Summary of the ICF

The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (commonly referred to as the ICF) is a comprehensive framework and classification developed by the World Health Organization for describing the complex consequences of health conditions. The ICF is recognised worldwide for offering a multifaceted system to describe the full range of functioning, which is defined as the dynamic interaction between an individual’s health condition and contextual factors [13].

Principal components in the ICF include body functions, body structures, activities, and participation along with contextual factors (see Figure 6.1). Body functions refer to the physiological functions of body systems (e.g., the ability to see). Body structures refer to anatomical parts of the body (e.g., the structure of the eye). Activities are the execution of a task or action (e.g., performing tasks required of an apprenticeship), whereas participation is considered involvement in a life situation, such as maintaining a specific job. Contextual factors include personal factors, such as age, which may affect an individual’s ability to work (e.g., the minimum age required to work), and environmental factors, including the availability of jobs in a geographical location and appropriate conditions in the workplace.

There are several important points to note about the ICF system. First, activities and participation are grouped together in domains covering a full range of life areas. Qualifiers are used to differentiate them, namely, the capacity to describe an individual’s ability to complete the task or action and performance to describe what an individual does in their current environment. Second, capacity and performance can be measured with and without assistive technology or personal assistance (environmental factors).

Figure 6.1

ICF framework.

Source: World Health Organization [13]

Comparing the ICF and the CA

The ICF framework has often been compared with the CA framework to better understand disability and functioning. For details, see the works of scholars, including Bickenbach [Reference Bickenbach14], Mitra [Reference Mitra15], Mitra and Shakespeare [Reference Mitra and Shakespeare16], and Welch Saleeby [Reference Welch Saleeby17, Reference Welch Saleeby18]. This section summarises the salient points of these published comparisons.

Theoretical basis. Both frameworks are multidimensional and useful for understanding well-being. The CA is normative in nature, emphasising individual freedoms and potential opportunities as a mechanism for evaluating individual well-being. As Sen indicated, what an individual values in terms of their capability to achieve functionings provides the general approach to determining social arrangements [Reference Sen8]. In contrast, the ICF is not an evaluative instrument, although assessment tools based on the ICF are available. Instead, the ICF is a robust descriptive framework with an in-depth corresponding classification focused only on the individual’s actual lived experience, summarised by relevant ICF components.

Terminology. Differences in terminology can be confusing. In the CA, functionings are broadly defined as realised doings and beings, whereas in the ICF, functioning is a broader, all-encompassing umbrella term for its key components. A lack of consensus among ICF scholars on how to remedy such differences in terminology is evident. However, if we consider that capabilities represent potential and their actual materialisation is defined as functionings, the focus shifts to examining the significance of what individuals are actually doing in their everyday lives, including aspects related to work.

Conversion and contextual factors. In the CA, conversion factors – personal, social, and environmental – shape how resources translate into real opportunities and outcomes [Reference Robeyns6, Reference Ribeiro, Huisman and Tight19]. These factors are conceptually similar to the contextual factors in the ICF that can influence an individual’s activities and participation. Indeed, the value of both frameworks lies in describing interpersonal variations that enable a greater understanding of individual circumstances independently. In essence, the conversion factors in the CA account for human diversity and contextual specificity [Reference Ribeiro, Huisman and Tight19], and the contextual factors in the ICF are the same [Reference Welch Saleeby18]. Personal conversion factors, for example, include intelligence or gender; social conversion factors may be workplace norms or employment policies; and environmental conversion factors may be related to the physical or built climate, such as the accessibility of a work site.

Using the CA with the ICF

Some scholars [Reference Nussbaum10] have critiqued Sen’s CA for lacking a defined list of capabilities (for a comprehensive discussion of the debate between Sen and Nussbaum, see Robeyns [Reference Robeyns6]), arguing that this approach leaves no clear standard for evaluating well-being or social justice. While this openness was intentional, others – most notably Nussbaum – have proposed lists to fill the gap. With respect to work capabilities, Nussbaum briefly mentions “control over one’s environment” as one of the basic capabilities and includes “having the right to seek employment” and “in work, being able to work as a human being” [Reference Nussbaum10]. Although Nussbaum’s list is intended to bridge the gap in the CA, the practicality of using it to fully capture the complexity of work is not feasible. More recently, Van der Klink et al. [Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma7] proposed a set of seven work-related capabilities aimed specifically at operationalising sustainable employability. This adaptation offers a more targeted approach, although practical challenges remain (see almost all other chapters of this book for elaboration and specification of this remark).

