CHAPTER 7
Psychology of Working Theory

DAVID L. BLUSTEIN¹ AND RYAN D. DUFFY²

¹Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA

²University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

The field of career choice and development has generated a number of robust theories, many of which are summarized in this volume. Some of the notable theories were well‐established by the end of the twentieth century, which seemed to provide a natural marker point for a serious appraisal of the state of research and practice in career development. This period of reflection and critique provided inspiration for the development of a new and different approach to studying and intervening in people's work lives—psychology of working theory (PWT; Blustein, 2001, 2006; Duffy, Blustein, Diemer, & Autin, 2016). (We use PWT to refer to the full body of work that includes the initial conceptual framework known as psychology of working framework [PWF] and the more recent theoretical model.) The earliest contributions by Blustein (2001, 2006) emerged during a period when career choice and development theories tended to focus on helping people with some degree of volition make decisions about their work‐based options and adjust to their work lives. PWT has been designed to expand the scope of our field's extant perspectives and to provide an inclusive set of ideas to support all those who work and who wish to work (Blustein, 2006, 2013; Blustein, Kenny, Di Fabio, & Guichard, 2019; Duffy et al., 2016). In this chapter, we provide a historical overview of the intellectual and social foundations of PWT, review its major tenets and research support, and provide implications for counseling practice and systemic interventions.

HISTORY AND INTELLECTUAL ROOTS OF PWT

The history of PWT, particularly its intellectual roots, dates further back than Blustein's (2001, 2006) initial publications in this area. In actuality, the field of career development has long had an interest in those whose work lives were challenging. Parsons's (1909) original work generated a framework for vocational guidance in North America by focusing on the lives of immigrants and working class individuals from urban communities who were struggling to earn a living (Pope, 2015). Over time, Parsons's contributions, along with others in North America and across the globe (see Hartung, 2012, for a review of international influences), spawned a movement that sought to facilitate “wise choices” for students, adults in transition, clients emerging from physical and psychiatric struggles, and all others who strove to make a living via work (Pope, 2015). The post‐World War II years brought a vibrant economy to selected (although not all) communities across the globe (especially the Global North), which gave impetus to the notion that developing a viable work life would also encompass finding a career that would be a “good fit” in relation to interests, values, and abilities (Blustein, 2017). Although vocational guidance, in its earliest iterations, had sought to maximize choices for a wide array of career decision‐makers, the post‐World War II economic era fostered a sense that the career development enterprise, particularly in North America, ought to focus on those with relative access to educational and social capital (see Blustein, 2017, for a review).

In the mid‐part of the twentieth century, theories were developed to describe the career choice and development process, using ideas from developmental (Super, 1980; Vondracek, Lerner, & Schulenberg, 1986), trait–factor (Holland, 1997; Lofquist & Dawis, 1991), and cognitive and social cognitive learning theories (Krumboltz, 1979; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994), as well as theories from outside of psychology (e.g., sociology; Johnson & Mortimer, 2002; Roberts, 1995). Many of these theories, particularly the work of Super, Lent et al., Krumboltz, Roberts, among others, acknowledged that volition was not a given for many people navigating their work lives. However, the emphasis in many industrial and postindustrial states was to focus on the career development of people who were moving into professional, technical, and managerial roles and who had a relative degree of volition in their work lives (Blustein, 2006, 2017).

At the same time, the later decades of the twentieth century were a fertile time for scholars, practitioners, and activists concerned about women, people of color, poor and working‐class individuals, and others on the margins of the labor force. When considered collectively, these prescient contributors were telling a somewhat different story about work and career that focused on those who were not part of the “great big beautiful tomorrow” of the post‐World War II era (e.g., Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987; Harmon & Farmer, 1983; Smith, 1983). A particularly important manifestation of these efforts was the infusion of feminist thought into vocational psychology, leading to the identification of social forces that created unequal conditions for women at work (e.g., Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987). Similar initiatives emerging from studies of race and culture identified the pernicious impact of racism and other forms of discrimination that date back eons, but continue to plague our communities (e.g., Smith, 1983). Career development theories also began to shed some of their insularity by examining diverse life roles (e.g., Super, 1980) and the impact of social and economic forces on access to meaningful work (e.g., Krumboltz, 1979; Lent et al., 1994).

DEFINITIONAL DEBATES

In 1993, Richardson published a seminal article that brought together and advanced many of these critiques, advocating for a critical examination of the nature and role of work in people's lives. One of the notable contributions from Richardson's article was her critique of the reliance on the term “career” as the foundation of vocational psychology and career development. Richardson argued that career was “embedded in an ethos of self‐centered individualism and in an ethnocentric conception of the self…” (1993, p. 428). She argued that the term “work” was more inclusive and connected people to their social roles, responsibilities, and communities. In the initial PWF publications, Blustein (2001, 2006) argued that the notion of career is not sufficiently inclusive, as it implies a level of volition and intentionality that arguably is not the prevailing experience for most workers around the globe. By contrast, a focus on working provided a way of dignifying the efforts of all who are engaged in efforts to earn a living, while also including those who are devoted to caregiving. In addition, Blustein (2006) proposed that working furnishes people with an identity that serves to cohere their psychological, social, and economic interactions.

The emergence of a work‐based discourse in career development has provided a means of expanding the mission and impact of research, practice, and advocacy efforts. Lent and Brown (2013) offered an insightful analysis of the various terms that are used in the career choice and development literature. They argued that the term career should be maintained in our literature because of its history in our field, its relevance to clients, and the observation that many people without as much volition do indeed have work lives that may provide meaning and purpose. We are sympathetic to this position, which underscores a reality that many people do experience work in a developmental way and that there may be sources of meaning and purpose even in jobs that are not necessarily a “good fit” or satisfying. Moreover, the career discourse remains vibrant in vocational psychology, which would support continued attention to careers across the life span.

However, in PWT, we focus on working which we believe has the capacity to connect our efforts broadly in career development to a wider array of colleagues (particularly outside of psychology), client populations, and advocacy efforts. As such, we are comfortable with using the terms work and career; however, we propose that they should not be used interchangeably. In PWT, work is the broader concept, encompassing a wider array of activities and projects—as well as caregiving work—that is performed by people to meet needs for survival as well as higher‐order needs such as social contribution, interpersonal connection, and self‐determination. A key attribute of our conceptualization of working is its integral connection to human activities that have been essential in the existence, survival, and well‐being of most adults across the globe throughout the eons. By contrast, vocational psychologists generally refer to career as “a sequence or collection of jobs one has held over the course of one's work life” (Lent & Brown, 2013, p. 8). For many scholars and practitioners, career also implies some degree of self‐determination or agency in designing and implementing one's direction and plans (e.g., Savickas, 2002; Super, 1980).

Another complex definitional space is in differentiating between PWT and its predecessor—the PWF. PWF began with a critique of traditional career discourse and a conceptual framework for the psychological study of working. Based on a synthesis of existing contributions of PWF (Blustein, 2001, 2006, 2013), the major features of this body of work include the following ideas, assumptions, and perspectives:

• Work functions as a major context for individual well‐being and the welfare of communities.
• Work shares psychological space with many other salient life domains with mutual and recursive impact.
• Access to work is constrained by powerful social, economic, and political forces.
• Working includes both efforts in the marketplace and in caregiving contexts.
• Psychological and systemic interventions need to include all of those who work and who want to work (Blustein, Kenny, Di Fabio et al., 2019, p. 5).

As an outgrowth of PWF, Duffy et al. (2016) developed a more specified linear model—PWT—which sought to integrate the broad‐based ideas in Blustein's (2006) original work and subsequent research into a theoretical statement that is well‐suited for quantitative empirical research. Rather than maintaining two related sets of terms (PWF and PWT), we have decided to integrate the growing movement to study and intervene in the work lives of people across the globe by using PWT as the inclusive term for the Duffy et al. model as well as the broader body of work that has emerged in the past two decades.

PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING FRAMEWORK: THE FOUNDATION OF PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING THEORY

The cohering agenda of PWF has been to deepen our understanding about the complex ways in which people relate to work in their psychological, relational, social, and economic lives. In the earliest statement about PWF, Blustein (2001) critiqued the status quo in career development and outlined the direction for a deep and inclusive psychological study of working. Core elements of this argument include an open embrace of intellectual and epistemological diversity, encompassing both logical positivist and social constructionist perspectives. In addition, Blustein proposed that work should be examined from multiple life roles and from diverse methodologies.

CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS

Central in the development of PWF was the articulation of a social justice agenda that countered the notion that science and practice should necessarily aspire to be value free (Blustein, McWhirter, & Perry, 2005). The overriding mission of PWF was to develop a body of knowledge that would describe work‐related experiences and behavior and that would inform change efforts at the individual and systemic levels. Building on the innovative work of Prilleltensky (1997), Blustein et al. (2005) adopted the emancipatory communitarian perspective as a means of articulating a specific set of values that fit the mission of PWF. The emancipatory aspect of Prilleltensky's perspective captured the liberation agenda of PWF by describing how many existing social and economic policies and practices served to constrain access to opportunities. Moreover, the emancipatory perspective provided a relevant body of knowledge about how to create sustainable changes in social and economic contexts that would support the promotion of decent and dignified work for all. The communitarian aspect of this perspective affirms the need for collaboration and power‐sharing, including the participation of the communities that are the target for a given intervention or initiative. This metaperspective provided PWF with a roadmap to create a change agenda to identify and transform conditions that have created lack of access to work for so many people around the globe.

