Career identity, career commitment, and self-efficacy: the role of gender and family characteristics

At different points in life, employees encounter the need to take various job and career-related decisions (Kulcsárc, Dobrean, and Gati, 2020). When it comes to making such decisions, evidence shows that younger employees are seeking a better work-life balance, are comfortable with a changing lifestyle, trying out new things, acquiring a variety of different work experiences (Litano and Major, 2016; Lyons, Schweitzer, and Ng, 2015) and even switching careers (Pyöriä, Ojala, Saari, and Järvinen, 2017). For women in particular, research has shown that some are opting-out of careers in corporations in order to devote time to their children (Sullivan and Mainiero, 2008); meanwhile some other women are becoming primary breadwinners (Manchester, Leslie and Dahm, 2019), and their earnings are becoming more important to the household budgets (Hewlett et al., 2010). Career changes have also been noticed for men who are trying to take on more family and household responsibilities (Huffman et al., 2014). Recently, COVID-19 has also had a great impact in this context, in the sense that it has created gender gaps in self-perceived work outcomes between dual-career parents working from home (Fend and Savani, 2020). The mentioned factors have led to fundamental changes in careers, career development, and decision making (Kulcsárc et al., 2020; Wang, Xiao, and Lu, 2020) and have affected how male and female employees view their family lives and levels of career commitment, i.e. the extent to which they are enthusiastic about working in the career they have chosen (Aydogmus, 2019; Blau, 1985; Mueller et al., 1992). Career-related decisions stem from individual preferences and values, yet are also influenced by family-related factors like marital status and number of children, or being the primary breadwinner (Gatrell and Cooper, 2016; Greenhaus and Powell, 2012; Masterson and Hoobler, 2015; Powell et al., 2018).

There is still limited clarity with regard to what impacts an individual’s decision to commit to a career (Chung, Rui, and Wu, 2021; Womack, Leuty, Bullock-Yowell, and Mandracchia, 2018), and how a person’s family situation affects the career attitudes of men and women (Powell et al., 2018). Further, limited research exists on transitions that have happened to women’s careers in recent decades (Hewlett, Sherbin and Forster, 2010; Isaksson, Johansson, Lindroth, and Sverke, 2006). Understanding the impact of family characteristics on career commitment is important for organizations because of the many positive outcomes of career commitment, such as skill development, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and higher organizational performance (Cicek, Karaboga, and Sehitoglu, 2016; Wang and Cho, 2013).

Building on Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent, Brown, and Hacket, 1994), this study aims to explore the impact that gender and family dynamics have on the path towards career commitment. SCCT postulates that the interaction of cognitive factors (i.e. self-efficacy beliefs), outcome expectations, and contextual factors (i.e. social and family support) impacts career interests and career-related actions (Lent et al., 1994, 2000). Other contemporary career models (i.e the kaleidoscope career model) also suggest that employees tend to make changes to their careers based on the different needs they have at different points in their lives, one of them being the need for a balanced work-family life. As such, we will test for differences in the moderating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between career identity, defined as the degree to which employees describe themselves by their work and their employing organization (London, 1993), and career commitment for employees with different family dynamics. Family characteristics in our case comprise marital status and family responsibilities in terms of dependents and the extent of financial provision for the family (i.e. being the primary breadwinner). In this way, we aim to show the influence of different contextual characteristics on the path to career commitment.

The results of the study intend to contribute to the career literature and family science theories by incorporating family characteristics in the link between career identity and commitment. As far as we are aware, there are no previous models in the literature that specifically test how marital status and family obligations or roles, encompassing dependents in the household and the role played by the focal individual in terms of contributing to family income, impact the processes that increase or reduce career commitment. In this way, we bring family considerations (marital status, dependents in the household, and the breadwinner role) to the forefront of career commitment by following Powell et al.’s (2018) suggestion to empirically test the influence of family obligations on work decisions at the individual level. Further, our study follows the call in Jaskiewics, Combs, Shanine, and Kacmar (2017) to further explore how family structures influence employees in organizations, and the call in Manchester, Leslie and Dahm (2018) to further understand how the bread-wining role impacts work related outcomes. Blending family characteristics (i.e. marital status, dependents in the household, and the breadwinner role) with career decisions, provides a more nuanced view of how distinct family structures relate to an employee’s decision to commit to a career. This is especially relevant in current times when career changes are ever more present.

