Who benefits from independent careers? Employees, organizations, or both?

    Who benefits from independent careers? Employees, organizations, or both? Ricardo Rodrigues, David Guest, Teresa Oliveira, Kerstin Alfes PII: DOI: Reference:

S0001-8791(15)00103-7 doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.005 YJVBE 2934

To appear in:

Journal of Vocational Behavior

Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

24 July 2015 11 September 2015 12 September 2015

Please cite this article as: Rodrigues, R., Guest, D., Oliveira, T. & Alfes, K., Who benefits from independent careers? Employees, organizations, or both?, Journal of Vocational Behavior (2015), doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.005

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

NU

SC

RI

Ricardo Rodrigues1 Department of Management King‟s College, London 150 Stamford Street, London, SE1 9NH, UK [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 4535

PT

Who benefits from independent careers? Employees, organizations, or both?

AC CE P

TE

D

MA

David Guest Department of Management King‟s College, London 150 Stamford Street, London, SE1 9NH, UK [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 3723

1

Teresa Oliveira University of Coimbra Coimbra, Portugal [email protected] Kerstin Alfes ESCP Europe Berlin Heubnerweg 8-10 14059 Berlin [email protected]

Corresponding author 1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Who benefits from independent careers? Employees, organizations, or both?

PT

ABSTRACT The traditional organizational career has been depicted as the classic example of how employers

RI

and employees can develop a mutually beneficial relationship; but changes in the competitive

SC

landscape and in individual work values have challenged its viability. Commentators have argued that a „new career‟ deal, encapsulated by the notions of the protean and the boundaryless

NU

career, has emerged suggesting a shift in control of careers from organizations to individuals. Research has explored the implications for individuals‟ careers while largely neglecting

MA

consequences for organizations. Our paper seeks to remedy this by exploring both the individual and the organizational outcomes of independent career orientations and the extent to which organizations can manage these through high commitment human resource management (HRM)

D

practices. Our study, conducted with 655 employee-supervisor dyads, indicates that a protean

TE

career orientation results in gains for both employees and organizations, whereas a boundaryless career orientation is associated with mutual losses. In addition, our findings suggest that high

AC CE P

commitment HR practices play an important role in managing the outcomes of employees seeking traditional careers but have only a limited impact on those with a boundaryless career orientation.

Key words: Protean and boundaryless careers; human resource management; individual and organizational outcomes. 1. Introduction

The traditional organizational career is an example of a mutually beneficial long-term relationship whereby good performance and displays of loyalty by employees are rewarded with job security, steady increases in pay and prospects of hierarchical promotion (Dries, Van Acker & Verbruggen, 2012). However there is now a widespread view that in the highly uncertain and unpredictable contemporary competitive environment, organizations are no longer in a position to promise a traditional career (Arthur, 1994). To navigate successfully in this changing landscape, employees are advised to decouple their identities from their organizational settings 2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT and take ownership of their careers by developing marketable skills and adopting idiosyncratic benchmarks of career success (Arthur, Khapova & Wilderom, 2005). This contemporary career

PT

has been characterised as protean (Hall 1976) and boundaryless (Arthur, 1994).

RI

There is some uncertainty about the extent to which independent career orientations have taken hold among employees (Clarke, 2013). However if they are widespread, and individuals

SC

are viewing their careers as independent from their employers, they pose a challenge to

NU

organizations seeking to develop and retain highly valued employees. These concerns are reflected in the importance organizations attach to talent management (Collings and Mellahi,

MA

2009) and what has been termed the „war for talent‟ (Michaels, Handfield-Jones & Axelrod, 2001). One organizational response that has been advocated in the face of the risk of losing

TE

D

talented staff is to adopt high commitment HR practices in the belief that they will be better able to ensure their motivation, commitment and retention (Jiang, Lepak, Hu & Baer, 2012). However

AC CE P

there is no information about how far such practices are able to influence the attitudes and behavior of those who have adopted an independent career orientation. Given the uncertainties about the extent to which these independent career orientations have been embraced by employees, the paucity of research exploring how these orientations affect organizationallyrelevant outcomes and the extent to which organizations are able to influence the association between independent career orientations and both individual and organizational outcomes, this paper has two main aims. First, it explores the impact of independent career orientations on individual and organizational outcomes to determine whether or not there are mutual benefits. In so doing, the paper also contributes to teasing out the distinction between the outcomes of protean and boundaryless career orientations which are often used interchangeably in the literature (Uy, Cha, Sam, Ho & Chernyshenko, 2015). Second, it examines how far organizations

3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT are able to influence the relationship between orientations and outcomes by exploring the

PT

moderating role of high commitment HRM.

RI

2. Theoretical framework

2.1 The concept of career orientations. There is some lack of clarity about the way in

SC

which the concepts of protean and boundaryless career have been operationalised raising

NU

questions about their precise nature, derivation and stability. In the opening page of a recent paper about protean and boundaryless careers, Briscoe, Henagan, Burton & Murphy (2012: 308),

MA

refer to „mindset‟ and „attitudes‟. Other contributions refer to protean and boundaryless career „orientations‟ (Baruch, 2014; Direnzo, Greenhaus & Weer, 2015; Gubler, Arnold & Coombs,

TE

D

2014). These concepts have differing implications for stability and suggest that further conceptual work is necessary to determine their status more clearly. The assumption in adopting

AC CE P

the term „orientation‟ is that preferences for a protean or boundaryless career exist independently of any specific organization and persist over time. However, like related career orientations, they are potentially influenced by experiences outside and inside an organization (Rodrigues, Guest and Budjanovcanin, 2013). We will therefore adopt the term „orientation‟ to describe these independent career concepts.

2.2 The impact of independent career orientations on individual outcomes. Protean and boundaryless careers have been depicted as alternative lenses to capture contemporary careers. Though often used interchangeably in the literature (Uy et al., 2015) these are fundamentally different concepts. The protean career, a term initially coined by Hall (1976), describes a career “in which the person, not the organization, is in charge” (Hall, 2004: 4). The boundaryless career depicts a career that “moves across the boundaries of separate employers” (Arthur, 1994: 296).

