1Person and item reliability – Culture Free Self-Esteem Inventory and Employability Attributes Scale. http://sajhrm.co.za/index.php/sajhrm/article/downloadSuppFile/419/723
Table 1 shows acceptable item reliability (≥ .80) for all dimensions. This indicates that these items are well differentiated amongst the variables. The item separation for most dimensions was sufficient compared to the guideline of > 2.00 (Fox & Jones, 1998). The person fit for most of the self-esteem variables was lower that the proposed guideline (> 2.00). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for all the dimensions were acceptable (cut-off point of .70). However, social or peer self-esteem (.66) and the lie items (.63) were lower. The proactivity dimension showed the highest person average (1.67, SD = 1.14) and the items of self-esteem showed the lowest average measure (-.24, SD = .46). It is clear that the mean item and person fit were acceptable and that the responses do not underfit or overfit. In general, the researcher regarded the two measuring instruments as useful and reliable for interpreting the results. Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis for the variables of interest.
In terms of self-esteem, participants obtained the highest mean scores on the CFSEI2-AD variable of general self-esteem (M = 5.52; SD = 11.11) and the lowest mean score on the lie items (M = 3.20; SD = 5.95). In terms of employability attributes, participants obtained the highest mean scores on the EAS variables of career self-management (M = 4.75; SD = 8.14) and self-efficacy (M = 4.75; SD = 4.07) and the lowest mean score on sociability (M = 4.14; SD = 5.90). All variables (except for the lie items in the CFSEI2-AD) have a distribution that skews to the left. Most values concentrate on the right of the mean with extreme values to the left (skewness < 0). The lie items have a distribution that skews to the right. Most values concentrate on the left of the mean, with extreme values to the right (skewness > 0). All the variables have a platykurtic distribution, where the values have a wider spread around the mean. Table 3 shows that approximately 19% of the respondents were ‘highly satisfied’ with their current employability levels, whilst approximately 64% of the respondents were ‘satisfied’ with their current employability levels.
3Frequency distribution – employability satisfaction. http://sajhrm.co.za/index.php/sajhrm/article/downloadSuppFile/419/725
Testing the hypotheses The primary aim of this study was to assess empirically whether people’s self-esteem has a relationship with their employability attributes. The researcher analysed hypothesis 1 firstly by computing Pearson product-moment correlations and, secondly, by conducting standard multiple regressions. Hypothesis 1 proposed that self-esteem (the CFSEI2-AD variables) had a significant positive relationship with employability attributes (the EAS variables). The second aim of this study was to assess empirically whether age, gender, race, marital status, job level, employment status and employability satisfaction significantly predict the participants’ self-esteem and employability attributes. The researcher analysed hypothesis 2 by using categorical regressions and hypothesis 3 by using independent t-tests to test for differences. Correlational statistics The Pearson product-moment correlations allowed the researcher to identify the direction and strength of the relationships between each of the variables. Table 4 shows that the researcher observed a number of significantly positive relationships between the CFSEI2-AD and EAS variables. The significant correlations range between r = .12 and .41 (p ≤ .05; r ≤ .30, ≤ .49 – medium practical effect).
