Role of Career Resilience Before Employment and Job Crafting for New Employees’ Vocational Identity Formation When Facing Reality Shock

Abstract

The current study had two aims. Aim 1 was to clarify the relationship between the degree of pre-employment career resilience and the experience of reality shock after entering companies. Aim 2 was to examine a causal model in which, when new workers face reality shock, career resilience possessed before employment promotes job crafting, resulting in vocational identity formation. Surveys were conducted three times. The first survey measured career resilience and vocational identity before employment, and the second survey measured job crafting, career resilience, vocational identity, and reality shock after employment. The third survey asked individuals who experienced reality shock about components of job crafting that were effective in vocational identity formation. The number of usable data who completed both the first and second survey was 133 (36 men and 97 women; the mean age was 22). The third survey yielded usable data from 27 participants (8 men and 19 women). Regarding Aim 1, a t-test revealed no difference in pre-employment career resilience between participants with and without reality shock. Regarding Aim 2, the results of path analysis using data from the first and second survey and analysis using qualitative data from the third survey showed that optimism about the future, a component of pre-employment career resilience, played a role in forming vocational identity through cognitive crafting. These results suggest that, to overcome reality shock and form vocational identity, university students’ development of career resilience, especially optimism about the future, should be supported before entering companies.

Plain language summary

Role of psychological traits for coping with risks and facilitating career development possessed before employment for new employees’ vocational identity formation when facing shock resulting from discrepancy between their expectations and reality after entering companies: Physical, cognitive, and relational changes in their work as a method for coping with shock.

Keywords

reality shock career resilience vocational identity job crafting

Introduction

Career Resilience as a Necessary Factor for Coping With Reality Shock, Which is a Developmental Task in the Early Career Stage

The transition from school to work is considered to be an important developmental task in adolescence. “Reality shock” is a problem faced by many young employees when they first start work, defined as a shock-like reaction experienced by new workers when realizing the discrepancy between their expectations and reality (Kramer, 1974). Schein (1978) considered reality shock to constitute an important developmental task in the early career stage, and pointed out that an inability to deal with it effectively can lead to resignation or loss of motivation. Empirical studies have reported that facing reality shock can increase turnover intention (Dhar, 2013; Ogata, 2012), decrease organizational commitment (Ogata, 2012), and inhibit vocational identity formation (Kodama, 2017a).

Owing to these issues, previous studies of reality shock aimed to prevent or reduce it (e.g., Mangone et al., 2005; Taylor, 1988). A small number of studies have also focused on the psychological traits that enable individuals to cope with reality shock, and have examined their functions. Katayama and Fuji (2023) examined the role of “self-concept clarity” among job changers, and Kodama (2017a) investigated the role of “career resilience” among new employees. The current study focused on “career resilience,” which was reported by Kodama (2017a) to play an important role in coping with reality shock among new employees, who are the target of “school to work transition.”

Career resilience is a concept that applies the notion of resilience, defined as “the process of, capacity for, or outcome of successful adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances” (Masten et al., 1990, p.426), to career development. Various definitions of career resilience have been proposed, which can be classified into two groups: (1) “an individual’s ability to recover from career-related setbacks” and (2) “a process” (Mishra & McDonald, 2017, p.216). The definition of “career resilience” used in Kodama (2017a), which examined the role of coping with reality shock, was adopted from an earlier study by Kodama (2015), as follows: “psychological traits that help people cope with risks and facilitate career development” (Kodama, 2015, p.151), in accordance with the first group of career resilience definitions. Constructs of career resilience were identified as comprising the following five factors: “ability to cope with problems and changes,”“social skills,”“interest in novelty,”“optimism about the future,” and “willingness to help others” (Kodama, 2015).

Kodama (2017a) reported that having the “ability to cope with problems and changes” and “optimism about the future” could prevent the experience of reality shock. Kodama's (2017a) findings also suggested that having good “social skills” prevented the experience of reality shock from inhibiting career development, measured by the intention to continue working and vocational identity.

Despite these findings, Kodama's (2017a) study, which used survey data obtained from a single survey of employees in their first year of work, involved two major limitations. The first limitation is that the degree of career resilience was measured after employment. To obtain basic data regarding the transition from school to work, it is necessary to clarify how career resilience possessed at the time of graduation, just before employment, affects individuals’ ability to deal with reality shocks after employment. This issue was not addressed by Kodama's (2017a) study.

The second limitation is that Kodama's (2017a) study did not examine the ways in which individuals with a high degree of career resilience deal with reality shock. London (1997) hypothesized that resilience promotes positive emotions or frames of reference that can change self-concept and recognition of situational conditions, and thus promotes the use of positive coping strategies when facing career barriers.

Taking the two limitations described above into consideration, the current study aimed to examine two main research questions. First, the study investigated whether individuals who have a high degree of career resilience before starting work are less likely to experience reality shock after starting work. Second, the study examined how individuals with a high degree of career resilience before starting work deal with reality shocks after starting work to promote their career development.

Vocational Identity as a Career Development Index

As individuals’ careers develop throughout their life (Super, 1980), it was more appropriate for the current study of the school to work transition to use an index of career development that could be measured before and after employment, enabling changes to be observed. The career development indices used in Kodama (2017a) were individuals’ intention to continue working and vocational identity. The latter could be measured before and after employment.

Vocational identity is the vocational aspect of identity (Erikson, 1959), and is an important developmental issue in adolescence. Various definitions of vocational identity have been developed. Kodama and Fukada (2005) suggested that the vocational identity of employees could be categorized into two types on the basis of reviewing studies of vocational identity (including occupational identity and professional identity): aspects of vocational role (called “vocational role identity”), and aspects of way of vocational life (called “vocational life identity”). “Vocational role identity” is a sub-concept that can be perceived as the degree of compatibility with the professional role that one occupies, while “vocational life identity” is a sub-concept that can be understood as a person’s sense and realization of their own independent goals for vocational life. Of these two aspects, “vocational life identity,” but not “vocational role identity,” has been reported to play an important role not only in the career choices of students (Holland et al., 1993) but also in the proactive career development of employees (Kodama & Fukada, 2005). Thus, “vocational life identity” may provide an appropriate and important index when focusing on the transition from school to work. On this basis, “vocational life identity” was treated as an index for measuring career development in the current study.