4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT While enacting a boundaryless career may require the proactivity that underpins the notion of the protean career, the reverse is not necessarily true. Career control may be used to develop a career

PT

within the boundaries of a single employer. As a result it is important to establish the individual

RI

and organizational correlates of both orientations.

Research suggests that a protean career orientation is associated with psychological and

SC

career resources such as proactivity (Porter, Woo & Tak, 2015), career adaptability (Chan et al,

NU

2015) and effective coping with uncertainty (Baruch & Quick, 2007). It also leads to positive employee outcomes. Employees who take ownership of their careers are more confident in their

MA

ability to find a new job and report higher levels of career satisfaction (De Vos & Soens, 2008; Grimland, Vigoda-Gadot & Baruch, 2012) and psychological well-being (Briscoe et al., 2012).

TE

D

We would therefore expect individuals with a protean career orientation to display higher levels of satisfaction with their jobs and careers than those relying more on their organizations to

AC CE P

manage their careers. Since a protean career orientation has also been associated with a higher priority for a better work-life balance (Briscoe & Hall, 2006) we would also expect a positive spill-over to satisfaction with life as a whole. Hypothesis 1: A protean career orientation will be associated with higher levels of job satisfaction, career satisfaction and life satisfaction. The second dimension of independent careers, a boundaryless career orientation, has received less research attention and studies have reported mixed results. The wider literature about boundaryless careers strongly implies that those who pursue them should be both more successful and more satisfied with their jobs and careers (Arthur, 1994; Baruch & Peiperl, 1997). In a qualitative study, Culie, Khapova and Arthur (2014) found that individuals who expressed higher levels of „psychological career mobility‟ were more satisfied with their careers. Briscoe et

5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT al (2012) found that a boundaryless career „mindset‟ was positively associated with external support seeking and active coping with uncertainty in the job market. In a study among

PT

unemployed workers in Belgium, Vansteenkiste, Verbruggen and Sels (2013) reported that

and were more likely to be invited to a selection interview.

RI

individuals with higher levels of psychological mobility spent more time searching for a new job

SC

There is, however, counter-evidence challenging the dominant argument in the

NU

boundaryless career literature. In a study in twelve international organizations in Belgium, Dries et al (2012) found that employees who were viewed as „talent‟ by their organizations were more

MA

likely to have traditional career arrangements. In addition, their research showed that organizational career features such as job security, organizational support, promotion

TE

D

opportunities and salary increases yielded higher career satisfaction than boundaryless career features. The study by Vansteenkiste et al (2013) also showed that unemployed individuals with

AC CE P

higher psychological mobility received fewer job offers and were less successful in transitioning into employment when compared with individuals with a stronger preference for organizational careers. This was partly explained by the fact that they more frequently applied for jobs for which they were not a good match. The evidence available shows that we know little about how far contemporary workers have adopted a boundaryless career orientation and, if they have, whether they also report more positive outcomes. Nevertheless, based on the limited evidence and the common assumptions, we offer the following hypothesis. Hypothesis 2: A boundaryless career orientation will be associated with higher levels of job satisfaction, career satisfaction and life satisfaction.

6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2.3 The impact of an independent career orientation on organizational outcomes. Research on protean and boundaryless career orientations has generally neglected organizational

PT

outcomes. There is a clear implication that these attitudes reflect a shift in power from

RI

organization to individual resulting in an increased risk to organizations of losing key personnel or at least losing the ability to manage their careers in the way they were able to in the past.

SC

The kind of organizational outcomes that are likely to be most relevant to career

NU

management include individual performance and retention. Task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) have been identified as core components of performance at the

MA

individual level (Dunlop & Lee, 2004). Various dimensions of OCB have been identified

TE

oriented towards organizations.

D

(Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 2000). Here we focus on discretionary behaviors

There is no reason to expect that a boundaryless career orientation will affect task

AC CE P

performance. For those with a high boundaryless career orientation, who may be considering a move to another organization, good task performance is likely to improve their marketability. However, those seeking an organizational career will equally believe that good performance enhances their chances of internal promotion. Preliminary support for this has been provided by Briscoe et al (2012) who found no direct association between a higher or lower boundaryless mindset and self-rated job performance. We therefore offer no hypothesis about the relation between a boundaryless career orientation and job performance. Hall (2004) argues that a protean career orientation will lead to increased performance. Support for this association stems largely from the literature showing a link between the display of proactive behaviors towards one‟s career, coworkers and employer and positive employee and organizational outcomes (Belschak & Den Hertog, 2010). Briscoe et al (2012) and Baruch

7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT (2014) have provided initial empirical evidence and reported an association between protean career preferences and self-report measures of individual performance. We extend this research

PT

by exploring linkages with supervisor ratings of performance.

RI

Hypothesis 3: A protean career orientation will be positively associated with job performance

SC

As organizations require greater flexibility of response and greater use of initiative

NU

reflecting the need to respond to a range of contingencies, engaging in OCBs has become an increasingly important performance indicator. While the boundaryless and the protean careers

MA

have been associated with proactivity and a relationship between proactive behaviors and OCBs has been proposed on the grounds that proactive employees are more motivated to contribute to

TE

D

organizational improvement initiatives (Crant, 2000; Li, Liang & Crant, 2010), the response may differ according to orientation.

AC CE P

Individuals may engage in OCBs for a variety of reasons, including impression management (Podsakoff et al, 1990). Those seeking advancement within an organization will be more likely to seek to impress influential individuals within their organization while those with a boundaryless career orientation will be more likely to engage in external impression management and display fewer OCBs oriented towards their current employer. Hypothesis 4: There will be a positive association between a protean career orientation and organizational citizenship behaviors. Hypothesis 5: There will be a negative association between a boundaryless career orientation and organizational citizenship behaviors. Attitudinal outcomes of independent career orientations that will be of particular interest to organizations include organizational commitment and intention to quit. Research demonstrates a

8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT consistent association between reduced commitment and higher intention to quit as well as an association with actual quits (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch & Topolnystsky, 2002) which justifies

PT

a concern about these attitudes in those organizations concerned about retention of key staff.