4Pearson-product moment correlations – Culture Free Self-Esteem Inventory and Employability Attributes Scale. http://sajhrm.co.za/index.php/sajhrm/article/downloadSuppFile/419/726
Table 4 shows significant positive relationships between all subscales of the two variables. General self-esteem had a significant relationship with: career self-management (r = .32, medium effect, p ≤ .05) cultural competence (r = .16; small effect, p ≤ .05) self-efficacy (r = .22; small effect, p ≤ .05) career resilience (r = .41; medium effect, p ≤ .05) sociability (r = .31, medium effect, p ≤ .05) entrepreneurial orientation (r = .28, small practical effect, p ≤ .05) proactivity (r = .36, medium effect, p ≤ .05) emotional literacy (r = .32, medium effect, p ≤ .05). Social or peer self-esteem had a significant relationship with: career self-management (r = .23, small effect, p ≤ .05) cultural competence (r = .18, small effect, p ≤ .05) self-efficacy (r = .12, small effect, p ≤ .05) career resilience (r = .32, medium effect, p ≤ .05) sociability (r = .27, small effect, p ≤ .05) entrepreneurial orientation (r = .17, small effect, p ≤ .05) proactivity (r = .28, small effect, p ≤ .05) emotional literacy (r = .24, small effect, p ≤ .05). Personal self-esteem had a positive correlation with: career self-management (r = .21, small effect, p ≤ .05) cultural competence (r = .15, small effect, p ≤ .05) career resilience (r = .33, medium effect, p ≤ .05) sociability (r = .24, small effect, p ≤ .05) entrepreneurial orientation (r = .24, small effect, p ≤ .05) proactivity (r = .28, small effect, p ≤ .05) emotional literacy (r = .29, small effect, p ≤ .05). It is interesting to note that personal self-esteem was the only variable that did not correlate significantly with self-efficacy. The lie items (as measured by the CFSEI2-AD) revealed a negative significant relationship between all variables of the employability attributes. Therefore, the lie items had negative relationships with: career self-management (r = -.15, small effect, p ≤ .01) cultural competence (r = -.16, p ≤ .01, small effect) self-efficacy (r = -.16, p ≤ .01, small effect) career resilience (r = -.28, p ≤ .00, small effect) sociability (r = -.27, p ≤ .00, small effect) entrepreneurial orientation (r = -.21, p ≤ .00, small effect) proactivity (r = -.23, p ≤ .00, small effect) emotional literacy (r = -.24, p ≤ .00, small effect). Multiple regression analysis: Culture Free Self-Esteem Inventory and Employability Attributes Scale Table 5 shows that the regression model explained a small (R² ≤ .12) and medium (.13 ≥ R² ≤ .25) practical percentage of variance (Cohen, 1992). The regression of the self-esteem variable on the career self-management variable produced a statistically significant model [F(545.98; 59.84) = 9.12; p ≤ .001] and accounts for 10% (small practical effect) of the variance. General self-esteem (ß = .31; p ≤ .01) contributed significantly to explaining the percentage of variance in career self-management (R² = 10%, small practical effect). The regression of the self-esteem variable on the cultural competence variable produced a statistically significant model [F(83.09; 21.30) = 3.90; p ≤ .001] and accounts for 4% of the variance. Social self-esteem (ß = .14; p ≤ .05) contributed significantly to explaining the percentage of variance in cultural competence (R² = 4%, small practical effect). The regression of the self-esteem variable on the self-efficacy variable produced a statistically significant model [F(86.07; 15.66) = 5.50; p ≤ .000] and accounts for 6% (small practical effect) of the variance. The variables that follow contributed significantly to explaining the percentage of variance in self-efficacy (6%, small practical effect): general self-esteem (ß = .32; p ≤ .001) and personal self-esteem (ß = -.19; p ≤ .05). The beta-weights showed that general self-esteem makes the biggest contribution to explaining the variance in the self-efficacy variable.
The regression of the self-esteem variable on the career resilience variable produced a statistically significant model [F(262.18; 15.04) = 17.44; p ≤ .000] and accounts for 18% (medium practical effect) of the variance. General self-esteem (ß = .26; p ≤ .01) and social or peer self-esteem (ß = .15; p ≤ .05) are variables that significantly contribute to explaining the percentage of variance of career resilience (R² = 18%, medium practical effect). According to the beta-weights, general self-esteem was the variable that contributed most towards explaining the career resilience construct. The regression of the self-esteem variable on the sociability variable produced a statistically significant model [F(347.31; 30.58) = 11.36; p ≤ .000] and accounts for 12% (small practical effect) of the variance. Social or peer self-esteem (ß = .15; p ≤ .05) and the lie items (ß = -.17; p ≤ .01) contributed significantly towards explaining the percentage of variance in sociability (R² = 12%, small practical effect). The regression of the self-esteem variable on the entrepreneurial orientation variable produced a statistically significant model [F(171.09; 23.28) = 7.32; p ≤ .000] and accounts for 8% (small practical effect) of the variance. General self-esteem (ß = .19; p ≤ .05) explains the percentage of variance for entrepreneurial orientation (R² = 8%, small practical effect). Finally, the regression of the self-esteem variable on the proactivity variable produced a statistically significant model [F(280.77; 22.43) = 12.52; p ≤ .000] and accounts for 13% (medium practical effect) of the variance. General self-esteem (ß = .23; p ≤ .01) and social or peer self-esteem (ß = .12; p ≤ .05) contribute significantly to explaining the percentage of variance of proactivity (R² = 13%, medium practical effect). The beta-weights indicate that general self-esteem is the biggest contributor to explaining the variance in the proactivity variable. In terms of the collinearity statistics, the variance inflation factor (VIF) values were lower than the cut-off of > 4.0 for multi-collinearity concerns. These values suggest that the researcher could rule out multi-collinearity when she interpreted the results. The results showed that the relationships the researcher measured were statistically significant in most of the relationships she tested. Therefore, it supports hypothesis 1 that self-esteem has a significant positive relationship with employability attributes. Categorical regression analysis: Culture Free Self-Esteem Inventory and Employability Attributes Scale Table 6 shows that the regression models explained a small (R² ≤ .12) practical effect percentage of variance (Cohen, 1992). The regression of biographical information on the career self-management variable produced a statistically significant model [F(2.15; .93) = 2.32; p ≤ .002] and accounts for 8% (small practical effect) of the variance.
