng et al., 2005; Tangney et al., 2004). In the current sample, extraversion correlated with proactive personality
(r=.31, p.01) but not self-control (r=.01, p=.87), whereas conscientiousness correlated with self-control (r =.47, p.01) but
not proactive personality (r=.02, p=.71).
Table 2 presents results related to the hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 predicted that proactive personality relates to (a) salary and
(b) occupational prestige through educational attainment. The pattern of ndings indicates both hypotheses were supported, as
the indirect effects are signicant. Hypothesis 2 predicted that self-control relates to (a) salary and (b) occupational prestige
through educational attainment. These hypotheses were also supported. Hypothesis 3 predicted that proactive personality relates
to career satisfaction through opportunity for achievement. This hypothesis was not supported, as the indirect effect is not
signicant. Finally, Hypothesis 4 predicted that self-control relates to career satisfaction through opportunity for achievement.
This hypothesis was also not supported.
Discussion
Study 1 results supported the hypotheses related to extrinsic career success but not those related to intrinsic career success. In
terms of extrinsic success, results showed both proactive personality and self-control predicted salary and occupational prestige
through educational attainment. This indicates more proactive and more self-controlled individuals tend to achieve higher levels
of education and these accomplishments are rewarded with greater income and prestige. In terms of intrinsic success, ndings did
not support proactive personality and self-control as predictors of career satisfaction through occupational opportunity for
achievement. The pattern of results (see Table 2) indicated that those higher in proactivity and self-control are often found in
occupations involving greater opportunities for achievement and accomplishment, but that achievement opportunity did not
signicantly relate to career satisfaction.
Table 2
Study 1: hypothesis testing.
IV to M Direct effect
M to DV
Total effect
IV to DV
Direct effect
IV to DV
Indirect effect Indirect effect
95% CI
IV=Proactive Personality, M=Educational Attainment
DV=Salary 0.28

(0.17)
0.15

(0.40)
0.08

(0.13)
0.04
(0.07)
0.04

(0.07)
0.0100.081
(0.0190.129)
DV=Occupational Prestige 0.30

(0.19)
0.29

(0.38)
0.20

(0.16)
0.11
(0.09)
0.09

(0.07)
0.0250.170
(0.0200.136)
IV=Self-Control, M=Educational Attainment
DV=Salary 0.49

(0.21)
0.15

(0.37)
0.12
(0.13)
0.05
(0.05)
0.07

(0.08)
0.0230.127
(0.0240.142)
DV=Occupational Prestige 0.36

(0.15)
0.29

(0.38)
0.38

(0.21)
0.28

(0.15)
0.10

(0.06)
0.0070.228
(0.0050.122)
IV=Proactive Personality, M=Achievement Opportunity
DV=Career Satisfaction 0.20

(0.17)
0.08
(0.09)
0.31

(0.29)
0.30

(0.27)
0.02
(0.02)
0.0050.062
(0.0040.058)
IV=Self-Control, M=Achievement Opportunity
DV=Career Satisfaction 0.38