RI

There is also a significant albeit weak association between organizational commitment and performance (Riketta, 2002). A protean career orientation does not imply any specific pattern of

SC

career mobility and the evidence supports a positive association with organizational commitment

NU

(Baruch, 2014; Çakmak-Otluoğlu 2012; Porter et al, 2015). This may be explained by the fact that individuals with a strong protean career orientation are better equipped to control their work

MA

environment. We do not advance any hypotheses regarding the relationship between a protean career orientation and intention to quit. While there is evidence suggesting that individuals who

TE

D

take ownership of their careers engage in more job search behaviors (De Vos & Soens, 2008) it is also likely that they are able to experience higher levels of person-job and person-organization

AC CE P

fit which would motivate them to stay with their employers (Direnzo & Greenhaus, 2011). In contrast, we can expect that, other things being equal, those with a boundaryless career orientation will display lower commitment to their current organization and a higher intention to quit. The literature has shown a consistent association between intention to quit and actual turnover (Hom, Mitchell, Lee, & Griffeth, 2012). This reflects the likely association between what Sullivan and Arthur (2006) describe as the psychological and behavioral forms of career boundarylessness. Hypothesis 6: A protean career orientation will be associated with higher organizational commitment. Hypothesis 7: A boundaryless career orientation will be associated with lower organizational commitment and higher intention to quit.

9

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2.4 Organizational influence on independent career orientations: the role of human resource management. There are sound reasons why organizations might wish to influence the

PT

behavior typically associated with protean and boundaryless career orientations. A protean career orientation indicates a desire for personal control over a career that may run counter to the

RI

organization‟s career management plans for the individual. On the other hand, it could

SC

complement organizational career management resulting in mutual benefits (Baruch, 2014). A

NU

boundaryless career orientation implies an increased propensity to move across organizational boundaries. Organizations will be more concerned about this if it leads to the loss of talented,

MA

highly marketable and hard to replace staff and will wish to minimise this risk. Research has shown that greater use and effective implementation of bundles of what are

TE

D

variously termed „high commitment‟, „high involvement‟ and „high performance‟ HRM practices, such as selectivity in hiring, extensive training and development, job security and work

AC CE P

flexibility can result in enhanced individual and organizational outcomes including higher job satisfaction, higher commitment to the organization, higher job performance and reduced intention to quit (Van de Voorde, Paauwe & Van Veldhoven, 2012). The higher levels of autonomy implied in this approach to HRM may engage those with a protean career orientation and also reduce the likelihood of labor turnover among those with a boundaryless career orientation, particularly if it enhances their human capital and thereby increases employability. Given the evidence about the impact of HRM on individual and organizational outcomes, we propose that its presence will moderate the relationship between independent career orientations and outcomes such that higher levels of HRM result in more positive individual and, in particular, more positive organizational outcomes.

10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Hypothesis 8: High commitment HR practices will moderate the relationship between protean and boundaryless career orientations and outcomes such that greater experience of

PT

these HR practices will be associated with higher task performance, OCBs and organizational

RI

commitment and lower intention to quit.

SC

3. Methods

3.1 Context of the research, sample, and procedure. Data were collected in 2014 through a

NU

questionnaire survey of a sample of workers in 19 private organizations in Portugal who

MA

responded to an invitation to participate in our study. At the time of the data collection Portugal was concluding an austerity programme to address its Sovereign debt crisis. The economic

D

austerity has had a strong impact on unemployment which rose from 7.6% in 2008 to 16.3% at

TE

the time of the data collection (OECD, 2015).

AC CE P

Organizations were contacted via a university‟s MBA alumni network. Participant organizations ranged in size from under 50 to over 3000 employees. Data from 655 subordinatesupervisor dyads were collected. Participants were informed of the aims of the study and the procedure for data collection. Those who agreed to participate in the study were asked to identify their immediate supervisor. The supervisors received a questionnaire informing them that their subordinates were participating in the study and were asked to provide information about their performance. Confidentiality was assured to all participants. Subordinates and supervisors were told they would not have access to each other‟s answers. All questionnaires were collected personally by a research assistant and information from subordinates was paired with that provided by their respective supervisor. The mean age of respondents was 36.4 years (SD = 10.3). 369 (56.1%) participants were men and 368 (55.9%) had partners. Mean job tenure was

11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 5.7 years (SD = 6.3). 496 (79.7%) respondents were permanent workers and 50 (8.1%) worked part-time.

PT

3.2 Measures. Validated measures of all constructs were used. Unless otherwise stated, responses to all items were obtained using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “1= strongly disagree” to

RI

“5 = strongly agree”. Items were translated from English to Portuguese by the first author and

SC

then back-translated independently by the third author of the paper. Both authors are bilingual.

NU

The translation was subsequently analysed by a University translator. The questionnaire was

present good reliability (see table 1). Control Variables

MA

analysed by a panel of 10 individuals who indicated that all items were clear. All measures

TE

D

Demographic variables. Information was collected about participants‟ age in years, gender (0 = men; 1 = women), marital status (0 = married; 1 = single), and education (1= basic

AC CE P

education; 2= high school diploma; 3=higher education). These are relevant control variables as evidence suggests they are predictors of independent career orientations (Segers et al., 2008). Employment experience variables. Information was collected about participants‟ employment contract and whether this was permanent or temporary (0 = temporary; 1 = permanent) and full time or part-time (0 = full time; 1 = part-time); and monthly salary (six categories ranging from under €500/month to over €3000/month). These are important control variables to consider as they may influence outcomes over and above the role of career orientations. Organizational variables. Information was collected about organization size (number of workers). This is a relevant control as organization size may influence the number of HR practices adopted and their formalization.

