different types of protean career attitude, task performance and...
TRANSCRIPT
Different Types of Protean Career Attitude, Task Performance and
Contextual Performance: Based on Briscoe and Hall’s Model
by
Enkhbayar Tumurbaatar
A Thesis Submitted to the
Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Major: International Human Resource Development
Advisor: Yi-Chun Lin, Ph.D.
National Taiwan Normal University
Taipei, Taiwan
August 2017
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to thank Taiwan ICDF and International Human Resource
Development Program of National Taiwan Normal University for giving me this wonderful
opportunity to expand myself in many different ways. Studying and living in Taiwan was one
of the greatest experiences of my life. Secondly, my sincere thanks go to my dear advisor Dr.
Lin, my teammates (Delsie, TA, Anna, Fan, ShangLin) and all of the faculty members of
IHRD for your support. Also, thank you very much Jessie, Victor and Jessica (Kate and
Tracy) for all your help with academic and personal problems during these two years.
Additionally, I would like to express my appreciation to my “more than friends” friends Ilze,
Delsie, Karina, TA, Marcela, Fernando and my other friends for a company. Love you guys,
we have made a lot of unforgettable memories together.
Lastly, my biggest appreciation goes to my family for always believing and supporting me on
everything. Love you and miss you so much.
Тайваньд суралцах боломж олгосон Тайвань ICDF-д маш их баярлалаа. Үргэлж туслаж,
үнэтэй зөвлөгөөгөө өгч байсан удирдагч багш Др. Лин болон багийнхандаа, нийт багш
нар болон хөтөлбөрийн менежер Жесси, Виктор, Кэйт, Трэси, туслах ажилтан Жессика
нарт талархсанаа илэрхийлье.
Миний удирдагч багш биш ч гэсэн үргэлж халуун дулаан, гэр бүл шиг мэдрэмж
төрүүлж, үлгэр дуурайл болж байдаг багш Др.Лай болон Др.Жан нарт болон энд
уулзсан бүх хүмүүст, хамгийн ойрын найзууд болох ICDF-ийн найзууддаа,
Монголчууддаа, мөн луун завины багийнхан, бусад найзууддаа баярлалаа. Та
бүхэнгүйгээр миний Тайвань дахь амьдрал ийм хөгжилтэй байхгүй байх байсан. Мөн
урам зориг авах, шинийг сурч мэдэх, ойлгож ухаарах боломж олгодогт талархаж байна.
Хамгийн сүүлд нь Монголд байгаа гэр бүлийнхэндээ болон найз Урангоодоо
баярлалаа. Үргэлж надад итгэж, миний төлөө байдагт баярладаг шүү. Хайртай.
Thanks again with millions of love,
Enka
I
ABSTRACT
Global market change and become more competitive. Recent studies showed that modern
careers expected to use adaptive, proactive and self-managed approaches to deal with
uncertain environment (Waters, Briscoe, Hall, & Wang, 2014). Therefore, protean career
attitude is important for employees to survive this challenging work environment. People
with protean career attitude do not bond their careers to an organization (Waters et al., 2014).
They experience superior responsibility for their career selection and opportunities, and value
their own freedom, growth and development as a success (Chin & Rasdi, 2014). The purpose
of this study was to investigate the relationships among the types of protean career attitude,
and task and contextual performance. A further subsidiary aim was to investigate the
“Protean” type of protean career attitude and its task and contextual performance comparing
with the other three types of protean career attitude Dependent, Rigid and Reactive. Using a
quantitative approach, online and paper-based questionnaires were conducted and collected in
this study. The sample was 302 employees from Mongolia. IBM SPSS 23, and SPSS AMOS
23 were used for data analysis. The result of this study show that the “Dependent” and
“Protean” types of protean career attitude have significant, positive correlation with task and
contextual performance. The results also showed that “Protean” type has significantly higher
task performance and significantly higher contextual performance than Dependent and Rigid
types, but not significantly higher than Reactive type.
Keywords: types of protean career attitude, task performance, contextual performance
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...........................................................................................................I
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................II
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................IV
LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................VI
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ......................................................................1
Introduction ........................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................3
Purposes of the Study.........................................................................................4
Research Questions ............................................................................................4
Definition of the Terms ......................................................................................4
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................7
Protean Career Attitude......................................................................................7
Task and Contextual Performance .....................................................................9
Types of Protean Career Attitude, Task Performance and Contextual
Performance .......................................................................................................10
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ..................................................................13
Research Framework .........................................................................................13
Hypothesis..........................................................................................................14
Sample................................................................................................................14
Data Collection ..................................................................................................14
Questionnaire Design .........................................................................................15
Measurements ....................................................................................................15
Control Variables ...............................................................................................18
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................18
Pilot Test ............................................................................................................25
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND FINDINGS ...............................................27
Descriptive Statistics ..........................................................................................27
Correlation and Reliability Analysis ..................................................................29
Confirmatory Factor Analysis ............................................................................32
ANCOVA ..........................................................................................................33
III
CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................37
Types of Protean Career Attitude, Task and Contextual Performance ..............37
Implication for Research ....................................................................................38
Implication for Practice......................................................................................38
Limitation of the Study ......................................................................................39
Future Research Suggestions .............................................................................39
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................41
IV
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Difference between Traditional Career and Protean Career. .................... 7
Table 2.2. Types of Protean Career Attitude. ............................................................ 9
Table 3.1. Protean Career Attitude Scale. .................................................................. 16
Table 3.2. Job Performance Scale .............................................................................. 17
Table 3.3. Protean Career Attitude Model Fit Summary ........................................... 19
Table 3.4. Task Performance Model Fit Summary .................................................... 21
Table 3.5. Contextual Performance Model Fit Summary .......................................... 23
Table 3.6. Descriptive Statistics for Pilot Test .......................................................... 24
Table 3.7. Cronbach’s Alpha for Pilot Test. .............................................................. 26
Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics................................................................................. 28
Table 4.2. Mean, Standard Deviation, Correlation and Reliability ........................... 30
Table 4.3. Correlation between Protean Type, Task Performance and
Contextual Performance.............................................................................................. 30
Table 4.4. Correlation between Reactive Type, Task Performance and
Contextual Performance.............................................................................................. 31
Table 4.5. Correlation between Rigid Type, Task Performance and
Contextual Performance.............................................................................................. 31
Table 4.6. Correlation between Dependent Type, Task Performance and
Contextual Performance.............................................................................................. 32
Table 4.7. Result of Confirmatory Factor Analysis ................................................... 33
Table 4.8. Numbers of Each Type of Protean Career Attitude. ................................. 33
Table 4.9. Comparison of Protean Types with Other Types on Task and
Contextual Performance.............................................................................................. 34
Table 4.10. Hypothesis Testing Results Summary .................................................... 35
V
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1. Research framework ................................................................................ 13
Figure 3.2. Protean career attitude CFA measurement model ................................... 20
Figure 3.3. Task performance CFA measurement model .......................................... 22
Figure 3.4. Contextual performance CFA measurement model ................................ 23
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter will provide background information of the study, the statement of the
problem, research purpose and research questions.
Introduction
Globalization and technological revolutions especially digital revolution drives work
transformation today (United Nations Human Development Report, 2016). In addition,
according to the World Economic Forum (2016), business models are changing due to major
drivers of transformation, which are technological growth, socio-economic, and geographical
developments. This transformation affects industries and impacts jobs and job formulation
and displacements. It also requires high labor productivity and skill development in the
workforce. The biggest challenge of the organizations is how to keep their business
sustainable and how to run their business successfully in the competitive and dynamic
market. In order to decrease cost and increase efficiency, organizations are downsizing, and
restructuring their workforce (Chin & Rasdi, 2014).
