Over recent decades, the career trajectories of PhD holders have significantly evolved, with over half of new graduates now finding employment outside academia, a trend observed globally, including Finland. As the range of sectors and roles for PhD holders expands, the demand for career guidance beyond academic settings has risen. However, there is limited understanding of how PhD holders develop careers outside academia. This study aims to address this gap by exploring PhD holders’ perceptions of work environment fit and their job-crafting strategies in non-academic careers.
The study used qualitative data from 21 semi-structured interviews with PhD holders working in non-academic settings, analysed using abductive content analysis.
Five job-crafting strategies were identified: job change, adjusting expectations, relational crafting, task crafting and professional development. Findings suggest job changes often stem from a mismatch with the work environment or a desire to enhance a good working environment fit.
These insights enrich the existing knowledge of PhD careers outside academia, offering valuable information for developing tailored career support during doctoral education. The identified strategies can help future PhD graduates, educators and career advisors better prepare PhDs for diverse career paths.
Introduction
Doctoral careers are undergoing significant transition (Enders, 2004), with a growing number of PhD graduates in the Global North pursuing careers beyond academia (Germain-Alamartine, 2019). This shift is driven by factors such as the massification of doctoral education, which limits academic career opportunities; innovation policies that increase demand for research across various fields; the uncertain and temporary nature of academic positions; challenges in securing research funding; and the emergence of new career opportunities outside universities (McAlpine and Emmioğlu, 2015).
Doctoral education primarily prepares PhDs for academic careers, often neglecting preparation for non-academic roles (Skakni et al., 2022). Consequently, PhD holders frequently struggle to fit into non-academic positions, leading them to adopt job crafting strategies to enhance integration and thrive (Guccione and Bryan, 2023). This reveals a research gap, as these strategies are underexplored despite their importance. Experiences of fit are not just technical but also personal and emotional, with mismatches prompting job crafting to restore meaningfulness. Our study aims to bridge this gap by examining Finnish humanities and social sciences (HSS) and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) PhD holders’ perceptions of work environment fit and the strategies they use during transitions from academia to non-academic roles. This study seeks to address the following research questions:
Firstly, how do PhD holders perceive their work environment fit during career transitions? Secondly, what job-crafting strategies do they use to modify this fit?
The paper begins with a review of research and literature on PhD careers beyond academia. It then analyses the working environment fit and job-crafting strategies of PhD holders. The methodology section outlines the study’s execution, followed by the presentation of results. The discussion section considers the study’s significance and conclusions. Next, we explore the factors contributing to career transitions and job-crafting strategies used by PhD holders outside academia.
PhD careers beyond academia
There is a growing demand for PhD holders beyond academia, especially in innovation, technology development and business renewal roles (Heikkinen et al., 2021). These professionals contribute to organisational innovation, credibility and strengthen university-industry ties (Diamond et al., 2014). Key reasons for non-academic employers hiring PhD holders include their networks, cooperation skills, positive image and connections with universities (Haapakorpi, 2017). Employers outside academia highly value PhD holders for their communication, decision-making, problem-solving abilities, rapid learning, data analysis skills and innovative thinking (Sinche et al., 2017). In turn, non-academic employers often worry about PhD holders’ limited business acumen, career planning, goal-setting, leadership and time management skills (McAlpine and Inouye, 2022).
Additionally, there is significant variation in the careers and employment sectors of PhD holders across academic disciplines, indicating diverse career trajectories and experiences (Törnroos, 2017). STEM PhDs globally are more likely to work outside academia than their peers in HSS fields (Holopainen, 2023). PhD holders in STEM fields are primarily employed in the private sector (Turk-Bicakci et al., 2014), while HSS PhDs mainly work in the public and semi-public sectors (Roach and Sauermann, 2010). Though generally well employed, unemployment rates among HSS PhDs have been slightly higher than those from STEM (Holopainen, 2023). Also, gendered differences in non-academic careers have been identified, with women more often being employed in the public sector (Peri-Rotem, 2019).