(0.22)
0.08
(0.09)
0.50

(0.31)
0.47

(0.29)
0.03
(0.02)
0.0130.097
(0.0080.064)
Note. IV=predictor, M=mediator, DV=criterion, CI =condence interval (bias corrected, 5000 bootstrap resamples). Unstandardized coefcients are reported
with standardized coefcients in parentheses. Covariates were gender, age, marital status, race, years in occupational eld, years full time employed, and
extraversion (when proactive personality was the IV) or conscientiousness (when self-control was the IV).
p.05.
p.01.
153 P.D. Converse et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 148159
Study 2 was designed to build on these ndings by examining a subset of these relationships using a longitudinal design in
order to more directly investigate the notion that these dispositional characteristics lead to career success outcomes. Specically, a
National Longitudinal Surveys database was used to examine the relationships between a childhood measure of self-control and
subsequent measures of occupation-related variables. The goal was to establish the extent to which the relationships
demonstrated in Study 1 hold longitudinally as well, such that self-control tendencies measured earlier in life predict educational
and occupational experiences years later. Note that the archival database used in this study does not contain a measure of
proactive personality and thus Study 2 examined only the hypotheses related to self-control.
Study 2
Method
Participants
This study used data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79) Children and Young Adults database. In
1979, the U.S. Department of Labor sponsored a multi-purpose national panel survey focusing on a range of issues including
employment, education, training, and family experiences. The NLSY79 Children and Young Adults database was started in 1986
with information about the children of the female participants fromthe original 1979 study. These children have been assessed at
two-year intervals since 1986 (the most recent data available are from2006). The database contains a combination of information
provided by the mothers about the children and self-reports from children aged 10 and older.
In the current study, the sample consisted of those individuals with scores on the self-control variable and at least one of the
outcome variables (discussed below). Participants were 1568 individuals from a wide range of occupations (e.g., teacher,
counselor, engineer, architect). The sample was 49.4% female; 42.0% Black, 34.9% Non-Black/Non-Hispanic, and 23.2% Hispanic;
and the mean approximate age as of 2006 was 27.09 (SD=2.14). Some results involve fewer individuals due to missing data.
Procedures and measures
Consistent with previous research (McGloin, Pratt, & Maahs, 2004), self-control was measured with ve items from the
Behavior Problems Index (BPI; see Zill, 1990), a rating scale for parent report of child behavior. McGloin et al. (2004) reported the
internal consistency of the ve-item scale to be .78. Further, as expected, these researchers found that after considering several
statistical controls, this measure was a signicant predictor of delinquency, and this relationship was the strongest in one of the
theoretical models examined in the study. In the current study, mothers rated their children on these items in 1986. A sample item
from the scale is: Impulsive, acts without thinking. Responses were based on a three-point scale ranging from 1 (often true) to 3
(not true). Lower scores indicated lower self-control.
Educational attainment was measured as the highest grade completed as of 2006, approximately 20 years after mothers
assessed their children's self-control. The highest grade completed was specied as rst grade (coded 1) through eighth year of
college or more (coded 20). The database also contained information on participants' current or most recent occupations in 2006.
As in Study 1, the O*NET was used to obtain the level of achievement opportunity associated with each of those occupations. More
specically, the database included Census codes for participants' occupations. A crosswalk between these Census codes and
O*NET-SOC codes was used to identify corresponding O*NET occupations. The O*NET Achievement variable was then used as the
index of achievement opportunity. Note that the crosswalk contained multiple O*NET occupations for a number of Census
occupations (i.e., more than one O*NET occupation was linked to a given Census occupation in several cases). In those cases,
average Achievement scores across the multiple O*NET occupations were used.
Salary was measured using hourly rate of pay assessed in 2006. Hourly rate of pay species the hourly earnings for the
respondent's current or most recent job. The natural log of this variable was used in the analyses. As in Study 1, occupational
prestige was measured with the O*NET Recognition variable (using the crosswalk process described above). Satisfaction was
measured with one item in 2006 that assessed how the individual felt about his/her current or most recent job. Consistent with
this, Judge et al. (1995) conceptualized subjective career success as consisting of current job satisfaction and career satisfaction,
arguing: Because a career is a sequence of work-related positions (jobs) occupied throughout a person's life (London & Stumpf,
1982), we dene subjective career success to include current job satisfaction just as the career includes the current job. (p. 487).
Similarly, Judge et al. (1999) dened intrinsic success in terms of job satisfaction, noting: Individuals who are dissatised with
Table 3
Study 2: descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliability.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Self-Control 2.46 0.41 .71
2. Educational Attainment 12.73 2.03 .17

3. Achievement Opportunity 3.33 1.16 .14

.46

4. Log Salary 2.27 0.37 .12

.32

.43

5. Occupational Prestige 2.90 1.05 .12

.46

.93

.45

6. Career Satisfaction 3.22 0.82 .01 .07

.19

.14

.15

Note. Alpha is on the diagonal.