12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Supervisor rated performance. Task Performance was measured using 7 items developed by Williams and Anderson

PT

(1991) addressing employee in-role behaviors. Sample items are “This employee adequately completes assigned duties” and “This employee neglects aspects of the job he/she is obliged to

RI

perform (R)”.

SC

Organizational citizenship behaviors were measured with 4 items developed by Lee and

NU

Allen (2002) to capture organizationally-directed OCBs. This measure is particularly relevant for our study as it places the organization as the beneficiary of the citizenship behaviors. Sample

MA

items are “This employee attends functions that are not required but that help the organizational image” and “This employee defends the organization when other employees criticize it”.

TE

D

Self-report data

Intention to quit was measured with 3 items adapted from Price et al. (1992). A sample

AC CE P

item is “If I could I would quit today”.

Organizational commitment was measured using 3 items from Meyer and Allen‟s (1997) measure of affective commitment. A sample item is “I do not feel a strong sense of „belonging‟ to my organization (R)”

High commitment human resource management practices were measured with 25 items covering eight main areas: job security (a sample item is “My organization offers me job security”); recruitment and selection (a sample item is “In recruiting, my company emphasizes the potential of new hires to learn and grow with the company”); training and development (a sample item is “I receive sufficient training in areas directly related to my job”); performance appraisal (a sample item is “I have a formal performance appraisal at least once a year”); flexibility (a sample item is “My company offers flexible work opportunities); two-way

13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT communication (a sample item is “I have opportunities to express my views to my superiors”); job design (a sample item is “My organization tries to make my job as interesting as possible”);

PT

and career management (a sample item is “I have clear career paths within my organization”).

RI

Protean and boundaryless career orientations were measured with two scales capturing career preferences. These are better suited to address career orientations than behavioral

SC

measures.

NU

Boundaryless career orientation was measured with four items from Briscoe, Hall & DeMuth‟s (2006) career mobility preference scale. Sample items are “I like the predictability that

MA

comes with working continuously for the same organization (R)” and “I would feel very lost if I couldn‟t work for my current organization (R)”. A decision was made not to use the

TE

D

boundaryless mindset scale. This measure focuses on people‟s attitudes towards working across organizational boundaries (e.g. with people in different departments, functions and

AC CE P

organizations) and is arguably less relevant to capture the core meaning of the boundaryless career as defined by Arthur (1994). In addition, it is not clear how it resonates among people working in SMEs where boundaries between jobs and departments are often unclear. Protean career orientation was measured with four items from Briscoe et al.‟s (2006) selfdirected career management scale. Sample items are “Overall, I have a very independent, selfdirected career” and “Ultimately, I depend upon myself to move my career forward”. The values driven scale was not used as evidence suggests that it is problematic in non-US samples (Baruch, 2014; Chan et al. 2012). Job satisfaction was measured using 3 items adapted from Kim, Price, Mueller and Watson (1996). A sample item is “Most days I am enthusiastic about my job”.

14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Career satisfaction was measured with 4 items adapted from Greenhaus, Parasuraman and Wormley (1990). A sample item is “Overall I am satisfied with my career so far”.

PT

Life satisfaction was measured with 4 items from Pavot, Diener, Colvin & Sandwick

RI

(1991) satisfaction with life scale. A sample item is “In most ways, my life is close to ideal”.

SC

4. Analyses and results

NU

4.1 Analyses. All the variables used were inspected for distribution characteristics, missing values and outliers. Since the data were cross-sectional and part of the analysis relies on self-

MA

report data we conducted Harman's single-factor test to assess whether common method variance threatened the validity of our findings (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff, 2003). The

TE

D

single common factor accounts for 23.7% of the variance which is below the 25% average found in the literature (Williams, Cote, & Buckley, 1989). The decision was made to test all hypotheses

outcomes.

AC CE P

using multiple regressions so as to control for relevant variables potentially affecting the

4.1.1 Means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations. The means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations of the study variables are presented in Table 1. Overall, participants report moderate protean career orientations (Mean = 3.61; SD = .71) and somewhat low boundaryless career orientations (Mean = 2.76; SD = .61). As expected, boundaryless career orientations are negatively correlated with organizational commitment (r = -.27; p<.01) and employer tenure (r = -.26; p<.01) and positively correlated with intention to quit (r = .46; p<.01). No significant correlations with task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors were found. In contrast, protean career orientations are positively correlated with task performance (r = .16; p<.01), OCBs (r = .16; p<.01) and organizational commitment (r = .26; p<.01) and

15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT negatively associated with intention to quit (r = -.24; p<.01). HR practices are positively correlated with protean (r = .41; p<.01) and negatively associated with boundaryless career

PT

orientations (r = -.14; p<.01).

RI

[Insert Table 1 about here] 4.2 Results. Hypotheses 1 and 2 explore direct links between career orientations and employee

SC

outcomes. To test them we have regressed boundaryless and protean career orientations on job satisfaction, career satisfaction and life satisfaction controlling for the effect of demographic,

NU

employment experience, organizational characteristics and HR practices. Data are presented in

MA

table 2.

Hypothesis 1 argues that people with high protean career orientations will be more satisfied

D

with their career, their job and their lives in general. Results in table 2 support our hypothesis

TE

and show that individuals with a protean career orientation report higher levels of career (β =.27;

AC CE P

p<.00), job (β =.41; p<.00) and life (β =.24; p<.00) satisfaction. Hypothesis 2 suggests that people with a high boundaryless career orientation will report lower attitudinal outcomes. Results in table 2 support the hypothesis and indicate that those with a boundaryless career orientation report lower career (β =-.29; p<.00), job (β =-.24; p<.00) and life (β =-.16; p<.01) satisfaction. Our evidence therefore shows that, other things being equal, protean career orientations result in positive outcomes for employees and boundaryless career orientations lead to poorer outcomes. [Insert table 2 about here] Hypotheses 3 to 7 address linkages between career orientations and organizational outcomes. To test these hypotheses we have regressed task performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, organizational commitment and intention to quit on career orientations

16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT controlling for the effect of demographics, employment experience, organizational characteristics and HR practices. Results are presented in table 3.