PWF also included the development of a taxonomy, which integrated existing formulations of the ways that working functions in fulfilling basic human needs (Blustein, 2006). At its best, working has the capacity to meet needs for survival/power, social connection/social contribution, and self‐determination. Survival needs are met when work allows individuals access to food, shelter, and social capital. Social connection/contribution needs are met when work allows individuals to connect with others in the workplace as well as to the broader society (Duffy et al., 2016). Self‐determination needs refer to “the experience of being engaged in activities that are intrinsically or extrinsically motivating in a meaningful and self‐regulated fashion” (Duffy et al., 2016; p. 139; Ryan & Deci, 2002).

Another key feature of PWF is its interdisciplinary nature. Building on literature in sociology (e.g., Johnson & Mortimer, 2002; Wilson, 1996) and other areas within psychology (e.g., community and critical psychology; Prilleltensky, 1997), PWF has included macrolevel factors at the same level of analysis as psychological factors. The macrolevel factors included labor market conditions, the full array of marginalized and oppressed social identities (e.g., race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, social class, ability/disability status, ageism), historical and political forces, and economic factors (Blustein, 2006). At the psychological level, PWF has identified the important role of work volition and critical consciousness. Arguing that the question of volition was a missing piece in existing career choice and development theories, Blustein (2006) proposed that a comprehensive understanding of work in the human experience needed to explicitly incorporate volition, which refers to the degree to which individuals have perceived ability to choose desired careers.

Building on the emancipatory communitarian perspective, Blustein argued that the concept of critical consciousness would serve a significant function in people's working lives. Critical consciousness, derived from Freire's (2007) work on liberation pedagogy, describes the importance of developing a critical perspective about the complex causes of macrolevel factors and individual psychological development. As reflected in PWF, critical consciousness has particular relevance for career practitioners as well as their clients (e.g., Diemer, 2009; Diemer & Blustein, 2006). For practitioners, critical consciousness fosters a systemic analysis of client input and informs complex and nuanced analyses of issues that arise. For clients, critical consciousness functions to reduce self‐blame, enhance agency in dealing with stressors, and mobilize collective and community support (Diemer, Rapa, Voight, & McWhirter, 2016).

PWF also has informed counseling practice and systemic interventions, which will be presented toward the conclusion of the chapter. In the following section, we review research and theory development that has been generated from PWF, which set the stage for the development of the PWT linear model.

RESEARCH AND THEORY DEVELOPMENT

Since the first publications introducing PWF, considerable research and theory development has served to enhance the depth and scope of a psychologically informed examination of working. In this section, we highlight the major themes of these efforts.

Psychological experience of working.  One of the most notable critiques that emerged from PWF and related contributions (e.g., Richardson, 1993) was the identification of the relative distance that existed between scholars and many career practitioners in relation to the lived experience of people at work. This criticism was particularly relevant in relation to sources of marginalization, which often left communities of color and poor/working class on the margins of career development theory and practice. To address this gap, qualitative methods, based on interviews or written responses, have been used to explore how people understand and make meaning of working.

Chaves et al. (2004) analyzed written responses of urban high school students which explored their definitions of working, their family's views of work, and whether they would work if they had access to money without working. The findings from 80 randomly selected responses (from an overall sample of most of the 9th grade students in two urban high schools) revealed that working to sustain oneself financially emerged as a major theme. However, a majority of participants also indicated that they would continue to work even if they had access to financial support without work.

In a qualitative study using grounded theory methods, Eggerth, DeLaney, Flynn, and Jacobson (2012) explored the input from focus groups with 53 Latina immigrant workers in the United States. The participants in the Eggerth et al. study identified the challenges of an excessive workload, work hazards, cultural tensions, family–work balance, and sexual harassment as central concerns in their work lives. These factors underscore the complex and intersectional aspects of work, which is particularly challenging for individuals who are on the margins.

Relational aspects of working.  A key aspect of PWF has been the focus on the relational embeddedness of working. Outside of family life, working is one of the most important contexts that provides people with access to relational supports and connections. Yet, working can evoke relational stress, as people need to manage hierarchical relationships with people who may not be supportive or understanding. The advent of the relational revolution of the late twentieth century, which sought to affirm natural human needs for connection (e.g., Gilligan, 1982), began to influence vocational psychology prior to the development of PWF via applications of Bowlby's (1988) attachment theory to traditional career development issues, such as career exploration and decision‐making (e.g., Blustein, Prezioso, & Schultheiss, 1995). By the early twenty‐first century, research and theory development emerged that sought to explore the relational context of working (e.g., Blustein, 2011; Richardson, 1993). A number of studies identified the contribution of adults from family, community, and school settings in supporting students, as they navigated the developmental challenges of the school‐to‐work transition (e.g., Kenny & Bledsoe, 2005; Kenny, Blustein, Chaves, Grossman, & Gallagher, 2003).

In a review of the research on relationships and work in an adult context, Kenny and Medvide (2013) affirmed the importance of social support at work and also noted the potential for relational problems to affect worker's well‐being. They reported that workplace bullying and work–family conflict can become serious stressors for people. The authors also summarized research on the importance of supportive relationships in the work‐related journeys of women who have experienced intimate partner violence (e.g., Chronister & McWhirter, 2006).

Social class, poverty, and marginalization.  The shift to a more explicitly contextual view of working has encompassed attention to the role of social class, poverty, and the impact of social identities in one's work life. A substantive literature in sociology and economics has clearly implicated economic and social affordances such as good schools, decent health care, safe housing, and secure neighborhoods as critical elements in shaping the educational, relational, and vocational lives of youth and adults (e.g., Roberts, 1995; Wilson, 1996). PWF offered a more psychologically informed examination of the ways in which social class, poverty, and marginalization affected people, as they interacted with the work‐related tasks in their lives.

Two studies by Blustein and colleagues in the late 1990s and early 2000s (e.g., Blustein et al., 2002; Blustein, Phillips, Jobin‐Davis, Finkelberg, & Roarke, 1997) examined in‐depth interviews with 60 non‐college‐educated young adults between the ages of 18 and 29. A key takeaway from both of these studies was the significant influence of social class in determining the nature and trajectory of the school‐to‐work transition. First, Blustein et al. (1997) found that the broader social and economic context played a major role in the lives of the non‐college‐educated youth in the sample. The job and career opportunities that many of the participants had attained were constricted, and often left them in situations wherein even their more adaptive psychological skills (such as planning and exploring) were not sufficient to help them find work that paid a decent wage and offered dignified conditions.

In the Blustein et al. (2002) study with the same data set, the impact of social class became much clearer. In this study, the sample was divided into two cohorts of working adults—one cohort was from the upper third of socioeconomic status groups (SES; as indexed by parental income) and the second cohort was from the lower third of the SES groups. The findings revealed that the young adults in the upper third of SES were more satisfied with their jobs, which seemed congruent with their interests; by contrast, the responses from the participants in the lower third SES sample reported that they were not generally satisfied. Even more revealing was the sense that the participants in the higher SES group viewed their jobs as a temporary stop in their career journey, which they felt would ultimately lead to more meaningful careers. The participants from the lower SES group seemed to be “traveling on a one‐way journey to a world of unskilled and dead‐end jobs” (Blustein et al., 2002; p. 321).

PWF also has informed a number of studies of marginalized communities with a focus on the pernicious impact of race and racism in the workplace. As an example, Flores and her colleagues (Flores et al., 2011) conducted an intensive qualitative study of 11 Latinx immigrants to explore the nature of their work experiences; this study found that the PWF needs taxonomy was a useful way of documenting the impact of marginalization on the lives of these particular immigrant workers. The difficulty of the jobs that the participants had, coupled with anxieties about the immigration process, served to create difficult work‐based contexts. At the same time, the striving for a self‐determined and meaningful work life emerged as a powerful theme, providing an important counterpoint to the distress of work.

Critical consciousness.  As reflected earlier, critical consciousness was integral to the development of the emancipatory aspects of PWF. Considerable empirical research and theoretical development on this construct has been conducted separately from the PWF community (e.g., Freire, 2007; Watts, Griffith, & Abdul‐Adil, 1999). Simultaneous with the initial publications of PWF, Diemer and his colleagues began an illuminating line of empirical work that has served to elevate knowledge of critical consciousness, particularly in relation to working. Diemer et al. (2016) identified three core elements of critical consciousness: critical reflection (becoming aware of the broader social and political context); critical motivation (or efficacy) capturing the capacity and intention to take action; and critical action (referring to the actual implementation of active steps to combat injustice). Within the working context, critical consciousness serves two interrelated functions. First, being critically conscious provides a level of psychological protection in the face of marginalization and oppression; second, critical consciousness can promote individual and collective action to address the core sources of lack of access to decent work, marginalization, and other forms of social oppression.