p.01.
154 P.D. Converse et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 148159
many aspects of their current jobs are unlikely to consider their careers, at least at present, as particularly successful. (p. 623). In
the current study, responses were based on a four-point scale ranging from 1 (like it very much) to 4 (dislike it very much). Scores
were recoded so that lower values indicated lower satisfaction.
Results
Table 3 presents descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliability information. As in Study 1, several covariates were included
when examining the hypotheses: gender, age, marital status (married vs. unmarried), race (Hispanic or Black vs. Non-Hispanic,
Non-Black), and conscientiousness (measured with Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann's, 2003, Ten-Item Personality Inventory
conscientiousness scale in 2006).
Table 4 presents results related to the hypotheses. Hypothesis 2 predicted that self-control relates to (a) salary and (b)
occupational prestige through educational attainment. These hypotheses were supported, as the indirect effects are signicant.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that self-control relates to career satisfaction through opportunity for achievement. This hypothesis was
also supported.
Discussion
Study 2 results supported the hypotheses related to both extrinsic and intrinsic career success. For extrinsic success, ndings
indicated self-control predicted both salary and occupational prestige through educational attainment. For intrinsic success,
results supported self-control as a predictor of career satisfaction through occupational achievement opportunity. These ndings
are notable for at least three reasons: (a) they are generally consistent with Study 1 results (except for intrinsic success), (b) they
were obtained with informant (mother) ratings of self-control rather than self-ratings, and (c) they involved measurements taken
approximately 20 years apart. This study therefore complements Study 1 in terms of strengths and weaknesses. Study 1 assessed
all the variables of interest, allowing for a test of all the hypotheses, but involved a cross-sectional design, making it difcult to
draw clear conclusions regarding the nature of the observed relationships. Study 2 assessed only self-control as a predictor,
limiting the hypotheses that could be tested, but involved a longitudinal design, providing more direct support for the idea that
dispositional self-control may lead to or inuence career success outcomes.
General discussion
The modern world of work is a complex and shifting environment requiring substantial personal initiative and self-discipline.
Given this, individuals who take active control of their environments and their own behavior (i.e., those who tend to act as agents
over their environments and themselves; Bandura, 1989) are likely to experience greater career success. The current research
examined this perspective, focusing on proactive personality (reecting an externally focused active control tendency) and self-
control (reecting an internally focused active control tendency) as predictors of extrinsic and intrinsic career success.
Findings and implications
Results supported proactive personality as a predictor of extrinsic career success and self-control as a predictor of extrinsic and
intrinsic career success through the proposed variables (although the results for intrinsic success were mixed). Study 1 indicated
that these characteristics predicted salary and occupational prestige through educational attainment. Study 2 indicated that
childhood self-control predicted occupational outcomes approximately 20 years later, with evidence supporting relationships
with salary and occupational prestige through educational attainment and with career satisfaction through achievement
opportunity.
Table 4
Study 2: hypothesis testing.
IV to M Direct effect
M to DV
Total effect
IV to DV
Direct effect
IV to DV
Indirect effect Indirect effect
95% CI
IV=Self-Control, M=Educational Attainment
DV=Salary 0.60

(0.12)
0.06

(0.32)
0.09

(0.10)
0.06
(0.06)
0.04

(0.04)
0.0100.071
(0.0110.076)
DV=Occupational Prestige 0.62

(0.13)
0.23

(0.43)
0.19

(0.08)
0.05
(0.02)
0.14

(0.05)
0.0710.212
(0.0290.085)
IV=Self-Control, M=Achievement Opportunity
DV=Career Satisfaction 0.27