In contrast, the ICF classification provides a systematic way to operationalise the CA by its ability to organise a wide range of information around what individuals are actually doing and the context in which they are doing it. The ICF has already been used to support the CA in social care [Reference Welch Saleeby18] and healthcare [Reference Van der Veen, Evans, Huisman, Welch Saleeby and Widdershoven20] settings. Bringing the CA and the ICF together to examine work capability enhances both frameworks. For example, the ICF can help identify barriers to performing a specific job (e.g., lack of accessible tools), guiding interventions such as assistive technology. This improves actual functioning in a role and expands a person’s capability set – their options for valued work outcomes – by increasing both the number and quality of achievable job functionings.

A Brief Summary of the JD-R Model

The job demands-resources (JD-R) model is a widely recognised framework in occupational health psychology that explains how job characteristics impact employee well-being, motivation, and performance [Reference Galanakis and Tsitouri21, Reference Crawford, LePine and Rich22]. Introduced in the early 2000s [Reference Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli23] and refined in later years [Reference Bakker, Demerouti and Sanz-Vergel24], the model centres on two key aspects: job demands and job resources [Reference Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner and Schaufeli23, Reference Bakker, Demerouti and Sanz-Vergel24].

Job demands refer to the physical, psychological, social, or organisational aspects of a job that require sustained effort. These include high work pressure, emotionally demanding interactions, complex tasks, or tight deadlines. While not inherently harmful, excessive or prolonged demands can lead to stress, burnout, and absenteeism as well as reduced job satisfaction and performance [Reference Schaufeli, Taris, Bauer and Hämmig25]. In contrast, job resources are the physical, psychological, social, or organisational factors that help employees meet their job demands, achieve work goals, and stimulate personal growth. These resources can include supportive management, opportunities for development, autonomy, and feedback. These resources buffer the impact of job demands and are linked to engagement, motivation, and well-being [Reference Mazzetti, Robledo, Vignoli, Topa, Guglielmi and Schaufeli26].

The JD-R model outlines two processes: the health impairment process, where high demands lead to strain and health issues, and the motivational process, where resources increase engagement and performance [Reference Demerouti and Bakker27]. For organisations, the JD-R model offers a practical tool for promoting well-being and performance by addressing job demands and enhancing resources. It also guides interventions aimed at preventing burnout and fostering employee engagement [Reference Nielsen, Nielsen, Ogbonnaya, Känsälä, Saari and Isaksson28].

Similarities and Differences

Table 6.1 concisely compares the JD-R model and the CA, highlighting their similarities and differences across various aspects.

The JD-R model and the CA focus on well-being but differ in scope and emphasis. The JD-R model centres on balancing job demands and resources to manage stress and enhance engagement in work settings [Reference Schaufeli, Taris, Bauer and Hämmig25, Reference Mazzetti, Robledo, Vignoli, Topa, Guglielmi and Schaufeli26], thereby focusing on work-related well-being. In contrast, the CA emphasises broader individual freedoms and opportunities [Reference Robeyns3, Reference Sen4], considering many aspects of life beyond work.

The primary distinction lies in their orientation: the JD-R model is descriptive, focusing on the current or actual state of job demands and resources and their effects on well-being (‘ist’ situation – the situation that is). In contrast, the CA is normative, focusing on the desired or targeted state (‘soll’ situation – the situation as it should be). This implies that values play an explicit and fundamental role in the CA by shaping what individuals consider important in their lives and, consequently, influencing their choices. According to the CA, values help individuals identify which functionings are important to them [Reference Robeyns3, Reference Sen4]. For example, one person may place high value on workplace autonomy, but another may place high value on bonding with colleagues. The CA respects these individual differences, emphasising that well-being is subjective and should be based on personal values [Reference Robeyns3, Reference Sen4]. In contrast, in the JD-R model, values implicitly shape how employees perceive and respond to job demands and resources. For example, an employee who values achievement and career growth may see challenging tasks (a job demand) as opportunities for development. In contrast, someone who values work‒life balance might perceive the same tasks as burdensome.

