1 the impact of career boundarylessness on subjective career success: a contingency approach dr....
TRANSCRIPT
1
The Impact of Career Boundarylessness on Subjective Career Success: A Contingency Approach
Dr. Sidika Nihal Colakoglu
February 15, 2007
Norfolk State University
2
Overview
Background of the Study Gaps in Prior Research Objectives of the Study Research Model Definitions of the Study’s Constructs Research Hypotheses Research Design and Methodology Results Additional Analyses Discussion Conclusions Limitations Contributions of the Study Implications Suggestions for Future Research
3
Background and Impetus for the Study Emergence of “New Economy” (global competition,
technological advances, shorter product cycles)
Changes in organizational structures (leaner, flatter organizations), processes, and human resources practices (increased use of part-time and temporary employees)
Increased rate of job loss resulting from downsizing, restructuring, mergers, and acquisitions
Increased job mobility and decreased job stability
Diminished sense of job security
4
Background and Impetus for the Study
Changes in psychological contracts from relational to transactional
A move from organization-driven careers to individual-driven careers (career agency)
Heightened importance of subjective career
Declining number of individuals pursuing a traditional, organizational career
Emergence of boundaryless careers with unpredictable, discontinuous, disorderly paths
5
Gaps in Prior Research
Lack of empirical research testing previously offered theoretical assertions regarding the consequences of experiencing a boundaryless career.
Primary focus on consequences of boundaryless careers for macro level constituencies such as organizations, occupational groups, or society.
Lack of a theoretical model explaining how and why experiencing a boundaryless career influences subjective career success.
6
Gaps in Prior Research
Lack of research identifying and examining conditions under which one’s boundaryless career experience has positive or negative consequences for his/her career success.
Lack of a comprehensive and continuous measure of
career boundarylessness.
7
Objectives of the study
Develop and test a contingency model that examines the impact of career boundarylessness on subjective career success.
Identify and examine factors that explain the relationship between career boundarylessness and subjective career success.
Identify and examine factors that moderate the relationship between career boundarylessness and subjective career success.
Offer a comprehensive and continuous measure of career boundarylessness.
8
Is Career Boundarylessness a Boon or Bane?
The Positive Link The Enactment Perspective (Arthur & Rousseau,
1996; Weick, 1996) Strong vs. Weak Situations Argument (Mischel, 1977;
Weick, 1996)
The Negative Link The Stress Perspective (Arthur, Inkson, & Pringle,
1999; Mirvis & Hall, 1996; Sullivan, 1999)
9
The Research Model
Career Competencies - Knowing-why - Knowing-how - Knowing-whom
CareerBoundarylessness
CareerInsecurity
CareerAutonomy
Subjective Career Success
10
The Positive Link
CareerBoundarylessness Career
Autonomy
Subjective Career Success
Career Competencies - Knowing-why - Knowing-how - Knowing-whom
H1b
H1a H1c
11
The Negative Link
CareerBoundarylessness Career
Insecurity
Subjective Career Success
Career Competencies - Knowing-why - Knowing-how - Knowing-whom
H2b
H2a H2c
12
Traditional Career vs.Boundaryless Career
Traditional Careers Life-time, permanent, full-
time employment in one or two organizations
Job Stability Intra-organizational mobility:
upward, orderly, and continuous moves.
YearsC
aree
r O
utco
mes
13
Traditional Career vs.Boundaryless Career
Boundaryless Career Frequent mobility across:
Organizations, jobs, occupations, geographical locations, and/or industries
Different employment forms (part-time vs. full-time, temporary vs. permanent, organizational vs. self-employment)
Inter-organizational mobility with discontinuous, disorderly, and multi-directional moves
Years/Jobs
Car
eer
outc
omes
14
Boundaryless Career
“A career that crosses multiple boundaries in a non-linear manner”
15
Independent VariableCareer Boundarylessness (CB)(1)
The extent to which a person’s work-related experiences cross multiple boundaries in a non-linear manner (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996;
Arthur et al., 1999; Mirvis & Hall, 1996).