The organizational structure and workplace is continuously changing and this vibrant
labor market affects people’s career and its development. Career researches conducted in the
last 20 years showed that modern careers expect to use adaptive, proactive and self-managed
approaches to deal with this uncertain environment (Waters, Briscoe, Hall, & Wang, 2014).
The uncertainty of job security makes employees take charge of their own career path
and career development. Because of this, “new career” (protean career attitude and boundary
less career) is becoming a popular concept in career development.
Mongolia is a small country with a population of 3 million and a vast amount of natural
resources. It is becoming an important destination for foreign direct investment. Mongolia
has experienced dramatic economic growth in the 2000’s. Mongolia has had real per capita
gross domestic product (GDP) averaging yearly increases of 6.7% from 2000 to 2013.
Growth of 15.8% from 2010 to 2011 and 10.6% from 2011 to 2012 was especially high, with
only one economy growing faster in 2011 and two growing faster in 2012. Mongolian GDP
in 2013 was 12.582 billion, but has now decreased to 11.16 billion in 2016 (World Bank,
2015). The US Department of State, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (2016)
described Mongolia as
Mongolia’s tremendous mineral reserves, agricultural endowments, and proximity to the
vast Asia market make it an attractive foreign direct investment (FDI) destination in the
2
medium to long term. However, depressed global commodities markets, limited
infrastructure, and the Government of Mongolia's (GOM) love-hate-love track record
with regard to foreign investors and FDI in recent years make caution advisable in the
short term (p.1) on Investment Climate Statements.
The economic growth of Mongolia is not sustainable and the political condition is not stable.
Because of this vibrant economic and political environment, many companies are
unsustainable and sometimes they have to close factories and companies and employees may
experience labor shortages for short and long periods of time. In the public sector, employees
are more likely to change their jobs every 2 to 4 years because when parliament changes
public servants change too. It is not illegal but in the reality, public servants lose their jobs
based on which party wins the election or leads the government. Economic and political
issues make jobs insecure in Mongolia (Research Center of Mongolian Parliament, 2012). In
order to survive this unsustainable working environment, Mongolians should develop and
manage their careers by themselves.
Hall (2004) explained that people need to be protean, because all of the businesses today
need more honest and effective audits. Also employees need “personal audits” that is,
employees need to have a strong internal “compass” (own value) to follow in today’s
“ethically challenged business environment”. Empowering employees to be able to follow
their own values, develop themselves to take charge of their own career, and using their full
potential is the way to grow, accomplish and contribute more to the society.
Individuals who have protean career attitude do not bond their careers to the
organization (Waters et al., 2014), experience superior responsibility for their career selection
and opportunities and value own freedom, growth and development as a success (Chin &
Rasdi, 2014). Protean career attitude is more important for employees for surviving this
challenging and competitive labor market. Chin and Rasdi (2014) suggested that human
resource practitioners help individuals and organizations to develop protean career
management.
Career development is one of the key functions of the human resource management
which has great influence on organization success. According to the Yahya and Othman
(2004), an effective career development system is the fifth most important factor for company
effectiveness, and it is essential for the companies to retain their talented employees. Besides,
many studies showed that career development system can increase employee performance
and increase positive attitudes in the work place, as well as grow loyalty of the employees.
3
Therefore, understanding and studying more on career development and career development
attitude of the employees and individuals are eminent in human resource development and
management.
Statement of the Problem
There are many research focusing on protean career attitude and its relationship with
other variables such as employability, organizational commitment and career success.
Previous studies show that protean career is significantly correlated to career success, job
satisfaction, career satisfaction, as well as promotion and salary (Waters et al., 2014).
Constructs of protean career attitude are its two dimensions (self-directed and value driven)
which helps ones to understand and know their career, value the want to follow in their life
and feel fulfillment in their career (Briscoe, 2015). These types are based on lower and higher
level of self-directed and value-driven protean career attitude and its combination. Protean
attitude makes employees able to manage their career sustainable, using skills on self-
exploration and awareness, values awareness and expression adaptability and learning, as
well as relationships. This skill is essential for employees to make successful transition or
development on their career related issues (Briscoe, 2015) especially in this VUCA
(volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity) environment (Shaffer & Zalewski, 2011). The
types of protean career attitude generally describe career self-development styles of
individuals. Understanding how people develop their career, its style and protean types are
essential for career counsellors and HR practitioners to help them develop their career
successfully and increase their benefits (Briscoe, 2015).
But there is very little attention focused on Briscoe and Hall’s model (2006) on the four
types of protean career attitude. This study tried to understand types of protean career attitude
and its relationship between task and contextual performance to contribute both literature and
practice, especially in developing country with unstable economy.
4
Purposes of the Study
The relationship between protean career attitude types and task and contextual
performance in employees in Mongolia has not been studied before. The purpose of this
study is to investigate the relationship between the four types of protean career attitude, and
task and contextual performance. A further subsidiary aim is to compare task and contextual
performance of “Protean” type with “Dependent”, “Rigid” and “Reactive” types in Mongolia.
Research Questions
According to the purpose of study, the following research questions are developed.
1. Do types of Protean Career Attitude significantly correlate to task performance?
2. Do types of Protean Career Attitude significantly correlate to contextual performance?
3. Does “Protean” type has higher task performance than the other three (Dependent,
Rigid and Reactive) types?
4. Does “Protean” type has higher contextual performance than the other three
(Dependent, Rigid and Reactive) types?
Definition of the Terms
Protean Career Attitude
Protean career attitude is self and value driven career management. People who have
protean career attitude follow their own values and personal goals to build their career instead
of relying on the organization (Briscoe, Hall, & DeMuth, 2006).
Dependent
This describes individuals who do not follow their own principles and manage their
career development. Also they do not have self-directed and value-driven protean career
attitude.
Rigid
This describes individuals who have value-driven protean career attitude but not have
self-directed career management.
Reactive
5
This describes individuals who do manage their career development, but do not
follow their internal values as guidance (Segers, Inceoglu, Vloeberghs, Bartram, &
Henderickx, 2008).
Protean
This describes individuals who have value-driven, self-directed protean career
attitude, follow their own values and manage their career based on their needs (Segers et al.,
2008).
Task performance
Task performance is in–role performance which requires desired results, products and
behavior by job description to reach organizational goals (Bakker, Demerouti, &
Brummelhuis, 2012).
Contextual performance
Contextual performance is organizational citizenship behaviors which contribute to
organization effectiveness by providing positive environment and are not connected to task
expectations.
6
7
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter introduces the review of related literature on protean career attitude, four
types of protean career attitude, task performance and contextual performance. Also, linkage
between variables was presented.
Protean Career Attitude
In ancient Greek mythology, one of the characters of Homer’s Odyssey is Proteus.
Proteus is “Man of the sea” (Wikipedia, 2016) who can change his shape easily based on the
situation. The adjective “protean” comes from Proteus, which means ability to change,
flexibility and adaptability (Inkson, 2006). “Protean career” was firstly mentioned and used in
Hall’s and his colleague’s books and papers from 1976 as “accomplishing own career success
among self-managed vocational behavior” which prefers personal values than organization
rewards. In addition, the success criteria of protean career attitude are psychological success
and well-being instead of objective success such as salary and status” (Patton & McMahon,
2006). The Table 2.1. shows difference between traditional and protean career (Hall, 2006).