PT

Hypothesis 3 posits that individuals with a protean career orientation will have higher task

RI

performance. Results in table 3 show a positive association between protean career orientations and task performance (β =.10; p<.05) supporting our hypothesis.

SC

Hypotheses 4 and 5 address the links between independent career orientations and OCBs.

NU

Hypothesis 4 proposes that individuals with a high protean career orientation will display more OCBs. Results in table 3 show a positive association between career self-directedness and

MA

supervisor ratings of OCBs (β =.11; p<.05) confirming the hypothesis. Hypothesis 5 suggests that boundaryless career orientations are negatively associated with OCBs. The evidence in table

TE

D

3 does not support our hypothesis (β =.07; ns). Hypotheses 6 and 7 explore the links between independent career orientations and attitudes

AC CE P

of interest to organizations. Hypothesis 6 proposes that protean career orientations will be associated with higher organizational commitment while hypothesis 7 suggests that individuals with high boundaryless career orientations will display lower levels of commitment and report higher intention to quit. Results in table 3 confirm our hypotheses indicating that a more proactive career orientation is associated with higher organizational commitment (β =.10; p<.01) and a higher boundaryless career orientation is associated with significantly lower organizational commitment (β =-.16; p<.01) and a higher intention to leave (β =.31; p<.00). [Insert table 3 about here] Finally, hypothesis 8 proposes that high commitment HR practices will moderate the link between independent career orientations and outcomes of interest to organizations, such that a higher presence of HR practices will lead to more positive outcomes. Results in table 3 show

17

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT significant interactions for task performance, OCBs and organizational commitment. No significant interactions were found for intention to quit. We have plotted the significant

PT

interactions to facilitate interpretation (see Figures 1 to 4) and followed the interaction probing

RI

procedure recommended by Hayes (2013).

Figure 1 shows the interaction pattern of boundaryless career orientation and HRM on task

SC

performance. The interaction is significant only at low levels of HRM (b = .19, t = 2.34, p = .02,

NU

LLCI = .03, ULCI = .35) indicating that in organizations adopting fewer high commitment HR practices individuals with high boundaryless career orientations will perform better than those

MA

seeking a traditional career.

Figure 2 shows the interaction pattern of boundaryless career orientation and HRM on

TE

D

OCB. The analysis of slopes shows that the interaction is significant at low (b = .18, t = 3.14, p = .00, LLCI = .06, ULCI = .30) and mean (b = .10, t = 2.43, p = .01, LLCI = .02, ULCI = .19)

AC CE P

levels of HRM. These results indicate that when organizations adopt low levels of HRM, employees with a low boundaryless career orientation display fewer OCBs compared with those with a high boundaryless career orientation. Figure 3 shows the interaction between protean career orientations and HRM on OCBs. Additional exploration of the slopes shows that the interaction is significant at low (b = .14, t = 2.36, p = .01, LLCI = .02, ULCI = .26), mean (b = .14, t = 2.63, p = .00, LLCI =.03, ULCI = .25) and high (b = .14, t = 2.03, p = .04, LLCI = .00, ULCI = .28) levels of HRM. This suggests that a strong presence of HR practices minimizes the differences in the display of OCBs between individuals with high and low protean career orientations. In contrast, when organizations adopt fewer HR practices, those with a low protean career orientation display significantly fewer OCBs.

18

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Finally, figure 4 shows the interaction effect of boundaryless career orientations and HR practices on organizational commitment. Slope analysis indicates that the interaction is

PT

significant at low (b = -.29, t = -5.75, p = .00, LLCI = -.39, ULCI = -.19) and mean (b = -.18, t =

RI

-4.74, p = .00, LLCI = -.25, ULCI = -.10) levels of HRM. This indicates that when organizations invest strongly in HR practices there are no significant differences in commitment between

SC

individuals seeking organizational and boundaryless careers. In contrast, where there is low

NU

investment in HRM, those with high boundaryless career orientations display lower levels of commitment.

MA

Overall, though interesting and relevant, results do not broadly support hypothesis 8. With the exception of OCB, the role of HR practices in shaping the attitudes and behaviors of

TE

D

individuals with protean career orientations is modest. In contrast, HRM is important in shaping the outcomes of individuals with differing levels of boundaryless career orientation, albeit not

AC CE P

the direction hypothesized. Findings indicate that in organizations adopting more high commitment HR practices there are no clear differences in performance, commitment and retention between individuals with high and low boundaryless career orientations. However, where there is low adoption of high commitment HR practices, those with a low boundaryless career orientation display poorer performance outcomes compared with employees displaying higher boundaryless career orientations. [Insert Figures 1 to 4 about here] 5. Discussion and conclusion Since the mid-1990s the careers literature has extensively discussed the changing nature of careers and in particular the argument that they are becoming increasingly inter-organizational, individually driven, and subjectively assessed (Arthur, 1994; Arthur et al., 2005). Commentators

19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT have argued that the demise of the traditional career deal reflects both changes in the competitive environment, driven by factors such as global competition, organizational restructuring and

PT

downsizing, which have challenged the stability and the role of internal labor markets as devices to attract and retain talent (Cappelli, 1999), as well as changes in individuals‟ career preferences

RI

and work values (Smola & Sutton, 2002). A „new career‟ deal, grounded on low mutual loyalty

SC

and short-term employment relations, is said to have emerged. Irrespective of the debate about

NU

the prevalence of independent career patterns and preferences (Rodrigues & Guest, 2010), the impact of protean and boundaryless career orientations on individual and more particularly on

MA

organizational outcomes remains an underdeveloped area of research. This paper aimed to progress research by empirically exploring links between independent career orientations and

TE

D

both individual and organizational outcomes. In addition, it aimed to explore the role of organizations in managing the outcomes of employees with high protean and boundaryless career

AC CE P

orientations through the adoption of high commitment HR practices. Three key issues have been explored empirically among a sample of 655 worker-supervisor dyads in 19 organizations in Portugal.