Job Crafting as a Method for Coping With Reality Shock

Regarding strategies for coping with reality shock, Ogata (2007) interviewed company employees and nurses, and categorized the behaviors that they implemented to deal with reality shock. The results indicated that there were positive or negative behaviors, and positive behaviors could be grouped into two types: “positive self-contained coping behaviors” and “positive other-dependent coping behaviors.” In the former type, new workers recognized reality shock as an opportunity for growth and overcame it through their own efforts and learning. In the latter type, new workers overcame reality shock with the support of others, such as superiors or colleagues. These coping behaviors tended to lead to positive outcomes (Ogata, 2007).

The concept of “job crafting” is closely related to the two types of positive coping behaviors described by Ogata (2007). Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001, p.179) defined “job crafting” as “the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in the task or relational boundaries of their work.”Sekiguchi (2010) described “job crafting” as the action of designing work actively, to improve productivity and increase job satisfaction and motivation.

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) identified three primary dimensions of job crafting behaviors: task crafting in which individuals change “the number, scope, or type of job tasks,” relational crafting in which individuals change “either the quality or amount of interaction with others at work,” and cognitive crafting in which individuals “change the cognitive task boundaries,”“viewing it either as a set of discrete work tasks or as an integrated whole” (pp.185–186).

Considering the relationship between reality shock coping behavior and job crafting, Ogata’s (2007)“positive self-contained coping behaviors” seem to be strongly related to task crafting and cognitive crafting, while “positive other-dependent coping behaviors” appear to be strongly related to relationship crafting. Therefore, job crafting was examined as a behavior for coping with reality shock in the current study.

Empirical research that examines the relationship between job crafting and reality shock is lacking. Several studies have suggested that job crafting has the effect of closing the mismatch between individuals’ identity and work role, although it is not limited to the early career stage (Kira et al., 2012; Mattarelli & Tagliaventi, 2015). Because reality shock arises from the gap between predictions or expectations and reality, it can be considered as a type of mismatch, and job crafting may constitute a positive coping behavior against reality shock.

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001, p.180) assumed that job crafting actions affect both the “meaning of the work” (i.e., “individuals’ understandings of the purpose of their work or what they believe is achieved in the work”) and one’s “work identity” (i.e., “how individuals define themselves at work”). Therefore, job crafting is assumed to be closely related to vocational identity, which is treated as an indicator of career development in this study.

In the current study, job crafting, which is a positive coping behavior for managing reality shock, was assumed to promote vocational identity formation even when experiencing reality shock, according to the previous studies mentioned above.

Aims of This Study

On the basis of the background described above, the current study was designed with two aims: Aim 1 was to clarify the relationship between the degree of career resilience before employment and the experience of reality shock after entering companies; Aim 2 was to examine a causal model in which, for new workers facing reality shock, career resilience possessed before employment promotes job crafting, resulting in the formation of vocational identity.

However, it has been suggested that career resilience not only acts as a factor that promotes vocational identity formation when facing difficult events (Kodama, 2022), but also that career resilience itself changes as a result of experiencing difficult events (Kodama, 2024). Therefore, it is necessary to include the degree of post-employment career resilience as a control variable to examine the role of pre-employment career resilience when facing reality shock. This study examined the conceptual model shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of this study.

Regarding Aim 1, it was hypothesized that the greater the degree of two constructs of career resilience (ability to cope with problems and changes, and optimism about the future) before employment, the less reality shock experience after employment (Hypothesis 1), in accordance with the findings of Kodama (2017a).

As for Aim 2, no previous study has reported evidence regarding which dimensions of job crafting are effective for forming vocational identity, or which constructs of career resilience are effective for promoting job crafting. However, Sekiguchi et al. (2017) reported that the higher the level of an individual’s social skills, the more job crafting behavior they engaged in. Furthermore, social skills are related to interpersonal relationships. Therefore, in the current study it was hypothesized that the higher the degree of social skills of pre-employment career resilience of employees who have experienced a reality shock, the more likely they are to engage in relational crafting behavior (Hypothesis 2).

Methods

Study Design

A longitudinal study consisting of three surveys was designed. The first survey was conducted to measure the variables of Time 1 in the conceptual model (Figure 1). The second survey was conducted to measure the variables of Time 2. In the conceptual model (Figure 1), a causal relationship was assumed between the variables measured at Time 2. To examine the relationship between those variables, the third survey was conducted among individuals who had experienced a reality shock at Time 2, using a retrospective method to ask about their own perception of the effect of job crafting on their vocational identity formation.

The first survey was conducted from the end of February to early March 2023, just before the participants graduated from university, and the second was conducted at the end of October 2023, approximately 6 months after the participants entered employment at a company. The third survey was conducted at the end of February 2025, approximately 1.5 years after the second survey. Online surveys were conducted via a research company. At the beginning of the survey, it was explained that participation in the survey was voluntary and that personal information would be protected. Consent to participate in the survey was confirmed. Prior to the survey, a research ethics review was conducted and approval was obtained from the university at which the research was conducted.

Participants

The participants of the first survey were fourth-grade university students who were scheduled to start working at a company in April, just after the survey. Data without missing values were obtained from 554 students. Because the minimum time required to read all the question items was measured as 1 min, any data from surveys that were completed in less than 1 minute were excluded. Data from participants who gave the same answer to all questions were also excluded. As a result, data from 521 individuals were included.¹ The participants in the second survey were individuals who had started working at a company in April as scheduled, and had been working at the same company until the survey was conducted. Data without missing values were obtained from 163 employees. Because the minimum time required to read all of the question items was measured as 1 min 30 s, data from any surveys completed in less than 1 min 30 s were excluded. Data from participants who gave the same answer to all questions were also excluded. As a result, data from 139 participants were included. The number of participants with usable data who participated in both the first and second surveys was 133 (36 men and 97 women; at the time of the first survey, the mean age for men was 22 years, the mean age for women was 22 years, and the mean age for all participants was 22 years). The third survey targeted participants who responded to both the first and second surveys and who had experienced reality shock. Data were obtained from 32 employees. After excluding 5 participants with missing data, 27 participants (8 men and 19 women) were included in the analysis.

Measures

The first survey (Time 1) measured career resilience and vocational identity, and the second survey (Time 2) measured job crafting, career resilience, vocational identity, and reality shock. The third survey asked participants about the job crafting they thought was helpful for forming their vocational identity, using a free writing format.