(0.10)
0.13

(0.18)
0.02
(0.01)
0.06
(0.03)
0.04

(0.02)
0.0120.068
(0.0060.034)
Note. IV=predictor, M=mediator, DV=criterion, CI =condence interval (bias corrected, 5000 bootstrap resamples). Unstandardized coefcients are reported
with standardized coefcients in parentheses. Covariates were gender, age, marital status, race, and conscientiousness.
p.05.
p.01.
155 P.D. Converse et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 148159
These ndings build on previous work in several ways. First, although there has been some attention focusing on proactive
personality as a predictor of career success (e.g., Seibert et al., 1999), less research has examined factors that are involved in linking
these variables. The present study examined this issue, demonstrating a major factor involved in this relationship. It appears that
greater proactive personality may lead to better extrinsic career outcomes through its association with greater educational
attainment. In addition, although previous studies have examined self-control as a predictor of a wide variety of important
outcomes (e.g., Tangney et al., 2004), little research attention has focused on career-related outcomes associated with this
characteristic. The current study begins to ll this gap, demonstrating that this trait relates to both extrinsic and intrinsic career
success variables through educational attainment and occupational achievement opportunity and that these relationships hold
over a relatively long period of time.
In combination, these ndings provide additional insight into the predictors of career success. For instance, Seibert et al. (1999)
discussed a number of potential factors involved in the relationship between proactive personality and career success such as
exerting inuence over work-related decisions, pursuing opportunities for self-improvement, and selecting appropriate work
environments. The current ndings are consistent with the latter two factors, as results suggested self-improvement in the formof
educational attainment and the work environment characteristic of achievement opportunity were related to proactive
personality (although only education was related to career success in Study 1). In addition, this prior research on proactive
personality has highlighted the importance of a dispositional tendency toward active inuence and control, but the focus has
primarily been on inuencing environmental factors. The present research supports this perspective, but also adds a
complementary perspective emphasizing the importance of internally focused control tendencies. This adds to the literature on
career success and also expands on the positive outcomes associated with self-control demonstrated in prior work. For instance,
the current results indicate self-control relates not only to academic performance (e.g., Tangney et al., 2004), but also to
educational attainment and career outcomes. Finally, this research builds on previous cross-sectional studies by examining
relationships longitudinally and thereby providing somewhat stronger evidence supporting the assumption that personality
inuences career outcomes.
This research may also have practical implications for individuals, career counselors, and educational institutions. The results,
for example, support the idea that individuals who take more active control over their environments and behavior are more likely
to experience career success through educational pursuits. The present research examined these tendencies as they naturally
occur (i.e., as personality characteristics), but it seems plausible that at least some of the behaviors associated with these
tendencies could be trained in educational and career-related contexts (e.g., see Searle, 2008). Given the ndings related to
educational attainment (along with previous research on academic performance; e.g., Wolfe & Johnson, 1995), universities might
also consider characteristics related to proactivity and self-control in making admissions decisions. In addition, although the
results for intrinsic success were mixed, Study 2 indicated occupational opportunity for achievement may relate to career
satisfaction. This may be an important occupational characteristic for individuals and career counselors to consider in exploring
the advantages and disadvantages of various career options. Furthermore, additional research would be needed to support this,
but it may be that the importance of this factor varies across individuals based on values and goals, and thus the weight given to
this occupational characteristic might be adjusted accordingly.
Limitations and future research
Several limitations of this research should be noted and addressed in future studies. Study 1 involved a cross-sectional design,
making the direction of the relationships found in this study unclear (particularly for educational attainment). We believe it is
plausible that proactive personality and self-control inuence educational attainment given (a) evidence indicating that
personality characteristics are fairly consistent over time (e.g., see Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005, for a review), (b) evidence
indicating that personality characteristics measured earlier predict subsequent educational attainment (e.g., Hampson, Goldberg,
Vogt, & Dubanoski, 2007; Shiner, Masten, & Roberts, 2003), and (c) the results from Study 2. However, because this evidence is
indirect for proactive personality, it may be that proactive personality inuences educational attainment, educational attainment
inuences proactive personality, or both. Future longitudinal studies are needed to investigate this further. In addition, the time
interval between the self-control measure and the educational and occupational measures in Study 2 was approximately 20 years.
This longitudinal design has certain advantages over cross-sectional designs, but this time interval also means other life events
may have occurred that were not controlled for in the analyses. Further studies varying the length of time between measures may
be useful. It is also possible that the self-control measures in Studies 1 and 2 are not measuring the same construct as the scales
involved different approaches (self- vs. other-report) and items. The measures seem reasonably comparable in that (a) self and
other ratings may involve different perspectives, but this does not necessarily mean different constructs are being assessed (see
Connelly & Ones, 2010) and (b) the behaviors and issues measured by the two scales are similar (e.g., both have items related to
having difculty concentrating and acting without thinking). However, there is no direct evidence that the two measures assess
the same construct and thus this could be another issue for future research.
In addition, this research examined several predictors and related factors, but a more extensive examination of mediation and
moderation may add to and qualify these ndings. It seems likely, for instance, that although proactive personality and self-control
tend to be adaptive qualities in work settings, in some occupations or organizations these traits may be less benecial or perhaps