Table 2.1.
Difference Between Traditional Career and Protean Career
Issue Protean career Traditional career
Who’s in charge? Person Organization
Core values Freedom growth Advancement
Degree of mobility High Lower
Success criteria Psychological success Position level Salary
Key attitudes Work satisfaction
professional commitment Organizational commitment
In traditional careers, the organization takes responsibility for employee’s career
development and core values are improvement of the organization. For protean career, the
employee is responsible for all of his/her career development and core values are personal
growth and development. Mobility is low for traditional careers and high for protean careers.
Success criteria is objective (promotion, income, status) for traditional careers, but
psychological (satisfaction and psychological well-being) for protean careers (Hall, 2004).
Protean career attitude is self and value driven career management. People who have
protean career attitude follow their own value, personal goal and dream to build their career
8
instead of relying on the organization (Briscoe et al., 2006). In other words, people who have
protean career attitude define and direct their own career path (De Vos & Soens, 2008).
Personal values guide protean individuals in their career development and decisions, and self-
direct management of careers, implying the ability to adapt in a new environment by learning
new skills and modifying performance levels. Protean talents control their own career and are
able to expect and plan their own career paths (Cerdina & Pargneux, 2014).
Protean career attitude has two dimensions. These are value-driven and self-directed
career management. Briscoe and Hall (2006) stated that value-driven is when an individual
follows her or his own personal values to decide and guide her or his career development, and
self-directed career management is when an individual makes a career decision based on
performance and learning demands. On the other hand, value-driven protean talents chase
successful careers directed by internal values, motives and must dos to reach their dreams.
Self-directed refers to learning and development opportunities to develop their skills and
competencies (Lin, 2015). Also, protean talents put their values first. They do not bond their
careers to the organization (Waters et al., 2014).
Briscoe and Hall (2006) categorized 4 types of protean attitudes based on higher or
lower and weaker or stronger dimensions of protean career attitude. The four types are
dependent, rigid, reactive, and protean. The person who is not value driven, and not self-
directed is defined as “dependent”. Dependent people do not manage their career on their
own. They depend on other things to manage their careers such as organizations. The person
who is self-directed, but not value driven would be “reactive”. Reactive people do not have a
viewpoint to control their career. The person who is value driven, but not self-directed is
“rigid”. Rigid people can’t adjust their performance and learning needs, not being able to
build their career. The person, who is value driven, and self-directed is considered as
“protean”. They know what they want and they can manage their own career based on their
values and needs (Briscoe & Hall, 2006).
Table 2.2. shows Briscoe and Hall’s model on types of protean career attitude.
9
Table 2.2.
Types of Protean Career Attitude
Dependent Rigid Reactive Protean
Values driven No Yes No Yes
Self-directed No No Yes Yes
Task and contextual performance
Thorndike (1913) defined job performance as a measurement for individuals which
calculates whether outcomes matches goals. Also, Hall and Goodale (1986) stated that job
performance is also how employees accomplish theirs tasks by spending their time, using
resources and cooperating with others. But overall job performance of employees depends on
a many behavioral factors. Yang and Hwang (2014) noted that job performance signifies
quality, quantity, and effectiveness of the work. Borman and Motowidlo (1997) divided job
performance into two categories which is task performance and contextual performance. Task
performance is noticeable. When the employee performs the required part of their tasks and
requirements well, they will receive gratitude and rewards. Employees have to fulfill the
fundamental part of their mandatory job requirements to keep their employment. (Chiaburu,
Oh, Wang, & Stoverink, 2017). Task performance is in –role performance which requires
desired results, products and behaviors by job description to reach organizational goals
(Bakker et al., 2012). It is also defined as activities that transform raw materials into products
or service which is manufactured by company (Aguinis, 2014).
Contextual performance is not task-based behaviors that support the organization
efficiency by delivering psychological positive environment. Some of the scholars use
“organization citizenship behavior” (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983), “extra-role performance”
and “pro-social behavior” as contextual performance. Also, it stalks from personal characters
and is not linked to task requirements. Contextual performance includes behaviors such as
putting extra effort on organization well-being, helping others to achieve or complete their
jobs, volunteering to do task activities which are not formally part of the job, cooperating
with colleagues, following organization guidelines and policies, endorsing and supporting
(Aguinis, 2014).
Also, contextual performance was explained as “willingness to cooperate” for the
excellence of the workplace also, it is non-job-specific and optional which is means
10
“employees do not have to engage in citizenship behavior to maintain their employment,
although citizenship behaviors in aggregate enhance the psycho-social functioning of the
work environment and lubricate interpersonal interactions, which indirectly enhances the
effectiveness of the targets of the citizenship behavior as well as the employee who engages
in those citizenship behaviors” (Chiaburu et al., 2017, p.99).
Types of Protean Career Attitude, Task and Contextual Performance
Protean career is a career driven by one’s own value and self-directed career
management to adapt new performance standards and learning requirements (Briscoe & Hall,
2006). When protean type needs to go through a career cycle which requires them to adapt
new learning demand and performance requirements, they have skills on adaptability (Segers
et al., 2008). De Vos and Soens (2008) explained that self-management behaviors emerge by
collecting and finding out possible career opportunities, looking for feedback about
performance and competencies, building career chances by interacting and networking and
improving abilities. Segars et al. (2008) suggested that protean type should be motivated by
challenging targets, extending abilities and training and development opportunities. This
means that protean type has developmental behavior. A study by Baruch (2014) shows that
protean career attitude positively related to performance.
Protean type of individuals may have good task performance because they always look
for development opportunities to enhance their ability and competence to reach new
performance standards and their own goals. According to the literature, protean type of
individuals is more likely to be self-confident (Hall, 2004), hard-working, optimistic (Waters
et al., 2014) and good at what they are doing. They are frequent learners and being always
ready for new opportunities and possibilities, seeing career as a progressive learning cycles
(Hall, 2004). They also have communication and networking skills to cope and enhance their
employment opportunities and improve their working conditions (Waters et al., 2014).
Therefore, they can be excellent at their tasks and responsibilities which are described on
their job description because they are active learner. On the other hand, protean types seem
“selfish” because they just follow their own interest and dream. They may have high levels of
intention to leave. However research states that protean career attitude was not correlated to
intention to leave (Baruch, 2014) and was positively correlated to organizational commitment
(Briscoe & Finkelstein, 2009). Therefore, they may have positive relationship with contextual
11
performance because they already did their career choice based on their own value and
interests.
Hypothesis 1: Protean type has a positive correlation with both task and contextual
performance.
Reactive type is not value-driven, but self-directed protean type and as Briscoe (2015)
described, this type is most problematic because they are “good at driving career behavior
toward their interests. However, they are not clear on the values driving their interests” (p.7).
Also, Briscoe and Hall (2006) explained that individuals who are reactive, cannot manage
their career effectively because they would not have the perspective to guide their own career
adequately.
In addition, Ducker (2005) explained on his “Managing Oneself” article on Harvard
Business Review, that organization value and employee value should be similar or well-
matched with each other. Otherwise employees feel frustrated, which results in poor
performance. He stated that “Working in organization whose value system is unacceptable or
incompatible with one’s own condemns a person both to frustration and to nonperformance”
(Ducker, 2005, p.6). Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed.
Hypothesis 2: Reactive type has a negative correlation with both task and contextual
performance.