Vocational Identity

Vocational identity was measured in both the first and the second survey. The vocational life identity achievement factor (e.g., “You feel that the goal of your vocational life has been realized”; four items) of the vocational identity scale for company employees, which was developed by Kodama and Fukada (2005), was used. The following instructions were presented to participants: “We would like to ask you about your own psychological characteristics and attitudes toward your career.” Participants responded using a seven-point scale, ranging from “very much (7)” to “not at all (1).”

Career Resilience

Career resilience was measured in both the first and second survey. The career resilience scale for university students (Kodama, 2017b) was used, which includes five factors: ability to cope with problems and changes, with four items (e.g., “You can adapt yourself to environmental changes”); social skills, with four items (e.g., “You are sociable and have a wide circle of friends”); interest in novelty, with four items (e.g., “You have the motivation to learn new things”); optimism about the future, with four items (e.g., “You think something good will happen in the future”); and willingness to help others, with two items (e.g., “You are usually kind to others”). The following instructions were presented to participants: “We would like to ask you about your own psychological characteristics.” Participants responded using a 7-point scale, ranging between “very much (7)” and “not at all (1).”

Job Crafting

Job crafting was measured in the second survey. The job crafting scale developed by Sekiguchi (2010) was used, which includes three factors: task crafting, with two items (e.g., “Changing the content and/or procedure of my job to be more desirable”); relational crafting, with three items (e.g., “Increase the number of people to interact with through my job”); cognitive crafting, with three items (e.g., “Reframe the purpose of my job as socially significant”). The following instructions were presented to participants: “We would like to ask you about what you feel and do while performing your current duties” and participants responded using a seven-point scale, ranging from “very much (7)” to “not at all (1).”

Reality Shock

Reality shock was measured in the second survey using the scale developed by Kodama (2017a). Reality shock was assessed from two aspects: gap recognition, which means the gaps between participants’ actual experience and their expectations before entering employment, and degree of shock resulting from these gaps. The questions assessed the gap recognition between reality and expectations regarding the following 10 types, with 1 item each: company image (“You feel there were differences between the image of the company that you had before entering it and what it is actually like”), job content (“You feel there were differences between what you imagined the job content would be before entering the company and what it is actually like”), company systems (“You feel there were differences between explanations of company systems that you received before entering the company and the actual conditions”), own abilities (“You cannot cope with the job that you thought you would be able to do before entering the company”), job responsibilities (“You cannot do the job that you wanted to do”), image of company employees (“You feel there were differences between your ideal image of company employees and the reality”), workload (“You feel that your workload is more than you expected”), physical hardship (“You feel that the work is physically harder than you expected”), mental hardship (“You feel that the work is mentally harder than you expected”), and job difficulties (“You feel that the work is more difficult than you expected”). Participants were asked whether they had experienced gap recognition in relation to each item. Participants who reported that they had experienced a gap were asked about the degree of shock using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from “very shocked (4)” to “not at all shocked (1).”

Contents of Job Crafting Effective in Forming Vocational Identity

The effectiveness of job crafting in forming vocational identity was examined in the third survey using a free writing format. Participants were asked to recall their experiences in the first year of “job responsibilities” and “physical hardship” types of reality shock, which the results of the analysis of the second survey data identified as having a negative influence on vocational identity. Participants were given four options regarding how to deal with each type of reality shock, and they were asked to choose which of them they felt was most effective for forming their vocational identity. The options included the three dimensions of job crafting and “others.” The following instructions were presented to participants: “From the options below, please choose which of them you feel have contributed most to your growth as a professional.” Participants were then asked to write freely about the coping behaviors.

Data Analyses

In Kodama (2017a), only types of reality shock that could be a risk to career development were used to examine the role of career resilience. In accordance with Kodama (2017a), this study also confirmed whether these 10 types of reality shock have negative influences on vocational identity formation for examining the role of career resilience, using two-way mixed-design analysis of variance (ANOVA), in which the within-subject comparison was before or after employment, and the between-subject comparison was experience of shock or not. Only the types of gap that were confirmed as having a negative influence on vocational identity formation (i.e., the ANOVA showed that the vocational identity score in the shock-experience group was lower than that in the non-experience group after employment) were included as reality shock types in further analyses.

Next, to examine Aim 1, differences in the degree of career resilience possessed before employment depending on whether or not an individual experienced a reality shock were examined using a t-test.

To examine Aim 2, a path analysis using data only from individuals who experienced reality shock was conducted, assuming the state of vocational identity and career resilience before graduation (Time 1) in step 1, career resilience after employment (Time 2) in step 2, job crafting performed at work after employment (Time 2) in step 3, and the state of vocational identity after employment (Time 2) in step 4, as shown in Figure 1. The correlation coefficient between these variables was also calculated as basic data. In addition, regarding aim 2, the validity of the causal model, as shown in the results of analysis using the quantitative data mentioned above, was examined using the qualitative data obtained in the third survey. Specifically, differences in the types and specific contents of job crafting that were recognized as effective between individuals with a high degree of vocational identity after employment and those with a low degree of vocational identity after employment were examined.

Results

Alpha Coefficients for Vocational Identity, Career Resilience, and Job Crafting

Alpha coefficients were calculated for vocational identity (vocational life identity achievement), with values of 0.81 for Time 1 and 0.77 for Time 2. Alpha coefficients were also calculated for each factor related to career resilience at Time 1 and Time 2, with values of 0.75 and 0.71 for ability to cope with problems and changes, 0.84 and 0.79 for social skills, 0.86 for novelty and diversity, 0.79 and 0.78 for optimism about the future, and 0.83 and 0.65 for willingness to help others. Additionally, alpha coefficients were calculated for each factor related to job crafting (Time 2), with values of 0.60 for task crafting, 0.74 for relational crafting, and 0.81 for cognitive crafting. Although the alpha coefficient value for task crafting was slightly low, this was assumed to indicate a certain degree of internal consistency, considering the small number of items (two items). The average scores of the items included in the factor were applied to the score for each factor in the following analysis. There were no reversal items.