Integrating the JD-R Model and the CA

Integrating the JD-R model and the CA involves combining the strengths of both frameworks to create a more comprehensive understanding of well-being in the workplace. There are eight ways to achieve this.

Expanding the definition of resources. In the CA, resources are means to expand capabilities – the freedoms to achieve various functionings [Reference Robeyns3, Reference Sen4, Reference Robeyns6]. The job resources of the JD-R (such as autonomy, social support, and feedback) can be integrated into the CA by viewing these resources as essential elements that enable workers to develop and exercise their capabilities at work. For example, job resources can be considered crucial for expanding capabilities such as being productive, maintaining work‒life balance, and achieving personal and professional growth.

Linking job demands to capability constraints. Job demands (e.g., work overload, emotional demands, and role conflict) can be interpreted in the CA as constraints on an individual’s capabilities. High job demands can limit an individual’s ability to achieve desired functionings, such as maintaining good health or participating in family life. By framing job demands as potential barriers to capability expansion, organisations can focus on reducing these barriers to enhance employees’ overall well-being.

Enhancing individual agency in the workplace. The CA strongly emphasises individual agency – the freedom to make choices and act upon them [Reference Robeyns3, Reference Sen4, Reference Robeyns6]. Integrating the JD-R model can strengthen this focus by ensuring that job resources are aligned with enhancing employees’ agency at work. For example, providing autonomy and opportunities for skill development (job resources) can empower employees to make decisions that align with their personal and professional goals, thus enhancing their capabilities and overall well-being.

1. a. Development of a holistic well-being framework. Combining the CA and the JD-R model allows for the development of a holistic framework that considers both the work-specific aspects of well-being (from the JD-R model) and broader life capabilities (from the CA). This integrated framework can be used to assess how work environments contribute to or detract from an individual’s overall capabilities, including those related to health, education, social participation, and personal fulfilment.

2. b. Designing interventions that promote capabilities. By integrating the JD-R model into the CA, interventions can be designed not only to address job demands and resources but also to promote capabilities. For example, an intervention aimed at reducing burnout might include increasing job resources such as social support and training (JD-R model) while ensuring that these resources contribute to expanding capabilities such as lifelong learning, maintaining health, and achieving work‒life balance (CA).

3. c. Contextualising job demands and resources. The CA’s sensitivity to context can enhance the JD-R model by ensuring that job demands and resources are evaluated within the broader life context of the individual. This means considering how factors outside of work, such as family responsibilities or social networks, interact with job demands and resources to affect an individual’s capabilities. For example, flexible working arrangements could be seen as a job resource that not only reduces job demands but also expands the capability to care for family members.

4. d. Focusing on social and organisational justice. Integrating the JD-R model into the CA can help address social and organisational justice issues. The CA’s emphasis on fairness and equity [Reference Sen5] can guide the design of job resources and the management of job demands to ensure that all employees have equal opportunities to develop and exercise their capabilities. This might involve policies that warrant access to training, fair workload distribution, and inclusive decision-making processes.

5. e. Evaluating work-related outcomes through the lens of capabilities. Outcomes traditionally measured by the JD-R model, such as engagement, burnout, and job satisfaction, can be reinterpreted through the capability lens. For instance, engagement can be seen as a functioning that reflects the successful exercise of capabilities related to meaningful work. Moreover, burnout might indicate a failure to maintain essential capabilities such as mental health or work‒life balance.

Integrating the JD-R model into the CA provides a more comprehensive framework for understanding and improving well-being in the workplace. It allows organisations not only to manage job demands and enhance resources but also to focus on expanding the capabilities and freedoms of employees. This integration supports a more holistic approach to employee well-being, aligning workplace practices with broader human development and social justice goals.