The variables that follow contributed significantly to explaining the percentage of variance in career self-management (R² = 8%, small practical effect): race (ß = .22; p ≤ .001), marital status (ß = .13; p ≤ .01), job level (ß = .17; p ≤ .001), employability satisfaction (ß = .15; p ≤ .01) and current employment status (ß = .18; p ≤ .001). The beta-weights showed that race contributed the most to explaining the variance in the career self-management variable. The regression of biographical information on the sociability variable produced a statistically significant model [F(2.26; .92) = 2.46; p ≤ .001] and accounts for 9% (small practical effect) of the variance. The variables that follow contributed significantly to explaining the percentage of variance in sociability (R² = 9%, small practical effect): race (ß = .20; p ≤ .001), age (ß = -.21; p ≤ .05), marital status (ß = .16; p ≤ .001), job level (ß = .22; p ≤ .001), employability satisfaction (ß = .22; p ≤ .001) and current employment status (ß = .16; p ≤ .001). The beta-weights showed that the participants’ own employability satisfaction (‘satisfied’ or ‘not satisfied’) contributed most to explaining the variance in the sociability construct. The regression of biographical information on the entrepreneurial orientation variable produced a statistically significant model [F(1.82; .95) = 1.91; p ≤ .03] and accounts for 6% (small practical effect) of the variance. The variables that follow contributed significantly to explaining the percentage of variance in entrepreneurial orientation (R² = 6%, small practical effect): race (ß = .19; p ≤ .001), job level (ß = .23; p ≤ .001) and current employment status (ß = .20; p ≤ .001). Job level is the most significant contributor to entrepreneurial orientation. The regression of biographical information on the proactivity variable produced a statistically significant model [F(2.48; .90) = 2.75; p ≤ .000] and accounts for 10% (small practical effect) of the variance. The variables that follow contributed significantly to explaining the percentage of variance in proactivity (R² = 10%, small practical effect): race (ß = .25; p ≤ .001), gender (ß = .10; p ≤ .05), marital status (ß = .16; p ≤ .05), job level (ß = .22; p ≤ .001) and current employment status (ß = .17; p ≤ .001). The beta-weights showed that race contributed most to explaining the variance in proactivity. The categorical regression analysis for self-esteem revealed no statistically significant positive relationships with race, gender, age, marital status, job level, employability satisfaction or current employment status. Therefore, it did not provide sufficient support for hypothesis 2 (that age, gender, race, marital status, job level, current employment status and employability satisfaction predict self-esteem). Independent t-test: Culture Free Self-Esteem Inventory and Employability Attributes Scale The independent t-test results and mean scores (see Table 7) showed that the men participants obtained a significantly higher mean score than did their women counterparts on the EAS career self-management variable (M = 453.41; SD = 7.97). The women participants obtained slightly higher mean scores on the lie items of the self-esteem construct (M = 26.32; SD = 5.95).