Career building outside university is neither self-evident nor easy (Barnacle et al., 2020). PhD holders, both within and outside academia, encounter issues such as unfavourable working conditions, job availability, financial constraints, career uncertainty, poor work–life balance and mental health problems (Li and Horta, 2022), indicating less than optimal working dynamics between a PhD holder and their working environment. Unfortunately, there is limited empirical evidence on doctoral careers outside academia, particularly regarding how PhD holders perceive their work environment and the job-crafting strategies they use to improve it (McAlpine and Emmioğlu, 2015). This lack of information hinders the development of effective methods to prepare PhD candidates for careers beyond academia (Germain-Alamartine et al., 2021).
PhD holders’ working environment fit and job-crafting strategies
The dynamics between the PhD holder and their working environment can be examined through the lens of working environment fit, as outlined in theoretical models such as the job demands-resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al., 2001). Good working environment fit is characterised by a balance between personal resources, job demands and resources. Conversely, a poor fit can result from either a lack of personal resources or excessively high demands set by the working environment or both (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). A good working environment fit has been shown to increase employee engagement and commitment to work, job satisfaction, performance and innovation, and to reduce job turnover (Pyhältö et al., 2022). Conversely, a poor fit between an employee and their job can lead to decreased job satisfaction and an increased risk of burnout and job turnover (Rönkkönen et al., 2024).
For example, alignment with career goals and quality of professional relationships are shown to increase PhD holders’ job satisfaction, despite the often-demanding workload and conditions (Spronken-Smith et al., 2024). Accordingly, opportunities for meaningful and inspiring professional interactions, and forgiveness for mistakes are critical job resources that contribute to a positive working environment (Rothmann and Janse van Rensburg, 2020). We recently showed that PhD graduates who use a diverse set of skills and knowledge in their jobs report better alignment between their job and career goals, and a better fit within their working environment, compared to peers who use a more limited scope of skills and knowledge (Sundström et al., 2025). This suggests that the opportunity to make full use of one’s expertise can enhance the fit within a working environment. Conversely, misalignment between organisational demands and PhD holders’ competencies and values is likely to impact negatively on their job satisfaction and performance, and the company’s growth and productivity (Roslee and Goh, 2021).
The working environment evolves over time, influenced by factors like PhD holders’ job-crafting strategies. Job-crafting involves proactive changes individuals make to better align with their job characteristics (Wrześniewski and Dutton, 2001; Tims et al., 2012). PhD holders may modify tasks, build relationships and adjust work expectations (Wrześniewski and Dutton, 2001). Additionally, they can enhance career success by setting goals within their organisation or seeking new opportunities (Akkermans and Tims, 2017).
The active use of job-crafting strategies has been shown to result in numerous positive outcomes for both employees and employers (Tims et al., 2022). Job-crafting enhances the meaningfulness of work, cultivates professional identity and promotes work motivation and performance (Mäkikangas and Schaufeli, 2021). Job-crafting enhances work–life balance, well-being, work commitment, job satisfaction and employment relationship quality by aligning personal and work goals, improving the fit within the working environment (Bakker et al., 2016).
Although there is an extensive body of literature on working environment fit and job-crafting, to our knowledge, there are no previous studies examining PhD holders’ job-crafting strategies beyond academia. Our study aims to fill this gap by investigating the strategies PhD holders use to modify the fit between themselves and their working environments in transition from academic to non-academic employment.
Research objectives and questions
The aim of this study was to investigate PhD holders’ perceptions of work environment fit and the job crafting strategies they use to shape their career paths outside academic institutions. The following research questions were addressed:
How do the PhD holders perceive their work environment fit in career transition?
What job-crafting strategies do they use to modify the fit?
Methods
This section outlines the research methods, including an overview of Finnish doctoral education and PhD careers, participant introduction and data analysis description.
Finnish doctoral education and PhD careers
The PhD is the highest degree awarded by Finnish universities. Its goal is to educate qualified researchers and create new knowledge through high-quality research (Finland, The Government Decree on University Degrees and Specialisation Training 794/2004 § 21). Studying for a doctorate is highly research-intensive, consisting of a dissertation (200 credits) and course work (40 credits, based on an individual study plan). The dissertation can be either a monograph or an article-based dissertation consisting of three to five peer-reviewed and published scholarly articles and a summary. No tuition fees are charged to undertake doctoral education. The target time for the doctoral degree is four years studying full-time, although the degree can also be completed part-time. In 2021, there were 51,857 PhD students in Finland, which is twice as many as at the beginning of the millennium (Holopainen, 2023). The employment rate for PhDs is high at 96% (Heikkinen et al., 2021). Although the university sector remains the largest employer of PhD holders, the proportion working in non-academic sectors has steadily increased. It is projected that by 2025, the non-academic sector will overtake the university sector as the largest employer of PhD holders in Finland (Holopainen, 2023).
