Research purpose: The objective of the present study was to assess whether individuals’ career anchors (measured by the career orientations inventory) significantly moderate the relationship between their work engagement (measured by the Utrecht work engagement scale) and job commitment (measured by the organisation-related commitment scale).

Motivation for the study: Although the literature review suggests that people’s work engagement and job commitment may be influenced by their career anchors, there seems to be a paucity of research examining the interaction effects between these three variables.

Research approach, design and method: A cross-sectional quantitative survey approach was used. A non-probability purposive sample of adults (N = 318) employed in a human resource capacity in the South African service industry participated in the study. Stepwise hierarchical moderated regression analysis was performed to achieve the objective of the study.

Main findings: The results showed that the work engagement-job commitment relationship was generally stronger for high career anchor preferences than for low career anchor preferences.

Practical/managerial implications: The results of the study can be useful when human resource interventions for enhancing employees’ engagement and commitment are developed.

Contribution: The results of the study add new insights to the career literature by showing that people’s career self-concepts (as reflected by their career anchors) are important to consider in enhancing their work engagement and job commitment.

People’s self-concepts have been related to their continuing commitment (Johnson, Chang & Yang 2010; Vandenberghe & Panaccio 2012) and work engagement (Bothma & Roodt 2012). Self-concepts are based on self-definitions, which flow from one’s sense of uniqueness and how one compares to others, and reflect a focus on one’s own interests. Once the self-concept has been formed, it functions as a stabilising force, an anchor, and can therefore be thought of as the values and motives that the person will not give up if forced to make a choice (Schein 1996). Individual self-concepts instil the willingness to preserve valued outcomes (i.e. autonomy, rewards, recognition and growth or development) in the employment relationship and minimise resource losses (i.e. personal characteristics such as talents, abilities, values and motives and conditions and energies that are valued in their own right) (Vandenberghe & Panaccio 2012; Schein 1996). Feeling that one has retained valued personal resources in the person-environment interaction results in the feeling that one is in a position to devote enough energy to a line of action; in other words one has higher levels of motivation, engagement and commitment (Ferreira 2012; Powell & Meyer 2004; Tladinyane 2012; Vandenberghe & Panaccio 2012). Engagement (i.e. high levels of energy, dedication and absorption in one’s work) and commitment (i.e. high levels of job attachment and motivation) may help to strengthen the career identity through concrete job-related experiences and feedback that are congruent with the individual’s interests and integrated with their abilities and values (Weber & Ladkin 2009). Research also provides evidence of a positive relationship between the characteristics of people’s jobs (i.e. challenging tasks, skills variety, high levels of job responsibility, task autonomy, task feedback and task identity) and their work engagement and commitment to their jobs (Crawford, LePine & Rich 2010; Döckel 2003; Vandenberghe & Panaccio 2012; Van Dyk 2011).

In this study we seek to understand the fit between individuals’ work engagement, their career self-concepts (as expressed by their career anchors) and their job commitment. The career anchor is the important motivational element of people’s internal careers and is a reflection of the individual’s career self-concept, which consists of personal resources such as self-perceived talents and abilities, basic values and the evolved sense of motives and needs as they pertain to the career (Schein 1996, 2006). An incongruence between an individual’s career anchor and the work environment leads to dissatisfaction (Tan & Quek 2001). Congruence includes satisfaction with the work or job characteristics, pay and benefits, promotion system and advancement opportunities (Schein 2006). Tying people’s career self-concepts (career anchors) to their jobs may help to understand the motivational underpinnings of their work engagement and job commitment (Bothma & Roodt 2012; Coetzee & De Villiers 2010; Hirschi 2012; Lumley 2009; Vandenberghe & Panaccio 2012).