First, we explored the implications for individuals of independent career orientations. Our findings showed that protean career orientations were associated with positive experiences for workers and are in line with other studies (Baruch & Quick, 2007; De Vos & Soens, 2008). In addition, our study showed that, all things being equal, employees with high boundaryless career orientations reported lower levels of career, job and life satisfaction. This challenges the key assumption underpinning the „new career‟ literature that boundarylessness is more satisfying for employees. Additional research is needed to clarify the conditions under which psychological boundarylessness can lead to positive employee outcomes. The role of relevant moderators and

20

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT mediators at the context level, such as unemployment rates or the state of the economy, and at the individual level, such as perceptions of employability, proactive personality as well as the

PT

interaction between gender, family responsibilities and life stage needs to be further explored.

RI

Second, our study is one of the first to explore the implications of independent career orientations for organizations. Our findings showed that protean career orientations were

SC

positively associated with task performance, OCBs and organizational commitment. In contrast,

NU

the evidence showed that employees seeking boundaryless careers were less committed and more willing to leave their employers. The adaptable nature of protean careers seems to result in

MA

mutual gains for employees and organizations. In contrast, boundaryless career orientations are associated with poorer outcomes for both parties. Our findings highlight the distinction between

TE

D

protean and boundaryless career orientations cautioning against using them interchangeably. Further research is needed, in different contexts, to tease out the differences in antecedents and

AC CE P

outcomes between protean and boundaryless career orientations. Finally, we have explored the extent to which organizations can influence the outcomes of individuals with independent career orientations through high commitment HRM. The key finding is that HRM has an important role in shaping the outcomes of individuals with low protean and low boundaryless career orientations. Our study shows that in organizations adopting fewer HR practices, individuals with a low boundaryless career orientation have lower job performance and display fewer OCBs than those preferring boundaryless careers. This suggests that individuals seeking more traditional career arrangements have a greater interest in being well-managed in their current organization and may be more sensitive to relevant organizational policy and practice. An investment in the organization is likely to result in greater „exchange sensitivity‟ (Morrison & Robinson, 2004) and therefore in a stronger reaction to a

21

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT greater or lesser presence of HR practices. Variations in the presence of HR practices also have an important impact on individuals with low protean career orientations. This may be explained

PT

by the fact that these individuals seek to take ownership and control of their careers and do not

RI

appreciate organizational career management practices. Though relevant, the impact of HR practices on the outcomes of individuals with protean and boundaryless career orientations was

SC

not the one expected. Future research should explore the role of other moderators such as HR

NU

attributions, supportive leadership and organizational support in managing the performance and retention of individuals pursuing independent careers. In addition, it is important to stress that

MA

these findings do not necessarily mean that organizations can ignore employees‟ career orientations when designing HR practices. At the same time, given the wider evidence that

TE

D

independent career orientations may not have taken hold among contemporary employees, there would appear to be a strong case for retaining traditional organizational career management

AC CE P

practices including career and succession planning, internal promotion, and extensive employee training and development since it is those who display low independent career orientations and, by implication, a preference for a more traditional organizational career, that these practices have the greatest impact. Among those with protean orientations, the policy challenge is to provide a balance of organizational career management practices alongside encouragement for career selfmanagement. For those with a stronger boundaryless career orientation the challenge is to provide the kind of development and advancement opportunities that demonstrate that employability is more likely to be enhanced by staying with rather than leaving the organization. Our study also has three relevant limitations. First, our study is cross-sectional. Longitudinal research is needed, ideally following the career orientations of individuals over time to explore how they are shaped by HR practices and by contextual changes as well as major

22

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT changes in their personal lives. Second, the social and economic context in which the data were collected may have affected the outcomes of individuals seeking boundaryless careers. The

PT

context of economic crisis and high unemployment in Portugal may encourage workers to reduce

RI

physical and psychological career mobility. This may also explain the positive association between career boundedness and career, job and life satisfaction. It is therefore important to

SC

replicate the study under different economic circumstances. Finally, our data were collected in

NU

private organizations only. Public sector organizations tend to traditionally offer higher job security and stability. This may reflect both on their ability to attract and retain employees with

MA

high protean and boundaryless career orientations as well as on the outcomes of employees with independent career orientations. This is an aspect to be explored in future research.

TE

D

In summary, this study offers an empirical exploration of the outcomes of independent career orientations for individuals and for organizations. It suggests that protean career

AC CE P

orientations can result in mutual gains for organizations and employees and that career boundarylessness seems to result in mutual losses, even though these may be more significant for individuals than for organizations. References

Arthur, M. (1994). The boundaryless career: A new perspective for organizational inquiry. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(4), 295-306. Arthur, M., Khapova, S., & Wilderom, C. (2005). Career success in a boundaryless career world. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 177-202. 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.

23

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Baruch Y., & Quick J. (2007). Understanding second careers: Lessons from a study of U.S. navy admirals. Human Resource Management, 46(4), 471-491

PT

Briscoe, J. & Hall, D. (2006). The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers:

RI

Combinations and implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 4-18. Briscoe, J., Hall, D., & DeMuth, R. (2006). Protean and boundaryless careers: An

SC

empirical exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 30-47.

NU

Briscoe, J., Henagan, S., Burton, J., & Murphy, W. (2012). Coping with an insecure employment environment: The differing roles of protean and boundaryless career orientations.

MA

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 308-316.

Çakmak-Otluoğlu, K. (2012). Protean and boundaryless career attitudes and organizational

80(3), 638-646.