Participants
The data were collected in 2022 from 21 Finnish PhD holders (women: 10; men: 10; non-binary: 1; aged between 32 and 60 years). A total of 10 were from HSS fields and 11 from STEM fields. They worked in the private, public or semi-public sectors, with both national and international employers in the fields of education, administration, nature and environment, business, health and industry. Their job descriptions included employee level and expert level tasks or entrepreneurship. Most of them worked permanently and full-time; only one reported working part-time. Most reported that a doctorate was not required for their job description or could not say if it was a requirement (n = 14), while a third of the PhD holders (n = 7) reported that their job description required a doctoral degree. Most PhD holders (n = 19) reported that there were other individuals with PhD degrees working in the same company. Most participants (n = 20) had planned a university career during their doctorate.
Data collection
The interviewees were chosen through linear snowball sampling (Johnson, 2014). All participants were informed about the study prior to data collection. Participation was voluntary. A preliminary information form was sent to the participants before the interview to collect background information such as disciplinary area, career development and the content of their current job. Based on this, the individual career timelines of each interviewee were constructed. Individual semi-structured interviews (Adams, 2015) using visualisation techniques (Manovich, 2011) combined with the critical incident technique (Breunig and Christoffersen, 2016) were conducted in May 2022–June 2022 by members of the research group. Interview themes included the PhD holders’ job responsibilities, career paths, goals, networking, employment strategies, motives and satisfaction with their careers. The interview protocol was pilot tested in Spain and the UK as part of a larger research collaboration. Interviews were held face-to-face or online using Zoom or Microsoft Teams. They lasted between 40 and 90 min. Trained research assistants transcribed the interviews into text files.
Analysis
The interviews were analysed with an abductive content analysis (Creswell, 2014). Firstly, the text segments in which PhDs described their work–life, the triggers for workforce changes and perceived fit between PhD graduates and their working environment in their career change were identified. Episodes describing the work environment in the transition were coded into four independent sub-categories, corresponding to the perceived quality of match or mismatch between PhDs and their working environment. The sub-categories were:
Environment (+) Person (+), (E+P+): A good fit between a PhD holder and their working environment, provided by the working environment and their own resources and/or capabilities.
Environment (−) Person (+), (E−P+): A mismatch between PhD holders’ own efforts and capabilities and their working environment, caused by excessive demands, work not matching their skills, lack of appreciation and social support or problems in the workplace.
Environment (−) Person (−), (E−P−): A mismatch between a PhD holder and their working environment, caused by limitations in the resources, capabilities, social support and excessive demands within the environment.
Environment (+) Person (−), (E+P−): A mismatch between a PhD holder and their working environment, caused by constraints in their own resources and/or capabilities.
In the second phase of the analysis, the strategies that PhD holders used to modify the working environment fit were identified drawing on job-crafting literature (Wrześniewski and Dutton, 2001; Tims et al., 2012). This resulted in five independent sub-categories that were:
job change;
adjusting expectations;
relational crafting;
task crafting; and
professional development.
After this the four working environment fit sub-categories were cross tabulated with the job-crafting strategies. Categories resulting from the analysis were validated by the participating researchers. Independent parallel analysis based on classification criteria was carried out for 25% and the inter-rate agreement was 97%.
Finally, descriptive comparisons were made across gender and disciplinary fields to explore potential variation in responses. The data were organised and analysed using Microsoft Excel. No statistical tests were conducted, as the distributions were identical or showed no meaningful variation between groups.
Results
The results are divided into two main sections: the first examines perceived working environment fit during career transitions and the second explores how PhD holders adjust this fit using job-crafting strategies.