Research on critical consciousness and work‐related phenomena has been very revealing. In a longitudinal study of youth from the National Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS), Diemer (2009) found high levels of sociopolitical development (which served as an index of critical consciousness) in 12th grade had a positive influence on occupational expectations which in turn was predictive of adult career attainment. This finding underscores the impact of critical consciousness and affirms one of the core tenets of PWF that has advocated that liberation‐based interventions can serve individuals as well as social causes.

Work volition.  Given the centrality of volition in the PWF, it would seem logical that empirical work on work volition would receive considerable attention. Duffy and his colleagues began a productive line of inquiry on the nature of work volition, which is defined as an “individual's perception of choice in career decision‐making” (Duffy et al., 2016, p. 135; Duffy et al., 2012). Beginning with the development of a scale for college students (Duffy, Diemer, & Jadidian, 2012) and adults (Duffy, Diemer, Perry, Laurenzi, & Torrey, 2012), Duffy and his colleagues then defined the parameters of work volition and its relation with other related constructs and outcomes. Recent reviews of research on work volition have found that it is associated with a number of theoretically predicted positive outcomes including career maturity, sense of control, work meaning, congruence, and job and life satisfaction (see Duffy et al., 2016, for a review). Duffy et al. (2016) further explored some of the potential confounds with the possibility that work volition might serve as a proxy of perceived barriers; however, their analysis of empirical research using the Work Volition Scale in relation to a wide array of other barrier‐related constructs revealed that the volition construct is a unique psychological attribute that reflects the internalization of external barriers. Research on work volition has served as a powerful affirmation of many of the core tenets of PWF, and has set the stage for the development of the linear PWT model, which is described in the next section.

PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING LINEAR MODEL

In 2016, Duffy and colleagues drew from this research and theory base to construct an overarching PWT (Duffy et al., 2016). The goals of this theory were to (a) consolidate key ideas and propositions made via PWF‐infused work and (b) provide a linear model that could be tested using quantitative methods, thereby spurring increased research. The PWT model presented by Duffy et al. offers a graphical depiction of 32 theoretical propositions (see Figure 7.1). The centerpiece of the model is “decent work.” Duffy et al. (2016) conceptualized this construct based on guidelines from the International Labor Organization (ILO, 2008, 2012) and focused on capturing individuals' perceptions of their current work situation. Specifically, the ILO defined decent work as work consisting of: (a) physically and interpersonally safe working conditions (e.g., absent of physical, mental, or emotional abuse), (b) hours that allow for free time and adequate rest, (c) organizational values that complement family and social values, (d) adequate compensation, and (e) access to adequate health care (p. 130). Duffy et al. (2016) suggested decent work would only be accessed if all of these components were present in one's current job. The model is split into two halves—predictors and outcomes of decent work—along with moderator variables associated with the predictor portion of the model.

PREDICTORS OF DECENT WORK

Four primary predictors of decent work are proposed in the model: economic constraints, marginalization experiences, work volition, and career adaptability. Economic constraints are defined as “limited economic resources (e.g., household income, family wealth), which represent a critical barrier to securing decent work” (Duffy et al., 2016, p. 133). Marginalization represents “the relegation of people (or groups of people) to a less powerful or included position within a society” (Duffy et al., 2016, p. 132). Duffy et al. positioned these constructs as the two structural, exogenous predictor variables in the model, each of which are meant to capture individuals' lifetime experiences within that specific domain.

Work volition and career adaptability are also positioned as direct, psychological predictors of decent work while simultaneously functioning as mediators between the structural factors (economic constraints and marginalization) and decent work. Career adaptability is defined as “a psychological construct that denotes an individual's readiness and resources for coping with current and anticipated tasks of vocational development” (Savickas, 2002, p. 156). Duffy et al. (2016) proposed that a partial reason why individuals who are economically constrained and marginalized have less access to decent work is because they have less choice in their career decision‐making (work volition) and have fewer resources to cope with challenges in the world of work (career adaptability). Collectively, these four constructs are proposed to explain why certain individuals are able to access decent work and why others struggle.

FIGURE 7.1 Theoretical model. Proactive personality, critical consciousness, social support, and economic conditions are proposed to moderate the paths from economic constraints and marginalization to work volition.

Source: From Duffy, R. D., Blustein, D. L., Diemer, M. A., & Autin, K. L. (2016). The psychology of working theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63, 127–148. Reprinted with permission of American Psychological Association).

MODERATOR VARIABLES

In the predictor portion of the model, Duffy et al. (2016) suggest that certain variables may strength or weaken the effects of the two structural constructs on work volition, career adaptability, and decent work. These four variables are critical consciousness, proactive personality, social support, and economic conditions. Proactive personality refers to “a disposition toward taking personal initiative to influence one's environment” (p. 395; Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010). Social support is defined as the “degree to which individuals feel supported from their family, friends, significant others, and broader community for coping with the stress and adversity associated with marginalization and economic constraints” (Duffy et al., 2016, p. 137; Cohen & Wills, 1985). Finally, economic conditions are described as “an index of contemporary macrolevel factors that moderate the relations of the model that are embedded in the PWT” (Duffy et al., 2016, p. 138), such as the unemployment rate or the accessibility of living wages in a specific country or region of the world.

Duffy et al. (2016) suggest that the effects of economic constraints and experiences of marginalization on the psychological constructs and decent work will be less pronounced for individuals who evidence higher levels of critical consciousness, proactive personality, and social support. Also, these effects are suggested to be more pronounced when individuals are living in countries or regions of the world with poor economic conditions. Importantly, this part of the model remains the most speculative, with little existing research testing these propositions.

OUTCOMES OF DECENT WORK

The back half of the PWT model pertains to outcomes of decent work, or rather what is proposed to occur when individuals achieve decent work. The ultimate outcomes of the model are work fulfillment (e.g., work meaning, job satisfaction) and well‐being (e.g., life satisfaction, physical health). However, decent work is proposed to link to these two outcomes primarily via the ability of work to satisfy basic needs. These needs were grouped into three general categories in the original model: the need for survival, the need for social connection, and the need for self‐determination, which were described earlier. The original PWT article did not provide additional elaboration on how to assess the self‐determination needs construct. However, in an instrument development study aimed at building tools to assess needs within PWT, Autin et al. (2019) drew directly from self‐determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2002) and proposed that self‐determination needs were composed of three sub‐needs: relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Relatedness refers to feeling close with others in the workplace; competence refers to feeling good about what one is doing; and autonomy refers to being able to work the way one desires (Deci, Olafsen, & Ryan, 2017).

The study by Autin et al. (2019) advanced the initial PWT in two ways. First, as noted in the preceding text, it introduced three specific, measurable subfactors that are grouped together to represent the self‐determination needs construct. Second, by including relatedness as a sub‐dimension of self‐determination, the social connection construct was reconceptualized to be purely focused on connections to a broader society (e.g., contributing to the greater good, making a difference) versus interpersonal connection in the workplace, which is covered by the relatedness dimension of self‐determination. Accordingly, the social connection needs construct has now been renamed social contribution needs. Specifically, three need sets are proposed: survival, social contribution, and self‐determination (which is comprised of autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs). Despite these slight modifications, the structure of the outcome portion of the PWT remains intact. Accessing decent work is theorized to lead to increased work fulfillment and well‐being because this work optimally allows individuals to meet three sets of needs: survival, social contribution, and self‐determination.

RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR PWT

The research base examining core tenets of the PWT linear model has been growing at a steady rate since the model's publication in 2016. As noted earlier, a number of the key ideas and constructs from the theory have been empirically examined prior to its publication (e.g., work volition, economic barriers and constraints, relational factors). Additionally, numerous studies since its publication have used PWT as an underlying framework, often exploring individual model variables. These include studies examining work volition in undergraduate populations (Autin, Douglass, Duffy, England, & Allan, 2017; Bouchard & Nauta, 2018) and studies linking aspects of vocational privilege and volition with the attainment of meaningful and prosocially driven work (Autin & Allan, 2019; Duffy, Autin, England, Douglass, & Gensmer, 2018; Duffy, England, Douglass, Autin, & Allan, 2017; Kim & Allan, 2019). These types of PWT‐informed studies demonstrate the possible ways the theory could be extended. However, in the current sections, we focus on studies that have advanced core constructs and propositions within the theory as it was originally proposed. These include: (a) instrument development studies, (b) qualitative studies, and (c) studies that have quantitatively examined parts of the core model.

INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

The PWT model is composed of seven main classes of variables. Upon the model's publication, each of these classes of variables had varying degrees of existing assessment tools to measure the constructs as they were theoretically conceptualized. This ranged from no instruments existing at all (decent work) to well‐validated measures directly tied to the theory's construct conceptualization (work volition; Duffy, Diemer, Jadidian, 2012). In recent years, scholars have made attempts to develop theoretically based instruments in a rigorous fashion.