Work engagement benefits the organisation by stimulating task and contextual performance (Halbesleben, Harvwey & Bolino 2009). Disengagement from work may result in employee turnover, absenteeism and poor performance (Caldwell, Chatman & O’Reilly 1990; Coetzer & Rothmann 2007), whilst work engagement may result in job performance and satisfaction, organisational commitment and lower turnover intention (Bothma & Roodt 2012; Field & Buitendach 2011; Mendes & Stander 2011; Newman, Joseph & Hulin 2010; Salanova, Agut & Peiro 2005; Schaufeli & Bakker 2004). A survey by Brotherton (2012) showed employees’ engagement to be influenced by their career-related needs and desires, the working environment and the type of work they are performing. Bothma and Roodt (2012) found individuals’ work-based identity to be significantly related to their work engagement. According to these authors, people’s job involvement and commitment are a consequence of their work-based identities and engagement.

Feldman and Bolino (1996) clustered the eight career anchors defined by Schein (1978) into three groups of anchors: talents and abilities, motives and needs and attitudes and values. Table 1 summarises the core motives and values underpinning each of the eight career anchors. Feldman and Bolino (1996) posit that an individual can have a dominant career anchor in each of these three categories. According to Feldman and Bolino, the technical competence, managerial competence and entrepreneurial creativity anchors pertain to the work talents of individuals as they centre on the work that individuals perform each day. The security or stability, autonomy or independence and lifestyle anchors represent motives and needs and refer to the way individuals attempt to structure their work according to their basic personal desires and lives. The service or dedication to a cause anchor and the pure challenge anchors represent attitudes and values and are related to ways individuals identify with their occupations and their organisational cultures (Wils et al. 2010). The notion of a multiple career profile emphasises the importance of considering the diverse and unique career development needs of people in interventions focusing on enhancing employees’ engagement and commitment (Schreuder & Coetzee 2011).

Research has revealed a relationship between people’s career anchors and their jobs and occupations. Congruence between the career self-concept (as reflected by the dominant career anchor) and the job or occupation is a key attribute of Schein’s model (Cerdin & Pargneux 2010). The self-perceived fit between individuals’ career anchors and their jobs and occupations significantly influences their subjective experiences of their work (i.e. job and career satisfaction, life satisfaction and perceptions of work as a valuable activity) (Coetzee, Bergh & Schreuder 2010; Ellison & Schreuder 2001). Research by Steele and Francis-Smythe (2010) showed that career anchors can be matched to job roles and that an optimal fit between individuals’ career anchors and the nature of their job roles increases their job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Coetzee, Schreuder and Tladinyane (2007) also found significant associations between people’s career anchors and their organisational commitment. Sortheix et al. (2013) found a positive association between people’s career values and their work engagement. Boshoff, Bennett and Kellerman (1994) also found career anchors to be a significant predictor of people’s job involvement.

In the present study, the researchers were interested in examining the moderating effect of career anchors on the relationship between individuals’ work engagement and job commitment. A moderator is characterised as an innate attribute or a relatively stable trait, personality type or disposition (such as people’s career anchor preferences) that acts as an auxiliary variable to refine a hypothesised bivariate causal relationship between an independent and dependent variable (Wu & Zumbo 2008). Moderators explain the strength and direction of the causal effect of the focal independent variable (i.e. work engagement) on the dependent variable (i.e. job commitment) (Wu & Zumbo 2008).

Based on the literature review, we proposed the following research hypothesis:

H₁: Career anchors will moderate the relation between work engagement and job commitment such that work engagement will be more strongly related to job commitment for individuals with a high preference for a particular career anchor.

In sum, it was expected that there would be two-way interactions between individuals’ career anchors and their work engagement, and that these interactions will significantly influence or predict their level of job commitment because of the self-perceived talents and abilities, motives and needs and attitudes and values underpinning their career anchors.

The participants’ work engagement was measured by means of the Utrecht work engagement scale (UWES) (Schaufeli & Bakker 2003). The UWES is a self-report questionnaire that includes 21 items. It is divided into three subscales (vigour, dedication and absorption). A six-point Likert-type scale was used for subject responses to each of the 21 items. Coetzer and Rothmann (2007) confirmed the internal consistency reliability and construct validity of the UWES for the South African context. High Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were obtained for the present study: vigour (0.89), dedication (0.92) and absorption (0.90).