A Brief Summary of SDT

SDT is a comprehensive theory of human motivation that asserts that individuals possess inherent tendencies for psychological growth, integration, and well-being [Reference Ryan and Deci29, Reference Vansteenkiste, Ryan and Soenens30]. At its core, SDT theorises about three essential psychological needs – autonomy, competence, and relatedness – and their role in fuelling these tendencies. These basic psychological needs are considered innate and universal across individuals. Autonomy refers to the need for individuals to experience volition and choose freely among various actions they undertake. Competence refers to feeling effective and capable of dealing with challenges. Relatedness involves feeling connected to and cared for by others [Reference Vansteenkiste, Ryan and Soenens30]. SDT employs a broad and multifaceted approach, encompassing several mini-theories. Each targets different aspects of motivation and psychological functioning [Reference Ryan and Deci29]. This chapter will focus on one of the widely implemented theories of SDT: basic psychological needs theory. SDT examines the psychological processes that foster or hinder motivation and well-being by analysing how social-contextual factors (e.g., leadership, job design, and organisational culture) affect motivation through these basic psychological needs [Reference Gagné and Deci31, Reference Deci, Olafsen and Ryan32]. In other words, when these needs are supported, individuals are more likely to internalise motivation, experience well-being, and engage meaningfully in their work. Conversely, when these needs are thwarted, motivation tends to become controlled or even absent (amotivation), often resulting in disengagement or strain [Reference Gagné and Deci31, Reference Ryan, DeHaan and Ryan33].

Understanding Human Flourishing: A Comparison of SDT and CA

The CA and SDT offer solid frameworks for understanding human flourishing, but each emphasises different aspects of the process. SDT posits that these three basic psychological needs are the keys to personal growth and optimal functioning. These needs are shaped by immediate social environments (e.g., leadership or collegial interactions), directly affecting motivation and/or well-being [Reference Gagné and Deci31, Reference Deci, Olafsen and Ryan32]. In contrast, the CA offers a broader, normative framework, focusing on what should be done to improve well-being and social justice. The CA emphasises capabilities and shifts the focus from internal motivational processes to external societal, political, economic, and institutional elements that determine whether individuals have opportunities to convert resources (e.g., organisational support) into meaningful functionings, such as being healthy or employed [Reference Robeyns3, Reference Sen4].

Similarities

Despite emphasising different aspects, SDT and the CA share several core principles. Both theories emphasise the importance of autonomy (or agency) in shaping individual well-being. In SDT, autonomy refers to the need to make self-determined choices, a fundamental element of motivation [Reference Ryan and Deci29, Reference Vansteenkiste, Ryan and Soenens30]. Similarly, the CA’s concept of agency highlights the importance of individuals being active agents in shaping their lives. The CA goes a step further by considering the broader societal structures that enable or hinder an individual’s ability to exercise autonomy [Reference Robeyns3], including in the workplace. Furthermore, the need for competence, as outlined in SDT, refers to the feeling of being effective and capable of mastering one’s environment [Reference Ryan and Deci29, Reference Vansteenkiste, Ryan and Soenens30]. This need aligns with the CA’s emphasis on social structures, such as educational systems and workplace training programmes, that support the development and application of individuals’ capabilities [Reference Robeyns3, Reference Ryan, DeHaan and Ryan33]. Both theories recognise that feeling competent is essential for individual well-being. Finally, both SDT and the CA underscore the importance of social connections. SDT’s focus on relatedness [Reference Ryan and Deci29, Reference Vansteenkiste, Ryan and Soenens30] resembles the CA’s focus on the social structures [Reference Robeyns3] that facilitate or hinder these connections. Both frameworks highlight the role of socio-contextual support in fostering relationships, which are vital for well-being.

Differences

While both SDT and the CA are concerned with human well-being, they differ significantly in their scope and approach. These differences in scope and approach are highlighted in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2Differences between SDT and the CA.

Table 6.2 Long description

The table includes three columns labeled Dimension, S D T, and C A.

Scope. S D T is primarily a descriptive framework explaining how the satisfaction of psychological needs influences motivation and well-being. It focuses mainly on individual-level processes and the immediate social environments, such as work settings, that directly affect need fulfilment, whereas, C A is a normative framework that goes beyond individual processes to address the broader social, political, and economic structures that shape an individual’s opportunities. It looks at how these structures create or restrict capabilities, enabling people to achieve valuable functioning in their lives.

Opportunities versus psychological needs. S D T focuses on the satisfaction of psychological needs within specific contexts, examining how environmental factors like leadership or colleague communication influence an individual’s motivation and functioning, whereas, C A emphasizes capabilities, the real freedoms and opportunities people have to pursue the functioning they value. It addresses how societal institutions and policies either support or limit individuals’ ability to achieve meaningful goals, such as being healthy or successful.