Rigid type is highly value-driven but not self-directed in tactically managing their
careers and they know what they want, but not excellent to get what they want (Briscoe,
2015). Based on Ducker’s (2005) explanation, if the values of individual and organization
are matching, that person performs well. But if that individual does not have self-directed
developmental attitude, not try to develop her/himself to reach the performance standard,
it is impossible to say rigid type can perform well on tasks, especially in this changing
and challenging work environment. When they follow their values and choose a value-
matching organization, their organizational citizenship behavior (contextual performance)
could be high. Therefore, the following hypotheses were developed.
Hypothesis 3a: Rigid type has a negative correlation with task performance.
12
Hypothesis 3b: Rigid type has a positive correlation with contextual performance.
Dependent type is neither self-directed nor value-driven, and is opposite of protean
type. They do not know and care about what they have to do to effectively manage their
career (Briscoe, 2015). Basically “dependent” type depends on organization and are not
active in, nor a big player of career development. Only organization drives their career
development. They are incapable to define the priorities and manage their career on their own
(Briscoe & Hall, 2006) and do not have adapting skills and developmental attitude to guide
their career or reach the performance standard. Especially in this “changing” world,
individuals with dependent type cannot perform well without protean attitude.
Hypothesis 4: Dependent type has a negative correlation with both task and
contextual performance.
Individuals who belong to protean type are named after protean talent who are fully
responsible for their career development. They can choose their work place, field and
organization based on their value, and they will develop themselves to reach their goals.
Especially in this era, tasks and requirements are changing, transferring, shifting. It is not
stable anymore. Therefore, only protean talents can survive this uncertain environment
(Briscoe, 2015). As a result, the following hypothesis was developed:
Hypothesis 5: Individuals with protean type have higher task and contextual
performance comparing with other three (Dependent, Rigid, Reactive) types.
13
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
This chapter introduced methodology which used to conduct this study such as
research framework, hypothesis tested and research procedure. It also provided sampling,
questionnaire design, data collection and data analysis.
Research Framework
Along with purpose of the study, research framework was composed as shown to in
Figure 3.1. Protean career attitude with its four types are independent variables, task
performance and contextual performance are dependent variables. Control variables are work
tenure and education.
Figure 3.1. Research framework
Control variables
- Work tenure
- Education level
H3
H2
Protean Career Attitude
- Dependent
- Rigid
- Reactive
- Protean
Task performance
H1
Contextual performance
H5
H4
14
Hypothesis
Based on research framework, the following hypotheses were purposed.
Hypothesis 1: Protean type has a positive correlation with both task and contextual
performance.
Hypothesis 2: Reactive type has a negative correlation with both task and contextual
performance.
Hypothesis 3a: Rigid type has a negative correlation with task performance.
Hypothesis 3b: Rigid type has a positive correlation with contextual performance.
Hypothesis 4: Dependent type has a negative correlation with both task and contextual
performance.
Hypothesis 5: Individuals with protean type have higher task and contextual
performance comparing with other three (Dependent, Rigid, Reactive) types.
Sample
The target sample of this study was the full-time employees in Mongolia. According to
the data from National Statistical office of Mongolia, the total number of employed people is
1,332,843 in end of 2016. The 580,975 of total employed people are wage and salary workers
in Mongolia. Convenience sampling and snowball sampling approach were used in this study.
Participants of this study were 302 full-time, wage and salary workers in public, private
sector and non-governmental organizations in Mongolia. The data were collected by online
questionnaire and paper-based questionnaire.
Data Collection
The period of data collection was beginning of March to end of April in 2016. As
mentioned before, the convenience and snowball sampling technique were used to collect
data in this study. Questionnaires were posted online, and online questionnaire link was sent
to people who has a full-time job on social media networks such Facebook, Line and
LinkedIn, and they were asked fill out and send questionnaire to their colleagues, classmates,
friends and relatives. Approximately 350 participants were contacted and invited to complete
online questionnaire through social media networks. Also 80 paper-based questionnaires
were distributed to two private companies and one non-governmental organization but 50
15
questionnaires were valid and complete. Total number of 302 valid and complete
questionnaires were collected.
Questionnaire Design
The questionnaires were designed to collect data on protean career attitude and job
performance. The items in the questionnaire are originally developed in English. But
questionnaires were translated into Mongolian because sample were Mongolians. Translation
were controlled by Brislin’s (1980) translation-back-translation procedure (Lin, 2015) with
the Nyamdorj. D’s help who is TESOL English teacher at Mongolian University of Science
and Technology. After translation, proof reading had been done by journalist, Delgermurun.
E, to check stylistics for making easier to understand for participants.
Questionnaires including 30 item and 7 demographic information, were accompanied by
a cover letter, which describes the purpose of the study and assures the participants that the
data is confidential and only used for academic purpose. In order to increase the response
rate, downloadable link of best-seller e-book were attached in the end of the online
questionnaire. Also, the questionnaire used different Likert scales (5 point and 7 point) to
reduce common method variance which might create systematic measurement error
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
Measurements
The measurements used for this study include protean career attitude, task performance
and contextual performance scales.
Protean Career Attitude
Protean career attitude survey is developed by Briscoe and Hall in 2006. According to
the literature, this scale has been the most widely applied scale with high reliability and
validity to test protean career attitude (Waters et al., 2014). The survey consists of 14 items
such as “Freedom to choose my own career path is one of my most important values”. All
scales were assessed along 5 point Likert scale ranging from ‘Strongly Disagree” to
“Strongly Agree” and higher scores specify higher levels of concept. The scale includes two
dimensions: self-direction with eight items and values-driven with six items. The Cronbach’s
α coefficient for the protean career attitude scale was 0.80.
The total items of protean career attitude were drawn on the following table (Table 3.1.).
16
Table 3.1.
Protean Career Attitudes Scale
Protean Career Attitude
1 When development opportunities have not been offered by my company, I’ve
sought them out on my own.
2 I am responsible for my success or failure in my career.
3 Overall, I have a very independent, self-directed career.
4 Freedom to choose my own career path is one of my most important values.
5 I am in charge of my own career.
6 Ultimately, I depend upon myself to move my career forward.
7 Where my career is concerned, I am very much “my own person.”
8 In the past I have relied more on myself than others to find a new job when
necessary.
9 I navigate my own career, based on my personal priorities, as opposed to my
employer’s priorities.
10 It doesn’t matter much to me how other people evaluate the choices I make in my
career.
11 What’s most important to me is how I feel about my career success, not how other
people feel about it.
12 I’ll follow my own conscience if my company asks me to do something that goes
against my values.
13 What I think about what is right in my career is more important to me than what
my company thinks.
14 In the past I have sided with my own values when the company has asked me to do
something I don’t agree with.
Task and Contextual Performance
Job performance scale was accessed 16 items scale which developed by Goodman and
Svyantek (1999) which is widely used to test task and contextual performance. All scales
were assessed along 7-point Likert scale ranging from “Not at all likely” to “Extremely
likely” and higher scores specify higher levels of concept. The job performance has two
17
dimensions which are task performance and contextual performance. The 9 items of this scale
(item number 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16) are for task performance. A example of item is “I
perform well in the overall job by carrying out tasks as expected”. The other 7 items (item
number 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13) are for contextual performance such as “I make innovative
suggestions to improve the overall quality of the department”. The Cronbach’s α coefficient
for job performance was 0.86, task performance scale was 0.85, for contextual performance
was 0.77 (Demerouti, Xanthopoulou, Tsaousis, & Bakker, 2014).
The total items of job performance were drawn on the following table (Table 3.2.).
Table 3.2.