7Independent t-test – differences in gender scores on the measurement dimensions. http://sajhrm.co.za/index.php/sajhrm/article/downloadSuppFile/419/729
The researcher observed no other significant gender differences for any of the other self-esteem and employability attributes variables. The results provided some support for hypothesis 3 (men and women differ significantly in self-esteem and employability attributes). DiscussionThe effect of challenges, like fewer employment opportunities and reduced job security, increased personal responsibility to keep up with changes, current skill shortages and demands for retaining talented and skilled staff, have led to an emphasis on career meta-competencies to improve employability attributes (Coetzee, 2008; Fugate et al., 2004). Career counsellors and human resource practitioners have been concerned for a long time about employees’ psychological career resources or career meta-competencies that enable them to take ownership of their careers and be proactive in managing their careers and improving their employability (Coetzee, 2008; Fugate et al., 2004). The significant relationship the researcher observed between self-esteem and employability attributes suggests that people with higher self-esteem will have higher employability attributes. These findings agree with those of Fugate et al. (2004) and those of Griffen and Hesketh (2005). The significant relationship the researcher observed between general self-esteem, social or peer self-esteem, personal self-esteem and career self-management showed that people who believe in themselves and feel good about themselves are more likely to take proactive steps to develop and manage their own careers. Marock (2008) suggested that people should take responsibility for managing their careers and posits that people who have higher levels of psychological career resources are generally more able to manage their careers and adapt to changing circumstances. As a result, they showed higher levels of employability (Fugate, et al., 2004; Griffin & Hesketh, 2005). Bezuidenhout (2010) associates confidence with achieving one’s career goals, and persistence in doing so, with efficient levels of career self-management. Any person who has high confidence should have a high level of general, social or peer and personal self-esteem. Therefore, people with high self-esteem should be able to manage their careers efficiently. Similarly, the significant relationship the researcher found between general, social or peer and personal self-esteem as well as cultural competence seems to suggest that people with high levels of self-esteem will be able to understand, act and interact effectively with diverse cultural environments. This study confirms Bezuidenhout’s (2010) view of cultural competence, where confident people find it easy (and enjoyable) to communicate inter-culturally and are able to initiate, interact and maintain relationships with people from diverse cultures. Baumeister (2005) confirms that people who are able to initiate and maintain relationships generally have higher levels of self-esteem. Therefore, one can conclude that people with high self-esteem will show higher levels of cultural competence. The relationship the researcher observed between general self-esteem and social self-esteem with self-efficacy showed that people with high self-esteem keep up to date with the latest developments in their jobs and careers. In addition, the findings showed that people with high self-esteem are able to function independently, make their own decisions and are confident about accomplishing their career goals. Kerka (1998) confirms these findings. He states that people with high self-esteem are generally more able to make career decisions and achieve their goals. Therefore, participants with high self-esteem showed higher levels of self-efficacy. The results showed that people with high general, social or peer and personal self-esteem have significantly higher levels of career resilience. According to Schreuder and Coetzee (2011), career resilience refers to the ability to adapt to changing circumstances by welcoming job and organisational changes, looking forward to working with new and different people, having self-confidence and being willing to take risks. The researcher found that people with high levels of self-confidence and high self-esteem influence each other significantly. Therefore, participants with high self-esteem may have higher career resilience. The significant relationship the researcher observed between general, social or peer and personal self-esteem with sociability suggest that people with high self-esteem will be open to establishing and maintaining social contacts and using formal and informal networks to advance their careers. Bezuidenhout (2010) also noted that sociability implies having self-confidence and that high self-confidence also suggests high overall self-esteem. Participants with high self-esteem may appear more sociable. Similarly, the relationship the researcher found between general, social or peer and personal self-esteem and entrepreneurial orientation showed that people with high self-esteem would exploit career opportunities in the career environment. Bezuidenhout (2010) noted that entrepreneurial orientation includes a positive feeling about the implications of change in the workplace and feeling comfortable in uncertain situations. One generally measures self-esteem against positive or negative feelings (Maslow, 1970). Therefore, participants with high self-esteem will be more orientated towards becoming entrepreneurs as they feel positive about themselves and will show high levels of self-confidence and ability to adapt to changing circumstances. The researcher also found that general, social and personal self-esteem have significant relationships with proactivity. According to Bezuidenhout (2010), people with high proactivity will typically initiate self-improvement and accept responsibility for their decisions. People who have high career meta-competencies (like self-esteem) are generally more able to adapt to changing circumstances, take risks, initiate self-development and make career decisions more easily (Fugate et al., 2004; Griffen & Hesketh, 2005). Participants with high self-esteem seem more proactive compared to participants with low self-esteem. General, social or peer and personal self-esteem have significant relationships with emotional literacy. People with high emotional literacy are able to use emotions adaptively, read, understand and manage their own emotions as well as the emotions of others. Several authors suggest that emotional literacy and self-esteem have close relationships with each other and that people with high self-esteem and emotional literacy show high levels of overall employability (Briscoe & Hall, 1999; Coetzee, 2008; Coetzee & Roythorne-Jacobs, 2007; Hall & Chandler, 2005; Herr et al., 2004). Therefore, participants with high self-esteem are more emotionally literate than are those with low self-esteem. The researcher found no significant relationships between age, gender, race, marital status, job level, current employment status and employability satisfaction or self-esteem. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider these variables during career development support practices and career counselling sessions that aim to improve self-esteem. However, these findings contradict those of Brandstadter and Greve (1994), Demo (1992), Orth et al. (2010) and Xu et al. (2009). The significant relationships the researcher observed between age, gender, race, marital status, job level, current employment status and employability satisfaction showed that one should consider these variables during career development support practices and career counselling interventions that aim to improve employability attributes. The study revealed that the men participants seem to be slightly better at managing their careers than the women participants are. Therefore, they showed slightly higher employability attributes. These results agree with the studies of Clarke (2008), Lee (2001) as well as those of Scandura and Lankau (1997). They also found that men are slightly more employable than women are. One needs to consider these differences during career development support practices and career counselling interventions that aim to improve employability attributes. Therefore, one should introduce interventions that are more extensive to improve the employability attributes of women. Race, marital status, job level, current employment status and employability satisfaction showed a significant relationship with career self-management. However, researchers need to conduct further studies on which race, marital status and job level groups display higher levels of career self-management. The results showed that race, age, marital status, job level, current employment status as well as employability satisfaction have significant relationships with sociability. It seems that these factors predict the level of sociability of a person. Race, job level and current employment status significantly influence entrepreneurial orientation, whilst race, marital status, job level and current employment status influence proactivity. It is clear that race, job level and current employment status are the most important factors that influence employability attributes. However, researchers need to conduct further research to determine which race, job level and employment status levels most significantly influence employability attributes. One should consider all the influencing factors during career development support practices and career-counselling interventions that aim to improve the employability attributes of people. ConclusionsThe world of work and work contexts have changed dramatically during the 21st century (Amundson, 2006; Blickle & Witzki, 2008; Burke & Ng, 2006; Hall & Chandler, 2005; Jones & DeFillipi, 1996; Luthans, Luthans & Luthans, 2004; Richardson, 2002). As a result, careers have also changed and moved away from the traditional career context to boundaryless careers. The skills and abilities required from young adults who are entering the world of work have also changed. Several essential factors determine a person’s occupational interests and abilities. They include a person’s background and social demographic status (like age, gender and race), personal characteristics (like self-esteem, self-awareness, decision-making ability, personality preferences, emotional intelligence and employability attributes), experience (like work, academic experience and hobbies) and initial skill levels (like cognitive abilities, technical skills and interpersonal skills) (Beukes, 2010; Feldman, 2002). Current career-counselling practices face challenges because of the radical changes in lifestyles, the technological advancement and information explosion of the 21st century (Maree & Beck, 2004). For people to stand the best chance of finding jobs in which they will be satisfied and successful, education in career self-management and career development learning is important (Coetzee & Beukes, 2010; Pool & Sewell, 2007). Career development learning typically includes activities to help people become more self-aware. It allows them to do the things that they are interested in, enjoy doing and that motivate them. In addition, people need to learn how best to present themselves to prospective employers, how to behave in interviews and in jobs and how to make careful decisions about their careers (Coetzee & Beukes, 2010). Therefore, it is important to help people to improve their employability skills. The findings of this study confirmed that career meta-competencies (like self-esteem) do influence employability attributes significantly. Therefore, one should address them during career development support practices and career-counselling interventions that aim to improve employability attributes. In addition, this study confirmed that biographical details (like age, gender, race, marital status, job level, current employment status and employability satisfaction levels) also predict employability attributes. One needs to consider these differences when one aims to improve employability attributes. The findings highlight the need for further research to explore the relationships between career meta-competencies, biographical predictors and employability attributes. The practical value of the findings is the new knowledge they yielded about the relationships between these variables and the factors they highlight as contributors to improving self-esteem, acknowledging diversity and improving employability attributes. Possible limitations of the study and suggestions for future research The researcher limited the present study to participants who were studying for an honours degree in business management in a South African higher education institution. Therefore, one cannot generalise the findings to other occupational contexts. Furthermore, given the exploratory nature of the research design, this study can make no statements about causation. Therefore, the researcher has only inferred that there are associations between the variables but has not established any. Consequently, one needs to replicate these findings with broader samples in different occupational groups and economic sectors before one can draw comprehensive conclusions about the relationships between people’s self-esteem and their employability attributes. Acknowledgements Competing interests The author declares that she has no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced her when she wrote this paper. 