Decent work.  Duffy et al. (2017) developed and validated the Decent Work Scale (DWS) with survey data from two diverse samples of working adults in the United States. The final scale ultimately consisted of five 3‐item subscales, each representing one of the five dimensions of decent work originally proposed in PWT. The subscales and overall scale were reliable and correlated in the expected directions with job satisfaction, meaningful work, and withdrawal intentions. Duffy, Allan, et al. (2017) found that a bifactor model best fit the data, with individual items being indicators of their associated subscale as well as an overall decent work factor. This structure suggests that the items for the five subscales do capture an overall decent work construct and that the five individual subscales also are unique, standalone factors.

Nine follow‐up studies have been completed seeking to adapt and validate the DWS with populations outside of the United States in eight different countries (Brazil, France, Italy, Portugal, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey, and United Kingdom). Eight of these articles were part of a 2019 special issue in the Journal of Vocational Behavior on decent work. The majority of these articles also found a bifactor structure to best fit the data, and all studies found the scale to be reliable and predictive of outcomes informed by PWT, such as work meaning, job satisfaction, and withdrawal intentions. Importantly, most of the articles revised the access to healthcare items in some fashion given universal healthcare options for all workers via the government. Overall, early indications are that this empirical measure of decent work may be applicable cross culturally (Buyukgoze‐Kavas & Autin, 2019; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2019; Dodd, Hooley, & Burke, 2019; Ferreira et al., 2019; Masdonati, Schreiber, Marcionetti, & Rossier, 2019; Nam & Kim, 2019; Ribeiro, Teixeira, & Ambiel, 2019). Numerous other studies have used the DWS in more complex model tests (discussed later), typically using a bifactor structure and finding the scale to be reliable and associated with hypothesized PWT constructs.

Economic constraints and marginalization.  The majority of studies examining PWT propositions have used established measures of social class, social status, and discrimination experiences to capture the economic constraints and marginalization constructs proposed in PWT. However, although these measures are good proxy variables, they do not capture the construct as it was originally defined within PWT. Duffy et al. (2019) sought to address this concern by developing new measures that were specifically tied to the original definitions. Duffy et al. (2016) intended both constructs to capture lifetime experiences of constraints or marginalization, versus feelings in the present or for a specific period of time (e.g., last month) or in a specific domain (e.g., work). Across three studies, the authors developed and validated short, user‐friendly instruments to assess each of these constructs (Economic Constraints Scale (ECS) and Lifetime Experiences of Marginalization Scale (LEMS)). Scores evidenced strong internal consistency reliability and correlated in the expected directions with previously used indicators of the constructs (e.g., social status, annual income, everyday discrimination). They were also more predictive of decent work than other previously used measures. These instruments are recommended when researchers seek to assess these two constructs as they were originally conceptualized within the PWT.

Need satisfaction.  A robust literature exists using self‐determination theory as a frame to examine need satisfaction at work (see Deci et al., 2017). There are also several validated instruments that assess work need satisfaction (e.g., Broeck, Vansteenkiste, Witte, Soenens, & Lens, 2010; Deci et al., 2001). However, these instruments only assess the three self‐determination needs (autonomy, relatedness, and competency), whereas PWT includes these as well as survival and social contribution needs. Additionally, most established instruments contain item stems or instructions that do not precisely match how needs were intended to be measured within PWT. To remedy this limitation, Autin et al. (2019) conducted two studies developing and validating an instrument assessing all five needs (Work Need Satisfaction Scale; WNSS). Based on their findings, the authors recommended that in PWT model tests, needs optimally should be examined in three distinct sets: survival, social contribution, and self‐determination. Survival and social contribution needs would simply be captured by individual scale items and self‐determination needs would be captured by three self‐determination subscales (autonomy, relatedness, and competence).

Eschelman and Rottinghaus (2019) also developed need satisfaction scales using a PWT framework concurrent with the Autin et al. (2019) measure. Also using two studies, the authors developed and validated an instrument with five subscales (Work and Human Needs Inventory; WAHNI). Like the WNSS, the WAHNI contains subscales assessing survival, relatedness, and autonomy needs. However, instead of competence and social contribution, the two remaining subscales address meaning (the sense of meaning and purpose derived from work experiences) and power (social power, prestige, and status) needs. Although these two subscales do not precisely align with PWT conceptualizations of the five core work needs, power and meaning needs were integral components of Blustein's (2006) original work developing PWF. In this study, the five subscales correlated in the expected directions with meaning in life and other indicators of economic resources and social status. Overall, both instruments are valid measures of need satisfaction that may be used to suit the specific goals of a given research project.

In sum, PWT initially contained a group of empirically testable constructs, only some of which had previously established and validated instruments. Over the last several years, with the publication of new scales, the theory now has validated instruments for each core model variable, which will be of significant use to future scholars studying the theory.

QUALITATIVE STUDIES

Akin to theoretically informed studies, a number of studies have used PWT to frame qualitative research. These studies did not test specific empirical model paths, but rather detail the in‐depth experiences of individuals in the world of work using a PWT lens.

Autin et al. (2018) conducted a study with 12 undocumented young adults between the ages of 18 and 26, with the goal of understanding how PWT‐informed barriers (e.g., economic constraints) and resources (e.g., social support) may impact the work volition and general career development of this underrepresented population. Using consensual qualitative research (CQR; Hill, 2012), the authors identified the following five categories that were discussed by all or all but one of the participants: (a) limited mobility and (b) economic constraints as barriers, and (c) social support, (d) institutional support, and (e) public policy changes as supports. Based on these results, Autin et al. (2018) concluded that within this marginalized population, economic constraints were a primary driver hindering choice in one's career. However, this impact was mitigated when support existed interpersonally, within institutions (e.g., college advisors), and within the larger society (e.g., the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals [DACA] policy implemented in 2012).

Kossen and McIlveen (2018) used a PWT lens to analyze archival interviews concerning individuals' experience with unemployment. Thirty‐two interviews were analyzed with individuals who were over the age of 45 and felt that discrimination and/or marginalization had negatively affected their experiences in the world of work. Using thematic analysis, the authors identified main themes that fit well with PWT's core constructs; these included feeling marginalized due to age, financial concerns, and economic conditions, which many felt had affected their ability to choose desired careers and adapt to the changing world of work. The authors also documented participants' resources to cope with these struggles, in particular leaning on social support and developing critical consciousness around the way unemployed individuals lack power and control.

Cadaret et al. (2018) interviewed nine individuals who panhandled, a marginalized population engaged in work that would not be considered decent. Using a similar CQR method to Autin et al. (2018), Cadaret et al. (2018) identified seven common themes, such as barriers to stability and interpersonal aspects, and found that much of what participants discussed related to the back half of the PWT model. Specifically, participants discussed how panhandling was mainly used to meet basic survival needs, that it resulted in negative and positive forms of social connection, and that the work mainly limited a sense of self‐determination. A common theme from participants was not feeling recognized or valued.

Kozan, Blustein, Paciorek, Kilbury, and Işık (2019) explored workers' perspectives on optimal ways to manage crises in the American workforce. They used a modified version of CQR to analyze data from 42 adults—representing a range of background and employment statuses—on the following question, “In your opinion, what is the best possible solution for the crises facing the United States currently about work?” The replies varied, with no one answer being endorsed by more than 40% of the sample. However, the majority of responses addressed the need for larger structural changes, from more proactive government and corporate policies to allocate resources and create jobs to the society at large being more focused on promoting social justice in the world of work. Overall, the results highlight the perceived role of structural, policy level change in promoting decent work at the individual level.

Finally, a qualitative component was included in each of the studies in the Journal of Vocational Behavior's special issue on decent work across cultures (Buyukgoze‐Kavas & Autin, 2019; Di Fabio & Kenny, 2019; Dodd et al., 2019; Ferreira et al., 2019; Masdonati et al., 2019; Nam & Kim, 2019; Ribeiro et al., 2019). Specifically, participants in each study were asked to reply to the following prompt: “Decent work is employment that meets the minimum acceptable standards for a good life.” Given this definition, what components do you feel a job needs to have to be considered “decent” or “acceptable?” Across all eight cultures, common themes emerged around decent work needing to provide (a) adequate compensation, (b) safe and/or healthy working conditions, and (c) manageable working hours. For many of these cultures, healthcare was minimized in responses, likely due to most having a government‐run system. Additionally, aspects related to work meaning and social connection at work were endorsed to a greater extent in various cultures than would be expected by PWT's definition of decent work (these would be considered outcomes in the theory).

In sum, results from this set of PWT‐framed qualitative studies reveal important insights from very diverse individuals about what decent work consists of, why it is important, the traits and life circumstances that can promote or detract from access to decent work, and what it means emotionally and psychologically when decent work is absent. These studies are important in documenting core ideas from PWT in real world narratives, while also showcasing a number of fruitful areas for practical intervention.