Job Performance Scale
Job performance
1 I help others employers with their work when they have been absent.
2 I achieve the objectives of my job.
3 I volunteer to do things not formally required by the job.
4 I meet the criteria for performance.
5 I take initiatives to orient new employees to the department even though not part of
my job description.
6 I demonstrate expertise in all job-related tasks.
7 I help others when their work load increases (assists others until they get over the
hurdles).
8 I fulfill all the requirements of the job.
9 I assist your colleagues with their duties.
10 I can manage more responsibility than typically assigned.
11 I make innovative suggestions to improve the overall quality of the department.
12 I appear suitable for a higher level role.
13 I willingly attend functions not required by the organization, but helps in its overall
image.
14 I am competent in all areas of the job, handle tasks with proficiency.
15 I perform well in the overall job by carrying out tasks as expected.
16 I plan and organize to achieve objectives of the job and meet deadlines.
18
Control Variables
Past researches has shown age (Ng & Feldman, 2008), gender, tenure, and employment
level (Edwards, Bell, Arthur, & Decuir, 2008) influence job performance. In order to have
better understanding of the relationship of the variables, two control variables are used in this
studies. These are work tenure and education level.
Many researcher stated that education level is positively related to both task and
contextual performance. Highly educated employees are more likely to show exessive
innovation to show more citizenship performance than less educated employees (Ng &
Feldmen, 2009). Further more, previous research has shown that work tenure is significantly
related to task and contextual performance and knowledge and experience gained by work
tenure has positive effect on job performance, moreover on both task and contextual
performance (Chen & Kao, 2012).
Data Analysis
The statistic software of IBM SPSS version 23 were used in this study to analyze the
data from questionnaires. The methods of data analysis were included descriptive statistics,
Pearson’s correlation analysis and ANCOVA for hypothesis testing. SPSS AMOS 23 used
for Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Descriptive Statistics
This research used descriptive statistics to understand the characteristics of the
respondents’ profiles. Participants were asked to provide their age, gender, marital status,
work tenure, education level, employment level and type of organization.
Pearson Correlation Analysis
To understand the relationship between protean career attitude and job performance,
Pearson coefficient was used to examine the correlations. The Pearson’s correlation (r) was
used to determine whether there is linear or direct correlation between each variable. When
the correlation coefficient is high, it shows that there is a strong relationship between that two
variables. The number of correlation should be between -1 and 1. When r equal to 1, it is
perfect correlation. If r equal to 0, it is no correlation. If r = -1, it is perfect negative
correlation. Low correlation is considered as r below 0.4; medium correlation is considered r
19
between 0.4 and 0.7; high correlation is considered r over 0.7 (Davis, 1971). The correlation
coefficient demonstrates whether variables are related and considered as the base when
explaining whether a variable can make predictions of the outcome variable.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Confirmatory Factor Analysis allow to test how well the measured variables represent
the smaller number of construct. The SPSS AMOS 23 was used to test the Confirmatory
Factor Analysis (CFA) and check the validity of the measurement models for each variable.
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), the Incremental Fit Index (IFI), the Normed Fit Index (NFI), the
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index or (TLI), the Root Mean Square of
Approximation (RMSEA) were used to examine model fit. Result of the Chi-square divided
by degrees of freedom (𝑋2/df) smaller than 2.0 is considered a very good fit, but from 2.0 to
5.0 is acceptable RMSEA ranges from 0 to 1, smaller range showing better fit. CFI ranges
from 0 to 1, bigger range shows better fit of the model. More than 0.9 is acceptable. Ranges
for NFI and TLI is from 0 to 1, more than 0.9 and more indicates better fit of the model. GFI
range between 0 to 1 and more than 0.9 indicates acceptable fit (Hair, Black, Babin, &
Anderson, 2010).
CFA for Protean Career Atitude
Protean career attitude has two dimensions which are self-directed and value-driven.
Protean career attitude scale has 14 items, first 8 items for self-directed dimension, last 6
items for value-driven dimension. The result of goodness of fit indicators 𝑋2 /df (2.86),
RMSEA (.08), CFI (.87), NFI (.82), IFI (.88), TLI (.85), GFI (.91) was shown following table
(Table 3.3.) and figure (Figure 3.2.).
Table 3.3.
Protean Career Attitude Model Fit Summary
𝑋2 df 𝑋2/df RMSEA CFI NFI IFI TLI GFI
Protean career attitude 217.41 76 2.86 0.08 0.87 0.82 0.88 0.85 0.91
20
Figure 3.2. Protean career attitude CFA measurement model
21
CFA for Task Performance
Job performance scale has two dimensions, which are Task and Contextual performance.
Task Performance scale has 9 items. The result of goodness of fit for Task performance
indicators was shown following table (Table 3.4.) and figure (Figure 3.3.), and most of the
factors 𝑋2/df (3.82), RMSEA (0.1), CFI (.93), NFI (.91), IFI (.93), TLI (.91), GFI (.93) fitted
in standard criteria.
Table 3.4.
Task Performance Model Fit Summary
𝑋2 df 𝑋2/df RMSEA CFI NFI IFI TLI GFI
Task performance 103.05 27 3.82 0.1 0.93 0.91 0.93 0.91 0.93
22
Figure 3.3. Task performance CFA measurement model
23
CFA for Contextual Performance
Job performance scale has two dimensions, which are Task and Contextual performance.
Contextual Performance scale has 7 items. The result of goodness of fit for Contextual
performance indicators was shown following table (Table 3.5.) and figure (Figure 3.4.) and
most of the factors X2/df (3.21), RMSEA (0.09), CFI (.94), NFI (.92), IFI (.94), TLI (.91),
GFI (.96) fitted in standard criteria.
Table 3.5.
Contextual Performance Model Fit Summary
𝑋2 df 𝑋2/df RMSEA CFI NFI IFI TLI GFI
Contextual performance 44.89 14 3.21 0.09 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.91 0.96
Figure 3.4. Contextual performance CFA measurement model
24
Pilot Test
A pilot study was implemented to test the reliability and validity of measurements. The
purpose of pilot test was to identify potential misunderstanding of measurement and its
translation, and to revise if there anything unclear on the questionnaire. The sample was
collected from 75 full time employees located in Mongolia. A total of 87 questionnaires were
distributed. Majority of the sample were female (74.7%), male (25.3%). Mean age of
respondents were 29. Over half of respondents were married (58.7%) and 37.3% of them
were still single. Most of the respondents have Bachelor degree (77.3%) of education and
have entry level (62.7%) job. The 47.5% of respondents have 0-5 years of working
experience, 34.3% of respondents have 6-10 years of working experience. Over half of
respondents work in private sector (58.7%). Pearson’s correlations analysis was conducted to
confirm reliability of the measurement and to understand relationship between variables with
dimensions and control variables. The descriptive statistics is shown in the following table
(Table 3.6.).
Table 3.6.
Descriptive Statistics for Pilot Test (n=75)
Item
Frequencies Percentage %
1. Gender Female 56 74.7
Male 19 25.3
Total 75 100
2. Age 20-30 52 69.3
31-40 21 28
41-50 2 2.7
Total 75 100
3. Marital status Married 44 58.7
Single 28 37.3
Divorced/Separated/Widowed 3 4
Total 75 100
(continued)
25
Table 3.6. (continued)
Item
Frequencies Percentage %
4. Education level Secondary 0 0
Vocational Training 1 1.3
Bachelor 58 77.3
Master 16 21.3
PhD 0 0
Total 75 100
5. Employment level Employee 47 62.7
Middle manager 26 34.7
Top manager 2 2.6
Total 75 100
6. Work tenure 0-5 years 35 47.9
6-10 years 25 34.3
11-15 years 9 12.3
16-20 years 3 4.1
20-more years 1 1.4
Total 73 100
7. Type of organization Public 26 34.7
Private 44 58.7
Non-Governmental
Organization 3 4
International organization 2 2.6
Total 75 100
For the reliability analysis, the accepted value of Cronbach’s alpha has to be bigger
than .7 (Nunnally, 1978). Cronbach’s alpha for two measurements were .71 for protean career
attitude, .80 for Task performance and .75 for Contextual performance, which were
acceptable (Table 3.7.).