Reality Shock and the Scores of Other Variables

Following Kodama (2017a), the degree of shock resulting from gap recognition was used to categorize participants into two groups (shock experience and non-experience) for each of the 10 types. Participants were considered to have experienced shock if they answered that they had experienced “gap recognition,” and their “degree of shock” was high (i.e., scores of 3 or 4). In Kodama (2017a), the types of gap recognition for which the shock-experience group’s score for career development was lower than that of the non-experience group were treated as types of reality shock that had a negative influence on career development. In the current study, only the types that were confirmed to cause a lower degree of vocational identity formation after employment in individuals who had experienced shock compared with those who had not were treated as reality shock types that had a negative influence on vocational identity. The results of two-way mixed-design ANOVA, in which the within-subject comparison was before or after employment and the between-subject comparison was experience of shock or not, for each gap recognition type, are shown in Table 1. Among the types of gap recognition, there were marginally significant interactions in the two-way mixed-design ANOVA for “job responsibilities” and “physical hardship.” Regarding both “job responsibilities” and “physical hardship,” the results of simple main effects showed that scores after employment in the shock-experience group were significantly lower than those of the non-experience group (significance level of 5%). Additionally, the shock-experience group scored significantly lower after employment compared with before employment. Therefore, these two types were treated as reality shocks that have a negative influence on vocational identity in this study. In the following analysis, individuals who experienced either of these two types were classified as the overall reality shock (RS) group, and those who experienced neither were classified as the non-reality shock (NRS) group, with 76 participants in the NRS group and 57 in the RS group.

Table 1.

Basic Statistics and ANOVA Results for Vocational Identity According to Whether or Not an Individual Experienced Shock.

Gap recognition categories	Shock experience		Vocational identity				ANOVA results
			Time 1		Time 2		Main effect of time	Main effect of shock	Interaction
		n	M	SD	M	SD	F(1,131) partial η²	F(1,131) partial η²	F(1,131) partial η²
Company image	Shock	44	4.47	1.00	4.23	0.94	4.68*	2.63	0.01
Company image	No-shock	89	4.73	1.10	4.51	1.15	0.03	0.02	0.00
Job content	Shock	37	4.41	0.89	4.06	0.99	5.51*	5.64*	0.52
Job content	No-shock	96	4.74	1.13	4.55	1.10	0.04	0.04	0.00
Company systems	Shock	41	4.49	1.26	4.21	1.05	4.93*	2.42	0.12
Company systems	No-shock	92	4.71	0.98	4.51	1.10	0.04	0.02	0.00
Own abilities	Shock	39	4.50	0.96	4.24	1.06	4.54*	1.69	0.03
Own abilities	No-shock	94	4.70	1.12	4.49	1.10	0.03	0.01	0.00
Job responsibilities	Shock	37	4.47	1.01	3.93	0.94	8.40**	7.07**	3.66^†
Job responsibilities	No-shock	96	4.71	1.09	4.60	1.09	0.06	0.05	0.03
Image of company employees	Shock	47	4.41	0.92	4.21	0.92	4.42*	4.42*	0.03
Image of company employees	No-shock	86	4.77	1.14	4.53	1.16	0.03	0.03	0.00
Workload	Shock	48	4.53	1.01	4.40	0.92	3.88^†	0.44	0.53
Workload	No-shock	85	4.71	1.11	4.43	1.18	0.03	0.00	0.00
Physical hardship	Shock	33	4.57	0.97	4.02	0.91	8.40**	2.96^†	3.37^†
Physical hardship	No-shock	100	4.67	1.11	4.55	1.12	0.06	0.02	0.03
Mental hardship	Shock	57	4.41	1.04	4.24	1.09	4.69*	5.38*	0.24
Mental hardship	No-shock	76	4.82	1.07	4.55	1.08	0.04	0.04	0.00
Job difficulties	Shock	63	4.49	1.06	4.27	0.89	5.06*	3.38^†	0.01
Job difficulties	No-shock	70	4.79	1.07	4.55	1.24	0.04	0.03	0.00

p < .01, *p < .05, ^†p < .10

The mean vocational identity scores at Time 1 and Time 2 were calculated for the RS and NRS groups. The mean vocational identity score was 4.52 at Time 1 in the RS group, 4.74 at Time 1 in the NRS group, 4.03 at Time 2 in the RS group, and 4.71 at Time 2 in the NRS group. Two-way mixed-design ANOVA was performed with two independent variables: whether or not the reality shock was experienced (between subjects), and the time of the survey (within subjects). The main effects of reality shock experience (F[1,131] =8.33, p < .01, partial η² = 0.06) and the time of the survey (F[1,131] =6.84, p < .01, partial η² = 0.05), and the interaction (F[1,131] =5.53, p < .05, partial η² = 0.04) were all significant. Furthermore, the tests of simple main effects revealed that the time of the survey had a significant simple main effect in the RS group, with significantly lower scores at Time 2 compared with Time 1. No simple main effect of time was found in the NRS group. In addition, although no significant simple main effect of the presence or absence of reality shock experience was found at Time 1, a significant simple main effect was found at Time 2. The RS group had significantly lower scores than the NRS group at Time 2.

Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of career resilience (Time 1 and Time 2) and job crafting (Time 2) for the RS and NRS groups. T-tests were conducted with the presence or absence of the experience of reality shock as an independent variable. Significant differences were observed in “ability to cope with problems and changes” and “optimism about the future” of career resilience after employment, but not before graduation, with the NRS group scoring higher than the RS group. A marginally significant difference was observed in cognitive crafting, with the NRS group scoring higher than the RS group.

Table 2.

Basic Statistics and the Results of t-test for Career Resilience and Job Crafting According to Reality Shock Experience.

Career resilience / Job Crafting		RS group		NRS group
		n = 57		n = 76		t(131)	r
		M	SD	M	SD
Career resilience (Time 1)	Ability to cope with problems and changes	4.65	1.05	4.84	1.11	1.01	.09
	Social skills	3.93	1.29	4.06	1.35	0.56	.05
	Interest in novelty	4.60	1.18	4.74	1.25	0.66	.06
	Optimism about the future	4.25	1.12	4.52	1.12	1.41	.12
	Willingness to help others	5.11	1.19	5.07	1.30	−0.19	.02
Career resilience (Time 2)	Ability to cope with problems and changes	4.31	0.98	4.68	1.13	2.00*	.17
	Social skills	3.79	1.14	4.01	1.34	1.00	.09
	Interest in novelty	4.41	0.99	4.68	1.21	1.40	.12
	Optimism about the future	3.76	1.05	4.45	1.14	3.57***	.30
	Willingness to help others	4.64	1.08	4.97	1.28	1.59	.14
Job crafting (Time 2)	Task crafting	4.54	1.01	4.64	1.18	0.48	.04
	Relational crafting	4.74	1.09	4.93	1.13	0.98	.09
	Cognitive crafting	4.37	1.17	4.71	1.14	1.72^†	.15

Note. RS = reality shock; NRS = non-reality shock.