Perceived work environment fit in career changes
PhD holders reported various triggers for a career change. “Negative” triggers included dissatisfaction with work content or workplace practices, reduced occupational well-being, life situation factors and employment prospects. They cited lack of intellectual stimulation, stress, burnout, need for better work–life balance, relocation requirements, limited academic job opportunities and job insecurity as reasons for seeking change. In turn, “positive triggers” included seeking career advancement, the desire for independence, mentorship, encouragement from family and colleagues and professional development opportunities. For instance, some were driven by ambition for higher positions or the autonomy and creative freedom of starting their own business. Additionally, career mentoring and support from family and colleagues were seen as influential positive triggers for change.
In about half of the episodes, PhD holders described a good fit between themselves and their working environments during the times of a career change, category named: E+P+ (see Table 1). In these episodes they emphasised the opportunities to advance their careers, such as promotions or the ability to take on leadership roles. This career progression was often seen as a significant motivator and a sign of recognition of their skills and expertise. Additionally, the ability to choose work tasks allowed them to engage in projects that aligned with their interests and strengths. They described independence at work as a crucial factor, which provided them with the autonomy to make decisions and manage their own schedules, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility. They also mentioned that positive interaction in the workplace, including collaboration and supportive colleagues, promoted their feeling of being valued and appreciated. They also described the significance of being able to lead innovative projects and having the freedom to explore new ideas. PhD holders also identified a supportive network of colleagues as crucial sources of encouragement and constructive feedback, which helped them thrive in their working environments.
Prevalence and distribution of perceived working environment fit types: frequency and example quotes
| Fit type | f | % | Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| E+P+ | 95 | 53 | “When I graduated, the goal was to find an interesting job at the entry level, but now I have a desire to move forward, get ahead and have greater responsibility at work, because I have learned certain practices here and then gained experience in the period after graduation.” (HSS, 06) |
| E−P+ | 83 | 47 | “After all, work motivation is greatly influenced by how you feel that others value your work. And if it’s difficult to get funding for your own work, it kind of signals that the rest of society doesn’t really value it, because they don’t want to pay me for it. When the financial situation is dependent on it, it in any case reduces the motivation. These things, which are related to how difficult and vague it is to get academic funding, yes, they have played a pretty important role in pushing me away from that career path.” (STEM, 04) |
| E−P− | 33 | 19 | “It was quite depressing to be honest. I was just the kind of person who had been in the work force for a long time, who actually should have been somewhere at least as a special expert or researcher for the government at that point, but those jobs were so terribly scarce, and it was really hard to get them. I realized then that I need to expand my skills, this portfolio of mine.” (HSS, 01) |
| E+P− | 7 | 4 | “But the fact that I had a child probably influences such choices and emphasis, for example, what kind of places one applies to. I wouldn’t want to be a war journalist, or the fact that no matter how much traveling I want my job to involve, it probably affects it, and that physical location of my job.” (STEM, 09) |
E+P+: Good fit during career transition; E−P+: Mismatch due to workplace factors: skills misalignment, lack of appreciation and underutilisation; E−P−: Mismatch due to both workplace factors and personal skill alignment; E+P−: Mismatch due to personal skill alignment or perceived lack of skills; f = frequency
In fewer than half of the episodes, PhD holders described the mismatch between themselves and their work environment, which fell into three categories: E−P+; E−P− and E+P−. The mismatches resulted from various dysfunctional person-working environment dynamics. In the E−P+ category, PhD holders reported experiencing a mismatch a due to environmental demands, such as a lack of appreciation and social support or other problems in the workplace. They often felt that their skills could be sufficient for more challenging work and that their talents could be used in more complex tasks.
In the E−P−category, PhD holders described a mismatch between their own abilities and efforts, and the work environment, which resulted both from the demands or problems of the working environment and a lack of personal resources and capabilities. This entailed dissatisfaction with the lack of available jobs or that their job did not correspond to their skills. They also described a lack of balance between the work and their personal life, and that the financial situation was not favourable. PhD holders described experiencing uncertainty and a lack of appreciation and social support from others and problems with the organisation’s structure and operating model.
In the E+P−category, the emphasis was on incompatibility between themselves and their work environment due to the lack and limitations of their own resources and abilities. In these episodes, PhD holders highlighted exhaustion, choices made due to family situations and cynicism about their own skills.