TE

D

commitment: The effects of perceived supervisor support. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

AC CE P

Cappelli, P. (1999). The New Deal at Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Chan, K., Uy, M., Moon-ho, R., Sam, Y., Chernyshenko, O., & Yu, K. (2015). Comparing two career adaptability measures for career construction theory: Relations with boundaryless mindset and protean career attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87, 22-31. Clarke, M. (2013). The organizational career: Not dead but in need of redefinition. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(4), 684-703. Collings, D., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 304-313. Crant, J. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435– 462.

24

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Culié, J., Khapova, S., & Arthur, M. (2014). Careers, clusters and employment mobility: The influences of psychological mobility and organizational support. Journal of Vocational

PT

Behavior, 84(2), 164-176.

RI

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.

SC

Direnzo, M., & Greenhaus, J. (2011). Job search and voluntary turnover in a boundaryless

NU

world: A control theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 567-589. Direnzo, M., Greenhaus, J., & Weer, C. (2015). Relationship between protean career

MA

orientation and work–life balance: A resource perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(4), 538-560.

TE

D

Dries, N., Van Acker, F., & Verbruggen, M. (2012). How „boundaryless‟ are the careers of high potentials, key experts and average performers?. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(2),

AC CE P

271-279.

Dunlop, P., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: The bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 67-80. Greenhaus, J., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 64-86. Grimland, S., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Baruch, Y. (2012). Career attitudes and success of managers: The impact of chance event, protean, and traditional careers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(6), 1074-1094.

25

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Gubler, M., Arnold, J., & Coombs, C. (2014). Organizational boundaries and beyond: A new look at the components of a boundaryless career orientation. Career Development

PT

International, 19(6), 641-667.

RI

Hall, D. (1976). Careers in Organizations. Santa Monica, CA: Scott Foresman & Co. Hall, D. (2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational

SC

Behavior, 65(1), 1-13.

NU

Hom, P., Mitchell, T., Lee, T. & Griffeth, R. (2012). Reviewing employee turnover: Focusing on proximal withdrawal states and an expanded criterion. Psychological Bulletin,

MA

138(5), 831-858.

Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process

TE

D

Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, New York: The Guildford Press. Kim, S., Price, J., Mueller, C., & Watson, T. (1996). The determinants of career intent

AC CE P

among physicians at a US Air Force hospital. Human Relations, 49 (7), 947-976. Lee, K., & Allen, N. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131–142. Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 395–404. Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Meyer, J., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L. & Topolyntsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20-52.

26

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H. & Axelrod, B. (2001). The War for Talent. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.

PT

Morrison, E. & Robinson, S. (2004). The employment relationship from two sides:

RI

Incongruence in employees‟ and employers‟ perceptions of obligations. In J. Coyle-Shapiro, L Shore, S. Taylor & L. Tetrick (eds.) The Employment Relationship. Oxford: Oxford University

SC

Press, 161-180.

NU

OECD (2015). OECD Labour Force Statistics 2014. OECD Publishing: Paris. Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further Validation of the

MA

Satisfaction With Life Scale: Evidence for the Cross-Method Convergence of Well-Being Measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(1), 149-161.

TE

D

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and

AC CE P

organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879. Porter, C., Woo, S., & Tak, J. (2015). Developing and Validating Short Form Protean and Boundaryless Career Attitudes Scales. Journal of Career Assessment, 23 (2), 1-20. Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 257-266. Rodrigues, R. and Guest, D. (2010). „Have careers become boundaryless?‟ Human Relations, 63(8), 1157–1175.

27

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Rodrigues, R., Guest, D., & Budjanovcanin, A. (2013). From anchors to orientations: Towards a contemporary theory of career preferences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(2),

PT

142-152.

RI

Smola, K. & Sutton, C. (2002). Generational differences: revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363-382.

SC

Sullivan, S. & Arthur, M. (2006). The evolution of the boundaryless career concept:

NU

Examining physical and psychological mobility. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 19-29. Uy, M., Chan, K., Sam, Y., Ho, M. & Chernyshenko, O. (2015). Proactivity, adaptability

MA

and boundaryless career attitudes: The mediating role of entrepreneurial alertness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 86, 115-123.

TE

D

Van de Voorde, K., Paauwe, J. & van Veldhoven, M. (2012). Employee well-being and the HRM-performance relationship: A review of quantitative studies. International Journal of

AC CE P

Management Reviews, 14: 391-407.

Vansteenkiste, S., Verbruggen, M., Sels, L. (2013). Being unemployed in the boundaryless career era: Does psychological mobility pay off?, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(2), 135 143.

Williams, L., & Anderson, S. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617. Williams, L., Cote, J., & Buckley, M. (1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 462.

28

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Mean

SD

1 Gender (1= Women)

1.42

.49

2 Age (in years)

36.47

10.34

.00

.41

.49

-.02

-.42**

69.56

76.04

.27**

.34**

-.22**

.20

.40

-.01

-.27**

.26**

-.29**

**

**

-.20**

.32**

5. Emp. Contract (1= Temporary)

3

4

5

6

.27

-.03

7. Income

2.35

1.97

-.17**

-.05

-.06

-.07

-.08*

8. Education

2.17

.73

-.13**

-.28**

.13**

-.28**

.10*

**

**

*

.28

386.01

777.29

-.01

.09

10. Job Satisfaction

4.05

.63

.08*

-.08

.10*

.00

.80

**

.02

-.04

.05

3.21

.13

**

-.13

.21

**

3.61

.80

.13

.05

.03

.11

13. Intention to Quit

2.04

.89

-.24**

-.07

.02

-.18**

.77

.03

15. Task Performance

3.93

.64

.03

16. OCBs

3.57

.75

-.01 *

-.05 **

-.11

-.06 **

17. HR Practices

3.27

.50

.08

18. Boundaryless C. Orientations

2.76

.71

-.17**

-.25**

.61

**

**

19. Protean C. Orientations

3.61

.15

-.11

-.17

-.02

.04

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

-.12

.10*

.08

17

18

-.24**

(.77)

