Subjective career success: A meta-analytic review

By Thomas W. H. Ng, D. Feldman. 2014

447 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6500155d636a6f243f0d2d592b9c6022c8d8b700

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Exploring the Effects of Job Autonomy on Engagement and Creativity: The Moderating Role of Performance Pressure and Learning Goal Orientation (2017, background): “A recent meta-analysis also found that not all employees who have high-autonomy jobs report more positive job attitudes, experience greater well-being, and exhibit positive work to the same degree (Ng and Feldman 2014).”
Antecedents and Outcomes of Objective Versus Subjective Career Success: Competing Perspectives and Future Directions (2018, methodology): “For instance, although two recent meta-analyses of the field were framed within the stress and coping paradigm (Ng & Feldman, 2014a, b), and although Wang and Wanberg (2017) identified lifespan career development theories as central to the study of career development, both approaches were only…”
Assessing Key Predictors of Career Success (2018, methodology): “In addition, we examined job satisfaction because subjective evaluation of one’s current job is also frequently used to assess subjective career success (Ng & Feldman, 2014b).”
A lifespan perspective for understanding career self-management and satisfaction: The role of developmental human resource practices and organizational support (2018, background): “…satisfaction, defined as ‘workers’ cognitive and affective evaluations of their career-related achievements’ (McKenna et al., 2016: 82), has been gaining considerable attention among researchers and practitioners (e.g. Armstrong-Stassen and Ursel, 2009; Ng and Feldman, 2014; Spurk et al., 2015).”