MODEL TESTING

The final set of studies reviewed are those that have formally tested parts of the PWT model, exploring some set of the 32 propositions originally proposed by Duffy et al. (2016). The most theoretically consistent studies to date have focused on the predictor portion of the model, examining how indicators of economic constraints/resources and/or marginalization experiences relate to decent work directly and indirectly via work volition and/or career adaptability. As the core predictor variable of marginalization is based on a specific identity, studies that have included this have specifically targeted marginalized populations with their research.

Predictors of decent work.  Douglass, Velez, Conlin, Duffy, and England (2017) was the first study to examine the interrelations among the four core PWT predictor variables and decent work. The authors surveyed a group of employed adults identifying as a sexual minority. They used measures of work volition, career adaptability, and decent work, assessed economic constraints with two indicators of social class, and assessed marginalization with an instrument measuring heterosexist discrimination experienced over the past year. Work volition, social class, and marginalization were all direct predictors of decent work; social class and marginalization were predictors of work volition; and work volition partially mediated the relation of social class and marginalization to decent work. Although career adaptability was correlated with work volition, it was unrelated to social class, marginalization, and decent work.

Three other studies have tested the predictor portion of the PWT model including only the five constructs in this section of the model: economic constraints, marginalization, volition, adaptability, and decent work. These include two studies with Racial and ethnic minority employed adults (Duffy et al., 2018; Duffy et al., 2019, study 3) and one with disabled employed adults (Tokar & Kaut, 2018). Results have provided mixed support for model propositions. For example, across all four studies, marginalization experiences directly predicted decent work and indicators of economic constraints were a direct predictor of work volition. Across three studies, work volition predicted decent work, work volition predicted or correlated with career adaptability, and work volition mediated the effect of economic constraints on decent work. In none of the studies to date did marginalization predict career adaptability nor did adaptability function as a mediator to decent work.

A group of other studies have examined predictors of decent work with slight variants from the original full PWT model. For example, Wang et al. (2019) only looked at subjective social status (a proposed indicator of economic constraints) and work volition as predictors of decent work among a sample of urban Chinese workers, finding each to be direct predictors of decent work and for work volition to partially mediate the relation of social status to decent work. Allan, Tebbe, Bouchard, and Duffy (2019) studied a sexual minority population measuring social class, workplace climate, and work volition. The authors found work volition and climate to directly predict decent work, for social class and climate to directly predict volition, and for social class and climate to predict decent work indirectly via work volition. Kozan, Işık, and Blustein (2019) gathered data from a group of low‐income Turkish workers, including three of the four predictor variables (except marginalization). The authors found social class, work volition, and career adaptability all directly predicted decent work; social class directly predicted work volition and career adaptability; and volition and adaptability each functioned as significant mediators between social class and decent work.

England, Duffy, Douglass, Gensmer, and Kim (2019) included all five main PWT predictor constructs in a test of the theory with a population of working women. However, the authors added workplace climate as an additional possible predictor in an attempt to compare the effect of lifetime experiences of marginalization with present experiences of a supportive or hostile climate in the workplace. The authors found work volition, economic constraints, and climate to all significantly predict decent work; economic constraints, climate, and marginalization directly predicted volition; and work volition partially or fully mediated the effect of economic constraints and marginalization experiences on decent work. Finally, in the one study to apply the model to a college student population, Kim, Duffy, Lee, Lee, and Lee (2019) examined predictors of future decent work perceptions among students from diverse backgrounds in South Korea. Like Kozan, Işık, and Blustein (2019), marginalization was not included as a predictor variable. The authors found work volition and career adaptability to each predict perceptions of future decent work and economic resources to directly predict both work volition and career adaptability.

In sum, this brief review of extant studies on predictors of decent work allows for some initial, tentative insights. Each study surveyed a unique population and each study used varied instruments to assess the model's core constructs, although no one study used the same set of instruments. This is not surprising given the recency of both PWT and the development of instruments measuring its main constructs. However, these limitations make it difficult to derive concrete, overarching conclusions about predictors of decent work and how the model variables function collectively. Tentatively, marginalization experiences, indicators of economic constraints/resources, and work volition all appear to be consistent direct or indirect predictors of decent work. However, questions remain about the role of career adaptability in the model, which may differ depending on the population and the way in which it is measured.

Outcomes of decent work.  Finally, several studies have examined propositions regarding the back half of the model; however all are cross‐sectional and should be interpreted with caution. Specifically, within PWT, decent work is proposed to link with work‐related and general well‐being via the fulfillment of three basic needs—survival, social contribution, and self‐determination. Several of the studies reviewed in the previous section testing larger models included direct paths between decent work to work‐related and well‐being outcomes. For example, Allan et al. (2019) found decent work to predict work meaning, Wang et al. (2019) found decent work to predict work satisfaction and lower withdrawal intentions, and Kozan, Işık, and Blustein (2019) found decent work to predict job and life satisfaction.

Only one study has examined the outcome portion of the PWT model including need satisfaction as a potential mediating mechanism. Duffy et al. (2019) explored the relation of decent work to physical and mental health with a sample of employed adults earning less than $50 000 a year. The authors also measured survival, social contribution, and self‐determination needs, positioning these as partial mediators between decent work and mental and physical health. Each of the three need satisfaction constructs served as a significant mediator between decent work and mental health, fully explaining this relation. However, only survival needs partially mediated the relation of decent work and physical health, suggesting that other variables in addition to need satisfaction may explain the decent work–physical health connection.

In sum, only a handful of studies to date have explored outcomes of decent work through the lens of the PWT model. In general, findings match core theory propositions that decent work promotes greater work and general well‐being and that one reason for this connection is that attaining decent work helps individuals meet needs for survival, social contribution, and self‐determination.

APPLYING PWT TO PRACTICE AND POLICY

Since its inception, PWT has maintained a strong focus on informing individual interventions and systemic changes. The initial foray into practice was detailed by Blustein (2006) who developed a framework for inclusive psychological practice, which is reviewed initially in this section. Recently, Blustein, Kenny, Autin, and Duffy (2019) developed a more detailed model to inform counseling that concludes this section.

INCLUSIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL PRACTICE

Emerging from the broad agenda of PWF, Blustein (2006) sought to transform work‐based counseling practice by moving beyond the relatively circumscribed world of career choice and development counseling. Blustein envisioned a modality of practice wherein work‐based issues would be naturally woven into the counseling process. This integrative vision provided a rationale and framework for infusing work‐based issues into psychotherapy. At the same time, Blustein advocated for an expanded vision for work‐based counseling that would embrace traditional career choice and development issues while also attending to a broad array of issues such as job loss, precarious work and indecent work, marginalization, and harassment at work.

The goals of inclusive psychological practice include empowerment, skill building, and fostering critical consciousness, which capture the agentic aspects of individual change as well as tools to enhance clients' understanding of their contexts (Blustein, 2006). The change elements in the counseling process are constructed around the following core elements of evidence‐based psychotherapy: development of a working alliance; interpretation; exploring discrepant beliefs and behaviors; and helping clients change. As a means of creating PWT‐informed ideas to guide work‐based counseling, Blustein integrated counseling frameworks that had been developed for various marginalized client populations, such as women, people of color, individuals with disabling conditions, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) clients, and unemployed clients. A major takeaway from this synthesis is dignifying survival needs along with self‐determination needs; additionally, this integration revealed the importance of using a wide array of culturally embedded counseling and advocacy interventions.

PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING AS A THEORY OF CHANGE

As a means of elevating and enhancing the practice implications of PWT, Blustein, Kenny, Autin et al. (2019) developed a theory of change paradigm to guide the design of interventions for individuals and systems. The goal of theory development in psychology and related fields generally is to understand and predict individual and group behavior (Osipow & Fitzgerald, 1996). While espousing the explanation and prediction aspects of theory building, Blustein, Kenny, Autin et al. (2019) also argued that an overarching objective of the knowledge produced by PWT is to foster change for individuals and systems. The theory of change paradigm fits many other career choice and development theories; however, a distinction of PWT is its focus on identifying and changing the structural forces that uphold and sustain inequity, marginalization, oppression, and social stratification. We next review the conceptual infrastructure for this theory of change paradigm, followed by summaries of psychology of working counseling (PWC) and psychology of working systems intervention (PWSI).

Needs assessment.  We propose that the first step in intervening in any context is to assess the nature and roots of the problems that are being presented. Using the needs taxonomy that was developed by Blustein (2006), we have developed the following assessment framework for both individuals and systems:

• Need for survival/power: For many individuals, organizations, and institutions, survival is the bottom line. For clients, assessing the nature of access to the resources needed for survival and empowerment is essential, generally as a first step in an intake. At the systems level, a focus on survival and power informs an assessment of the extent to which the organization is able to survive. Another angle in examining needs for survival and power at the systems level is to assess the ways in which institutions support or inhibit survival for individual workers, their families, and communities.
• Need for social connection/contribution: At the individual level, assessment of need fulfillment in the relational context would suggest an appraisal of how well a given client is cared for and nurtured in family, work, and community contexts. It also includes understanding how well individuals feel they are contributing to the lives of others. Within a systems context, this aspect of the needs assessment entails examining the extent to which organizations and institutions support individuals and the broader social world in establishing relationship and communities.
• Need for self‐determination: Another critical aspect of needs assessment is ascertaining the extent to which an individual is able to engage in self‐determined and authentic activities. Understanding the barriers to self‐determination naturally entails an exploration of internal psychological attributes and relevant contextual factors. At the systems level, it is important to assess how well organizations and institutions create structures and policies that support self‐determination for individuals and communities.