1.2002mployability skills – An employer perspective. Getting what employers want out of the too hard basket2.AlfrassaT2001Student level factors that influence the employability of TAFE graduates over time: A partial least-squares analysis3.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10775-006-0002-44.BanduraA1997Self-efficacy: the exercise of control5.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/136204304105181476.BattleJ2002Culture-Free Inventories Examiner’s Manual7.BattleJ1992Culture-free self-esteem inventoriess for children and adults8.BattleJ1982Enhancing self-esteem and achievement9.BaumeisterR1997Identity, self-concept and self-esteem10.BaumeisterR2005Rethinking self-esteem: why nonprofits should stop pushing self-esteem and start endorsing self-control11.BeukesC2010he relationshp between employability and emotional intelligence. Unpublished research report12.BezuidenhoutM2010The development of an instrument to measure employability of students: A pilot study. Unpublished draft research proposal13.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/1746568081088007114.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1006/drev.1994.100315.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(00)80015-716.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25591217.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.00618.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0309059081087137919.CoetzeeM2008Psychological career resources and subjective work experiences of working adults: a South African survey342324120.CoetzeeM2010 Psychological career resources of working adults: A South African Sruvey342102021.CoetzeeM2005The relationship between personality preferences, self-esteem and emotional competence22.CoetzeeM2011Exploring distance learning students’ graduateness in relation to their employability23.CoetzeeMBeukesC2010Employability, emomtional intelligence and career preparation support satisfaction among adolescents in the school-to-work transition phase20343944624.CoetzeeMRoythorne-JacobsH2007Career Counselling and Guidance in the Workplace25.CohenJ1992Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer112115315926.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00100.x27.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00332.x 28.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.08.00729.http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.00151130.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0040091001033162031.FeldmanD2002Work careers: a developmental perspective32.http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJHRDM.2003.00241433.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.45.1.3034.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.00535.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.261066834936.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0004953041233131291437.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.00638.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.30139.HerrECramerSNilesS2004Career guidance and counselling through the lifespan40.HewittJ2002The social construction of self-esteem13514741.HillageJPollardE1998Employability: Developing a framework for Policy Analysis42.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AME.1996.314532243.KanferRKlimoskiR2002Looking back to the future44.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.8371159680145.KerkaS1998Career Development and Gender, Race and Class19946.http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1401_0147.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1353832012005999048.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2003.11.00749.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2009.08.00250.MareeJBeckG2004Using various approaches in career counselling for traditionally disadvantaged (and other) learners: some limitations of a new frontier241808751.MarockC2008Grappling with your employability in South Africa52.MaslowA1970Motivation and personality53.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.06.00354.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/004209804200031610055.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a00187692030713556.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0040091071075443557.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.10.00558.http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2002.188359.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.05.00260.RosenbergM1965Society and the adolescent self-image61.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.04.00462.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199707)18:4<377::AID-JOB807>3.0.CO;2-163.ShaughnessyJZechmeisterE2003Research methods in psychology64.SchreuderACoetzeeM2011Careers: an organisational perspective65.SinclairV2009Experiencing career satisfaction and career success over the life span66.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.602840770467.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01492063990250030868.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1363908070165016469.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.2011970.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2003.tb00104.x71.Van RooyDAlonsoAViswesvaranC2005Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: theoretical and practical implications3868970072.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a00165761996841973.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562510701191877