This chapter displays the results of the data analysis and its findings. First, the descriptive statistics revealed that the demographic characteristics of the participants.
Then, the correlation analysis presented the mean, standard deviation, reliability, and the correlation between the variables. Final, the hierarchical regression analysis was performed to test the hypotheses in this study.
Descriptive Statistics
There were 11 items chosen as the demographic information in this study. The demographic information included age, tenure in current job, total tenure, gender, three hierarchical status questions (permission to delegate work, project responsibility, and official leadership position), position, education level, annual salary, and industry.
The frequency and percentage of the demographic characteristics were shown in the Table 4.1.
416 participants in this study were female (67.5%) and their age mainly ranged from 21 to 40 years old (85.4%). Most of the participants had one to five years of tenure in current job (67.5%) and they have been working for five to ten years (61.7%) in total tenure. Regarding to the participants’ hierarchical status in the organizations, 55.8% of them have the permission to delegate work, 63.2% of them have the project responsibility, and 40.3% of them have the official leadership position. Moreover, when it comes to the position, over half of the respondents were employees (53.2%) and some of them were supervisors (23.6%) in the company. As for the respondents’
education level, most of them had obtained Bachelor degree (66.8%) and master degree (23.8%). For the participants’ annual salary, 47.6 % of them have 250,001 to
500,000 NT dollars. On the other hand, participants worked in various industries including service industries (23.3%), wholesale and retail trade industries (15.4%), manufacturing industries (11.5%) and technology industries (10.6%).
Table 4.1. (continued)
Table 4.1. (continued)
Item Frequency Percentage
(%)
Annual salary Above NT$ 1,500,000 8 1.9%
Missing Data 13 3.1%
Industry Wholesale/ Retail Trade 64 15.4%
Education 26 6.3%
Mass Communication 5 1.2%
Travel/Leisure 18 4.3%
Service 97 23.3%
Technology 44 10.6%
Manufacturing 48 11.5%
Transportation/Logistics 11 2.6%
Social work 2 0.5%
Financial/Insurance 35 8.4%
Legal/Accounting/Consu lting/R&D
6 1.4%
Construction/Real Estate 13 3.1%
Medical/Health 41 9.9%
Agriculture 0 0%
Mining/Quarrying 0 0%
Missing Data 6 1.5%
Correlation Analysis
The correlation analysis was conducted to examine the correlations among control variables, career capital and sub-dimensions, PsyCap, career satisfaction, and hierarchical status. The mean, standard deviation, reliability, and Pearson’s inter-correlation between variables were shown in Table 4.2. All the reliability coefficients were acceptable.
The mean of career capital and sub-dimensions were ranged from 4.92 to 5.49;
the standard deviations were ranged from 0.57 to 0.79. The mean of PsyCap was ranged 3.92; the standard deviation was 0.38. The mean of career satisfaction was 5.23; the standard deviation was 0.67. The mean of hierarchical status was 1.60; the standard deviation was 1.13.
Considering the relationship among control variables and the other four variables, the results proved that gender, position, and total tenure showed significant correlations both with career satisfaction (r=0.14, p<0.01; r=0.29, p<0.001; r=0.16, p<0.001, respectively), and hierarchical status (r=0.15, p<0.01; r=0.74, p<0.001;
r=0.45, p<0.001, respectively). It implies that men and women have different perception of their career success. Also, employees’ positions in the organization and work tenure in the present career are related to their career success. Besides, age was found to be significantly correlated with hierarchical status (r=0.44, p<0.001). In contrast, age was not significantly correlated to career satisfaction (r=0.09, p>0.1).
The results revealed that age did not affect career satisfaction in this study.
While for the correlation among career capital, PsyCap, career satisfaction, and hierarchical status, the results showed that career capital was significantly and positively correlated to PsyCap (r=0.61, p<0.001), career satisfaction (r=0.77, p<0.001), and hierarchical status (r=0.32, p<0.001). Besides, according to the results,
PsyCap was significantly and positively correlated to career satisfaction (r = 0.54, p<
0.001), and hierarchical status (r=0.39, p<0.001).
Further analyzing the correlation among three sub-dimensions of career capital, career satisfaction, and hierarchical status, knowing-how (r=0.68, p<0.001), knowing-why (r=0.72, p<0.001), and knowing-whom (r=0.59, p<0.001) were significantly and positively correlated to career satisfaction. In addition, knowing-how (r=0.25, p<0.001), knowing-why (r=0.27, p<0.001), and knowing-whom (r=0.28, p<0.001) were significantly and positively correlated to hierarchical status.