***

p < .001, *p < .05, ^†p < .10

Correlations and Path Analysis Using RS Group Data

Table 3 shows the correlations using RS group data (N = 57). Career resilience (Time 1) was related to relational and cognitive crafting (Time 2), but was not related to task crafting. Vocational identity at Time 2 was positively related to all dimensions of job crafting.

Table 3.

Correlations Among Career Resilience (Time 1, Time 2), Job Crafting and Vocational identity (Time 1, Time 2) Within Reality Shock Group.

			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	1	1	1	13	14
1	Career resilience (Time 1)	Ability to cope with problems and changes
2		Social skills	.71***
3		Interest in novelty	.79***	.61***
4		Optimism about the future	.63***	.59***	.56***
5		Willingness to help others	.42**	.25^†	.26^†	.24^†
6	Career resilience (Time 2)	Ability to cope with problems and changes	.70***	.48***	.48***	.48***	.29*
7		Social skills	.49***	.58***	.25^†	.48***	.12	.58***
8		Interest in novelty	.61***	.49***	.61***	.32*	.12	.65***	.45***
9		Optimism about the future	.38**	.34*	.34*	.65***	.04	.50***	.45**	.30*
10		Willingness to help others	.07	−.01	−.01	.10	.33*	.26*	.19	.14	.07
11	Job crafting (Time 2)	Task crafting	.19	.05	.17	.13	.17	.18	.15	.14	.09	.48***
12		Relational crafting	.29*	.28*	.27*	.33*	.27*	.38**	.28*	.34*	.22^†	.43***	.59***
13		Cognitive crafting	.26^†	.20	.23^†	.40**	.20	.39**	.29*	.29*	.37**	.27*	.35**	.53***
14	Vocational identity	Time 1	.59***	.51***	.45***	.49***	.53***	.32*	.33*	.23^†	.31*	.21	.23^†	.33*	.24^†
15	Vocational identity	Time 2	.31*	.34*	.29*	.42**	.07	.47***	.45***	.42**	.44***	.34**	.23^†	.41**	.45***	.34*

Note. N = 57.

***

p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, ^†p < .10.

Using data for the RS group (N = 57), path analysis was conducted with a model that assumed paths with vocational identity and career resilience before graduation (Time 1) as step 1, career resilience after employment (Time 2) as step 2, job crafting after employment (Time 2) as step 3, and vocational identity after employment (Time 2) as step 4. Correlation was assumed between the variables at each step. In addition, on the basis of the conceptual model (Figure 1), a direct path from vocational identity (Time 1) in step 1, as a control variable, to vocational identity (Time 2) in step 4 was assumed. For the same reason, a direct path from each factor of career resilience in step 1 to the same factor of career resilience in step 2 was assumed. The correlation analysis results (Table 3) also supported these assumptions.

After removing paths that were not significant (at the 5% level) in the Wald test and excluding variables that had no paths from other variables or did not show paths to other variables, the results shown in Figure 2 were obtained. The goodness of fit was high (χ²[20] =20.68, p > .10, goodness of fit index = 0.93, adjusted goodness of fit index = 0.85, comparative fit index = 0.99, root mean square error of approximation = 0.03). Social skills, a component of career resilience before graduation (Time 1), showed a positive path to relational crafting after employment (Time 2), and optimism about the future, a component of career resilience before graduation (Time 1), showed a positive path to cognitive crafting, while cognitive crafting showed a positive path to vocational identity after employment (Time 2). Regarding career resilience after employment (Time 2), willingness to help others influenced the task and relational crafting.

Figure 2.

The result of path analysis.Note. The number on each path in this figure is the standardized coefficient.***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, ^†p < .10.

Contents of Job Crafting Effective in Forming Vocational Identity

On the basis of the post-employment vocational identity scores in the data from the second survey, the top 25% (6 people with a vocational identity score of 4.75 or higher) and the bottom 25% (6 people with a score of 3.25 or lower) were extracted from the data of the third survey. Table 4 shows the number (percentage) of participants who recognized each dimension of job crafting as effective for their vocational identity formation when facing each type of reality shock (job responsibilities, physical hardship). Among those with a high vocational identity after employment, many participants (67%) felt that cognitive crafting had been effective for vocational identity formation when facing one of the two types of reality shocks. In addition, in both the high and low vocational identity groups. it was confirmed that cognitive crafting was effective for forming vocational identity when facing a “job responsibilities” type of reality shock. Specific examples of the types of cognitive crafting that participants considered to be effective for forming their vocational identity when facing a “job responsibilities” type of reality shock, categorized by higher and lower levels of vocational identity, are shown in Table 5.

Table 4.

Number (Percentage) of Participants Who Recognized Each Dimension of Job Crafting as Effective for Their Vocational Identity Formation.

Reality shock type		Job responsibilities		Physical hardship		Either of these two types
Vocational identity after employment (Time 2)		Top 25% (n = 6)	Bottom 25% (n = 6)	Top 25% (n = 6)	Bottom 25% (n = 6)	Top 25% (n = 6)	Bottom 25% (n = 6)
Job crafting	Task crafting	1 (17%)	1 (17%)	1 (17%)	2 (33%)	2 (33%)	2 (33%)
	Relational crafting	1 (17%)	1 (17%)	0 (0%)	1 (17%)	1 (17%)	1 (17%)
	Cognitive crafting	3 (50%)	2 (33%)	1 (17%)	1 (17%)	4 (67%)	2 (33%)

Note. This table does not include individuals who answered that factors other than the three dimensions of job crafting were effective in forming vocational identity.

Table 5.

Specific Examples of the Cognitive Crafting Recognized as Effective for Vocational Identity Formation.