The participants’ job commitment was measured by means of the job commitment foci subscale of the organisation-related commitment scale (OCS) developed by Roodt (1997). The job commitment foci subscale of the OCS is a self-report scale that includes six items, measuring responses on a five-point Likert-type scale. Acceptable construct validity and internal consistency reliabilities for the OCS and its subscales of over 0.90 were reported by Roodt (1997), Storm and Roodt (2002) and Pretorius and Roodt (2004). A Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.67 was obtained for the present study. Because the internal consistency reliability of the scale was close to 0.70, it was regarded as acceptable to warrant further statistical analysis. Nunnaly and Bernstein (1994) use a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.70 as a directive, whilst Resi and Judd (2000) argue that between 0.80 and 0.60 is acceptable for research purposes.

The general management (r = 0.14; small practical effect; p ≤ 0.05), service or dedication to a cause (r = 0.17; small practical effect; p ≤ 0.01) and pure challenge (r = 0.20; small practical effect; p ≤ 0.001) career anchors related significantly and positively to vigour.

The general management (r = 0.13; small practical effect; p ≤ 0.05) career anchor related significantly and positively to dedication. The general management (r = 0.17; small practical effect; p ≤ 0.01), service or dedication to a cause (r = 0.17; small practical effect; p ≤ 0.01) and pure challenge (r = 0.17; small practical effect; p ≤ 0.01) career anchors related significantly and positively to absorption.

These results show that the zero-order correlations were well below the threshold level of concern (r ≥ 0.80) about multicollinearity (Field 2009) and warranted further analysis in the form of stepwise hierarchical moderated regression analyses.

As previously stated, because of the relatively low internal consistency reliability of the technical or functional subscale, this career anchor was omitted from the statistical analysis.

Table 4 reports only the significant interaction effects between the variables. In terms of the motivation and needs-based career anchors, Table 4 shows that the interactions between the autonomy or independence career anchor and vigour (β = 0.12; p ≤ 0.05), dedication (β = 0.11; p ≤ 0.01) and absorption (β = 0.14; p ≤ 0.01) were significant. The R² change was significant (R² = 0.01–0.02; f² ≥ 0.01 ≤ 0.02; small practical effect; p ≤ 0.05) in each of the regression models. These results provide evidence that the relationship between the participants’ work engagement (vigour, dedication and absorption) and job commitment increased positively and significantly for participants with a high preference for the autonomy or independence career anchor. However, the moderating effect of this career anchor was small in practical terms. Table 4 further shows that the interactions between the lifestyle career anchor and vigour (β = 0.14; p ≤ 0.01), dedication (β = 0.18; p ≤ 0.001) and absorption (β = 0.14; p ≤ 0.01) were significant. The R² change was significant (R² = 0.02–0.03; f² ≥ 0.02 ≤ 0.04; small practical effect; p ≤ 0.01) in each of the regression models. These results provide evidence that the relationship between the participants’ work engagement (vigour, dedication and absorption) and job commitment increased positively and significantly for participants with a high preference for the lifestyle career anchor. However, the moderating effect of this career anchor was small in practical terms. The security or stability career anchor had no significant moderating effect on the relationship between work engagement and job commitment.

In terms of the attitudes and values-based career anchors, Table 5 shows that the interactions between the pure challenge career anchor and vigour (β = 0.19; p ≤ 0.001), dedication (β = 0.18; p ≤ 0.001) and absorption (β = 0.16; p ≤ 0.01) were significant. The R² change was significant (R² = 0.03–0.04; f² ≥ 0.04 ≤ 0.05; moderate practical effect; p ≤ 0.001) in each of the regression models. These results provide evidence that the relationship between the participants’ work engagement (vigour, dedication and absorption) and job commitment increased positively and significantly for participants with a high preference for the pure challenge career anchor. The moderating effect of this career anchor was moderate in practical terms. Table 5 further shows that the interactions between the service or dedication to a cause career anchor and vigour (β = 0.23; p ≤ 0.001), dedication (β = 0.21; p ≤ 0.001) and absorption (β = 0.21; p ≤ 0.001) were significant. The R² change was significant (R² = 0.04–0.05; f² = 0.06; moderate practical effect; p ≤ 0.001) in each of the regression models. These results provide evidence that the relationship between the participants’ work engagement (vigour, dedication and absorption) and job commitment increased positively and significantly for participants with a high preference for the service or dedication to a cause career anchor. The moderating effect of this career anchor was moderate in practical terms.