The assessment of these sets of needs provides a useful starting point for developing individual interventions and systemic change efforts. In the following section, we present the sources of agentic action, which can be used in both PWC and PWSI.

Sources of agentic action

In an integration of various perspectives on psychotherapy, career counseling, and social change interventions (e.g., Blustein, 2006; Prilleltensky, 1997; Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992), a tripartite cluster of sources of agentic action were identified.

• Critical reflection and action: Drawing from critical consciousness and liberation psychology literatures (e.g., Diemer et al., 2016; Freire, 2007), this cluster taps into the capacity to read and act on the subtle and overt forces that shape opportunities and access. In addition, this cluster captures a critical perspective of one's own behavior, attitudes, and interactions, thereby providing a lens that encompasses inner experience and external influences and the complex relationship among these factors. An emerging literature has attested to the important role of critical reflection and action as a source of resilience, empowerment, and agentic action (e.g., Diemer et al., 2016; Watts et al., 1999).
• Proactive engagement: Taking action is an essential part of the change process for both individuals and systems. The proactive engagement cluster includes such attributes as proactive personality, work volition, and career adaptability; when considered collectively, these attributes provide people with both the direction and initiative to take action on their work‐related tasks. Considerable research supports the utility of the factors that comprise proactive engagement in fostering progress in decision‐making and managing diverse work‐related challenges (e.g., Duffy et al., 2016; Lent & Brown, 2013). At the systems level, proactive engagement might be expressed by actively challenging policies that diminish human rights for workers.
• Social support and community engagement: Building on the important role of relationships in so many aspects of work‐related life (Blustein, 2011; Richardson, 1993), we have included a third cluster, social support and community engagement. This cluster includes relational connections and social contribution as well as community‐based collaboration, community organizing, and advocacy. In the individual counseling context, social support and community engagement would encompass a caring therapeutic alliance, support from one's family and peers, and the capacity to experience a broader contribution to the social good (Blustein, 2019; Brown & Ryan Krane, 2000). From a systemic perspective, this cluster would be manifested by workers' organizations, such as labor unions or workers' circles (Blustein, Kenny, Autin et al., 2019).

PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING COUNSELING

Building on the advances of inclusive psychological practice, Blustein, Kenny, Autin et al. (2019) described a change‐oriented counseling model (PWC) that incorporates needs assessment as an initial step in ascertaining what a given client would benefit from. Consistent with best practices in psychological interventions, PWC necessitates careful attention to developing a sound working alliance. The three clusters are not presented in a specific order; rather, counselors can employ these sets of resources to fit the specific needs of a client. PWC can be woven into other theoretical approaches, including psychotherapy and specific interventions designed to foster career choice and exploration (e.g., Brown & Ryan Krane, 2000; Savickas, 2002). However, PWC can also be applied as the major theoretical perspective for a given client.

In relation to the work‐related tasks that are located in the pre‐implementation phase of career development (such as exploring, crystallizing, and making decisions about education, work, and training), PWC offers an array of flexible guidelines. When considering the transitions from non‐work contexts (such as school) to work, clients would need to consider the extent to which their options help to fulfill their needs for survival and power. As in most career choice and development theories, counselors using PWC also would attend to a clients' aspirations about their future—their interests, dreams, and plans for a meaningful and sustainable life. As such, the exploratory tools that are available in the career development field would be employed as needed (e.g., interest assessments, narrative tools). A unique feature of PWC at this phase would be a focus on expanding a client's knowledge about the world, writ large. In addition to learning about potential career directions of interests, clients would be encouraged to develop a critical lens about work that explores the connections between power and privilege in the labor market. This approach dovetails with multicultural and class‐based interventions (e.g., Sue, Sue, Neville, & Smith, 2019) in its focus on a deep and critical contextual analysis of one's options and capacity to achieve self‐determined goals. The development of a career plan, for example, might take shape in PWC by having the client write a narrative or construct a visual goal map about where one hopes to be in 5–10 years, identifying both resources, barriers, and alternate plans (Kenny, Sparks, & Jackson, 2007).

The developmental challenges that occur in the postimplementation phase of the career development process are equally complex, invoking all of the relevant clusters of agentic action. Perhaps the prototypical case that emerges for counselors during this phase has to do with unexpected changes in one's access to work, such as unemployment, underemployment, and precarious work (Blustein, 2019). Critical reflection and action would be particularly important in helping clients to not engage in self‐blame, which are regrettably endemic, as people are cast aside in their work lives (Sharone, 2014). Taking a more critical view of the way in which workers are treated as commodities, while painful, is also liberating in that people may no longer magnify their past mistakes or interpersonal struggles at work as the cause of their current plight. Proactive engagement is clearly needed for individuals who experience ruptures at work; however, the psychological attributes that are needed for proactive engagement (e.g., confidence, resilience) are often constrained by the experiences of losing access to stable and safe work. In these cases, the counseling process needs to lean on best practices in psychotherapy to help clients engage in adaptive problem‐solving, get in touch with disavowed feelings of anger and betrayal, and to work through the often traumatic experience of losing one's full‐time job (Blustein, Kenny, Autin et al., 2019). The importance of social support and community engagement is also integral in working with clients facing postimplementation challenges. As the literature on unemployment and job search reveals (Liu, Huang, & Wang, 2014; Paul & Moser, 2009), relational and community connections are essential for managing the psychological challenges and in networking to locate new employment opportunities.

PSYCHOLOGY OF WORKING SYSTEMS INTERVENTIONS

Given the interdisciplinary nature of PWT, applying the theory and existing research literature to organizations, institutions, and macrolevel systems occupies a central role in the theory of change paradigm (Blustein, Kenny, Autin et al., 2019). The systems that we are focusing on include those that support or inhibit access to decent work (such as labor policies; educational resources; training institutions; economic structures and policies). We are aware that this is a daunting list that is overwhelming at first glance (and subsequent glances). However, we are advocating that counselors and psychologists learn about systems change as a way to inform policy advocacy, political action, and other community efforts. Naturally, we do not expect that all readers will have the support in their jobs and practices to move into community‐based work, but we do believe that this approach is integral to the social justice ethic that underlies PWT.

The direction of systems change efforts, clearly, is an individual decision that will vary across our field. For the sake of transparency, we would like to provide our particular priorities, which are derived from the underlying assumptions of PWT and the research findings that have been reported to date. As suggested by Blustein (2006, 2019) and supported by the ILO and United Nations (Blustein, Kenny, Di Fabio et al., 2019), work is a human right, one that should be granted to all. In order to support this view of work, we have argued in support of the Decent Work Agenda by the ILO, which was reviewed earlier in this chapter. In addition, we strongly support actions that will provide greater support for workers, such as the reinvigoration of labor unions and the development of other workers' organizations. We also believe that governments need to plan for the work lives of their citizens and not leave this crucial part of life up to the vagaries of financial markets. Finally, as Blustein (2019) noted, the erosion of the workplace is mirrored in a similar sense of psychological erosion, which requires activist interventions to combat the aversive consequences of the commodification of work in many regions of the globe.

As reflected in the PWT linear model, the impact of economic constraints, marginalization, and economic conditions is essential in evaluating the ways in which systems function. In addition, the three needs assessment domains are very relevant for systemic change efforts. Understanding the relation between survival and the implicit and explicit forces that sustain a given set of structures or institutions is essential for developing a plan for change. For example, the diminishment of unions during the advent of neoliberal economics (beginning in the mid to later part of the twentieth century) ostensibly was designed to increase competitiveness for the private sector, thereby enhancing workers' capacity to survive in a global context. However, the loss of union support negatively impacted the survival capacity for many working people. Assessing the ways in which systems support or detract from our natural desire for connection is also crucial, especially in societies that value individualism. Finally, the degree to which systems support strivings for self‐determination requires a careful assessment with a focus on how organizational priorities interface with individual aspirations and dreams.

Using this broad vantage point, the needs assessment optimally would identify how systems function to sustain themselves and to create conditions that may powerfully frame individual experiences at work. As an example of using the sources of agentic action in a systems change intervention, we explore the issue of precarious work, which has become a major problem in many economies (Kalleberg & Vallas, 2017). The critical reflection and action cluster would inform a careful interrogation of the functions of precarious work for the various economic interests that seem to thrive on providing workers with short‐term contracts or gig jobs (e.g., Uber drivers). Proactive engagement might be manifested by lobbying political leaders and candidates to create more humane labor protections for precarious workers. One obvious example in the United States is the connection between stable work and health insurance; creating better health care for all citizens would be a powerful way of mitigating some of the erosion of work that is reflected in precarious jobs. Community support and engagement would entail developing social action advocacy groups to support precarious workers and mobilizing communities to lobby their political leaders for more regulation of workers. Of course, a theme running through the precarious work dilemma is one of opportunity structure; without access to decent work, people will take what they can to support themselves. This issue, naturally, calls for systemic advocacy and action (cf. Blustein, 2019; Lent, 2018).

CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PWT has emerged rapidly over the past two decades into an innovative and pluralistic body of work that is now amassing considerable research support. The foundation for this work precedes the twenty‐first century; however, the promise of PWT as a major theoretical contribution for the current and future era is clearly apparent. As work becomes more unstable due to growing globalization, infusion of automation into the workplace, and the hegemony of neoliberal policies that shift the risk of work to employees (Blustein, 2019), PWT will become even more relevant and vital. In the practice realm, new advances in PWC and PWSI provide practitioners and advocates with useful structures to guide action for clients and change for systems.

In closing, PWT began as an effort to bring those on the margins to the center stage of career development theory and practice. In doing so, we have also developed a theory and set of practices that are relevant to all who work and who seek to work. The struggles of those on the margins during the twentieth century are now becoming the norm in many countries (and, of course, were the norm in most regions of the world). In short, the context matters in our lives as does our own agency and self‐determination. Locating the shared space between these macrolevel and psychological factors is the broad mission of PWT, which we believe can transform work‐based research, counseling practice, and systemic interventions.

As summarized in the previous section, PWT offers practitioners both an orientation toward enhancing the dignity of all work as well as specific recommendations to implement the multifaceted goals of fostering individual well‐being and fostering systemic change (adapted from Blustein, Kenny, Autin et al., 2019):

• Develop a caring and empathic alliance with clients that affirms the full spectrum of their experiences, including but not limited to work and career issues.
• Conduct a needs assessment encompassing survival, social connection/contribution, and self‐determination.
• In exploring issues, identify how macrolevel and psychological factors intersect for each client, which will inform the development of an effective conceptualization and counseling plan.
• Enhance client agency via fostering critical consciousness and proactive engagement.
• Help clients build on existing relational supports and develop new sources of social support and connection.
• Consider the systemic issues that emerge in counseling and discern ways for engagement in policy advocacy.
• Connect to professional associations and other organizations to explore advocacy work for clients and for changing the systems that may be sustaining marginalization and economic constraints.