even detrimental in terms of career outcomes. Similarly, although this research involved a variety of occupations, most of the
participants were from the United States. Given that the relationships described in this research may depend on cultural factors,
additional studies exploring these links in other contexts may be useful. In addition, other individual differences (e.g., ability) may
156 P.D. Converse et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 148159
inuence the extent to which high levels of proactivity and self-control are adaptive in developing one's career. The current study
also examined opportunity for achievement as a predictor of career satisfaction, but (as suggested earlier) the strength of this
relationship likely depends on the individual's values and career goals. In addition, the current study focused on links between
these characteristics and education, but in a number of cases these tendencies may not be directed toward educational pursuits.
Therefore, it may be useful to examine other pursuits associated with these personality characteristics and the factors that
determine the extent to which individuals focus on academic versus nonacademic domains. It would also be interesting to explore
predictors of career success within samples that have the same level of education. The present study conrms the importance of
education, but less is known about inuential factors within a given education level. Furthermore, this study examined a limited
number of factors linking the personality characteristics to career success variables. Given the nature of these characteristics,
several other factors may be involved (e.g., career planning, networking; see Barnett & Bradley, 2007) and therefore might be
investigated further. The present research also examined the same factors and outcomes for both proactive personality and self-
control, emphasizing their similarities as active control tendencies. However, these traits are also likely to be related to a number
of unique behaviors and outcomes, given the fundamental difference in the focus of these control tendencies (external vs.
internal). Additional studies focusing more on these potential differences may be useful in further establishing when and why
proactive personality and self-control contribute to career success.
Another issue is that the current research focused on fairly active and conscious constructs as predictors of career success.
However, less rational and conscious factors may be at least as inuential in this context (e.g., see Krieshok, Black, & McKay, 2009).
Indeed, results from this and prior studies indicate factors such as proactive personality and self-control account for relatively
small percentages of variance in career-related outcomes, suggesting other less control-related variables may be involved. Future
research might examine those factors in more detail instead of (or in addition to) the active control variables investigated in this
research.
Conclusions
Given current conditions in the world of work, active control tendencies are likely to be adaptive for many individuals. The
current research supported this view, as results suggested proactive personality and self-control relate to career success through
education and opportunity for achievement. These ndings build on previous work by exploring how control tendencies that are
externally focused and those that are internally focused relate to career outcomes. Future work might add to these results by
examining these factors in more detail and in combination with constructs that are less conscious in nature.
Acknowledgments
We thank Rich Grifth for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.
References
Armstrong, P. I., Smith, T. J., Donnay, D. A. C., & Rounds, J. (2004). The Strong ring: A basic interest model of occupational structure. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
51, 299313.
Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 33, 344358.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 11751184.
Barnett, B. R., & Bradley, L. (2007). The impact of organisational support for career development on career satisfaction. Career Development International, 12,
617636.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and its correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14,
103118.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. New York: Guilford Press.
Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2011). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 2. (pp. 567598). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Effects of personality on executive career success in the United States and Europe. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 58, 5381.
Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. (2006). The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers: Combinations and implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 418.
Briscoe, J. P., Hall, D. T., & DeMuth, R. L. F. (2006). Protean and boundaryless careers: An empirical exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 3047.
Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453484.
Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers' accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological
Bulletin, 136, 10921122.
Crant, J. M. (1995). The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532537.
Crant, J. M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34, 4249.
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Charismatic leadership viewed from above: The impact of proactive personality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 6375.
Dawis, R. V. (2005). The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to
work (pp. 323). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality.
Psychological Assessment, 18, 192203.
Dries, N., Pepermans, R., & Carlier, O. (2008). Career success: Constructing a multidimensional model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 254267.
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939944.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150170.
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745774.
157 P.D. Converse et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 148159
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. In B. M. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior, Vol. 23. (pp. 133187). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Frese, M., Garst, H., & Fay, D. (2007). Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships between work characteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave
longitudinal structural equation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 10841102.
Fuller, B., &Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic reviewof the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 329345.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., et al. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-
domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 8496.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504528.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 334.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 6486.
Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hall, D. T., & Associates (1996). The career is dead Long live the career: A relational approach to careers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hampson, S. E., Goldberg, L. R., Vogt, T. M., & Dubanoski, J. P. (2007). Mechanisms by which childhood personality traits inuence adult health status: Educational
attainment and healthy behaviors. Health Psychology, 26, 121125.
Heckhausen, J., & Schulz, R. (1995). A life-span theory of control. Psychological Review, 102, 284304.
Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G., Zinco, R., Arnell, B., & James, M. (2007). Reputation as a moderator of political behaviorwork outcomes relationships: A two-study
investigation with convergent results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 567576.
Hochwarter, W. A., Laird, M. D., & Brouer, R. L. (2008). Board up the windows: The interactive effects of hurricane-induced job stress and perceived resources on
work outcomes. Journal of Management, 34, 263289.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Howard, A. (Ed.). (1995). The changing nature of work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D. (1995). An empirical investigation of the predictors of executive career success. Personnel Psychology, 48,
485519.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, E. T., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the lifespan.
Personnel Psychology, 52, 621652.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Self-esteem and extrinsic career success: Test of a dynamic model. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 57, 204224.
Kokko, K., Bergman, L. R., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Child personality characteristics and selection into long-termunemployment in Finnish and Swedish longitudinal
samples. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 134144.
Kokko, K., Pulkkinen, L., & Puustinen, M. (2000). Selection into long-term unemployment and its psychological consequences. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 24, 310320.
Krieshok, T. S., Black, M. D., & McKay, R. A. (2009). Career decision making: The limits of rationality and the abundance of non-conscious processes. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 75, 275290.
Kuhlen, R. G. (1963). Needs, perceived need satisfaction opportunities, and satisfaction with occupation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 5664.
Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2006). Integrating person and situation perspectives on work satisfaction: A social-cognitive view. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69,
236247.
London, M., & Stumpf, S. A. (1982). Managing careers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the Big Five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 927935.
McCloy, R., Waugh, G., Medsker, G., Wall, J., Rivkin, D., & Lewis, P. (1999). Determining the Occupational Reinforcer Patterns for O*NET occupational units. Raleigh, NC:
National Center for O*NET Development.
McGloin, J. M., Pratt, T. C., & Maahs, J. (2004). Rethinking the IQ-delinquency relationship: A longitudinal analysis of multiple theoretical models. Justice Quarterly,
21, 603635.
Mischel, W. (1961). Delay of gratication, need for achievement, and acquiescence in another culture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 543552.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Peake, P. K. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of gratication. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 687696.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126,
247259.
National Research Council (1999). The changing nature of work: Implications for occupational analysis. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58,
367408.
Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2005). Howjob characteristics theory happened. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory
development (pp. 151170). New York: Oxford University Press.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36, 717731.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptomatic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior
Research Methods, 40, 879891.
Pulkkinen, L., Ohranen, M., & Tolvanen, A. (1999). Personality antecedents of career orientation and stability among women compared to men. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 54, 3758.
Quigley, N. R., & Tymon, G. (2006). Toward an integrated model of intrinsic motivation and career self-management. Career Development International, 11, 522543.
Rounds, J., Armstrong, P. I., Liao, H., Rivkin, D., & Lewis, P. (2008). Second generation Occupational Value Proles for the O*NET system: Summary. Raleigh, NC: National
Center for O*NET Development.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,
141166.
Searle, B. J. (2008). Does personal initiative training work as a stress management intervention? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 259270.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416427.
Seibert, S. E., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). The Five-Factor model of personality and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 121.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel
Psychology, 54, 845874.
Shiner, R. L., Masten, A. S., & Roberts, J. M. (2003). Childhood personality foreshadows adult personality and life outcomes two decades later. Journal of Personality,
71, 11451170.
Sullivan, S. E., & Arthur, M. B. (2006). The evolution of the boundaryless career concept: Examining physical and psychological mobility. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 69, 1929.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal
of Personality, 72, 271324.
Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 275300.
158 P.D. Converse et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 148159
Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 10111017.
Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W., Perrew, P., Witt, L. A., & Goodman, J. M. (2005). The role of age in the perceptions of politics-job performance
relationship: A three-study constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 872881.
Weisz, J. R., Francis, S. E., & Bearman, S. K. (2010). Assessing secondary control and its association with youth depression symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 38, 883893.
Weisz, J. R., Rothbaum, F. M., & Blackburn, T. C. (1984). Standing out and standing in: The psychology of control in America and Japan. American Psychologist, 39,
955969.
Wilk, S. L., Desmarais, L. B., & Sackett, P. R. (1995). Gravitation to jobs commensurate with ability: Longitudinal and cross-sectional tests. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80, 7985.
Wolfe, R. N., & Johnson, S. D. (1995). Personality as a predictor of college performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 177185.
Zill, N. (1990). Behavior problems index based on parent report. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
159 P.D. Converse et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (2012) 148159