16
Independent VariableCareer Boundarylessness (2)
Prerequisite: Inter-organizational mobility
Mobility characteristics:
1. Frequency (how often boundaries crossed)
2. Type (what types of boundaries crossed e.g., occupational, industrial, geographical, and/or employment forms—part-time/full time; temporary/permanent; organizational/self employment )
17
Independent VariableCareer Boundarylessness (3)
3. Non-linearity (the extent of deviance from an orderly, continuous, upward career mobility)
Direction of moves (upward, lateral, or downward in terms of objective career outcomes)
Discontinuity of moves (employment gaps)
18
Mediators Career Autonomy (CA)
The extent to which individuals perceive the freedom and discretion to determine and influence the pacing, shape, and direction of their careers (Ito & Brotheridge, 200; Tetrick & Larocco, 1987: Ashforth, 1989).
19
Mediators Career Insecurity (CIS)
The sense of powerlessness to maintain desired employability in one’s career (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Kanter, 1989). Perceived threat to the continuity of one’s
employability Perceived threat to the quality of
subsequent employment
20
ModeratorsCareer Competencies: Knowing-why
The extent to which an individual understands his or her motives, needs, abilities, interests, aspirations, and values as they relate to work and life experiences (Arthur et al, 1999; DeFillippi &
Arthur 1994, 1996; Hall, 2002).
21
ModeratorsCareer Competencies: Knowing-how
The extent to which one develops a portfolio of work-related skills, knowledge, and understanding that are transferable to other employment settings (e.g., companies, occupations, or industries) (Arthur et al,
1999; DeFillippi & Arthur 1994, 1996).
22
ModeratorsCareer Competencies: Knowing-whom
The extent to which one develops a wide network of relationships that can provide information, influence, guidance, and support to the individual (Arthur et al, 1999; DeFillippi & Arthur
1994, 1996).
23
Dependent VariableSubjective Career Success (SCS)
SCS: An person’s feelings of accomplishment and satisfaction with his/her career (Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz, 1995).
Indicator of SCS -- Career Satisfaction: A person’s positive emotional state resulting from a personal evaluation of his or her career or career experience (Locke, 1976; Callanan, 1989).
24
Hypothesized RelationshipsThe Positive Link
H1a: There is a positive relationship between career boundarylessness and career autonomy.
25
Hypothesized Relationships The Positive Link H1b: The relationship between career
boundarylessness and career autonomy is moderated by career competencies. The positive relationship between career boundarylessness and career autonomy is stronger for individuals with high career competencies than individuals with low career competencies.
26
Hypothesized Relationships The Positive Link
H1c: There is a positive relationship between career autonomy and subjective career success.
27
Hypothesized RelationshipsThe Negative Link
H2a: There is a positive relationship between career boundarylessness and career insecurity.
28
Hypothesized RelationshipsThe Negative Link
H2b: The relationship between career boundarylessness and career insecurity is moderated by career competencies. The positive relationship between career boundarylessness and career insecurity is stronger for individuals with low career competencies than individuals with high career competencies
29
Hypothesized RelationshipsThe Negative Link
H2c: There is a negative relationship between career insecurity and subjective career success.
30
Research Design & Methodology
Cross-sectional and correlational design Data collection Procedure
Pre-test (paper-pencil survey) N=6 Pilot study (web-based survey) N=15 Primary study (web-based survey) N=201
(5%) response rate) Sample Drexel E-MBA Alumni (All Cohorts); MBA
Alumni (cohorts from 1985 to 2004) and Current E-MBA students.
Criteria for selection of respondents Currently working individuals.
31
Measurement of VariablesCareer Boundarylessness (CB)
Career Boundarylessness (CB) Anchors:
“0” CB= A career spent in one organization High CB = A career which is crossing frequent,
multiple boundaries in a non-linear manner.