To examine the nature of the significant interactions for the relationship between the work engagement variables and job commitment, we conducted a series of simple slope tests for each of the regression models. We used rescaled mean-centered values for the career anchor variables as outlined by Aiken and West (1991). The zero values for the COI variables were set at one standard deviation above and below the mean for participants with high and low career anchor mean scores respectively. The most significant finding of the slope test analysis was that each of the career anchors consistently moderated the relationship between the work engagement variables and job commitment. Specifically, we found that the work engagement–job commitment relationship was generally stronger for participants with a high career anchor preference than for those with a low career anchor preference. Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate the moderating effect of the service or dedication to a cause career anchor in the relationship between the three work engagement variables and job commitment. A similar pattern was observed in terms of the other career anchors.

FIGURE 1: Service/dedication to a cause (SV) as a moderator of the relationship between vigour (work engagement) and job commitment.

FIGURE 2: Service/dedication to a cause (SV) as a moderator of the relationship between dedication (work engagement) and job commitment.

FIGURE 3: Service/dedication to a cause (SV) as a moderator of the relationship between absorption (work engagement) and job commitment.

The results provided supportive evidence for our research hypothesis:

H₁: Career anchors will moderate the relation between work engagement and job commitment such that work engagement will be more strongly related to job commitment for individuals with a high preference for a particular career anchor.

Entrepreneurial creativity-anchored individuals tend to be motivated by the power and freedom to engage in challenging opportunities to create their own enterprises or invent new services or products (Schein 2006). The drive to create could explain the positive moderating effect of the entrepreneurial creativity anchor on the relationship between the participants’ work engagement and job commitment. The stronger the need for entrepreneurial creativity, the more positive the relationship between the individual’s work engagement (dedication and absorption) and job commitment appears to be. Similar to the findings of Coetzee and De Villiers (2010), the results showed no significant correlations between the entrepreneurial creativity career anchor and the participants’ work engagement. This could be attributed to the notion that the entrepreneurial-anchored individual tends to enjoy the initiation phase of a task, gets easily bored and likes to move from project to project in search of new opportunities to create something new (Suutari & Taka 2004). The significant positive moderating effect of the entrepreneurial creativity anchor on the relationship between the participants’ work engagement and their job commitment confirms Schein’s (2006) assertion that entrepreneurial-anchored individuals regard their jobs as important aspects of their lives in that the job provides opportunities to create something new. They may be willing to devote the time and energy needed to achieve their goals of initiating new enterprises. The results of our study suggest that the need to commit to one’s entrepreneurial goals in turn enhance one’s involvement and engagement in the job-related tasks associated with the creative opportunities provided by the job.

The results show that the autonomy or independence-anchored and lifestyle-anchored participants’ career self-concepts positively moderated the relationship between their work engagement (vigour, dedication and absorption) and their job commitment. The job commitment of the autonomy or independence-anchored and lifestyle-anchored participants increased positively as their work engagement (vigour, dedication and absorption) increased.

Autonomy/independence-anchored individuals are primarily motivated to seek work situations that are maximally free of organisational constraints. They want to see their own schedule and own pace of work (Suutari & Taka 2004). Although the results showed no significant direct association between the autonomy or independence career anchor and the participants’ work engagement and job commitment, the results indicated that the need for freedom to demonstrate one’s own competence positively influenced (moderated) the relationship between the participants’ work engagement and job commitment. The autonomy or independence-anchored participants’ job commitment increased positively as their work engagement (vigour, dedication and absorption) increased. Coetzee et al. (2010) found that autonomy or independence-anchored employees tend to regard work as a valuable activity by means of which they can demonstrate their competence. Coetzee and De Villiers (2010) found that a lack of job autonomy significantly lowers employees’ level of vigour, dedication and absorption. The results of the current study seem to suggest that being committed to demonstrating one’s competence independently from others in turn enhances one’s level of involvement and engagement in the job.