Finally, the results of this study respond to the calls made by different researchers (i.e. Sullivan and Mainiero, 2008; Wesarat, Sharif and Majid, 2016) to examine gender differences in career-related decisions. We therefore complement existing literature by demonstrating that the relationships between career identity and career commitment vary among males and females with similar family responsibilities. In this way, we show that gender is a relevant explanatory factor in understanding the moderators in the path towards career commitment. More specifically, we demonstrate that women’s and men’s career decisions can be impacted differently based on the point in life that they are in. Through this comprehensive multi-faceted focus on specific family characteristics and gender, we hope to provide a better understanding of how two very important factors, family context and gender, shape career decisions.

Careers in the 21^st century have progressed from traditional to “protean” (Hall, 2004) and “boundaryless” (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996), and have become mobile, uncertain, unstable, short-term, and characterized by a higher degree of flexibility and heightened individual agency (Lyons, Schweitzer, and Ng, 2015; Mulhall, 2011). There are also striking gender differences pertaining to career decision-making (Harrington et al., 2011; Hewlett et.al., 2010; Kulcsárc et al., 2020; Sullivan and Mainiero, 2008) and changes in the perceptions of gender roles (Wesarat, Sharif and Majid, 2016), which have led to changes in family responsibilities and career outcomes. Important changes occurring in the 21^st century are the sharp rise in the number of dual-earner families (Greenhaus and Powell, 2012; Petriglieri, 2018), the bigger share of females taking on the primary breadwinner role (Harrington et al., 2011) and the even greater engagement of fathers in childcare and housework (Harrington et al., 2011). Taken together, when analysing career-related attitudes it is important to consider the context in which decisions are made (Jaskiewics et al., 2017; Masterson and Hoobler, 2015; Powell et al., 2018), because “individuals’ work decisions are being increasingly influenced by family situation and responsibilities” (Greenhaus and Powell, 2012: 247).

We develop our hypotheses and research questions building on SCCT (Lent et al., 1994, 2000). According to the theory, individual behaviours are based on personal factors, self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, environmental norms, and values (Lent et al., 1994). More specifically, SCCT focuses on how an individual’s cognitive variables (i.e. self-efficacy) interact with environmental and contextual factors (i.e. social and family support, barriers) to impact their career development (Lent, Brown, and Hackett, 2000). SCCT is built on the basis of three interconnected models, that among other factors include personal characteristics, interests and choice of goals (Rajabi, Papzan, and Zahedi, 2012), and based on the theory, personal factors, self-efficacy beliefs, and outcome expectations impact career interests and the choice of goals and actions (Lent et al., 1994). In our study we used a combination of the interest development model and choice model to develop the theoretical framework. The interest development model posits that individuals commit to an activity when they believe that they have the necessary abilities and skills to successfully accomplish it, and when they expect valuable outcomes in return (Brown, 2002), meanwhile the choice model posits that personal and contextual factors influence choice behaviour (Brown, 2002). The two interconnected models exhibit a continuous path from the formation of career interests to the making of career related choices (Brown, 2002).

Given that the theory includes social cognitive variables, personal characteristics and the environment and context surrounding an individual, it seems appropriate to use it as a theoretical framework in the present study where self-efficacy is considered a cognitive-person variable, gender as a personal variable and family characteristics an environment/context variable. Further, an important outcome of the theory are vocational interests, which in our case are conceptualized as career commitment. Self-efficacy is included for a specific reason, as it has been asserted that an employee’s career requires them to develop a number of personal competencies, including selfefficacy (Ballout, 2009). Self-efficacy beliefs have a direct influence on intention (Gainor and Lent, 1998), and it has been proven to be an important mediating variable in the relationship between contextual variables and career outcome expectations and interests (Flores, Navarro, and, Ali, 2017). Additionally, personal factors such as gender have been shown to influence career interests and goal choices through self-efficacy beliefs (Lent et al., 1994). We used general self-efficacy because it has been shown to explain a broader range of human behaviours in different contexts (Luszczynska, Scholz, and Schwarzer, 2005), and in our case we will test the proposed relationships in various family contexts, because it has been shown to be more useful to be used when analysing the behaviours of individuals who need to adjust their lives to multiple demands (Luszczynska et al.,2005). Moreover, the scale was designed to measure self-efficacy at the level of a general personality disposition, and some items were related to careers, in this way making the scale to fit well with the constructs related to career choice such as career commitment. In what follows, we focus our attention on elaborating the reasoning for analysing the impact that gender and family characteristics have on the path towards career commitment.