Modifying the fit: job-crafting strategies
PhD holders used a variety of job-crafting strategies to modify their work environment fit, with the most common approach being job change (Table 2), whereby they strived for a better working environment fit by changing jobs.
Job-crafting strategies used: types, example quotes and frequency
| Citations | Job change | Adjusting expectations | Relational crafting | Task crafting | Professional development |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citation | “I had the chance to stay at the university, I was about to get a good lecturer position there, but I thought I couldn’t stay there anymore. Then we started to develop our own company forward.” (HSS, 02) | “My idea of a career as a researcher slowly began to shake when I realised what else it would be other than just doing research.” (HSS, 09) | “The good thing about working at that research institute is that there are biologists, chemists and physicists all work together, which means that in addition to your own data, you have the opportunity to get a lot of metadata.” (STEM, 01) | “I’ve had such a desire that I want to move forward, get ahead and get more responsibility and more responsible work tasks.” (HSS, 06) | “I started practising programming and coding, as I had never done it before.” (STEM, 07) |
| Fit type | |||||
| E+P+ | 24 | 12 | 30 | 19 | 11 |
| E−P+ | 17 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| E−P− | 14 | 14 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| E+P− | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Total, f | 56 | 39 | 32 | 21 | 15 |
E+P+: Good fit during career transition E−P+: Mismatch due to workplace factors: skills misalignment, lack of appreciation, and underutilisation E−P−: Mismatch due to both workplace factors and personal skill alignment E+P−: Mismatch due to personal skill alignment or perceived lack of skills f = frequency
One PhD holder described their rationale for changing jobs in the following way:
I was working at XX at the time, and it was incredibly busy all the time. I felt like my days were really long, although I had very interesting tasks there. […] However, it wasn’t just that I couldn’t challenge myself enough, but also the substance of the work. I had studied international politics, EU politics, and political research, and I had a strong passion to go work in that field. (HSS, 01)
PhD holders also frequently described adjusting their expectations about their current job. This involved reconsidering career goals due to the realities of current situation, pursuing priorities and ethical observations about one’s work and society. One PhD holder described the adjustment in a following way:
I have three children and a spouse who travels for work, so freedom and flexibility in my career are important. I saw it as a child, through my father, that if you really want to become a good researcher, it requires an incredible amount of work. Of course, I also saw it in my own academic career. Although I was very passionate about work, the idea that work is not a priority in my life became stronger. (HSS, 02)
PhD holders also applied relational crafting to expand networks, maintain interaction and increase communication channels. One explained the application of relational crafting as follows:
Well, probably the fact that my husband is also a mathematician, and he switched to the private sector a couple of years before I did. That provided a good example and very practical help and support in terms of what to consider and think about. (STEM, 07)
In turn, task crafting involved adjusting work tasks to be more favourable, thereby improving the working environment fit. PhD holders mentioned this strategy for career advancement purposes or to increase well-being. One described task crafting as follows:
There was a situation in which I needed to seek a new direction, and at the same time, I felt that I needed something more in my work and tasks. The work had become familiar and manageable enough that there was room to develop and take on new challenges. (STEM, 09)
PhD holders also invested in professional development, including seeking new challenges, looking for more interesting goals and optimising work-related requirements. One described using this strategy as follows:
Then I completed an entrepreneur training and started my own business, but I also began working on a large book project aimed at a broad audience, which was very interesting. (HSS, 07)
PhD holders who reported a strong fit with their work environment (E+P+) used diverse job-crafting strategies. They frequently changed jobs, used relational crafting to enhance the fit, and tailored tasks to advance careers, gain freedom and pursue passions. Additionally, they invested in professional development and adjusted their expectations.
In the cases in which they felt that there was a mismatch between them and the work environment caused by the environment (E−P+) or by both them and the environment (E−P−), graduates mainly described using job change and adjusting expectations as job crafting strategies. In addition, PhD holders who felt that the reason for person-environment mismatch was the lack and limitations of their own resources and abilities (E+P−), mainly used job-crafting strategy of adjusting expectations. The PhD holders rarely invested in relational or task crafting when they perceived a mismatch between themselves and the work environment due to any reason.