Vocational identity after employment (Time 2)	No	Specific examples
Top 25%	1	Before employment, I had wanted to work as a buyer, but in reality, I was in charge of stocking work. However, I reconsidered my stocking work, and thought about how it would allow me to learn about customer needs.
Top 25%	2	I am in charge of purchasing now, but I wanted to work in accounting before I was employed. I found that it has some aspects in common with accounting, because purchasing involves dealing with numbers. So, I think that my work will be useful in my future work as an accountant.
Bottom 25%	3	I wanted to do administrative work related to studying abroad before joining the company, but I’m now working in sales for an English conversation school. I started to see this job as fun when I saw my seniors enjoying the work.
Bottom 25%	4	Before employment, I wanted to be in charge of accounting, but I ended up working in sales administration instead. So I asked myself, “What kind of work can I do that will satisfy the sales staff and customers?,” and I found the positive aspects of my work.

Discussion

Types of Reality Shock With a Negative Influence on Vocational Identity

The types of reality shock that had a negative influence on vocational identity are first discussed. The results of ANOVAs with vocational life identity achievement factor score as a dependent variable identified job responsibilities and physical hardship as reality shock types that could be a risk for vocational identity formation in this study. Although the current study used the same 10 types used in Kodama (2017a), the current findings differed to those of Kodama (2017a) in several ways.

Kodama (2017a) used intention to continue working and post-employment vocational identity, which was constructed with three factors as vocational role identity achievement and vocational identity diffusion as well as vocational life identity achievement, as indices of career development. In the results of t-tests with these indices as dependent variables, the reality shock types that were identified as risks for career development in Kodama (2017a) were company image, job content, image of company employees, mental hardship, and job difficulties.

This difference in the types of reality shocks which could be risks may have resulted from differences regarding whether the indices of career development were based on both the pre- and post-employment states, as in the current study, or based on a single point in time after employment only, as in Kodama (2017a).

The results of the ANOVAs conducted for each type of gap recognition in the current study revealed main effects (significant or marginally significant) of time (Time 1 and Time 2) for all gaps, and the scores of Time 2 tended to be lower in all cases. This finding suggests that a change in environment causes vocational identity diffusion, resulting in a lower score after entering companies, whether or not an individual has experienced a reality shock. In addition, the types of gap recognition for which the results of these ANOVAs showed significant (or marginally significant) main effects but not significant (or marginally significant) interaction effects were job content, image of company employees, mental hardship, and job difficulties, which were included as types of reality shocks in Kodama (2017a). Because there was no interaction effect and only a main effect was observed, the results indicated that individuals who experienced these types of gap recognition and shock tended to have a lower degree of vocational life identity not only after employment but also before employment compared with individuals who had not experienced shock. Thus, rather than the experience of the four types of gaps and shocks mentioned above reducing the degree of formation of vocational life identity, the findings could be interpreted as suggesting that participants were more likely to experience these types of gap and shocks because their degree of formation of vocational life identity before employment was originally low. Importantly, in the current study, the types of reality shocks that negatively influenced the formation of vocational life identity could be clarified.

Relationship Between Career Resilience and Reality Shock

Aim 1, which was to examine the relationship between the degree of career resilience held before employment and the experience of reality shock after employment, is discussed in the context of the current results. In the present study, no difference was found in the degree of career resilience before employment between the RS group and the NRS group, according to the t-test results. Regarding Aim 1, Hypothesis 1 was not supported.

Kodama (2017a) examined the relationship between career resilience and five different types of reality shock (company image, job content, image of company employees, mental hardship, and job difficulties). The results suggested that career resilience, particularly the ability to cope with problems and changes, and optimism about the future, reduced the experience of all types of reality shock.

Two major differences exist between the present study and Kodama (2017a). First, as mentioned above, the types of gap treated as reality shocks which could be risks for career development by Kodama (2017a) differed from those in the current study. Second, there was a difference in whether career resilience was measured at pre-employment, as in the present study, or at post-employment, as in Kodama (2017a). Kodama's (2017a) results were the same as the results of the t-test with career resilience after employment as a dependent variable in the current study. It has been reported that an individual’s level of career resilience can change over time. For example, Kodama (2024) suggests that career resilience is formed in the process of overcoming the experience of being rejected during job hunting. It can be assumed that the state of career resilience may change as a result of experiencing a reality shock or in the process of overcoming it, and Kodama (2017a) might have measured the state of career resilience that had been influenced by the experience of a reality shock. Importantly, the results of the current study indicated that it may be difficult to prevent the experience of reality shocks that negatively affect vocational life identity achievement by reinforcing career resilience before employment.

Role of Career Resilience Status Before Employment and Job Crafting After Employment for Formation of Vocational Identity of Those Facing Reality Shock

Aim 2 was to examine a causal model in which, among new workers facing reality shock, career resilience possessed before employment promotes job crafting, which results in the formation of vocational identity, and is discussed in the context of the current results below.

First, regarding Hypothesis 2, the path analysis showed that social skills, a component of pre-employment career resilience, had a positive effect on relational crafting. This result supported Hypothesis 2. However, the process by which social skills, a component of pre-employment career resilience, affected vocational identity after employment, mediated by relational crafting, was not confirmed.

Path analysis indicated that only optimism about the future, a component of pre-employment career resilience, played a role in forming vocational life identity achievement through cognitive crafting. In addition, the results of an analysis using qualitative data obtained in the third survey supported the path analysis results in this study. These findings indicated that individuals with a high vocational identity after employment tended to recognize that cognitive crafting was effective for vocational identity formation when facing one of the two types of reality shock (Table 4). Furthermore, when comparing the components of cognitive crafting that were effective when facing a “job responsibilities” type of reality shock (i.e., a situation in which an individual is not assigned to the job they had wanted to do before employment) between those with high and low vocational identity, some differences were observed. Individuals with high vocational identity (No. 1 and 2 in Table 5) tended to become aware that part of their current job was related to the job they wanted to do, even if they were doing a job other than the one they initially desired. In contrast, individuals with low vocational identity (No. 3 and 4) tended to change their perception by identifying positive things about their current jobs, even though the job they wanted to do was different from their current job. “Vocational life identity,” which is an aspect of vocational identity addressed in the current study, is a person’s sense and realization of their own independent goals for vocational life. The scale of vocational life identity measured the degree to which an individual has achieved what they originally wanted to do. Therefore, the results suggest that the state of vocational identity after employment differs depending on whether the individual’s perception shifts to view their current job as being connected to the job they originally wanted, during cognitive crafting. These results suggest that both the quantitative aspect of the cognitive crafting (how much one does it) and the qualitative aspect (how one perceives it) play an important role in the formation of vocational identity.