Lifestyle-anchored employees are motivated by a working environment that enables them to balance their family, career and self-development concerns. Their career self-concept is more tied up with how they live their total lives than with the job itself (Tan & Quek 2001). The need to balance and integrate one’s work and personal life could explain the lack of significant direct associations between the lifestyle career anchor and the participants’ work engagement and job commitment. However, the results show that the lifestyle concern significantly moderated the relationship between the participants’ work engagement and job commitment. The results seem to suggest that being highly motivated by the need to balance one’s personal and family’s welfare with work commitments may increase one’s work engagement and job commitment levels. Research by Sukal and Lopez (2007) found that career anchors did not significantly affect the relationship between employees’ job satisfaction and their perceptions of work-life conflict. However, this study found that a strong congruence between the lifestyle-anchored employees’ need for a work environment that has strong pro-family values and programmes and having the freedom and flexibility to balance one’s work-family life (Suutari & Taka 2004) results in higher job satisfaction (Sukal & Lopez 2007).

Service/dedication-anchored individuals are dedicated to serve other people and to make the world a better place in which to live and work. Their need to serve and work for the greater good of the organisation (Schein 2006) may explain their higher levels of engagement and job commitment. Service or dedication-anchored employees want to align their work activities with their personal values about helping the broader community or society (Schein 2006). Congruence between their personal values and the need to serve and the work environment results in higher levels of job satisfaction (Sukal & Lopez 2007). Pure challenge-anchored employees tend to single-mindedly pursue a job or career because it permits them to win out over the impossible. Success for them involves constant opportunities for self-test. They define their careers in terms of daily competition to bring solutions to seemingly unsolvable problems and to win out over tough opponents (Schein 2006). Their need for testing their personal endurance through engaging in risky projects or mentally or physically challenging work (Schein 2006) may explain the positive relationship between their work engagement and job commitment. Pure challenge-anchored employees enjoy being exposed to challenging tasks that stimulate continuous improvement in performance (Tan & Quek 2001). Boshoff et al. (1994) also found pure challenge-anchored employees to be highly involved in their jobs. Lumley (2009) found the pure challenge career anchor to be positively related to employees’ satisfaction with the nature of their work and jobs.

Amabile, T.M., & Kramer, S.J. (2012). A review of the book. The progress principle: Using small wins to ignite joy, engagement and creativity at work. Research Technology Management, 55(6), 68.

Bakker, A.B., 2011, An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 265–269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721411414534

Boshoff, A.B., Bennett, H.F., & Kellerman, A.M. (1994). Career orientations as predictors of the level of job involvement of professional people. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 20(2), 8–13.

Bothma, F.C., & Roodt, G. (2012). Work-based identitry and work engagement as potential antecedents of task performance and turnover intention: Unraveling a complex relationship. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 38(1), Art. #893, 17 pages. http://dx,doi,org/10.4102/sajip.v38i1.893

Brotherton, P. (2012). Employee loyalty slipping worldwide: Respect, work-life balance are top engagers. T& D, 66(2), 24.

Brummelhuis, L.L., & Bakker, A.B. (2012). Staying engaged during the week: The effect of off-job activities on next day work engagement. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(4), 445–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029213

Caldwell, D., Chatman, J., & O’Reilly, C. (1990). Building organisational commitment: A multifirm study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 245–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00525.x

Cerdin, J., & Pargneux, M. (2010). Career anchors: A comparison between organisation-assigned and self-initiated expatriates. Thunderbird International Business Review, 52(4), 287–298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tie.20350

Chovwen, C., 2012, Predictors of organisational commitment of factory employee. Ife PsychologIA, 20(2), 184–191.

Coetzee, M., Bergh, Z.C., & Schreuder, A.M.G. (2010). The influence of career orientations on subjective work experiences. South African Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(1), Art. #279, 13 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v8i1.279

Coetzee, M., & De Villiers, M.A. (2010). Sources of job stress, work engagement and career orientations of employees in a South African financial institution. Southern African Business Review, 14(1), 27–57.