26
Table 3.7.
Cronbach’s Alpha for Pilot Test (n=75)
Variables Cronbach’s Alpha
1 Protean career attitude .71
2 Task Performance .80
3 Contextual Performance .75
27
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This chapter introduces the result of data analysis, findings and hypothesis testing of
this study. Descriptive statistics analysis, correlation and reliability analysis and confirmatory
factor analysis are presented. Last part of this chapter shows hypothesis testing by ANCOVA.
Descriptive Statistics
The sample were collected from 302 full-time employees from Mongolia.
Approximately 350 participants were contacted and invited to complete questionnaire
through social media networks and total of 80 paper-based questionnaires were distributed in
two private companies and one non-governmental organization. The 252 online and 50 paper-
based valid questionnaire were collected. Table 4.1 shows frequencies and percentage of
demographic information of samples. Majority of the sample were female (75.5%), and
24.5% were male. Most of respondents were 20-30 years old (67.6%) old. More than half of
the participants were married (60.3%) and 36.1% of participants were still single.
The respondents mostly have Bachelor degree (73.2%) of education, 21.5% of
respondents have Master degree which is most of the respondents were highly educated. In
the data, the 61.6% of respondents were entry level employee, 35.1% were middle manager.
But only 3.3% of respondents were top management position.
The more than half of the respondents (52.7%) have 0-5 years of working experience,
29.5% have 6-10 years of working experience. Most of the respondents are working in
private sector (57.3%), and 37.8% of respondents were public servant.
28
Table 4.1.
Descriptive Statistics (n=302)
Item Frequencies Percentage
1. Gender Female 228 75.5%
Male 74 24.5%
Total 302 100%
2. Age 20-30 204 67.6%
31-40 77 25.5%
41-50 17 5.6%
51-more 4 1.3%
Total 302 100%
3. Marital status Married 182 60.3%
Single 109 36.1%
Divorced/Separated/Widowed 11 3.6%
Total 302 100%
4. Education level Secondary 8 2.7%
Vocational Training 7 2.3%
Bachelor 221 73.2%
Master 65 21.5%
PhD 1 0.3%
Total 302 100%
5. Employment level Employee 186 61.6%
Middle manager 106 35.1%
Top manager 10 3.3%
Total 302 100%
(continued)
29
Table 4.1. (continued)
Item Frequencies Percentage
6. Work tenure 0-5 years 159 52.7%
6-10 years 89 29.5%
11-15 years 30 9.9%
16-20 years 11 3.6%
20-more years 13 4.3%
Total 302 100%
7. Type of organization Public 99 32.8%
Private 173 57.3%
Non-Governmental
Organization 16 5.3%
International organization 14 4.6%
Total 302 100%
Correlation and Reliability Analysis
In order to identify the relationship between protean career attitude, task and
contextual performance, and confirm the reliability of measurements, Pearson’s correlation
analysis were conducted. Table 4.2 shows the mean value, standard deviation, correlation and
reliability between variables. Satisfactory level of Cronbach’s alpha is bigger than 0.7
(Nunnally, 1978) for reliability analysis. Cronbach’s alpha for protean career attitude was
.80, task performance .85, and contextual performance was .77. All of the measurements
reliability were higher than satisfactory level. The result of correlation shows that protean
career attitude has significant, moderate and positive correlation with task performance (r =
.49, p < 0.001) and contextual performance (r = .40, p < 0.001).
30
Table 4.2.
Mean, Standard Deviation, Correlations, and Reliability (n=302)
The total number of 119 participants are belonged to “Protean” type. The Protean
type has significant, positive, and low correlation with task (r = .35, p < 0.001) and
contextual (r = .38, p < 0.001) performance (Table 4.3.). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 “Protean
type has a positive correlation with both task and contextual performance” was supported.
Table 4.3.
Correlation between Protean Type, Task performance and Contextual Performance (n=119)
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Tenure 6.74 6.08
2 Education 3.19 .54 .13
3 Protean 4.53 .25 -.07 .03 (.80)
4 Task performance 6.33 .51 -.05 .003 .35*** (.85)
5 Contextual performance 6.03 .68 -.07 .11 .38*** .59*** (.77)
Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
The total number of 66 participants are belonged to “Reactive” type. The Table 4.4.
shows that Reactive type does not have statistically significant correlation with both task and
contextual performance. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 “Reactive type has a negative correlation
with both task and contextual performance.” was not supported.
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Work Tenure 7.0 5.92 1
2 Education level 3.2 .57 .03 1
3 Protean Career Attitude 4.1 .52 .004 .09 (.80)
4 Contextual Performance 5.8 .80 -.04 .07 .40*** (.77)
5 Task Performance 6.0 .73 .03 .09 .49*** .69*** (.85)
Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
31
Table 4.4.
Correlation between Reactive Type, Task Performance and Contextual Performance (n=66)
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Tenure 6.85 5.52
2 Education 3.23 .52 .03
3 Reactive 3.98 .20 .06 .22 (.80)
4 Task performance 6.15 .54 .18 .22 .22 (.85)
5 Contextual performance 5.87 .69 .07 .18 .01 .51*** (.77)
Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
The total numbers of 45 participants are belonged to “Rigid” type. The Table 4.5.
shows that rigid type does not have statistically significant correlation with both task and
contextual performance. Therefore, Hypothesis 3a “Rigid type has a negative correlation with
task performance” was not supported. As well as, 3b “Rigid type has a positive correlation
with contextual performance” was not supported.
Table 4.5.
Correlation between Rigid Type, Task Performance and Contextual Performance (n=45)
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Tenure 7.7 5.96
2 Education 3.04 .67 .09
3 Rigid 4.05 .19 .14 .16 (.80)
4 Task performance 5.82 .75 .24 .18 .23 1
5 Contextual performance 5.66 .83 -.07 .02 .17 .74*** (.77)
Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
The total numbers of 72 participants belonged to “Dependent” type. Table 4.6.
shows that dependent type has significant, positive, and medium correlation with task (r =
.45, p < 0.001) and contextual (r = .49, p < 0.001) performance. Therefore, hypothesis 4
“Dependent type has a negative correlation with both task and contextual performance” was
not supported.
32
Table 4.6.
Correlation Between Dependent Type, Task Performance and Contextual Performance
(n=72)
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Tenure 6.95 6.08
2 Education 3.08 .60 -.14
3 Dependent 3.389 .38 .10 .04 (.80)
4 Task performance 5.61 .93 -.04 -.02 .45*** (.85)
5 Contextual performance 5.46 .92 -.03 -.07 .49*** .73*** (.77)
Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was implemented to verify validity of
measurement models by AMOS version 23. The number of participants of this study was
302. The Table 4.7. shows CFA for each variables (protean career attitude, task performance
and contextual performance) and its one, two and three-factor models. The protean career
attitude was measured with 14 items in the questionnaire. The result of 𝑋2/df (2.86), RMSEA
(0.08), CFI (.87), IFI (.88) and TLI (.85) were all acceptable. Task and contextual
performance were measured with 16 items in the questionnaire. The result of task
performance were 𝑋2 /df (3.82), RMSEA (0.1), CFI (.93), IFI (.93) and TLI (.91), for
contextual performance were 𝑋2/df (3.21), RMSEA (0.09), CFI (.94), IFI (.94) and TLI (.91)
and all were almost in acceptable range.