As for the relationship between three sub-dimensions of career capital and PsyCap, the data indicated that the three sub-dimensions of career capital:
knowing-how, knowing-why, and knowing-whom were all significantly and positively correlated to PsyCap at significant levels (r = 0.49, p < 0.001; r = 0.62, p < 0.001; r = 0.47, p < 0.001, respectively). Meanwhile, the three sub-dimensions of career capital had moderate intercorrelations (ranged from 0.47 to 0.69, p<0.001) with each other.
Table 4.2.
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliability (n = 416)
Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 5-1 5-2 5-3 6 7 8
1.Gender 0.32 0.47
2.Age 33.09 7.32 .14**
3.Position 1.77 0.96 .22*** .53***
4.Total tenure 10.34 7.28 .06 .88*** .54***
5.Career Capital 5.27 0.57 .14** .18*** .30*** .19*** (.91)
5-1.Khow 5.40 0.62 .11* .14** .26*** .16** .85*** (.79)
5-2.Kwhy 5.49 0.59 .06 .16** .29*** .19*** .86*** .69*** (.87)
5-3.Kwhom 4.92 0.79 .17** .14** .23*** .13** .86*** .54*** .59*** (.80)
6.PsyCap 3.92 0.38 .08 .31*** .35*** .33*** .61*** .49*** .62*** .47*** (.91)
7.Career Satisfaction 5.23 0.67 .14** .09 .29*** .16** .77** .68*** .72*** .59*** .54*** (.79)
8.Hierachical Status 1.60 1.13 .15** .44*** .74*** .45*** .32*** .25*** .27*** .28*** .39*** .23*** (.66) Note. 1. Khow=Knowing-how; Kwhy=Knowing-why; Kwhom=Knowing-whom; PsyCap=Psychological capital
2. Internal consistency reliability (alpha) are in parentheses.
3. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (two-tailed) 4. Coding for gender: 0 for female; 1 for male
5. Coding for position: 1 for employee; 2 for supervisor; 3 for middle level manager; 4 for top level manager 6. Age and total tenure were measured in years.
7. Career capital and career success adopted 7-point Likert scale.
8. PsyCap adopted 5-point Likert scale.
9. Hierarchical status varies between 0 and 3.
Hierarchical Regression Analysis
Base on Baron and Kenny (1986), this study employed hierarchical regression analysis to test the hypotheses and examine the mediating effect of career capital on the relationships between PsyCap and career satisfaction, PsyCap and hierarchical status. First, entering the control variables including gender, age, position, and job tenure into model, then the direct effect of PsyCap on dependent variable, career satisfaction and hierarchical status, last the mediating effect of PsyCap and career capital on career satisfaction and hierarchical status.
Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 summarized the hierarchical regression analysis results of testing Hypotheses 1 to 4b. Hypothesis 1 postulated PsyCap has a positive effect on career satisfaction. Table 4.3 presented the results of Hypothesis 1. In Model 4, among the control variables, gender, position, and total tenure had significantly positive relationships with career satisfaction (β=0.01, p<0.05; β=0.17, p<0.001; β=0.19, p<0.05) and contrarily age had a significantly negative relationship with career satisfaction (β=-0.36, p<0.001). In Model 4, the regression model was significant (adjusted R2=0.34, F=40.20, p<0.001) and PsyCap had a positive and statistically significant effect on career satisfaction (β=0.53, p<0.001). Moreover, Model 4 in Table 4.4 showed that PsyCap also had a positive and statistically significant effect on hierarchical status (β=0.14, p<0.001). Hence, Hypothesis 1 was supported.
Hypothesis 2 illustrated PsyCap has a positive effect on career capital. In Model 1 of Table 4.3, only position had significantly positive relationships with career capital (β=0.27, p<0.001). In Model 2, the regression model was significant (adjusted R2=0.40, F=52.50, p<0.001) and PsyCap had a positive and statistically significant effect on career capital (β=0.61, p<0.001). The PsyCap increased 32 percentage (∆R2=0.32, p<0.001) of the explained variance in career capital. Therefore,
individuals who perceive higher level of PsyCap have higher career capital. The hypothesis 2 was supported.
Hypothesis 3 stated that career capital has a positive effect on career success.