Normative versus descriptive (Idiographic versus nomothetic, refer to Chapters 1 or 2). S D T is more descriptive and explanatory, providing insights into the psychological conditions that foster or hinder motivation and growth, whereas C A is explicitly normative, focusing on what should be done to ensure that individuals have the freedoms and opportunities to achieve well-being. It concerns the structural conditions that enable or inhibit an individual’s ability to convert resources into meaningful functioning.

Integration of SDT and the CA: A Holistic View of Human Flourishing

Integrating the CA with SDT provides a more holistic understanding of human motivation and well-being by addressing internal psychological needs and external structural opportunities. SDT provides a detailed understanding of how need satisfaction leads to motivation and well-being. Moreover, the CA adds a broader framework for understanding the external conditions necessary for individuals to exercise autonomy, develop competence, and foster relatedness. This integration is visually depicted in Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2

Integrated framework of the SDT and the CA for enhancing well-being and performance.

Sources: Adapted from DeHaan et al. [35], Meerman et al. [34], Robeyns [3], Ryan and Deci [29], and Van der Klink et al. [7].

The figure shows how macro-level (e.g., national labour policies and organisational culture), meso-level (e.g., team dynamics, leadership styles), and micro-level (e.g., individual skills and experiences) factors [Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma7, Reference Ryan, DeHaan and Ryan33, Reference Meerman, Van Casteren, Brouwers, Van Dam, Van der Klink and Wiśniewska34] influence the availability of resources, which shapes the capabilities – or real freedoms – individuals can use to achieve valuable functionings. Furthermore, conversion factors (social, environmental, and personal) determine how effectively resources are transformed into capabilities [Reference Robeyns3, Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma7, Reference DeHaan, Hirai and Ryan35]. From this capability set, individuals make choices that affect their need-based experiences, particularly in relation to autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The satisfaction of these needs influences functionings [Reference DeHaan, Hirai and Ryan35], such as well-being and job performance.

For example, labour market policies that promote flexible working arrangements or offer training programmes enable individuals to exercise their autonomy and competence in a work context. These policies expand employees’ capabilities, allowing them to pursue meaningful goals and engage with work in ways that enhance their well-being. Social norms that support work‒life balance or inclusive workplace cultures also ensure that individuals can meet their psychological need for relatedness, enabling them to connect with others and build meaningful relationships at work.

Despite the clear synergies, several challenges exist in integrating the CA and SDT. One key difficulty is their differing levels of analysis. SDT centres on psychological processes and immediate social contexts influencing need-based experiences and motivation. In contrast, the CA operates at a broader level, addressing socio-economic structures and institutional factors that affect capabilities. Bridging these factors requires considering how macro-level factors (e.g., national policies or social norms) translate into micro-level experiences of need satisfaction and well-being. Therefore, one promising avenue is to focus more on how specific labour policies or organisational structures and practices influence employees’ capability to make autonomous choices, develop competence, and foster meaningful relationships. Another challenge is measuring capabilities (see Chapter 4). SDT benefits from well-established measures for psychological need satisfaction and motivation, whereas the CA’s multidimensional and context-specific capabilities are harder to measure consistently across different contexts. The complexity of assessing capabilities, particularly in ever-changing work environments, poses methodological challenges for empirical research. Nevertheless, Van der Klink et al.’s capability set for work, which outlines seven core work-related capabilities, offers promising ways to make the CA more empirically accessible [Reference Van der Klink, Bültmann, Burdorf, Schaufeli, Zijlstra and Abma7].

In conclusion, the integration of the CA and SDT allows for a more comprehensive framework for enhancing well-being at work and beyond. SDT sheds light on the psychological needs that drive motivation and growth, whereas the CA emphasises the societal structures that shape individuals’ real opportunities. Together, they inform practices and policies that support both the need for satisfaction and the freedom to pursue valued lives. This integration urges organisations and policymakers to address both psychological and structural barriers, promoting strategies that are both normatively grounded and psychologically sound to foster human flourishing across contexts.