33
Table 4.7.
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (n=302)
x2 df
x2/d
f
RMSE
A CFI NFI IFI TLI GFI
Protean career attitude 217.41 76 2.86 0.08 0.8
7
0.8
2
0.8
8
0.8
5
0.9
1
Task performance 103.05 27 3.82 0.1 0.9
3
0.9
1
0.9
3
0.9
1
0.9
3
Contextual
performance 44.89 14 3.21 0.09
0.9
4
0.9
2
0.9
4
0.9
1
0.9
6
One-factor Model 1628.2
4
40
6 4.01 0.1
0.6
3
0.5
6
0.6
3 0.6
0.6
9
Two-factor Model 950.86 40
2 2.37 0.07
0.8
3
0.7
4
0.8
3
0.8
2
0.8
2
Three-factor model 1251.3
5
40
4 3.1 0.83
0.7
4
0.6
6
0.7
4
0.7
2
0.7
8
ANCOVA
The Table 4.8. shows number of participants for each type of protean career attitude.
Type 1 represents dependent (n=72), Type 2 represents rigid (n=45), Type 3 represents
reactive (n=66) and Type 4 represents protean talent (n=119).
Table 4.8.
Numbers of Each Type of Protean Career Attitude (n=302)
No Type N
1 Dependent 72
2 Rigid 45
3 Reactive 66
4 Protean 119
34
Table 4.9.
Comparison of Protean Types with Other Types on Task and Contextual Performance
(n=302)
Task Performance Contextual performance
Protean
Mean
Difference
Std.
Error Sig
Mean
Difference
Std.
Error Sig
Dependen
t .71*** 0.10 000 .56*** 0.12 000
Rigid .50*** 0.12 000 .35+ 0.14 0.06
Reactive .19 0.10 0.45
2 .16 0.12 1
Note: +p ≤ .05. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
The Table 4.9. shows that difference between each types on task performance and
contextual performance. Protean type has significantly higher task performance than
“Dependent” and “Rigid” group. But not significantly higher than “Reactive” types.
“Protean” type has significantly higher contextual performance than “Dependent” and
“Rigid” types. But not significantly higher than “Reactive” type. Therefore, Hypothesis 5
“Individuals with protean type have higher task and contextual performance comparing with
other three (Dependent, Rigid, Reactive) types.” was partially supported.
The following Table 4.10. shows result of hypotheses are tested in this study.
35
Table 4.10.
Hypothesis Testing Results Summary
Hypothesis Result
H1 Protean type has positive correlation with both task and
contextual performance.
Supported
H2 Reactive type has negative correlation with both task and
contextual performance.
Not supported
H3 a) Rigid type has negative correlation with task performance.
b) Rigid type has positive correlation with contextual
performance.
Not supported
H4 Dependent type has negative correlation with both task and
contextual performance.
Not supported
H5 Individuals with protean type have higher task and contextual
performance comparing with other three (Dependent, Rigid,
Reactive) types.
Partially supported
36
37
CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This chapter provides conclusion of the study and discuss overall implication of the
study based on results and findings. Limitation in data analysis and research design,
suggestion for future study are also included.
Types of Protean Career Attitude, Task and Contextual Performance
According to the result of this study shows that, protean and dependent type has high
performance on task and contextual performance. Protean type (protean talent) of individuals
are fully responsible for their own dream, careers and their future. They know what they want
from “life” generally. “Protean” type of individuals are self-directed and value-driven, they
already know what is their value, what is their interest. Then, they do career decisions based
on their own interest and value, also develop themselves to reach their own goals. Self-
development is essential for them. When they have to find a new job, or during unemployed
period of time, they do many researches and using their networks to find their own “perfect”
employer. As they got their perfect or suitable, or even their dream job, they perform well, if
they are not good enough on their job, they learn, and develop themselves to reach the
performance requirements and standards. This is the reason why protean talent has higher
task and contextual performance or even that organization is not the “perfect” choice for
them, at least there should have the reason which can be organization or that job is the one
step forward to their own mission in the future.
On the other hand, “Dependent” type of individual has high performance even they do
not have neither self-directed and value driven, which means this type of individual truly
depend on the organization. They are truly attached or committed to the organization which is
the reason why they perform well on both task and contextual performance. They should
perform well to keep their employment because they have traditional career development
perspective to develop their career. They only depend where they work and follow how
organization decide their career. Which makes them perform well and be honest to the
organization.
For “Rigid” type of protean career attitude, individuals who has this type of protean
career attitude are value-driven but not self-directed which means they are not able to adapt
to the development requirements and performance standards (Briscoe & Hall, 2006). They
make decisions based on their value but they may face lack of knowledge, skills and abilities
to perform well in the organization.
38
“Reactive” type of protean career attitude, they are self-directed, but not value driven.
They do adapt learning demands and performance requirements, but do not make career
decisions by their internal values and individual career success (Chin & Rasdi, 2014). They
may try to perform well and develop themselves, but they may not perfectly fit organization,
or job. Or their own value does not match the organization value which can be one reason to
perform poorly.
Implication for Research
There are not many studies focused on types of protean career attitude. This study makes
valuable contribution to the literature to understand more about types of protean career
attitude and its relationship between task and contextual performance. Types of protean
career attitude are basically own career management attitude of individuals. For example,
“Dependent” is one type of protean career attitude but which does not have protean career
attitude features (self-directed and value-driven). Therefore, these types can be called types of
own career management or types on self-career management. This types can be studied more
specifically in the future.
Implications for Practice
Due to this knowledge based economy, human talent is very important. In order to
survive in this rapid changing and challenging environment, attracting and retaining talent is
a major strategic affair for the organizations (Cabrera, 2009), on the other hand, managing
their own career and being proactive is the key ability for the individuals. This research
provides that the protean career attitude has significant positive relationship between task and
contextual performance, and some types of protean career attitude (dependent and protean)
has significant positive correlation. Moreover, literature shows that organizational career
management were related to performance, and goal setting has positive impact on
performance and organizational career management system and development opportunities
has positive effect on individual performance (Yahya & Othman, 2004). Protean career
attitude is positively correlated to career success, and proactive individuals who initiate in
developing their careers always experienced a more satisfying level of career success.
This study shows types of protean career attitude (dependent and protean) are good
performers both on task and contextual performance. Therefore, protean career attitude and
39
self- managed career attitude has positive impact on organization. As well as, this study
provide evidence for HR practitioner to understand more about types of protean career
attitude (own career management of employees), and to create effective career management
system and to implement right strategy to retain protean types of employees.
According to the result of this study, protean talents (protean type) have significant
higher task and contextual performance, then organization always wants to have productive
employees who have learning abilities and high adaptation in changing market. As Hall
(2004) purposed to the organization and management team to help their employees make
protean changes which can be challenging job tasks and assignments, create and support
developmental relationships with their peers and subordinates or career coaches, formal and
informal training and education, other developmental opportunities, and providing
information about future opportunities.
Limitation of the Study
There are several limitations in this study. First, this study uses self-reported data which
might contains several potential biases such as single source bias. Second, samples used in
this study was convenience and snow ball sampling which can associate with sampling bias
and may not be representative of the population. Also most of the data was collected through
online questionnaire, respondents may not felt encouraged to provide honest answers.
