Disengaging From Unattainable Career Goals and Reengaging in More Achievable Ones

an article by Peter A. Creed and Michelle Hood (School of Applied Psychology and Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia) published in Journal of Career Development Volume 42 Number 1 (February 2014)

Abstract

Participants were 181 university students who completed measures of career development (self-efficacy, perceived barriers, distress, planning, and exploration) and goal adjustment capacity (disengagement and reengagement).

We expected
     (a) that when contemplating unachievable goals, those with a higher capacity to adjust their goals (i.e., to disengage and reengage) would report less distress, more career planning, and more exploration; and expected
     (b) that the relationships between goal adjustment and the outcome variables (distress, planning, and exploration) would be moderated by self-efficacy and perceptions of barriers.

We found that those with a higher capacity to adjust their goals by disengaging and reengaging reported more exploration. Less distress was associated with disengagement, but not reengagement, whereas more planning was associated with reengagement, but not disengagement.

Additionally, we found moderating effects for self-efficacy and perceptions of barriers; that is, having higher levels of efficacy and perceiving fewer barriers protected when goal adjustment capacity was lower.

---

Compromise, Well-Being, and Action Behaviors in Young Adults in Career Transition

an article by Peter A. Creed and Kellie Blume (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia) published in Journal of Career Assessment Volume 21 Number 1 (February 2013)

Abstract

The authors surveyed 186 first-year university students and assessed their level of career compromise associated with making the transition to university. Compromise was operationalised as the discrepancy between the job characteristics of ideal and expected occupations.

The authors also assessed career well-being (satisfaction, distress), action behaviours (planning, exploration), and goal adjustment (disengagement, re-engagement). The authors expected compromise to be negatively associated with well-being and positively associated with action behaviours, and the relationship between compromise and the outcome variables (well-being, action behaviours) to be moderated by goal adjustment.

Compromise was negatively associated with well-being, but not associated with planning or exploration, although the Compromise × Goal Adjustment interaction was significant.

Disengagement and re-engagement were not associated with well-being, although the Disengagement × Re-engagement interaction was significant.

Disengagement was associated with planning and exploration, re-engagement was associated with exploration, and both interaction terms were significant.

Hazel’s comment:
This sounds as though the research was rigorous and the results interesting. I’ve bookmarked it to try to read in the British Library at some future date.

---