**

-.13**

.25**

-.11

**

.08*

.16**

.16**

-.01

.02

.02

(.70)

.05

.02

.06

.29**

(.79)

-.02

**

.47

.50**

(.91)

-.05

-.55**

-.32**

-.46**

(.86)

-.01

**

**

**

-.47**

-.02

.20**

-.04

.18

**

.05

.03

-.02

.04

-.07

*

.10

**

**

.13

**

-.12

.08* **

.16

.58

**

.25

*

.34

**

(.74)

-.04

.01

-.02

.22

.02

-.02

-.02

.11

.09

.12

-.06

.06

(.91)

-.10*

-.07

-.03

.18**

.08*

.05

-.02

.14**

.07

.10**

-.10**

.13**

.66**

(.86)

-.05

**

**

*

.08

*

.09

-.03

**

.49

.36

.45

**

**

-.46

.51

**

**

.20**

.14**

.07

.20**

-.02

-.33**

-.22**

-.40**

.46**

-.27**

**

**

**

**

**

**

.12

AC

3.81

**

CE P

12. Career Satisfaction

14. Organizational Commitment

9

.00

TE D

-.34

9. Organization Size

11. Life Satisfaction

8

CR

.08

6. Emp. Contract (1= Part-time)

7

US

4 Employer Tenure (in months)

2

MA N

3 Marital Status (1= Single)

1

IP

Variables

T

Table 1 – Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Reliabilities between study variables

.10*

-.26**

**

**

.15

-.11

.11

.07 .13

**

.34

.23

**

-.03

29

.00

**

-.19

.34

**

.30

.42

-.24

.26

.14

.01 .16

**

.04 .17

**

.41

(.73)

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2 – Hierarchical regression of independent career orientations on career, job and life satisfaction

.05

.02

Marital Status (1= single)

.03

.03

Employer Tenure

.08

.07

Employment Contract (1= Temporary)

.02

.01

-.03

-.01

Salary

.03

Education

-.15**

Organization Size

.06 .43***

Protean Career Orientation Boundaryless Career Orientation

.24***

AC CE P

TE

D

R2

.38

.03

.11*

.09

.06

.06

-.07

-.08

.05

.03

.04

.03

.00

.00

-.08*

-.09*

-.00

.01

.02

-.07

-.04

-.00

.01

-.11*

.04

.07

.04

.07

.08*

.08*

.09*

.06

.07

.24***

.54***

.41***

.35***

.24***

.27***

.15***

.14**

-.29***

-.24***

-.16**

.14***

MA

∆ R2

.06

-.02

NU

Human Resource Management Practices

Life Satisfaction Model 1 Model 2 .08 .05

.07

SC

Employment Contract (1= Part-time)

PT

Age

Job Satisfaction Model 1 Model 2 .05 .02

RI

Career Satisfaction Model 1 Model 2 .09* .04

Independent Variables Gender (1= Women)

.30***

.07*** .37

.17***

.04*** .21

PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Model 1 .05

Marital Status (1= single) Employer Tenure

Model 2 .03

Model 1 .10*

Model 2 .00

Model 3 -.00

Model 1 -.26***

Model 2 -.16***

Model 3 -.16*** .00

-.06

-.04

-.01

.00

.01

-.05

-.06

-.08

-.03

.00

-.16**

-.16**

-.21***

-.22***

-.22***

-.02

-.04

-.05

.03

.04

.04

.06

.09

.08

-.01

.02

.02

.10*

.10**

.10**

-.09

-.06

-.06

.03

.03

.02

-.04

-.05

Salary

-.02

-.06

-.06

Education

-.00

-.00

.00

.05

.02

.00

.08

.07

.06

.10*

.10**

.09**

-.04

-.04

-.04

.01

-.01

-.00

.07

.03

.04

-.02

.00

.00

.06

.01

.01

.31***

.19***

.19***

-.11*

-.01

-.01

.05

.05

.06

.04

.10**

.10**

.10

.03

.03

-.17***

-.13**

-.12**

.05

.02

.04

.06

.07

.08

.07

.08

.10*

.08

.40***

.38***

-.39***

-.39***

.11*

.10*

.14**

.11*

.11**

.10**

-.01

-.01

.07

.06

.09

.07

-.16***

-.16***

.31***

.31***

Human Resource Management Practices Protean Career Orientation Int. HRM & Protean Career Orientation Int. HRM & Boundaryless Career Orientation

.02* .07

AC

.03*

CE

Boundaryless Career Orientation

R2

Intention to Quit

-.09

-.02

∆ R2

Model 1 .02

Organizational Commitment

-.15**

Employment Contract (1= Part-time)

Organization Size

Model 2 .07

PT ED

Employment Contract (1= Temporary)

Model 1 .02

NU

Age

Model 2 .02

MA

Independent Variables Gender (1= Women)

OCB

SC

Task Performance

RI

Table 3 – Hierarchical regression of independent career orientations and interactions between career orientations and human resource management practices on task performance, OCB, organizational commitment and intention to quit

-.05

-.11*

-.05

.01

-.15**

-.13**

.12**

-.03

.02**

.08***

.04*** .14

.02**

.12***

.26*** .40

.02***

.11***

.31*** .14

.00

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 2 – Interaction effect of Boundaryless Career Orientations and HR practices on OCBs

MA

NU

SC

RI

PT

Figure 1 – Interaction effect of Boundaryless Career Orientations and HR practices on Task Performance

AC CE P

TE

D

Figure 3 – Interaction effect of Protean Career Orientations and HR practices on OCBs

Figure 4 – Interaction effect of Boundaryless Career Orientations and HR practices on Organizational Commitment

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Highlights Explores core outcomes of protean and boundaryless career orientations



Protean career orientation results in gains for both employees and organizations



Boundaryless career orientation results in losses for employees and organizations



HRM is important in managing outcomes of those seeking organizational careers

AC CE P

TE

D

MA

NU

SC

RI

PT

