1 / 60

The Impact of Career Boundarylessness on Subjective Career Success: A Contingency Approach

The Impact of Career Boundarylessness on Subjective Career Success: A Contingency Approach. Dr. Sidika Nihal Colakoglu February 15, 2007 Norfolk State University. Overview. Background of the Study Gaps in Prior Research Objectives of the Study Research Model

saburo
Télécharger la présentation

The Impact of Career Boundarylessness on Subjective Career Success: A Contingency Approach

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation 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 Career Autonomy Subjective Career Success Career Boundarylessness Career Insecurity

  10. The Positive Link Career Competencies - Knowing-why - Knowing-how - Knowing-whom H1b Career Boundarylessness Subjective Career Success H1a H1c Career Autonomy

  11. The Negative Link Career Competencies - Knowing-why - Knowing-how - Knowing-whom H2b Career Boundarylessness Subjective Career Success H2a H2c Career Insecurity

  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. Career Outcomes Years

  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 Career outcomes Years/Jobs

  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) • SampleDrexel 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

  34. Measurement of VariablesCareer Boundarylessness- Career History Grid

  35. Career Boundarylessness (CB): Composite Score Total CB Score = CB Move 1 + CB Move 2 Total CB Score = 14

  36. Measurement of VariablesMediators

  37. Measurement of VariablesModerators

  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 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. The SEM Model Direction Frequency Career Autonomy Occupation Change Subjective Career Success Career Boundarylessness Industry Change Location Change Career Insecurity Employment Status Self Employment Number of Breaks Duration of Breaks

  42. The SEM Results .71** R1 Direction .95** .55** Frequency Career Autonomy .69** Occupation Change .14* Subjective Career Success .74** Career Boundarylessness Industry Change .23* .52** Location Change -.08ns Career Insecurity .58** Employment Status -.09ns R2 * p <.05 ** p <.001 Chi-Square = 41.9; df = 25; GFI = .96; Adj-GFI =.93; IFI = .97; CFI =.97; RMSEA =.06

  43. The SEM Results--Summary Career Autonomy Subjective Career Success Career Boundarylessness Career Insecurity ------- Not significant ____ Significant

  44. The SEM Results Summary: Direct Relationships

  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

  47. The SEM Results Summary: Intermediary Relationships

  48. Additional Analyses (CB vs. Career Autonomy & Career Insecurity-Summary) *p > .05 ; **p > .01

  49. Varia bles 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 Additional AnalysesCareer Competencies Direct Relationships Summary

  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.

More Related