The first part of the results section provides descriptive statistics for the study variables. The means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliability estimates of the constructs are presented separately for males and females in Table 1. The results show that the means are relatively equal among males and females. The correlation coefficients between latent variables vary from 0.164 to 0.446 for females and from 0.160 to 0.371 for males, in this way demonstrating discriminant validity.

This study explored the path towards career commitment for male and female employees with different family obligations. First, we proposed that career identity would be positively related to career commitment for female (H1a) and male (H1b) employees, and this relationship was supported for both (y = .635, p≤.001; y = .621, p≤.001). Second, we proposed that self-efficacy will moderate the relationship between career identity and career commitment for female (H2a) and male employees (H2b). The relationship was supported for females (2036) (y =.056, p≤ .01), but not for males (3769) (y =0.018, p=0.276). This means that for female employees the higher the perceived self-efficacy, the stronger the proposed relationship, while for male employees the same is not the case.

Regarding the role of family characteristics in the path towards career commitment, two research questions asked whether marital status and family obligations influence the nature of the relationship between a female (RQ1) and male (RQ2) employee’s career identity and career commitment, as moderated by self-efficacy. We showed there are differences within genders at the moderator level (see Tables 2 and 3). This corresponds with Greenhaus and Powell’s (2012; 2018) findings that immediate social and family factors influence the decision to pursue a career, and with Jaskiewics et al.’s (2017) propositions that family structures influence men’s and women’s career decisions. Further, related findings indicated that marital status, children, and social and/or family support impact the social cognitive variables and career development outcomes of an individual (Brown, 2002). As confirmed in our case, being married/cohabiting and/or having dependents in the household are important factors for establishing differences among the female participants with regard to the importance of the moderator. For females who were married/cohabiting and/or had dependents, the moderator was significant.

The present study found that for single females and females who are the primary breadwinner in the household self-efficacy is not significant as a moderator. One explanation for this result may be that single females who do not have dependents and those who are the primary breadwinner resemble males when it comes to career development. If they attribute importance to their career, they will perhaps commit to it without needing to believe they have the ability to accomplish difficult tasks. Further, single females without dependents might have intentionally taken the decision to refrain from creating a family of their own and to focus exclusively on developing a successful career, possibly due to the challenges related to balancing work, family, and caregiving obligations (Mihelič, 2014).

Differences among males with dissimilar family obligations are also confirmed by the results. Having dependents in the household plays a decisive role in the significance of self-efficacy as a moderator. For males who are married/ cohabiting and those who are single, the moderator is not significant for either group. One reason might be that males who are married/cohabiting might see themselves as part of a “traditional couple” and be more career oriented (Mastersoon and Hoobler, 2014). Therefore, for males who are married/cohabiting and have dependents, selfefficacy strengthens the relationship between career identity and career commitment. Meanwhile, the moderator is not significant for males who are married/cohabiting without dependents and single males without dependents. For males who are the primary breadwinner self-efficacy strengthens the relationship between career identity and career commitment. Further, for males who are a secondary breadwinner or equal contributors to household income, self-efficacy does not play the role of a moderator.