A Brief Overview of the IMBP and Its Development

In addition to the other theories discussed in this chapter (e.g., ICF, JD-R, and SDT), the IMBP is a key framework for understanding and influencing human behaviour in contexts such as health, sustainable employability, and long-term unemployment. The IMBP and its predecessors have guided interventions across domains, from preventive health behaviour to job seeking [Reference Van Hooft, Born, Taris and Van der Flier36, Reference Van Hooft, Born, Taris, Flier and Blonk37, Reference Boermans, Van de Logt and Blonk38]. In our research, we use this model to support unemployed and sicklisted individuals in returning to work. While our examples are drawn from these areas, the IMBP applies to any behaviour.

The IMBP is the latest development in what is known as the reasoned action approach (RAA) [Reference Fishbein and Ajzen39]. The RAA, which started more than half a century ago, encompasses several theories that have developed over time, such as expectancy-value theories (EVT), the theory of reasoned action (TRA), the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), and, more recently, the IMBP. Our goal is not to provide a comprehensive overview of the five to six decades of research that led to the development of the IMBP. For those interested in deeper exploration, we recommend Ajzen’s essay on the legacy of Martin Fishbein’s work and other supporting literature [Reference Fishbein and Ajzen39, Reference Ajzen, Van Lange, Kruglanski, Tory Higgins and Ajzen40].

Among the precursors of the IMBP, both the TRA and the EVT emphasise the importance of attitudinal beliefs (values). The theories differ in the outcomes of these beliefs. In EVT, beliefs are related to the importance of a specific goal for an individual (e.g., the value of having a job) and personal beliefs about the likelihood of successfully pursuing that goal. In TRA, the beliefs (e.g., functional, useful, pleasant, fun) focus on performing a specific behaviour (e.g., job search) rather than the goal that the behaviour aims to achieve. While this difference seems minor, it helps us better understand the varying effectiveness of interventions and what drives unemployment: is it a matter of belief (motivational), behavioural issues, goal setting, or a mix of these and perhaps other factors not yet included in the model? As such, extending the TRA to include beliefs about perceived control is a small but significant step.

This extension draws on the social cognitive theory [Reference Bandura41]. To some extent, self-efficacy resembles the expectancy concept in the EVT, ultimately transforming the TRA into the TPB, which Ajzen describes as the premier reasoned action approach [Reference Ajzen, Van Lange, Kruglanski, Tory Higgins and Ajzen40]. Beliefs about perceived control refer to resources and obstacles that may foster or hinder a specific behaviour. Perceived behavioural control, or self-efficacy, encompasses beliefs about effectively conducting a required behaviour. This includes knowing what to do, having and managing resources, and dealing with obstacles. Applied to the job search process, these beliefs involve being confident in one’s ability to engage in effective job search behaviours, such as asking for help when needed and dealing with inevitable setbacks.

Until now, these models have focused primarily on factors that facilitate or hinder the intention or motivation to perform a specific behaviour. However, intentions are not enough; one also needs the skills and knowledge to perform the necessary behaviours (e.g., job search) to attain the goal (e.g., acquiring a job) and the opportunity to do so (e.g., job vacancies, inclusive labour employer behaviour). Fishbein and Ajzen extended the TPB into the IMBP by adding actual skills and environmental constraints as predictors to the model. By integrating these additional components, the RAA moved from centralising the intention and motivation in the TRA and TPB to centralising both motivation and behaviour in the IMBP. As such, the resulting IMBP framework provides a comprehensive approach to understand and predict behaviour and to develop effective interventions (see Figure 6.3).

Figure 6.3

A dynamic model combining the IMBP with the CA.

From: Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach by M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen, figure 1.1, page 22. Copyright (2010) by Psychology Press. Reproduced by permission of Taylor & Francis Group.

Figure 6.3 Long description

Distal variables like Personal characteristics, Demographics and culture, and other individual differences feed into three respective core cognitive pillars, Attitude slash value, Social norm, and Self-efficacy driving a reciprocal relationship between Intention slash Motivation and behaviour. The reciprocal relationship is supported by two external factors like Skill acquisition and Dealing with constraints leading to a step-wise goal attainment. The step-wise goal attainment features two major feedback loops, Person-centered guidance and Capability set.