Table 4.3 listed the results of Hypothesis 2. In Model 3, the regression model was significant (adjusted R2=0.60, F=118.18, p<0.001) and career capital had a positive and statistically significant effect on career satisfaction (β=0.74, p<0.001). The career capital increased 49 percentage (∆R2=0.49, p<0.001) of the explained variance in career satisfaction. Therefore, individuals with higher career capital more satisfy their careers. Besides, Model 3 in Table 4.4 indicated that career capital also had a positive and statistically significant effect on hierarchical status (β=0.10, p<0.001). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was sustained.
Hypothesis 4a assumed that career capital mediates the relationship between PsyCap and career satisfaction. To test this hypothesis, based on Baron and Kenny (1986), four steps of examining mediation must be respectively achieved. First, the independent variable must be related to dependent variable. Second, the independent variable must be related to mediator. Third, the mediator must be related to the dependent variable. Last, the mediator should influence the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable. Full mediation occurs when independent variable has no effect on dependent variable and partial mediation occurs when independent variable has less effect on dependent variable after mediator was added into the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable.
Table 4.3 showed the result of the mediating effect of career capital on the relationship between PsyCap and career satisfaction. As shown in Model 2 of Table 4.3, it showed that PsyCap was positively and significantly related to career capital (β=0.61, p<0.001); meanwhile, in Model 3, it confirmed that the career capital was also significantly and positively related to career satisfaction (β=0.74, p<0.001). In addition, in Model 4, PsyCap was also significantly and positively related to career satisfaction (β=0.53, p<0.001). Further analyzing Model 4 and Model 5, it confirmed that the beta coefficient of PsyCap was reduced from 0.53 (p<0.001) to 0.12 (p<0.001) and remained significant. In addition, according to Sobel (1982), the Sobel test was conducted to verify the mediation. The Sobel test result (z=12.44, p<0.001) was significant and showed that career capital was a significant mediator of the influence of PsyCap on career satisfaction. Based on these results, it indicated that career capital partly mediates the relationship between PsyCap and career satisfaction. Thus, Hypothesis 4a was partially supported.
Hypothesis 4b assumed that career capital positively mediates the relationship between PsyCap and hierarchical status. Table 4.4 presented the results of Hypothesis 5. In Model 2 of Table 4.4, it showed that PsyCap was positively and significantly related to career capital (β=0.61, p<0.001); meanwhile, in Model 3, it confirmed that the career capital was also significantly and positively related to hierarchical status (β=0.01, p<0.001). In addition, in Model 4, PsyCap was also significantly and positively related to career satisfaction (β=0.14, p<0.001). Further analyzing Model 4 and Model 5, it confirmed that the beta coefficient of PsyCap was reduced from 0.14 (p<0.001) to 0.11 (p<0.05) and remained significant. Besides, the Sobel test result (z=2.81, p<0.01) was significant and showed that career capital was a significant mediator of the influence of PsyCap on hierarchical status. Based on the above results, it demonstrated that career capital partially mediates the relationship between PsyCap and hierarchical status. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was partially supported.
Table 4.3.
Result of Regression Analysis for Mediating Effect of Career Capital on the Relationship between PsyCap and Career Satisfaction (n = 416)
Variable
Career capital Career satisfaction (Subjective career success)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
β β β β β
Step 1: Controls
Gender 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.10* 0.06
Age -0.05 -0.11 -0.26*** -0.36*** -0.28***
Position 0.27*** 0.13* 0.09* 0.17*** 0.09*
Total tenure 0.07 0.00 0.20* 0.19* 0.18*
Steps 2: Direct effect
Psychological capital 0.61***
Steps 3: Mediating effect
Psychological capital 0.53*** 0.12**
Career capital 0.74*** 0.67***
R2 0.09 0.41 0.61 0.35 0.61
Adjusted R2 0.08 0.40 0.60 0.34 0.61
∆R2 0.32 0.49 0.23 0.27
F 9.91*** 52.50*** 118.18*** 40.20*** 99.21***
∆F 202.03*** 478.87*** 135.25*** 257.27***
Notes:* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Table 4.4.