Influences of gender and discipline on working environment fit and job-crafting strategies
Upon examining the differences across disciplines and gender, it appears that the perceived working environment fit among PhD holders did not significantly differ by discipline or gender. However, notable variations were observed in the job-crafting strategies used (Figure 1). STEM PhD holders were found to use adjusting expectations and relational crafting strategies more frequently compared to their HSS counterparts. In terms of gender differences, men engaged slightly more in job change and relational crafting strategies, and significantly more in adjusting expectations. Conversely, women were more inclined towards professional development and task crafting strategies. These observations are based on qualitative analysis.
The image presents two bar charts. The first chart, titled Job-crafting strategies H S S/ S T E M, displays several strategies: job change, adjusting expectations, relational crafting, professional development, and task crafting. The vertical axis indicates the number of episodes ranging from zero to thirty, while the horizontal axis lists each job-crafting strategy. Two colours represent H S S and S T E M. The second chart shows job-crafting strategies by gender, with the same strategies listed on the horizontal axis and the number of episodes marked on the vertical axis.Comparison of job-crafting strategies across STEM and HSS fields and between genders
Source: Authors’ own creation
The image presents two bar charts. The first chart, titled Job-crafting strategies H S S/ S T E M, displays several strategies: job change, adjusting expectations, relational crafting, professional development, and task crafting. The vertical axis indicates the number of episodes ranging from zero to thirty, while the horizontal axis lists each job-crafting strategy. Two colours represent H S S and S T E M. The second chart shows job-crafting strategies by gender, with the same strategies listed on the horizontal axis and the number of episodes marked on the vertical axis.Comparison of job-crafting strategies across STEM and HSS fields and between genders
Source: Authors’ own creation
Discussion
This section discusses the findings in light of the existing literature, elaborates on their significance and outlines the implications for career guidance and development for PhD holders. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the working environment dynamics and the job-crafting strategies used by Finnish PhD holders working outside academia to modify their fit during career transitions. The study enhances the literature on post-PhD experiences outside academia by identifying four types of PhD-work environment fits, showcasing the diverse dynamics involved in transitioning from academic to non-academic careers. Additionally, it highlights five key job-crafting strategies: job change, adjusting expectations, relational crafting, task crafting and professional development. These findings can be analysed through the lens of the JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001), providing a framework to understand how PhD holders balance demands and resources in new work settings while actively shaping their roles to improve fit and satisfaction.
PhD holders reported both negative and positive drivers for the career change, such as dissatisfaction with current work or workplace practices, a passion for career development and a desire for professional growth. Most PhD holders reported a good fit between themselves and their working environment, feeling that their skills matched well with their job requirements beyond academia. This alignment was a key characteristic of a positive working environment fit for PhD holders transitioning to non-academic careers. Such a fit is crucial, as it is associated with higher employee engagement, job satisfaction, performance and innovation, while also reducing job turnover (Pyhältö et al., 2022). Conversely, a poor fit can lead to decreased job satisfaction and an increased risk of burnout and job turnover (Rönkkönen et al., 2024), underscoring the importance of alignment in non-academic career transitions.
Three distinct forms of mismatch were identified, highlighting less functional dynamics in the transition to non-academic careers. These mismatches arose from either a lack of personal competencies, inappropriate workplace requirements, insufficient resources or a combination of these factors. PhD holders often attributed these mismatches to the characteristics of their working environment. Such experiences led to reduced occupational well-being and dissatisfaction, as high work demands, such as heavy workloads and overload, paired with inadequate resources like training, feedback and colleague support, can result in physical and mental exhaustion and increased work stress (Slowiak and DeLongchamp, 2022).
Although there is a strong body of research on other employee groups (McAlpine and Emmioğlu, 2015), according to our knowledge this is the first study shedding light specifically into PhD holders’ working environment dynamics beyond academia. The results on PhD-working environment dynamics among those PhD holders transitioning into non-academic careers can be considered particularly significant, since traditionally, academia has been the primary career destination for PhD holders and doctoral education is still mainly focused on preparing graduates for academic positions (Skakni et al., 2022).