Source: Adapted from Fishbein and Ajzen [39]

This integrated framework coincides with the results of a meta-analysis on the effects of job search interventions conducted by Liu et al. [Reference Liu, Huang and Wang42]. Based on forty-seven studies that met the quality criteria of at least a quasi-experimental design, Liu and colleagues showed that job search interventions increased the likelihood of finding a job by a factor of 2.67 compared with no-treatment control groups. Liu et al. then conducted an in-depth analysis of the content of these job search interventions, revealing two main components: interventions aimed at enhancing motivation (e.g., improving job search self-efficacy) and those focused on developing specific skills needed to apply for a job (e.g., self-presentation). Their subsequent analysis revealed that interventions were only effective when they addressed both skill development and motivation enhancement [Reference Liu, Huang and Wang42]. This finding supports the notion that interventions based on models such as the IMBP should centralise motivation and behaviour in predicting outcomes.

The IMBP has proven flexible in incorporating additional insights. For example, the IMBP connects seamlessly with the SDT, and many of the factors in the ICF are reflected within the subconcepts of the IMBP. As the IMBP becomes more detailed and expands, researchers may debate its subconcepts’ specific content, relationships, and relative order. However, in our experience, complexity is reduced when this technique is applied as a diagnostic tool and as a foundation for designing interventions.

Combining the IMBP with the CA

Given its history and development, it is not surprising that the IMBP is open to the CA. The connection between these two approaches can be understood or established on four levels. First, the CA focuses on values – specifically, the aspects (beings and doings) that people have reason to value. This is also the case in the IMBP, which, with its roots in EVT, highlights the importance of the values people assign to their goals as key aspects of motivation and perseverance.

Second, the concept of agency is important in Sen’s work, which resonates with the notion of self-efficacy (akin to SDT’s notion of competence). Even though Sen has a much broader and deeper notion of agency, the development of an individual’s sense of self-efficacy can be understood as a process of the social construction of meaning in which relationships with case managers, as well as collective systems such as social services or team dynamics, play an important role in shaping an individual’s sense of self-efficacy. For example, the most influential source of self-efficacy beliefs is an individual’s interpretation of one’s performance or mastery experience. As such, recognising and affirming experiences or providing support when confronted with setbacks may work to encourage and empower individuals in their job search, while downplaying can work to defeat and weaken self-efficacy beliefs.

Third, the IMBP describes the role of environmental and individual constraints or hindrances that may impede behaviour and goal attainment. These constraints can include not only physical or mental disabilities but also factors such as stigma, discrimination, and reduced access to resources. When applied to guiding the unemployed (back) to work, the IMBP does not differ from the CA in these aspects. However, unlike the CA, the IMBP is not a normative model. It merely describes the factors related to the model’s central aspects, thus contributing to its predictive quality.

In line with the ICF, JD-R, and SDT, this normative nature also extends the IMBP on a different level that encompasses all aspects of the model. This extension arises from the CA’s focus on the quality of the goals being pursued and the personal agency to pursue them. For example, in the context of guiding unemployed individuals, the CA emphasises that work should be something people have reason to value. In some cases, especially when social benefits are at stake, the focus of employment guidance may shift from helping the job seeker find meaningful work to minimising costs for society. While this shift does not always lead to lower-quality outcomes, it increases the risk of steering individuals into jobs that might negatively impact their health or other long-term outcomes.

Therefore, the fourth point is that combining the CA with the IMBP would advocate for person-centred employment guidance, with a focus on sustainable outcomes (see Chapter 2, Appendix 2.1 for a start on this). Where the IMBP explains a person’s behaviour in pursuing a job, CA can help translate insights into effective strategies for behaviour change based on the IMBP into normative principles for employment guidance or the development of labour market policies. For example, strategies that encourage the pursuit of personal career ambitions (attitude/value), boost self-efficacy to achieve these ambitions, and reduce environmental constraints (see Figure 6.4). Such an approach would use the IMBP but view and apply its aspects through the lens of CA, ensuring that the guidance process is aligned with meaningful, long-term benefits for the individual.

Figure 6.4

Foci of combining the IMBP and the CA.

Figure 6.4 Long description

Behavioural beliefs influencing an individual's attitude or value, Normative beliefs influencing the social norm, and Control beliefs determining an individual's level of Self-efficacy converge to form an individual's Intention or Motivation moderated by Actual skills and Environmental Constraints thereby leading to behavioural action and Goal attainment.

Source: Adapted from Yzer [43, p. 23]