REFERENCES

1. Allan, B. A., Tebbe, E. A., Bouchard, L. M., & Duffy, R. D. (2019). Access to decent and meaningful work in a sexual minority population. Journal of Career Assessment, 27, 408–421. doi:10.1177/1069072718758064
2. Autin, K. L., & Allan, B. A. (2019). Socioeconomic privilege and meaningful work: A psychology of working perspective. Journal of Career Assessment, 28, 241–256. doi:10.1177/1069072719856307
3. Autin, K. L., Douglass, R. P., Duffy, R. D., England, J. W., & Allan, B. A. (2017). Subjective social status, work volition, and career adaptability: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 99, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2016.11.007
4. Autin, K. L., Duffy, R. D., Blustein, D. L., Gensmer, N. P., Douglass, R. P., England, J. W., & Allan, B. A. (2019). The development and initial validation of the Work Needs Satisfaction Scale: Measuring basic needs within the Psychology of Working Theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66, 195–209. doi:10.1037/cou0000323
5. Autin, K. L., Duffy, R. D., Jacobson, C. J., Dosani, K. M., Barker, D., & Bott, E. M. (2018). Career development among undocumented immigrant young adults: A psychology of working perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65, 605–617. doi:10.1037/cou0000280
6. Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career psychology of women. San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
7. Blustein, D. L. (2001). Extending the reach of vocational psychology: Toward an inclusive and integrated psychology of working. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(2), 171–182. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1823
8. Blustein, D. L. (2006). The psychology of working: A new perspective for career development, counseling, and public policy. NY: Routledge.
9. Blustein, D. L. (2011). A relational theory of working. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(1), 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.10.004
10. Blustein, D. L. (2013). The psychology of working: A new perspective for a new era. In D. L. Blustein (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the psychology of working (pp. 3–18). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
11. Blustein, D. L. (2017). Integrating theory, research, and practice: Lessons learned from the evolution of vocational psychology. In J. P. Sampson, E. Bullock‐Yowell, V. C. Dozier, D. S. Osborn, & J. G. Lenz (Eds.), Integrating theory, research, and practice in vocational psychology: Current status and future directions (pp. 179–187). Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.
12. Blustein, D. L. (2019). The importance of work in an age of uncertainty: The eroding work experience in America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13. Blustein, D. L., Chaves, A. P., Diemer, M. A., Gallagher, L. A., Marshall, K. G., Sirin, S., & Bhati, K. S. (2002). Voices of the ‘forgotten half’: The role of social class in the school‐to‐work transition. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 311–323.
14. Blustein, D. L., Kenny, M. E., Autin, K. L., & Duffy, R. D. (2019). Psychology of working in practice: A theory of change for new era. Career Development Quarterly, 67, 236–254.
15. Blustein, D. L., Kenny, M. E., Di Fabio, A., & Guichard, J. (2019). Expanding the impact of the psychology of working: Engaging psychology in the struggle for decent work and human rights. Journal of Career Assessment, 27, 3–28. doi:10.1177/1069072718774002
16. Blustein, D. L., McWhirter, E. H., & Perry, J. C. (2005). An emancipatory communitarian approach to vocational development theory, research, and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 33(2), 141–179. doi:10.1177/0011000004272268
17. Blustein, D. L., Phillips, S. D., Jobin‐Davis, K., Finkelberg, S. L., & Roarke, A. E. (1997). A theory‐building investigation of the school‐to‐work transition. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 364–402.
18. Blustein, D. L., Prezioso, M. S., & Schultheiss, D. P. (1995). Attachment theory and career development: Current status and future directions. The Counseling Psychologist, 23(3), 416–432. doi:10.1177/0011000095233002
19. Bouchard, L. M., & Nauta, M. M. (2018). College students' health and short‐term career outcomes: Examining work volition as a mediator. Journal of Career Development, 45, 393–406.
20. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent child attachment and healthy human development. New York Basic Books.
21. Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the Work Related Basic Need Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 981–1002. doi:10.1348/096317909X481382
22. Brown, S. D., & Ryan Krane, N. E. (2000). Four (or five) sessions and a cloud of dust: Old assumptions and new observations about career counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 740–766). New York: Wiley.
23. Buyukgoze‐Kavas, A., & Autin, K. L. (2019). Decent work in Turkey: Context, conceptualization, and assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 64–76. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2019.01.006
24. Cadaret, M. C., Dykema, S. A., Ahmed, S., Jwayyed, J. S., Youker, A. C., & Knutson, D. (2018). A qualitative investigation of the experiences of people who panhandle. The Counseling Psychologist, 46, 870–898. doi:10.1177/0011000018810774
25. Chaves, A. P., Diemer, M. A., Blustein, D. L., Gallagher, L. A., DeVoy, J. E., Casares, M. T., & Perry, J. C. (2004). Conceptions of work: The view from urban youth. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 275–286. doi:10.1037/0022‐0167.51.3.275
26. Chronister, K. M., & McWhirter, E. H. (2006). An experimental examination of two career interventions for battered women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 151–164. doi:10.1037/0022‐0167.53.2.151
27. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357. doi:10.1037/0033‐2909.98.2.310
28. Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self‐determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43. doi:10.1146/annurev‐orgpsych‐032516‐113108
29. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well‐being in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930–994. doi:10.1177/0146167201278002
30. Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2019). Decent work in Italy: Context, conceptualization, and assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110, 131–143. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2018.10.014
31. Diemer, M. A. (2009). Pathways to occupational attainment among poor youth of color: The role of sociopolitical development. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 6–35. doi:10.1177/0011000007309858
32. Diemer, M. A., & Blustein, D. L. (2006). Critical consciousness and career development among urban youth. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 220–232. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.07.001
33. Diemer, M. A., Rapa, L. J., Voight, A. M., & McWhirter, E. H. (2016). Critical consciousness: A developmental approach to addressing marginalization and oppression. Child Development Perspectives, 10, 216–221.
34. Dodd, V., Hooley, T., & Burke, C. (2019). Decent work in the UK: Context, conceptualization, and assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 270–281. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2019.04.002
35. Douglass, R. P., Velez, B. L., Conlin, S. E., Duffy, R. D., & England, J. W. (2017). Examining the psychology of working theory: Decent work among sexual minorities. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64, 550–559. doi:10.1037/cou0000212
36. Duffy, R. D., Allan, B. A., England, J. W., Blustein, D. L., Autin, K. L., Douglass, R. P., … Santos, E. J. (2017). The development and initial validation of the Decent Work Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64, 206–221. doi:10.1037/cou0000191
37. Duffy, R. D., Autin, K. L., England, J. W., Douglass, R. P., & Gensmer, N. P. (2018). Examining the effects of contextual variables on living a calling over time. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107, 141–152. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2018.04.003
38. Duffy, R. D., Blustein, D. L., Diemer, M. A., & Autin, K. L. (2016). The psychology of working theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63, 127–148. doi:10.1037/cou0000140
39. Duffy, R. D., Diemer, M. A., & Jadidian, A. (2012). The development and initial validation of the Work Volition Scale–Student Version. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 291–319. doi:10.1177/0011000011417147
40. Duffy, R. D., Diemer, M. A., Perry, J. C., Laurenzi, C., & Torrey, C. L. (2012). The construction and initial validation of the Work Volition Scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 400–411. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.04.002
41. Duffy, R. D., England, J. W., Douglass, R. P., Autin, K. L., & Allan, B. A. (2017). Perceiving a calling and well‐being: Motivation and access to opportunity as moderators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 127–137. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2016.11.003
42. Duffy, R. D., Gensmer, N., Allan, B. A., Kim, H. J., Douglass, R. P., England, J. W., … Blustein, D. L. (2019). Developing, validating, and testing improved measures within the psychology of working theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 199–215. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2019.02.012
43. Duffy, R. D., Velez, B. L., England, J. W., Autin, K. L., Douglass, R. P., Allan, B. A., & Blustein, D. L. (2018). An examination of the psychology of working theory with racially and ethnically diverse employed adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65, 280–293. doi:10.1037/cou0000247
44. Eggerth, D. E., DeLaney, S. C., Flynn, M. A., & Jacobson, C. J. (2012). Work experiences of Latina immigrants: A qualitative study. Journal of Career Development, 39, 13–30. doi:10.1177/0894845311417130
45. England, J. W., Duffy, R. D., Douglass, R. P., Gensmer, N. P., & Kim, H. J. (2019). Women attaining decent work: The role of workplace climate in psychology of working theory. Chicago, IL: A paper presented at the American Psychological Association.
46. Eschelman, A. J., & Rottinghaus, P. J. (2019). Development and initial validation of the work and human needs inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 344–355. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2019.04.006
47. Ferreira, J. A., Haase, R. F., Santos, E. R., Rabaca, J. A., Figueiredo, L., Hemami, H., & Almeida, L. M. (2019). Decent work in Portugal: Context, conceptualization, and assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 77–91.
48. Flores, L. Y., Mendoza, M. M., Ojeda, L., He, Y., Meza, R. R., Medina, V., … Jordan, S. (2011). A qualitative inquiry of Latino immigrants' work experiences in the Midwest. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 522–536. doi:10.1037/a0025241
49. Freire, P. (2007). Pedagogy of the oppressed (3rd ed.). New York/ondon: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.
50. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51. Harmon, L. W., & Farmer, H. S. (1983). Current theoretical issues in vocational psychology. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 39–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. Hartung, P. J. (2012). Career development in a global context: History, status, and prospects. In M. Watson & M. McMahon (Eds.), Career development: Global issues and challenges (pp. 11–26). NY: Nova Science Publishers.
53. Hill, C. E. (Ed.) (2012). Consensual qualitative research: A practical resource for investigating social science phenomena. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
54. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
55. International Labor Organization. (2008). Work of work report 2008: Income inequalities in the age of financial globalization. Retrieved from: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms:100354.pdf
56. International Labor Organization. (2012). Decent work indicators: Concepts and definitions. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/--integration/documents/publication/wcms:229374.pdf
57. Johnson, M. K., & Mortimer, J. T. (2002). Career choice and development from a sociological perspective. In D. Brown & Associates, Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 37–81). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
58. Kalleberg, A. L., & Vallas, S. P. (Eds.) (2017). Probing precarious work: Theory, research, and politics. In Precarious Work (pp. 1–30). Bingley: Emerald Publishing.
59. Kenny, M., & Medvide, M. B. (2013). Relational influences on career development. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 329–356). New York, NY: Wiley.
60. Kenny, M., Sparks, E., & Jackson, J. (2007). Social justice practice through interprofessional university‐school collaboration. In E. Aldarondo (Ed.), Promoting social justice through mental health practice (pp. 313–335). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
61. Kenny, M. E., & Bledsoe, M. (2005). Contributions of the relational context to career adaptability among urban adolescents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 257–272.
62. Kenny, M. E., Blustein, D. L., Chaves, A., Grossman, J., & Gallagher, L. A. (2003). The role of perceived barriers and relational support in the educational and vocational lives of urban high school students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 142–155. doi:10.1037/0022‐0167.50.2.142
63. Kim, H. J., Duffy, R. D., Lee, S., Lee, J., & Lee, K.‐H. (2019). Application of the psychology of working theory with Korean emerging adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/cou0000368
64. Kim, T., & Allan, B. A. (2019). Underemployment and meaningful work: The role of psychological needs. Journal of Career Assessment.doi:10.1177%2F1069072718824004
65. Kossen, C., & McIlveen, P. (2018). Unemployment from the perspective of the psychology of working. Journal of Career Development, 45, 474–488. doi:10.1177/0894845317711043
66. Kozan, S., Blustein, D. L., Paciorek, R., Kilbury, E., & Işık, E. (2019). A qualitative investigation of beliefs about work‐related crises in the United States. Journal of Counseling Psychology. doi:10.1037/cou0000343
67. Kozan, S., Işık, E., & Blustein, D. L. (2019). Decent work and well‐being among low‐income Turkish employees: Testing the psychology of working theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66, 317–327. doi:10.1037/cou0000342
68. Krumboltz, J. D. (1979). A social learning theory of career decision making. Revised and reprinted. In A. M. Mitchell, G. B. Jones, & J. D. Krumboltz (Eds.), Social learning and career decision making (pp. 19–49). Cranston, RI: Carroll Press.
69. Lent, R. W. (2018). Future of work in the digital world: Preparing for instability and opportunity. The Career Development Quarterly, 66, 205–219. doi:10.1002/cdq.12143
70. Lent, R. W., & Brown, S. D. (2013). Understanding and facilitating career development in the 21st century. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed., pp. 1–26). NY: Wiley.
71. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027
72. Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 395–404. doi:10.1037/a0018079
73. Liu, S., Huang, J. L., & Wang, M. (2014). Effectiveness of job search interventions: A meta‐analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1009–1041. doi:10.1037/a0035923
74. Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. (1991). Essentials of person‐environment‐correspondence counseling. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
75. Masdonati, J., Schreiber, M., Marcionetti, J., & Rossier, J. (2019). Decent work in Switzerland: Context, conceptualization, and assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110, 12–27. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2018.11.004
76. Nam, J. S., & Kim, S. Y. (2019). Decent work in South Korea: Context, conceptualization, and assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2019.05.006
77. Osipow, S. H., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1996). Theories of career development (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
78. Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston: Houghton‐Mifflin.
79. Paul, K. I., & Moser, K. (2009). Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta‐analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 264–282. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.01.001
80. Pope, M. (2015). Career intervention: From the industrial to the digital age. In P. J. Hartung, M. L. Savickas, & B. W. Walsh (Eds.), APA handbook of career intervention. Vol. 1. Foundations (pp. 3–19). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
81. Prilleltensky, I. (1997). Values, assumptions, and practices: Assessing the moral implications of psychological discourse and action. American Psychologist, 52, 517–535. doi:10.1037//0003‐066X.52.5.517
82. Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search of how people change. Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102–1114.
83. Ribeiro, M. A., Teixeira, M. A. P., & Ambiel, R. A. M. (2019). Decent work in Brazil: Context, conceptualization, and assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 229–240.
84. Richardson, M. S. (1993). Work in people's lives: A location for counseling psychologists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40(4), 425–433. doi:10.1037/0022‐0167.40.4.425
85. Roberts, K. (1995). Youth employment in modern Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
86. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self‐determination theory: An organismic‐dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self‐determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
87. Savickas, M. L. (2002). Career construction: A developmental theory of vocational behavior. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 149–205). San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass. Savickas.
88. Sharone, O. (2014). Flawed system, flawed self: Job searching and unemployment experiences. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
89. Smith, E. J. (1983). Issues in racial minorities' career behavior. In W. B. Walsh & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 161–222). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
90. Sue, D. W., Sue, D., Neville, H. A., & Smith, L. (2019). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (7th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
91. Super, D. E. (1980). A life‐span, life‐space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16, 282–298. doi:10.1016/0001‐8791(80)90056‐1
92. Tokar, D. M., & Kaut, K. P. (2018). Predictors of decent work among workers with Chiari malformation: An empirical test of the psychology of working theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 106, 126–137. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2018.01.002
93. Vondracek, F. W., Lerner, R. M., & Schulenberg, J. E. (1986). Career development: A life‐span developmental approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
94. Wang, D., Jia, Y., Hou, Z.‐J., Xu, H., Zhang, H., & Guo, Z. L. (2019). A test of psychology of working theory among Chinese urban workers: Examining predictors and outcomes of decent work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103325
95. Watts, R., Grifith, D. M., & Abdul‐Adil, J. (1999). Sociopolitical development as an antidote for oppression—Theory and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 255–272.
96. Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York, NY: Knopf.