Conversely, Kodama (2017a) suggested that when people experienced a reality shock caused by gap recognition regarding the image of company employees, having a high level of social skills appeared to mitigate the negative impact of reality shock on their vocational role identity achievement. Furthermore, when experiencing a reality shock because of a gap regarding company image and job content, the results suggested that possessing social skills at a high level would mitigate the negative impact of this reality shock on the intention to continue working. However, Kodama (2017a) did not find any evidence that any factor of career resilience would mitigate the negative impact of reality shock on the vocational life identity.

At least three possible reasons can be posited for the difference between the current results and those of Kodama (2017a) in terms of the components of career resilience that are effective in forming vocational identity among individuals who experienced reality shock. First, the current study measured career resilience at pre-employment, whereas Kodama (2017a) measured career resilience at post-employment, as mentioned earlier. Thus, the results of the current study revealed the role of career resilience status before employment.

Second, there was a difference in the career development indices used. Third, there was a difference in the types of reality shock examined. Importantly, the results of the current study indicated that optimism about the future, a component of pre-employment career resilience, was helpful in dealing with reality shocks that have a negative impact on vocational life identity formation. Meanwhile, the state of career resilience after employment could help to mitigate the negative effects of reality shock on vocational role identity achievement factor, which can be acquired only after employment, according to Kodama (2017a).

A comparison of the current results with Kodama's (2017a) findings indicates that the types of reality shock exerting an influence may differ depending on whether the career development indicators are formed from pre-employment (e.g., vocational life identity achievement factor) or acquired after employment (e.g., vocational role identity achievement factor). Furthermore, a comparison of the current study with Kodama's (2017a) study indicates that pre-employment career resilience may promote formation of the vocational life identity achievement factor of vocational identity even when experiencing a reality shock, whereas post-employment career resilience may mitigate the negative effects of a reality shock on the vocational role identity achievement factor of vocational identity.

The current study also examined which specific coping behaviors are employed by individuals with high career resilience to form their vocational identity when facing reality shocks. The results suggested that, among career resilience factors, only optimism about the future promoted cognitive crafting, which resulted in the formation of vocational life identity. Because the study by Kodama (2017a) is the only previous empirical study to examine career resilience and reality shock, the current findings are discussed below in relation to previous research examining the relationship between the ways in which individuals deal with difficult events other than reality shock and the career resilience that they possessed before experiencing those events. Kodama (2022) suggested that individuals whose optimism about the future was high before job hunting tended to show “goal clarification behavior” when overcoming the experience of being rejected during job hunting, which in turn promotes the formation of vocational life identity achievement. This “goal clarification behavior” factor consisted of items such as imagining one’s future and reconsidering one’s goals, which is similar to the measure of cognitive crafting in this study. The results of the current study and those of Kodama (2022) suggest that individuals whose optimism about the future was high before facing a difficult event tend to be able to reexamine their thinking and cognition when faced with a difficult event, which can lead to the formation of vocational life identity achievement.

Currently, no empirical research has examined the relationship between job crafting and reality shock. Reality shock is often the first task in organizational socialization (Schein, 1978), and some previous studies have examined the role of job crafting in the organizational socialization process. Yang et al. (2023) reported that, of three dimensions, only cognitive crafting had a positive effect on job satisfaction, one of positive outcomes of organizational socialization, according to the results of hierarchical multiple regression analysis. The results of the current study, in accordance with the findings of Yang et al. (2023), suggest that cognitive crafting may play an important role, especially in newcomers’ initial organizational adaptation.

The results of the current study indicated that task and relational crafting were not related to vocational life identity. However, because task crafting is related to ingenuity in the current job and relational crafting is related to building supportive relationships in the current workplace, they may be more likely to be related to the formation of vocational role identity. Kodama's (2017a) findings suggested that social skill, which is a component of career resilience, mitigates the negative impact of reality shock on vocational role identity. In addition, the current results suggested that social skills of pre-employment career resilience were positively associated with relational crafting in individuals who experienced reality shock. Given these findings, it is possible that social skills of pre-employment career resilience may have a positive effect on vocational role identity formation through relational crafting, even when experiencing reality shock. This possibility should be examined in future studies.

Conclusion

In this study, two types of gaps (“job responsibilities” and “physical hardship”) were treated as reality shocks that had a negative influence on vocational identity formation. Regarding Aim 1, Hypothesis 1 was examined, which predicted that the higher the degree of career resilience (the ability to cope with problems and changes, and to feel optimism about the future) possessed before employment, the less likely an individual would be to experience reality shock after entering employment. The t-test results suggested that career resilience before employment made no difference regarding whether employees experienced reality shock. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was not supported.

Regarding Aim 2, a causal model was examined in which, among new workers facing reality shock, career resilience possessed before employment promotes job crafting, which results in the formation of vocational identity. Hypothesis 2 predicted that the higher an individual’s social skills of career resilience before employment, the more relational crafting would take place, which was supported by the results of the path analysis. The path analysis and qualitative data analysis results suggested that only optimism about the future, a component of pre-employment career resilience, plays a role in forming vocational life identity through cognitive crafting.

Limitations of This Study

The present study had four main limitations. First, the amount of data collected from individuals who responded to both surveys was insufficient. The amount of data from individuals who experienced a reality shock that had a negative impact on their vocational identity was particularly small, with data from only 57 participants.

Second, the survey did not take participants’ majors at universities or their job type or environment into account. Depending on job type and environment, it may be difficult for individuals to change the way they perform their work, making job crafting difficult. In addition, the survey did not take the relationship between the individual’s major at university and their work content into account. If there was a relationship, the degree of formation of vocational identity after employment may have been less likely to decline. Future research should take these factors into account.

Third, because this study surveyed individuals who had found employment in companies, the vocational life identity achievement factor of vocational identity was focused on as an index of career formation. However, professionals such as teachers and nurses who have undertaken training courses at universities to develop their skills may form not only a vocational life identity achievement factor but also a vocational role identity achievement factor of vocational identity before employment, and changes in both factors may be observed while individuals are facing reality shock. In future studies, the relationships examined in the current study should be examined in professionals.

Fourth, all data in this study were self-reported. Therefore, there is a possibility of bias (e.g., social desirability and recall errors). In future studies, it may be useful to include evaluations performed by others.