32
Career Boundarylessness (CB): Dimensions
Frequency = Org Number –1 Direction = Downward & Lateral Moves Type = (Occupation changes)+ (industry changes)+ (location changes)
+ (self-employments)+ (employment status)
Discontinuity Number of Breaks Number of Months one had no paid
employment
33
Measurement of VariablesCareer Boundarylessness- Career History Grid
First Organization
Moving to this org.
was a promotion, lateral or downward move
With this move I changed my occupation
With this move I changed my industry
With this move I
relocated
I started as a I started as a I own(ed)
This
organization
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Yes
No
Full-time e.
Part-time e.
Permanent e.
Temporary e.
Yes
No
Before moving to this org. I took a career break
Number of years in this org.
Number of promotions in this org.
Number of Lateral moves in this org.
Number of downward moves in this org.
Number of relocations moves in this org.
My leaving this organization was
No
Yes, it lasted ------
months.
------years
None
1-3
4-6
7-10
More than 10
None
1-3
4-6
7-10
More than 10
None
1-3
4-6
7-10
More than 10
None
1-3
4-6
7-10
More than 10
Voluntary
Involuntary
Still work/c. job
Still work/with cur. job
34
Measurement of VariablesCareer Boundarylessness- Career History Grid
Next Org.
Moving to this org.
was
With this move I changed my occupation
With this move I changed my industry
With this move I
relocated
With this move I changed my emp. from
With this move I changed my emp. from
I own(ed)
This
organization
Promotion
Lateral Move
Downward Move
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Full to Part-time
Part to Fulltime.
Remain Fullt
Remain partt
Perm. to temp
Temp. to perm.
Remain perm.
Remain temp.
Yes
No
Before moving to this org. I took a career break
Number of years in this org.
Number of promotions in this org.
Number of Lateral moves in this org.
Number of downward moves in this org.
Number of relocations moves in this org.
My leaving this organization was
No
Yes, it lasted ------
months.
------years
None
1-3
4-6
7-10
More than 10
None
1-3
4-6
7-10
More than 10
None
1-3
4-6
7-10
More than 10
None
1-3
4-6
7-10
More than 10
Voluntary
Involuntary
Still work/c. job
Still work/with cur. job
35
Career Boundarylessness (CB): Composite Score
Move Inter-org
Mobility
Direction
Change
Occupation
Change
Industry
Change
Location
Change
Self-emp.
Emp.
Status
Change
Number
Of
breaks
CB
Score
org1 > org2
1 Promotion = 0
Lateral =1
Downward =1
Yes=1 Yes=1 Yes=1 Yes=1 Full-perm=0
Full-temp=1
Part-perm=1
Part-temp=1
Yes=1 Move 1
Max CB
Score = 8
org2> org3
1 Promotion = 0
Lateral =1
Downward =1
Yes=1 Yes=1 Yes=1 Yes=1 Full-perm=0
Full-temp=1
Part-perm=1
Part-temp=1
Yes=1 Move 2
Max CB
Score = 6
Total CB Score = CB Move 1 + CB Move 2
Total CB Score = 14
36
Measurement of VariablesMediators
Variable Name No. of items Source Cronbach’s Alpha
Career Autonomy 11 A combination of newly developed and modified items (Ito & Brotheridge, 2001; Tetrick & Larocco, 1987; Ashforth, 1989)
.92
Career Insecurity 9 Newly Developed .90
37
Measurement of VariablesModerators
Variable Name No. of items Source Cronbach’s Alpha
Knowing-why competencies
8 Modified from Callanan (1989) .75
Knowing-how competencies
6 New items & Adopted from Eby, Butts, & Lockwood (2003)
.87
Knowing-whom competencies
11 New Items & Adopted from Eby, Butts, Lockwood & (2003)
.89
Knowing-whom/out
competencies
8 New items & Adopted from Eby, Butts, & Lockwood (2003)
.89
Knowing-whom/in
Competencies
3 New Items & Adopted from Eby, Butts, Lockwood & (2003)
.89
38
Measurement of Variables
Control variables Career Tenure
39
Data Analysis
Tests of Reliability and Validity Explanatory Factor Analyses--Cronbach’s
Alpha Structural Equation Modeling (SEM):
Confirmatory Factor Analyses Descriptive Statistics
Measure of Central Tendency, Correlations Tests of Hypotheses
SEM: Path Analysis Multi-group Analyses
40
CFA Results
Model Chi-SQ DF GFI AGFI IFI CFI RMSEA
Full
CFA
Model
947.3 464 .78 .75 .88 .87 .07
Note: Because of a small sample size (N=201), full CFA model provided a rather poor fit to the data. For this reason, instead of a latent-variable model, an observed-variable model is preferred to be used in the subsequent analyses.