By shedding light on how specific family structures impact the path towards career commitment for males and females separately, this study makes two contributions to the career literature and family science theories. First, our results indicate that the higher the self-efficacy beliefs, the stronger the relationship is between career identity and career commitment for the following employee groups: i) females who are married/cohabiting; ii) females with dependents; iii) females who are married/cohabiting and have dependents; iv) females who are equal breadwinners with their partners; v) males with dependents; vi) males who are married/cohabiting and have dependents; and vii) males who are the primary breadwinner in the household. In this way we show that the proposed model does not hold equally when analysed within different groups of males and females based on family characteristics. By demonstrating the different strengths of the relationships, this study highlights the importance of taking a more nuanced view when exploring career commitment among employees by considering both family characteristics and gender. The literature that analyses the impact of family on career development has mainly focused on the impact of the family of origin, family support, parental attachment, and family conflict on career development behaviours (Lustig, Xu, and Strauser, 2017; Nota et al., 2007; Okurame, 2012; Wang and Cho, 2013). Based on our study, being married/cohabiting and/or having dependents, and being the primary breadwinner in the household, influences the path towards career commitment. For females, both marital status and having dependents have a decisive role in the significance of self-efficacy. For female employees who are married/cohabiting and/or have dependents, self-efficacy strengthens the career identity–career commitment link, while for the other groups it does not. In addition, for females who are an equal breadwinner with their partner, self-efficacy is an important moderator. For males, self-efficacy has a significant influence only among those who have dependents and are the household’s primary breadwinner. In this way, by answering the calls made by Powell et al. (2018) to empirically test the influence of family obligations on work decisions at the individual level, we have made the impact that the family situation has on a men’s and women’s career attitudes somewhat clearer. We also answered the calls made by Manchester, Leslie and Dahm (2018) to further understand how the role of primary breadwinner impacts work-related outcomes. Finally, this is one of the first studies to test whether internal environmental factors, such as family context, play a buffering or hampering role in career choice behaviour. To the best of our knowledge no previous study has compared the impact of specific family obligations, such as marital status, dependents in the household and financial provider role, on the path towards career commitment.

The second contribution revolves around gender differences in studying career concepts. The present findings indicate the proposed hypotheses do not hold equally across genders, since the moderator is significant for female employees while for male employees it is not. Further, we also established differences in the path towards career commitment between male employees and female employees with family responsibilities. The need to consider gender differences in career-related concepts was expressed by Jaskiewics et al. (2017). This study extends the existing literature by placing the attention across and within gender differences and showing the actual differences. While other studies in this area (e.g. Ballout, 2009; Chung, 2002) explored the effects of self-efficacy on career-related outcomes, they did not consider within-gender differences and specific family contexts. Further, by analysing gender differences the study tests and further confirms the propositions of the authors of the Kaleidoscope Career Model (Mainiero and Sullivan, 2006), which proposed that for both men and women career decisions are motivated by different needs at different points in their lives.

The results of this study have implications for managers regarding how existing and future employees make career-related decisions. Knowing that cognitive factors, such as perceived self-efficacy, play an important role in career commitment, managers can help their employees increase their self-efficacy beliefs by regularly advising them to set goals that are motivating and which they can measure and achieve (Bandura, 1977). To ensure the initiative is successful, managers can organize workshops where they can explain to employees how to measure goals and evaluate whether they have been achieved. Supervisors can help employees boost their self-efficacy through role modelling (i.e. communicating openly with them and providing them with performance feedback, treating employees with respect) and by encouraging them that they can achieve the goals they have set for themselves (Bandura, 1977).

This study also has implications for individuals and families. Knowing that perceived self-efficacy can play an important role in individual career processes, employees themselves can engage in activities that increase their self-efficacy beliefs. One example how to do this is through engaging in vicarious learning (Bandura, 1977). Families will also inevitably be impacted, due to that fact that if an individual employee decides to commit to a specific career path that might mean less time for their family responsibilities. As such, we suggest informing employees of the work-life balance policies and flexible schedules options available within the company and their intended benefits. During the dependents’ early years, family counselling and options such as job-sharing could help employees balance their work and family responsibilities. Yet it is important that managers and supervisor clearly communicate that taking up the flexible policies available does not suggest the given employee is less committed to their work and regarded as such by their superiors and peers. Interventions such as offering career-planning workshops during the period of a career when employees have young children at home could increase their self-efficacy beliefs.

This study has limitations that should be noted. First, the cross-sectional nature of the data used does not allow causality to be observed. Future studies should include longitudinal data to observe causal relationships and changes that might happen over time with regard to work–life and career decisions. Future studies might also use experiments with couples to see the work- and career-related decisions made by dual-earner couples. Second, the survey was conducted only in the United States, which limits the generalizability of the data to other cultures. In other cultures, such as collectivist ones, family inclusion in the workforce and dual-earner couples might not be on the increase and the same results might not be found.

To avoid the problem of common method bias, some items in the questionnaire were reverse-coded and Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used to demonstrate that the constructs used are distinct. Moreover, our chosen constructs and respective items were person-specific, which means that only the focal individuals themselves were able to provide their evaluations (Conway and Lance, 2010). Further, questions in the questionnaire were randomized, and clear and easy to understand instructions were provided as recommended by Hirschi et al. (2014). Finally, respondents were guaranteed anonymity and told there were no right or wrong answers (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff, 2003).