Coetzee, M., & Schreuder, A.M.G. (2008). A multi-cultural investigation of students’ career anchors at a South African higher education institution. SA Journal of Labour Relations, 32(2), 45–65.

Coetzee, M., & Schreuder, A.M.G. (2009). Using the Career Orientations Inventory (COI) for measuring career orientations in the South African organisational context. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 35(1), Article #806, 13 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v35i1.806

Coetzee, M., Schreuder, A.M.G., & Tladinyane, R. (2007). Career anchors and its relation to organisational commitment. Southern African Business Review, 11(1), 65–86.

Coetzer, C.F., & Rothmann, S. (2007). Job demands, job resources and work engagement of employees in a manufacturing organisation. Southern African Business Review, 11(1), 17–32.

Cohen, J. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 153–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Crawford, E.R., LePine, J.A., & Rich, B.L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 834–848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019364

Döckel, A. (2003). The effect of retention factors on organisational commitment: An investigation of high technology employees‘, Master’s thesis, Department of Human Resource Management, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.

Durr, M.R., & Tracey, T.J.G. (2009). Relation of person-environment fit to career certainty. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 129–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.05.003

Ellison, J., & Schreuder, A.M.G. (2000). The relationship between career anchors, job perceptions and job satisfaction. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 26(2), 1–6.

Feldman, D.C., & Bolino, M.C. (1996). Careers within careers: Reconceptualising the nature of career anchors and their consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 6(2), 89–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(96)90014-5

Ferreira, N., (2012). Constructing a psychological profile for staff retention. PhD thesis, Department of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3rd edn., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Field, L.K., & Buitendach, J.H., 2011, Happiness, work engagement and organisational commitment of support staff at a tertiary education institution in South Africa. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1), 68–77.

Halbesleben, J.R.B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M.C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1452–1465. h ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017595

Hirschi, A. (2012). Callings and work engagement: Moderated mediation model of work meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(3), 479–485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028949

Johnson, R.E., Chang, C.H., & Yang, L.Q. (2010). Commitment and motivation at work: The relevance of employee identity and regulatory focus. Academy of Management Review, 35, 226–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.48463332

Kassing, J.W., Piemonte, N.M., Goman, C.C., & Mitchell, C.A. (2012). Dissent expression as indicator of work engagement and intention to leave. Journal of Business Communication, 49(3), 237–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021943612446751

Levi, O. (2006). The effect of moderator variables on the zero-order correlations between congruernce of career anchors, job satisfaction and psychological well-being. PhD dissertation, Alliant International University, California.

Lumley, E.J. (2009). Exploring the relationship between career anchors, job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Master’s dissertation, Department of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Martins, N., & Coetzee, M. (2007). Organisational culture, employee satisfaction, perceived leader emotional competency and personality type: An exploratory study of a South African engineering company. South African Journal for Human Resource Management, 5(2), 20–32.

Martins, N., & Coetzee, M. (2011). Staff perceptions of organisational values in a large South African manufacturing company: Exploring socio-demographic differences. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1), Art. #967, 11 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v37i1.967

Mendes, F., & Stander, M. (2011). Positive organisation: The role of leader behaviour in work engagement and retention. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(1), 29–41.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, L.J., & Parfyonova, N.M. (2012). Employee commitment in context: The nature and implication of commitment profiles. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.002

Ncube, F., & Jerie, S. (2012). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage in the hospitality industry: A comparative study of hotels A and B in Zimbabwe. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences, 3(4), 380–388.

Newman, D.A., Joseph, D.I., & Hulin, C.I. (2010). Job attitudes and employee engagement: Considering the attitude ‘A-factor. in S. Albrecht (Ed.), The handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, and research practice (pp. 43–61), Elgar, Cheltenbaum, England. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781849806374.00010

Nurittamont, W. (2012). The relationship amongst organizational commitment, self-efficacy and business performance: An empirical study of hotel businesses in Thailand. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics, 12(2), 99–108.