41
Direction
Frequency
Occupation Change
Industry Change
Location Change
Employment Status
Self Employment
Number of Breaks
Duration of Breaks
Career Autonomy
Subjective Career Success
Career Insecurity
Career Boundarylessness
The SEM Model
42
Direction
Frequency
Occupation Change
Industry Change
Location Change
Employment Status
Career Autonomy
Subjective Career Success
Career Insecurity
Career Boundarylessness
R1
R2
.71**
.55**.95**
.69**
.74**
.52**
.58**-.09ns
.14*
-.08ns
.23*
* p <.05** p <.001Chi-Square = 41.9; df = 25; GFI = .96; Adj-GFI =.93; IFI = .97; CFI =.97; RMSEA =.06
The SEM Results
43
The SEM Results--Summary
CareerBoundarylessness
CareerInsecurity
CareerAutonomy
Subjective Career Success
------- Not significant____ Significant
44
The SEM Results Summary: Direct Relationships
From To Standardized Regression Coefficient
Hypothesis
Career Boundarylessness
(CB)
Career
Autonomy (CA).14 * H1a: Supported
Career Boundarylessness
(CB)
Career Insecurity (CIS)
-.08 (NS) H2a: Not Supported
45
Testing Moderator Relationships
Multi-group Analysis Step 1: Full model fit assessment Step 2: Creating groups with a mean split Step 3: Obtaining pooled model Chi-square score and
the degrees of freedom Step 4: Applying equality constraints to group models Step 5: Obtaining constrained model Chi-square
score and the degrees of freedom Step 6: Checking for Chi-square difference
significance to detect any group differences Step 7: If Chi-square difference is significant between
pooled and constrained models, identifying individual paths that are significantly different between the groups.
46
The SEM Results Summary: Moderator Relationships
Moderator From To Sig. of Chi-sq
Difference
Hypothesis
K-why
Competency
CB
CB
Cautonomy
CInsecurity
NA
NA
H1b: Not Supp.
H2b: Not Supp.
K-how
Competency
CB
CB
Cautonomy
CInsecurity
NA
NA
H1b: Not Supp.
H2b:Not Supp.
K-whom
Competency
CB
CB
Cautonomy
CInsecurity
NA
NA
H1b: Not Supp.
H2b:Not Supp.
47
The SEM Results Summary: Intermediary Relationships
From To Sig. Hypothesis
Cautonomy Career Success .55*** H1c: Supported
Cinsecurity Career Success -.09 H2c: Not Supp.
48
Additional Analyses (CB vs. Career Autonomy & Career Insecurity-Summary)Variables Type (Dimensions) Career Autonomy Career Insecurity
Career Boundarylessness (composite) 0.131 0.023 Frequency 0.449** -0.188 Direction -0.379** 0.145 Number of Breaks -0.025 0.236**
Duration of Breaks -0.010 -0.208*
Type -0.016 0.080 Occupational Change -0.193* 0.236**
Industry Change 0.048 0.005 Location Change 0.069 -0.225** Employment Status -0.051 0.033 Self-employment 0.387** -0.244**
*p > .05 ; **p > .01
49
Additional AnalysesCareer Competencies Direct Relationships Summary
Variables Career Autonomy Career Insecurity
-
Knowing-why Competencies 0.307** -0.128† Knowing-how Competencies 0.144† -0.122 Knowing-whom Competencies 0.114 -0.252** Internal Kno wing-whom Competencies -0.045 -0.213** External Knowing -whom Competencies 0.148* -0.121† † p <.10 * p < .05 ** p <.01
50
Discussion: Findings Direct Relationships
Composite career boundarylessness score predicts career autonomy but not career insecurity.