Result of Regression Analysis for Mediating Effect of Career Capital on the Relationship between PsyCap and Hierarchical Status (n = 416)
Variable
Career capital Hierarchical status (Objective career success)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
β β β β β
Step 1: Controls
Gender 0.09 0.07 -0.02 0.00 -0.01
Age -0.05 -0.11 0.03 0.01 0.02
Position 0.27*** 0.13* 0.67*** 0.66*** 0.66***
Total tenure 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.04
Steps 2: Direct effect
Psychological capital 0.61***
Steps 3: Mediating effect
Psychological capital 0.14*** 0.11*
Career capital 0.10*** 0.04
R2 0.09 0.41 0.56 0.56 0.56
Adjusted R2 0.08 0.40 0.55 0.55 0.55
∆R2 0.32 0.01 0.02 0.00
F 9.91*** 52.50*** 97.44*** 95.59*** 79.74***
∆F 202.03*** 8.18*** 13.46*** 0.78*
Notes:* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
CHAPTER V DISCUSSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter consists of three parts, discussions, implications and suggestions.
The first session presents discussions for integrating the hypotheses testing results based on the conceptual framework and purposes of this study. The second includes the implications for theoretical and practical fields. Final, research limitations and the suggestions for future research were discussed.
Discussions
The purpose of this study was to expand the literature on career success by examining the mediating role of career capital on the relationship between PsyCap and career success. Table 5.1 revealed the integration of hypotheses testing results.
According to the results of hierarchical regression analysis, Hypothesis 1, 2, and 3 were supported. Nevertheless, Hypothesis 4a and 4b was partially supported. Based on the results of analysis, the discussions were drawn as follows:
Table 5.1.
The Integration Results of Hypotheses Testing
Hypotheses Explanation Test Result
Hypothesis 1. Psychological capital has a positive effect on career success.
Supported
Hypothesis 2. Psychological capital has a positive effect on career capital.
Supported
Hypothesis 3. Career capital has a positive effect on career success.
Supported
Hypothesis 4a. Career capital mediates the relationship between psychological capital and career satisfaction.
Partially supported Hypothesis 4b. Career capital mediates the relationship between
psychological capital and hierarchical status.
Partially supported
Psychological Capital and Career Success
Hypothesis 1 stated that PsyCap has a positive effect on career success. The results of this study showed that PsyCap was significantly and positively correlated to career success. This suggests that individuals having a stronger sense of PsyCap generate the greater career satisfaction and promote higher hierarchical status. The finding implied that individuals with higher PsyCap may be more competent to cope with the difficulties and challenges that they encounter in the workplace. This finding also agree with previous research showing that individual with four positive psychological resources, namely, efficacy, hope, optimism, and resiliency, might help individual’s thrive and success in their career journey (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). In addition, the result further supported the statement proposed by Snyder (2000), which asserted that individuals with greater hope, they have the will more enthusiastically to pursue success. The finding is consistent with previous longitudinal research
conducted by Abele & Spurk (2009), indicating individuals’ self-efficacy influence on career outcomes such as career satisfaction, salary, and status. Moreover, individual with higher levels of resilience have greater abilities to overcome adversity smoothly and set back from difficulties. Optimistic people are more satisfied their careers because they consider themselves as the important drivers of career achievement. In sum, individuals with high PsyCap tend to achieve career goals and pursue career success.
Psychological Capital and Career Capital
Hypothesis 2 stated that PsyCap has a positive effect on career capital.
Through the literature review, few researches had been down to investigate the relationship between PsyCap and career capital. Nevertheless, the result of this study showed that individuals’ PsyCap and career capital were positively correlated. That is to say, individuals with high PsyCap help them to acquire more career capital in the workplace.
To explain the result in detail, individual with higher level of PsyCap have more confidence to take on challenging tasks and learn from the given assignments. They always make a positive attribution toward things and expect good things to happen at work. However, when people face the difficulties and setback, they have ability to bounce back and adjust well. As found in previous research, Luthans et al. (2007) stressed that individuals in high PsyCap are more satisfied with their job and engaged in their work when compared with those lower in PsyCap. As employees are enthusiastic about their work, they recognize their work motives (knowing-why) and develop transferable skills and knowledge (knowing-how) in the workplace. Besides, individuals with higher level of PsyCap are willing to build the relationship with
people and interaction with others (knowing-whom). Moreover, people accomplish projects and solve the problems through building and using interpersonal connection.
In other words, individuals rely on the both formal and informal contacts to facilitate the work-related activities and their careers. Therefore, individuals’ PsyCap may benefit them to develop their career capital.