Nunnaly, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Oyewobi, L.O., Suleiman, B., & Jamil, A.M. (2012). Job satisfaction and job commitment: A study of quantity surveyors in Nigerian Public Service. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(5), 179–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n5p179

Powell, D.M., & Meyer, J.P. (2004). Side-bet theory and the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 157–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n5p179

Pretorius, A.A.S., & Roodt, G. (2004). Die verband tussen werknemertevredenheid en organisasieverbondenheid‘, South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30(3), 65−74.

Ramakrishna, H.V., & Potosky, D. (2003). Conceptualisation and exploration of composite career anchors: An analysis of Information Systems Personnel. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(2), 199–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1060

Resi, H.T., & Judd, C.M. (2000). Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Roodt, G. (1997). Theoretical and empirical linkages between work-related commitment foci. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 23(2), 6–13.

Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiro, J.M. (2005). Linking organisational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217–1227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217

Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2003). Utrecht Work Engagement Scale manual. Preliminary manual, Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 25, 293–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.248

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a brief questionnaire: A cross-sectional study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., & Van Rheenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 893–917. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.595

Schein, E.H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts.

Schein, E.H. (2006). Career anchors: Discovering your real values, Pfeiffer & Company, San Diego, CA.

Schein, E.H. (1996). Career anchors revisited. Implications for career development in the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 80–88.

Schreuder, A.M.G., & Coetzee, M. (2011). Careers: An organisational perspective, 4th edn., Juta, Cape Town, South Africa.

Sortheix, F.M., Dietrich, J., Chow, A., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). The role of career values for work engagement during the transition to working life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 466–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.07.003

Soulsby, R. (2012). Engaged BT staff attract like-minded customers. Coaching at Work, 7(6), 8.

SPSS, 2010, SPSS for Windows, computer software, SPSS Incorporated, Chicago, IL.

Steele, C., & Francis-Smythe, J. (2010). Investigating the role of career anchor congruence. paper presented at the 27th International Congress for Applied Psychology, 16 July, Melbourne, Australia.

Storm, L., & Roodt, G. (2002). Die verband tussen organisasiesosialisering en organisasieverbondenheid [The relationship between organisational socialisation and organisational commitment]. Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde/Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28(1), 14–21.

Sukal, M.F., & Lopez, P.D. (2007). Linking career anchors with job satisfaction and work-family conflict. paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, n.d., Los Angeles, CA.

Suutari, V., & Taka, M. (2004). Career anchors of managers with global careers. Journal of Management Development, 33(9), 833–847. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621710410558440

Takash, J. 2012, Make the connection. Smart Business Chicago, 9(12), 12.

Tan, H., & Quek, B. (2001). An exploratory study on the career anchors of educators in Singapore. The Journal of Psychology, 135(5), 527–545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980109603717

Tladinyane, R.T. (2012). Psychological career resources, work engagement and organisational commitment: A psychological profile for staff retention, PhD thesis, Department of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Vandenberghe, C., & Panaccio, A. (2012). Perceived sacrifice and few alternatives commitments: The motivational underpinnings of continuance commitment’s subdimensions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 59–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.05.002

Van Dyk, J. (2011). The relationship between organisational commitment, retention factors and perceived job embeddedness. Master’s thesis, Department of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Vuori, J., Toppinen-Tanner, S., & Mutanen, P. (2012). Effects of resource-building group intervention on career management and mental health in work organizations: Randomized controlled field trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 273–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025584

Weber, K., & Ladkin, A. (2009). Career anchors of convention and exhibition industry professionals in Asia. Journal of Convention and Event Tourism, 10, 243–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15470140903356411

Wils, L., Wils, T., & Tremblay, M. (2010). Toward a career anchor structure: An empirical investigation of engineers. Industrial Relations, 65(2), 236–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/044301ar

Wu, A.D., & Zumbo, B.D. (2008). Understanding using mediators and moderators. Social Indicators Research, 87, 367–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9143-1

Yuan, B.J.C., Lin, M.B.H., Shieh, J., & Li, K. (2012). Transforming employee engagement into long-term customer relationships: Evidence from information technology sales people in Taiwan. Social Behavior and Personality, 40(9), 1549–1554. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.9.1549