Job-crafting strategies used by PhD holders in non-academic careers to optimise their working environment dynamics have not been studied before, even though there are previous studies on other highly educated employees, such as medical professionals (see e.g. van Leeuwen et al., 2022). In our seminal study on PhDs, we identified five job-crafting strategies used by PhD holders: job change, adjusting expectations, relational crafting, task crafting and professional development. PhD holders mostly applied job change to alter their working environment dynamics. The findings resonate with the results of previous studies conducted with other employee populations, suggesting that job-crafting consists of three behaviours at work: actively changing work tasks, creating interpersonal relationships and adapting cognitive perceptions about work (Wrześniewski and Dutton, 2001; Tims et al., 2012).
Further investigation showed that the use of strategies varied between the types of dynamics. A good fit was related to the most diverse use of job-crafting strategies among the PhD holders. In turn, the reported mismatch was related to less diverse use of job-crafting strategies. This implies that the active and diverse use of job-crafting strategies can improve the working environment fit for PhD holders. Such strategies are known to contribute positively to work–life balance, well-being, commitment to work and job satisfaction by fostering a better alignment between individual aspirations and professional responsibilities (Bakker et al., 2016).
Our recent findings suggest that women face more obstacles in their career advancement compared to men, particularly when transitioning to non-academic roles (Sundström et al., 2025). Previous research has also highlighted gendered differences in non-academic careers, with women more frequently employed in the public sector (Peri-Rotem, 2019). Specifically, PhD holders in HSS fields and women may encounter additional challenges during this transition (Sundström et al., 2025). In this current study, our results indicate that women tend to favour professional development and task crafting strategies, potentially as a response to these challenges.
Implications for developing PhD education and careers
The findings of this study have several implications for career guidance and development in PhD education. Firstly, understanding the types of fit and mismatch experiences can help career advisors tailor their advice to individual needs, focusing on enhancing the match between skills and job requirements. Secondly, recognising the job-crafting strategies that PhD holders use can inform the development of training programmes in doctoral education aimed at improving these practices, thereby supporting graduates in managing their careers more effectively through tailored skill enhancement and strategic career planning. Thirdly, learning to use diverse crafting strategies during doctoral education facilitates the transition to non-academic employment for PhD holders. Finally, the insights gained from this study can be used to design interventions that reduce mismatch experiences and promote occupational well-being among PhDs.
Strengths and limitations of the study
In this study, we applied the qualitative semi-structured interview methodology to study PhD holders’ working environment fit, the triggers that make them pursue a career change and the strategies they use to modify the working environment fit. The interview protocol (Adams, 2015) was pilot tested with the co-operation of research groups in Spain and in the UK. An independent parallel analysis was carried out. Multimodal interviews enabled reflection and made it easier for the respondents to remember various stages of their career path (Manovich, 2011). The interviews resulted in rich and diverse cross-sectional data. However, due to the cross-sectional design, we do not know whether the job-crafting actions taken by PhD holders contributed to increased job satisfaction or happiness. Hence, generalising the findings and drawing conclusions about the long-term impacts of job-crafting strategies on career satisfaction and progression among PhD holders requires large-scale studies with longitudinal designs. Also, the role of organisational support in facilitating effective job crafting is needed to develop well-fitted means to promote PhD careers.
The study reveals significant variations in perceptions of person-working environment fit among PhD holders employed outside academia, indicating that non-academic careers are becoming an increasingly common path for future PhD graduates. It highlights the diverse job-crafting strategies that PhD holders use to enhance their fit within their work environments, indicating that using a combination of strategies can lead to improved work dynamics. These findings offer valuable insights into the career trajectories of PhD holders beyond academia, underscoring the need to understand and support their unique career development needs.
Key findings include:
Triggers for career change: PhD holders identified various triggers for career changes, including dissatisfaction with work or workplace practices and aspirations for career advancement and professional development.
Perceived working environment fit: Approximately half of the PhD holders reported a good fit between themselves and their work environment during the transition from academia. However, mismatches were also noted, often due to work demands, skill mismatches, lack of appreciation and personal resource limitations.
Job-crafting strategies: PhD holders used strategies such as changing jobs, adjusting expectations, relational crafting, task crafting and professional development to improve their work environment fit. The use of multiple strategies was linked to better alignment.
In summary, this study offers new insights into the career dynamics of PhD holders outside academia and provides practical recommendations for enhancing their career development through job-crafting. It emphasises the importance of personalised career guidance and calls for ongoing research to better support the diverse career paths of PhD holders.