Career Capital and Career Success
Hypothesis 3 stated that PsyCap has a positive effect on career success. The results showed that career capital was significantly and positively correlated to career success after controlling gender, age, position, and job tenure. The findings also confirmed the positively significant effects of career capital on career success in line with the results of previous studies (Eby et al., 2003; McArdle, Waters, Briscoe, &
Hall, 2007; Ng et al., 2005; Sing et al., 2009). This means that individuals’ career capital is an important factor affecting career success. Conversely, career success is facilitated by the acquisition of career capital. Career capital is accumulated during the work experience and applied to perform a job successfully. Career capital can help people adapt to workplace and transfer to the new work environment. If individual invest more career capital in the workplace, they have higher career success.
Specifically, three career competencies of career capital, knowing-how, knowing-why, and knowing-whom all lead to career success, respectively (DeFillippi
& Arthur, 1994). First, individuals with more knowing-how career competencies can facilitate their career successfully. This demonstrates that individuals successfully accomplish work tasks and career goals through implementation of their work-related skills and knowledge. To acquire diversified job-related skills, people actively seek out training and development opportunities in their careers. In the meanwhile, individuals constantly update their job-related skills and absorb new knowledge to
fulfill the requirements of current job. Moreover, these work-related skills and knowledge are easily transferred and applied to other employment settings. Second, when individuals have a strong profession identity and the clear career motivation (knowing-why), they are engaged in work with passion and get the sense of achievement from the job. As a result, people are more satisfied themselves and enhance their perception of career success. Third, the career-related relationship and the connections with others within and outside the organization (knowing-whom) can benefit personal career development (Higgins & Kram, 2001; Parker & Arthur, 2000).
Also, individuals engaging in networking behaviors are more satisfy themselves in their careers. Knowing-whom career competencies support one’s career development and provide the access to new information, connections, learning opportunities, and extensions to different fields.
In sum, individuals who are specialized in developing knowing-how, knowing-why, and knowing-whom career competencies can generate higher career success. Therefore, the application of career competencies is related to career success (Kuijpers, Schyns, & Scheerens, 2006).
The Mediating Effect of Career Capital on the Relationship between PsyCap and Career Success
Based on the previous finding, though PsyCap has been proved to be one factor affecting individuals’ career success, this study suggests that career capital is another to determine career success.
Hypothesis 4a posited career capital mediates the relationship between PsyCap and career satisfaction. The results of this study confirmed the partial mediating role of career capital between PsyCap and career satisfaction. Specifically, individuals’
PsyCap can directly influence their career satisfaction. Meanwhile, it can also influence career satisfaction by enhancing career capital. Individuals’ positive psychological status can contribute to the development of career capital and thus to achieve higher career satisfaction. The finding implied that individuals with higher PsyCap and career capital are more satisfied their careers.
To reason the finding in detail, Arthur, Claman, and DeFillippi (1995) highlighted the importance of career competency to facilitate personal career development. Individuals with more career capital have greater abilities to accomplish tasks efficiently and perform well in the workplace. The finding of this study was corresponded to previous empirical study conducted by Kong, Cheung, & Song (2012), demonstrating the partial mediating effect of career competency on the relationship between perceived hotel management and career satisfaction. To conclude, an individual’s positive psychological state plays an important role in accumulating individual career capital in the workplace and thus making a good use of career capital leads to career success.
Hypothesis 4b illustrated that career capital mediates the relationship between PsyCap and hierarchical status. The results of this study confirmed the partial mediating role of career capital between PsyCap and hierarchical status. As shown from the results, the research findings revealed that career capital served as a mediator between PsyCap and hierarchical status. The finding implied that individuals who are more confidence and optimistic are willing to engage in career-related activities.
Through participating various career activities, individuals actively develop their career competencies and potentially being promoted in the organization.
Implications
This study contributed to both theoretical and practical fields. Specifically, this study not only provided the significant contribution to theoretical area but also had the practical implications.
Theoretical Implications
For the academic area, PsyCap is the recently emerging construct and relatively new variable in positive psychology literature. Few studies take PsyCap into consideration in career development fields. In this research, PsyCap was applied to personal career development and today’s workplace. Through the results of data analysis, this research not only found that PsyCap plays an important role in determining individual career success but also proved that career capital had positive effect on career success.
In addition, this study provided empirical evidences demonstrating that career capital served as a mediator on the relationship between PsyCap and career success in the literatures of career development fields. Precisely, the finding of this research
In addition, this study provided empirical evidences demonstrating that career capital served as a mediator on the relationship between PsyCap and career success in the literatures of career development fields. Precisely, the finding of this research