Implications of the Study Results

Kodama (2017a) conducted the only previous study examining the role of career resilience against reality shock, and confirmed the relationships among career resilience after employment, reality shock, and career development. Several studies have examined the relationship between transition shock, which is similar to reality shock and is defined as the effects of changes in knowledge and environments on novice nurses, which lead to confusion and disorientation, and resilience among new nurses (e.g. Li et al., 2024). All of these previous studies, like Kodama (2017a), examined this relationship using data obtained from a single survey after employment. The current study is the first to clarify the relationship between career resilience before employment and the experience of reality shock after employment and career development. Importantly, the current study provided new insights regarding the psychological traits individuals need to develop before starting work to deal with reality shock, a major developmental career task in the early career stage. The results support the need to develop career resilience through career education for university students. Several previous studies reported the effectiveness of programs targeting students regarding the development of career resilience (e.g., Waddell et al., 2015), and other studies suggested the development of career resilience through aspects of students’ daily lives, such as club activities (Ikeda et al., 2018). These findings suggest that support and interventions to promote the development of career resilience at universities may become increasingly important in the future.

Another important aspect of the current study is that it clarified that cognitive crafting was effective in forming vocational identity when dealing with reality shock. For new employees with low career resilience, participating in programs to promote job crafting (e.g., Sakuraya et al., 2022), and strengthening cognitive crafting in particular, may help individuals cope with reality shock and form their vocational identity.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Benjamin Knight, MSc., from Edanz () for editing a draft of this manuscript.

ORCID iD

Makiko Kodama

Ethical Considerations

Research ethics approval was obtained from the author’s affiliated institution (HR-PSY-000784).

Consent to Participate

Consent to participate in the survey was confirmed at the beginning of the survey.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Notes

References

Dhar

R. L.

(2013). Reality shock: Experiences of Indian information technology (IT) professionals. Work. Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 46(3), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-1477

Erikson

E. H.

(1959). Identity and the life cycle. Norton.

Holland

J. L.

Johnston

J. A.

Asama

N. F.

(1993). The vocational identity scale: A diagnostic and treatment tool. Journal of Career Assessment, 1(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/106907279300100102

Ikeda

Fushikida

Yamauchi

(2018). Influence of students’ participation in club and circle activities on career resilience. Journal of Educational Technology, 42(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.15077/jjet.41067

Katayama

Fuji

(2023). Reality shock in job-change and turnover intention. The Japanese journal of psychology, 93(6), 495–505. https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.93.20062

Kira

Balkin

D. B.

San

(2012). Authentic work and organizational change: Longitudinal evidence from a merger. Journal of Change Management, 12(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2011.652374

Kodama

(2015). [Constructs of career resilience and development of a scale for their assessment]. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 86(2), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.86.14204

Kodama

(2017a). Functions of career resilience against reality shock, focusing on full-time employees during their first year of work. Japanese Psychological Research, 59(4), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12161

Kodama

(2017b). Development of a career resilience scale for university students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 10–23. https://doi.org/10.15027/42633

10.

Kodama

(2022). Effects of career resilience on vocational identity formation during job hunting. The Japanese Journal of Career Education, 40(2), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.20757/jssce.40.2_25

11.

Kodama

(2024). Career resilience formation during job hunting. Bulletin of the Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hiroshima University. Studies in Education, 5, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.15027/55933

12.

Kodama

(2024). Job-crafting experience in part-time employment as a determinant of the career resilience of graduating univerity students. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-04-2022-0183

13.

Kodama

Fukada

(2005). Development of vocational identity scale for company employees. Job Stress Research, 12, 145–155.

14.

Kramer

(1974). Reality shock: Why nurses leave nursing. C. V. Mosby Company.

15.

Y. R.

Liu

J. Y.

Fang

Shen

S. W.

(2024). Novice nurses' transition shock and professional identity: The chain mediating roles of self-efficacy and resilience. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 33(8), 3161–3171. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.17002

16.

London

(1997). Overcoming career barriers: A model of cognitive and emotional processes for realistic appraisal and constructive coping. Journal of Career Development, 24(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/089484539702400102

17.

Mangone

King

Croft

Church

(2005). Group debriefing: An approach to psychosocial support for new graduate registered nurses and trainee enrolled nurses. Contemporary Nurse, 20(2), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.20.2.248

18.

Masten

A. S.

Best

K. M.

Garmezy

(1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2(4), 425–444. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400005812

19.

Mattarelli

Tagliaventi

M. R.

(2015). How offshore professionals' job dissatisfaction can promote further offshoring: Organizational outcomes of job crafting. Journal of Management Studies, 52(5), 585–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01088.x

20.

Mishra

McDonald

(2017). Career resilience: An integrated review of the empirical literature. Human Resource Development Review, 16(3), 207–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484317719622

21.

Ogata

(2007). Organizational adaptation of the newly hired employees and medical specialists: A qualitative analysis of diverse reality shocks and coping behaviors. Japanese Journal of Human Resource Development, 2(1), 13–30.

22.

Ogata

(2012). An analysis of the influence of reality shock on young workers' adaptation to organizations: A comparison between young white-collar workers and nurses. Organization Science, 45, 49–66.

23.

Sakuraya

Shimazu

Imamura

Kawakami

(2022). Effects of a job crafting intervention program on work performance among Japanese employees: An Analysis of secondary outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 64(4), e202–e210. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002480

24.

Schein

E. H.

(1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Addison-Wesley.

25.

Sekiguchi

(2010). The relationship between part-time work experience and career development of college students. The Japan Institute of Labour, 52(9), 67–85.

26.

Sekiguchi

Hosomi

(2017). Predicting job crafting from the socially embedded perspective: The interactive effect of job autonomy, social skill, and employee status. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(4), 470–497.

27.

Super

D. E.

(1980). A Life-Span, life-space approach to Career Development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16(3), 282–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(80)90056-1

28.

Taylor

M. S.

(1988). Effects of college internships on individual participants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.393

29.

Waddell

Spalding

Canizares

Navarro

Connell

Jancar

Stinson

Victor

(2015). Integrating a career planning and development program into the baccalaureate nursing curriculum: Part I. Impact on students’ career resilience. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 12(1), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnes-2014-0035

30.

Wrzesniewski

Dutton

J. E.

(2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.2307/259118

31.

Yang

Zhou

Peng

(2023). Occupational self-efficacy, job crafting and job satisfaction in newcomer socialization: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 38(2), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-04-2022-0183