Furthermore, different understanding and interpretation can influence answers of the
respondents because of the translation of measurement. Original version of measurement was
in English. But in this studies, measurements were translated into Mongolian language. Even
though “Translation-back translation” procedure has been done to control translations,
several complains from respondents were received on some items of measurements.
Future Research Suggestions
This study only focus on types of protean career attitude and tried to investigate
relationship between task and contextual performance. Task and contextual performance is
dependent variable, many factors and aspects influence on performance. Therefore, further
research can be focused more on types of protean career attitude and its performance with
moderating effects of other variables such as person job fit, person organization fit, or
organizational commitment. For example, in order to understand more about relationship
40
between “Reactive” type and job performance can be checked with moderating effect of
person organization fit to examine their values are matching or not.
Although there were researches has been done on protean career attitude and
organizational commitment, there is no negative relationship between organizational
commitment and protean career attitude (Briscoe & Finkelstein, 2009). But if future
researchers have done research on types of protean career attitude and organizational
commitment, it would be interesting.
Moreover, types of protean career attitude could be studied in depth to understand more
about each types, for example main features of reactive type and main motivators for better
performance etc. It would be very helpful for HR practitioner understand more about
employee its career development attitude, and help them to manage their career.
Due to competitive labor market changes, we are required to have protean career attitude
and be responsible for our own career path. Recent research shows that specific individual,
organizational and work related alternatives can lead protean career attitude (Chin & Rasdi,
2014). Therefore, next suggestion would be test and investigate what kind of variables can
lead protean career attitude and how to develop protean attitude for employees and students.
Also, managing protean talents and their retention would be one more interesting topic to
investigate.
It should be noted that sample was full-time employees in Mongolia. Cultural
differences might affect the career attitudes (Segers et al., 2008), future research can test
types of protean career attitude in across cultures.
41
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H. (2014). Performance management. London, England: Pearson Education
Limited.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Brummelhuis. L. L. (2012). Work engagement, performance,
and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
80(2), 555-564.
Baruch, Y. (2014). The development and validation of a measure for protean career
orientation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(19),
2702-2723.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance:
The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109.
Briscoe, J. P. (2015). Handbook of research on sustainable careers. Cheltenham, England:
Edward Elgar.
Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. (2006). The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers:
Combinations and implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 4-18.
Briscoe, J. P., Hoobler, J. M., & Byle, K. A. (2010). Do “protean” employees make better
leaders? The answer is in the eye of the beholder. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5),
783-795.
Briscoe, J. P., Hall, D. T., & DeMuth, R. L. F. (2006). Protean and boundary less careers: An
empirical exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 30-47.
Briscoe, P. J., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2009). The “new career” and organizational commitment.
Career Development International, 14(3), 242-260.
Cabrera, E. F. (2009). Protean organizations: Reshaping work and careers to retain female
talent. Career Development International, 14(2), 186-201.
Carmeli, A., & Gefen. D. (2005). The relationship between work commitment models and
employee withdrawal intentions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 63-86.
Cerdina, J. L., & Pargneux, M. L. (2014). The impact of expatriates’ career characteristics on
career and job satisfaction, and intention to leave: An objective and subjective fit
approach. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(14), 2033-
2049.
Chen, C. F., & Kao, Y. L. (2012). Moderating effects of work engagement and job tenure on
burnout-performance among flight attendants. Journal of Air Transport Management,
25(1), 61-63.
42
Chiaburu, D. S. & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis
and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, ocbs, and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1082–1103.
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I. S., Wang, J., & Stoverink, A. C. (2017). A bigger piece of the pie: The
relative importance of affiliative and change-oriented citizenship and task
performance in predicting overall job performance. Human Resource Management
Review, 27(1), 97-107.
Chin, W. S., & Rasdi, R. M. (2014). Protean career development: Exploring the individuals,
organizational and job-related factors. Asian Social Science, 10(21), 203-215.
Davis, J.A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
De Vos, A., & Soens, N. (2008). Protean attitude and career success: The mediating role of
self-management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 449-456.
Demerouti, E., Xanthopoulou, D., Tsaousis, I., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Disentangling task
and contextual performance A multitrait-multimethod approach. Journal of Personnal
Psychology, 13(2), 59-69.
Ducker, P. F. (1999). Managing Oneself. Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 64-74.
Edwards, B. E., Bell, S. T., Arthur, W., & Decuir, A. D. (2008). Relationships between facets
of job satisfaction and task and contextual performance. Applied Psychology, 57(3),
441-465.
Goodman, S. A., & Svyantek, D. J. (1999). Person-organization fit and contextual
performance: Do shared values matter. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55(2), 254-
275.
Hair, J. F., Black W. C. Anderson R. E., Babin B. J., & Anderson R. E. (2010). Multivariate
data analysis.Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hall, D. T. (2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 65(1), 1-13.
Hall, D.T., & Goodale, J.G. (1986). Human resource management: Strategy, design and
implement. Chicago, IL: Foresmen Company.
Herman, J. B. (1973). Are situational contingencies limiting job attitude-job performance
relationships? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10(2), 208-224.
Inkson, K. (2006). Protean and boundaryless careers as metaphors. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 69(1), 48-63.
Lin, Y. C. (2015). Are you a protean talent? The influence of protean career attitude, learning-
goal orientation and perceived internal and external employability. Career
Development International, 20(7), 753-772.
43
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 392-423.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldmen, D. C. (2009). How broadly does education contribute to job
performance? Personnel Psychology, 62(1), 89-134.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric methods. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Patton, W., & McMahon, M. (2006). Career development and systems theory: Connecting
theory and practice. Rotterdam, Netherlands : Sense Publishers.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B, Lee, J. Y, & Podsakoff N. B. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Research Center of Mongolian Parliament (2012). Public Administration System and its
renewal of Mongolia: Comparative analysis with other countries. Retrieved from:
http://forum.parliament.mn/medias/7c1a5b00-77ba-42f8-85b6-5ba04d682ae5.pdf
Segers, J., Inceoglu, I., Vloeberghs, D., Bartram, D., & Henderickx, E. (2008). Protean and
boundaryless careers: A study on potential motivators. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 73(2), 212-230.
Shaffer, L. S., & Zalewski, J. M. (2011). Career advising in a VUCA environment. NACADA
Journal, 31(1), 64-74.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. O., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its
nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.
Thorndike, E.L. (1913). The psychology of learning, education psychology. New York, NY:
Columbia University.
United Nations Development Programme (2016), Human Development Report 2016.
Retrieved from:
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.pdf
US Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. (2016). 2016 Investment Climate Statements.
Retrieved from: https://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ics/2016/eap/254299.htm
Waters, L., Briscoe, J. P., Hall, D. T., & Wang, L. (2014). Protean career attitudes during
unemployment and reemployment: A longitudinal perspective. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 84(3), 405-419.
Wikipedia. (2016). Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteus
World Bank (2015). World Development Indicators. Retrieved from:
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/.../9781464804403.pdf
44
World Economic Forum (2016). The Future of Jobs. Retrieved from:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FOJ_Executive_Summary_Jobs.pdf
Yahya, K. K., & Othman, S. Z. (2004). Relationship between organizational career
management and individual performance. International Journal of Management
Studies, 11(2), 73-90.
Yang, C. L., & Hwang, M. (2014). Personality traits and simultaneous reciprocal influences
between job performance and job satisfaction. Chinese Management Studies, 8(1), 6-
26.