Individual dimensions of career boundarylessness predict career autonomy and career insecurity better than the composite career boundarylesness score. More specifically:
Frequent inter-organizational moves and self-employment increase one’s career autonomy,whereas occupational changes and more conventional lateral and downward mobility across organizations reduce one’s career autonomy.
While career insecurity is decreased by location changes, self-employment, and long career breaks, it is increased by occupational changes and higher number of career breaks.
51
Discussion: Findings
Intermediary Relationships The Positive Link:
Career autonomy emerges to be an important variable to explain why career boundarylessness may lead enhanced career satisfaction.
The Negative Link: Not Applicable
52
Discussion: Findings
Moderator Relationships: Not Supported However, additional regression analyses
revealed some support for direct relationships. More specifically, Knowing-why, and external knowing-whom
competencies enhance career autonomy. Internal knowing-whom competencies
reduce career insecurity.
53
Conclusions
There is a positive relationship between career boundarylessness and subjective career success when Career boundarylessness leads to
enhanced feelings of autonomy one experiences in his/her career.
54
Conclusions
Some dimensions of career boundarylessness lead to enhanced career autonomy.
Frequent moves across organizations Self-employment.
Some individuals experience more autonomy in their careers. These individuals are:
Individuals with extensive understanding of themselves in terms of career-related motives, needs, abilities, interests, aspirations, and values.
Individuals with a portfolio of work-related skills, knowledge, and understanding that are transferable to other employment settings (e.g., companies, occupations, or industries).
Individuals with a wide network of relationships outside of their current organization.
55
Conclusions
Some dimensions of career boundarylessness lead to increased career insecurity.
Occupational changes, Higher number of career breaks.
Some individuals experience less career insecurity. These individuals are:
Individuals with a wide network of relationships (inside and outside of one’s current organization and industry) that provide information, support, and guidance to them.
56
Limitations
Cross-sectional, correlational design does not permit conclusions regarding causality.
Low response rate Limited generalizability Self-report data
Common Method Variance
57
Contributions Empirically testing previously offered theoretical assertions
regarding the consequences of experiencing a boundaryless career from an individual’s point of view.
Developing and testing a model that examines the impact of career boundarylessness on subjective career success.
Identifying intermediary variables that explain the relationship between career boundarylessness and subjective career success.
Developing a continuous measure of career boundarylessness.
58
Implications
The study’s results suggest that developing knowing-why, knowing-how, and knowing-whom competencies are instrumental for individuals to take full advantage of their careers. Thus;
For individuals, the successful pursuit of a boundaryless career requires ongoing effort and investment in simultaneously developing all these three competencies.
In terms of organizations, they can structure and implement programs and activities to support the development of these important competencies. They can offer, for example,
Career services such as self-assessments and career counseling to help individuals understand themselves better.
Training programs, seminars, and certification programs that constantly update knowledge and skill bases of their employees.
Mentoring programs and various networking activities in which the employees can expand their inside and outside of the organization networks.
59
Suggestions for Future Research
More in-depth understanding of career boundarylessness construct and its measure (e.g., dimensions).
Studying different populations other than MBA Alumni to improve the generalizabilty of the study results.
Using a longitudinal study design to make causal inferences regarding the study results.
Expanding the study to examine the relationship between career boundarylessness and work-related attitudes and behaviors (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover).
60
THANK YOU